Chapter 2 Freedom

Throughout human history, there are many instances of individuals and communities facing domination, slavery, or exploitation by more powerful groups. Alongside these, history also provides inspiring stories of courageous struggles against such oppression. This raises the question: what is this freedom for which people have been willing to make ultimate sacrifices?

At its core, the struggle for freedom represents a fundamental human desire to control one's own life and destiny. It is the aspiration to have the opportunity to make choices and express oneself freely through one's activities. This desire for independence and control over their future is valued not only by individuals but also by entire societies and nations, who wish to protect their culture and autonomy.

However, in any form of social living, where diverse individuals with differing interests and ambitions interact, some rules and regulations are necessary. These rules may involve imposing certain constraints on individual freedom. Yet, it is recognized that such constraints can also paradoxically enhance freedom by providing security and stability, creating conditions that enable individuals to develop their potential. Political theory has extensively debated the nature of freedom, focusing on establishing principles to distinguish between constraints that are socially necessary and justified, and those that are arbitrary or oppressive. Debates also address how social and economic structures within a society can impose limitations on freedom. This chapter will explore some of these discussions.

By understanding these debates, we can gain insights into the multifaceted nature of freedom, its importance for individuals and societies, the different ways it can be understood (negative and positive dimensions), and concepts like the 'harm principle'.

The Ideal Of Freedom

The ideal of freedom has been a powerful driving force in many historical struggles. The autobiography of Nelson Mandela, 'Long Walk to Freedom', provides a compelling example. Mandela's personal struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa was intertwined with the broader resistance of the black population against discriminatory laws and policies. Apartheid imposed a range of unjust constraints based on race, including restrictions on movement, choice of marriage partners, and being confined to segregated townships. For Mandela and his colleagues, the 'Long Walk to Freedom' was the collective struggle to remove these oppressive constraints and achieve freedom for all South Africans, regardless of race.

Mandela's commitment to this ideal led him to spend 28 years in prison, often in solitary confinement. His sacrifice highlights the immense personal price some individuals have been willing to pay for the principle of freedom – giving up youth, personal pleasures, and basic human connections for the liberation of their people.

Another inspiring example is Aung San Suu Kyi, influenced by Gandhiji's philosophy of non-violence. She remained under house arrest in Myanmar for many years, separated from her family, demonstrating her commitment to her people's freedom. Her book, 'Freedom from Fear', suggests that true freedom is fundamentally about overcoming fear – fear of others' opinions, of authority, of community reactions, or of speaking one's mind. Living a 'dignified human life', according to her, requires the ability to transcend such fears.

These examples from the lives of Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi illustrate the powerful ideal of freedom that fueled national liberation movements across Asia and Africa against colonialism. This ideal was also central to India's own struggle for independence.

What Is Freedom?

A simple definition of freedom is the absence of constraints. In this view, an individual is considered free if they are not subjected to external controls, coercion, or restrictions and can make decisions and act autonomously. This perspective focuses on what is *not* restricting an individual.

However, freedom has another important dimension. It also involves the existence of conditions that enable individuals to develop their abilities and express themselves fully. Freedom, in this sense, is the environment or opportunity that allows people to develop their creativity, talents, and potential. Both aspects – the absence of external constraints and the presence of enabling conditions – are considered crucial for freedom.

A free society would be one where all members have the opportunity to develop their potential with minimal societal restrictions. However, no individual in society can live without any constraints or restrictions whatsoever. Social living inherently requires some rules. Therefore, a key question when defining freedom is to determine which social constraints are justified and necessary for collective life, and which are arbitrary, unjust, or should be removed.

This leads to examining the relationship between the individual and the society (or state, community, group) they belong to. We need to analyze which aspects of society empower individuals' freedom to choose, decide, or act, and which restrict it. Deciding which features are desirable and which should be changed requires careful consideration.

Furthermore, the principles used to distinguish necessary from unnecessary constraints should ideally apply not only to individuals but also to relationships between individuals and groups, and even between groups and nations.

