Non Bailable Arrest Warrants by Kashmir Court against Madhu Kishwar- Offence? "Defamatory" Tweets against Separatist Newspaper

Patently Illegal Non Bailable Arrest Warrants Issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate against Madhu Kishwar in response to criminal defamation suit filed by Shujaat Bukhari, Editor Rising Kashmir

Background: In response to reports of politically engineered violent anti India protests in Kashmir I expressed my distress at the high decibel, pro-secessionist, anti-India propaganda launched by leading journalists and newspapers in Kashmir who seemed to be providing very provocative and lop sided coverage which romanticized those attacking the army and indulging in terrorist strikes and stone pelting

I made special mention of Shujaat Bukhari owner-cum editor Rising Kashmir not because his paper is theonlyexample of pro Pak journalism but because he is a favorite of leftists and he pretends to be defender of human rights- though only of terrorists!Prior to setting up his own paper, Rising Kashmir, Bukhari used to be Bureau-Chief of The Hindu for Kashmir.

The sum and substance of my tweets was that even though Bukhari takes money from government agencies—both state & central government, yet he parrots the Pakistani script.The Rising Kashmir coverage of the Pakistan engineered unrest in the Valley is very pro-secessionist. Incidentally Shujaat’s brother Basharat Bukhari is a senior cabinet minister in PDP government and the family is part of the power establishment of Kashmir. But like many other politicians and journalists Shujaat’s paper gives a pro-Pak tilt to the coverage of events in Kashmir.

In response to my tweets, Shujaat Bukhari filed a criminal defamation suit against me in December 2016. 

Facts of Defamation Case:

• On December 3, 2016, Bukhari’s criminal defamation case against me was listed for first hearing in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. On the very first day itself, the CJM, Ms Masarat Shaheen, examined the complaint as well as two witnesses cited by Shujaat Bukhari both of who give their evidence in Urdu. Normally, such procedures take months & years in our legal system.
• That very day on 3^rd December, CJM issued bailable warrants against me. This alacrity on behalf of CJM itself indicates active bias in favor of Shujaat. 

• My offence, if any, did not merit a warrant. As per Indian Penal Code as well as Ranbir penal Code operative in Kashmir, as a first step in such cases, the court should at best issue summons. Only when the accused refuses to appear or has committed some heinous crime, warrants are to be issued.  Three four tweets saying Shujaat supports secessionist groups is hardly a heinous crime, especially considering that Shujaat has not thought it fit to deny the charge in his petition before CJM. 

• However, he denies that he takes money from Indian agencies. Even if under the table payments cannot be “proved”, he cannot deny that he has been seeking and getting ads from state government as well as DAVP. So his paper runs with government money. 

• As per Kashmir paper reports, I was expected to appear before CJM Srinagar on December 24, 2016. But the bailable warrant was served to me much after 24^th. Therefore, I did not feel obliged to appear merely on the basis of report in Rising Kashmir. 

• The issuance of bailable warrants instead of summons was an irregularity particularly when the accused in the case is a woman living outside the State. What is glaring is the fact that the CJM while deviating from the “procedure established by law” as contained in section 90 assigned no reason for issuing warrants at the very first instance. 

• The warrants were finally served/executed on me on 24.01.2017 and sought my appearance before the court on 28.01.2017—a very short notice considering I am based in Delhi & case was in Srinagar. 

• Even so, my lawyer, Ravi Sharma flew from Delhi to appear on 28 January 2017 with an application seeking exemption from personal appearance in CJM court in Srinagar citing the Supreme Court guidelines for such cases in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhivani Denim and Apparels Ltd.In my application, I assured the Court that my lawyer would not miss any hearing or seek adjournments in terms of the above-cited SC order. 

• In the above order the SC clearly lays down that personal appearance can be exempted when the ‘accused” is a woman and/or living far away in another city or stateand/or is a senior citizen and/or is in poor health. I qualified on all counts and had been advised by my doctors to take rest for some weeks after a major surgery on 4th January 2017 at Medanta Hospital.  I had submitted a medical certificate to this effect from the Medanta doctor who conducted my surgery. 

• Another important consideration for seeking exemption from personal hearing is the continuing surcharged atmosphere in the Valley, especially in Srinagar where my safety and security would be in serious jeopardy. This is especially so because Shujaat Bukhari is well connected with secessionist groups. 

• The CJM heard the case that day but gave an orderon 20 March, 2017 disposing off my application seeking permanent exemption filed and directed me to appear before the court on 3^rd April, 2017 or else face arrest warrants. I decided not to obey the order since it was premised on deliberate erroneous interpretation of the above-mentioned SC judgment. 
• The nature of news reports and editorial comments in Rising Kashmir over a period of time clearly show that he is a sympathizer and supporter of separatists and militants (a euphemism for terrorists). Under these circumstances, especially given his political clout and close links with militant groups, it is reasonable for me to apprehend that forcing me to go to Srinagar is to put my life and limb at risk. For the record, the Bar Association of Kashmir has been open in its support of militants & Pakistan backed secessionist movement. 
• Since my lawyer and I were convinced that the order of the CJM dated 20 March, 2017 was borne out of misreading/misinterpretation of the Apex Court’s judgment in Bhaskar Industries Ltd case, I decided not to appear personally on 3^rd April. However, my lawyer Ravi Sharma appeared on the scheduled date before the CJM and submitted an Application seeking modification of her order of 20 March and also sought exemption from personal appearance for 3^rdApril, 2017. 
• In the alternative, I requested the CJM to grant “reasonable time” for me to seek clarification from the Supreme Court whether or not her order insisting on my personal appearance & issuing warrants was legally sound.
• Unfortunately, CJM sahiba issued NON BAILABLE WARRANTS against me without paying attention to the averments and submissions made in my application and without giving my counsel proper hearing. 

• Thus CJM Masarat Shaheen has passed three consecutive orders that indicate prejudice and bias against me.

Options before me: Petition the High Court of J&K for stay order on the arrest warrant, apply for transfer of case from Srinagar because my appearance in Srinagar court poses serious risk to my life and does not promise me a fair trial. I also intend to challenge CJM’s orders in defiance of Supreme Court guidelines at an appropriate level.

I am ready for the prolonged legal and political battle this involves, no matter what it takes. 

It is noteworthy that Shujaat Bukhari does not deny my charge that his paper is pro-separatist and follows the Pak agenda. The only charge he has denied is that he takes money from Indian agencies. Is he willing to reveal where he got the funds to set up his paper? Who pays for his many trips to Pakistan, Dubai and other countries? Knowledgeable people close to him allege that Shujaat cultivates and curries favour with Indian intelligence agencies and Military Intelligence as a cover for his ISI links!

Shujaat should be willing to reveal where the money came from for his setting up three papers--two in Urdu apart from Rising Kashmir in English as well as a printing press. Is he willing to reveal how he  bought several prime properties in Srinagar? All this when the print edition of Rising Kashmir and the two Urdu papers he set up subsequently all have a minuscule circulation in the Valley! They are meant only to make money through government ads and other forms of patronage. He inflates the circulation figures to corner more ads and subsidised news print. Its only on the Net that Rising Kashmir gets some traction.

I have a right to ask him to reveal information about his financial affairs because in the interest of transparency, MANUSHI posts on its website accurate information regarding every rupee that it gets by way of donations or sale of its publications as well as audited accounts of how the money is spent. Is Shujaat Bukhari ready to be as transparent about the finances of his newspapers?

Even if we don't  take into account undercover payments made to separatist leaders and journalists in Kashmir by ISI, can Shujaat deny that he seeks and gets advertisements from the state government as well as DAVP--which releases central government ads?  

The big question I want answered: Why is the J&K government and central government patronising separatist newspapers?

The deafening silence of the champions of "freedom of expression": Please note the deafening silence regarding this case in the "liberal" mainstream media. Compare it to the national and international media fury unleashed when a defamation case was filed against Ashis Nandy by an Ahmedabad based NGO for Nandy's baseless  and outrageous defamatory statements published in The Times of India against Modi and Gujarati Hindus. He was projected by the entire media as a victim of "fascist" wrath. Top Congress party lawyers rose to his defence and argued his case up to the Supreme Court--all free of charge. But it didn't make big news when Nandy ended up offering an unconditional apology for his defamatory article when the Supreme Court was on the verge of indicting him!

Or compare the media outrage over Teesta Setalvad being booked on proven charges of brazen corruption and siphoning off money collected in the name of riot victims being spent on personal luxuries and aiyyashi!

