Compare this enunciation of free speech
Constitution of India, Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.-
(1) All citizens shall have the right-
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
….
_15[(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any
law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the
interests of _16[the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security
of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation
with this:
American Constitution, Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press… (no further caveats)
In the first case the constitution hands out “rights” and “freedoms” to individuals. In the second case the constitution assumes pre-existing rights and freedoms, and places limitations on the government instead.
In the first case, the state is supreme with practically no constitutional limits because of all the myriad caveats and exceptions. In the second case, the state is but a constitutionally restricted agent of the individual.
In the first case the onus is on the individual to show that he is within his “rights” to do something; in the second case the onus is on the government to show that it has constitutional authority to regulate something.
That is the difference between lip-service to freedom, and true freedom.
I mean when the Brits left India, what or who gave Nehru and co., the prerogative to “give” Indians their rights? If we got free – if we truly attained Swaraj and were not replaced by a new master – we should have certain inalienable rights consistent with a minimum level of law and order. Now in practice America also does not have complete free speech and the the Indian free speech situation need not necessarily be a lot inferior (although it is – mostly because of the differences in the constitutions as noted), but the question is one about the principle?
Ask yourself – who gave the government the right to give you rights?
And if you think about it, that is a question which also explains why we are still a poor country.
Pages:
“Ask yourself – who gave the government the right to give you rights?”
I guess its just not our forefathers, rights have been given to them by both you and me and rest of the India. So this analogy basically imply that, you, me and rest of India are responsible for your statement, “we are still a poor country”.
I have one thing to say, “ask not what govt/others have done for the country, its high time that we ask what we have done so far..”
Harsh:
A rollicking start. Compliments and wish you many great days of blogging ahead.
Ask yourself – who gave the government the right to give you rights?
The patron-client syndrome that lies at the way our society is structured.And it has been historically so. We value individuals more than systems and processes. We seem incapable of operating in a horizontal hierarchy. It has to be a vertical hierarchy; either you are under me or I’m under you.
Great post. I hope you don’t mind me linking to my entry based on this: “Freedom” in our Constitution
“Now in practice America also does not have complete free speech and… ”
Are you referring to the restrictions on civil liberties put in place after the Patriot act? Or in general has the free speech principle been diluted? I ask because, till the patriot act after 9/11 (and other laws maybe), i thought free speech was still completely free ( or as free as before).
Can you clarify?
@Pragmatic: Thanks! “We seem incapable of operating in a horizontal hierarchy. It has to be a vertical hierarchy; either you are under me or I’m under you.” Yes, that feudal (casteist) mindset still hasn’t been eradicated completely.
@Pramod: Its fine!
@Vivek: well the patriot act is about civil liberties not free speech. i was referring to the common exceptions such as obscene child porn, libelous (and false) statements, other cases which are not purely speech but more like speech/action or symbolic conduct – for example passing treasonous information. IMO, those exceptions are more or less OK and generally have a common law precedent.
@TheOnlyOne: “ask not what govt/others have done for the country, its high time that we ask what we have done so far.” – I agree with that statement in spirit, but disagree if the government tries to codify that into some kind of fundamental duties. for example, i would disagree with a military draft
Ajay Shah links to this post and wonders whether Indian radio/FDI-in-media regulations would still exist if India had its own first amendment-equivalent.
http://ajayshahblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/freedom-of-speech.html
Harsh: Yes, that feudal (casteist) mindset still hasn’t been eradicated completely.
Interesting point. Could you elaborate on this please? What or who requires eradication of this mindset? I don’t want to jump to conclusions and would like to hear what you have to say on this.
@anonymous: I meant that there are many Indians even today who do not think that all of us were born equal and deserve the same opportunity (not results).
I strongly believe that the best way to defeat that mindset is freedom. Economic freedom has allowed the young urban women to assert equality, and similarly with minorities and so-called lower castes.
Now this could be a segway for the quotas debate, and I strongly endorse voluntary affirmative action but not government enforced ones.
I would love to have this conversation in more detail.
Harsh: “Economic freedom has allowed the young urban women to assert equality, and similarly with minorities and so-called lower castes.”
Let’s apply this test to those who have enjoyed economic freedoms and cast a glance at the Indians who go abroad. By the logic of economic freedoms, they should have discarded their caste identities or linguistic identities (not disavowal). One could argue that they don’t view the world through such lenses and that should suffice. What identities they carry in their private sphere is their business. I have no problem with that. But the reality is not as unproblematic as that. Marriages are contracted on the basis of caste and such acts have connotations of power and prejudice.
Contrary to claims made by pundits, globalisation has not tempered nationalism. And in India, caste is the first level of nationalism. More so amongst the urban, educated that you refer to. Of my friends, all of who have received education that helped them make the most of changes in India, not a single one is in a relationship with anybody from a lower caste.
