A few days ago I had said I was invited to speak at a meeting on freedom of expression. Here’s the speech I came up with. Is it any good? I’d really like to know what you think. Here it is:
I don’t believe in selective freedom. You either have it or you don’t. It’s like being pregnant — you either are, or you aren’t. You cannot be a little pregnant.
That’s exactly why it’s a matter of concern, and dismay when you see publications or films being blocked. We’ve seen problems over the film Fire, the play Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy…
In fact, the state government, if I’m not mistaken, actually banned the play. To me, this is the worst kind of curtailment of freedom of expression. While I may never ever agree with Godse, I do believe that if there is an opposing point of view, there must be freedom to express it. There were all kinds of arguments — how can we have an assassin’s point of view, he killed the Father of the Nation, he was among the most misguided men in history, etc. But, I think, Gandhi himself may have disagreed with all the naysayers.
Also, I believe, suppress a misguided voice and you drive it to radicalism. To some, it may even become a voice of heroism.
The point is, the more you suppress something, the more people want to know about it. The more you push something down, the greater the will to fight back. Forced silence may create the loudest bang of all.
An idea has enough strength to hold its own. So, ban a play, a book, a film, and you only land up giving it the kiss of life. A point of view that may have run the course of a debate and eventually died out, is kept alive and even strengthened by a ban.
Wouldn’t the government actually be far better off by staying out of it and letting the people decide for themselves?
We are all entitled to our choices — political, cultural, sexual.
I chose to speak about the Godse play to highlight exactly how the freedom of expression we pride ourselves is really not absolute. We are all capable of understanding what is right or wrong and choosing for ourselves. But it’s almost as if we are afraid of choice.
In the Broadcasting Bill, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry talks about a ‘content code’. It says it is to regulate the “quality” of programming and to ‘protect consumers’ interests”.
It sounds innocuous on the face of it, so why is the media so upset?
The big problem is that it seems the government is intent upon controlling what broadcasters can and cannot show. It is seen as an infringement on the rights of the media.
How? A stringent content code, and the reference to “national interest” could actually be translated to mean, “We will block many forms of investigative journalism, like, say, sting ops.” It could also be interpreted as “toe the line or we’ll crack down on you”. The right of the media to question, expose corruption, etc, could be severely curtailed.
Theoretically, the government could retaliate to an expose by, say, claiming that the content code was violated, privacy was violated. It could yank away your licence, it could put your ownership structures under scrutiny.
We’ve already had one such case of a government crackdown — Tehelka faced probes about financial irregularities and almost shut down after Operation West End, which forced George Fernades to resign as defence minister after an expose about irregularities in defence spending.
The question is, why is freedom of expression such a big issue?
It is, because it guarantees that a universe of ideas will always be part of our society. The universe of ideas is important for opinions to be expressed, debated and eventually a path to the truth found.
Why should we have limits on what to discuss?
If multiple parties disagree, then the very fact that that disagreement can be expressed, heard and one point of view either dismissed or accepted is the very lifeblood of society.
Huge changes are often sparked off by a single voice. It may meet with a wall of opposition in the beginning, but eventually others join this first brave voice. In time, the minority could even become the majority.
But you can’t have all this by suppressing expression.
Political and social movements, say, civil rights, women’s rights, etc, all started small. Today, those tiny voices have created enough awareness for these issues to occupy a large part of our bandwidth.
Repression of an opinion you don’t want is censorship of the worst kind.
It was the American historian Alfred Whitney Griswold who said: “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.”
Ashraf Engineer
zubina said,
February 7, 2008 at 11:51 am
Ashraf this is definitely an amazing speech showing your clear conscience about Freedom of expression . You were absolutely right when you commented “We are all entitled to our choices — political, cultural, sexual and at the end of the itz d personal choice which matters. Freedom of expression can make a huge difference to society if practiced in the right spirit. But authors like Taslima Nasreen and Salman Rushdie have have rather misused this freedom; they pass off their derogatory writings simply as ‘Freedom of expression’. Similarly ,recently when SRK was banned to smoke on-screen by the health minister , the superstar very slyly replied back saying it was curbing their creative freedom. So at end of the Freedom of expression can be a boon to society if used with a logical and just spirit.
