question_answer

As early as the 19th century. Raja Rammohan Roy protested against the curtailing of the press and argued that a state must be responsive to individuals and make available to them the means by which they may safely communicate their views. This claim is of equal relevance today.

The commitment to civil liberty flows directly from the manner in which the state treats dissent. A state committed to the rule of law ensures that the state apparatus is not employed to curb legitimate and peaceful protest but to create spaces conducive for deliberation. Within the bounds of law, liberal democracies ensure that their citizens enjoy the right to express their views in every conceivable manner, including the right to protest and express dissent against prevailing laws.

The blanket labelling of such dissent as ‘anti-national’ or ‘'anti-democratic'’ strikes at the heart of our commitment to the protection of constitutional values and the promotion of a deliberative democracy. Protecting dissent is but a reminder that while democratically elected governments offer us a legitimate tool for development and social coordination, they can never claim a monopoly over the values and identities that define our plural society. The employment of state machinery to curb dissent, instils fear and creates a chilling atmosphere on free speech which violates the rule of law and detracts from the constitutional vision of a pluralist society.

The destruction of spaces for questions and dissent destroys the basis of all growth - political, economic, cultural and social. In this sense, dissent is the safety valve of democracy. The silencing of dissent and the generation of fear in the minds of people go beyond the violation of personal liberty and a commitment to constitutional values - it strikes at the heart of a dialogue-based democratic society which accords to every individual equal respect and consideration.

A commitment to pluralism requires positive action in the form of social arrangements where the goal is “"to incorporate difference, coexist with it, allow it a share of social space"”. There is thus a positive obligation on the state to ensure the deployment of its machinery to protect the freedom of expression within the bounds of law, and dismantle any attempt by individuals or other actors to instil fear or chill free speech. This includes not just protecting free speech, but actively welcoming and encouraging it. The great threat to pluralism is the suppression of difference and the silencing of popular and unpopular voices offering alternate or opposing views. Suppression of intellect is the suppression of the conscience of the nation.

This brings me to the second threat to pluralism - the belief that homogenisation presupposes the unity of the nation. A united India is not one characterised by a single identity devoid of its rich plurality, both of cultures and of values. National unity denotes a shared culture of values and a commitment to the fundamental ideals of the Constitution in which all individuals are guaranteed not just the fundamental rights but also conditions for their free and safe exercise.

Pluralism depicts not merely a commitment to the preservation of diversity, but a commitment to the fundamental postulates of individual and equal dignity. In this sense, pluralism furthers the basic postulates of the Constitution and nourishes and provides content to the goal of national unity. In the creation of the ‘imagined political community'’ that is India, it must be remembered that the very concept of a nation state changed from hierarchical communities to networks consisting of free and equal individuals.

The Preamble sets forth the founding vision of securing to all its citizens justice, liberty and equality.

However, the founders recognised that a commitment to pluralism went beyond its guarantee in the Constitution and in its institutions - it lay in how it was worked. For this reason, the framers postulated that “"fraternity"” presupposed the recognition of its ideals - a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood that went beyond the guarantee of equality and liberty. Dr Ambedkar put it eloquently when he said that “"without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.”"

What is the requirement for commitment to pluralism?

A) Protection of the freedom of expression   

B) Allow everyone irrespective of race or religion to take citizenship

C) Protect the minorities within and outside the nation

D) Minimum use of state apparatus