From this perspective, freedom involves minimizing external social constraints that limit our ability to make free choices. However, freedom also has a positive dimension: the creation of conditions that empower individuals, groups, communities, or nations to shape their own destinies and realize their potential. In this positive sense, freedom is about enabling the full development of an individual's creativity, sensitivities, and capabilities in various fields like sports, science, art, or music. A truly free society provides an environment where individuals can pursue their interests and develop their talents with minimal hindrance.

Freedom is considered highly valuable because it allows us to exercise our reason and judgment, make choices, and explore options, which are fundamental aspects of a dignified human life.

Swaraj

In Indian political thought, the concept of 'Swaraj' is often seen as analogous to freedom. The term is derived from 'Swa' (Self) and 'Raj' (Rule), encompassing both 'rule of the self' and 'rule over self'. During India's freedom struggle, Swaraj represented both a demand for constitutional and political independence from foreign rule and a value emphasizing self-governance and autonomy at the social and collective levels. This duality made Swaraj a powerful rallying cry, as encapsulated in Tilak's statement, "Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it."

Mahatma Gandhi particularly highlighted the meaning of Swaraj as 'Rule over the Self' in his work 'Hind Swaraj'. He argued that true Swaraj is achieved when individuals and communities learn to govern themselves. In this sense, Swaraj is not merely political freedom but a deeper liberation that involves reclaiming self-respect, self-responsibility, and the capacity for self-realization, free from oppressive institutions. Understanding one's true 'Self' and its interconnectedness with communities and society is seen as essential for achieving Swaraj. Gandhiji believed that development guided by the principle of justice would lead to the liberation of both individual and collective potential. This understanding of Swaraj remains relevant today.

The Sources Of Constraints

Restrictions on individual freedom can originate from various sources. External controls and domination are primary sources. These may be imposed through force or through laws enacted by a government that holds power over the people, backed by the potential use of force. Examples include the constraints imposed by colonial powers on their subjects or by discriminatory systems like apartheid.

While some form of government and law is necessary for societal order, a democratic government offers a means for citizens to retain some control over those who make laws and exercise authority. This makes democratic governance an important safeguard for protecting people's freedom.

However, constraints on freedom can also stem from social inequalities. The rigid social divisions inherent in systems like the caste system can restrict individuals' opportunities and choices. Extreme economic inequality within a society can also severely limit the freedom of those who lack resources, denying them access to basic necessities and opportunities for development. Subhas Chandra Bose, in his call for 'all-round freedom', highlighted the need to remove not only political bondage but also social constraints like caste barriers, social inequalities, and uneven wealth distribution to achieve genuine freedom for all.

Why Do We Need Constraints?

Total absence of constraints would lead to a chaotic and potentially violent society. People have different ideas, opinions, and ambitions, and compete for scarce resources. Disagreements can easily escalate into open conflict and violence, stemming from both serious and trivial matters (e.g., road rage, disputes over property, disagreements over cultural expression). Therefore, every society requires mechanisms, such as laws and political systems, to control violence and settle disputes peacefully.

Ideally, in a free society, individuals should be able to hold diverse views, live according to their own rules (within limits), and pursue their choices. However, creating and maintaining such a society itself requires some constraints. At a minimum, it requires a willingness to respect differences in opinions and beliefs. But sometimes, a strong conviction in one's own beliefs can lead individuals or groups to oppose or even attempt to suppress those who differ from them, viewing alternative views or lifestyles as unacceptable or undesirable. In such situations, legal and political restraints are needed to ensure that disagreements are handled through discussion and debate, preventing one group from coercively imposing its views on others. Furthermore, if there are attempts to bully or harass individuals into conformity, stronger legal protection is necessary to safeguard personal freedom.

The critical challenge is to determine which constraints on freedom are genuinely necessary and justifiable, and which are not. What kind of external authority (like the state) has the legitimate power to impose limits on what can be done? Are there certain areas of our lives and actions that should always remain free from any external constraint?

