Lawyers J Sai Deepak & Saurabh Kirpal argue same-sex marriage | Shoma Chaudhury @Ignition

foreign [Music] [Music] thank you so much for being this punctual and to give up your drink and be back I'm sorry we're running 15 minutes late because of the rain but that was a splendid couple of sessions which brought home one fact which is that the one thing we can't afford to be is to be binary uh and before I introduce the next session I wanted to share just one tiny uh story about Anand Gandhi which will bring home again the idea of ignition uh Anand hates having that story told because like sumana you don't want to be captured in just one identity but Anand Gandhi actually spent the first 14 years of his life not just in a chol but outside a chol in a tin roof bricks with not even a public you know a toilet that was not even a public toilet he was you know as he says uh executing himself in in the open but the story was what helped him pull him out of that milieu and so that encyclopedic knowledge that Curiosity that scope and ambition uh coming from a disadvantaged background is again the power of the will and of ignition and of the story so I wanted to share that story to bring home again just what was the level of Genius that we were listening to earlier we vis-a-vis the binaries the next session is something that at least for me seems to be of the utmost significance in in our country because like we were talking earlier about the value of the myth and of Indian myths what really sets apart the civilization is its ability to hold complexity and many perspectives at the same time and sadly over the years we're losing that genius that capacity to argue across the Isles so before I set up this next session I want to share a story with you and to share that this really is almost like a modern day version of that which is that shankaracharya when he was going around the country uh bringing back the idea of the vedanta there was a massive debate that he had with Mandan Mishra who was the custodian of the more ritualistic approach to the Veda the Khan kand which was that if you do a ritual then automatically you achieve whatever our spiritual outcome you're seeking but shankaracharya was preaching something else and they had a massive debate uh spiritual and philosophical debate now mundan Mishra had a wife called who was much older than shankaracharya said who do you want as a referee to the debate shankaracharya chose his opponent his adversary's wife as the referee so today when Jay said Deepak and saurabh kripal two very distinguished very incisive very intellectual Supreme Court lawyers on the opposite side of a very important petition agreed to come together on a stage in which I am the moderator in a way we are replicating that uh capacity and that spirit for dialogue across all ideological or all intellectual and value system uh barriers before we started this session Psy said you know as a value system and ideologically you're possibly closer to uh sorry Pal's views and I before beginning I do want to say yes maybe my value system lies there but I'm deeply privileged to have both of them in trust ignition with this conversation at the heart of it is a petition for same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court it might seem that this is a case which pertains only to a community of those who find themselves identifying as people who love others of the same sex but at its heart are many other very very deep public issues of immense significance first of all is the question of individual liberty versus Community rights the second is about liberal versus conservatives is there space for conservatives in in a democracy is there space for liberals in a democracy who has the power to shift and change a society and nudge it to change its views is it the courts is it Parliament or is it people themselves and ultimately at its core is what is the role of a Judiciary in a democracy they're deeply divided views on this mostly when you hear about it in the public sphere it's a lot of name-calling but today we're going to look at the much deeper and that's why we didn't call it the hot debate we called it the Deep debate is a supreme court lawyer that identifies as a gay lawyer he was up for judgeship there was a huge argument between the courts and government over making him a judge and one of the key reasons he wasn't made a judge was because he identifies as a gay so again there's a big story an important issue there about identity on the other hand we have JSI Deepak who has also written several books about the Constitution called Bharat that is in India that is Bharat and also Bharat India and Pakistan the issue of civilization and coloniality uh and Hindu Consciousness saurabh has written books about sex and the Supreme Court he's written books about 15 judgments both of them are erudite incisive and ready to talk we are very privileged to be hosting this conversation ladies and Gentlemen please welcome saurabh kirpal and Jay said Deepak [Applause] yes I hope we can be more entertaining now that people are missing tennis yes I'm doubly touched not only tennis Brave the Reigns and a Sunday but to have a full house that's an honor of all of you all the sessions here today uh so as I already said you know most of you would know and I think I forgot that one little fact both of them are opposing lawyers in this petition you know the same-sex petition Psy is uh representing those who don't want same-sex uh people who love same-sex to have the right to marry and saurabh of course is representing the petitioners who want to have the right for same-sex marriage so let me dive in here as I said there are many deep issues but let's start with the particular petition you said something very interesting which is that you said they have a cause but not a case so let me start you with the role of empathy first what is the cause that you believe they do have thank you for giving me an opportunity to share space with Mr kripal and to engage with this audience I'm grateful to the audience for having Brave the weather and for having made it all the way here and in fact there are quite a few people who have flown from different states to attend this uh this debate I don't think it's a debate but let's hope we managed to make it one um so you started off by saying that I represented at least I'm a side of people who are opposed to same-sex marriage that doesn't sit well with the statement I made that they have a cause but not a case which means I'm not exactly against them in fact just before let me just give you an Insight I'm I think this is not sub Judas um before my arguments commenced I went and spoke with one of the councils for the other side I have a decent working equation with them and I wanted to tell them I'm with you otherwise on principle I have certain institutional objections which are largely technical in nature my question has always been that if you choose to open the door of judicial activism for one particular subject or one particular issue notwithstanding the fact that we may actually root for that particular cause or we may want them to see something by way of a clear recognition my fear is that an unelected body is capable of stretching the limits of that particular accommodation to other issues and the world over the one question that people have always asked is whether this concept of constitutional morality is fairly objective or is it subject to the vagaries of the ideological leanings of the person who occupies that particular position I refuse to believe that there is anything called objective anymore at least not when it comes to some of these subjects if someone has a position they have chosen not to sit on the fence most are not fencitors if they do happen to be fencitors either they are uninterested or apathetic but if they do take a position they will tilt one way or the other it's only a question of the degree of the tilt so my position has not been contrary to popular perception and contrary to the memes or the trolling that I was subjected to which I welcome I don't have a problem anymore is I'm certainly not homophobic in fact and I can reveal this without compromising on atonic land privilege two of the transgender petitioners who were on the side of a stickerpal their councils went AWOL so you were away on the crucial day and they were unreachable I was reached out by both these people to say we know that you have defended our positions in the past could you argue for us as well so I had taken a position which is captured in writing in Marathon submissions a very clear Centrist position with respect to the starting steps towards what they want without violating the doctrinal separation of powers allow me to just make one point and I'll leave it at that some arguments are technical which perhaps an audience which comes from the legal fraternity is better position to understand and it's difficult to or at least perhaps I may fall short on explaining that particular position and in the process the fact that my position was more about institutional boundaries and less about homophobia and certainly not about homophobia gets lost and that is the nature of social media debates this is my position I need to clarify it sorry can't hear okay am I Audible can everyone hear at the back okay oh my apologies my apologies be Centrist yes okay so you got to be a bit it's interesting and I'm going to bring saurabh into that like you said at the heart of this your argument is it's about jurisdiction that do the courts have the right to nudge Society to change or should