The concept of free speech cannot, in my opinion, be confined simply to the idea of saying anything one feels. It may seem that the joining of all kinds of forces in a much publicised march through the streets of Paris after the murders of Charlie Hebdo artists in France last month would strengthen the freedom of speech agenda. But is it really so? What about the deeper denials of freedom of speech that such marches and dominant expressions hide? What about the selective assertions of freedom of speech aimed not at asserting free speech but at demonising certain communities?
On the other hand, what happens when there isn’t even the space to articulate? What are the consequences for those who speak truth to power? What happens to freedom of speech when the state clamps down on any expressions of people or any political dissidence? Or simply dismisses them as anti-national? What about the architecture of the concept of freedom of speech and expression? Can it be built without the pillars of justice and without an enabling social, economic, cultural and political foundation? In other words, what does freedom of speech and expression ultimately entail?
In the face of these tugging questions, to my mind, there is a need to affirm the vision in the Constitution of India as the republic has entered its 66th year, that free speech is very much about speaking truth to power in various forms, It entails lifting the proverbial veil, calling the spade a spade . It is about the right to be silent and the right to be forgotten, about the right to beat a different drum, about the right to be a political dissident. It is about having the enabling factors to speak or express.
In speaking truth to power, there should be the freedom, for instance, to talk without fear or favour about the empty fashion statements of ‘Make in India’, ‘Swachch Bharat’, “skill development” when the actual provocation is a perspective that prioritizes profit-oriented big corporates as against people-oriented employment.
Free speech is also about being able to express one’s views or make statements of fact at a village gram sabha without the fear of losing one’s full citizenship of the village (not being given construction licences that one should lawfully get, for instance) or one’s job or position or future opportunities. It is about being able to articulate one’s view-point without being shouted down, by either the sarpanch and the panchas or his coterie or a gang of lumpens hovering there; and to have the benefit of an enabling environment that can make expression and inclusion of all peoples at the gram sabha possible.
Free speech should mean that a Priya Pillai cannot be obstructed from going abroad because of her political stands. From quashing the denial of movement of Maneka Gandhi, a dissident bahu to go abroad in the 70’s to last month’s Delhi High Court judgement directing the concerned authorities to process the applications filed by the aggrieved persons for issuance of passports, the courts have blazed a trail on quashing the denial of freedom of speech and expression implicit in certain denials to go abroad and yet, this violation continues.
There should also be the freedom to make forecasts about political holocausts on Facebook or any social media without having to loom under the Damocles sword of arrest. A Tousif de Navelim or any tiatrist should not have to be anxious about staging a tiatr airing his views supposedly on Muthalik and the Sri Ram Sene. When Muthalik spouts his venom, there should be a level-playing field in replying to that venom, not intimidation.
The level-playing field must also manifest in one being able to express one’s thoughts and views when speech-challenged. It has also to be available to a scientist in being enabled to announce an invention or discovery even if it poses a threat to the dominant international economy. For that matter, India must stand up to patent laws without pressures from America that would affect our and the world’s peoples’ access to medicines and thus be a developing country leader in creating that level-playing field.
Free speech is also about the right to be silent, and not sing, for instance, when the national anthem is being sung at the school assembly; and also the right to be able to celebrate federalism .
Needless to say, there has to be an enabling space to formulate and articulate a new thought without being booed out even before one has begun, being able to talk about history in a way that allows one to recognize the inhumanity of Portuguese colonialism but also the inhumanity of the pre-colonial past.
Free speech is about being able to assert one’s sense of identity, which means being able to say one is gay or lesbian without facing a derogatory gaze; to declare one is transgender, and not be boxed into ‘male’ or ‘female’; to proudly say “I am Muslim” without risking a charge of terrorism or to highlight the state’s provocation to terrorism without facing such a charge, to be a whistleblower or seek information without the risk of violation of one’s right to life and livelihood, the space to express oneself in English without being condemned, being able to express oneself in one’s own language and dialect without being ridiculed or marked or pigeon-holed as belonging to a lesser God . .
The right to know is a key element of right to free speech because it is an enabler in making informed opinions. Hence, it is necessary to have decent education. It is necessary to have a press reporting things irrespective of whether they shake the establishment or not, so long as they serve to uphold people’s rights, including the rights of the marginalized, such as the suppressed castes. The space to give a reply to any criticism levelled in the media, so that trials by media and the regular courts are the checks and balances of each other, is but a corollary to this right.
(Albertina Almeida is a lawyer and human rights activist)
