In a democratic set-up, those chiefly cherishing the high ideals and ethos of democracy should never undermine the fact that they too are vulnerable to the loopholes and flaws of democracy. In this regard JS Mill, a British philosopher and economist, has made a significant contribution. As has been aptly observed by George H Sabine in the analysis of Mill’s ideas on liberty, the questions on democracy and threat to liberty, have to be understood in the pretext of not just to state but to society in the broader perspective. The current debate on ‘intolerance’ and ‘infringement of intellectual freedom’ can be better understood in the light of Mill’s essays which still hold relevance in the changing times to a great extent. As put by Sabine:
“The threat to liberty which Mill chiefly feared was not government but a majority that is intolerant of the unconventional, that looks with suspicion on divergent minorities, and is willing to use the weight of numbers to repress and regiment them” Mill had recognized that behind a liberal government there must be a liberal society.
In progressive societies the room of discussions and debates should always be open to people and they should be provided with a platform where the “self” is allowed to develop and grow to its fullest. Because in an atmosphere where conflicting views are allowed to coexist and given a stage to prove their points following the method of dialectics, only there can one explore and empathize with what is right and what stands to be the ultimate truth. But instead the trend in our set-up has been the use of coercive means, suppressing the conflicting ideas if they don’t suit or fit our personal needs. The recent issues like that one, of detaining the students of JNU without any procedural investigations can be seen as another weapon for curbing the intellectual legacies of such institutions that uphold and cherish the democratic tradition of debates and discussions. Extending political forces to academic institutions is not acceptable to any democratic set-up by any means, especially when the powers of state are misused for assaulting the sphere of intellectual freedom wherein rational and critical thinking is propounded. When the state directly or indirectly interferes in the sphere of intellectual freedom, it robs the society of the advantages it might have had from free discussions and criticism of the opinions. JS Mill has over and again defined the role of state in securing the liberty of the individual and by no means has empowered the political institutions with the right to curb the individual’s right to free thinking. Otherwise the apprehensions, in words of Voltaire “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong” will come true. Also extending the state’s responsibility in securing the dignity of individuals, the state is not empowered to silence any voice by leveling baseless charges against people without any legal backing as prescribed by law. The abstract charges of sedition against students as in JNU delineates that the institutional legacy of such prestigious institutions of producing great statesmen, leaders, diplomats who have stood for the country’s sovereignty and integrity appears to have been undermined in the growing sense of intolerance in the nation.
Only in societies where in free-thinking and discussions are used for tolerance against rising discords, can rational minds develop who are capable of analyzing facts and then deciding what to accept and what to refute. If any opinion is not worth having, then don’t listen or prove it wrong but it cannot be banned without proper scrutiny. And EB Hall has aptly said “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Further as JS Mill in his essay On Liberty has remarked, “If all mankind minus were of one opinion, and 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.”
Hence it must be reckoned that the abstract extension of democracy in social sphere eventually leads to the tyranny of masses, hence the need for intellectual freedom becomes more urgent with the extension of democracy.
— Sana Shah
