Sedition in Liberal Democracies

204 Pages·2018·50.49 MB·English

by  Anushka Singh

OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of
CONTENTS
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries.
Published in India by
Oxford University Press
2/11 Ground Floor, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi 110 002, India
© Oxford University Press 2018
vii
Acknowledgements
The moral rights of the author have been asserted. xi
List of AbbreviatiotlS
First Edition published in 2018
1
Introduction: Liberal Democracy and Free Speech
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the 1. Political Offences and Speech Crimes: Comparing
28
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
Legal Regimes
by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
· ·The Past
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the 2. Sedition and Western Liberal Democracies.
73
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
and the Present
address above.
· tism· Sedition
3 . Resistance, Suppression, and Pa tno ·
136
You must not circulate this work in any other form
in Colonial India
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. 176
·t· d h J eli . I D. ourse in Postcolonial India
4 . S e d1 ton an t e u eta 1sc
225
5. Caste, Class, Community, and the Everyday Tales of Law
310
ISBN-13 (print edition): 978-0-19-948169-9
6. Indian Democracy and the 'Moment of Contradiction'
lSBN-10 (print edltion): 0-19-948169-5
Conclusion: The Life of a Law and Contradictions
363
ISBN-13 (eBook): 978-0-19-909182-9
of Liberal Democracies
ISBN-10 (eBook): 0-19-909182-X
369
Bibliography 387
Index
393
About the Author
Typeset in Berling LT Std 9.5/13
s
by The Graph· 1 .
. d . tcs o utlon, New Delhi II 0 092
Pr mte tn India b y R ak rn 0 Press, New Delhi 110 020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work evolved from my doctoral research at the Department of
Political Science, University of Delhi, and bears the imprint of the
efforts of no single individual but a collective. I express my sincere
thanks to all the faculty members, non-teaching staffs, and fellow
research students in the department for their support. I have been
extremely fortunate to receive the guidance of noted academics over
the years who have shaped my understanding of politics. I am thankful
to Achin Vanaik, Pradip Kumar Datta, and Pumima Roy. To Yogendra
Yadav I would always remain indebted for his unflinching support and
faith in me. I was privileged to receive the insightful comments and
words of encouragement from Anuradha Chenoy, Manjari Katju, and
Monica Sakhrani, which propelled the work forward.
The doctoral research fellowship at King's College, London, granted
by the Ministry of Culture Government of India, was one of the most
facilitating experiences fo; this research. I am extremely grateful to
the faculty, staff, and students at King's India Institute, King's College,
London. The incisive comments of Sunil Khilnani, Conor Gearty, and
Sandipto Dasgupta are reflected in this work. I am also thankful to
Robert Sharp at English PEN, for sharing his views and for putting
me in touch with those involved with the movement for abolition of
the offence of sedition in England. I thank the staff of British Library,
London, which was virtually my home for over three months, and
major parts of the work were written in its reading room which were
subsequently revised.
Lx
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
viii b th my grandmothers and Badi
familial love. Those who left midway- o
This work would be incomplete without the mention of my dear
Ma-continue to live within me. 1 rvisor: critic, friend, and men-
.
friends, colleagues, and fellow researchers. Om Prakash, Prccti, Vikas, s h my doctora supe ' 1· · 11 him
Ujjwal Kumar mg , world view and po ttiCS. o .
Santana, Subarta, lndrajeet, Anusha, Kamal, Pooja, Kunal, and K.K. tor for life, has constantly mdy ch commitment to acttv-
. ente resear , . h"
Subha-1 cannot thank them enough for their comments, discussions,
I owe my interest in praxts-on h b "11" ance of which reflects m ts
and overwhelming support over the years. I also thank my colleagues at "th law-t e n 1 k fr "ts
ism, and engagement wt ·s reflections on this wor om t
Gargi College, University of Delhi, for their cheerful support. Friends
own work on the anti-terror laws. Ht various drafts, and persistent
at People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) and their resilience
inception onwards, critical book. I have deep respect for
to struggle have been constantly inspiring. I have benefitted enormously encouragement h ave conge aled mto tt ldS yet unrelentt.. ng suppor t· Over
from the various discussions and the work we did together. Anupama Roy who has been an unsdta e. rably failed at emulating the
Manoranjan Mohanty, Uma Chakravarti, and Gautam Navlakha have the years 1 have rea d h er w orks an rntse To Anupama Ro y an d UJ·J·wal
never ceased to amaze and inspire me with their passion, commitment, strength and expression of her argument ts. and unconditionality.
