
Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post - ashray
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2012111920121119043152921e12f57e1/In-Palghar-cops-book-21yearold-for-FB-post.html
======
jasim
Bal Thackeray or communal politics is not the issue here. It is the freedom of
expression of individuals. The Chairman of Press Club of India had an article
on The Hindu (a national daily) which painted Thackeray in a bad light
([http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-i-cant-pay-
tribute...](http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-i-cant-pay-tribute-to-
thackeray/article4108839.ece)) - but the state won't act as recklessly against
him as they have against these two.

Recent events in the country that sets the alarm bells ringing:

\- Kapil Sibal (minister of communication) doesn't understand the internet. He
wants active censorship of online media -
<http://www.labnol.org/india/censorship-in-india/20527/>.

\- An individual was arrested from his home at 5am due to a tweet he made
alleging the son of an Indian minister was corrupt. He had 16 followers.
[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iac-volunteer-
tweets-h...](http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iac-volunteer-tweets-
himself-into-trouble-faces-three-years-in-jail/article4051769.ece)

And now this - both the individual who made the post on FB and her friend who
'like'd it has been arrested. This abuse of power in a country with a lot more
urgent problems to solve.

This very much seems to be a generation gap between people in positions of
power (politicians, bureaucrats, police) who are not used to the internet and
the way it gives voice to everyone.

I can only hope that as internet becomes ubiquitous across the country, people
will realize the value of free speech and the need for an uncensored internet.

~~~
Volpe
As fun as it is to think everyone thinks like americans... Does India have and
promote the ideal of "Freedom of Expression"? Or is this just the US peanut
gallery giving their 2 cents on other peoples' culture?

~~~
bhntr3
When I was in India, I found it interesting that the Indian concept of Freedom
of Religion (which they've had off and on for much much longer than the US) is
actually equality of religion in the eyes of the state rather than separation
of church and state. So, different religions have different laws that apply to
them. That's a very alien concept to Americans.

Even Britain doesn't have a guarantee of freedom of speech like the US,
particularly when it comes to hate speech.

The American lens is a foggy one, even excluding the fact that the rights we
guarantee our citizens aren't necessarily the rights we grant citizens of
other nations. It's a good thing to keep in mind.

But yes, India DOES promote the idea of freedom of expression and it's been a
fundamental part of its culture for much longer than the United States has
existed. Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen has a great book on the
history of dissent in Indian history and how it's a cornerstone of India's
culture and democracy: [http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-
History-...](http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-
Identity/dp/031242602X)

~~~
fakeer
>> _different religions have different laws that apply to them_

That's incorrect and somewhat misleading. It's rather such as - certain parts
of (minor subset) some civil laws or _family laws_ come under respective
_personal laws_ based upon religion/tribe &c. Like _Hindu Marriage Act, Hindi
Code Bills, various succession acts_ &c.

Remaining (most) part is a uniform civil code. However, it can be noted that
in case of criminal matters - AFAIK - Indian constitution doesn't
discriminate, in any manner, at least on paper.

Politics - both religious and generic - is embedded to everything in India,
even laws. There's a landmark _Shah Bano_ case where Supreme Court of India
overruled the verdict given by Muslims' holy book which was as interpreted by
clerics which is often misleading as in any religions. The interesting part
here was that the court was compelled to quote from their Holy book Quran in
the verdict - an _aayat_ (like some sort of support) - as it was a very
sensitive matter.

~~~
bhntr3
If it's incorrect it's certainly misleading. But it's not incorrect. It may be
misleading.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_India>

There are clearly different laws that apply to different religious groups when
it comes to polygamy and other, as you say, family or civil laws.

I wasn't trying to say that the entire legal system in India is bifurcated
(multifurcated? =P) along religious lines. I was just pointing out that while
the American legal system attempts to exclude religion from the law (to
varying degrees of success), Indian tradition includes laws which take into
account various religious traditions and customs.

