“It has become a fashion of the day to make a hue and cry about personal liberty,” the Maharashtra government lamented before the Supreme Court in early December. The government said this in response to activist Gautam Navlakha’s plea that his arrest by the State police in the Bhima Koregaon case was without sufficient evidence. The unease of the Maharashtra government with the idea of personal liberty should have caused alarm. Political parties should have critiqued it. After all, does not our system of parliamentary democracy depend on the idea of freedom of individuals to make their own choices independently, without restrictions from any authority? But nothing of that sort happened. There was hardly a murmur in the media. It almost seems as if we agree with the Maharashtra government that individual liberty is a luxury and is at the mercy of state authorities.
Problem with individual liberty
The Maharashtra government is neither the first nor alone in expressing its disquiet with the idea of individual liberty in recent times. Let us recall the argument of the Indian state in the Aadhaar case. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had said in 2017 that individuals cannot have an absolute right over their bodies and that such an idea was a “myth”. He also said that even if you would like to be forgotten, the state will not be willing to forget you. This is clearly a Kafkaesque expression. Not being allowed to get away from the gaze of the state is a surreal feeling, but this is where we seem to be heading. Being remembered is very often confused with being loved.
Even before the arrest of the activists and the Aadhaar case, at a joint conference of Chief Justices of High Courts in 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had warned judges not to let their orders be influenced by perceptions that are often driven by “five star activists”. Why did he choose to make the idea of an activist elitist?
For the state, every individual has the potential to turn into an anti-state actor. That is the premise of extraordinary laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which criminalises even the intent to indulge in what the state perceives as unlawful. This is an excuse to rob a person of his or her individual liberty.
Let us be honest in our arguments as well. There is no denying the fact that some of those arrested, not to forget Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba who is at present languishing in Nagpur Central Jail, do support Maoist ideas. But that cannot become an excuse to deprive them of their individual liberty. So long as they are not involved in any violent act, they cannot be stripped of their right to entertain and express their ideas. For many, the very idea of a Hindu Rashtra is as dangerous and anti-constitutional as the idea of an Islamic democracy or a Sikh nation, but you don’t jail them for espousing these ideas. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru rejected the suggestion by R.K. Karanjia that organisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh should be banned for opposing the constitutional idea of India as a secular state. Nehru said ideas need to be fought with ideas and not with the coercive power of the state.
Why? Because the state is also an idea or ideology backed by not only arms but also powered by the law. All states claim to have the best notion of goodness and welfare for their subjects. They try to implement laws that are seemingly non-violent and that are framed through consensus. But we know that such consensus is always temporary and can be subject to change.
Democracy and subjectivity
Do I have the freedom to criticise or challenge the idea of welfare and goodness propounded through these laws? If not, I am a mere subject of the state; I have not attained my subjectivity. The journey towards democracy is closely tied with the discovery and realisation of this subjectivity. For Karl Marx, capitalism is bad because it does not allow subjectivity to flourish, or because it deifies hierarchy in subjectivities. For him an ideal state would be one in which human beings self-govern or self-rule.
The objective is to realise the essence of human nature. In this struggle is born the idea of individuality. It is a complex and relatively new notion for us humans who seem to be programmed to think that the standards of human nature are issued from some authority and we are simply its creatures. It is therefore not surprising that the transfer of loyalty from religion to nation is almost seamless. Or, that the nation itself replaces god. The state becomes the sole bearer of the idea of the nation and takes it upon itself to protect it from violators. To criticise the state thus becomes a blasphemous act.
The state seeks to present itself as a living being. But Mahatma Gandhi rightly said that it is not superior to the individual since the state is a soulless machine whereas the individual has a soul. B.R. Ambedkar also unequivocally placed the individual not only above the state but also above society: “The aim and object of society is the growth of the individual and the development of his personality. Society is not above the individual.” Quoting Jacques Maritain, he said: “Man is an individual who holds himself in hand by his intelligence and his will; he exists not merely in a physical fashion. He has spiritual super-existence through knowledge and love, so that he is, in a way, a universe in himself, a microcosm, in which the great universe in its entirety can be encompassed through knowledge.” He added: “Man’s life is independent. He is born not for the development of the society alone, but for the development of his self.” Of course, what one derives from this principle is that a noble society can only be a community of free individualities.
The tension between the state or any authority and individuality will remain. A democratic state is not a citizenry which only has the freedom to elect lawmakers. It is more than that. It is one where citizens have the freedom to criticise and disobey laws that they find violating their idea of dignity and goodness.
In a democracy, I attain my individuality by first recognising this right and then by expressing it. I don’t hand over my judgment to authorities. If the state seeks to restrict me, it becomes my holy duty to resist the state. Only by doing so can I proclaim my individuality.
Apoorvanand teaches at Delhi University
Source: The Hindu, 20/12/2018
