STATES MUST PRESERVE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
II wonder if the six state governments (all BJP ones) that decided to ban Padmaavat are feeling chastened after the Supreme Court struck down their decisions . They had either announced or proposed a total ban. The Supreme Court deemed this unconstitutional and ordered them to show the film. The Court also warned any other state government from attempting a ban. This amounts to a stinging rebuff and a political embarrassment.
The state governments argued that showing the film would lead to a disturbed law and order situation which they would be unable to control. Rather than risk tension and violence they opted to ban the film. This argument was not acceptable because it turns on its head the actual duty and raison d’etre of the state.
Under our constitution, freedom of expression is paramount and the duty of the state is to defend this right whilst protecting the citizenry against threats to law and order. In pleading their inability to defend freedom of expression and protect the citizenry, the state governments were abnegating their primary function. The truth is that if they cannot fulfil what they are there to do they should, in fact, resign. In ordering the film be shown and protection provided, the Court may not have threatened dismissal but it certainly reminded the governments they were in breach of their constitutional duty.
What these state governments forgot is that because something causes offence is not a reason to ban it. After all, what is freedom of speech if it doesn’t include the right to offend? Indeed, it’s the duty of governments to protect free speech against the villainy or violence of those who make a habit of taking offence. Governments are elected to uphold democratic values, not buckle under and give in.
Sadly, it still doesn’t follow that Padmaavat will be screened without violence. The Karni Sena is bound to resort to this to intimidate both distributors and viewers. In fact, it’s likely that some or many distributors may themselves choose not to screen the film for fear of what might happen to their cinema halls. Many viewers could stay away as well.
In fact, what the state governments have ensured, by their pusillanimity ambitions even as Europe focuses on European problems and trade becomes a dirty word in US politics. Governments across Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East are now more likely to align with, and imitate, China’s explicitly transactional approach to foreign policy.
Then there is the global battle for technological dominance. In particular, the US and China now lead the charge on investment in artificial intelligence. For the US, this leadership comes from the private sector. In China, it comes from the state, which directs the country’s powerful companies in ways that serve state interests.
China’s appeal is not ideological.
The only political value Beijing exports is the principle of non-interference in other countries’ affairs. Yet, that’s attractive for governments that are used to western demands for political and economic reform in exchange for financial help. With the advent of Trump’s “America first” foreign policy and the many distractions for Europe’s leaders, there is no counter to China’s and their willingness to justify unconstitutional demands, is to embolden such forces as the Karni Sena. A stronger initial response could have checked them. But that was not to be.
I accept enforcing law and order in the face of widespread dissent or protest is not easy in India. I also accept that Congress governments have rarely been better champions of our freedoms. After all, Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister who chose to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses before the book even reached Indian shores! And, certainly, Amarinder Singh’s initial equivocation on Padmaavat is reminiscent of the depressing stand of BJP state governments. But all this only points to a bigger problem. Our politicians are more scared of the challenges they face and less committed to the rights and liberties they’re elected to uphold.
So, thank God for the Supreme Court. For all its imperfections and contradictions, it has, in this instance, pronounced in support of the most fundamental right in a democracy – free speech. Alas, the initial response of governments in Rajasthan, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh is not reassuring. One says it will seek a review whilst another has questioned the Supreme Court itself. We now need the top court to stamp down this fledgling defiance. I trust it will and swiftly.
CHINA’S WILLINGNESS TO INVEST WITHOUT POLITICAL PRECONDITION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN EVERY REGION MAKES IT AN ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO THE US
non-values-driven approach to commerce and diplomacy.
There are obvious limits to China’s international appeal. It will be decades before China can exert the sort of global military power that the US can. China remains a regional power, and the military spending gap continues to widen in the US’ favour. Nor are China’s neighbours comfortable with Beijing’s ability to project force near their borders. But conventional military power is less important for international influence today than it has ever been, given the threats to national security posed in a globalised world by the potential weaponisation of economic influence and the unclear balance of power in cyberspace.
We should also expect Japan, India, Australia, and South Korea to work together more often to limit China’s regional power, creating risks of friction and even conflict. Depending on the state of US-China relations, the Trump administration might become more active in the region, as well.
For Americans and Europeans, China’s system holds little appeal. For most everyone else, the China model offers a plausible alternative. With Xi ready and willing to offer that alternative, this is the world’s biggest geopolitical risk in 2018.