Although India is a secular state, the growing number of ‘easily religiously offended’ groups wants the government to prioritize religion over secularism and human rights. There is also an increasingly condescending attitude—in both urban and rural milieus—towards liberal and secular elements. There is a single view of how to be a citizen that is being propagated, which is that one must believe the line that the government takes. The message being sent out by the ruling party is that we must think in ‘a way that is in the national interest’. But if a large number of people think that national interest is in upholding Constitutional values and the unity of different parts of the population, then that is in conflict with the government’s belief that there should be a Hindu nation. Then the people’s freedom to hold their own beliefs is hugely under threat. The freedom to converse, the freedom to think, is under attack.4
Recently, in a major blow to our right to free speech, the government in 2016 argued before the Supreme Court in favour of retaining criminal penalties for defamation—and the court upheld the law. While lamenting the misuse of government power, we must also realize that the role of the government is not easy in India either, balancing various public opinions and sentiments within the framework of the Constitution that does not always help in this regard. Politicians of the world’s largest democracy are not always acting on their selfish agenda to garner more votes in the elections (though they do so often). The dilemma created by the Indian Constitution, which protects the agents of freedom of speech as well as those who might be offended by that speech, is a difficult one. Ultimately, the actions of the Indian government on free expression—whichever way it weighs—have often also reflected the dominant opinion of the people.
As a consequence of this constitutional dilemma, as well as the political populism for votes, freedom of expression has suffered at different times and in varying degrees in India. Despite gaining political freedom, and indeed, ever since then, societal and government intolerance of free expression have peaked and ebbed. Such intolerance suffocates and discourages open discussion typical of a liberal, democratic society. Ultimately, a culture of fear to hold open, liberal discussions develops, which is the perfect breeding ground for extremist views of every kind to grow covertly. This leads to sentiments of hatred all around, and a mob culture ready to strike anywhere. Is this the India that we want to present to our children?
In the essay titled ‘Decibels’, I have pointed out how the curbing of freedom of expression has been an enduring problem in India, and not a passing one in just our present times. I would add here that we must not get lost in the ongoing blame game regarding which political party or government has worsened our lack of freedom. We need to instead wonder, how are so many of us joining the ‘easily religiously offended’ group? We are not a theocratic state. Then why are increasing numbers of Indians ridiculing or mistrusting their liberal and secular compatriots? We need to recognize that the curbing of freedom of expression is a worrying long-standing trend in a secular democratic nation that claims to constitutionally protect fundamental rights and secular values. How do we put an end to this trend before it is too late?
We must realize that societal ‘rules’ and all the laws established by the state have often failed miserably in protecting our freedom to lead a dignified life or even the freedom to live. As I have mentioned in my essay on religion in India, faith in religion provides tremendous hope to survive, but by the same token, it is also an overpowering force that can sway people towards differences. Both society and our legal framework have fallen victims to this force.
Off and on, there have also been instances in (politically free) India’s history when politicians have purposely supported and propagated religious nationalism, or chosen not to act either during or after communal clashes. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom is an independent US government advisory body that monitors religious freedom worldwide. Its 2016 Annual Report explains that
India is a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country and a secular democracy . . . However, the Indian government has long struggled to maintain religious and communal harmony . . . In 2013, in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, violence between Hindus and Muslims killed forty people, at least a dozen women and girls were raped, and more than 50,000 were displaced. In Odisha in 2007–08, violence between Hindus and Christians destroyed churches and homes, displacing nearly 10,000 and killing around forty people. In Gujarat in 2002, violence between Hindus and Muslims left between 1200 and 2500 Muslims dead. The 1984 anti-Sikh riots killed 3000 Sikhs.5
Many cases stemming from these incidents are still pending in the Indian courts.6 According to Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy, the reasons for this are multiple. One, the police is answerable to the state government, which cripples the police’s ability to act freely to control communal riots. Two, in the event of a pogrom, the police, for a certain period, has likely stepped back and observed or even gently facilitated the killing. So during the ‘golden hour’ of evidence—which is the time and place where the crime has occurred—no evidence has been gathered. Three, witness protection programmes in India are in dire straits. ‘The witness is the least valuable person in the local thana,’ says Nundy. ‘And so when you are up against some big communal political community, it is justice versus your life, and that slows down the entire case further.’ And four: ‘Usually when an opposing government comes to power, they control the CBI, and then drive it to become suddenly active on a past case that
