constitutions of democratic societies, each of them have also recognised the danger of abuse of free speech and have provided for certain restrictions in the larger interest of national sovereignty, social harmony and public order. These restrictions have varied from country to country depending on their perception of these threats. The Indian Constitution too stipulates such restrictions on freedom of expression. And no one has any serious issue with such restrictions, as the national and societal interests are higher than those of an individual. Only those working against national unity and integrity oppose these ideals and are branded traitors and anti-nationals. Thus, freedom of expression is not an absolutely right anywhere in the world. And none challenges this viewpoint.
The government of the land has the responsibility to ensure territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a country. It mustcheck internal subversions and maintain social harmony at all cost. It is only when these are ensured that citizens can breathe, work and express freely, and live in an atmosphere of peace and harmony. Without these, there is no meaning in freedom of speech. Thus, though freedom of thought and expression are great ideals to work for, they become subservient to still larger goals of national unity. Thus, any discussion on freedom of speech needs to accept this paramount national good. Most of the recent debates on intolerance or threat to freedom of expression in the country, particularly in university campuses, have been controversial, as issues concerning anti-nationalism and social discord have been raised.
Freedom of expression is an ideal to strive for. There are several humanitarian concerns that can come in its way. One can argue that the right to preserve our life and the right to have sex or procreate are our natural birth rights. However, human societies impose restrictions on these. For instance, a starving man cannot exercise his right to live and steal food belonging to someone else. Adulterous relations and procreation outside of marriageare restricted by several societies and customs. Societies have evolved laws and customs to regulate human conduct and preserve social harmony.
These are specific to a region and circumstances there. These regulations do change from time to time to meet emerging situations. The story of civilization has been the story of curbing personal freedoms and enforcing discipline in the larger interest of the group. Thus, freedom and discipline are essentially contradictory forces. In the same vein, absolute freedom of expression runs counter to the discipline required to maintain social harmony, where one needs to respect the sensitivities of others and curtail his / her speech and actions.
Right of speech means all those holding differing views have equal right to free expression. People have a right to their beliefs and faiths, to their religious and social customs, to preach their opinion and views. Opinion of one could run counter to, or encroach upon, the opinion of another. This should be accepted in a healthy spirit of democratic living, and not lead to fisticuffs, and still less, murders. Absence of such a spiritwould only result in conflicts and social rancour. This can be managed only through regulating the freedoms to some extent. Thus, the need to conform to an enforced discipline would run counter to our personal freedoms. Therein lies the problem. As Mr S Y Qureshi, former CEC commented at Hyderabad Literary Festival 2015, during a discussion on freedom of speech,‘ Expression is not restricted to speech. It can be in the form of writing or painting or singing. Slapping someone else too can be a form of expression, of inner emotions.’ If everyone claims a right to do so, where does the society end?
India is a country steeply entrenched in disparities, illiteracy and religious dogma. Here the emotions run deep, social schisms are stark. It is a vast country of thousand creeds. Achieving social harmony among such disparate groups has been a challenge historically. Differences in perceptions on almost every social issue are very high. So, in one’ s utterances one needs to be respectful to the opinion of others, and not hurt them. You cannot provoke someone with a different outlook, to a point of violence and claim your right to free expression. This can only lead to disastrous consequences.
70