words per minute
7
RahulDagwal
00:00
Speed
We hold adults to different standards of behavior than we do children. But what about adolescents? We are disappointed when they are unable to behave with maturity but are often not surprised by their lack of it. Maturity, in a human, is the duty to conduct oneself in accordance with social norms, under varying circumstances, irrespective of how the individual feels. In the context of a nation, Tocqueville de"nes the nation's maturity as the capacity of the people of that nation to act responsibly in the face of social flux. The rapid growth in national power, along with the unbridled freedom of economic power, has given Indians something that our predecessors never had. Simultaneously, the tide of events that have rocked the world has not passed by India. So, has India behaved responsibly in light of all this? Is India mature? Let us test this from the perspective of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the most cherished freedoms. The Constitution of India, too, declares that Indians possess this freedom, but makes it subject to the interest of public order, or the sovereignty and integrity of India. We believe that the framers of the Constitution accepted this watering down of this fundamental freedom, simply because the notion of unfettered freedom of speech was foreign to us. The concept of freedom of speech is a western notion. While some form of freedom may have existed in ancient Greece, the real freedom of speech, as we understand it today, was propounded by Voltaire and Rousseau. Nothing in our soil suggests that this freedom took root here. B.R. Ambedkar, in his Writings and Speeches, notes this in relation to ancient India: "As to freedom of speech, it exists. But it exists only for those who are in favor of the social order. Freedom is not the freedom of liberalism expressed by Voltaire when he said 'I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it." There is some evidence that freedom of expression existed within state-ordained constructs. The content of the debates of Adi Shankara or Saint Thirugnana Sambandar seems remarkably liberal. Yet, this freedom did not extend to criticism of the king or his royal policies. A man who spoke ill of a king did not live long enough to see the elect. Hence, free speech was within state-de"ned boundaries.