. h . r sheer ove
and energy. While working on this book, I have found some of the Singh I owe this work, for t et
recent studies theorizing the nature of the liberal democratic states and
democratic rights within most engaging. In this regard, the contribu-
tion to the field made by Michael Held, Sarah Sorial, Katherine Gelber,
Jinee Lokaneeta, and Gautam Bhatia is immense. The conceptual cat-
egories innovated and theoretical interventions made by Laura Nader,
Julia Eckert, and Ujjwal Singh have benefitted this work enormously.
I am grateful to my two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions
for improvement were extremely beneficial, and to Oxford University
Press for their guidance and support.
1 thank the staff at the National Archives of India, New Delhi, and
the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi for their help.
The fieldwork in parts of Haryana, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Bihar
would not have been possible without the support and generosity of
the people there. Everywhere I went and stayed, 1 felt received and
aided. Many of the everyday stories I attempt to theorize in this work
bear the imprint of the ordinary and the extraordinary struggles of
these people and their institutions; naming a few would belittle the
struggles of the thousands.
The immense love and support received from my family, and
the autonomy I have been granted, has indelibly shaped this work.
Singh and Shweta Singh, would remain the strength behind
To U.N. Singh, Poonam Singh, A.K. Singh, Pushpa Kumar,
.K. Smgh, Kinshuk, and Tejrashi Mehrotra, among others, I
remam indebted. My soul sisters, Anamika Asthana and Shivani
Naram, have been my lifelines. I also thank Jamshed and Jyotsna for
ABBREVIATIONS
ABVP Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarathi Parishad
ALRC Australian Law Reform Commission
ATS Anti-Terrorism Squad
BJP Bharatiya Janta Party
BKU Bharatiya Kisan Union
BSP Bahujan Samaj Party
CM Chief Minister
CPA Communist Party of Australia
CPGB Communist Party of the Great Britain
CPI Communist Party of India
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
FALN Fuerzas Armadas de Liberaci6n Nacional
INLD Indian National Lok Dal
IPC
Indian Penal Code
IWW Industrial Workers of the World (USA)
JCM Jagrook Chhatra Morcha
JNU Jawaharlal Nehru University
KKM Kahir Kala Manch
KMKU Krantikari Mazdoor Kisan Union
NIA National Investigating Agency
0BC Other Backward Class
PIL Public Interest Litigation
POTA Prevention of Terrorism Act
PUCL People's Union for Civil Liberties
PUDR People's Union for Democratic Rights
·---,
xii
Abbreviations
SAD
Shiromani Akali Dal
SIMI
Student Isla · M
. . mtc ovement of India
SJSM
ShJValtk Jan Sangharsh Manch
TADA
Terrorist and Disru tiv . . .
UAPA Unlawful Activit" pp e Acttvtttes (Prevention) Act
tes revention Act
INTRODUCTION
Liberal Democracy and Free Speech
On 1 February 2017 at the University of California, Berkeley, USA,
mob violence erupted on campus with 1,500 protesters demanding the
cancellation of a public lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British author
notorious for his alleged racist and anti-Islamic views.1 Consequently,
event was cancelled triggering a chain of reactions on the desirabil-
Ity and limits of freedom of expression within American democracy.
