Though the Indian Constitution reflects the classical rationales of free speech, the state has time and again punished thought and suppressed ideas.
Plutarch's Life of Dion contains an interesting anecdote of Dionysius, an avowed and established tyrant, killing his captain, Marsyas. Marsyas had dreamt of cutting Dionysius's throat, and Dionysius killed Marsyas on account of his dream. He based his decision on the assumption that Marsyas would not have dreamt of such a thing by night if he had not thought of it by day.
In his seminal work The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu picks up this story to reason that Dionysius's was a most tyrannical action; for, though cutting Dionysius's throat had been the subject of Marsyas's thoughts, he had made no attempt towards it. “The laws do not take upon them to punish any other than overt acts. The thought must be joined with some sort of action”, concluded Montesquieu.
It can safely be said that Montesquieu's words are completely lost on the Indian state, and it has time and again assumed the character of a present-day Dionysius by punishing mere thoughts. The latest Dionysius is the Tamil Nadu State government, which has banned the screening of the movie Dam 999 in the State.
Dam 999 is apparently a love story set against the backdrop of the Mullaperiyar dam controversy. The Tamil Nadu government has banned the screening of the movie on the ground that it might lead to public order problems in the State. This amounts to suppression of ideas that supposedly pose a threat to public order.
It must be emphasised that there is a difference between goading people to resort to violence and expressing a view on the dam controversy. The former is an overt act the government can rightfully prohibit. The latter is the communication of an idea, which the government must not proscribe. The common view in India is that any communication having a tendency to lead to violence can be suppressed. This in turn enables the government to suppress any idea.
Indeed, the history of independent India is replete with examples of the government curbing free speech: We were the first country to ban Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses; Rohinton Mistry's Such A Long Journey was dropped by the Mumbai University from its syllabus; Delhi University did the same with A.K. Ramanujan's essay Three Hundred Ramayanas; makers of the movie Rockstar were forced to blur the Tibetan flag in the “Sadda Haq” song; and movies like Deshdrohi, Bandit Queen, Da Vinci Code, Fire and many others have been banned by State governments. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg, and there are numerous other instances where the government has chilled speech in the country.
Why is this so? One major reason is that governments act without an understanding of the underlying rationale of free speech. They act without knowing why a country like India needs to grant effective protection to freedom of speech.
Broadly speaking, there are three main rationales for protection of freedom of speech, which are also reflected in the vision with which our Constitution was drafted.
The first is the self government rationale, which provides that it is indispensable to protect free speech for a robust democratic process. Protection of free speech is essential for people to communicate on political matters, which in turn enables them to fully participate in democratic affairs. This rationale, though identified with the work of Alexander Meiklejohn, was first enunciated by Justice Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court in Whitney v. California.
The second rationale is fashioned on laissez faire in the economic realm and conceives that, in a marketplace of ideas, the better ideas eventually prevail through competition. Under this marketplace of ideas rationale, all kinds of speech are permitted on the understanding that ruinous speech will fail the market assessment test, and will eventually be discarded. This justification for free speech is that it is essential in a society's search for truth, which will ultimately emerge after a competition of all ideas in the marketplace. In the words of Justice Holmes of the U.S. Supreme Court, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market” (Abrams v. United States).
The last rationale treats freedom of speech as promotion of every individual's self-fulfillment and autonomy. This rationale posits that protection of free speech is essential for human identity. To be fully human, it is essential to protect thoughts.
Fascinatingly, the classical rationales for free speech are also reflected in the theoretical underpinnings of the Indian Constitution. Glanville Austin, in his exposition on the Indian Constitution (Working A Democratic Constitution, The Indian Experience), indicates that the core vision of the Indian Constitution can be summed up as having the following foundational strands: (i) protecting national unity and establishing the institutions and spirit of democracy; and (ii) fostering a social revolution to better the lot of Indians.
The spirit of democracy can be strengthened if citizens are able to fully participate in democratic affairs (self government rationale). Similarly, for fostering a social revolution and to improve the lot of Indians, it is necessary that the society engages itself in the pursuit of truth, and all citizens be given every opportunity to realise their potential (self-fulfillment and autonomy). These rationales for free speech thus represent an important resource in our constitutional tradition — a resource that the Indian state keeps ignoring at its own peril.
