Freedom of expression: The right to speak, dissent and question power

The challenge is to uphold the civic courage to question authority boldly.

Discussions about freedom of expression in democracy often begin with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, I would like to start my point not from the Constitution, but from a small incident.

A woman came before Jawaharlal Nehru and grabbed his collar to ask a question—

Advertisementहिंसा अहिंसा और भगत सिंह

हिंसा अहिंसा और भगत सिंह

अशोक कुमार पाण्डेय की नयी किताब

अमेज़न से खरीदें→

“India has become free, you have become the Prime Minister of the country, but what have I, an old woman, received?”

It is said that Nehru replied—

“You have received this, that you are standing here holding the collar of the Prime Minister of the country.”

The historical authenticity of this incident can be discussed separately, but the democratic thought hidden within it is very important. The achievement of democracy is not just about who holds power.

The real achievement of democracy is how free the citizen standing before power is.

Can he ask questions to the Prime Minister?

Can he criticize the government?

Can he disagree with the majority?

And most importantly—does he still feel safe after doing so? This is where the real meaning of freedom of expression begins.

This idea in India did not suddenly arise on January 26, 1950. It has a long historical journey. January 26 was known as Independence Day since 1930 before the Constitution was implemented on this day. The implementation of the Constitution on this day meant how to depict the relationship between the freedom struggle and the new Constitution. Because the Indian Constitution was not created in just two and a half years, but it is a long process that has been ongoing for centuries. It began on the day when the people of this country started the struggle to free India from the British and to provide a constitutional and responsible government. The process of this Constitution is hidden within that struggle. When the Indian National Congress was first formed, the word Congress contained a political consciousness because the lower house of the American Parliament is known as Congress.

Gandhi's struggle was for the common Indians, not for a select few. And the biggest thing is that in colonial India, freedom of the press and expression had become an important question of the national movement, and leaders fought tirelessly for it. We cannot forget Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who not only tried to spread this awareness through his newspapers Kesari, Maratha but also paid the price for this struggle multiple times.

Many other newspapers and magazines—Leader, Bombay Chronicle, Anand Bazaar Patrika, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Tribune, Amrit Bazaar Patrika—were not just publishing news; they were creating a political consciousness. All of these contributed to the struggle for independence, and this history later proved helpful in incorporating the right to freedom of expression into fundamental rights.

Under Gandhi's leadership, the Indian national movement also considered freedom of expression to be important. A beautiful example of Gandhi's democratic thought is seen in the Bombay session of 1942. The Quit India resolution was passed almost unanimously. Only thirteen communist members voted against it. Just think—the country is on the brink of a decisive movement. A huge resolution is presented under Gandhi's leadership. Only thirteen people are opposed.

What does Gandhi do? He does not call them anti-national. He does not insult them by calling them anti-Congress. He does not say that when the whole country is on one side, you should remain silent. Rather, Gandhi congratulates those thirteen people.

Why? Because he says that we have learned over twenty years that when we are hopelessly in the minority, when people mock us, if we still believe in our ideas, we should have the courage to stick to them.

Note—Gandhi did not agree with their views. But he respected their courage to disagree.

For me, this is one of the most important definitions of democracy— respecting disagreement does not mean agreeing with disagreement. In democracy, the majority has the right to form the government; not a monopoly on truth.

This thought is also reflected in Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1940, he said about freedom of the press—

If we allow only what we like to be published, then even a dictator can accept such freedom. True freedom means allowing what we do not like to be published and tolerating our criticism.

This statement is perhaps more important today than ever. Because the test of freedom of expression is not that speech with which we agree. We have no problem with that.

The real test of Freedom of Speech is that voice which we find uncomfortable.

Today we are in the age of social media. Every individual has a platform in their hands. Criticism of the government can reach millions in minutes. The Prime Minister, Chief Minister, opposition, judiciary, universities, media—no public institution can remain completely free from criticism.

But along with this, a dangerous trend has also emerged—linking disagreement to identity. If you disagree with a government policy, does that mean you are against the nation? If you criticize the opposition, does that mean you become a supporter of the power? If you disagree with a movement, should you also oppose the right of the protesters to speak?

My answer is—no.

The government is not the nation.

Power is not the Constitution.

Criticism is not treason.

And disagreement is not a weakness of democracy.

But along with this, another aspect is equally important. Freedom of Speech does not mean unlimited freedom to incite violence against any individual or community. Freedom of expression and responsibility cannot be made oppositional to each other.

This is why our Constitution has provided Article 19(2) along with Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, the democratic question should not only be “Do I have the freedom to speak?”

The question should also be—Does my political opponent have the freedom to speak?

If I demand Freedom of Speech for myself but want Censorship for my opponent, then I am not talking about Freedom of Speech, but about the freedom of my Speech.

This is the difference between democracy and political convenience. And the role of the media becomes extremely important in this.

The journalism of the freedom movement was essentially mission-driven journalism. It created political consciousness, raised social issues, and challenged colonial power. But today, the challenge before the media is not only the pressure of political power; the market, corporate ownership, advertising, TRP, and Paid news can also affect its freedom. In my study, I have also highlighted this change—where news gradually starts to shift from public interest to becoming a 'Product'.

We must ask—

Who is the journalist free from?

From the government?

From the owner?

From the advertiser?

From political parties?

From TRP?

Or from the crowd of social media?

Because without a free press, an informed citizen cannot be created, and without an informed citizen, democracy will remain limited to elections. American journalist Norman Cousins once asked Nehru what legacy he would like to leave behind. Nehru replied, “400 million Indians who know how to govern themselves.” This is perhaps the greatest challenge of democracy. Because here, self-government does not merely mean choosing one's government. It means:

Learning to ask questions.

Learning to argue.

Learning to disagree.

Learning to listen to others' dissent.

And making power accountable without fear.

Therefore, I would like to conclude where I began. If a common woman in a democracy can grab the collar of the Prime Minister and ask him, “What did I get?”, then the answer of democracy cannot be just a list of government schemes. One answer is also:

You have the right to ask questions.

You have the right to disagree.

You have the right to criticize power.

And perhaps most importantly, You are no longer subjects, but have become citizens.

The challenge today is not just to keep this right secured in the book of the Constitution. The challenge is to safeguard that civic courage which can question power by looking it in the eye—and that democratic generosity which can listen to that question.