It's just a different way of treating the issue of freedom of religion in the
legal system.

~~~
fakeer
Correct facts can be used to mislead. Why I said _misleading_ was not
primarily because I thought or maybe assumed (as I am no legal expert myself)
but because the way you made a sweeping statement which might have been either
done knowingly or merely in the flow of writing that comment you included the
line. Incorrect because it was actually incorrect and when I wrote the comment
I didn't have Set Theory in mind.

I just wanted to clarify the scenarios where laws are intertwined with
religion, tribes or caste. Regarding the last term _caste_ I have not been
able to find any instance but have read in articles that there are such
provisions.

I would like to add that your mention of _Polygamy in India_ needs few lines -
it's not enforced in India until and unless you are someone famous where
people take interest out of the celebrity nature and hence state intervenes or
the case/issue has blown up. It's present even in religions other than Islam.
It's 'sort of' legal in most of the tribes based on _tradition_ (this term
often comes up in all sorts of legal cases in this country and is given
importance) and it's common in rural areas.

------
realrocker
I shared this story on my fb account and got a veiled threat in 30 minutes.
This is what I posted: "21 old year girl arrested for opposing Mumbai bandh on
her Facebook status! 2000 Shiv Sainiks vandalize her Uncle's clinic. Another
girl was arrested for liking the status! This is horrible. I blame all the
people on facebook and in real world who patronize such violent and
undemocratic forces. So much for free speech! The youth of this country are
pushed down from all directions every day. Are we supposed to just sit and
take it? Today it was Shiv Sena who did this, a fringe party. A few days ago
it was Congress cabinet minister's son. What happens if every Political Party
starts doing this? How long are we going to sleep? I never say this : Share
!!". Note that this person was a well educated guy from my convent school. The
extremism in my country is appalling.

------
capred
Although this girl might be arrested today, this general trend (growing
accessibility to information) will show more and more people that there is a
world beyond their immediate experience and what they are being told by people
like Bal is false. Bal Thackeray was a bigot. He sought and exploited communal
tensions and it's a shame that one can't openly criticize such a reprehensible
person. Furthermore, his party Shiv Sena "operates as a network of street
gangs" and is holds ideology which isn't far from the Tea Party in America.

~~~
easternmonk
While Bal Thakare's politics might be irrelevant in todays times. Do not
forget that he was the only voice common people had when Communists/Islamists
ruled the streets and the Socialist Congress government ruled as helpless as
ever.

When China invaded India, the communist party in India was calling nationwide
protests "in support of china" and was running "fund raising drives". That was
the first time Bal Thakare turned from a cartoonist to a mass leader.

The political party was truly formed when Islamists forced the central
government to change Indian constitution to apply horrible Islamic Sharia law
to ensure that a 60 year old lady divorced after 40 years of marriage will not
get any alimony from her rich husband. Muslims across the mumbai would then
celebrate their victory by blocking the traffic and holding Namaz on streets.

Bal Thakare seemed to be the only voice weaker sections of society had that
time. Yes, like all other organizations even Shiv Sena was not perfect and
many times local goons and mafias joined this party for their own gains but
more or less this party remains much more faithful to common people than the
other parties.

1\. [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Bano_case>] 2\.
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India#Commun...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India#Communists_after_independence)]

------
denzil_correa
The chairman of Press Council of India and has written to the Chief Minister
of the state of Mumbai (Maharashtra) to intervene and sort out this issue
citing "freedom of speech" Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian constitution [0].

[0] [http://ibnlive.in.com/news/katju-writes-to-maha-cm-on-
arrest...](http://ibnlive.in.com/news/katju-writes-to-maha-cm-on-arrest-of-
girl-for-thackeray-fb-update/306295-3.html)

~~~
aufreak3
This should be upvoted more, as the "Chairman" is "Justice Markandey Katju"
whose legal opinion in this matter is credible. Not only does he say that the
arrests are against freedom of speech which is "a guaranteed fundamental
right", he says that the arrests are criminal according to law too.

Quoting the full paragraph here -

"" In the letter addressed to Chavan, Justice Katju has written: "It is
alleged that she has been arrested for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.
To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious
sentiments. Under Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, freedom of speech is a
guaranteed fundamental right. We are living in a democracy, not a fascist
dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since
under sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully
confine someone who has committed no crime. ""

------
denzil_correa
News emerging that the girls have been granted bail, an enquiry has been
initiated. The local cops may also be in trouble for their action [0]. Good
going!

[0] <https://twitter.com/sreenivasanjain>

    
    
       SreenivasanJain: Both girls initially sent to judicial custody, then granted bail.
    
       SreenivasanJain: Maharashtra police HQ has ordered enquiry into girls' arrest. Says will look into merits of charges.
    
       SreenivasanJain: IG Konkan will head inquiry. Prima facie police HQ says no basis for arresting the girls. Say local cops jumped the gun.

------
nleach
A co-worker in Mumbai also made some controversial statements on Facebook.
He's absolutely fine, but just about every one of his friends scolded him for
being so brazen. I was out of the city for the weekend, but by all accounts it
was a terrible place to be.

This news is not terribly surprising, though as many have said, likely not
true. It is extremely indicative of the immense gap between India and more
developed nations.

------
vinothshankaran
The story is false
[https://twitter.com/SreenivasanJain/status/27039450506319462...](https://twitter.com/SreenivasanJain/status/270394505063194624)

