free speech debate

Freedom of speech at JNU: Is there really any difference between sedition and blasphemy?

Should hurting sentiments, whether against a state, god or prophet ever be criminalised?

Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of liberal government. In his famous philosophical work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill laid out the basic principle of how free speech should work:

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.

“However immoral”, though, is a high bar. What if a person's speech and ideas are terribly odious to the people and society around him? Here Mill is even more emphatic:

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Of course, the one ideology that this sort of unrestrained freedom of speech runs smack into is religion. It is rather easy to talk of offending everyone as long the discussion is about the more banal facets of human existence. However, once talk turns to gods, goddesses, prophets and seers, believers tend to get a bit more heated. As a result, even self-proclaimed liberal democracies have allowed the criminalisation of speech that seem to hurt religious sentiments. For example, England had a law that penalised the blaspheming of the Christian religion, which was on its books right till 2008. This was in spite of the fact that its 17th century Bill of Rights protected free speech.

Interestingly, the other thing that is usually shielded from freedom of speech is the state. Even countries which have liberalism as their ruling ideology have, through history, penalised offensive speech against the state. The United States, a country that almost fetishes free speech, has a sedition law on its books that it used to target people branded “anti-national”. This law was used against Communists and Nazi sympathisers in the 1940s but, within a decade, its judiciary had ruled that ideas, no matter how seemingly harmful, can never be a basis for charging someone with sedition. As a result, the Unites States’ sedition law has remained unused since 1961.

Free speech in India

Matters in India are a bit less promising. Free speech is curbed by a fairly stringent blasphemy law, Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, introduced by the British Raj in 1932. “Anti-national” speech is curbed by India’s sedition law, section 124A, also introduced by the Raj. There is however, a fair bit of opinion ranged against blasphemy laws. The United Nations, for example, recognises that blasphemy laws are incompatible with civil rights. In India too, while free speech has frequently been proscribed as a result of religion, ­there has also been a strong backlash against the blasphemy law within the framework of the modernist tradition that attempts to move beyond the irrationality of religion.

However, the push back against free speech curbs when the state is concerned is markedly less. In the on-going case, where the Delhi Police arrested the President of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union on Friday for allegedly anti-national speech, big media and public opinion has mostly supported the action. Both the Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh as well as Human Resources Minister Smriti Irani have gone on record to say that any insult to India will not be tolerated. This is also quite similar to how Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula was suspended from his hostel for activities that the Union minister Bandaru Dattatreya considered “anti-national”. Vemula committed suicide soon after and Dattatreya is now accused of abetting his suicide.

Outlawing free speech?

Going against any form of nationalism is a big deal and, just like religion, is a matter of public morality. In fact, in the JNU case, all the leftists groups at the Jawaharlal Nehru University have strongly criticised the anti-Indian slogans shouted on the campus on Tuesday at a meeting to express solidarity with Kashmiris. Slogans criticising the country would obviously hurt many Indians in the same way as, say, Muslims would be hurt over the comment of Hindu Mahasabha leader Kamlesh Tiwari against Prophet Mohammad in December that sparked protests across the country.

The question here, of course, is whether a liberal state should be in the business of outlawing speech just because people’s feelings are hurt? India’s sedition law itself has been read down and is fairly liberal on paper now, given that only speech that directly incites violence against the government is liable to be prosecuted as seditious. Nevertheless, as is rather obvious from the mass media as well as the Bharatiya Janata Party's government’s reaction to the JNU incident, such a view does not have much popular purchase. And that is troubling for the admittedly small number of people who hold dear free speech and liberalism.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Following a mountaineer as he reaches the summit of Mount Everest

Accounts from Vikas Dimri’s second attempt reveal the immense fortitude and strength needed to summit the Everest.

Vikas Dimri made a huge attempt last year to climb the Mount Everest. Fate had other plans. Thwarted by unfavourable weather at the last minute, he came so close and yet not close enough to say he was at the top. But that did not deter him. Vikas is back on the Everest trail now, and this time he’s sharing his experiences at every leg of the journey.

The Everest journey began from the Lukla airport, known for its dicey landing conditions. It reminded him of the failed expedition, but he still moved on to Namche Bazaar - the staging point for Everest expeditions - with a positive mind. Vikas let the wisdom of the mountains guide him as he battled doubt and memories of the previous expedition. In his words, the Everest taught him that, “To conquer our personal Everest, we need to drop all our unnecessary baggage, be it physical or mental or even emotional”.

Vikas used a ‘descent for ascent’ approach to acclimatise. In this approach, mountaineers gain altitude during the day, but descend to catch some sleep. Acclimatising to such high altitudes is crucial as the lack of adequate oxygen can cause dizziness, nausea, headache and even muscle death. As Vikas prepared to scale the riskiest part of the climb - the unstable and continuously melting Khumbhu ice fall - he pondered over his journey so far.

His brother’s diagnosis of a heart condition in his youth was a wakeup call for the rather sedentary Vikas, and that is when he started focusing on his health more. For the first time in his life, he began to appreciate the power of nutrition and experimented with different diets and supplements for their health benefits. His quest for better health also motivated him to take up hiking, marathon running, squash and, eventually, a summit of the Everest.

Back in the Himalayas, after a string of sleepless nights, Vikas and his team ascended to Camp 2 (6,500m) as planned, and then descended to Base Camp for the basic luxuries - hot shower, hot lunch and essential supplements. Back up at Camp 2, the weather played spoiler again as a jet stream - a fast-flowing, narrow air current - moved right over the mountain. Wisdom from the mountains helped Vikas maintain perspective as they were required to descend 15km to Pheriche Valley. He accepted that “strength lies not merely in chasing the big dream, but also in...accepting that things could go wrong.”

At Camp 4 (8,000m), famously known as the death zone, Vikas caught a clear glimpse of the summit – his dream standing rather tall in front of him.

It was the 18th of May 2018 and Vikas finally reached the top. The top of his Everest…the top of Mount Everest!

Watch the video below to see actual moments from Vikas’ climb.


Vikas credits his strength to dedication, exercise and a healthy diet. He credits dietary supplements for helping him sustain himself in the inhuman conditions on Mount Everest. On heights like these where the oxygen supply drops to 1/3rd the levels on the ground, the body requires 3 times the regular blood volume to pump the requisite amount of oxygen. He, thus, doesn’t embark on an expedition without double checking his supplements and uses Livogen as an aid to maintain adequate amounts of iron in his blood.

Livogen is proud to have supported Vikas Dimri on his ambitious quest and salutes his spirit. To read more about the benefits of iron, see here. To read Vikas Dimri’s account of his expedition, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Livogen and not by the Scroll editorial team.