Opinion | Kunal’s Karma And Why Free Speech Absolutism Will Not Work For India
Words must be weighed by adults before being spoken. And once the arrow is released, its consequences must be weighed. The archer cannot simply walk away with a shrug, without taking accountability
Over the ever-widening river of discord between India’s Right and Left, a slender bridge of consensus appears sometimes, and then disappears. A few intellectually prominent voices from both sides propose that freedom of speech should be absolute and be applied universally.
“Nobody has the right to not be offended," Salman Rushdie, the master in the business of offending (intentionally or not), once famously said.
related stories
In the tide of petitions — filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ideologically wildly diverse personalities have found themselves stranded on the same side. Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi, and Arvind Kejriwal, politicians who have faced criminal defamation, have all contested the constitutionality of defamation. It inhibited their right to freedom of expression, they have argued.
But the laws stand. And perhaps for the best.
The recent episode involving standup comedian-cum-political activist Kunal Kamra presents an interesting case study. Kamra had mocked and celebrated when the previous Uddhav Sena-led administration in Maharashtra sent bulldozers to smash actor Kangana Ranaut’s Mumbai office after she was vocal against the Maha Vikas Aghadi government of Uddhav Thackeray’s party, Congress, and the NCP. He has regularly attacked Hindutva politics and Hinduness. He, however, did not speak a word against BJP’s Nupur Sharma being murderously hounded for a statement about Prophet Muhammad or the more-than-half-a-dozen people butchered for supporting Sharma. He physically heckled journalist Arnab Goswami on a plane.
But when a Shiv Sena mob vandalised the event venue after Kamra’s abusive remark on their boss, the debate over free speech ignited again.
Vandals and vigilantes have no place in a law-abiding society. But that does not bolster the case for absolute free speech.
The first amendment to the Indian Constitution under Article 19 was brought about by the first PM of Independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru. The amendment introduced “reasonable restrictions" to the freedom of speech and expression, including those related to public order, friendly relations with foreign states, sedition, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
Even then, the restrictions to free speech were opposed with much table-thumping and fist-waving by leaders from very diverse ideologies — Gandhians like Acharya Kriplani, socialists such as Jayprakash Narayan, and Right-wingers like Syama Prasad Mookerjee.
Every champion of free speech, when he or she does it without duplicity, is well-meaning. But there are three fundamental reasons why a civilisation-state like Bharat cannot have absolute freedom of expression.
First, simple concepts like race or language do not hold this nation together. The glue of this mind-boggling diversity of ethnicities and languages is a certain accommodative cultural and spiritual unity named Hinduness, whether one actively practises the faith or not.
This civilisation would not have survived for so many centuries if its diverse pieces clamoured to offend one another just to establish free speech. Accommodation and mutual respect have achieved the unity, durability, and resilience of the Indian civilisation.
Second, absolute free speech would end up disproportionately favouring vocally aggressive, politically dominant, and sometimes violently assertive communities. It could dangerously marginalise peace-loving ones.
One set of people would drive propaganda and intimidation in the name of religion or caste, leaving another set without even a legal recourse.
Third, India has too many external and internal enemies working towards its demographic takeover and balkanisation for it to leave a gaping legal loophole between speech and action. A boy-say-boy-do approach is not ideal but pragmatic, given our historical and geopolitical realities.
Bharat’s ancient texts repeatedly stress owning accountability for one’s speech. Kautilya’s Arthashastra (3.18) prescribes fines for mithyarop (false accusations) and vakparushya (abusive language).
Manusmriti (8.13) emphasises speaking up and speaking the truth in a court of law as one’s duty.
In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.1, Uddhalaka Aruni warns Yajnavalkya that his head would fall off if he did not know what he claimed to know. The powerful metaphor reminds us to be accountable for what we say.
Words must be weighed by adults before being spoken. And once the arrow is released, its consequences must be weighed. The archer cannot simply walk away with a shrug, without taking accountability.
Abhijit Majumder is a senior journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: