Freedom of speech vs free-for-all: Why Bombay High Court said 'India is witnessing a tragic phase'
There is free speech and then there is free-for-all speech. While proponents of democracy have tirelessly espoused the link between freedom of speech and a vibrant democracy, the battle over both has only escalated in the recent past, and in all likelihood, would grow shriller.
Why?
That the cries are growing increasingly louder is a dire indicator that we understand the ominous implications.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday, August 2, observed that the country has been witnessing a "tragic phase" in which one could not speak or move around freely. "...Citizens already feel that they can't voice their concerns or opinions fearlessly. Are we going to see a day when everyone will need police protection to move around or to speak freely?" asked the bench of justices SC Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre.
The bench said this while hearing a plea by the family members of slain rationalists Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare. They were seeking a court-monitored probe into the killings.
While it has become customary for political activists, party leaders, academics, journalists, intelligentsia and the illuminati in general to engage in long debates over free speech being silenced, on the other side of the debate are an equal or more number of political activists, party leaders, academics, journalists, intelligentsia and illuminati who feel this whole "free speech drama" is delusional and created to spread panic.
The right and the left — words not necessarily used in the Indian political context here, but just to indicate two opposing sides like, say, A and B) — are mainly arguing that they deserve to express their opinion freely, their beliefs, their thoughts. But there is a difference between expressing and imposing. And perhaps this is what we need to ponder on. Why do we expect the other to agree with us and imbibe what we think is right.
It is indeed ironic that even discussing free speech calls for so many curbs. In fact, “free speech” has become the most abused words of the present times — both sides trying to cage the very essence of it.
At present, Indians have clearly been divided into two sides — one crying hoarse over the suppression of free speech, the other refuting it. It's a battle that would eventually be won by the one who lasts the longest and loudest. But for how long would such "filibustering" last?
Will the real battle ever be won?
This bewilderment has been more among the new generation of Indians active in the socio-political sphere, who have grown up as part of the experiment called social media. The laboratory that essentially has just one formula — anyone is free to say anything. We can't say this experiment has been a total failure because it has produced some great results — giving voice to marginalised voices earlier drowned by podium-speakers, trampled by dictatorial regimes, or shut out by social mores.
But it also turned out that the "formula food" has some dangerous downsides — trolls who not just intimidate and threaten violence, but actually succeed in silencing. Suddenly, we are being attacked by unseen enemies — bots — coming at us right out of our phone/computer screens. This wouldn't have been so scary had it been some digital game played by children — but this is a very real war, played by real fighters, hired by real political parties.
For every well-meaning movement on social media — from #SaveGanga to #NotInMyName and #JusticeforKathuaRapeVictim — there have been infinite number of toxic exchanges too and everyone of us has participated freely at one or the other point.
For every "Khangressi", every "go-to-Porkistan" there has been a "bhakt", a "Sanghi" and a "Go-drink-gau-mutra". And this is how it became a free-for-all before any one of us realised this. Of course, no one had intended it to go this way. Then why do we find ourselves standing here today?
This is what the Bombay High Court bench too seems to be worried about. It asked: "What is happening in the state today? People come and torch buses, pelt stones, it is a free-for-all. What are your priorities? There is a state and then there is a government. The government might change tomorrow, but what about the state that is home to millions of people? Will everyone need police protection tomorrow to speak their minds?"
Who is to blame for this? Not technology for sure, or social media. Neither democracy, nor opinion — because it's not our opinion that is causing mayhem. It's how we are expressing that opinion which is the problem. The belligerence and contempt with which we have been putting forth our views.
And the biggest of all problems — our constant search for consenting voices.
We want to hear everyone agreeing with us and in that endeavour, we look for like-minded people to make 'our team' bigger. We tweet and retweet every opinion that is against whom we disagree with. We support any politician who attacks the regimes we don't like. We are ready to justify even the most corrupt of politicians — who were earlier our fodder for disgust — to prove another wrong.
And this is being done by both sides — right and left/left-liberals (the words have been strictly used in the Indian political context). And those who disagree with the two sides should be ready to face the contempt for being a centrist — the one who can't take sides, the one who therefore doesn't have the right to exist.
Ironically, this too would be decided by the two warring sides if they would let anyone else, a third voice, speak.
For the two sides — anyone is free to speak, but not everyone has the right to be heard.
And we all thought we were fighting for free speech and democratic order!