Thus, if India has to evolve, a better understanding of our constitutional traditions is a must. And if anti-speech acts persist, it reflects nothing but the Dionysius nature of the Indian state.
(Karan Singh Tyagi is an associate attorney with an international law firm in Paris and graduate of the LL.M. programme at Harvard Law School.)
Keywords: free speech, freedom of expression, Dam 999, Three Hundred Ramayanas
In this area I'm in support of the author as I see the same issues with the policies of our political class. The Indian public specially the one who have the access to resources like Internet and controversial books are intelligent enough to have their own opinion. The content cannot influence them if they are not at all accept that. I myself read content which is against my opinions. 'You cannot behave like a Ostrich to something you do not like'. You cannot close your eyes to evil. In short Sensor is not a accurate way to fight evil on internet, education is.
In my opinion while writing this article, the author was oblivious of ground realities prevailing in India. As we all know that in India people resort to violence on such kind of controversial and emotive issues. The state's actions are justified and commendable in curbing free speech which consists of inciting, mala-fide and felonious intentions. Free speech is essential for strengthening democracy but it should not be destructive in nature. I am also a votary of free speech but it should be for betterment of society.
Well, freedom of speech need not be so complicated. Tamil nadu is a classical case.
No journalist has ever asked the DMK cheif when millions of supporters and well qualified persons are in that party, why MP/Minister post are given to their own family members (not even other party leaders children)
The current govt for pure personal reasons has not taken not taken the new secretrait buildings, as if it was build by previous Chief minister's personal funds and we dont even question them.
Inheriting Ford/BMW and IPOD from west, i think we should be able to good political shows such as BBC Question time or Leaders debates before elections etc.
I dont know if The Hindu would put my comment or not... again freedom of Speech is questionable?????
The governments in India come up with grandiose schemes to curtail their unpopularity more than anything else, no matter who occupies the seats of power. For most part, the curbs are irrational, and do not show trust in the basic intelligence level of the Indian citizen. But the government is also grandly incompetent in curbing the spread of ideas. A movie that is banned automatically spawns a demand in the piracy market, and people who are curious will get to see it, at a fair cost to the producer and the government, thereby fostering a climate of shady operations and opacity. This further enhances the already abundant thought that we should necessarily hide some things from the government. Why trust it, when it doesn't trust us?
I find this article a bit ironical, and may be it reflects the current
mood of the people. For me, the primary duty (and may be the only
duty) of The Government is to police individuals' interaction with the
society. Speech being the most important aspect of this interaction,
should be controlled by the government. The individual circumstances
is debatable, as in this case. But, whether censorship itself is
constitutional is out of question.
What I found ironical in this discussion is that, when the government
(rarely and to a lesser extent if I might add) impedes on personal
rights (helmet laws, drug bans etc), there is not much dissent at all.
On the surface, it appears to be a well reasoned article, and indeed, for the most part, it is so. However, to argue that the 'Market Place of ideas' is always the final arbiter of ideas that bubble up to the top is a wrong notion. The market place itself tends to be controlled by various interests, and usually the ones with most money seem to dictate it the most. I live in the USA, and see around me everyday the accuracy of the above statement. Most scholars would agree that free speech is not an absolute right, as all other rights of a citizen. There are recognizable limits on each of these rights, as long as they are within reason. If, due to the screening of the movie, some preventable violence occurs and innocent bystanders get seriously affected, who will be blamed? And to what purpose? So there needs to be somebody who needs to anticipate such moves and give guidance on when to start screening such movies. I don't claim to have seen the movie; this is not a support for it.
The article does not clearly mention the condition imposed on freedom of expression in Article 19 of Indian Constitution which is: (2) 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. It has to be stressed that the constitution gives the Government rights to restrict free speech if it can lead to public disorder. If unrestricted free speech is to be allowed in India then what is the justification for not publishing Danish Cartoons too?
Firstly I would like to disagree with the author's endorsement of Montesquieu's view that "Thought must be joined with some sort of action." With due respect, I think such an approach to look at freedom of speech is narrow and misleading. The individual who makes a speech of writing might never be in action, but his speech might provoke his fellow individual or a group in a misleading way. Action can originate anywhere in the society and does not necessarily be with the speaker. Therefore, the logic that curtailment of freedom of speech has to be made only if action is associated with speech does not look into the multi dimensions of freedom. I do not have any disagreement with the article criticizing the govt on ban of DAM999, but the article based on this issue, tries to generalize and converge upon Montesquieu's thought which I do not agree with.
