Current Affairs: Freedom of Expression can kill Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression is such a coveted value in the Modern world. The left, the right, the secularists, the centrists, the multitude that arise out of combination of the ideologies - everybody swears by it. A few countries have unbridled freedom of expression. In India, our Constitution guarantees Freedom of Expression with reasonable restrictions. These restrictions were inserted in 1952 in order to ward-off perceived threats from communists and rightists. Shri. Nehru perceived expression threats from them big enough to cause deep damage to the state. The reasonable restrictions are explicitly listed though. It states that Freedom of Expression should not provably cause damage to

• security of the State,
• friendly relations with foreign States,
• public order,
• decency and morality,
• contempt of court,
• defamation,
• incitement to an offence, and
• sovereignty and integrity of India

Further, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted this to a fair detail enabling fair judicial pronouncements. 

There is obviously certain rationale behind enshrining this as a fundamental right. It is perceived as very essential to build a reflecting, self-correcting and continuously improving society. There is a recognition of human fallibility and the need for dialogue that facilitates correction. Beyond this, there is a modern ambition to be rational and be a society of ideas. Modernists and Traditionalists alike dream to build a future that stands on the foundation of a rock-solid bed of ideas where through dialogue the good and the bad are separated. The key difference is - the modernists place the  responsibility of the protection of Freedom of Expression upon the state. Our Constitution reflects this orientation. So far so good.

What the Constitution of India does not say clearly is - how a society develops a capacity to hold this value - its beyond the scope  of a Modern Constitution, I would like to call that a limitation. We need to reflect upon this - how India as a society stands with respect to FoE in history. For some reason, India in general and the traditional Hindu society in particular - in its vast history - has never persecuted people for saying anything about anybody. Until the 20th Century you cannot easily find evidence of persecution. Neither does any of our epics nor any kind of recorded history bears evidence to the contrary. We shall come to the 20th Century later. If anything, our epics bear a significant evidence where Freedom of Expression seems to be the natural. This great value was lived without it being explicitly enshrined in any Law book. For some reasons it was the natural thing, there was no threat to it and hence did not need any protection. The very fact that the modern constitutions felt the need to enshrine it explicitly is indicative of the sad reality that it was already under threat in the society. In this sense, it can be argued that the ancient societies were far more forward. How did ancient societies such as India grow this value without terming it one?

It is necessary to recognize that India was a society of communities. Every community was free to develop its own purpose of life, traditions, practices, rituals, rules/regulations in alignment with each other. Further, they evolved this over centuries. Communities naturally being small, mutually dependent had all the time and space to resolve conflicts through dialogue as the threat of anybody's power overawing the other was minimal - as communities always comprised of equi-powerful entities more or less. Thus a powerful businessman had very little power in traditional India over an artisan as the rules of the artisan community did not depend on the businessman however powerful he was (until the British overturned it - read Dharampal). This relative independence created the right space for the artisan to shape its community life. Within this space, it was fairly easy and necessary for the artisan community to uphold freedom of expression as the FoE added value to the overall social life. They survived as a community and perished as a community. Thus FoE within the community was a naturally necessary value playing a positive role. Outside of the community, Freedom of Expression was minimally required. Interaction with rest of the society was for survival and business with strict interfaces that did not call for an open element such as FoE. An artisan never needed an academic FoE over a businessman and vice-versa. Such a Freedom was required only by the King as well as communities that functioned to dispense justice for which they were strictly bounded by code of conduct and responsibility. Hence, greater the scope/terrain of Freedom of Expression, higher the associated code of conduct - which we could consider as the equivalent of reasonable restriction in the Modern Constitution of India. This was more or less the structure of Indian society. Absolute Freedom of Expression within the community and strict interfaces outside the society.

Enter 20th Century - lo and behold - we have suddenly transformed ourselves into a modern egalitarian amorphous society. The Constitution of India does not recognize and protect communities. It protects only the constitutional individual which is a Citizen. Its important to note that Constitutional Citizen is still under construction - it is work in progress which itself adds a layer of complexity. But there is a bigger crisis.