it be from Parliament which is the elected uh forum and represents the will of the people but am I right in uh saying that you think that they have a Just Cause And that same-sex marriage in some other Forum perhaps in Parliament should be allowed and if it was brought up in Parliament you would be one of the voices backing it can we say that on record okay so I hope this is not one of those Prime Time television debates where they say Pro again no not at all I told you this is a I'm I'm playing my position so the position that I have taken is this barely a month before am I audible yes okay barely a month before the arguments began there was a seminar on this very subject organized by mnlu one of the national universities in Mumbai and I taken the very clear position that if you really want to take a position of least resistance do not enter or stir the Hornet's Nest of seeking Amendment through the Judiciary of either the Hindu Marriage Act or any other legislation take the secular position go under the special Marriage Act that was my very clear position and this is on record because this is a recorded event that's available on YouTube second what I said was that even if you take this position it's going to be extremely difficult for the bench to justify to itself the ask so therefore why don't you actually ask something different which is ask the Judiciary to monitor the legislature in terms of pushing the ball on this and ask them to set the ball rolling and have a discussion at the very least the unfortunate problem is in some of these issues and I say this with no disrespect to anyone interested parties usually are attached to the cause right and therefore some suggestions which may not meet with their agreement in terms of the rigor or the bigger with which you wish to represent may fall in deaf ears and therefore I said there are better ways of doing this because when you ask this you're also putting members of the pension of fix and you're asking them to open a door which is deeply problematic so that has been my position I'm not going to skirt the question I will certainly support their cause provided they do not interfere with religious aspects simply because there are serious issues there which are not in any way homophobic in fact the question would be do you want the job done or do you want to prove a point that would be the simple question okay I'm going to come back to ask you what is the religious point at stake uh and you know let me just bring saurabh in here sort of he's saying that there's a just cause but the approach and the Forum is wrong so then at the heart of it is the question that should the courts play the role of a moral Arbiter in a society when small groups and I'm I don't want to use the word minority because it's got infused with so many implications let's just say a group that does not have a large voice in Parliament wants a right for itself and they approach the court is that the correct path or do you think he has a point there that the court should not be playing a role in this well the two points that my friend Psy has made are of course mutually exclusive you can simultaneously say go to court and get a judgment there while also saying don't go to court go to the court of the people I.E Parliament right you can't have them simultaneously because you go to court when Parliament is not doing something no one wants to rush to court if you are getting the rights that you deserve and that is not how our constitutional scheme really works quotes are a protection which have been given to minorities and I don't hesitate to use that word or indeed even the majority because often you may be a numerical majority but a political minority for instance women in our country are a political majority and yet a large number of rights are denied to them on the basis of maybe religious laws on sexual harassment so the point is you have no option but to go to court when your rights are being denied to you you don't as I said Rush to code for any and everything it's only when you feel you are not being given your just use now I don't start from a position that Everyone likes people like Psy are homophobic no I don't judge people I judge the argument that is made so let's judge this argument that has been made that the institutional power to determine as to whether they should be marriage equality and again I'll rephrase the term rather than saying same-sex marriage to be marriage equality that if straight people have a right to enter into a union which gives their life so much meaning and purpose and is so important for them legally philosophically from the manner of identity then you are excluding a vast suede of people and discriminating against them and now those people already in a minority cannot possibly go to Parliament and say please do this for me because really asking to reach out to the better side of an MP with whom you have no contact with is virtually impossible right so the logistics of it don't can't happen but that also does not matter because our constitution does not require a disempowered person to suffer the indignity of being disempowered doubly by saying that the only person you can go to is that person who is oppressing you in the first place I the majority in Parliament our constitutional scheme gives an option to such a person that when you are being oppressed then you have an unelected body to go to it's precisely because they are unelected that they have the power to come to the aid of those to whom the elected are not coming in Aid of right so it is a checks and balance situation and this is how the system is created so there is it's correct that you are not going to Parliament and you're going to a different jurisdiction but that is our constitutional frame and our constitution is a very same document that has created Parliament it is not as a parliament predates the Constitution we have a system where you have 37 percent of the people which will return a majority in Parliament of 55-60 percent we do not question that at all we accept that because we believe in the Constitution we believe in the first pass the support system we believe in the idea of uh representation in that manner we are all committed to it and there is no question of illegitimacy when Parliament passes an act even though it is not backed by 50 of the people they call that Constitution permits it well the very same Constitution also permits any individual going to the court and saying that my fundamental rights have been violated and I don't see why that should be put to a higher judicial or a constitutional or social scrutiny then when Parliament makes an act which is not backed by 50 of the people so I want you to come in there you know there are several things that have opened up and as I shared with the audience there are many things we want to unpack conservatism individual rights Community rights you know there are many things here but let's stick with this for the time being you said that they should go to Parliament but what happens in a scenario where there's a Just Cause And I'm just saying it's this government it could be previous governments but the government representing so-called the voice of the people is actually arguing against this group when 377 was struck down and you know a criminality of homosexuality was struck down by the courts not by Parliament the government actually went to the Supreme Court to try and overturn that so clearly there's a biased social will there which is against the fundamental rights of this group in that setting how do you think they would have recourse so I think thanks to what Mr kripal has said I have to now bring in aspects of the law and this is crucial now that I've clarified my position as to whether I'm homophobic or transfer because we want not so let me now come to the actual question right no not you're generally saying that see here's the point I think at some stage members of the legal profession must acquire some degree of humility to basically say we can't be experts on everything from Gynecology to ethnology there are certain issues which require inputs from subject matter stakeholders and experts I'll give you a direct example what is the point of going to the legislature in the first place what happens in the legislature I could be at point zero Mr kripal could be at Point hundred when you go to the legislature the process is such that neither of us will walk away with our respective positions but we'd be forced to actually come to a sentence position one way or the other there is some kind of a compromise that is struck as a as a as a part of the particular process now you're saying that I am going to keep every voice out of this particular discussion because I believe that I am disenfranchised and I don't think I have a voice and therefore I will go to this particular institution which has its own serious limitations which have been exposed to time and again on several issues which require subject matter expertise and then tell this institution that it's only a question of equality now every time people draw a parallel between this petition the issue in this particular petition and the nas Foundation petition or the Johor petition 377 they make a mistake one was a question of decriminalizing a particular Act and therefore it was a one point agenda but the other is the question of not recognizing just the right of equality but the creation of an institution because marriage is not just a concept it's an institution and if there are at the very least 600 to 700 attendant rights that go with the institution