~~~
ashray
Really ? The guy tweeting seems legit but even timesofindia has this story:
[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/21-year-old-girl-
ar...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/21-year-old-girl-arrested-for-
Facebook-post-slamming-Bal-Thackeray/articleshow/17276979.cms)

Also the vandalism of the clinic definitely happened.

~~~
HaloZero
the text is the same, they could just be reposting it from mumbaimirror
without a lot fact checking

~~~
ashray
That's quite possible, the copy paste is quite obvious though I don't know for
sure which way it went. I don't know who this tweet is from or his credibility
so I'll just leave it up in the air for now.

It's still alarming that they were vandalized over a facebook post and the
police is looking into possible criminal liability.

Also, the news reports talk specifically of what sections of law the girls
were booked under. Doesn't sound so fake because of that.

------
jetru
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that it was the girl who got booked
under "Section 295 (a) of the IPC (for hurting religious sentiments)" - hate
speech laws?

~~~
thewarrior
Well people on HN in general wouldnt be aware of Bal Thackeray . So the irony
would be lost on them .

------
manamol296
No girl's arrested. They just made up the story to stop negative online trend
related to Bal Thackeray. His death made a lot of people to start a worthless
debate on facebook and twitter.

~~~
denzil_correa
> _His death made a lot of people to start a worthless debate on facebook and
> twitter._

First, the girl is arrested and that's confirmed. Second, it is not for you &
me to decide how people use their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts. You
and I get no say in it - if they want to indulge in 'worthless debates' they
should be allowed to. In addition, that should not be held against them in any
sort of way.

~~~
prakashk
> _if they want to indulge in 'worthless debates' they should be allowed to._

Calling a debate "worthless" is not the same as disallowing such debates.

Just like one has the right to engage in debates (worthless or not), one also
has the right to call out such debates when they are deemed worthless.

~~~
enry_straker
Tilting at windmills, don quixote?

------
thewarrior
This just in : The girl has indeed been arrested . Saw this on NDTV journalist
Sreenivasan Jains twitter feed.

------
denzil_correa
This story is now confirmed by a more credible source [0,1].

[0]
[https://twitter.com/sreenivasanjain/status/27045889419368448...](https://twitter.com/sreenivasanjain/status/270458894193684480)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/sreenivasanjain/status/27045900751119564...](https://twitter.com/sreenivasanjain/status/270459007511195648)

------
Praveens
Its sad that the freedom of speech for a individual has been erased by misuing
the laws which were actually meant to provide justice. The arrest and the
eventual ransacking of the victim's uncles clinic by the supporters of
Balasahab Thackeray, may have very less to justify the act.

I wonder if they would even reflect upon the fact that would the supremo
himself support such expressions and outbursts by his partymen and followers.
No wonder the signs of the party cracking up are showing and i hope this case
becomes a eye opener given that internet has got a wide reach and educates the
young to chose the law makers more sensibly.

------
twapi
Her Facebook page (Cached version):
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.fac...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.facebook.com/shaheen.dhada.7)

------
anuraj
This is India, a country where rights exist only on paper. Rights materialize
only where people have knowledge and power to defend them. Unfortunately India
is a long way from there.

------
petercooper
_Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old girl_

A 21 year old _girl_..

~~~
plinkplonk
Indian English treats 'girl' as equal to 'woman' in most contexts. Likewise
'boy' == 'man'. as seen in marital partners ads '41 year old boy seeks 35 year
old girl ... '

(fwiw I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Indian newspapers should
use the local flavor, rather than trying to conform to (say) US English)

~~~
petercooper
That's very intriguing. I was wondering if it was diminution based on gender
but if they're doing it for everyone, that makes it more interesting.

------
guard-of-terra
I hope this "Bal Thackeray" is happy now too: he caused two girls to be
arrested. I hope he is happy too wherever he is now. What nice way to go out
with the bang!

~~~
dm8
Lets not bring one particular politician into discussion here. Question is IT
laws and freedom of speech. Not the greatness of certain politician!

------
muon
There is high possibility of this being true, but still news is only as good
as its source.

------
guard-of-terra
I hope that people who still think religions "make people better than they
would otherwise be" are happy now.