But in this case, there is total silence in the mainstream media and by the leaders of the Award Wapsi Brigade! I bet in their worldview, it's not I who am the victim of lawless orders emanating from a Srinagar court in favour of an influential separatist newspaper. Instead, Shujaat Bukhari is likely to be seen as a victim of my 'intolerance" against his freedom to help Pakistan break up India one more time.


Read : J&K High Court Gives Interim Stay on Non-Bailable Warrants against Madhu Kishwar

Challenge to Unconstitutional Provisions of Anti-Rape Law

I reproduce below the full text of a writ petition I filed in public interest in the Delhi High Court along with two others on 17 March 2017.

Kapil Sibal, among the most eminent lawyers of India, is arguing this case. 

We invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India  for challenging the validity of some of the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 which have made the anti-rape law draconian and easy-to-abuse.

The High Court has issued notice to the Central Government and set July 5, 2017 as the next date of hearing.

​ Kapil​

 has taken on this case pro bono because he saw merit in the arguments I put forth in the petition,  which I drafted personally in consultation with and with inputs from lawyer friends.

​ ​

Kapil is an old friend

​.​

 We often disagree on important issues but it has not caused any bitterness on either side.

1.   The petitioners are citizens of India. Petitioner No.1 is an acclaimed social scientist and public intellectual. She is also widely acknowledged as having pioneered women’s rights and human rights activism both in India and abroad. The Petitioner No. 1 currently holds an extremely prestigious fellowship as the Maulana Azad National Professor at the Indian Council of Social Science Research. In addition, she was formerly a Professor, at the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, as well as the Director of the Centre’s Indic Studies Project. The Petitioner No.1 is also the founder-editor of the internationally acclaimed publication, ‘Manushi – A Journal about Women and Society’ which was started in 1978 and run by the non-profit organization, Manushi Trust. She is known particularly well for her long association with gender justice and women’s rights. Petitioner No. 2 is a woman charged under section 376 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘the IPC’) and other offences.  Petitioner No. 3 is a man convicted under section 376 (1) in a case where the Prosecutrix admits voluntary sexual intercourse., But since it is alleged that she is below 18, despite the fact that her age has not been verified by medical examination, he is in jail awaiting sentence.

2.  By this petition, the changes wrought in sections 375 and 376 IPC by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 are challenged as discriminatory, arbitrary and severely prone to abuse. On the one hand, the definition of “rape” has been widened to include non-penetrative acts incapable of medical corroboration, the cut-off age for “statutory rape” or “child rape” has been raised to 18 and  even for adult rape, ‘consent’ has been defined more strictly. On the other hand ‘judicial discretion to award less than 7 years has been taken away, even though a large number of independently unverifiable cases and even perfectly consensual acts will now be counted as rape. Following these amendments, there has been a startling spurt in false cases in Delhi, with over 53 per cent of the total cases registered in Delhi proving to be fraudulent. Of the total rape complaints in a year, over 25 percent of involve a breach of promise to marry and over 30 percent involve consensual elopements, with revenge emerging as a prime motive for complaint as per studies conducted by the Delhi Commission of Women and the Hindu newspaper.

3.     The Petitioner No.1 in her 35 year long engagement with providing legal aid and counselling for women and disadvantaged or unjustly treated groups and individuals in society, has seen the actual working of laws from very close quarters and is therefore deeply concerned about the growing incidents of misuse and abuse of several laws ostensibly enacted for the protection of women. Through her journal Manushi as well as her active engagement with providing legal aid and advice to women victims of domestic violence and sexual atrocities, the Petitioner No.1 played a leading role in mobilizing public opinion against such crimes. The Petitioner No.1, through painstaking investigations and by building a rapport with the victims of atrocities, was among the first to record and publish first-person testimonies of rape survivors, women battling sexual harassment as well as women survivors of gang rapes during communal riots and massacres. While working in relief camps she was able to document the first-person testimonies of women during the 1984 mass violence against the Sikhs in Delhi. She carried out a similar exercise following 1987 communal riots in Meerut & Maliana followed by Bombay riots of 1992-93. All these reports foregrounded for the first time, women’s experience during riots which till then had rarely got the kind of attention that loss of male lives and property did.

The Nonsensical Left-Right Binary

It is extremely puzzling why many of those who rejected the politics of the Left have so readily accepted –“Right Wing” as their identity marker and self-definition despite the fact that the term is used as a pejorative by the Left for any one & everyone who dares differ with their partisan and authoritarian politics. Moreover, “left” & “right” are terms borrowed from European history. They have no real equivalence in Indian history nor are they a reliable guide for understanding India’s contemporary politics. By allowing the opponent to decide the terms of the battle, including naming the ideological terrain, we end up as losers even before we have begun the battle.