The Left-leaning intellectuals and politicians were accused of allowing
the mob violence to become a riot on campus defending it in the name
of protest against racism fascism and social injustice. In defending the
rights of the protesters not 'illiberal' or hate speech on campus,
however, many claimed that the message conveyed was that only liber-
als had the n·g h t to fr ee speech. 2
Almost contemporarily in 2016, in India, a series of criminal cases
registered involving the act of sloganeering in support of the
nght to self-determination of people in Kashmir. Kashmir is one of the
states of the Indian Union where the movement for self-determination
1 New York Times, 2 February 2017 'A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of
aM , .
ovement at Berkeley', available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/
us/university-california-berkeley-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos.html?_ r=O,
accessed: 12 February 2017
2 .
htt . Matthew Vadum, 6 February 2017, 'The Sedition Left', available at
p.// www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265 71 7/ seditious-left-matthew-vadum,
accessed: 12 April 2017.
_,
'
3
Liberal Democracy mtd Free Speeclt
2 Sedition in Liberal Democracies
. d democracy, on the one hand, and
to bring together liberahsm an d th tate on the other. It is in the
cyan es ' ..
has existed since its integration within the Union in 194 7. Notably, in the imperatives o fde mocra ence of these confhcting ten-
. fr m the converg di . ·
February 2016, students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New contestations emergmg 0 peech' of which se 15 a
f 'extremes ' .
Delhi, were charged and arrested for sedition for participating in a dencies, that the category o . f political speech, an expresston
meeting in which· it was alleged that slogans were raised to support kind emerges. Se d.t tt· on ·•s a form 0 a d state which 1· s 1t:o rb "1d den
, f th vernment an '
Kashmir's freedom from India.3 In March 2017, in an interview given
against the authority : e ate criticism, and, therefore, pro-
to India Today, Union Minister Venkaiah Naidu said that 'pro-freedom'
for exceeding the limtt of legtttm eech and expression. By ratsmg the
slogans will not be tolerated and must be penalized, as they result in by the right to freedom of s_p h may be freely exercised,
t t d
ec e d htch speec 'th'
violence and endanger national unity.4 In this case, the justification for
issue of the conditions un er w d clition reveals a dilemma wt m
restriction on free speech was in the name of protecting the Indian or alternatively legitimately curbe , lds in the tensions between the
nation state, to which secessionism is interpreted as the biggest threat. liberal democracies. This between freedoms of citizens
The incident at Berkeley, presents with a case, in which restriction d the relations •P
relative preced ence an
on free speech was demanded and justified in the name of protect- and obligations of the state. of the many restrictions on
ti n are one . .
ing what is largely called the 'liberal-democratic' values from 'illiberal' di
The laws to penalize se o d ex ression. Hence it ts tmpera-
political opinions. In the Indian case, however, the restriction on the
the right to freedom of speech an p alysis on this account would
right to freedom of expression of individuals was justified in the name
tive to mention at the democracy and the right
of coagulating state security. The brief description above pre-empts
not make any sweeping clatms atho' rk is the fate of those forms
the larger framework within which this work is placed, which is the f 1S wo d · t the
to free speech. The concern o des that are uttere agams
debate over the centrality of free speech and the restrictions on the
of expressions within liberal thus is the state of freedom of
same. These concerns, however, gain prominence only within a specific
authority of the state. The uiliority within those forms
context. An authoritarian state which does not recognize the individual h gamst e a ·
expression that citizens ave a th liberal and democratic.
as a right-bearing citizen is inappropriate for any debate on freedom to
of government that claim to be bo
take shape. The appropriate context is informed by a form of govern-
·Amalgam
ment, which we refer to as liberal democracy, which claims to guaran- or a Conundrum'?
