Freedom with an Asterisk

Thomas Hobbes had described the state of society in the absence of any political order and laws as being bellum omnium contra omnes, a Latin phrase meaning ‘a war of all, against all’. Needless to say, a situation like this would only lead to the end of civilisations and, eventually, the human race itself! One might argue that the jungles have no laws or political order, so to speak, but that would be an argument misplaced; jungles do have laws - that of ‘survival of the fittest’. The strong and powerful exert their power and brute force over the meek and surrendering and this results in the establishment of some sort of political order, that of the lion becoming the king of the jungle. But, I must clarify, that, such a system of political and social order does not reflect a civilised society!

The relationship between the State and the subjects was a matter of intellectual debates long before the Magna Carta brought to the table the rights of the individual. Socrates and Plato have discussed the theories of social contract where society trades some of it’s privileges and freedom with the State in return for security and the upholding of individual liberties by establishing a rule of law and social order. Therefore, freedom can never be absolute and/or unconditional. By that token, each society decides on its definition, interpretation and boundaries that tie absolute freedom down. When the Charlie Hebdo terror attack shook the world, it brought to the fore the importance of the freedom of speech and expression. Many would recollect John Stuart Mill’s theory on liberty; but a country, such as France, which prides itself in the freedom that it provides and upholds, reflects a high degree of development in understanding the relationship between the State and society vis-a-vis the social contract.

That is something that is almost alien to many countries, including mine, albeit to a certain degree. Somehow, in India we are tied in knots between an ancient culture and the desire for a modern thinking. Amish Tripathi, in an interview with Shekar Gupta, had mentioned that the Sanskrit language does not have the equivalent of the English ‘blasphemy’. He opined that it was a reflection of the state of society, that practised freedom of thought and expression and, finding nothing blasphemous, never felt the need to coin a word to describe it! This is a clear indication of what Indian culture actually stood for and upheld. Sadly, a lot of that spirit is lost in the interpretations of the letter!

While we are making technological and knowledge advancements, moving steadily towards becoming a knowledge economy, we find ourselves reined in by the various definitions and interpretations of individual civil liberties. Ever so often, a debate on this arises and brings face to face the two ends of the spectrum. A lady does not enjoy the liberty to choose what she wears, an author is wary about what s/he writes and a singer is careful about striking the right note with social and cultural sensitivities. And when the state  machinery finds it easier to constrain freedom by banning than protecting the right to individual liberties, it reflects a society that is challenged and stifled by the demons of insecurities. On the one hand, we are preparing to build a digital India while on the other we have yet to address the conditions that apply to freedom, as we would like to know, understand, acknowledge and practise it.