As is well known, the political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime.

The term was later applied to republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism,^[communism, anarchism, and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements, and environmental movements, as well as a wide range of political formations.

I have no problem if Europeans or Americans who share a common cultural and ideological heritage feel comfortable using these constraining, archaic and opaque terms to define their political and social identities. But they become absolutely nonsensical when applied in a country like India, which has never witnessed political and social divisions on these lines.

Intellectual slavery to the West is built into the DNA of the Left because they have steadfastly borrowed their ideological paradigms from the West, with Marxism as the core followed by its many hybrids— modernism, structuralism, deconstructionism, subalternism, post modernism and so on. But why should those who want to break out of the intellectual slavery of the West accept as their self-view -the pejorative term “Right Wing” along with all the negative connotations it is loaded with? 

Leftists dub others as “right wing” as a short hand for damning that person as being anti-poor, pro-rich, anti-minorities, anti women, anti freedom, anti-progress, trapped in obscurantism, and anti every positive human value—even though the person may be guilty of no bigger crime than merely differing with or pointing to serious factual infirmities in the political narrative chosen by the Left.

Conversely, the leftists assume that by merely labeling themselves “Left”, they magically acquire for all times to come unquestioned monopoly over all the positive human traits and progressive values known to history—never mind that in reality their track record on all these is mostly disgraceful. In countries or (states within India) where Communists actually came to power, they wrecked the economy, adopted the most tyrannical and oppressive systems of governance and in Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc. carried out genocides against their own people on scales and with brutality that matched Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.

It is noteworthy that none of the leading social reformers of 19^th century used such terminology for themselves. Even during the freedom movement, barring leaders of the self professed Communist parties only a small minority of westernized leaders like Nehru used the term Leftist for their worldview. The tallest leader of all–namely Mahatma Gandhi—refused to accept for himself the political binaries presented by Communists who dubbed him “right wing” even though his pro-poor, pro women, pro minorities, pro Dalit credentials as well as track record of mobilizing the people of India against the oppressive colonial regime, were far superior to that of the entire spectrum of leftists of those days.

But Communists could not stomach Gandhi because right from its inception, the Communist Party of India made Hindu-bashing as an essential qualification for being a progressive even while they willingly pandered to Islamists, including Jinnah’s demand for Partition.  A self respecting Hindu is the biggest threat to “secularism” in the eyes of leftists. After Narendra Modi’s rise to power their aversion to anything “Hindu” has assumed pathological dimensions.

Leftists better realize that those who can’t find a self respecting, self chosen nomenclature for their worldview and continue aping ideas which have been discarded even by those who first offered them, are not capable of providing intellectual leadership to their society. Likewise those of us who don’t wish to live by borrowed, outdated ideologies of the West, better not accept the abusive terminology of Leftists as our self-definition. Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in marginalizing the Left in large part because he refused to let them define the rules of the game or its turf. That is why today, Leftists in western countries after firmly discarding Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc., seek inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi.

First published in www.dnaindia.com, 21st October, 2016, see link (http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-nonsensical-left-right-binery-2265967)

Why Salman Khan Doesn't Owe Anybody an Apology

How NCW is Raping its Own Dignity

One can understand frenzied feminists descending like vultures on Salman Khan for his alleged insult to women with his rape analogy.  But for the National Women's Commission ( NCW) to send a summon to Salman Khan with the threat of suing him, is to rape the dignity of NCW-or whatever little there is left of it in this otherwise ineffective and toothless institution.

When is the last time you heard or saw the NCW do something meaningful or memorable for women?  Most of its chairpersons have been political appointees and have therefore used the office to emote profusely while doing very little constructive work. It is also a poorly administered institution without fine tuned systems for responding to challenges that women of India face today. Therefore, all we get from NCW are knee jerk responses to trivial events rather than a well thought out vision and program of action for improving the lot of women.

