The freedom of
expression is a sine qua non in a democracy would be an understatement. It is
not just important to have your say but allow the right to disagree without
recourse to violence. There are myriad points of view and it is the societal welfare
that would be best served when these points of view are allowed to be expressed
without fear. Natan Sharansky, a conservative thinker once proposed a town
square test. It implied the real freedom would exist when someone could go into
the town square and express his or her views without fearing for their life or
liberty. India has recognized the freedom of speech as an integral part of the
constitution by enshrining it among the fundamental rights. The courts too have
upheld the right to free speech and expression many a times in their judgments.
Yet, what has not gone unnoticed is the right of free expression is selectively
applied. Perhaps it is only one ideology that seems to have a monopoly over
free expression. This again has been reinforced in the last few days over a statement
by the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand TIrath Singh Rawat on sartorial
preferences of girls. The context in question allegedly was the right or lack
of it on the part of girls to wear ripped jeans.
There is no
question about the fact that people are free to wear what they want. Ripped
jeans in many ways would represent the absurd beauty if one might term it so,
of capitalism. It is only perhaps in capitalism that one can tear the clothes
and demonstrate a fashion statement. It might not be long before someone would
have to ask ‘why the king has no clothes’. Beauty and obscenity both lie in the
eyes of the beholder. There would be some who would look at ripped jeans as a
fashion statement, as a statement of rebelliousness, as a statement of being
different. It might be a fad and like other fads, there would be a cycle before
it turns obsolete. Yet, one cannot deny, this fad is more an urban phenomenon. There
is a tendency on the part of the young to demonstrate their freedom and these
are usually manifestations of the same. With passing of time, these would give
way to normalcy. Yet, away from the urban middle class, there exists a wider
India something usually denoted by the Left as Bharat. The world Bharat inhabits
is perhaps very different.
What might pass
on as a style statement would be viewed as something undesirable in others.
What the Chief Minister was stating was perhaps obvious to the vast audience
the Bharat inhabits. He was addressing in some context, and therefore the
example was used. What is amusing would be the reaction of the leftist crowd
which on other days would be crying for death of free expression. Free
expression is as about wearing ripped jeans as much as that of being critical
of wearing ripped jeans. It has become fashionable to be politically correct. There
are certain terms and practices which have become associated with
anti-establishment and woke. these practices are not something that evolved
through society and grassroots but defined by the left as they deem it fit. Among
other things would be talk of intersectionality, transgender, homosexuality and
many others. These are practices which might have traction in some audience but
might not find audience in larger sections. There is nothing wrong to be
critical of these as much as something to be supportive of these. Yet, any statement
that goes against these practices is viewed as something retrograde. What
follows is worse. The one making a statement if he or she is a Hindu or a White
or a Jew are caricatured and sought to be destroyed in terms of personal
insults and what not. Yet, there is visible reluctance and worse a strong
defence if something inconvenient in terms of political correctness is uttered
by others. The left liberal ecosystem might have lost power but retains its
noisy character. Often the noise drowns the signals. The modus operandi of the system
is to magnify the noise forcing the ones not toeing it line to backtrack.
It is not merely
freedom of expression to express politically correct terms but the genuine test
for freedom of expression arises when someone speaks the politically incorrect.
In today’s context, there might be numerous issues that are deemed politically
correct. Anyone speaking against them has to be hauled up though selectively. The
Chief Minister of Uttarakhand did not speak anything illegal. All he said was
his views which he had every right to hold. The right too wants to engage in
its virtue signalling and decided to make him a scape goat to highlight how
liberal it is. Ironically, there is hardly any defence from those who proclaim
their loyalty to freedom of expression even on the right. This has to change. If
the freedom of expression in absolutist measure has to happen in India, the
beginning has to be made through acceptance of politically incorrect lingo in mainstream
public conversation.
The current
discourse must shift towards acceptance of dissent to the leftist dominated
discourse. There is a dichotomy between private conversation and public
conversation. In any free society, there should not be differential treatment
between the two. What has emerged over the last many years is the creation of
something that is called politically correct. The definition of what is
politically correct has been taken upon itself by the left liberal crowd. They have
become the self-appointed arbiters of conversation. Anything that goes contrary
to their assertions is not acceptable as free speech. Free speech has become
selective. This selectivity would generate its own diminishing returns with
passage of time. They might enjoy some brownie points in the course of the
conversation. Yet as the social media shows, the conversation would find its
own leveller. There is an attempt to project a differing view as something
regressive. Worse is the fact that the past is dug up to create an effect of retrospective
bigottering. This is something that needs to be stopped. There is nothing to
suggest one should agree with what CM TIrath Rawat has said. But, he has the
right to assert that and that should be defended with vigour. This is where the
society perhaps fails.
Comments
Post a Comment