Freedom of speech is different from banning some rumour from spreading. Provocative movies could result in havoc in India. Still a growing nation, these type of back door funded usage of media for political gains should not be supported. Instead of this movie, kerala government could have funded the director to take a movie about national integrity, then no one would have stopped it. Why sympathise this, you are also paid ah? stop getting money and selling journalism. Media should support governance and not try to govern. Limits are required to maintain stability. The movie should have been banned and the director should have been booked for creating public panic. So many movies are banned for various reasons, why not ban this for a good cause. Today kerala Government officials only have spoken in court that the panic that dam will collapse any time is just rumour and it is not 'so serious as propagated by media'. do not break the nation for personal benefit.
I agree with author's concerns as they are my own. I don't remember a single instance where people have randomly resorted to violence as soon as they saw a movie or read a book. Most of these so called contraversial works of art are complicated and very difficult of understand. There are two major reasons violence does not occur: 1. Those who understand the opinion and views expressed in the film are rational, educated and open-minded. These people are the last to resort to violence. 2. The others who are uneducated thugs who will resort any provocation will never read a book or watch such movies (which are absolutely boring to them)
I have read highly provocative and demeaning articles about India by some Indian and foreign authors. Some of them outrightly disgusting like calling our country a collection of countries staying married because a divorce is unthinkable. These ideas and opinions and they do no harm until they do and so we must respect the rights of the person.
You seriously think India has reached the level where talk show hosts on public television (forget Cable) can refer to the way talk show hosts in the US or UK - or the most part of the Western world refer to politicians? No. Long, long way off.
Where to draw the line between goading violence and critical thinking? It is almost impossible to draw a line.
Its absurd to ban a movie on such flimsy excuses like release of the movie will lead to tensions between people of 2 states.People should behave responsibly and at the end of the day what are the law enforcement agencies for if not in such cases...Banning the movie is not just violating the freedom of expression but also creating unwanted hype of the issue to gain political mileage ......
Indeed some of the author's points are well made. However, one cannot compare the Indian state with its education-starved masses with the public in developed countries. It takes a liberal mind, free from prejudice, exposed to different thoughts, to deal with controversy in a mature fashion. In the Indian context of ancient superstitions and traditions, controversial subjects must be exposed and discussed in small doses to avoid a potential conflagration. The theoretical merits of the freedom of speech argument do not necessarily justify the exposure of thoughts and ideas which are likely to cause deep offense to millions.
Yes definitely freedom of speech & opinion has been curbed in India time & again. Banning Ramanujan's 'Three Hundred Ramayans' is the limit. Are we moving towards a fundamentalist State?
Another reason for suppression of free speech is fear. Today in India,
where politicians go to any extent to prevent anyone or anything from
maligning their name, the common man often refrains from expressing
his/her views in the fear that he/she might be hunted down by the
politicians' henchmen. Take for example the fate of many RTI activists
or even members of the press who have been abused by politicians for
exposing the truth or even writing about them. Of course there are
many who are daring enough to go beyond threats and abuse, but in a
country of 1.2 billion, that's just a handful. At this rate, one would
really wonder if India is truly a democracy.
An article which makes every Indian think on the curtailment of freedom of speech and its repercussions in India. The writer has very well focused and visioned the direction in which free speech in India is heading. Every Indian needs to understand the importance of freedom of speech in order to enable India to evolve as a truly and completely independent Nation.
Free speech is the basic right of any citizen. However, this basic right has its own limitations. If everyone starts to speak whatever he or she want to tell it will lead to chaotic situations.
May be the author can look a little more elaborately the negative side of free speech at various circumstances.
As such, the article seems one-sided, written in favour of some vested interests.
How can anyone ban an idea? The whole human history is about the constant change. The socity has evolved from these constant changes. And these changes is nothing but change in Ideas/Views.
These type of acts remind the medival era when the church tried to buried the scintific views.
Right to freedom of speech means right to express different opinions with being silenced in advance or after the action.In India, new ideas or reformist ideas or works are considered a threat to harmony and hence the ban. This is no way for advancement and speech must be answered by speech but not by prohibition by law.Otherwise, the conservative forces will always rule over the minds of people.