Harm Principle

To address the question of justifiable limits on freedom, political theory considers various principles. One influential principle is the 'harm principle', articulated by John Stuart Mill in his essay 'On Liberty'. Mill's principle provides a basis for determining when it is legitimate for society or the state to interfere with individual liberty. His statement is:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Mill makes a crucial distinction between two types of actions:

• Self-regarding actions: Actions that have consequences only for the individual performing the action and do not affect others.
• Other-regarding actions: Actions that have consequences for others and may cause them harm.

According to Mill's harm principle, the state or any external authority is justified in interfering with an individual's liberty only when their actions are other-regarding and cause harm to others (preventing self-protection by the affected). With regard to self-regarding actions, Mill argues that external authority has no legitimate reason to interfere ("That's my business").

However, since freedom is a core value, constraints should only be imposed in specific circumstances, particularly when the harm caused to others is 'serious'. For minor inconveniences or harm, Mill recommends only social disapproval as a response, not the use of legal force or punishment. For example, playing loud music in an apartment building might cause inconvenience (preventing others from talking, sleeping), but unless it constitutes a very serious disturbance (e.g., violating specific noise laws), Mill would suggest social disapproval from neighbors (e.g., refusing to greet the person) rather than involving the police or legal sanctions. Society should be willing to tolerate minor inconveniences for the sake of protecting the broader condition of freedom. Legal constraints backed by force should be reserved for other-regarding actions that cause definite, serious harm to individuals.

The harm principle implies that individuals should be willing to tolerate diverse ways of life, opinions, and interests, provided they do not cause harm to others. However, tolerance should not extend to views or actions that incite hatred or put people in danger, as these cause serious harm. Even then, constraints should be proportionate and not so severe as to destroy freedom itself (e.g., not life imprisonment for hate campaigns, but perhaps restrictions on public gatherings). In Indian constitutional discussions, the term 'reasonable restrictions' is used for justifiable constraints on fundamental rights – restrictions must be rational, proportionate, and not excessive so as to undermine the general condition of freedom in society. There is a need to avoid developing a habit of imposing restrictions, as this is detrimental to freedom.

The Issue Of Dress Code

Restrictions on dress codes raise questions about individual freedom, particularly the freedom to choose what to wear as a form of self-expression. Analyzing various situations involving dress restrictions helps apply the concepts of freedom and justifiable constraints.

Situations involving dress restrictions:

• Mandatory 'Mao suits' in China (justified by equality).
• Religious decree (fatwa) on dress (e.g., against a sportsperson).
• Sports rules requiring specific attire (e.g., white in cricket tests).
• School uniforms (required for students).

Debating questions about these situations:

• Are these restrictions justified always or only sometimes? When do they genuinely constrain freedom of expression?
• Who has the legitimate authority to impose these rules (state, religious leaders, sports bodies, schools)?
• Are the impositions excessive, limiting self-expression significantly?
• What are the consequences? Do they achieve claimed goals (e.g., equality in Maoist China) or deny opportunities (e.g., participation in sports if dress requirements hinder performance or violate beliefs)?

Applying principles from political theory, including the harm principle, helps analyze these situations. Are dress choices purely self-regarding, or do they sometimes have significant other-regarding consequences (e.g., related to safety, public order, religious or cultural sensitivities)? Are restrictions 'reasonable' and proportionate to the potential harm or organizational need?

Negative And Positive Liberty

Political theory distinguishes between two main dimensions or conceptions of liberty: negative liberty and positive liberty.

Negative Liberty: Focuses on freedom as the absence of external constraints or interference. It seeks to define and protect a minimum inviolable area of personal action, where the individual is free from external authority and can 'do, be, or become' what they wish without obstruction from others. This is an area of 'non-interference' considered sacred and necessary for human dignity. The core question of negative liberty is: "Over what area am I the master?". It is concerned with 'freedom from' external obstacles (e.g., freedom from state interference, freedom from coercion). The larger this area of non-interference, the greater the negative freedom. Advocates of negative liberty emphasize limiting the power of the state and other external authorities.

For instance, freedom of expression is often considered part of this minimum inviolable area. The question of whether dress codes should be imposed is debated in relation to this minimum area – is choosing what to wear a self-regarding choice that external authorities (state, school, sports body, religious authority) cannot legitimately interfere with, or does it have other-regarding consequences that might justify some constraints?