of marriage from domestic violence to maintenance to Child Protection to whatnot are we then saying that we will go to the court on a regular basis because this was one of the submissions made and I'm sorry I have to make this point now one of the submissions made by one of the councils representing the other side a very senior person and whose erudition I have no doubts about whatsoever except for this particular subject who actually told who actually told the court you declared that this is unequal and we will keep coming to court or leave it to Future courts to decide how this particular judgment is sought to be applied or must be applied in the context of every legislation that has a bearing on the institution of marriage or something that is related marriage so are you saying that courts are only every Court in this country and every constitutional quote in this country is going to be turned into a matrimonial Court that's one hold on second here's the problem when someone says we are a minority sorry the statistics say otherwise there are at the very least empirical studies to show that you're looking at a population of seven crores to 10 crores in this country by what yardstick in a country such as Bharat seven to ten crores constitutes minority for a particular issue that is a question that you have to ask three Mr kripal said that you can't say on the one hand go to the legislation on the other hand it can't be advice go to court no what is it that you use the Judiciary for the or the Forum of the court for to ventilate a point of view sometimes you may not have a case in law but you use that particular Forum to actually stir the conscience of the legislature and the rest of the society in the hope that the point that you make through the court gets wide attraction people may wake up this has happened in more than one instance there are multiple examples of this particular effect so the point was use the Judiciary as an instrumentality to start the conscience and to get the debate going without violating certain boundaries I respect the fact that the constitution protects certain rights because the Constitution also protects what we call unconscious rights babies have rights except that they are not aware of it right infants have rights if I may just come in here and you know saurabh I'm going to ask you to respond to this but just to emphasize certain things that you're saying two one is that the courts don't have the expertise or the jurisdiction correct to speak about personal laws or of these institutions so one would you say that the triple tala case is not something that should have gone to court but should have gone to Parliament fantastic in fact I've just written a piece exactly on this point be it triple talak or sabrimana the best part is the Judiciary itself has now framed this matter and has sent it to a larger bench what have they asked their framed about nine questions saying we as a secular institution which lacks ecclesiastical training in different subjects which relate to different faiths do we have the ability to distill what is known as the essential religious practice of a particular faith in the context of a particular tradition and do we have the ability to do so and that question has already been framed so in principle I've taken the position the quote Frankly Speaking does not have the ability as a trained expert on the particular subject there are people who have dedicated themselves to the study of this particular subject there are religious studies chairs all over the world and you're telling me that a lawyer knows everything under the sun is it even possible so when this question has already been framed where you've you have recognized as an institution the serious limits of the application of your own judicious mind to some of these issues why don't you relegate it to a better institution which is the legislature and I do not subscribe to the cynical position that the legislature is always to be looked down upon and the Judiciary is always supposed to be looked up to I don't subscribe to that school of thought at all one bit uh sorry if I'm going to ask you to respond to that but I just want to emphasize I'm leaving one thought with you he just said that there's not the expertise uh to speak on this and maybe the wrong question was framed was it meant to be just an issue of fundamental rights rather than religious practice so I'm going to come back to you to ask you on that you made one other point Sai which was about inconvenience and sure plethora of cases that will open up if uh equality of marriage is granted to those who love the same sex and you said there's 600 other implications of that inconvenience is whatever may be that but right using a plethora of cases will open will they keep coming back to the courts the simple point is here is a community that is not impinging you know you've said somewhere else that you're you're trying to individualize a social institution correct you've also said in the context of the same case that should Society not have the right to draw red lines correct now those are very subjective because where does who will decide those red lines the institution of marriage itself is a very modern Concept in the Hindu tradition itself we've been allowed to have three marriages and a hundred wives Etc right so in this case there's a group of people that feel their fundamental right under article 14 15 19 and 21 are being denied and that is not impinging on the rest of us from having children Dowry property etc etc etc they are being denied it right they're not trying to take away our rights to have children correct so why is there even a resistance to expanding the rights of others when it's not taking away any from us okay what is the extent to which you're willing to extrapolate this logic because I have a couple of examples in mind please throw them at us okay assuming that um there are two couples and they are interested in having a polyamorous relationship intercept they're all adults and hopefully not brothers and sisters okay they know what they're doing and they have chosen to enter into this particular relationship then there comes a point that this becomes a phenomenon where you realize that it's not limited to certain pockets but there perhaps is greater acceptance to this but in silent tones or in Whispers okay assume for a moment that this particular practice acquires a certain critical mass what is your position going to be then are you going to apply the harm principle to basically say that the institution of marriage is proven to be a failure therefore let's do away with every definition or every notion that's associated no no hold on if you're going to tell me that this is a hypothetical this is speculative sorry no I wasn't going to say that I was going to say right I was going to say as a good lawyer you can see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying because at one level you're saying this must be the will of society right if the will of society is to have polyamorous relationships how do you become the custodian to stop that will of the society is to alter the nature of the Constitution and to give this country a different identity if the will of the society is also going to be to change the nature of the Constitution hit reset on the Constitution give it a different rashtra altogether will you give effect to that identity as well you know you've you've changed I was asking the logic is the same no the logic is this is going to accept something you're saying it must be accessible to the Judiciary if I were to end up convincing 90 of this community or let's say of this country to my position on certain issues will you then accept it then I then say I don't need to go to the court I'll hit the reset I'll use article 368 and come out of the different Constitution altogether Republic 2.0 are you okay with it okay you know I'm going to get drawn into I'm going to play referee and not my answer not the the discussant entirely over here sorry why don't you take I mean I have some views but I'm not the discussant why don't you take on uh two or three of those questions one was the expertise of the Court uh the other is what he said where does this line stop in terms of what Society can do if you open the doors on some of it well I think so we have now moved from questioning whether Parliament can intervene from a constitutional perspective which is do they have the jurisdiction or not within our constitution I hope we accept that they do the question then shifts and say well even if they have the Constitutional Authority they do not have the expertise now there the argument is somehow fetishizing Parliament and saying Parliament has this expertise the courts do not right now that's simply not true because we have all seen how laws are made in Parliament how much and many things are displayed not necessarily expertise now so now also when we see the role of the Court they may not have the same expertise that Parliament has but we expect courts to decide complicated questions and our side is a brilliant IP lawyer they discuss and decide matters of immense scientific complexity and patents they decide massively important questions on on financial issues on on the economy if those judges can have the expertise to decide those complicated questions then surely a question as to whether a opposite sex couple can have the same rights to adopt to live to have a joint bank account to have insurance to have the recognition of society can also be put for a same-sex couple now that does not require real expertise that doesn't even require empathy that just requires some basic constitutional common sense [Applause] I don't think and and look there is some Merit in asking quotes to step away from issues that are in the political ticket there is some reason to say courts must not jump into every issue I am not one of those people who say just because the matter in a cause is brought to court the court must get in and decide it Willy nili without uh being aware of their own basic in some inherent limitations but when a cause comes which relates to fundamental rights then it is no longer a luxury for the courts to say I will not decide this it is then part of the Constitutional obligation it is a part of a judge's oath of office to decide that question in terms of what the fundamental rights of the Constitution say that brings us now to the second leg of the argument which is that where do we draw the line now that line inherently of course is subjective but although is at some level subjective all constitutional values are at some level subjective that which was accepted 50 years ago 100 years ago is not necessarily accepted today now the words of the Constitution don't necessarily change for instance and you said that you have to keep on coming back to court again and again uh where is the objectivity in that our constitution recognizes cost-based reservations under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution it permits that now those two Clauses of the Constitution about what equality means have engaged the court in the most complicated jurisprudence from 1950 till 2023. views change of society and quotes as to what equality truly means does it allow for reservations should certain tasks be included in those quotas should a person who was a Hindu but then converted to Christianity should they be allowed to have uh reservations now these are complicated questions which we seem to have no problem if the courts decide because of these reservations because that is the nature of judicial decision making and that is the nature of our constitution we hope this country will endure for the next hundred five hundred thousand years the Constitution is what we have its words are written in stone but if we tie ourselves down with that stone we'll sync with it we have to accept that some of the terminology used in the constitution is inherently elastic we have to trust the intelligence The Good Will of our judges to be able to interpret those words so as to give Justice to those citizens which they are obliged to under the Constitution we trust parliamentarians and as Sai says I don't I'm not one of those people who thinks that everything Parliament does is wrong we trust parliamentarians but we must also trust the judges put the same faith in the judges that the constitution makers in 1950 did but the same faith in the judges that virtually every constitutional democracy across the world U.S the European Union everyone every place we trust our judges to come to the aid when Parliament gets it wrong and Parliament does sometimes get it wrong you know say I just saw I'm going with size argument I'm going to play back to you in the next round uh some of the times when the fastest fingers first yeah when the courts have got it wrong but before that side you know you took it down into some very complex Parts first of all you said that there's a religious issue at stake now in your books you have been arguing that we have to decolonize our brain we have to go with our civilizational ethos you know we've been showing just a few of them but if you go even with the Hindu civilizational ethos Hindu civilization has had absolutely no problem with any color or any facet of The Human Experience you know in fact uh Varun and Mitra are same-sex couple that give birth to vashished and you know we can laugh when it suits us but it's vashest and agastya Vishnu fell in love with Shiva fell in love with Vishnu and that Union as mohini gave birth to ayappa which is the sub deity which is such a huge fight in the public space right you have references in the Kama Sutra to lesbian couples that raise children together and the you know you can go to khajurao you can go to other texts you know kajurao there's a beautiful I wanted to show it but I was a bit edgy about it but please go Google it there's this amazing beautiful image of women making love on the freeze of the kajurao temple So when you say it's religious again I'll quote back to you you said the Hindu religion is like an ocean in which there are seas and rivers and ponds and multitudes so where who's going to decide which is religious you said brothers and sisters should not be in a relationship hopefully but in Caroline elsewhere the uncle is perfectly legitimate as a marriage partner in the north that would be Scandal so do you agree that you're walking a very slippery slope you said where should the red lines be right who will be the Arbiter of that okay three levels of responses here I'm very happy with the examples you just quoted first I think Mr kripal has misunderstood my point let me clarify this I am never going to admit that the Judiciary has the power but not the expertise that's not my position my very clear position is neither do they have the power nor do they have the expertise on the subject is my very clear position I am not making a concession here at all it's surprising that a quote which yields to a legislative policy or executive policy on taxation on defense related issues on all these issues if this court or let's say the Judiciary is blessed with all the wisdom that we impute to it what happened in 75 to 77 these were instances where on the one hand we are being accused of fetishizing the legislature have there been no instances right that was you know as well there's a point here there's a point when we actually make the point that the Judiciary makes no mistakes who came up with the first decision on the nas Foundation it is the product of advocacy between 2013 and 2019 that you were able to change hearts and Minds even with respect to section 377 and I am the one who's asking you to put more faith in your advocacy second are we saying that a court makes no mistakes there have been instances where fundamental rights which were otherwise meant to be protected have been suspended by the very same court when they were asked to bend they crawled is the very same language that's been used previously when it comes to even rights such as habeas corpus so I don't think we should actually be making these statements with respect to the fact that the Judiciary makes no mistakes or the Judiciary has absolutely no subject which is beyond the scope of its remitter expertise of course there are now coming to the question of I.T or any of these subjects these are Under very specific legislations where they have the power to do so the question when it comes to this question is this issue is whether they have the power that itself is the issue may I step in here because I don't want to go down these too many of the tertiary parts let's stick to the core which is about how does society change right you know right let me put back to you and here maybe I'm presuming but I feel both of you are not you know you're saying does the courts never make a mistake I don't think that sort of position that can never be anybody's positions I mean it's the Supreme Court that actually overturned the Delhi High Court ruling on 377 I mean it was that backward and I'll use that word right but let me come back to something which I think is fundamentally at stake here right which is the fundamental rights of individuals and here again I would pose to you is there a huge gap in your understanding of a democracy and his and I'll ask him as well you say that the no individual's rights should supersede the rights of a community that is not our constitutional position I'm not sure where you're getting this position from sorry I'm not sure where you're getting this position from I'm not sure where you're getting this position we wrongly reported on Google so forgive me but here the fundamental right is that two people in love one to marry and article 14 15 19 and 21 as we've said right says that there will be no discrimination on people's rights insofar as their gender caste status money sex identity right so this is something so fundamental this is not an expertise issue it's not a jurisdiction issue a small group of people or a large group of people feel that their fundamental rights are not being granted to them and it is not impinging on anyone else why is there a resistance you haven't answered that there are two first let's go to let's go to choose to bring about the liberality of Hinduism and it suits us and then Hinduism becomes the subject of certain other discussions when cast is the issue but anyways we'll come back to the point the point is this I don't think we understand the role of the Judiciary in a constitutional democracy it's interplay with the legislature or it's interplay with the society in the first place you're basically telling me that with respect to the creation of a right this is not recognition of right this is also the creation of a particular right how it's their recognition of a right marriage is right it's not just like a marriage and at the end of the day has to be recognized by law you can choose to call yourself married unless and until the law recognizes it in some form it has absolutely no sanctity so the question is about legal recognition if it is about legal recognition this is primarily within the remit of the legislature