1. The Fabric that made it possible for the Freedom of Expression to grow is now weakened as the Constitution does not recognize communities and the world that we propose to build consists of an amorphous collection of Constitutional Citizen from whom certain behaviour is expected. Communities were the greatest concentrations of security in India. Within a community one felt secure and developed the capability to face the worst including one's own emotional foundations being questioned. A Community Citizen always knew how to operate within the Community. The average Indian is struggling with this dual transition of becoming less of a community citizen and more of a Constitutional citizen - he/she does not sufficiently appreciate the complexities of either. This has caused a terrible insecurity.

2. The scope of Freedom of Expression has now been further expanded to cover the entire society for any individual.

This is the double whammy that the Indian society has faced since a century but accentuated post 1947. If it were this much, society would have gradually adjusted. 

3. However, a third complexity is that Modernity and its crony Ideologists have taken it upon themselves to FIX the problems of Indian society and transform it to a version that is worthy of the value of Universal variety of the Freedom of Expression.

This third category has been relentless, bulldozing and insensitive since the last 60 decades. Its methodology is simple - occupy the high seats of the state, academia, media and intellectual positions, celebrate freedom of expression and indulge in unrelenting criticism of aspects of society that it considers antagonistic to itself. In its missionary zeal to transform Indian society to a 'desired' state, it has consistently struck at what the traditional society has considered as sacred, worthy of protection and source of civilizational energy with an absolute contempt towards the emotion of the average, thereby causing a deep dent in the ability of the society to demonstrate lofty values.

If this Modern Elite were sincere, probably the Indian society would have negotiated this too. However, it has made the singular mistake of not giving space to the traditional Indian society to negotiate and represent itself in the form of institutions, forums and avenues of expressions that were available to the Elite since many decades. It has frustrated the society by continuously denying opportunity, heaping abuse, insult and humiliation, and attempting to crush the spirit of the society and force it to adopt a version of the civilization that was acceptable to the Modern Elite. Such a zeal has only been demonstrated by the aggressive proselytizers of the past - in such a contradiction of the very purpose for which the original Freedom of Expression was supposedly designed. In the end, it did not manage to transform the society. It merely left it physically and emotional wounded, insulted, insecure but waiting to pay back in kind. The Modern Elite came across as insincere, manipulative and with completely wrong intentions.

Thereby this Modern Elite - consisting of intellectuals, secularists, academicians, artists who were secular educated - got blind sighted to a different emerging reality. They used their Freedom of Expression - granted to them by the Constitution to build a great society of the future - to diminish the containing the capacity of the Freedom of Expression in the Society - wittingly or unwittingly. It failed to recognize that Freedom of Expression is the result of individuals perceiving security and not a value that is held merely by rationality. The great structure of rationality has emotion as its foundation - this should never be forgotten.

But they did not expect that a great revolution that was to be - Social Media - is going to turn the situation upside down. All of a sudden the larger society almost has an equal space as that of the Modern Elite. All the frustration of the last few decades are up and out in the open. Intellectually oriented are responding to the Elite in their own language and the rest which is emotionally hurt is going all over the place - at times crossing the boundary of decency bordering on the criminal. Yes - this often results in Freedom of Expression not being respected by the latter for all the reasons described above. This is a temporary phase and it will settle down.

If the Modern Elite had respected the Freedom of Expression of all and created an equitable platform for all, or even be open to engaging with the like-minded on the other side, it would not have had to face the kind of intellectual and social defeat it is facing today. If it had shown sensitivity and responsibility in its criticism and demonstrated a good intent but mere difference of opinion, it would not have had to face it would not have had to face the kind of humiliation and shame it is facing today. Freedom of Expression kills Freedom Expression if the powerful behave irresponsibly and misuse it or use it unequitably.

Jaisi Karni Waisi Bharni!!!