<p>We live in a linguistically and semantically challenged world where words mean exactly the opposite, mean different things to different people, or are empty sounds with no meaning. It is a matter of debate whether the politicisation of languages has created entire new languages of falsehood and misrepresentation, but there is no doubt that the new lexicon is used to misrepresent some of the great ideas of humankind which have evolved through history and civilisation. So, freedom sometimes means unfreedom, democracy means dictatorship, and any year becomes 1984. That is why Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s words at the G-7 summit sound as strange as a different language from a different country, spoken by a strange leader. Modi told the leaders of the world’s major democracies that India is a natural ally in defending the shared values from a host of threats stemming from “authoritarianism, terrorism and violent extremism, disinformation and economic coercion”. He highlighted India’s civilisational commitment to democracy, freedom of thought and liberty.</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/india-signs-joint-statement-for-freedom-of-expression-at-g7-summit-997618.html" target="_blank">India signs joint statement for freedom of expression at G7 summit</a></strong></p>.<p>The Prime Minister also endorsed an ‘Open Societies’ declaration which states that “We are at a critical juncture, facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference...manipulation of information, including disinformation, online harms and politically motivated Internet shutdowns, human rights violations and abuses,” and commits the signatories to “freedom of expression, both online and offline”. The Prime Minister may have sought to deceive himself or to deceive others when he signed the pledge because most of the threats to free society listed in the declaration are real in India, with support and endorsement from the State, members of the government and leaders of the ruling party. Criticism is spelt as sedition, citizens are sent to jail for speaking against the government, opposition leaders are raided because they are in the opposition, popular mandates are upturned and institutions that underpin democracy are weakened. Last year, India had the most internet shutdowns in the world. All freedoms have declined. Disinformation is used to drown facts and disguise truth.</p>.<p>The Prime Minister would agree that all this does not go well with the letter and spirit of the pledge he signed, without violence to the meaning of the words. If he means to honour the pledge he made at the high table, he should live down much of the last seven years of his governance. He should go back to a book the people of this country gave unto themselves many years ago, which is a much better guide to open society than the G-7 document, and honour the pledges made therein. If he does so, he can save the commitment he has twice made to protect, preserve and defend that book and his signature on the G-7 paper from the ironies and contradictions they are caught in now.</p>
<p>We live in a linguistically and semantically challenged world where words mean exactly the opposite, mean different things to different people, or are empty sounds with no meaning. It is a matter of debate whether the politicisation of languages has created entire new languages of falsehood and misrepresentation, but there is no doubt that the new lexicon is used to misrepresent some of the great ideas of humankind which have evolved through history and civilisation. So, freedom sometimes means unfreedom, democracy means dictatorship, and any year becomes 1984. That is why Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s words at the G-7 summit sound as strange as a different language from a different country, spoken by a strange leader. Modi told the leaders of the world’s major democracies that India is a natural ally in defending the shared values from a host of threats stemming from “authoritarianism, terrorism and violent extremism, disinformation and economic coercion”. He highlighted India’s civilisational commitment to democracy, freedom of thought and liberty.</p>.<p><strong>Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/india-signs-joint-statement-for-freedom-of-expression-at-g7-summit-997618.html" target="_blank">India signs joint statement for freedom of expression at G7 summit</a></strong></p>.<p>The Prime Minister also endorsed an ‘Open Societies’ declaration which states that “We are at a critical juncture, facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference...manipulation of information, including disinformation, online harms and politically motivated Internet shutdowns, human rights violations and abuses,” and commits the signatories to “freedom of expression, both online and offline”. The Prime Minister may have sought to deceive himself or to deceive others when he signed the pledge because most of the threats to free society listed in the declaration are real in India, with support and endorsement from the State, members of the government and leaders of the ruling party. Criticism is spelt as sedition, citizens are sent to jail for speaking against the government, opposition leaders are raided because they are in the opposition, popular mandates are upturned and institutions that underpin democracy are weakened. Last year, India had the most internet shutdowns in the world. All freedoms have declined. Disinformation is used to drown facts and disguise truth.</p>.<p>The Prime Minister would agree that all this does not go well with the letter and spirit of the pledge he signed, without violence to the meaning of the words. If he means to honour the pledge he made at the high table, he should live down much of the last seven years of his governance. He should go back to a book the people of this country gave unto themselves many years ago, which is a much better guide to open society than the G-7 document, and honour the pledges made therein. If he does so, he can save the commitment he has twice made to protect, preserve and defend that book and his signature on the G-7 paper from the ironies and contradictions they are caught in now.</p>