Left: Lalitha Kumaramangalam-- Raping the dignity of National Commission for Women
Right: Salman Khan--Hounded by frenzied feminists on frivolous charges

At a time when, on a daily basis, we are being confronted with gruesome reports of gang rapes of women and kids, thousands of children being abducted every year for inhuman forms of trafficking, millions of women been sucked into the flesh trade every year, countless women becoming victims of cyber crimes; the NCW had to pick up the most ridiculous issue to flex its muscles. Its chairperson is acting as though a man using the word ’rape’ commits a far more heinous crime than actually raping women. We, however, have not seen such macho threats issued to actual rapists.

Before I offer my reasons for coming out in defence of Salman Khan, let me refresh the readers' memory by quoting, from the original source, the exact statement as well as the background of the controversial remarks.  In response to a reporter's question as to what kind of effort he put in to get the character of wrestler Sultan (in a soon to be released film of the same name, depicting the life of a Haryana’s wrestlers ) physically right, Salman said:

It’s a tough process. You need ample training like the wrestlers. The training Aamir Khan and I have been through is similar or probably a little more than what the wrestlers go through. If we didn’t do it, we wouldn’t be able to fight convincingly in the ring…. I underwent weight training. Then I perfected the moves. I spent 2-3 hours in the day practising those because in the film, I go from the village level akhada to the mat-based ring and then the MMA arena. So I had to do a lot of punching and kicking. I had to be convincing or else I’d look like a fraud.

The reporter then comments, "The shoot must have been gruelling..." To this Salman responds:

While shooting, during those six hours, there’d be so much of lifting and thrusting on the ground involved. That was tough for me because if I was lifting, I’d have to lift the same 120-kilo guy 10 times for 10 different angles. And likewise, get thrown that many times on the ground. This act is not repeated that many times in the real fights in the ring. When I used to walk out of the ring, after the shoot, I used to feel like a raped woman. I couldn’t walk straight. I would eat and then, head right back to training. That couldn’t stop.

Far from finding these remarks offensive, I was actually moved by them for the following reasons:

Salman did not make a casual light hearted comment about rape, nor referto it as an enjoyable sport.  He offers his analogy to refer to the kind of physical pain and torture an actor has to go through in order to do those macho roles involving what is light-heartedly referred to as Bollywood style dishum-dishum, which many youngsters think is a lot of fun.  But describing the gruesome battering the body takes to prepare for, rehearse, and enact those roles for the camera, Salman is in fact de-glamorizing the entire exercise.  He describes the vulnerabilities of screen heroes in real life and how such situations can even lead to grievous and life threatening injuries, as they did in the case of Amitabh Bachhan on the sets of the blockbuster film Coolie’.

If a man who has been put through the grueling experience described by Salman Khan compares it to the physical battering of a raped woman, the analogy is not so inappropriate as to cause a media uproar especially considering that a majority of rapes don't lead to a Nirbhaya like catastrophe.

True, rape is far more than physical trauma—it’s also a violation of a women's selfhood and dignity whereas Salman is undergoing that grueling predicament voluntarily -- for money, name and fame.  But the seriousness of the occupational hazard should not be undermined just as the occupational risks involved in being a pilot flying and dropping provisions to soldiers based in Siachin can’t be lightly dismissed by saying ‘well, he was paid for the job and chose it voluntarily.” Similarly, no one is dismissive of the risks taken by a mountaineer going up  Everest by saying he is well paid and chose to climb the treacherous peaks for name and fame! Remember what a tsunami of national sympathy flowed for Bachhan when he nearly died during the dishum dishum sequence of Coolie!

Moreover, analogies -- whether negative or positive -- are not meant to be taken literally.  For instances, if a poet compares the beauty of his beloved to the radiance of a full moon, it doesn't mean the woman has to have a perfectly round, silver blue face which can be taken as a replica of the moon as seen from the earth.  Likewise, when you say someone eats like a pig, it doesn't mean that the man actually eats muck.

While Salman used the rape analogy to describe a life threatening situation during shooting, in fact, the analogy is often used light heartedly to refer to a range of situations, not just by men but also women.  I have heard young female students describe the experience of sitting through the classes of aggressive teachers who act like bullies vis a vis their pupils as "intellectual rape".

Recently, a well known author talked about the "Rape of the Rupee." Environmentalists often use the phrase "Rape of Mother Earth" to describe the the callous manner in which governments, corporates and other vested interests are plundering and vandalizing this planet unmindful of its consequences for future generations.

