“A person’s Freedom is ensured when he ensures freedom of others.”
This Statement has been uttered by a great tall esteeming figure “Nelson Mandela”, Gandhi of South Africa. By this very statement, he wants to convey the message that everyone is free to the extent that he does not infringe upon the freedom of others. Freedom is something that everyone holds as he is born free. Everyone has the right to exercise this freedom, whether it is freedom of speech, expression or movement or anything else. Issue of freedom of speech has been too much in limelight in the recent past. There has been too much of hue & cry about it being in absolute sense or limited. Recently a liberal Bangladeshi Blogger Avijit Roy had been killed by the Fundamentalist blogger. Most probable reason for his killing is that he openly criticized about the fundamentalists’ ideas. Wendy Doniger book “The Hindus: The Alternative History” had to be pulled out of the market due to protests raised by some right-wing forces in the country. Not going in much past, some radical elements attacked the Charlie hebdo office. Charlie hebdo is a satirical magazine which had been famous for their liberal satires about religious beliefs and traditions. As evident by these examples, this issue is being debated across the world presently. It needs some serious thought.
“Everyone is born free but still bound by chains”.
This statement is true in whatever way we interpret it. If an individual wants to live in a society, he would have to have some restraints to follow the norms, notions of that very society. Same is the case with Indian society. From the very past in Indian families, Children had the freedom of speech but with certain limitations. They had to follow certain norms like respecting elders, using proper language, not creating dissent in the family etc. Indian Constitution provides the Fundamental Right of freedom of Speech. Nonetheless Our Constitution has also provided certain limitation to freedom of speech i.e. maintaining decency, public order etc. Many Constitutions around the world provide this right like USA, Britain, and France etc. Difference is that to what extent this right could be exercised? This difference varies from country to country depending upon their political scenario and other issues.
By exercising right of freedom of speech in absolute sense, a person could express his opinion in true sense. An individual’s creativity could be displayed; ideas could be generated without any fear. Learning could happen in an open way. Discussions and deliberations could take place freely on all types of issues. Strong voice could be raised against the political masters and their wrong doings. A progressive society could be built up where everyone is free to express.
We could not confidently say that providing right to freedom of speech in absolute sense would necessary lead to a progressive nation and society. Speech is not just associated with speaker or the one who is expressing. It is also associated with the listener or the one who judges the content of that speech. Everyone has his own way of interpreting the things. A person should be mature enough to understand whether the expression of speech was in good faith or having some malicious intentions. Taking the case of India, which is a developing country in a true sense, literacy rate is seventy percent and progressing slowly. So it is a high probability that a person who is illiterate could be moved by malicious speech content. India is that unique nation in the world community which is on extreme edge of a razor in many scenarios. It is multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic nation. Holding the people of India together requires some special efforts. These efforts have been taken in a brilliant manner by national personalities like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, and Jawaharlal Lal Nehru etc. By the efforts of these people, a feeling of Nationalism has been generated in India and is well articulated in Our Constitution. Our Constitution provides has provided best of the ideals like equality, liberty, fraternity, Secularism etc. Any action or expression of speech which harms these principles should be judged with caution. There are infinite examples of misuse of freedom of speech to gain some political or cultural mileage. If a person is provided a free license to speak anything, it would lead to chaos, hate campaign derogatory remarks etc. It could defame a personality in unnecessary provocative manner. To the extent it could be a threat to a nation’s secular fabric and could lead to its disintegration. Fringe elements of the society like fundamentalist, separatists etc. could use this right for their personal, political and religious ambitions.
In the case of Charlie hebdo, act of terrorism is condemned to the full extent. There is also alternative dimension associated with it. From the past four to five years, Charlie Hebdo magazine was unnecessarily provoking Islamists by putting up Prophet’s image in a derogatory satirical way. Satire is good humour but it has to be with a right and positive intent. It should not be put up to provoke any community or religion. There is a serious lacuna to the human’s nature that When anyone is provided with excessive right, he tends to misuse it in all probability. He tends to forget his responsibility associated with the right.
As we know “Every Right comes with a responsibility” .This responsibility should be bearing in mind while exercising the right. The responsibility could be of upholding certain values, respecting others rights, maintaining decency etc. So it becomes imperative that every citizen should exercise his right to freedom of speech with responsibility. It is also necessary to have certain exceptions to this right in legal terms till the time India’s literacy level reaches hundred percent. After this maximum level is reached it should be left to the people to decide whether the speech was in good or bad faith.
Augmentative Indian 