As a child, most of us are taught not to be opinionated as it would ‘hurt’ the sentiments of our dear ones. We have always been asked to suppress our point of view if it’s a little offbeat. Is this conditioning right? The ‘right’ would agree. From childhood till now, from a single household to the entire democratic nation; this conditioning seems to be the biggest threat.
Our being a democratic setup assures us a number of fundamental rights. The most essential right is the right to freedom of speech and expression; Article 19 (1) (a). This article of the constitution provides freedom of speech which is the right to express one’s opinion freely without any fear through oral/ written/ electronic/ broadcasting or press. Freedom of expression includes freedom of peace.
Keep aside the political spectrum and ideologies for a while and think if protesting for saving ownership over your land is wrong, raising a voice against discrimination for one’s caste is unconstitutional, or demanding something rational for the benefit of a larger group of people is unlawful, or showing facts through a piece of art is wrongful and the list continues. Imagine where the utterance of one word becomes punishment for life.
Enough pointed out what has already ‘happened’, ‘happens’, or ‘will happen’ in the nation. The point is to discuss how freedom of speech can be improved in India. There are two ways through which things may get better. The first one is public outrage. Even if India has laws that might hinder free speech, everyone must speak up and establish social norms in favor of free speech, where the use of existing laws that support attacks on freedom of speech is just not done. We have done that in past; think about the amendments made in the Indian Rape Law post the public outrage on ‘The Mathura Rape Case’ of 1972, ‘The Nirbhaya Case’ of 2012, and ‘The Mahmood Farooqui Rape Case’ of 2016. Outrage matters no matter what! One must name and shame the offenders and maintain a hall of shame.
The next way is to modify laws at a basic level, not at the constitutional level. We must shift right away from proscribing defamation, obscenity, or blasphemy to a stance of supporting freedom of expression. The best example is that of banning a ‘selected few’ social media accounts which promotes restrictions on freedom implemented through the government control of the internet. Small modifications of the laws will constitute elements such as: shifting defamation from criminal to civil liability or having a provision where costs are always paid to the defendant if the accusation does not hold.
Freedom requires the ability to think and ability to act. Establishing an open and vibrant marketplace for ideas will lead to a rational and progressive society. Think about this, if we are to make progress on dealing with the problems of corruption and authoritarian governments, the most important channel is high-quality and pointed criticism. The present laws are out of touch with the principle of freedom of speech. We need to go fix that; first as a matter of social custom, and then as a matter of law. Fortunately, we feel movement on both fronts.