tee the liberal right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Liberal Democracy: An Life and Times of Liberal
As an ideal, as well as an evaluative framework, democracy real- In 1977 when C.B. Macp h erson wrot.e The that existed pn·o r t 0 the
izes itself politically through a democratic state. The process of this
he excluded the entire democracy. He counted
realization is, however, fraught, since it involves reconciling conflict-
nineteenth century from the frame loh"sttofY of the western democra-
ing tendencies which inhere in the logic of 'democracy' and the logic the pre-nineteenth-century pol "1 ticda t cracy gradually pavm· g thde wtha y
of the 'state'. A liberal democratic state, it may be said, is a fraught cies as precursor mo d e Is 0 f l1'b eral .e m. o · n ' Macp h erson argue at
combination of competing tendencies and traditions, since it attempts to its emergence. In rna ki ng this dtsttnct.1 0r t' o libera1 d emoc racy were
all models of democracy that existed eties (Macpherson 1977,. P·
-class soct . · hip pnv-
3 based on either classless or one . . al equality and c1uzens
The Indian Express, 16 March 2016, 'JNU Row: University Report Links
Azadi Slogans to "Outs"d " . h . . 11 ). The understanding was that poltttc U eople belonged to the same
1 ers Wtt Covered Faces' available at http://mdtan-
express.com/artide/indi /' d" . . . ' . . ileges belonged either to one class or a. pt Greece fitted the model of
. . a m ta-news-mdta/}nu-report-hnks-azadt-slogans-to-
· n Anc1en f A h -born
outstders-wtth-covered-faces/' accessed: 20 March 2016. class. The Athenian democracy 1 th privilege o t ens
. 4. Naidu.' s interview giv en t o I nd "t a Today TV Network, available at http:// one-class society where ct. tt· zensh ip was e u· c mode1 s propos ed by
) Democra
mdtatoday.mtoday.in!story/v k · h "d .. 23
. en ata -nat u-ratsmg-azaadi-slogans-treason-sedi- propertied men (Held 1987, P· ·
tmn-law/1/895067 .html, accessed: 10 March 201 7.
5
Liberal Democracy and Free Speech
4 Sedition in Liberal Democracies
t of the ushering in of represent-
Rousseau in the mid-eighteenth century or Thomas Jefferson towards governmcnt.6 This was the The form that governments
ative democracy within the hbera states.
the end of the eighteenth century envisaged societies with no class dis-
took then was called liberal ld be disagreements on
tinction (Macpherson 1977, pp. 15-16). Rousseau and Jefferson dif- . da1m ere wou
fered from the Athenian model in the sense that they did not exclude Contrary to Macph erson s 'd t" g these principles had been
f, f rnment eno m
the property-less from the class of citizenry but both presupposed a the fact that a orm o gove the nineteenth century. In 1885,
society in which everyone who could be called a citizen, would have put in place in the west much bhe oCre t<tution commenting on consti-
V o· t Lawoft e ons.. ,
at least a little property to work on, hence a limited property right. w he n A. . 1cey _e . . and USA particularly, he traced many
Hence, within the supposed class of citizens, there would have been tutional democracies m Bntam b k to Common law and other
7
inequality of property but all still belonged to the same class of prop- of the principles of liberal 'rule of law' was foremost.
1
'practices of liberties' in Britatn, 10 w fcc al equality of all citizens
ertied bodies.
the idea o 1orm
Liberal democratic model, for the first time in the nineteenth Rule of law was b ase d on . h l"berty of all individuals.
d . . ofthe ng t to I d
century envisaged a form of government for a society that had class before law an recogmtlon b t the temporal contexts an
divisions and the rights-bearing citizens belonging to different classes. Although there may be debates fal"bou 1 democracy all accounts of
f, h gence o 1 era , th
Liberal democracy hence, as Macpherson opined, was essentially a form their corollaries or t e emer . theoretical underpinnings show e
of government for a capitalist society that sustained the class divisions the life of liberal democracy and tts ·b li ...... and democracy. The idea
d" · -li era Su•
in the society while guaranteeing the same rights in theory to different coming together of two tra tttons t was· democratized in the
1
classes of citizens. (Macpherson 1977, pp. 9-20). of individuals as capable of self-deve citizens. The democratic
