 "Dadri to Sahitya Akademi row: PM Modi should take high ground on free speech, tolerance")
With writers and intellectuals now competing to return awards – from Sahitya Akademi it has now moved to Padma Shri - it is clear that the Modi government’s moral authority will be seen as slipping. Not responding to this development is no longer an option, and the Prime Minister would do well to not dismiss all anti-government statements - even if many are driven by personal and political bias - as motivated and ill-conceived.
When writers speak up it is a good thing. It is thus time for Modi too to speak his mind. It is good that he has made a beginning by telling Ananda Bazar Patrika (ABP) in an interview that “incidents like Dadri and Ghulam Ali are really sad, but what is the role of the centre in these incidents?” He added: “These issues are related to law and order and are the concern of the state governments.”
But given the climate of hostility to his government, it is unlikely that Modi’s critics will accept “facts”. Moreover, as Prime Minister, he should be taking the higher moral ground, and, if possible, also fling the gauntlet to his opponents. Here is what Modi should be saying in his next Mann ki Baat, or, for that matter, his next “bhaiyon aur behenon” speech to the nation.
“I have been saddened by the rise of intolerance in this country for a long time, and recent incidents in Dadri and some earlier killings of people who spoke against blind faith are simply unacceptable. I condemn all violence and intolerance of any kind. I am equally pained by the decisions of some writers to return their Sahitya Akademi awards. While I do not accept their claim that intolerance in a recent phenomenon, I accept their feelings as genuine and many of those returning their awards are doing so for non-political reasons as well.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsI would like to take this opportunity to assert my full backing for free speech and against attempts to impose one segment’s views on another. As for violence, there is simply no place for it in India. I urge state governments to act proactively to prevent violence of any kind.
But the real issues are broader. In this context, I would like to do more than just make a speech on free speech and outline the steps we will take to reverse the climate of intolerance that began with the first post-independence government’s attempts to curtail the ambit of Article 19 of the constitution. The first amendments to article 19 in 1951 put us on a slippery slope as it puts too many restrictions on free speech. This article is the genesis of our descent into intolerance as it takes the view that hurting someone’s feelings itself is a crime. So, anyone claiming hurt feelings can threaten law and order, and state governments then ban free speech in the name of public order. This can’t continue.
So, I would like to begin by proposing changes to article 19 of the constitution, especially clause (a) which pertains to free speech.
Article 19 (1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression subject to eight restraints. These exceptions to free speech are: i) protecting the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, ii) the security of the state, iii) friendly relations with foreign States, iv) public order, v) decency or morality, or in relation to vi) contempt of court, vii) defamation or viii) incitement to an offence
I propose that we drop five of the limitations to the right to free speech: friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, and defamation. No government can stifle opinion in the name of friendly relations with other countries, no government can shut people up in the name of law and order, no government can define decency and morality (we can leave that to the courts, if cases come up), and courts can anyway decide if some forms of free speech result in contempt. They are empowered on this front. As for defamation, our normal laws are enough to deal with the issue.
I invite all political parties to support this expansion of citizen’s freedom to the maximum limit, and I hope the writers now returning awards will also lend their intellectual weight to this proposed change. If they don’t, they cannot claim to stand for free speech and against intolerance.
But even before we amend the constitution to restore free speech, as an earnest example of our resolve to expand the ambit of free speech, the centre will, through a notification, revoke bans on any book or film imposed by it, and we urge state governments to do the same on books and artistic works that they have banned. As a gesture, I propose to invite Salman Rushdie, Perumal Murugan, Taslima Nasreen and others whose books were banned to a meeting to felicitate them for their literary work and to emphasise our commitment to free speech. I will also invite those writers who returned their awards to accept them again.
The second point I would like to make is one of law and order. When speech is free, it can be protected only when governments are able to ensure law and order without fear or favour. This means freeing state and central police forces from political control. We shall do this at the centre, and we will encourage state governments to do the same. I will also emphasise that intolerance is not a feature of the centre alone for enforcement of the law is a state subject. If states are intolerant, and cartoonists and writers are attacked or jailed for their work, the centre can do little to protect free speech. I would thus urge all political parties and intellectuals to keep up the pressure on states to develop tolerance for dissent and ensure law and order.
A third point is that freedom is indivisible. It cannot be given to one and not to the other. If it is denied to one community, that community will demand similar restrictions on the other, thus heightening the ban culture and curbing freedom.
In this context, I would like to promote some amendments to articles 29 and 30 which deal with minority rights. I would like to point out that the rights of minorities are a subset of the rights of the individual. It is individual human rights that enable minorities to derive their own freedom for the purposes they collectively wish to pursue. In India, the protection to minority institutions has come to mean that these protections will not be available to the so-called majority, where the state will continue to interfere in their religious and institutional rights, even while safeguarding the rights of communities deemed to be in a numerical minority in states.
This has had two perverse results. Now all communities are demanding minority status. Some years ago the Ramakrishna Mission too wanted to be declared a minority institution, but the courts rightly refused to entertain the idea.
The second perverse result of trying to protect minorities and not individuals is that this amounts to giving powerful vested interests and patriarchal forces the right to suppress their own community members and dissenters - whether women or apostates or even people with different sexual orientation.
The changes I propose to make are the following; in Articles 29-30, I wish to insert two additional clauses. One will say that nothwithstanding any protection given to minority institutions mentioned in this article, the state will not be barred from making laws beneficial to all citizens, including the writing of a uniform and liberal civil code – something the Supreme Court has been repeatedly asking for. Another new clause will specifically bar the government, both centre and states, from supporting or opposing or even seeking to control any religious institution except for brief periods when fraud or mismanagement is alleged. The centre or states can then temporarily appoint an administrator to clean up the administration of religious, cultural or educational institutions and hand them back to the community which set them up. I urge states to get out of managing religious institutions. Religion and state need to be separate. The resources of religious institutions belong to the communities that contribute to them, and not the state.
With these thoughts I make a fervent appeal to all Indians to adopt a liberal approach - which was the spirit embodied in Vedantic thought, and in the precepts of Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Liberalism is central to Indic culture, and we need to remind ourselves repeatedly about this.
Free speech and tolerance are vital to the survival of our country. Curbing free speech is no different from intolerance. We need to give back our freedoms
 "Zelenskyy warns world of ‘most destructive arms race in history,’ says weapons will decide who survives")
 "US opposes Russia’s bid for UN aviation seat, says Moscow makes airspace ‘more dangerous’")
 "Israel’s Netanyahu vows combined military-diplomatic push to free Gaza hostages")
 "Trump administration to redirect $1.8 billion in foreign aid to ‘America First’ priorities")
 "Zelenskyy warns world of ‘most destructive arms race in history,’ says weapons will decide who survives")
 "US opposes Russia’s bid for UN aviation seat, says Moscow makes airspace ‘more dangerous’")
 "Israel’s Netanyahu vows combined military-diplomatic push to free Gaza hostages")
 "Trump administration to redirect $1.8 billion in foreign aid to ‘America First’ priorities")
](https://images.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Modi1_PTI.gif){kind=link}