My partner is from a totally different caste strata than I am. Two of my Brahmin (Iyer) friends were rejected by their girlfriends’ parents (one a UP Brahmin and another a Gujarati). When I point at the caste angle all my friends’ partner choice, it doesn’t even strike them as being odd. These are people who have been to premier institutes, enjoyed the fruits of the market.
Take Gujarat as an example, where economic well being has not diminished caste affiliations. Or for that matter, scan any state and you will find this to be the norm.
On the other hand, how about taking look at history and glance at situations where social revolutions have taken place.
For your critique!
@anonymous: what you are saying is unfortunately true and is representative of the situation. i really do not have a critique as of now except by saying, only with my own anecdotal evidence, that things are getting better or less worse.
the snapshot is still pathetic, but the direction is encouraging. i would like to know what you perceive: have identities within the young urban india been more or less fluid in the last 10 odd years (lets leave the nri angle for a moment)
Apologies in advance if my response is too lengthy.
Harsh: Yes, identities are more hyphenated than before. There are multiple reasons for that. Thanks to an explosion in mobility (for a select few in society), information flows, access to a wide variety of products and services, the young urban Indian negotiates multiple social identities. One can’t deduce from this that the sociological imagination has changed and youth today are more egalitarian.
There is no research evidence that demonstrates large scale sociological change. Sometimes we do not need research to demonstrate change. It is all around us. One can conduct research to look at pointers — for example I would look at marriage registrations, matrimonial adverts, online marriage adverts. But these would only be starting points. Just look around and note the explosion of the number of temples!! I find worrying similarities between US and India.
What we are dealing with here are two issues that we are trying to intertwine: economic freedoms and egalitarianism. To say one is a dependant variable of the other is a deterministic viewpoint.
We can discredit the communists in China and Russia, but true intellectual rigour will demand whether they inform us in any way? We can debate about the means by which they were achieved but the fact remains that these countries forced a social upheaval and restructuring. Everybody was equalised. There is no parallel in human history to such a massive social change in a short time.
Now, social changes took place in US and UK too — but not caused by the market, but through social and political upheavals. One example, the world wars forced women to come out and work. Men and women were forced to work together as equals. The impact of this has been profound.
What happened when the war was won? Advertisers repositioned women as belonging in the kitchen. There is a huge body of literature on this. The gap between the abolishment of slavery and the black movement of the 60s is quite huge and should embarrass anyone. It again took a second wave of intellectual and political intervention to force the attitudes to change.
My personal view is that we should not conflate market with morality.
Conflating markets with morality? – I am sorry I did not get that exactly
You are right: from slavery to equality (for African-Americans) it took some time: but that is because the government was implementing segregation not the markets. Therefore the “political intervention” you speak of was actually “government retreat”.
Regarding women rights, while WWII is etched in our memories could you point me to evidence that there was no significant progress before or after the war for them?
And I am sorry to say this again – your messages tend to be too ambiguous. And, I dont think there is anything to learn from the Communists except not to be them ofcourse
harsh: In the US, there has been little difference between capitalists and the government. The US government did not implement markets after 1960s. Markets had been in existence. So I am afraid I have to disagree with you that it was government withdrawal. I am trying to respond to your assertion (1:09 am) in which you have drawn an independent>dependent variable relationship between economic freedoms and eradication of certain mindsets, which we both agree are of a lower intellectual order.
No, the political intervention was not by the government but the pressure that was brought on by the government by certain sections of the society. The market or economic freedoms had no role to play in this.
I have never claimed there have been no changes before the world wars. I have argued that sudden and major changes have happened due to political and social upheavals. We can have our own positions whether upheavals or gradual unravelling of the market are the best way for social changes.
About ambiguity of my responses, I offer my sincere apologies. We all have our limitations, don’t we
.
Abt the evidence, these books are useful starting points:
- Joan Hoff, Law, Gender and Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women, 1991
- Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, 1987
- Eleanor Flexner with Ellen Fitzpatrick, Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States, enlarged ed., 1996
Anonymous, I agree that the market had hardly any direct role to play in the dissolution of government enforced segregation. But that was my point that slavery and segregation was caused and maintained by political pressure, and not the markets.
If the individual freedoms (including economic and educational of course) which I advocate were properly enforced throughout the 19th and 20th century we would not have had such a big problem of racism.
Therefore your statement – “little difference between the capitalists and government” does not make sense unless we are operating with a different definition of capitalism.
And at least be kind enough to send me pdfs/articles – not books, dear sir/madam
My arguments don’t make sense to you. To me you contradict yourself. What matters is that we have both made our cases in a civilized manner. Surprise, surprise… our arguments fall short of each other.
So let us leave it at that.
About the materials: to borrow from the market logic, there is no such thing as a free lunch, dear friend. (in jest, no offence meant).
I would like to express my appreciation of your call for the need for civilized debates (“How much” vs. “How to” – Part 1).
Yup even if it was a non-debate at least it was civilized. I will have posts on education and caste (soon, hopefully) – I hope you will be lurking around then