Upholding Free Speech | The need to speak up

Democratic values such as freedom of speech, the institutional integrity of our hallowed institutions such as our Parliament and SC must be fought for by each generation

By seeking to make an example of Disha Ravi over the toolkit issue, Delhi Police made an overkill. But it all began with the knee-jerk reaction of the Ministry of External Affairs to the tweets of Rihanna and Greta Thunberg and then the rallying of Indian celebrities in support of the actions of the government in clamping down on the farmers’ movement. By making use of force, and excessive and disproportionate force at that, against anyone daring to raise a voice against its high-handedness, the government, driven by a desire to strike fear among its critics, has only amplified its own insecurities. Therefore, any narrative that runs counter to the ones provided by the government, and which has a wide following, is sure to fall foul of the government’s preferences and decrees.

Considering that the sedition law, enacted in 1860 by the British Raj for "offences against the State" and originally brought in to curtail the Wahhabi Movement that threatened British rule in the subcontinent, is still being exploited to curb protests against the government, it should cause shame to our lawmakers and to those who are still invoking it at the slightest provocation. The government’s shrill cry of ‘foreign conspiracy’ to malign India’s name (or its whingeing about outsiders poking their noses in India’s internal matters) – invoked far too frequently lately – failed to put a gloss on the perception war that the present dispensation was hoping to win.

The idea that India is faltering on its democratic credentials and making a serious dent in the right to free speech on one pretext or the other is doing the rounds in international fora over which our government has little control. The exasperation might already be evident about how the government seeks to control social media platforms which, warts and all, have been the most potent vehicle for the right to free speech if we keep in mind that it is through these platforms that one can register a protest, report a crime, document an injustice, mobilise an opinion and post unsavoury truths that the mainstream media chooses to turn a blind eye to. It is ironic that democratic India leads the world in internet shutdowns, followed by autocratic Myanmar.

Perhaps our government, wary of criticism, and our apex court, wary of contempt, should reflect why the perception has turned bad and what course corrections should be made, in a spirit of soul-searching. By choosing to decide which news items we should and should not read, which channels we should watch, what narrative we should subscribe to, what we should and should not post on social media, and by trying to keep a hawk’s eye on the activities of citizens, it cannot curb disaffection. That our government is increasingly becoming paternalistic in trying to set our moral priorities ‘right’, to tell us what constitutes ‘anti-national’ behaviour, which causes we should align ourselves with and from which we should desist, is clear. But in trying to stifle recalcitrant voices by unleashing its agencies and its laws on them, that it is trying to put serious curbs on the right to free speech is also manifest, to people both at home and abroad.

Union Minister for Information Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad recently said in the Rajya Sabha that social media platforms must follow the law of the land and assured the House that the government is opposed to fake news and spreading of hate through them, which is as it should be. But the argument for free speech gets fraught here. Since all governments thrive on numbers, they set great store by them. That could partly be a reason why our MEA took so much umbrage at the tweets of Greta and Rihanna, because if the office of the Prime Minister (PMO India) has 40.8 million followers and our Prime Minister has 65.8 million followers on Twitter, pop star Rihanna has 101.9 million followers and climate activist Greta Thunberg has 4.9 million followers, that too with an international following that is able to amplify their opinion against our government’s stand against Indian farmers.

All the governments of the world – authoritarian, quasi-authoritarian, democratic or quasi-democratic – are aware of the raw power of social media platforms to speak truth to power. While the unfettered sway of social media might also be a vehicle for religious and communal hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, or extreme forms of hate speech, the larger question is, who will rein in a social media platform when the role of the government is not neutral in choosing what constitutes hate speech, what is anti-national behaviour, what constitutes sedition, and what is righteous protest?

In the event States fail to redress instances of advocacy of many forms of hatred, people must have access to justice, given that our courts act impartially. What if social media is used to propagate social dogmas by the government? Asked about journalists and activists being booked in sedition cases, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, now a Rajya Sabha MP (nominated), said at a conclave recently that the country is facing threats from everywhere. Mostly ominously, he said that the "efficacy" of the judicial system needs "serious reconsideration". A ‘Surveillance State’ is, by definition, wary of free speech. It promotes self-censorship, betrays distrust of institutions and compromises them, and remains cynical about the free exchange of ideas.

So, what is at stake? Democratic values such as freedom of speech, the institutional integrity of our hallowed institutions such as our Parliament and the apex court, might well fritter away if their members in each era did not work hard to protect them, assuming instead that victories once earned in an earlier age will always remain with them. Those victories are not permanent, the institutions, their ideals and integrity must be fought for by each generation.