On Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression has also gone into the list of words abused a lot as people use it in unrelated context and unsparingly. What constitutes Freedom of Expression (FoE)? The general understanding is that each individual has the freedom to express (display) his/her opinion without fear. Is FoE constrained or is the freedom unlimited. As an individual, you are free to do what you wish. No one can't curtail the choice you make but of course, you have to be ready to bear consequences. In the law of jungle, you may do chest-thumping or incite a predator but you should be ready to face consequences for your foolhardiness. 

We don't live in a jungle. We live in a society and the membership of an individual to the society is based on social contract. Put simply, individual puts curb on his/her freedom, rights and choices in return for law, order, and mutual benefit. In modern state like India, these rules of society are codified in form of constitution. Indian constitution has made FoE as a fundamental right defined mainly in Article 19 with certain restrictions listed in clause 2. I have quoted it for reference.

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression; 

... 

Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, 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 the restriction clarifies, FoE is limited by existing laws or creation of laws in interest of the nation. Now, let's think of the application of this right. Is communal speech inciting hatred fine? No, there are laws which make such activity culpable. Is criticism of government problematic? Largely no. There is of course the sedition law (Section 124-A of IPC). Quoting below for reference.

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards. 2[* * *] the Government established by law in 3[India], 4[* * *] shall be punished with 5[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. 

Explanation 1-The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. 

Explanation 2-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. 

Explanation 3-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Thus, only when your statement incites hatred and malevolent feelings towards state, you might be at risk of being convicted under the section. Now, let's think about what happened in JNU. The slogans raised called for 'भारत की बर्बादी' or 'Destruction of India'. Is this exciting hatred against the government. No, it largely questions the idea of India and seeks its disintegration. This is something far bigger as it goes beyond the elected government. Is there any law governing this? Not sure. But it would be good to look back at origins of FoE to understand the scenario. If someone in a society would have sought destruction of the society one lives in, what would have been the usual response? Well, a civilized society would have simply asked the person to leave if the person feels suffocated in the society (what you would call देशनिकाला). What would India do? Of course, we can politely ask the persons to leave if they don't like the idea of India. What if someone doesn't want to go or if no other nation wants to take the person. Well, the things get a little tricky here.

Some people say, what's the harm in voicing your opinion for disintegration or for freedom of any part of India (कश्मीर की आज़ादी). Well, people can voice their grievances and Indian constitution provides several mechanisms for the same. After all, it's not a democracy if you are against the very people you sought to represent. But are illegal means allowed (छीन के लेंगे आज़ादी, बन्दुक के दम पर आज़ादी)? Well, of course not. Should one encourage such secessionist tendencies? A part of media and intellectual elite may feel sympathetic for the plight of people and support these tendencies. Is it right? I would say no if you believe in the constitution of the country and the judicial process. After all, such wrongs (actual/perceived) need to be corrected for us to be a peaceful progressive society. But some people seem to have lost faith in the judicial process or the Indian constitution and thus support Naxalism, and other insurgency movements. Or, they are simply acting foolish. Or, playing to the interests of those who loath India.

One needs to think whether one wants absolute FoE with a jungle rule with everyone fending for oneself. Or, they want a restricted FoE that can thrive in a society like India. Remember, your FoE is much more restricted in absence of law & order. Would you be happy to be in Syria where the country is disintegrating? No, because you would want someone to protect your FoE. This protection vanishes when the state and society no longer exists. This is the harsh reality. You may wish for disintegration of India but be ready to face consequences. Even if you are ready to face consequences, should the rest of the society too face the consequences? Should you then cry hoarse when the society disapproves of your action?

If someone still believes India is not the place for him/her, feel free to leave. Should some so-called liberals sympathize with secessionist, they should not cry when the rest of the nation and by its extension of will, the state steps in to prevent harm to the nation. It sometimes amuses me that from a stage where on eve of Independence, our freedom fighters were working to unite the disparage states into one nation, we have come to a stage where some people want to reverse that process. India stands for unity in diversity. Without unity, the diversity can't exist. We have the experience of history, where external forces took advantage of our infighting and differences. The sane people would not want to be in that situation. The soldier at the border risks his/her life to ensure that the nation exists and we enjoy the FoE. Let's not disrespect them or people who try to bridge the differences in society. We have so many fault lines running through our country - caste, class, religion, language, ideology, etc. Let's work for the unity of this country.

Hope, the Indian media and intelligentsia realizes their role is to ensure the nation remains vibrant and united and they don't sow the seeds of distrust and disharmony by supporting or condoning anti-national tendencies.