your entire argument has been I choose to proceed on the basis that the bulk of the majority is against my position I will not make any further efforts in trying to convince them otherwise I have not set the ball rolling on the legislature I don't intend to I'd rather use the Judiciary to get the job done my entire position has been it's not just about this particular shift tomorrow every other disgruntled litigant on issues which are close to their heart or causes which are close to their heart chooses to use the code to get the job done and completely relegates the legislature of the margins what exactly is this democracy that you're actually talking about if you're telling me that we need to protect the concept of a democracy how is this democracy going to be protected if the legislature is absolutely no role in it where are members of the society going to get there say with respect to their concerns from this particular issue not every concern that has a an opinion on this particular subject is necessarily homophobic or stands in the way of marriage they want answers to certain questions you are reducing this particular issue to its most not simple form it's simplistic form to say this is all about equality sorry it's not just about equality it is about creation of further rights because the bulk of the petitioners were before the court are people who are asking for the right of adoption and when they ask for these rights there is a third party who's necessarily involved there are institutions which have been created under the law for the protection of the rights of that particular third party who cannot speak for himself or herself are we saying that they don't need to be heard on this particular subject at all on matters of science on matters of Taxation on matters of even handwriting quote appoints experts are you telling me on such a serious issue which talks about the creation of a social institution not just an individual institution the court doesn't need to hear experts ask yourself in the three months or the four months of the two months of hearings took place before this court which expert Was Heard by the court what expert affidavits or opinions were sought by the court now this is an institution which supposedly knows better than the legislature if the legislature meets a certain proposal there are Parliamentary committees which are appointed there are experts whose opinions are sought which expert opinion other than the litigants opinions have been sought even in this matter by the members of the bench or this particular court ask yourself this question now assuming for a moment may I draw him into it yes so sort of you want to take on uh some of those questions first of all the two that I can zero in on one is about judicial activism and he's saying that you know the judiciaries just can't keep stepping in and overturning or usurping the right of parliament do you think that that's a valid argument and number two this you know I mean I don't necessarily want to go into the process and procedurals because that's so easy but why don't you take on that because he was being animated that the court has not sought the opinion of psychologists or those who could maybe represent the voice of unborn children that will they be safe in a same-sex marriage home uh why don't you take on those two questions no this is not about safety I I didn't say that I think that's the rights of the child you said so the child from the perspective interest to the child that's all as neutral safety of the child eats it in a very different direction I am not going that territory at all Mr kripal knows what I'm talking about that's not the issue at all here I am not on the safety of the child well-being is different from safety let's not conflict I assure you I don't take offense so seriously anyone who's grown up gay for 50 years doesn't take offense seriously we're used to a lot worse and you and my friend are not a bad man at least that's what I said no matter what so the question is the argument is that courts are being asked to create a social institution when they do not have the expertise or the power to do so well I'm afraid that's simply not true because that social institution of marriage already exists a much vast majority of you are married I'm not saying create a concept which does not exist what we are saying is here is a social institution which as you said I meant 600 laws because 600 laws exist to give a right to that particular social institution please extend the same protection of the laws of those 600 laws which are good enough for straight people please extend the same social institution to those who are otherwise in any case disempowered now I take an example about how this is not a creation of a social institution I draw the memory of your audience into what happened in the US in the 60s and what used to happen in certain parts of India that certain groups of people were not permitted to get married not just brothers and sisters those are interesting examples and make for good debating points but the reality is that vast larger some numbers of people were stopped from getting married namely people from between different castes or within the go through as the sagotra marriages were prohibited right so technically or indeed as I said the US where a black man and a white woman couldn't get married they were anti-miscegenation laws so there was a social Institute which existed it from that social Institute institution as because of the innate characteristics race cast subcast Etc now in each of these I think we would agree that courts were right to step in and say no you cannot stop people from a different class from getting married and would intervene and say this social institution people of all casts should have access to now what an argument in court was is that a question of gender and sexuality is very similar to caste just as you cannot block access to the Privileges rights that a straight couple has by virtue of their gender and their sex that same privilege must also be extended to everybody regardless and irrespective of the sexuality so that's the argument it's not the creation of an institution I certainly am not one of those people who again prioritizes or fetishizes the court over every other institution I don't think the courts get it right every time very often they don't that is why they provide for appeals you know if the idea is the judge is always right there is no question of having a hierarchy of course why have the Supreme Court let's just have more fossil courts because they'll get it right the first time we recognize they don't get it right which is why there is appellate provision Provisions there is a doctrine of overruling because no one safeguard is always right right so once we accept that fact that is so that argument is not being made by by me or indeed anyone else that the courts always get it right it is a question of institutional competence and power and that's correct I would say that it matters of fundamental rights where the very Dignity of a person is involved when the identity of a person says I can no longer get married because my nation aborts me and does not permit me to live freely openly and joyously with the person I love that frames their own sense of self that touches their fundamental right their idea of their own existence and in matters which are so fundamental and personal the courts don't have really the right to step in they have the obligation to step in right right so you know I'm I want to yeah unless you're going to make a radically different point because we are kind of circling just one point it's indeed surprising that when the question of whether it's the creation of an institution or recognition recognition of an institution is being discussed we don't wish to highlight the fact that all the material placed by both parties before the court clearly revealed that when the law was being framed even in the context of the special Marriage Act which was meant to facilitate the very same intercasting Interfaith marriages it was very clearly heterosexual in nature therefore when the question was put to the other side do you have any material to show that there was any kind of elasticity that was meant to be in read into any of these Provisions they did not have an answer the second question of the Court specifically asked was this please tell us how do you wish to apply the domestic violence act in the context of same-sex marriages how do you wish us to interpret these Provisions when these very clear questions came from the court practical operational issues because I'm not necessarily throwing around the bogey of 600 laws to say let's stop this these are very clear issues because there are welfare legislations and protective legislations that have come into existence to protect a particular gender the question is how are you going to identify this in the context of these kind of marriages these are very real questions we are not in the realm of speculation here sorry just to keep the audience with us these I mean here's my and I'm just using the moderator's prerogative to cut you off here sort of to say that a lot of this will evolve you know none of the laws that we just we've had 60 amendments uh and more of the Constitution and a lot of things keep evolving as Society changes you know let's go back to Dowry Widow remarriage child marriage property rights you know I mean even women's right to their parental and answers industrial property changed as recently as 2005. through legislature Judiciary through legislature thank