Lotfullah said,
February 7, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Dear Ashraf,
I had just a rapid look at your speech and surely you are going to present some admirable words in the gathering. I myself enjoyed reading that and definitely, all the audiences as well.
Nazim said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I am rather divided on the issue of freedom of expression. Whilst suppression of freedom isn’t a healthy practice, i would also like to add that people do really take it a bit far. The various fora on the internet are a perfect example—when on the net, many people would say things they wouldn’t be saying in real-life conversations.
also now let’s analyse this whole idea at a micro level.
why is a mentally unstable person not allowed freedom to do or say things. that’s because his/her condition will not allow his mind to function at optimum level and he may say or do things that are not rational/in his interests/prejudiced. Likewise, let’s take it further and say that no human mind is free of prejudices or is entirely unbiased. He may thus say things that are not true thanks to his prejudices. How can that person (in effect all of us who have our own biases and judgments for various things and events) be allowed to get away with whatever we say in the name of freedom of speech.
PS: This is just a thought that struck me, and i’m not entirely sure of the point i’m trying to make.
Also, seems there’s some problem with your blog template—it takes ages to load sometimes. Regards.
Abha said,
May 26, 2008 at 12:27 am
Hello Ashraf!
I think you are absolutely right. Like Absolute morality,Absolute freedom of expression should also be exercised. We can kill bad ideas with better ideas. You really write very well.
I am a home carer with two little kids and in UK. Somethings do worry me sometimes. If in the name of freedom of expression, some media tries to bombard my little children with drug abuse, violence(channels and journalists take full privilege of it), sex etc, at an age when they are better off not knowing it then what should be done? I am trying my full best to keep them away from these things but my efforts are not good enough. If a 5 year old watches freedom of expression of violent clippings on movies and news then is it only my responsibility to take them away? Aren’t these children the responsibility of today’s society too? Here in West teenagers and I mean kids aged 12-13 are exercising full freedom of expression in terms of smoking, drugs and obscenity. Isn’t some descretion and responsibility necessary along with this freedom? till our society becomes ripe and mature enough to handle this responsibility then should we not exercise some restraint? I don’t mean bans all together but some responsibility atleast. With great power comes great freedom and with great freedom also comes great responsibility. Are we responsible enough to use this freedom in a good way without any harm to others? If my 5 year old kid wants to use his freedom of expression to kill a pet, should I let him do so?
Ashraf Engineer said,
May 27, 2008 at 8:40 am
Hi Abha,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree these are dilemmas all parents grapple with. I have a five-year-old daughter too and there are similar thoughts on my mind. I do think that the media is flawed, like every other agency in life, but curtailing tis freedom would be worse than the few ill effects we’d experience otherwise. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility and I believe that the media should introspect and make sure it is acting responsibly enhough.
Regards,
Ashraf
Engineer Ashraf said,
January 14, 2009 at 12:58 pm
SALAM,
DEAR ASHRAF
I AM COMPLETY AGREE WITH YOU. I HAVE SMALL BOY 06 YEARS. I AM DAILY WATCHING THE NEWS AND HE IS JUST ROAMING AROUND. LAST DAYS, HE UNDERSTOOD MUMBAI-TERROR ATTACK, AND WHEN HE SHOW THE SOLDIER IN CAMP, HE TOLD THEM, YOU GO AT MUMBAI AND FIRE TO ALL. BECAUSE, MEDIA IS NON SENSLY REPEATING THE STORIES, SAME WAS HAPPENED IN CASE OF ARUSHI, NEW DELHI.
Andrew said,
March 11, 2009 at 3:00 am
Great speech!!