“Karimganj has a majority Bengali speaking population, with close ties to Sylhet in Bangladesh. It is isolated from the rest of Assam and is dominated by illegal Bangladeshi migrants” said Swamy in his petition, “who are hostile to Assamese speaking majority of the rest of Assam; and the Petitioner has apprehensions for his safety when he appears in Court there.” If the petition itself sounds inflammatory and inciting enough is a question we won’t delve into. Let us observe and marvel at how in a single sentence, the divisiveness of lingual and national identity has been invoked, not to mention the religious undertone to it. Let us ignore the unlettered rhetoric that made Swamy a sensation in social networking sites in the recent years among his half-wit adulators and concentrate on the politics underlying the address. Apart from painting the Bengali speaking population as ‘hostile other’, their allegiance to the nation is questioned representing them as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The hatred towards a particular group and the incitement for divisive politics is so blatant that it does not even remain an issue for query. But the question remains, does this law remain in contradiction to the constitutional idea of free speech and moreover the universal idea of free expression?

Regarding freedom of speech, Indian constitution does not remain as unfettered as many of its counterparts in the world. The absolutism of freedom of expression and the protection of various communities, religious-lingual-caste or otherwise, remained in constant discord and like any plural society the balance was never easy. The state or the constitution barely enjoys the status of being sacrosanct and hence it has always tiptoed around the so-called community feelings, partially for its own sake and its legitimacy, and partially as the state authority is often captured by the community leaders. The model of multicultural suave cosmopolitanism portrayed by global capital remained illusory as the islands of ‘sophisticated’ urban landscapes ran after the model, forgetting the vast swathes of country lying behind. The state, in its midst, tried its best to pull things together, to remain functional, keeping the union, saving its face on the international front while often failing disastrously on the domestic front. And amongst all these clutter, the debate of free speech went on, trudging along with the faltering the dream of harmonious multiculturalism.

But in spite of all its failings and shortcomings, in spite of the combustible social equations of subcontinent, in spite of violence being a regular tool to solve political turmoil, should we continue to tiptoe around the issue of free speech forever? One of the argument that has been posited by various authorities during various crises, (and the same argument one can find tacitly upheld in Indian constitution) is that legal framework constraining free expression is not required or desired, however, a self-censoring mechanism is indispensable for a functional society. For example, a legislative ban on a word like ‘Chamar’ is not required, but a social constraint on use of the word is desired. The distinction is imperative as any word or any view can be rendered inflammatory or empowering in different contexts. When Mayawati describes herself to be “Chamarkibeti” the connotation is completely reversed from the historical use of the word by the Hindu upper caste as a derogatory term. A legislature cannot go into the nuance of this context, rendering it superfluous.

But how then, the question arises, the peddlers of hate-mongering and violence like Swamy be brought to justice who disregard the social norm? If the society is too feeble, too divided, too cowardly to shun a hate-monger, how would the society be saved from the incendiary elements like him? Is it where the state comes in as the saviour?

The problem with involving state with the matter of free expression, bestowing it with the role of the saviour, is not limited to infantalisation of the society that may stunt its psychological growth, it also entails the penchant for autocracy of that said society. Limitation of speech, no matter how vile or how vitriolic that is, means limitation of democratic exercise. As Locke famously argued (On Liberty), to limit one’s offensive speech is to limit the listener’s right to be challenged and offended and to hear what may be the other side of the truth, as no truth is singular nor uniform. If we do accept the dual nature of the reality, we have to but accept that hate speech laws are, though not unconstitutional, goes against the basic fabric of a free society and hinders its journey.

Hence, the solution rests not in fear and timidity but in courage. As a society, we have to confront the vilest of speeches and show the rest of the world as well as ourselves that it does not move us into violent reactions. In a world where publishing one’s thought is becoming ever so easy, it is imperative we take the high road and as a society grow the strength to endure. (IPA Service)