Liberal democracy came to be identified with a form of government sense that this was now applied y ·ghts and at the same time,
h . div• ua s n '
10 8
that guaranteed equal rights to all citizens, rule of law, basic civil liber- government was to protect t e d from unlimited state power. In
ties, and popular sovereignty. It is evident in Macpherson's argument the individuals were to be protecte
that liberal democracy was an imperative of the liberal state based on
. . on Moore Jr., 1966, Social Origin of
capitalist relations. Hence, liberal democracy is referred to as a form of
6 Refer to Chapters 1 and 3 10 Barnngt fthe advent of capitalist democracy
government that became liberal first and then democratic. David Held D emocracy an d Dz·c tators h"1 p, 10r an acc.o untrtU 0 lefor liberal democratt· c n·g h ts ·
brings forth this argument in tracing the historical emergence of mod- in England and USA through bourgeoiS s gg d to Introduction to the Study of
. h r's Forewor k
em state in the west in which he makes reference to liberal state and 7 See the Editor, Roger MIC ene . h d. 1962 based on his wor a cen-
liberal democracy as two different forms of modern states (Held 1992, LAw and Co1zstitution by A. v· Dl.c ey pubhs e f 1l0 · three constituent parts-
. . f rule o aw m . f
p. 89). The liberal state was founded on the idea of constitutionalism 5 tury ago. Also see Dicey's defimtlon o f rnment secondly, the rdea o
art o gove ' . 1
that is, an idea of a limited government, private property, and firstly, absence of arbitrary power on P b the result of the ordinary aw
. . allawto e
economy. It upheld the right to life, liberty, and property of the citizens legal equality, and thirdly, constitution
5
hut the citizens were essentially the property-owning male adult class. ofland. See Dicey 1962, pp. 183-20 · l . y of liberal democracy into
s Macpherson classified the historica JOdumel pmental democracy, and the
It ':as only in the course of many struggles fought for voting rights that the eve o S
three models: the protective democracy, d T" es of Liberal Democracy. ee
umversal adult franchise was established as a governing principle of
equilibrium democracy in his work The Life an rm riated by David Held,
Macpherson 1977. The earlier t-.vo models we;e app::e demo·cracy was based
5 later to denote the phase of liberal democracy. rotec democracy talked about
th d which emerged as a principle of liberal states, became 1
, e e. feature of liberal democratic states as well. Constitutionalism or on the idea of constitutional 1. sm wh "1l e develop. me.n ta l" m as a necessary mea-
1
garantiSme as Sartori · . d participation in political life along with constltllutlodna ;lopment of individuals.
. ' Wntes, m mo ernity is believed to be teleological where thefu est ev
th e te1 o s IS securing rights t o .m d "l VI" d ua 1 c1. tizens b y limiting the power of the sure to secure individual rights, to ensure
government. See Sartori 1962, pp. 853-64. See Held 1987.
6
Sedition in Liberal Democracies
Liberal Democracy and Free Speech 7
sum, it was the individual and her rights that were at the centre of the
philosophy of liberal democracy. democratic tradition represente d por t ti·c a1. lity 1a' nd. photsp aunladr lsibaevretry-
It is evident hence, that the trajectory of liberal democracy, and this eignty while the liberal tradition stood for 10 tvt ua s ng Th
f limitation on state power. e
is strictly speaking for the west, places the liberal tradition before the to he guaranteed as a consequence o . f I based
. · the exerctse o popu ar
democratic one at least in the historical time line. Bhikhu Parekh argues
latter imposed restncttons on f diti" ns that according to
. Th . t nee o two tra o '
that liberal democracy is 'liberalized democracy', that is, democracy on political equahty. e exts e . d d 'both perfect liberty
m
defined and structured within the limits set by liberalism. Liberalism b tl rationa 1tze rna e
9 her, could never e pe ec ssible' (Mouffe 000, p. 10). Liberal
2
believes in the idea of individual as prior to state and possessing rights and perfect equality become tmpo d . ti"ally a paradox that
that are above and before the state. The democratic system arranged democracy, hence, m. Mo ur«r e •s wor s' 1s essen ·
within the liberal paradigm then accepts the state to maintain a sys- 1 · · ti" t nsions within it.
