Sunday, November 19, 2017
  Search 
Home
Opportunities
Partners
Publications
About Us
 
 
Please enter your email here, we would like to keep you informed.
 
 
Connect With Us - Facebook RSS
<November 2017>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930
Sections
Liberty In The News
Liberty Events
Conference Proceedings
Culture
Agriculture
Democracy
Development is the Key
Economic Freedom
Education for Life
Enterpreneurship
Environment
Freedom of Expression
Freedom to Trade
Globalization for the Good
Health is Wealth
Intellectual Property Rights
International Relations
Liberty is Security
Limited Government
Principles of Politics
Privatisation
Population - the ultimate resource
Property Rights
Regulatory Affairs
Rule of Law
Tax Freedom
Facts & Figures
Opportunities
Competitions
 Rule of Law
 
Free speech and Indian Dionysius'
The Hindu, India Friday, December 02, 2011


The history of independent India is replete with examples of the government curbing free speech as the government acts without an understanding of the three basic rationales of free speech: Self-government, pursuit of truth, and self-fulfillment and autonomy, states Karan Singh Tyagi in ‘The Hindu’.

Though the Indian Constitution reflects the classical rationale 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 states, “The laws do not take upon them to punish any other than overt acts. The thought must be joined with some sort of action”.

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.

Indeed, the history of independent India is replete with examples of the government curbing free speech.

One major reason for this is that governments act without an understanding of the underlying rationale of free speech.

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.

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. 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.

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
(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 realize their potential (self-fulfillment and autonomy). These rationales for free speech thus represent an important resource in our constitutional tradition 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.

This article was published in the The Hindu on Friday, December 02, 2011. Please read the original article here.
Tags- Find more articles on - Indian Dionysius | Plutarch | pursuit of truth | rationale of free speech | self-fulfilment and autonomy | self-governance

Post your Comments on this Article

Name  
Email    
Comment  
Comments will be moderated

More Related Articles
Rule of Law
More Articles


 
An Initiative of
LIBERTY INSTITUTE, INDIA
All rights reserved.