Thus far and no farther

How far is the society willing to stretch our liberty? How accepting is it of deviance and defiance?

A certain someone wrote a certain something that irked a certain section and caused a certain amount of trouble. I have to observe caution here since every, and any, word that I write can bring the RAF down. Vagueness of the strict order is the rule of the day and expression of free thoughts may cost a life; not mine or yours maybe, but a certain someone else's. Which is tragic enough and is leading me to be circumspect about the content of this here column.
I think I can be bold enough and mention that it was a lady who wrote the article. I mean, if I am questioned who and what I am mentioning I can always deny their conclusion. The article infuriated some dogmatic people. After all, she had dared to doubt and decry a tradition that many feel has been ordained by the superpower, or at least is symbolical of what the power would want from the subjects and loyalists as a mark of respect, modesty, humility. Worse, she had rekindled some already existent stories and legends about a mighty entity.
Such audacity was, of course, not to be tolerated, especially by men, since patriarchy is not used to being defied. Some days have passed since the incident and now, it is not important who she is or what she wrote. What matters is the the reaction that any deviance evokes. Authority, in any form or in any place, is so power hungry and insecure that it responds violently if a judgment is passed against it.
I was amazed at how insensitive and intolerant we have become, so much so that we cannot let a person speak out his or her mind. They could have called for a healthy debate, weighed the pros and cons, admitted that they may have had room for some error in a custom even if it has been followed for ages. Or they could have even laughed her off, called her a mad woman. But they wreaked vengeance. They were spewing venom to kill liberty and opinions.
I plead to them to have a more open and accommodating spirit. I plead people to cross over to the other side of the fence and see the other's point of view. Like, I had a big fight with a friend on this article. He was adamant in his belief that the writer of the aforementioned article had no right in making a conclusive statement that denounced a practice. After all, he said, many women seem to be comfortable with it, so what is her problem? Also, why did she spreas stories about some revered being?
I have a few objections to this stance. One, it is difficult for him to cross over to the weaker side and understand a woman's trauma and struggle. That is not an offence; he is not at fault for being a man and not having experienced a woman's perspective. Two, the writer has as much right to make a claim as the proponents of the values she was objecting to. I agree that people may disagree with her, but that cannot take away her prerogative to own a cause she believes in and is willing to stand up for. Three, her convictions may have raised a storm but without tremors great changes would not come. Four, she was merely reiterating the tales that already exist, not making up some of her own.
If anyone differs with me, I respect his or her thoughts. I just hope that we can discuss the issue in a civilised manner rather than let our egotistical fanaticism get the better of our sense and sensibility.

[After an article by Taslima Nasreen on burqa tradition, Express offices in Karnataka districts and Mangalore were vandalised. Two civilians died because of police firing. The RAF and police guarded our Bangalore office for days. And we sat wondering if it was worth all this.]