resu ts m persts ng e ·nts out to such per-
. , . . f l"beral democracy pot
tem of individual rights in which people can control and compel the 0 1
Carl Schmttt s cntique h . . e oflt"beral democracies,
. . d c"ng is cnttqu
government and the authority of state (Parekh 1992, p. 165). Within sisting tensions. Schmttt m a 1 nta democracies, wrote that lib-
this arrangement it comes to fore that the nature of state within liberal which he referred to as the parhame ry .ty (Schmitt 1926). Prior
democracy is defined along the parameters of liberalism. The state is a eral democracies work wt. th cer ta t· n ho.m ogtehn edt ocratic tradition had
human creation, created to safeguard the rights of individuals, and the to the emergence of liberal democractes, only for those who
individuals retain the right to withdraw support from political author- worked on the principle of substantivthe equalt d d others For Schmitt,
ity if it violates the rights it was supposed to protect. 10 were equals.12 The oth ers remam· e d e occ u e a libera·l idea and not
. . . I d "t their status was
This is not to say that liberal democracy stands out to be the per- equality of all mdivtdua s espt e th . dividualistic ethics of
fect peaceful amalgamation of the two different traditions, as Chantal "b t· t lked about e m
a democratic one. Lt era Jsm a ·es as Schmitt writes, are
Mouffe writes, this union was full of struggles and imposed many limits equality of all persons. T h e mo d m democraIcJt) t,h at claim the equality
on how liberal democracies were to function.11 According to her, the 'a confused combination of both (192 6 'p.l the homogenised equals.
1 "ghts to on Y
of all persons but grant equa n h ry person is automatically
9 The liberal idea o f equaI t.t y b e ]1" eves t at eveti" c conception of equality,
Bhikbu Parekh makes the argument in context ofliberal democracy and it
The democra ,
being a form of government specific to a context, that is, the western societies, equal to every other person. who belong to the 'demos
and its universal applicability is something that the world outside of the west however, distinguishes between those t about the inequality
"t The argumen
mus10t be apprehensive o£ See Parekh 1992, pp. 160-75. ba nd those who are exterior to 1 • • endance as one of the
d th uals gatns asc
• The social contract tradition within liberalism in the writings of, primar- etween the equals an e uneq th" k focuses upon.
d
.l d . that ts wor .
tly, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke took the above position regarding the t emmas of liberal emocractes f the liberal democratic
nature of state and conditions of political obligation. In Hobbes' thoughts, right fi th emergence o .
While this holds true or e ld the liberal democrattc
to rebel was a right available to individuals only when threatened with life by . . . fi th t of the wor
tradttton m the west, or e res . . l of liberal democracy
0th fet hst ate.. She e Jonde s 2002, p. 19. Locke, however, laid down a systematic defence idea travelled through colonialism. The prmctp es
e ng t to issolve the sovereign government when it failed to fulfill its
responsibilities t t d S h
XI . , rus · ee Jo n Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Chapter
EdztionO, Cf othrere Dctiesdso linu t1io1 n o, f, Government', in The Works of John Locke. A New
W Sh d ' en vo 1u mes. Vol. V. London: Printed for Thomas Tegg; -of stru-ggles- as the tensions between liberty an d eq uallty have persisted. See
G ·.ffi an Son; G. Offor; G. and J. Robinson; J. Evans and Co.: Also R.
n11 nCahna ntCaol .M Golausfgfeo wca;l lasn tdh ·J . Gu·m minf g, Du.b liIn 182.3.. · Mo1u2f fDe a2v0i0d0 .H eld opined the same about the democraf 1\ tradtioti othni si nt rEaduirtoiopne
d ox an d t h e reason why the hts· ut mon fo t·tbw o nva trad1ttons a democratic para- tha t pre-dated the emergence of h" b era I d emo cracy. dH e reth.e rsA thenian society.
h
1 as t e Classical model of democracy, pn·m an·t Y base on e
ts ory o 1 era democracy has always been full
See Held 1987, p. 23.
