Will Speech ever meet Logic?

We are living in a society, where everyone represents an opinion, all so much that people have even started to get offended on others' behalf. But how much is too much? When it comes to a country like India, the reality where this place homes a population of 1.02 billion people, the real question is how much is too much?

Indian constitution is one of the most exceptional constitutions in the world. Our preamble states a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizens, liberty of thought and expression, which is backed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India stating that, “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”. The concept comes under the fundamental rights the country has for its citizens but often in a country with so many voices it gets a little haze to pick which is right, then again maybe none of them are.

Not everything is about you.

There is a thing about Freedom of Speech, you see people don't really get the point of it, saying that every opinion matters doesn't literally mean you can give an opinion on everything.

For example, let's take the issue of the major backlash men felt through Feminist movements, with statements and headlines like,

'Does Feminist women hate men?'

The Freedom of speech needs to meet logic when a movement for women is still focused from a man's view. It gets serious when hazardous things start to happen in the name of freedom of speech, including denial by people when it comes to depression and mental illnesses, people tend to say that it doesn't exist, that it is only their opinion and no one can take that away from them.

And it is not just the case in India, in countries as developed as America, people found it hard to give LGBTQ+ people their rights, they didn't see the need for it. The weird part of this was that people who were making this law were all heterosexual, so it is understandable how they did not see the need.

Even when small issues which didn't really require a lot of debates, for instance, reservations of seats for women in public transport, have a lot of magnified views by men were discussed, like 'I don't see the need, besides if equality is needed then why reservation?'

you see they had the privilege of traveling where they did not expect someone to touch them without their consent. Maybe that is why the problem didn't seem big.

Opinions and views and voices matter, they all do, that's what makes this country so good. But the rejection of reality shown by people who deliver it is what makes it questionable for the entire nation.

When unessacity meets freedom.

In the last 10 years, India has witnessed riots more than ever, a democracy holds the power of freedom to express one's self, but what was interesting about these riots were most of them were notably very violent.

So much so that casualties were raging up to 100 people dead and others severely injured. Now here is where we need to answer two very important questions, first being, were these riots so important that people needed to give lives up for it to stop?

Second, Were there any actual changes made by the government?

And sadly the answer to both most of the time is no.

These acts representing freedom of speech were often made as religious outrageous or a fit against a celebrity.

Now it is all the movements or acts of freedom of expressions were wrong, no, a lot like the nirbhya candle march, lead to remarkable changes which are still benchmarks in the Indian constitution, but marches and fires against directors who got one detail of religious significance wrong really could have been avoided. When the ratio of violence and change becomes bais, then we need to realize that not all opinions hold the power of consideration.

Money actually means power, doesn't it?

In this land of such diverse citizens, a little overlap of opinions is expected, but that does not mean that only rich opinions can overlap the poor ones, yes in a country with 70 years of freedom, we still observe that people who actually have the right voice, who actually know what they are talking about; are often left behind and people who only have a big bank balance are portrayed as the bearers of truth. If you don't believe me just look at our parliament.

The majority of them are there as a result of hierarchy and others are snatched out of Bollywood. Celebrities and children of them are faces known to the people, agreed. But can you honestly say that there were no better options in the country with a 1.02 billion population that somehow we ended up choosing the rich ones?

In this play of modernity, we often forget that freedom of speech is written for the people who don't have it, it is written for people by whom the British snatched it in the first place. For the minorities.

Be it the backward classes, or the LGBT community, it was coined so that none of us will ever have to face the societies, superiors; That when a voice of anyone stands up, it should be heard.

But yet we still ended up hearing the ones who can afford a microphone.

If you brake noses, expect the blood.

Freedom of speech is often glorified by people who really lack logic, like when someone wants to throw a swear word at an actress who is doing her job, they use the card of freedom. In this country, you can threaten a woman, comment on their achievements, and then hide behind the curtains of liberty shown by our constitution. A place where people forget freedom of speech doesn't really mean freedom from its consequences and that if you are trying to pull someone down in a wrong way, you have to accept the consequences of it. You cannot stand and shout unnecessary slogans and expect assistance,

Well, I might be saying that wrong considering all of our elections but still.

Freedom of speech should be protected by those who have it, and given to those who need it. Not the other way round.

Inbox me or comment on this blog to give your opinion. And do not forget to subscribe, a blog every thursday.