you but I'm saying that things keep changing and evolving so let's not get into the practicalities of this right now let's stick with the principles I want to bring in a few more because you know we're going over the same argument do they have right and it's a fundamental right just a couple of points you've been saying that there is the space for cultural conservatism and that it should have a space in society and if we're going to say that the constitution is a liberal document how are conservative people going to express themselves and what are their rights right so here I'd like to ask you this question that where would you draw the line on conservatism you know if the cup panchayat doesn't want uh women to go to work or to have a gunkat and I'm don't call me a liberal because I've sat in a train full of 6000 Muslim clerics and asked them why will they speak with the woman who's not a Muslim but there's not one other woman in that train that was a peace train going from the urban to Hyderabad so I don't think that there's anything frozen about the Muslim Community or the Hindus I'm just asking you when there's all these slippery slides of cultural conservatism which conservatism do you want uh should be the arbite of whether we eat love pray what we wear the government very often says that they want to Define that is your visual image of conservatism going to limit itself only to Carpenters are you saying that there are no other shades of conservatism which are sophisticated no many like a father that like there are many I felt that the example was perhaps it was stereotypical no I was just evoking the easiest shorthand so let's that's the problem with the shorthand because then it loses Nuance the point I'm trying to make is this I am not on the question of whether conservatives must have the right to draw a line the question was entirely in my submission you can play it out for everybody's benefit was do people holding a conservative point of view not have a seat at the table when this issue is being discussed are they not participants to this particular discussion in any way they can be wrong they can be 100 wrong but are you going to deny them the right to participate in this discussion by having this closed door hearing so to speak because it is a closed door hearing when the rest of the society doesn't get to participate in it you cannot compare the scale of this particular discussion or its comprehensive nature a lack of comprehensiveness so to speak with what happens in the legislature so the point is entirely this I don't think that the conservatives must effectively have the power of veto that's not been my position but they certainly have the right to participate in those conversations and this forum and the nature of this proceeding does not lend itself to multi-party stakeholdership representation thanks to the nation of the Forum it's not on this particular issue alone on several other issues so I am not going to sit and say this should be the line that conservatives must draw did you see me ventilate the particular position in court no because I don't need to make that particular argument the entire argument was give us a seat at the table don't make this an elitist conversation where we have absolutely no space whatsoever that's been the nature of the discussion that's been the ask so why do we need to actually look down upon the conservative position may I ask you a question here uh sort of how would you respond to well that argument if stretched to its logical conclusion would require us to erase quotes from our constitution altogether because every time courts decide something for instance in a matter of fundamental right of free speech right it's not as though they deciding that this is valuable Free Speech or not that they'll conduct public whole surveys and then take a decision they're obviously not so if every time the courts are supposed to give everybody a seat at the table so to say then they will never decide a case because that's not how a judgment is made right there are two parties before the court and very simply someone has competent aside is also free to come and put the conservative point in court that happened right we heard the government taking arguments which were against the liberal position put forward by the petitioners so who are silenced the problem is not that a conservative voice was silenced the problem was where was the conservative voice meant to be heard and I don't believe that there is no place for a conservative voice anymore that there is no place for a liberal voice in a free democracy in a free country there is a place for every stream of thought including on this particular Podium the question however is that when you say that because if there is a lack of hearing with the conservative voice to me sounds really if you unplug it enough a argument against the court exercising its jurisdiction in favor of the liberal point of view right that's the summon substance really if you if you unpack if you unpack the argument because how was the conservative position not given a seat at the table or how was the liberal position given a greatest seat at the table judges are deciding right the judges are deciding between left and right between conservatism and liberalism both sides are heard so if you say the conservative have no place well equally the Liberals have no place as well that's not what happened in court okay let's just I you know we're going to run out of time I'm going to take you questions unfortunately there's just so many person to examine which we haven't even gone in to I'm just going to ask both of you a contrary question one is let's leave the same-sex marriage aside I hope that this is argued out in court uh you know when we sing that conservatives the government itself is playing the conservative position in this case you know it is arguing against the rights uh of same-sex couples so I think the conservative voice is being heard but sort of let me bring you in here into a criticism that the right wing often throws at those who are called liberals which is that where the Hindu framework is concerned Liberals are always pushing and criticizing the Hindu right for being conservative for being patriarchal for being fascist etc etc and pushing for Liberal positions but the moment it comes to Muslims bizarrely liberals take a very conservative position on Muslim issues you know suddenly your pro hijab your pro uh you know many things you know it becomes at the clerics of the Muslim Community are the voice of the Community do you think that this is a valid criticism of the liberal position from the right uh do you hold it yourself and do you think this needs to change I think that's a very valid criticism of a certain section of liberals particularly those politically inclined and intellectual liberal will not have that position I certainly don't when I see Injustice being meted out I have to be blind as to who's doing that now if it is within the Muslim Community there is no question that the court must intervene unlike Psy I believe the court was right to step in and strike down triple talaq it is a deeply offensive practice and has no place in a modern democracy governed by the rule of law and any time that someone says so that so that is a principle that I must take a principal position on hijab now there again I am not a fan of uh cloaking women and removing their identity and in so I'm not a great voter or a fan of hijab at all the question is how do you go about it but that again is uh that's not something that was done by the courts at all that was done politically the matter went to court I think the courts do have jurisdiction on ruling as to whether hijab is constitutional or not right what they do is another thing so here again we must not conflate jurisdictional issues from the values that we hold but the criticism of the right sometimes is Justified because sometimes the the excesses of other religions are allowed to stand and there is no place for for that anywhere equally there is no place for Injustice within the Hindu community so I don't think we should get drawn into this water boundary we must realize there's a bigger problem out there which is patriarchal society where women are oppressed in society and therefore the laws must move in both courts as well as the legislature to even the the scales for women we are still a cast written Society there is no question of it so there is a responsibility to move in and and address those issues so to some extent if an argument is made that we turn a blind eye towards the ills of a community because we claim to be liberal and liberalism and somehow only anti-hindu there I don't think that is that's a good position since he's conceded that I'm going to come to you for a quick concession side which is that you've been saying that you know things have to be had that some things are decided as a heteronormative you know you've used this phrase or is this Google wrong okay so when you say heteronormative isn't that a very very problematic concept because again there you're putting power into the hands what is heteronormative and what is normative itself and here I wanted to use the example of see the forget sisters you know where normatively they would not have been allowed to be wrestlers boxers cut their hair short do any of what they were to do their parents who are in very normative societies where an individual feels the urge to break from a norm right and the Constitution has been built to support those individuals who want to break from a norm right where's the