The new constitution commits to protecting the “freedom of expression and opinion”. But in the next breath, it talks about “reasonable restrictions” that may be placed on free speech and dissenting opinion if such acts are deemed to impinge on some national interest. Is such qualification of free speech warranted in a democratic society? As sovereign citizens, shouldn’t we be able to say and write anything, with no restrictions at all?
“Principally, free speech should not be restricted under any condition,” says Bipin Adhikari, an expert on constitutional law. “But it is much easier to advocate for absolute freedom of speech in developed countries. Perhaps it is unrealistic to apply the same standards to developing countries where freedom of expression is but one of the many citizen rights that need state protection.”
Others are not convinced. In the view of writer CK Lal, the ‘Hindu caste elite’ is getting more and more entrenched in the higher state apparatus, which in turn has led to the sidelining of dissenting views, especially those of the marginalized communities. He thinks a society built on the foundation of a single religion is bound to be intolerant.
The situation can be even worse for women. “When a woman speaks, people still feel the need to ‘correct’ her. So engaging in equal terms in public forums or having a productive debate is close to impossible,” says Rubeena Mahato, a writer and newspaper columnist.
They may have a point. But at least there is now an open and healthy debate on the issue. A good start perhaps.
