One criterion to determine whether a country or society is truly democratic, as it professes to be, is the extent of dissent permitted. The right to dissent and tolerance of dissent are the sine qua non of a liberal democratic society. It is not sufficient to grant freedom to those who differ from us in respect of minor matters, matters that do not touch the heart of the existing order. We must learn to accord freedom for the thought we hate and to accord a fair field and an honest race to all sections of society. That is the real credo of a liberal.
In other words, radicals, reactionaries, industrialists, workmen, the religious and the free thinkers; capitalists, communists and all the infinite variety of platforms, fanatics and self-appointed saviours of mankind must have the freedom to express their own voice, subject, of course, to one very important qualification – that there is no incitement to violence, no incitement to racial hatred. In a Liberal democracy, all groups in the country accept the fact that in a free country one can have different opinions and should have the equal right in voicing them. Disagreement with the beliefs and ideologies of others is no reason for suppression, because tolerance recognizes that there can be more than one path for the attainment of truth and for securing salvation.
Assumption of infallibility
On the other hand, intolerance stems from an invincible assumption of the infallibility of one’s system, the dogmatic conviction of the rightness of one’s tenets and beliefs and their superiority over others. When intolerance reigns, reason takes a back seat. Intolerance is based on prejudices, irrational beliefs and stereotypes. It fosters feelings of ill will, enmity between different classes and communities. Intolerance ultimately leads to the forcible imposition of one’s ideology and dogma on others. Religious persecution, as we know, is a result of intolerance and is once again rearing its head in the name of Almighty God.
Suppression of dissent emanates from intolerance. An intolerant regime does not brook dissent. An authoritarian regime cannot tolerate the expression of ideas which challenges its doctrine and ideology in the form of writings, or plays, or drama or music or painting. Why do people in power want to suppress dissent? One reason is, again, the unshakeable conviction of the regime about the rightness of its ideologies and the policies it is following. And that makes it necessary to suppress unconventional and heterodox thoughts and theories, which will endanger its cherished beliefs. That is indeed the prime motivation for censorship. Besides, the objective of the authoritarian regime is to popularise its policies and practices among its people in order to gain their support. This it does in two ways. First by massive propaganda through State-owned and controlled media for praising the regime’s so-called successes on account of its current policies. Another way is by imposing strict censorship with a view to suppress any criticism or questioning of its policies. This suppression of dissent by censorship is an indispensable instrument for a totalitarian regime. An intolerant authoritarian regime and censorship are indeed natural allies.
Fascist tendencies
Let me give you another example which was one of the worst which I have come across. A U.S. scholar, James Laine, by name, wrote a biography of Shivaji in which he cast some doubt upon the paternity of Shivaji. Naturally you may not agree with it, you may condemn him. But what happened? Not only was his book burnt, but there was a demand for his prosecution. One even went to the absurd length of saying that he should be extradited. But the worst part was that a fine institute in Pune called the Bhandarkar Institute, with its archives and valuable documents was vandalized. Why? Because Laine wrote his book sitting there, making use of this Institute’s archival material. Now this is fascism at its worst. You vandalize an institute which has such valuable documents because Laine wrote something which some people found very unpleasant. This trend we have to arrest. This is not the India that we know. Not the India where people can freely discuss. The sad thing is that this intolerance has acquired a global spread.
Now we need not follow what is happening in other countries. We must preserve our tradition of tolerance which we have had. If anyone asks me to write a biography of a religious leader, I would say first, I want an insurance policy for my safety! But one bright spot is that our courts have consistently and steadfastly upheld the right of dissent and emphasized the necessity for tolerance. Let me give you a very interesting case that the Bombay High Court decided in 1968. In a case involving critical references to Gandhiji the High Court of Bombay held thus: “Everyone ought to have the privilege of expressing opinions which are unpopular or distasteful. The right to dissent is the very essence of democracy. Conformity with accepted norms and beliefs has always been the enemy of freedom of thought.”
Ore Oru Gramathil
Let me give you another example. There was a Tamil movie titled ‘Ore Oru Gramathil’ (In One Village). The theme of that movie was that the reservation policy is being abused, people make false claims of being scheduled caste or backward class and then they get into positions. It was just a movie. In principle, what it tried to portray was good. We must have preferential treatment, we must have special preferences for people who are handicapped and who have suffered discrimination over the centuries. The Board of Censors passed it. It even got an award. But the Madras High Court somehow banned it. The matter came up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court reversed the judgement. Justice Jagannath Shetty gave the leading judgment of the Court and this is what he said:
“Freedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no democratic society”. If the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under the constitution, freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstrations and processions or threats of violence. If you yield to such threats, that would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Freedom of expression which is legitimate and is constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people.
Suppress bigotry not freedom
When I was the Attorney General, they used to tell me ‘Sir, if we don’t ban this book, there will be violence.’ I would reply ‘first of all you go on the merits, is there anything intrinsically wrong with the book? Does it offend any provision of law? Is it obscene, is it sacrilegious?’ Are we going to judge and ban books because some hypersensitive people who have very different notions of what should be published or not, are going to give you threats? If there are threats, suppress the people who give the threats. Don’t suppress the book. Don’t suppress freedom of expression. Otherwise you are being completely held hostage by very bigoted, intolerant sets of people.
Fostering a culture of tolerance
The need of the hour, if you ask me, is tolerance. It must be realized that there is an essential linkage between tolerance, human rights, democracy and peace. On the other hand if there is unchecked intolerance, the inevitable consequence will be violence and that would ultimately endanger peace. The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations proclaims, that to achieve the goals of the Charter, we need to “practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”. You see in history everywhere what has happened because of intolerance. But tolerance cannot be legislated. You cannot pass a law that you will be tolerant any more than you can pass a law that you will not have more than two pegs of whiskey. You cannot legislate prohibition, you cannot legislate tolerance. These are virtues that are to be instilled. So what is necessary is, we must develop a capacity for tolerance by fostering an environment of tolerance, a culture of tolerance.
And education has to play a vital role in this connection. Stereotypes, prejudices about certain classes and communities must be eliminated. The Press too has an important role to play. I would make a special appeal to the members of the Press that they should ensure that prejudices and stereotypes about certain communities or classes are not perpetuated and the Press should speak out against those trends which you find in the country. The Press should be insistent and eloquent in preaching the message that no group or body has the monopoly of truth and wisdom and we must respect the point of view of the other-minded. If we desire to convert the others to our point of view, it should be done by persuasion and constructive debate without forcible imposition of one’s views.
So, friends, as Minoo Masani would say, let us promote tolerance in our multi-religious, multi-cultural nation and thereby strengthen our pluralist democracy and ensure freedom of speech and expression so that the right to dissent will always be a living reality and not a casualty. I think if we do that, if we strive in that direction, that is the best tribute that we can pay to one of the finest liberals and democrats we have had, Minoo Masani.
This piece is excerpted from the booklet Freedom First, titled “Increasing Intolerance and Suppression of Dissent”, published in October 2005. The original version can be accessed here.