“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19)
Freedom of expression is a political ideal, one of the many privileges that citizens of the democratic world (are supposed to) have. It is a tool that plays a critical role in dissemination of information in societies and if the expression is powerful enough, it helps mould public opinion, the heartbeat of a democratic people. It is a symbol of the supremacy of rationality in our social order and like all symbols, it is liable to be confused with actual fact.
Free speech is a necessary pre-condition for the existence of Free Press, another pillar of a democratic set-up but not as abstract or idealistic. It essentially makes the media powerful enough to influence the views of a large number of people without overt interference from the state. The media is free to share or withhold information as it pleases, to suit its own private objectives. As can be seen in many ‘evolved’ democracies, the media often becomes a menace and conspires with the rich or the powerful to create a one sided view on important issues that could have an earth shattering impact on the lives of countless ordinary individuals. Why? Because the media is owned by the rich or the powerful, who have little regard for the welfare of the common man.
It is estimated that close to one billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water. In such deplorable conditions, it is not surprising that an overwhelming majority of people do not have access to instruments that would enable them to voice their opinions. More so in India, where freedom of speech is an over-rated virtue that is only useful for news channel discussions or mud slinging on twitter. As pointed out earlier, free speech available to only a small segment of population spells disaster for the vast majority, whose frail voice speaking about challenges of making ends meet is lost in the cacophony of intellectual debates on esoteric subjects that few connect with. While Rushdie’s absence from the Jaipur Literature Festival creates headlines and invokes fierce discussions, another farmer dies in Wyanad, a girl child is killed in Haryana, the Gangotri glacier recedes by another inch, the animal kingdom is poorer by another species and Suresh Kalmadi walks free, well almost.
Not even Kapil Sibal can deny the importance of free speech and free press in our everyday lives. For, no matter how subverted the media or how misused free speech is, as far as idealism goes, free expression both by the individual and the media is indispensable for an ideologically healthy, participative and informed citizenry. However, reason tells us that there is a limit to the extent of freedom that can be granted to an individual or an institution in any matter and freedom of expression is no different. But the question is, where to draw the line? As is the case with all questions dealing with the real world and not one of ideas, the answer is not clear cut as it involves reconciling the opposites, which in this case are freedom and accountability.
Broadly speaking, an individual may say what she wants to with no wide impact on the socio-political atmosphere of a region but when the words of an individual are adopted by a powerful institution, the repercussions are undeniable. If the institution is arrogant, morally challenged and unaccountable like our media, the expression easily turns into biased propaganda. So, before we ask for freedom of expression for our intellectuals, it is important to ask for accountability of the media and further, of the judiciary. Once we have checks in place that ensure a more balanced reporting and prosecution for deliberately biased coverage (paid news, for instance), then we can move on to the rights of Rushdie and the like, who anyway get enough coverage as a result of the controversy. In a similar vein, while the rights of Sanjay Kak to hold and expound perverted definitions of freedom by means of his magnum opus, should be respected, we should be very careful about having it screened by a reputed educational institution that is likely to get Mr. Kak’s biased documentary back to prime time discussions and newspaper headlines. Limiting the rights of one in favour of the many who are likely to suffer due to an overall lack of accountability in the system does not constitute a denial of fundamental rights. It only urges one to be more sensitive and accommodative or as they say, ‘tolerant’.