Positive Liberty: Focuses on freedom as the capacity or opportunity to act and develop one's potential. It asks: "Who governs me?". The ideal answer is "I govern myself". Positive liberty is concerned with the conditions within society that enable self-governance and the full development of the individual's capabilities. It views the individual as being free only within society, not outside it, and emphasizes shaping society to provide the necessary conditions for individual flourishing.

Proponents of positive liberty argue that individuals need certain positive conditions to develop their capabilities and achieve self-realization. These include material resources (freedom from poverty, unemployment), political opportunities (access to decision-making processes), and social conditions (access to education, associated opportunities). A person constrained by poverty or lack of education may be formally free (absence of external chains) but lacks the real capacity to pursue their goals and develop their potential, thus lacking positive liberty.

While negative liberty focuses on an area of non-interference, positive liberty focuses on enabling conditions. Ideally, the two concepts complement each other. Negative liberty protects the individual's space from external intrusion, while positive liberty ensures the individual has the means and opportunities to utilize that space for development. However, tensions can arise, as sometimes those who seek to impose conditions for 'positive' development (e.g., a state promoting a specific lifestyle for citizens' 'own good') might overstep and infringe upon the minimum area of non-interference advocated by negative liberty. Tyrants have sometimes used arguments of providing 'true freedom' or 'development' (positive liberty) to justify authoritarian rule that severely curtails individual liberties (negative liberty).

Freedom Of Expression

Freedom of expression is widely considered a fundamental aspect of negative liberty, belonging to the minimum area of non-interference that should be protected. J.S. Mill provided a strong defense of this freedom, including freedom of thought and discussion, even for ideas considered false or misleading. His arguments for unrestricted freedom of expression are based on the following reasons:

1. No Idea is Completely False: Even ideas that seem false may contain an element of truth. Suppressing them means losing this potential truth.
2. Truth Emerges from Conflict: Truth is often revealed only through the clash of opposing viewpoints. Ideas that seem wrong now may be crucial in clarifying or leading to better understanding of what is right.
3. Value of Debate is Ongoing: The conflict of ideas is valuable not just historically but continuously. Even established truths can become stale or taken for granted if not challenged by opposing views, losing their vitality and conviction. Debate keeps truth trustworthy.
4. Uncertainty of Present Beliefs: We cannot be absolutely certain that what we currently believe to be true is indeed true. Ideas suppressed by society in the past have later been found to be correct. A society that suppresses unacceptable ideas risks losing potentially valuable knowledge.

Mill argued that society must be willing to tolerate some inconvenience to protect freedom of expression. However, this tolerance should not extend to views or actions that cause 'serious harm' to others (applying his harm principle). Hate campaigns, for instance, cause serious harm and may warrant constraints, but restrictions should be reasonable and not destroy freedom itself (e.g., restriction on public meetings rather than severe punishment for expressing harmful ideas). Volatile's statement, "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it," expresses a deep commitment to this principle.

Debates arise regarding when restrictions on expression are justified. Should books, plays, films, or articles be banned? Banning is often seen as an easy short-term solution but is detrimental long-term as it creates a habit of suppression. However, censorship (banning parts, but not the whole) exists for films. The question is whether and when any form of banning or censorship is justifiable. Instances like banning films ('Widows' in Varanasi, 'The Last Temptation of Christ') or books ('Ramayana Retold', 'The Satanic Verses') due to protests highlight these debates.

Constraints on freedom exist in various forms and situations (e.g., contractual restrictions for employees of the Royal household). When constraints are imposed by organized social, religious, cultural, or state authority, they are harder to resist than willingly accepted restrictions. If we are not coerced into accepting restrictions, our freedom is not considered curtailed in the same way.

Ultimately, freedom is more than just the absence of constraints; it is our capacity and ability to make choices and take responsibility for their consequences. Developing the capacity for reasoned choice and judgment is crucial and requires education and nurturing, alongside limiting external authority. The cultivation of judgment is as necessary for realizing freedom as limiting the state's power.

Exercises

Content for Exercises is excluded as per your instructions.