~~~
wildranter
When you generalize like that you're being narrow minded as the people you're
criticizing. Instead, like Feynman, you should take what's best from religion
to improve yourself, and ignore the rest. History shows the average human
being is stupid, so don't be average.

~~~
zeru
Well, would you disagree with that the world would be a better place without
religion in this day and age?

~~~
stfu
It depends. I would say that religions give a lot of people a meaningful life
by providing values, hope and guidance on what they should aspire to. But
there are always those on the extreme fringes, who make the rest look bad.

~~~
beagle3
That's what they _claim_ to give. And many of those people actually believe
this, to the point of assuming that anyone who is not religious has no values
or morals, and is obviously driven completely by hedonism.

The question is not "what role does religion fulfil", but rather, "if religion
wasn't there, would things have been better?". Because, e.g. many recreational
drugs ALSO provide values, hope, and guidance (on one hand), and some
religions like Mormonism and Scientology also provide them, but apparently
forbid leaving them (read about excommunicating in either) to the point that I
find unacceptable in a society.

Disregarding the obstacle of definition of religion vs. e.g. cult vs. value
system[1], my opinion would be, based on observing mostly-religious states vs.
mostly-secular states (like Sweden and Norway), would be that value provided
by religion is a net negative.

[1] if you insist, I will say that beleief X is a religion iff there's a
government of a country with >10M residents that accepts it as a religion for
the purpose of its law. Specific definition is immaterial - they will all
coincide for 99% of the population, and will have essentially no effect in the
grand scheme of things.

~~~
gjm11
> based on observing mostly-religious states vs. mostly-secular states

Be careful. I think the general consensus about these observations is that
what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people
more religious, rather than that religion tends to make societies less stable
and secure.

~~~
beagle3
> I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's
> happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more
> religious

I am not aware of this consensus, but it is entirely unrelated to my claim:
The supposed benefits of religion are nil, because comparable countries that
essentially eschew religion fare at least as well, and usually way better than
those that do not.

I did not make any claim about the relation between stability and religion.
Swedes and Norwegians, as nations, are the best educated, best nourished,
among the healthiest, with virtually no crime compared to e.g. the US or
Italy. What exactly are the positive benefits that you get from religion that
you do not get without?

~~~
gjm11
It is related to your claim, because it provides an alternative explanation.

Observation: Various measures of societal health are correlated with lack of
religion.

Explanation #1: Religion is bad for society.

Explanation #2: Bad society is good for religion.

Both explanations are at least somewhat plausible (religion is bad for society
because believing falsehoods is morally corrosive, or because religions are
full of ideas founded in old moral systems that we no longer endorse, or
whatever; societal ill-health is good for religion because people in difficult
situations will turn to anything that seems to offer comfort, or because when
things are really hard the gods really do help, or whatever). In particular,
the plausibility of explanation #2 means you can't just leap from the
observation to explanation #1.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming any particular benefits for
religion. I'm an uncompromising atheist myself. I just don't like plausible
but unsound arguments, and "The Scandinavian countries are great places and
also very irreligious, therefore religion isn't good for you" is, I think, a
plausible but unsound argument: it could equally be that their irreligiousness
is an effect, not a cause, of their education, good health, low crime, etc.

(On the other hand, "The Scandinavian countries are great places and also very
irreligious, therefore religion isn't vital for a healthy society as some
religious people claim it is" is a perfectly good argument, and one I've used
myself.)

[EDITED to add, on the subject of that putative consensus: see e.g.
<http://edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html>, a single article but
one written by two of the biggest names in the field, Gregory Paul and Phil
Zuckerman. "To put it starkly, the level of popular religion is not a
spiritual matter, it is actually the result of social, political and
especially economic conditions [...] Mass rejection of the gods invariably
blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education
found in almost all 1st world democracies. [...] Mass faith prospers solely in
the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational
disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the
US." I should perhaps emphasize that GP and PZ here are talking about the
origins of large-scale popular religiosity; individuals' decisions are, well,
more individual and it certainly isn't true that all religious people are that
way because their messed-up societies make them look for supernatural aid.]

~~~
beagle3
Thanks for a long and detailed response. Really appreciated.

But I want to reiterate, that I only ever claimed "sum (religion benefits) <=
0", which I believe is equivalent to your statement that "religion isn't
vital" (or rather, "religion isn't helpful"). At no way did I imply any other
cause and effect relation other than the one implicit in this statement.

