Where the Mind Is Without Fear: Free Speech in India

POLITICS

Oct 15

In the age of political correctness, cancel culture, censorship, government crackdowns and hate speech, it is important now more than ever to revisit the importance of the freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society. For instance, what constitutes inflammatory or offensive speech? How do we police the parameters of free speech? And if some parameters are reinstated, does the freedom of expression even exist? How do we interpret the limitations of free speech from the constitution?

What is Free Speech and why is it important?

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.”
Timms, J., Why is free speech important?

According to human rights activist Peter Tatchell, “A free society depends on the free exchange of ideas. However, free speech does not mean giving bigots a free pass. It includes the right and moral imperative to challenge, oppose and protest bigoted views. Bad ideas are most effectively defeated by good ideas – backed up by ethics and reason – rather than by bans and censorship.” [1]

The state of Free Speech in India

“Throughout history, free speech has been threatened not only by state power but also by the mob which stifles dissent. But India has witnessed in recent years a new menace - the mob in partnership with the state. The courts have not always protected dissent when it battles against popular frenzy.”
Noorani, A. G., Menace to Free Speech (Frontline)

Image that reads: “Majoritarianism and authoritarianism are some of the biggest threats to free speech.” — Image that reads: “Majoritarianism and authoritarianism are some of the biggest threats to free speech.”

Last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government amended India's anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. The significant change was the amendment to Section 35 of the Act which empowered the government to notify an individual as a terrorist. Prior to this amendment, the government could only notify organizations as ‘terrorists’ and not individuals. Such an amendment seems to give the state unbridled power to attribute criminality to any individual, group or action without restraint. Anything the government determines to be an unlawful activity can be an act of terrorism. This amendment allows the government to designate any individual as a terrorist without a trial. [3] But surely there must exist a constitutional safeguard hindering the implementation of such a law?

The Indian constitution is the world’s largest and most extensively written legal document. And although Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution explicitly mentions how all citizens have freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) states that nothing shall prevent the state from making any law that imposes “reasonable restrictions” on that right. It lists the “the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence” as being grounds for this “reasonable restriction”. [3] However, the term “reasonable restriction” was left undefined by the constitution, giving arbitrary powers to the state."

Psychology of Intolerance

Besides an authoritarian government and policies like the UAPA, the rise of majoritarianism and intolerance is one of the greatest threats to the idea of free speech in India. A sense of racial or religious superiority has cultivated a lethal combination of biases among the masses that psychological research has shown to prevent opposing sides from embracing each others’ ideas and beliefs leading to intense communal disharmony. The clash of civilizations in Indian society can be explained best by researchers Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams from Cornell University who wrote how selective perception could make opponents on an issue literally see things differently.

Image that reads: “Selective Perception- In 1954, researchers showed a film of a 1951 football game – Princeton versus Dartmouth, well-known for its competitive, rough play – to two groups: one of Princeton fans and the other of Dartmouth boosters. … — Image that reads: “Selective Perception- In 1954, researchers showed a film of a 1951 football game – Princeton versus Dartmouth, well-known for its competitive, rough play – to two groups: one of Princeton fans and the other of Dartmouth boosters. Each team’s supporters saw the majority of flagrant violations as having been committed by opposing players.” Image Source: Kelly, S. (2018, May 2). *Psychologists: ‘There is no alternative to free speech.’* Cornell Chronicle.

Or how as a consequence of “myside” bias, people might look for evidence that supports their own opinions and ignore or downgrade evidence that contradicts them just like how naïve realism makes people feel their views are grounded in reality but their opponents’ are not. They mentioned blind-spot bias as something that stems from deep identification with a cause. “We believe we are especially enlightened, while our opponents’ affiliation with the opposite side leads them to be biased.” [4]

The Issue

This leads us to two major issues. A) The continuing double standard over the interpretation of what is offensive or dangerous- something that affords little clarity on the laws’ intended role by the framers of the constitution. B) The diverse and religiously devoted social fabric of India that has proven the fragility of the country’s religious sentiments, time and time again. So how do we navigate these obstructions?

It is clear that a line needs to be drawn in the sand.

There is a difference between dehumanizing speech and satire, between causing offence and targeting an already vulnerable and oppressed minority. The right to express or even criticize is not the right to insult or incite violence. Unfortunately, inconsistent and erroneous policing of these rights on part of the government furthers the ambiguity surrounding the principle of free speech- a principle that is so vital to the existence of any democracy.

“Almost every regulation of speech, no matter how well intentioned, augments the power of the state. But now, in the current context, where to all intents and purposes most independent institutions have crumbled, empowering the state is a frightening prospect as well.” [5] In the words of A.G.Noorani, “..in the 50’s, we arguably feared hate more than the state. But now, when we fear both hate and the state, to whom do we turn?”

The Solution

It is no doubt naïve to oversimplify such a complex issue, however it is important to point out some ways to move forward. Accountability and tolerance. Not enough can be said about either. Anytime a government encroaches upon the civil liberties of citizens, a healthy democracy does not turn away. We must question, converse and not fall prey to what is oftentimes an intimidation tactic to suppress criticism. Holding problematic leadership accountable should also warrant hearty support for victims of such leadership.

Image that reads: “Holding problematic leadership accountable and tolerance and communal harmony are key to protecting free speech.”

Advocating free speech means tolerance of all views. Even ones that might be unpalatable. In the words of former U.S. President Barack Obama:

Laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech.