Democracy is two-way communication, not Mann Ki Baat: Karnataka CM
BAGALKOT: In a veiled attack on the Union Government, which he described as a 'dictator-type government', CM Siddaramaiah on Wednesday said that in a democratic set-up, people are also heard. Speaking at an event to mark Basaveshwara Jayanti at Kudalasangama, he said, 'In a dictatorship, there is only one-way communication... there is no listening... it is like saying 'Mann Ki Baat',' the CM said, equating the PM's 'Mann Ki Baat' 'to a sign of dictatorship where people are not given the chance to raise their voices'.
He further said that dictatorship is the opposite of democracy. 'Democracy is a two-way communication,' the CM said.
He said that the 12th-century social reformer Basaveshwara believed in democracy and not dictatorship. Asserting that the Constitution firmly upholds a democratic system, the Chief Minister said, 'The Constitution should never fall into the hands of those who do not believe in equality and the eradication of the caste system.'
Stating that Manuvada is detrimental to social equality, he said that while Manuvada promotes inequality and the caste system, vachana literature advocates humanism.
To achieve equality, he added, it is vital that every individual has access to a livelihood and that resources are distributed equitably across all sections of society. He said that the sharanas of the 12th century sought to spread this message in simple language, using the local dialect rather than Sanskrit, which was not commonly spoken by the people.
He said that a large statue of Basaveshwara would be built in the state. Siddaramaiah also honoured veteran writer SR Gunjal with the National Basava Award for his contribution to the vachana literature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: Matching Barricades
After the new Parliament building was inaugurated in 2023, the Parliament House complex has seen a range of new features — from landscaping to relocation of statues to new uniforms for staff. Soon, visitors to the complex would get to see 'aesthetically pleasing' barricades in place of the usual ones placed by the security. The CPWD has designed the barricades to match the look of the new building, in the same red sandstone colour and cast iron design mimicking the jaalis inside. The triangular Parliament building will be displayed at the centre of it. Now that the government has announced that there is no special session to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Emergency declaration, the BJP is considering a plan to conduct mock parliament sessions across the country. Party sources said there is a suggestion that mock sessions showing how Parliament passed the 42nd amendment of the Constitution — during the Emergency to centralise power and curtail judiciary — should be conducted in every district. The controversial remarks made during the debate, including the one made by Congress leader C M Stephen daring the courts to defy Parliament (he had said 'I don't know whether they (courts) will have the temerity to defy this Parliament. If they do it, we have our machinery) will be played in the mock parliament sessions.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC prods govt to nix FYJC quotas in minority colleges
Mumbai: Bombay HC Wednesday asked the state to consider removing a clause in its May 6 GR that introduced social quotas (such as SC/ST/OBC/SEBC) for FYJC admissions in minority institutions. "It can be a bona fide mistake. Issue a corrigendum. If not, we are here," said Justices Makarand Karnik & Nitin Borkar, while hearing two petitions challenging the clause. The institutions learnt about it only after their seat matrices were put up on the admission portal. The colleges argued that social quotas do not apply to minority institutions in terms of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution. As govt pleader Neha Bhide said the GR was meant to bring uniformity in FYJC admissions, Justice Karnik questioned: "Why do you bring in minority institutions?" The judges said a similar GR was withdrawn in 2019. Bhide said the "clause can be removed". The judges asked her to take instructions and inform them Thursday. "Every time you do not need orders from us. You can do it yourself," said Justice Karnik. Govt pleader Neha Bhide informed Bombay high court on Wednesday that withdrawing the May 6 government resolution (GR) on FYJC admissions was not possible, but "clause 11 can be removed". Clause 11 of the GR mentions that social and parallel reservations will apply to vacancies after filling minority seats in minority institutions. To this, Justice Makarand Karnik said: "Solve the problem." And Bhide replied: "I will come with a solution. " Justices Karnik and Nitin Borkar asked Bhide to di-scuss with the state advocate general and senior officials. The judges were hearing two petitions challenging the contentious clause. The first petition was filed by Solapur's Shri APD Jain Pathashala, a trust that runs Walchand College of Arts and Science and Hirachand Nemchand College of Commerce. The second was a joint petition by south Mumbai colleges, including St Xavier's, KC, HR, Jai Hind and Maharashtra College, along with the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions. On being informed by advocate S C Naidu, for the Solapur colleges, that finalisation of merit list is scheduled for Wednesday, the judges on Tuesday had directed that it will be subject to the outcome of the petitions. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, for the Mumbai colleges, argued that social reservations do not apply to minority institutions. About the GR, Bhide said: "For the first time, FYJC admissions are taken up online for the entire state." The petitioners said their right under Article 30 to establish and administer educational institutions has been reiterated in SC and HC judgments "which have held that minority educational institutions are not subject to any social reservations".