What is utopia? It is a never ending pursuit of a goal. This is what we should strive to achieve. Having said this, the article wonderfully shows us what our constitution framers desired. Some commenters don't like that Glanville Austin is referred. His book is an outstanding contribution to our constitutional jurisprudence.
It seems we need to have a clear picture of the reality on the ground.
Its only freed of speech which is deteriorating the Indian
Constitution, Culture and belief on the government. Our society is
corrupt with so many infectious thoughts and ideas with lack of consciousness. Think about the ill act, trade, business in our
society, are they still freedom of speech.. idea..?. nevertheless we
accept our own mistakes, we will never get rid of our illusion,
Democracy. Just saying something as freedom of speech wont really
imply freedom of speech. It need to be constructive than destructive.
Media is not all about freedom of speech, its about consciousness and truthfulness, nowadays it just a business.
If the author is for freedom of expression, he should write against
the censorship regime of Cinema in India which bans and cuts out
dialogues and scenes that are openly critical of social realities such
as the bigotry of the caste system and Brahmanism, while also
censoring even humour. The censor board is socially irresponsible and
unreasonably morally policing to the extent of even censoring
subliminal preventive health messages in movies. In the Tamil film
"Bana Kathadi", pronunciation of the word "condom" has been censored
and muted in dialogues unnecessarily thereby banning the message that
use of condoms is necessary for safe sexual activity. Freedom of
expression in film does not exist in India which is why we don't make
socially relevant films that depicts the socio-political realities of
India.
Free speech is used to advance interests. What else would it be for? If you don't like this effect of free speech, you don't like free speech. You are free to say so.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Those who get offended by any kind of freedom of opinion or speech should be invited to actively debate it in public instead of resorting to violence and protests for banning. Sounds like a perfect Utopian world!
I agree with author on all other parts except that the film is based on Mullaperiyar. Its true that the same issue inspired him to make a film on this issue. But the film is based on a true incident happened in China. Various Govt are banning the film without even seeing this. This must not be encouraged. Even media is doing the same. I recall when one criminal from TN was sentenced for death for alleged murder and rape in Kerala, a Tamil news paper has shown it as a vengeance of Kerala in the dam issue. And there are always a bunch of senseless people to believe these things. All the sections of society are doing their own part to destabilize the unity among the people. The Tamil politicians are always using small matters to emotionally excite the people
Very well written article..Only a visionary leader like The Hindu can do it...Grt!!
Very well written article. Not only that India has notional rights on free speech, the state allows different rights to those who are politically powerful compared to the ordinary citizens. Whereas a politician can get away with almost hate speech, artists and academicians are suppressed from expressing their thoughts. Another disturbing tendency is mob rule, whereby any idea can be suppressed by a violent, uninformed mob. In the end, it's not only about right to free speech, but also but rule of law. Neither seems to exist in India.
The way the writer has tried to impinged his thoughts is an excellent attempt, but as per the structure of Indian democracy is concerned, it will not be fully applicable here to allow every free speech & expression. As in India, in the name of right to free expression peoples indulge in violence & disrupt the life of normal citizens of my country. So there is also a need to be responsible with enjoying the rights as well.
The banning of the film is due to the undue use of the film as propaganda material by the Kerala Government,and the timing of its release when tempers are boiling in both the states. Nobody has the right to jeopardise the atmosphere in this part of the country in the name of the so called freedom of speech, always used for promoting vested interests. The kerala Government has itself to be blamed.
I agree with the author's position, but it would have been better if this article used some examples from Indian jurisprudence and history. Even while commenting on the Indian constitution, the author finds someone called "Glanville Austin." Could the author find no views from India? As I said, while I agree with the author's position and in almost absolute free speech, arguments of this sort only weaken the case.
It heartens me to read 'The Hindu'. The articles ring true in their journalistic spirit and the op ed pieces are almost 10 - 15 years ahead of present day India. Kudos! Keep up the good work.
The article is well articulated in a way that it deals with the reasoning behind the need for individual freedom of speech.Violating the fundamental rights of a citizen shakes the basement of Indian constitution.Recent incidents clearly expose the bow and scrape of Indian state to wanton zealots under pressure.Giving short shrift to these serious matters will take us to an undemocratic society.
Please Email the Editor