You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Colloquium Session 2: Safeguarding India's Democracy
powered byJotCast
View Full Chat Next Page
Vibha B Madhava
3:13
"Not every speech can have an elocutionary effect. What matters is the authority of the speaker, the nature of the audience and the appropriate context," elaborates Dr Anushka Singh about free speech in India.
3:15
Bringing in an interesting view, she further adds: "If we were to apply the idea of elocutionary and perlocutionary effect in the speech while adjudicating it, we have further qualifications to reconsider the judicial doctrines of such speech (like the spark of the powder keg).
She opines: “Linguistics can help address questions that judicial opinion are constantly confronted with.”
3:17
Can the same legal standard be applied to evaluate all kinds of free speech? Answering her third question, she says: "The Indian law doesn’t largely work with a target-driven understanding of offences.”
3:20
Dr Singh appreciates Jeremy Waldron and his concept of environmental harm and says: “If we deploy the idea of environmental harm, the response of Indian law would change.”
She further proposes: “Freedom of speech and expression doesn’t necessarily need to be based on public order. What we need to look at is the long-term effects of that particular speech on the targeted community."
3:24
Elaborating on the idea of ideal free speech, she says: "The right to freedom of speech and expression in India is that I should be able to say what I want to provided I do not create obstacles in the reasonable restrictions provided in the Constitution."
"The capability approach calls for positive action on the part of the state," concludes Dr Anushka Singh.
3:26
Should free speech be an absolute right in the context of India?
Yes! We should have no restrictions whatsoever on free speech (25% | 1 vote)
 
Free speech with reasonable restrictions is the way to go! (75% | 3 votes)
 
The democratically elected state is the rightful authority to decide which views are okay and which aren't (0% | 0 votes)
 
Total Votes: 4
3:27
We now move towards the second session of the afternoon. The speaker for the session is Kaleeswaram Raj, who is going to talk about "Future-proofing the Constitution: What safeguards can be put in place to prevent the Constitution and democracy from being eroded in letter and spirit?" Sashi Kumar introduces Kaleeswaram Raj and hands over the mic to him.
"Future-proofing necessary involves conserving the present for the future," begins Kaleeswaram Raj
3:28
He refers to a study by Chicago University. The University conducted a survey after the year 1789 where they found out that the average lifespan of a written Constitution is 17 years. "This study demolished my romanticism of the Constitution," says Raj
3:29
"You find a lot of countries where democracy has died," opines Raj.
3:31
Talking about an imperial reality, he says: "Democracy dies at different times. Constitutions, in some cases, emerge after certain protests - like the Indian freedom struggle. But how do Constitutions die? I think sometimes Constitutions die due to elections, which are envisaged in the Constitution itself."
3:32
Citing examples of electoral autocracies such as Russia, Venezuela, Poland, and many others, he says: "Today, Constitutions globally face an unprecedented and unique challenge. And India is no exception."
3:33
He puts forth an interesting thought. In 2014 the victory of Narendra Modi resulted in the emergence of a parallel question -  "How far as a nation have we constitutionalised ourselves?"
3:34
According to Dr BR Ambedkar, constitutional morality is institutional morality. " Everyone can have their own morality, it's just one part of it not the entirety of it. Thus in destroying institutions, you're destroying constitutions," says Raj.
3:37
Talking about the state of fear and anger imposed during times like the Emergency, he says: "I have a different view on that, the Emergency was envisaged by its own Constitution, in that situation."
3:38
"In the contemporary scenario, institutions have been weakened. People focus mostly on elections and consider that to be the only aspect of the democratic process," opines Raj.
3:41
"The Constitution is like Marxism." Kaleeswaram Raj extends his unconventional opinion and says: "You might have a lot of practice but unless you make the masses experience that practice, it doesn't work."
3:43
3:44
"The regime and its institutions are capable of brainwashing. As a result, we are in a position where elections are no longer a guarantee for future-proofing the democracy," adds Raj.
3:46
Even when the four estates fail or the four pillars break down, there is the fifth pillar to fall back on, and that is the civil movements that arise in times of need." He cites a relevant example: "It is not the Supreme Court that is disturbed by the farm laws. It is those who are protesting, who are agitated by the laws."
3:49
He recommends a book to the audience - 'Why the Constitution Matters?'
3:50
The book by Mark Tushnet argues that the Constitution matters not because it structures our government but because it structures our politics.
3:51
"Constitution matters because it helps in maintaining certain politics that are capable of preserving fundamental rights," adds Raj.
3:52
From an India-specific context, he says: "After 2019, with the shift in Indian politics, we have failed. When the centre encroaches on the domain of state governments then there is no point in talking about federalism. When there is fear and hatred created, there is no Constitutional fraternity."
3:53
Raj aptly points out that "future-proofing is not an easy task. It requires constant Constitutional education."
3:54
Constitutional education, as mentioned by Raj, is not only by textual means or pedagogical means but by sheer crude economic measures.
3:56
"When the principles of the Constitution are in danger, there is a need for political sacrifice. Political sacrifice uses the Constitution as a political tool, by masses across the fields, across the villages," he adds.
3:57
Raj concludes with a reference to Antonio Gramsci's quotes on the pessimism of intellect and the optimism of will.
4:01
Sashi Kumar now opens the floor to the panelists. Lawyer Geeta Ramasesan starts her address by talking about her law practice post the emergency and her amazement by the decisions that came in the 1980s.
4:06
Ramasesan quotes the Sathankulam case to drive home the point of custodial deaths and magistrate duties.
4:07
"The current situation is that homes, friends and classes are divided. You can't discuss politics at home anymore or at work or college because people take virulent stances in politics," she opines.
4:08
Talking about an lesser discussed challenge, she says: "A case can be filed anywhere. The case that has been filed not only traumatises you but also kills you with the process, the family and the issues caused by the system"
Connecting…