In ‘market-friendly democracies’, the notion of freedom gets mutated to a mere matter of choice rather than the free expression of ideas. Freedom as citizens’ right to articulate ideas without conscription of thought has been replaced by consumers’ prerogative to choose between brands —Nike or Adidas — and between service providers — Amazon or Walmart—of their choice.
This ultimately means a slow cancellation of our rights and fundamental freedoms. They are not abruptly ripped from our grasp, but stolen away silently, piece by piece. We are inching towards, what the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben defined as, a state of exception, suspension of legal protections afforded to individuals while simultaneously unleashing the power of the state upon them. This is precisely what’s happening in India under Narendra Modi and in various states, whether ruled by Yogi Adityanath or Uddhav Thackeray or Mamata Banerjee or others of their ilk. Like the rainforest, freedom of expression is facing the risk of extinction.
Interestingly, it now seems that this trend is going to cast its shadow on Kerala as well. The amendment introduced to the Police Act by the state government portends such a danger. Though the existing laws — for instance, section 119 of the Police Act — would have sufficed to tackle cyber attacks against individuals, the state government travelled the extra mile and introduced a new section (118A) to the Police Act.
It stipulates a three-year imprisonment and/or a fine of Rs 10,000 “for producing any content, publishing or propagating the same through any means of communication to threaten, insult or harm the reputation of an individual”. As it’s a cognizable offence, the police could register cases, suo motu, and arrest the culprits without warrants.
That means even the print and the electronic media are going to be under the state’s thumb. No doubt that the law, as it stands now, goes well beyond the mandate of the Constitution, the brief of the Kerala High Court, and an earlier verdict of the Supreme Court which had invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act, and Section 118 (D) of the Kerala Police Act as they violate Article 19. Naturally, many fear the new legislation could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of the government.
It may be remembered that the art of living is also the art of dissenting. And for that, one needs intellectual privacy -- protection from surveillance or interference while engaged in the process of generating ideas. As Romila Thapar says, “we have to learn to respect and accept dissenting views and discuss them -- not silence them”.
There is indeed a greater need today to contain cyber crimes but it is also imperative that it should not be at the cost of free speech and the free circulation of ideas. It would be wise to remember that the question of justice is also the question of just power. The new legal dispensation, however, glosses over this fundamental fact and seeks to establish a state with muscles by allowing the police to draw parallel geography of power.
(The writer is a former pro-vice chancellor of Kerala University. Views expressed are personal)