 Alexander Pope's satirical poem "Rape of the Lock" is till date taught as a literary classic the world over, including in India even though it uses the term "rape" to poke fun at the foibles, vanities and fantasies of 18th century British women.  Had it been a 21st century Indian male who wrote a similar poem using the term "Rape" in a satirical manner, our frenzied feminists would have stopped at nothing short of seeking the death penalty for him!  Even with Salman many of them menacingly declared that a "mere apology" won't do. Who knows with the majestic Women's Commission leading from the front, they might not be satisfied with anything less than castration or life imprisonment for Salman!  Would the NCW dare demand a ban on Alexander Pope's writings? 

Unfortunately, by making a mountain out of a molehill and hyper-ventilating for days on end on prime time television--self appointed thekedars of women's rights have made activist  women a laughing stock of the nation. Those who cry for frivolous reasons have created conditions for serious backlash on women's issues.  As it is there is a great deal of anger and outrage brewing in society over the all too frequent misuse of the draconian anti rape law which lends itself to easy abuse but has failed miserably to provide relief to genuine victims of brutal rapes, leave alone help in curbing the growing frequency of sexual crimes in our society.

However, women who descend on police stations after a failed live-in relationship to allege that the concerned man was raping them for X number of years on promise of marriage have found it easy to get their estranged lover arrested and locked up in jail even before the start of the trial. This is because the anti rape law mandates that the mere allegation by a woman is enough to book someone for rape, no matter how flimsy the charge. How can a man you voluntarily lived in with for three or four years suddenly become a rapist—all because he doesn’t want to tie the knot of matrimony? Women for whom holy matrimony is so important should not risk fashionable live-in relationships whose basic premise is that both partners are free to walk out if things don’t work out.

Remember the false rape charge made on prime time TV shows by a young woman against film director Madhur Bhandarkar—all because he did not yield to her demand for the role of a film heroine. He had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to get his name cleared.  Imagine the trauma, not just for the man but his entire family including children, of having your name splashed all over the media as a rapist, when you haven’t been guilty of it. 

Sadly enough, it has become fairly common for an increasing number of women to make totally false allegations of rape for the purpose of extortion and blackmail because the ultra feminist law makes it easy to do so without inviting any punishment. As a result a lot of employers have begun to avoid hiring women in their offices especially if it involves direct contact with them during day to day dealings. While the draconian anti rape law has not really come to the rescue of many genuine rape victims, it has brought into play new prejudices and fears against employing women.

Have our zealous feminists—both male and female—ever objected to trivialization of rape law by such unscrupulous women even though it is causing incalculable damage to women’s credibility and dignity? They would cry murder if any attempts were made to build safeguards against easy misuse of such laws even though it has ruined many innocent lives.

The most bizarre part of this entire saga is that most of those who are baying for Salman's blood go hysterical when it comes to government censorship over pornography or even minor cuts in films like Udta Punjab which are replete with the foulest abuses which are highly sexist. They don't want censorship over pornography which is highly demeaning to the female dignity and filled with gross forms of violence on female bodies treating them as virtual sex slaves.

But they support "verbal censorship" of the most tyrannical variety in our daily conversation. Any attempt by state institutions to curb vulgarity, violence is rejected as unwanted ‘moral policing’ and sign of authoritarianism.  But TV anchors and sundry feminists think they have a god given right to impose their moral code and censorship even on casual conversations.

Do they expect public figures to submit advance script of their daily conversation to the Women's Commission or TV anchors? Such verbal policing would make women the new “Unmentionables” of our society even while they would not be ‘Untouchable” as far as violence against them is concerned.

We must say a firm 'No’ to this fake and frivolous manifestation of political correctness which is distorting public discourse and hence distracting attention from serious issues. 

And my sincere advice to Salman Khan, please don’t buckle under the illegitimate pressure NCW is putting on you to apologize publicly for your comments. Dekhna hai zor kitna bazzoye kaatil mein hai! (Lets see how much power this tyrant is capable of exercising)  Best not to yield to such blackmail because once these viragoes taste blood, there is no stopping them. Would be interesting to see if they dare take the matter to court in which case they may well get a sound drubbing for their frivolity so that next time round these zealots will think ten times before going unleashing their fury on soft targets.

At the same time, you have a good case to file a defamation suit against NCW for humiliating, hounding and blackmailing you publicly day after day on prime time TV!

An edited version of this article was published on July 2, 2016 in wire.in (http://thewire.in/48087/why-i-believe-salman-khan-doesnt-owe-anybody-an-apology/).  This is the full version of the same article.