heteronormative always tries to creep status quo and Conformity right so are you going to say that we must subscribe to the heteronometer how will an individual ever break free and here I want to go away from the Indian context and let's take black rights you know so it's not an emotive issue back in 1700s blacks were seen as property and you know that famous case where in a ship that was going to drown the owners of the ship through 350 blacks into the ocean so that they could claim insurance that was the normative Behavior right right it took a court to overrule that and it took another 100 years before Society caught up with that so the normative behavior for the whites was that blacks are just property and non-human it took individuals to break that Norm so let me ask you a value question here not a legal question yes are you in favor of individuals who are seeking to express their Liberty and break with the normative behavior of their societies which would you support as a value could you please explain where this question is coming from and why is this being put to me I'm asked as I'm asking it as a value question I've asked him also about you know this blindness towards say you know regressive practices amongst Muslims right liberals take a default position which says oh they must have their rights so I'm similarly asking you so first point I think the concession that Mr kripal has made I would comprehend him for it sorry I would compliment him for it because I would say he's truly in the minority for having made the concession two and since you have claimed to have read my book or at least you have an idea of it I have aboard the use of the word right in the context of the position use of the word right right in the context of the positions I take because I do not subscribe to right wing for a very clear reason that it has extremely racist genocidal and Colonial connotations which I do not relate to under any circumstances those who subscribe to the indict position are the people I subscribe to or I relate to so mine is not the right wing I've clearly said mine is the Indie Queen that's one second in the written submissions filed before the court in this very same matter I have asked for nhmu non-heteronormative marital unions to be recognized through the legislature at least by way of Partnerships that's the very specific suggestion that I've made as part of my written submissions I did not bad for heteronormativity I basically said by and large societies tend to be governed by majority bill when it comes to when deciding the norm however that does not mean that what is not the norm does not exist and this is where I go back to the Hindu question that you put to me the Hindu position in the context of the thrithya prakriti or in the context of non-heteronormative relationships has been to give them a position outside of the shastras as opposed to saying let's amend the shastras itself and second their institutions were protected they were actually given protection even when it comes to agricultural produce why because you see members of this community begging at the traffic signal today when they do not have anybody even giving them opportunities of livelihood this is the man who in which the Hindu Community has taken care of this particular non-binary gender identity so in fact during the course of my arguments I specifically submitted start with at least the basic of Maslow's needs when it comes to what this community Faces day in and day out and the reason is I've worked with members of this community in addressing issues of human trafficking which is what they're ultimately subjected to they are actually sold as prostitutes across do you want to know the name of the gangs which are called jamaats in which they're actually sold this is the name of the groups which actually trade in transgender prostitutes so to speak so I said this is the issue that you need to start with at the very least so I'm not batting for heteronormativity in every sense to the extent of saying wipe out every other identity I'm merely saying that allow this Society a say and put faith in your advocacy to reach out to the society and explain your point of view because if you're going to use the Judiciary as a means of top-down imposition of any initiative that you want the societal acceptance that you actually ask for or that you craving you won't get it and I don't see how is it that the Court's imposition of a particular point of view without bringing the society I'm going to stop you from making that point because both of you made that point enough time uh I'm just going to end this with one last question to both of you uh which is that when you say that Society should engage with society and with government in this context I and I'm asking you obviously you know I'm not trying to make you the spokesperson but why don't you refract a certain view of the world right is that in our society today and that's why I brought up this Mandan Mishra and this kind of dialogue we are having right this good faith dialogue is just not possible in outside in the public whether it's the left which we'll call the right fascist or the fascists which we'll call them non-hindu or maois or I don't know innumerable things you yourself in an interview recently said and yes Irfan Habib should leave the country and not say that you said you were asked rhetorically who are the three that should leave the country and never come back and you picked these you know yes I gave my reasons also and I stand by those reasons right yes but [Applause] but just the fact that we are asking each other to leave the country we are asking each other to be unhindu or Hindu I don't know do you one minute let me finish my question's example if this is going to be a line of questioning then you'll have to give me an answer let me just finish my question when you are asking Society to engage those who disagree with government or those who disagree with the heteronormative or those who disagree with the majority right would you concede that it's very worrying that in a society to engage protests should be allowed without it being called uh you know foreign hands-funded or anti-national or ready first edition or being put them to jail how how should Society dialogue when protesters are not even allowed to be in Jantar Mantra but they must now go out of sight so that their protest is not heard when Parliament does not ask for committees when Parliament does not allow for discussion when the opposition itself is uh discredited you know how will Society dialogue do you think this is a crisis is it your case that all protests are genuine yes I would presume until this extreme empirical evidence so hold on to the contrary does the state have the right to prove at the very least that not all protests are organic and genuine yes or no may I answer that without a yes or no because we're trying to not be binary thank you at least then I should be extended the very same courtesy yes yes so my my point is and I'm sort of this is becoming a I'm I have to step back a little bit draw you in here right sorry it's rather like watching the volley in Wimbledon that we're all missing so I'm going to bed when you ask that question right I would in fact say as a journalist woman citizen any other identity I wear I would deeply urge the government media and everyone else to provide empirical evidence before they do any name calling that is currently going on in our public life so when they launched prosecutions which is well within their power sorry when the government launches prosecutions with respect to certain protesters or even journalists for that matter who they know for a fact or they have material to believe have not exactly been true to Indian interests are you saying that the government has no right to prosecute such people merely because they happen to be Protectors of free speech under and they are in Exempted category such as journalists I what I as a journalist and a woman and a citizen definitely disagree with right is the right of the government to frame people in certain contexts and in certain languages and that could be any government and that cuts across many dispensations right now it's the center that we are discussing without provide they'll say we have this knowledge but we don't need to put it in the public space and they often do that so people question before 2014. before 2014. very much in what context in the context of benign in the context of section 66a yes but but with say you dragging me down specifically I have to answer this point maybe we can reframe the thing uh you mentioned 66a would you share with the audience a Information Technology Act was a section that permitted prosecution of material electronically propagated that had a tendency of causing annoyance between people uh or two people it was misused very often uh including when some statement was made against the thakare or against various leaders now and the only reason I wanted to intervene and then I let you have it at each other no I is is a point that we sometimes forget that party politic politics is the same it doesn't matter whether it's a BJP or the Congress or party a party B party C 66a just to remind the audience was brought in by the Congress regime when it was part of the UPA and then yes correct when it is finally challenged in courts in 2015 correct it is defended by the BJP government absolutely because every government wants to suppress a citizen correct that is what they want I am so happy that is absolutely what they want it is a courts you know as a society