Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought…blah,
blah and fu**in blah!
Brilliant idea, brilliant thought,
Does it exist?
Alas! Not.
So much has been said about the above concepts that it is
difficult to say more and yet it always seems that more needs to said. What
does the constitution say? What does the UN charter say? What does common sense
say? Everyone knows that. The idea has been thrown around so much that each of
us take it for granted as understood. I would however, not delve into what
freedom of speech and expression means but would like to speak about the ways
in which it is curtailed in broader terms.
State chooses to ‘act’: When we talk about curtailment
of suck kind of freedom, examples of authoritarian regimes come to mind. Some middle-eastern
countries, China, North Korea etc. to some extent ‘actively’ curtail free
speech for various purposes. There lacks a constitutional guarantee to oppose
such curbing measures and therefore the freedom is suppressed ‘overtly’, and
deviation is punished punitively. There is little one can do about it and it
takes immense courage and spirit of sacrifice to defy the state machinery.
State chooses ‘not to act’: This occurs in states
which guarantee freedom but their actions are more in terms of ‘omissions’. They
stand by as people attack each other, biding time, waiting to see which side
wins and then side with them. This is a spineless procedure and more states are
guilty of this practice than one could possibly imagine. Think for a while and
numerous examples would emerge. They hide behind ideas like public order and morality while let go of true ideals. The danger is that anyone who
opposes becomes vulnerable to attacks from directions unknown, unlike the
previous case where one can (at least) be sure of where the punch might come
from. The state can at times ‘covertly’ act against the opposition or sit back
while someone else ensures that your freedom of speech is curbed.
Self-imposed: This is a phenomenon observed
widely among intellectuals, artists, film-makers etc. i.e. the divergent lot.
The ones who do not wish to conform and want to express themselves with
complete freedom weigh the pros and cons of doing so. More often than not, the
consequences of expressing outweigh the benefits and they choose to dumb down
their thoughts. They start towards conformity. The point is that they do it to
themselves as they are sure (and quite correctly) that being different and
speaking freely would just not be worth it. How does this fear emerge? It is
generally learnt through socialisation. The fear of being harassed is
internalised through the apathy observed in the society and in governmental machinery.
The point I’m trying to make is
that through one way or the other, the above three dimensions are generally
less spoken about. There are other ways too but the above three mix in various
proportions to deny us the ultimate freedom.
The fact is that in 10 years no
one would remember which particular group opposed Taslima Nashreen, M.F.
Hussain, Deepa Mehta, Wendy Doniger, Salman Rushdie, Rohintan Mistry etc. No
one would remember if it was a Hindu or a Muslim or a group from any other
religion which opposed them. No one would remember WHY? And for WHAT? they were
opposed. But what everyone would remember is that ‘India as a nation’ was not
able to facilitate their freedom to express themselves. The image of a country,
as N. Korea can be cited, would become one of intolerant.
So the thing is: Complete freedom
of expression does not exist. Sartre couldn’t establish the line between
individual liberty and group liberty then who am I to speak?
Why all this sham then? Why even pretend?
What ‘the guarantee of freedom of
speech, thought, conscience, etc. means is that you are free to speak as long
as you say the “acceptable” thing.’
Voltaire said: “It is dangerous
to be right in matters where established authorities are wrong”.
And that my friends is that.
No comments:
Post a Comment