Is shoe-hurling a democratic right?

A rare quality that the Americans possess, and the Indians lack, is the capacity to laugh at themselves. When two shoes were flung at former US President George Bush by an Iraqi journalist at Baghdad, Bush took the insult in his stride, telling the other journalists: "If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw". Commenting on how he evaded the two shoes flung at him, Bush said: “You know, I’m a good dodger” .
Chidambaram was not as jovial as Bush in dealing with Tuesday’s shoe incident. He was visibly annoyed by the questions from Jarnail Singh on the clean chit given by CBI to Gagdish Tytler and at one point asked the journalist to stop arguing. But after the shoe incident, Chidambaram was more magnanimous than Bush in asking his party colleagues to take Jarnail away `gently’ and later forgiving him.
Is the minister’s pardon the end of the Delhi shoe episode? Hurling of shoe by a journalist at a minister at an official press conference is the height of professional misdemeanour and a crime under the laws of the land. Why was Jarnail not booked under IPC for his shoe attack on the minister? Why did Dainik Jagran management, which employs Jarnail, not publicly own up the responsibility for his professional misconduct and summarily dismiss him from service? Why didn’t the chatterati , which went eloquent after the shoe incident , demand exemplary punishment for the offence committed by the misguided journalist . Do they think that end justifies the means?
The issue sought to be highlighted by Jarnail—the government’s injustice to the 1984 riot victims- is one thing and the means he adopted to focus on the issue is quite another. While everyone sympathises with Jarnail’s cause, no one, not even Jarnail himself, approves of the means adopted by him.
Look at the way similar incidents were treated by other countries. The Iraqi court sentenced Al-Zaidi who threw shoes at Bush to three years’ imprisonment (sentence was later reduced to one year) and the offender is now serving his jail term . Martin Jahnke, a German student who threw a shoe at Chinese premier Wen Jiabao during a speech at Cambridge University on February 2, 2009, is facing prosecution for a public order offence in a British court.
Those countries didn’t treat the insults heaped on foreign heads of states lightly and allowed the laws of the land to take their course, even if the offenders had a just cause to highlight.
Chidambaram and the Congress leadership may have political axes to grind in pardoning Jarnail. They cannot afford to antagonise the media or the Sikh community when the elections are round the corner. But what about the long-term implications of the shoe incident? Letting Jarnail scot-free would send wrong signals. Except a hardcore section of the Sikh community, the nation largely is anguished by the TV footages of his public insult to an outstanding representative of the government of India. Large sections of the Indian media hang their heads in shame at the misconduct of a member of their profession. If Jarnail is let off with no questions asked and a section of the media and the Sikh community lionising him for his shoe attack, where is the security for the national leaders who thrive on conducting press conferences day in and day out? The Delhi episode can be re-enacted in any part of the country. Are we to take shoe-throwing at a public figure or a government functionary as freedom of expression or a democratic right? That way, can we condone those who throw rotten eggs or granades at speakers at public functions? Can we have different standards for Varun Gandhi who is in jail for his objectionable comments on the minority community and for Jarnail Singh who apparently committed an equally grave or bigger crime? Respect for law is what distinguishes a civilised society and let’s not lose it for the sake of political expediency.