Post by Nandita Saikia

Republic of Rhetoric by Abhinav Chandrachud Indian citizens have the right to ‘freedom of speech and expression’ although the contours of the right have changed over the years. Free speech can now be restricted for more reasons than it once could but those restrictions must be reasonable. Chandrachud examines the right and how it came to be not so much through a tedious analysis of the black letter of the law but through an examination of the circumstances which led to the shaping of the right. He tells us, for example, that the right to free speech in free India was not so much a break from colonial practice but a continuation of it albeit one informed by the riots which took place at the time it was first expressed and by a deep distrust of foreigners. Chandrachud also doesn't restrict himself to the Constitution alone but makes reference to statutes; his text isn't a comprehensive overview of the law but it gives one a sense of the bounds of permissible speech. For context, even by 2012, there were over 30 laws which restricted speech (https://lnkd.in/g8kYiKcn) and that number has steadily increased over the years. Republic of Rhetoric feels as though the Bombay of old (rather than Delhi) is embedded in its text; its first landmark is Horniman Circle where a memorial plaque reads: ‘Dedicated to the Memory of Benjamin Guy Horniman 1873—1948 who lived and worked for the freedom of the Press in India.’ And, although its author doesn't say so, that also feels to me as though it's a nod to the fact that commercial interests have played a role in shaping free speech. There is, today, IME, often a distinct vibe against the lawyers of corporate interests (such as those who work for publishers and broadcasters) in comparison to those whose interests are supposedly ‘pure’ and public interest oriented through association with NGOs and the like. That dichotomy, however, has always seemed false to me in the sense that both factions are geared towards expanding the free speech right with the primary difference being that corporate lawyers are often better funded. This is, I believe, especially true since both corporate and non-corporate lawyers have, IME, had an extremely chequered history when it comes to the intersection of violence and free speech. (I know I've previously clashed quite spectacularly with some for saying that filmed rape isn't porn as free speech, and if you're not sure of what you're watching, you shouldn't be talking about it at all in the context of ‘free speech’ and the right to access information.) Coming back to the book though and away from my tangent, it's not one which will tell you exactly what the law is but it does help develop an understanding of its rationale which is important since that is the basis on which one can assess the scope of the law. [Notes in comments.] [This note is part of a series of recommendations on Indian constitutional law: https://lnkd.in/dGijajpb ]