because there are so many problems
A case was put against Osho, that he had hurt the religious feelings of the Hindus. In the court there were many problems. The first was that Osho was asked to take the oath in the name of God or in the name of the constitution of India, that he would speak only the truth. Osho said, "Before I take the oath I would like to ask you: What about freedom of speech? The oath goes against freedom of speech. You are binding me. You are telling me I can speak only the truth; then why in the constitution do you talk about freedom of speech? You should have said, `You are free to speak only the truth.' Freedom of speech has no boundaries to it. How can I go against the constitution? I can take the oath that I will follow the constitution, use freedom of speech, but I cannot say truth or untruth, because that divides freedom of speech in two parts." The magistrate said, "This is a little difficult. I have been a magistrate for twenty years, I have been studying the constitution in every possible way, all its aspects, but that this oath is against freedom of speech never occurred to me." Osho said, "You don't know what freedom of speech is. But," he said, "I don't want to change the subject, so just to continue I will take the oath. But remember, you can believe in my oath, but you cannot believe in my other statements. On what grounds do you make the distinction? If I am a person who lies, I can lie when I am taking the oath. Who prevents me? You know perfectly well that everybody takes the oath here and everybody is not speaking the truth. Both the parties fighting in a case take the oath; certainly both the parties are not speaking the truth. At least one party certainly is not speaking the truth; perhaps both are not speaking the truth. But both speaking the truth is not possible; otherwise how are you going to make the judgment? You accept my oath -- on what grounds? Do you know me, that I speak the truth? That I will take the oath and will follow it? What gives you that guarantee? I will remain the same person as I was afterwards, so it makes no difference to me. I can take the oath just so that we can proceed, because there are so many problems." The judge said, "Problems? For you or for me?" Osho said, "You have summoned me to the court" -- and there were thousands of people who had come; they were in the court and outside the court. And that man who had put the case against Osho -- a Hindu political leader, a Hindu chauvinist -- became afraid seeing so many people sympathetic towards Osho. Osho said to the judge, "Look: first, I was simply quoting a statement of Mahatma Gandhi, and an explanation of Vinoba Bhave. If anybody has hurt the feelings of Hindus, they should put cases against Mahatma Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave. I was just quoting them, without inverted commas. It was not my explanation. In fact I was offended by the explanation that Vinoba has given. Vinoba's explanation means that he thinks that Lakshmana has some sexual interest in Sita. That is purely his explanation. Said in plain words, he is afraid to look at Sita's face. Why? If he is not sexually interested he should not be afraid. Vinoba is trying to make an explanation which is insulting. I am saying that Sita was so beautiful -- anybody would have been interested. I would have been interested. You would have been interested. Beauty is not something that one should not be interested in. It is one of the gifts of nature; it has to be adored. And my feeling is he was touching her feet every day because Sita was so beautiful; he was adoring her. And you know the meaning of devar -- that he was the second husband. Now, if somebody is hurt, then he should put a case against the whole Hindu tradition, that this tradition is in a mess. On the one hand you say treat your brother's wife as your mother -- okay, treat her as your mother. But when the brother dies, then? -- treat your mother as your wife! And this man who has complained against me and forced me to come from Calcutta to here, unnecessarily wasting my time -- is he the only Hindu in Ahmedabad? These thousands of people are here -- these are all Hindus. You ask those whose feelings are hurt to raise their hands. And if you don't ask then I am going to ask." So the magistrate had to ask. Not a single hand was raised. Osho said, "Now you can see: nobody's feelings are hurt. This man is a Hindu chauvinist." At that time the man became afraid and he told the magistrate, "I want police protection, because after the court this crowd can kill me." Osho asked the magistrate, "Do you want any more argument that nobody's feelings are hurt? This man is afraid of Hindus, that they will kill him. They should kill me -- I should ask for the protection of the court because I have hurt the feelings of Hindus, he hasn't. Why should he be afraid? And why should I have been called to the court? Why is Vinoba Bhave not being called? Of course, Gandhi is dead -- you cannot summon him, but he is not needed anyway. Vinoba is alive -- why has he not been called to the court? Just because he belongs to the party who rules the country? Because he is a guru to all the politicians of the country, you didn't have the guts to summon him? He was needed to answer whether I am quoting right or wrong. If he says that I am quoting wrong, then certainly I have to be answerable for it. And my advocate had asked you to summon Vinoba because it is most important and essential, what he says. Still you did not summon Vinoba. And still you go on saying that the courts are impartial? Just look at the fact: I was simply quoting him. It was the court's duty to ask the man whether I am quoting him rightly or wrongly. You should have called him here; we could have argued in front of you and made it clear to Vinoba that he is sexually obsessed and he is projecting his sexual obsession on poor Lakshmana. I was protecting Lakshmana. Vinoba should put a case against me. And this man is simply an idiot: he does not understand even what I was saying. He does not know what it means. But Vinoba is not called. And," I said, "I will not appear again in the court unless Vinoba is called." The judge had no guts -- because the prime minister goes to Vinoba, the cabinet ministers go to Vinoba, the president goes to Vinoba. To call Vinoba to the court would incur anger from all sides. The judge dismissed the case. He could not do anything else -- he simply dismissed the case.