Congress intolerance of Nehru's masturbatory appeal.

As per a F.I.R lodged by the Congress Party against a remark inscribed in a Visitors' Book at the Cuttack Bose museum, accusing Nehru of denying due recognition to Bose, the mention of Nehru's name causes erotic arousal and leads to obscene acts.

Thus, if I say 'that cunt Patel fucked up Bose's legacy', no offence would occur, but if I substitute Nehru for Patel, then ordinary people start jizzing in their pants.

At least, this is the only logically possible inference we can draw from the fact that the Congress Party's F.I.R cites the section of the Criminal Code covering pornographic publications-
Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code.
 For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the pruri­ent interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.


I suppose a nitpicker could point out that Orissa and Tamil Nadu have amended the relevant act as follows-

292A. Printing, etc., of grossly indecent or scurrilous matter or matter intended for blackmail.--

Whoever,--

(a) prints or causes to be printed in any newspaper, periodical or circular, or exhibits or causes to be exhibited, to public view or distributes or causes to be distributed or in any manner puts into circulation any picture or any printed or written document which is grossly indecent, or in scurrilous or intended for blackmail; or

(b) sells or lets for hire, or for purposes of sale or hire makes, produces or has in his possession, any picture or any printed or written document which is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or intended for blackmail; or

(c) conveys any picture or any printed or written document which is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or intended for blackmail knowing or having reason to believe that such picture or document will be printed, sold, let for hire distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation; or

(d) takes part in, or receives profits from, any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such newspaper, periodical, circular, picture or other printed or written document is printed, exhibited, distributed, circulated, sold, let for hire, made, produced, kept, conveyed or purchased; or

(e) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any Act which is an offence under this section, or that any such newspaper, periodical, circular, picture or other printed or written document which is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or intended for blackmail, can be procured from or through any person; or

(f) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both:

Provided that for a second or any subsequent offence under this section, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than six months and not more than two years,

Explanation I.-- For the purposes of this section, the word scurrilous shall be deemed to include any matter which is likely to be injurious to morality or is calculated to injure any person;

Provided that it is not scurrilous to express in good faith anything whatever respecting the conduct of--

(i) a public servant in the discharge of his public functions or respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further; or

(ii) any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further,

Explanation. II-- In deciding whether any person has committed an offence under this section, the court shall have regard inter alia, to the following considerations--

(a) The general character of the person charged, and where relevant the nature of his business;

(b) the general character and dominant effect of the matter alleged to be grossly indecent or scurrilous or intended for blackmail;

(c) any evidence offered or called by or on behalf of the accused person as to his intention in committing any of the acts specified in this section

Since Nehru is dead and can't be blackmailed or be defamed or injured by any scurrilous imputation, and since, furthermore, the relevant remarks against him- whether or not labeling him a catamite, cunt, or cocksucking cunt of a catamite- arise only respecting his conduct as a politician or public servant in the discharge of his public functions; it follows that such remarks can't be prosecuted under the Statute unless there is some additional salacity over and above the use of vulgar terms of abuse which might have a tendency to deprave or erotically inflame ordinary people who are exposed to the relevant material. What could that additional source of salacity possibly be? The only feasible answer is it is the word 'Nehru'. I'd write more but I just jizzed my pants.