9
Liberal Democracy and Free Speech
8 Sedition in Liberal Democracies
. idea of liberal democracy that went back
democracy was a normative h' k On Liberty Mill stated
were truncated by the colonial state in terms of the denial of liberal to the writings o f· Jo h n St u art Mill · In IS wotr th' at those wh' o governe d
rights, which otherwise universally belonged to all individuals. The idea . form of governmen f
that it was wit h t hIS new th lers-external to the class o
of colony was that of an exception to the universal, conditioned upon ·fied ·th ople rather an ru d d
were identi WI pe Th h governed were electe an
the 'differences' with its colonizers, not yet capable of exercising the
subjects over whom they ruled. hoselwtod them The people retained
right to liberty otherwise presented as a universal norm (Chatterjee h Ple w o e ec e . f If
hence responsible to t e peo d h This was the age o se -
1993, p. 18). Despite the denial of the basic principles of liberalism ho goveme t em.
power over t h e ru1 e rs w . h' h th tyranny of the government
by the colonial state, the idea of modern state that it represented . him m w IC e ·
government accord mg to ' . k dd however, that even m
was implanted, which was later appropriated by postcolonial societ- f ·t H was qutc to a ' ill
was not the greatest o evi s. e 1 did not always represent the w
ies to strive for the same liberal democratic state whose model was
the age of self-government, the ru ers th rule of each by himself
showcased by colonialism (Kaviraj 2003). While this proves to be an asn't always e ft th
of all and self-government w . of the people, more o en an
important historical digression for an analysis of the concept of liberal 11
democracy, it is politic to return to the context which saw the birth of What prevailed in the name of the W1M 'llf the tyrannY of majority was
not was the will of the majority. For I the government. Thus, for a
the idea of liberal democracy, the west. For the postcolonial world, the
a g;eater evil compared to the tyranny o ·oritarian will, he proposed
mimesis of liberal democracy created further dilemmas that this work
society to be truly free from the each individual: first, the
would explore. st be exerctse t
three basic liberties th at mu d freedom to pursue tas es
What eventually emerged as the liberal democratic form of govern- d di ssiond· ts econ ' b .
freedom of thought an scu fr dom to unite without emg
ment, as discussed earlier, premised itself upon the right to liberty of
that do not harm others; and lastly, eh ee on others. It would be read
individuals. Despite the contradictions that persisted in realizing the
forced to do so and WI' tho ut 1· 0f licting fa lrimbe ral democracy wou ld h ave
universal equality of all individuals in exercising their liberty, the indi-
along that for him, a genuine fonndo t individuals (Mill1999, PP·
vidual's right to liberty formed the core of the idea of liberal democ- , h ki ds of free oms o d th . ht
guaranteed these t ree n . lib rties he prioritize e ng
racy. One of the essentials of the right to liberty is the freedom to th e baste e '
45-57). In the category 0 f es .
express onesel£ The historical route, as well as the theoretical models,
to freedom of thought and discusst:· ht and discussion shows why
establish the centrality of the right to freedom of expression of indi-
Mill's advocacy of freedom of oug. ty for its usefulness. Within
viduals, within a liberal democratic state. Aligned to this proposition,
ted in a socte b d the
free speech must b e protec . th advocacy was ase on
is the question-why is free speech valuable within this framework?
the framework of Mill's . ety 13 Mill was of the opinion
idea of free speech being a utt'l 1't y .1 n sbolc' tea to·r y for the society, to kn ow
'tytSO tg f rt'
The Value of Free Speech and the Category that freedom of speech in socte tion that truth o ce am
of 'Extreme Speech' the truth. His theory rested on the. asds umn1P if they are a1 1 owed t 0 be
beliefs or judgments can be determtn.: He based his argument
The value of free speech has been recognized in western liberal dis- debated and deliberated upon freely 1 p
course both for its normative as well as instrumentalist presence. The
defence of free speech within liberal democracy follows many strands like pleasure, happiness,
within which the right to free expression against the author- 13 UtUity could be interpreted ·I n va rious wafy sth e utilitarian thi·n k e rs \ike
Ity IS read as an implied right. · the thoughts 0 d d the prin-
economic wellbeing, and so on, Utilitarianism expan e ..
.
While tracing the historical emergence of democratic forms of gov- Bentham and James Mill. J.S. Mill 10 his book to certain ends but was tn
ernments, Macpherson referred to developmental democracy as a vari- ciple of utility saying that utility was not a ted that utility is desired In a
ant of liberal democracy guaranteeing effective freedom and an equal itself Thus, the principle of utility 98, p. 82.
19
society as it results in general happtness.
right to self-government for all (1977, pp. 50-64). Developmental