we have given up on having freedoms we've kind of grown up in a milieu where we seeed to the community which starts my family first to the larger Family First all our rights we just don't value our freedoms we don't see them as important we don't see them as worth fighting for and I think we have to start that remembering that every government is every party every politics all authority will want to rest your freedoms and exercise control over them because there are institutions of control that is correct now if that is the nature of power and now I must have my turn to respond here's the question prior to 2014 and when there were issues of 66a and several such provisions when was the last time or at least during that particular period words such as fascist majoritarian anti-free speech were used in the context of the dispensation then so I agree the nature of power is that it's capricious it'll only seek 100 loyalty but the funny part is those who are expected to call out such people conveniently change their positions before 2015 and post 2014 and I have to ask this question if journalists have a higher degree of responsibility or let's say higher degree of protection because they are in the business of enabling free speech what would you say of a journalist who goes after a person who criticizes her in a suit for defamation or in criminal prosecution for pointing out the unfairness of a repertoire in the context of an incident that concerns National Security and I refer specifically to the incident of Mr chaitanya kunte being prosecuted by Miss dutt for defamation what is your position going to be on that particular issue so governments Prosecuting people for violating the law is within their remit we are being told that free speech is elastic when it comes to journalists what do you make of a person who says that I have the right to prosecute this person because his report he has criticized me or he's defamed me then what is the position on that so I'll say it absolutely categorically and if I mean unfortunately I've become the discussion from you I'm telling you categorically that I am on record contrary to My Tribe to say that because journalists and media have so much power I absolutely endorse and absolutely believe that the public must have recalls for defamation cases against the media what about this against public for criticizing for their work and I absolutely think that right now journalists are overstepping the line a lot always on this case I would say that it is wrong I think as long as you have the right to put out any public story anybody has the recourse if they feel injured by your actions they have the right to come absolutely without a doubt why certain things become nuanced is in the past it's been to protect journalists from large corporations final point and I'll leave it at that we are not looking at stifling of free speech the fact is a voice such as mine representing the world that I do wouldn't have found a space on any platform prior to 2014 and that is a reality that I've lived with so okay so today when someone comes and gives me these these lectures and gives me the Spiel on free speech on Val and samvad so it's mighty convenient times have really changed the Overton window has seriously changed because people did not do that before 2014. if I may step in there again because I feel I should it's correct that maybe a conservative voice would not have gotten place prior to 2014 a fact which is unfortunate a fact which is deeply troubling but that does not mean that having got that voice every other voice is pushed off the table where is it there has to be some evidence statement where is this I'm not saying that you're saying that what I'm saying is we must remember as Citizens that free speech is valuable because it protects all of us and the question is what is the content of that free speech is not something that can be judged unless it causes harm That's a classic liberalism it isn't uh very much it's it's liberalism 101 everyone should get access to free speech Every Act which harms including defamation needs to be curtailed these are basic things sometimes we get just so carried away with the polemics of it with the the extremes that we forget that the vast majority of people today started settle censoring both from worrying from the left or the right and cell censorship is possibly far more worrying than governmental interference the government really doesn't need to come in and stop you from speaking very much the fear of what the outrage will be both from the left and the right that's sufficient my point has been that we have discovered the values of liberalism when the shoe has been on the other foot thank you I was a lawyer who challenged section 66a so I was again 66a both for uh both parts of the government so it's good you ask this question because as a journalist and you can go back and look at the helka's history personally we did a cover story on 66a very very critical of the Congress government and he said the same I just want to pose one question to both of you to concede and then let's go for dinner you said to before 2014 the Liberals had a voice conservatives didn't and that's very fair my question to you and actually my anguish about this moment in our history and in our national life is that when certain things are being articulated and new voices come why is it such a revengeful voice can you not put forward positive voices positive positions without saying earlier we didn't have a voice so now let's push these guys out of the frame and call them International anti-hindu etc etc you know that this vocabulary happens I'm so sorry when I walk into certain institutions located out of sonipat I had posters actually saying Brahman go back this is the language that's been used and these are institutions that have been posted institutions for liberalism in this country I am not naming that institution only out of decency and this is a post 2014 phenomenon this is as early as 2017 or rather as late as 2017. so when someone suddenly says that we are being edged out or we are being or our position at the table is being taken away I can only see that post 2014 the number of Institutions which represent the worldview that you stand for have only mushroomed they have not gone down I haven't seen a single institution say closure Sesame because of government action it's actually mushroomed on the contrary I have seen more and more people releasing each other's books despite the fact that they come from opposite ends of the ideological Spectrum so I haven't seen this so I suspect that this is a grievance Without a Cause because perhaps there is some kind of a brownie point that is thought to be scored here that we are more liberal look at this this is a vengeful tone Frankly Speaking I have said everything that I have said in a very composed tone only for one reason because I stand by the position that I've taken and I don't need to raise my voice to make my point I have never been accused of that on the contrary there have been instances where my pieces even post 2014 have been returned by left of center Publications when I said this article needs to be called out for its inaccuracies they said sorry you won't get a voice this has happened this is post 2014. so it's not as if suddenly you have lost the power of your veto you've always had it you continue to have it okay let me end on this note uh you know I would say that the question of individual liberty and conservatism is a question that you know is important to all of us it's something we should take home with us I would say that I cringe at the fundamentalism of the left and I mean that sign I'm saying it on record I would love it if on record we could all say that we cringe or if you cringe when the right expresses itself clumsily angrily and with name calling if you can say that on record we would have arrived somewhere Center saurabh is already conceded that I don't relate to the right I'm not associated with the right I represent the indic view I don't speak for them so when the indict view speaks in a cringy way about those who don't agree with the do you cringe here as a person who believes in free speech and as a reasonable person anybody who does that is wrong anybody who stifles the other person's point of view or takes away his ability to vent or her ability or their ability to rent that point of view I do not agree with that particular position I don't need to agree or disagree with anybody else specifically or send tax officers on them sorry or send tax officers online as long as they don't launder money foreign I don't think we arrived at any particular conclusion except that what is at stake here are three things do the courts have the right is this a fundamental issue of Liberty and do others have a right to enter that conversation I think at the very least it's woken us up to a case that goes beyond just the community and affects all of us because what's at stake is our ability to speak with each other thank you very much science sorry for being here missing your Wimbledon and allowing this conversation there's dinner outside and there's drinks here please join us and let's continue this conversation thank you very very much all of you [Music] thank you [Music] foreign [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Laughter] thank you [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] foreign how do you start an iconic movement

Channel: Shoma Chaudhury

Views: 177,570

Keywords:

Id: aNrXPBnxxoo

Length: 82min 50sec (4970 seconds)

Published: Sun Jul 16 2023