Do we really have the right to dissent?

The right to dissent is the “biggest” and “most important right” granted by the Constitution of India and it includes the right to criticize. Dissent and majority rule government is frequently viewed as equivalent in a liberal-popularity-based social request. It is through open discussion and conversation that the variety of discernments in a majority rules system gets uncovered. Just through ceaseless connections on basic issues does the genuine truth arise? We owe our autonomy to Mahatma Gandhi, who had the boldness and strength to communicate his difference in a tranquil way. In a reformist society, opposite perspectives should be engaged. Further, the lawmaking body should pass laws to ensure dissenters, activists, and informants; it takes boldness to stand firm and make some noise, while the most straightforward thing is to ‘accept circumstances for what they are’. Dispute should be invited on the political front as well as in strict and expert circles too.

Each culture has its norms and society degenerates over a period of time when people just adhere to the old rules and conventions. New thinkers are born when they disagree with the standards of society that are well accepted. If the well-trodden road is followed by everybody, no new routes will be built, no new explorations will be carried out and no new views will be found. In the event that an individual doesn’t pose inquiries and doesn’t raise questions addressing age-old frameworks, no new frameworks would create and the skylines of the brain won’t extend. Regardless of whether it be Buddha, Mahavira, Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammad, Guru Nanak Dev, Martin Luther, Kabir, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Karl Marx, or Mahatma Gandhi, groundbreaking musings and practices would not have been set up, in the event that they had unobtrusively submitted to the perspectives on their ancestors and had not scrutinized the current practices, convictions and customs.

In a democracy, opposition is necessary. If a nation needs to develop in a systemic fashion, where it is important to protect not just the economic rights but also the civil rights of the individual, opposition and conflict must be tolerated, and indeed should be welcomed. We will only arrive at better solutions to manage the country where there is debate, dispute, and dialogue. The rule of the vote is an integral part of democracy, but the antithesis of democracy is majoritarianism. In a country like ours, where we have elections based on the post-principle of the first past, in most situations, the government does not represent the bulk of the people, often not even the electorate that is voting. Therefore, as those in authority say that they represent the will of all persons, this is more often than not an utterly false claim. They can be the representative government elected by a significant number of electors on the first past post system, but it cannot be assumed that they represent the full will of the people.

In any event, expecting they speak to over half of the electorate, would it be able to be said that the excess 49% of the populace has no voice in running the nation? Would it be able to be encouraged that the leftover 49% can’t represent the following five years till the next decisions are held? Should these 49% be completely overlooked on the off chance that they contradict what is said by the Government? In my view, the appropriate response must be a major ‘NO’.One of the most significant liberties that our Constitution grants is the freedom to protest. As long as an individual does not violate the law or promote conflict, he has the freedom to vary and spread what he feels is his opinion from every other citizen and those in authority.

The very essence of democracy is that, not just in the democratic process, but also in the way our country is governed, every person has the right to participate. If that citizen does not criticize the government’s actions, this privilege becomes meaningless. Not only is the individual a participant in the political process, he is an integral part of the country and is entitled to share his opinions, even though they are entirely contradictory to those in power’s views. These viewpoints would certainly be conveyed respectfully, but people have the right to come together and demonstrate anytime they believe like the government’s acts are not right.

As a rule of administration, the standard of law, similar to vote based system, and the detachment of forces is a fundamental piece of our body politic. It is the brilliant string that goes through our Constitution. Anyplace, whenever, whenever common individuals are allowed to pick, the decision is the equivalent: opportunity, not oppression; majority rules system, not tyranny; the standard of law not the standard of men. The bedrock of our vote-based system is the standard of law and this requires that we should have a free bold legal executive. There can be a standard of law just when we have judges who can make choices free of political impact, absolutely uninfluenced by media, or some other superfluous contemplation. A free society is one where the rule of law establishes freedom of speech and governance. There’s violence, corruption, subjugation, and outrage where there’s no sharing of authority, no rule of law, no transparency. We are governed by the idiosyncrasies and whims of a minority when the rule of law vanishes.

Freedom to speech is guaranteed under article 19 of the constitution, the status quo of this right is in shatters and tatters. The current political regime tends to tag anyone who questions it as an ant-national or someone who doesn’t identify as Indian. “Go to Pakistan” are common things said to anyone who tries to point some fallacies in the policies or the legislations by the bhakts, all under the pretext of devotion to nation and patriotism. Free speech today has been in the context of curtailment of the right to protest about what is wrong. Free speech is a guaranteed right, as the expression goes correctly, but nowadays people take full liberty to give false facts. A nation like India, where the need for freedom of expression is to bring change for the positive, is now seeing a change in the wrong sense. For example, the recent statement of Sr. Adv. Dushyant Dave regarding the opaqueness of the collegium and the transfer of Justice Jayant Patel had led to the issue of contempt proceedings against him. Free speech is a necessity to introduce changes and alter the wrong actions or activities committed by the government. Yet it is taken as an insult or defamatory matter or the like if a wrong is found out. The dissemination of inaccurate information is also a part of the problem. Looking at the latest circumstances, it is important to restrict the dissemination of those false and incorrect comments that eventually impact certain people who are illiterate.

The internet, too, is now very inclined to spread fake news and erroneous facts to the masses. This goes against the very ethics of press freedom granted to us by the makers of the Constitution. Sometimes, as seen in many examples, even the media goes to the point of defaming an individual without sufficient evidence. The granting of freedom of expression as a privilege provides the right to talk to individuals about whom they have no facts or understanding about. When the truth is let out, after a very long gap, it is rejected and then silenced. India’s current free expression condition is worsening as people are more likely to support what is wrong and reject what is objectively right. A very good example of this is paying news. It is necessary to curtail certain tactics and make strict laws enacted so that those lacking substantive facts cannot abuse this privilege.

Conclusion

The option to disagree incorporates the option to scrutinize. We as a whole should be available for analysis. The legal executive isn’t above analysis. In the event that judges of the better courts were than observe all the scornful correspondences got by them, there would be no work other than the hatred procedures. Truth be told, I invite analysis of the legal executive in light of the fact that just if there is analysis, will there be improvement. Not exclusively ought to there be analysis however there should be reflection. At the point when we introspect, we will locate that numerous choices taken by us should be remedied. Analysis of the chief, the legal executive, the administration, or the Armed Forces can’t be named ‘against public’. In the event that we endeavor to smother analysis of the organizations whether it be the lawmaking body, the chief or the legal executive or different assemblages of the State, we will end up being a police state rather than a popular government and this the establishing fathers never anticipated that this nation should be.

To address, to challenge, to check, to request responsibility from the public authority is the privilege of each resident under the Constitution. These rights should never be removed else we will end up being an unquestioning hopeless society, which won’t have the option to build up any further.

References: