Creating a bit of space for freedom

Governments have no incentive to secure the civil liberties of citizens

I have a book coming out next month and thought I would summarise its argument for those who may not want to buy it. Truth be told, few Indians read or buy books and 5,000 copies sold here constitutes a “best-seller”.

The citizen, this is the burden of my song, engages with the State in three ways: Vote, court and protest — and we need to consider how we can amp up the third.

The first is the one where Indians are most actively engaged. Our turnouts are usually high, particularly after the introduction of voting machines. Sixty per cent and above is the norm here. This is higher than many other democracies, including the United States, and matches smaller and robust parliamentary democracies like the United Kingdom.

For many Indians, the idea of voting in a fair election comprises not only the essence of democracy but the entirety of it. Though he has not written on this at length, it appears to be the case that the prime minister sees it this way. His emphasis on Indian democracy, particularly when abroad, is aligned to the theme of fair election, fairly won. Democracy in this frame begins and ends with the vote and then begins and ends again five years later.

This is not the way that the world sees democracy, and this is particularly true of the older and wealthier democracies. For them, fair elections constitute one part, and the lesser part, of democratic societies. The 80-year old Freedom House puts out an annual report on the state of democracy and freedom around the world. In its country scores, the body sets aside 40 per cent for political rights. This 40 per cent includes the electoral process, political participation and government functioning.

It may interest readers to know that in this category, India (33/40) scored higher than the United States (32/40) in the latest report. The United States was damaged by the Republican attempt to violently overthrow the election results. The political rights of Indians, though many believe they have been compromised by changes such as anonymous electoral funding, remain intact, according to this telling.

The second, and larger, category Freedom House examines democracy and freedoms on is civil liberties. This constitutes freedom of expression, belief, academic freedom, right to association, freedom for NGOs and trade unions, an independent judiciary, due process, equal treatment and social equality.

Illustration: Binay Sinha

Here India’s score collapses (33/60) and has remained poor for some time. Kashmir, which is ranked separately from India, scoring 7/40 on political rights — remember that it is the only part of India to not be under democratic government — and 20/60 on civil liberties.

It is not easy, even as a supporter of this government, to dismiss this or to say that the scores for Indian civil liberties are not based on reality. The fact is that the government and its supporters revel in the misery being rained down on opponents and dissenters through the use of the organs of the State.

And yet this is also the space that the individual and the citizen needs to up their engagement with the State. There is a passivity and indifference when it comes to us claiming our rights from the State, particularly when it is the State that is not only impeding their enjoyment but actively working against giving space to civil liberties.

What can be done here? The answer is of course greater engagement (and how to do this is the largest part of my book). To expand the space of freedom we have to push at the limits being forced on us by the State. Some of this is clearly dangerous to do. Freedom of expression is in today’s India allowed when one is speaking in favour of Hindutva or the government. Those who speak against have a good chance, particularly if they are public figures or journalists or fact-checkers, of being locked up without crime. And once this happens the issue of the executive-judiciary — meaning one aligned to the executive and not entirely independent — also often reveals itself.

However, space exists and today technology gives us access as individuals to the world, and to debates around the world, in a way that was not possible even a decade ago. Article 19 gives us fairly broad rights when it comes to freedoms of expression, assembly and association. These freedoms have not devolved in substantial form down and not been enjoyed as they should be. Part of the reason is the desire of the State to exercise absolute control. The problem for the State is that India is incompletely authoritarian, unlike China. It is incompletely majoritarian, and retains a pluralist constitution. The current strain on society is against the grain of what our republic imagines itself to be in its symbols and its text.

It is not going to be the governments we elect that will alone expand the space for freedom and liberties because they have no incentive to as we can see around us today. The pushing by ruling parties controlling the State against the rights of the individuals does not appear to have much of a fallout for them electorally. The attendant informal institutions of democracy, the media for instance, appear to have absolutely no stake or desire to push for full democratic rights.

It will have to be the public-spirited individuals and the associations citizens form that must launch a sort of freedom struggle: The first one gave us political rights, this second one will secure us civil liberties.

The writer is chair of Amnesty International India