4 ms·

Ill admit I don't know a ton about India's constitution. Do they have freedom of speech? How is it phrased?

honkler 3y ago
Only majority community (Upper caste - hindi speaking - hindus have freedom of speech). Infact they are so free that they can call for genocide on live television, and get away with it. If you're minority (especially a journalist), you'd be Jailed without trial for years (UAPA and NSA). Think of it as a modern day Gulag.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nsenifty 3y ago
There is freedom of speech, but the first amendment[0] ironically added measures to restrict free speech. Even aside from that, it's a minefield of colonial era Sedition laws, blasphemy laws, anti-terrorism laws etc. The state can also make it pretty miserable for you even if you didn't break the laws just by arresting you and denying swift justice (since the court cases can take decades). You could also be "made to disappear" if you sufficiently piss off a powerful non-state entity. So yeah it's pretty bleak. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_Constit...
- corbulo 3y ago
  Its all too common for states to have soft free speech. I wonder why Indians haven't pushed more for nailing that down.
screye 3y ago
I highly recommend you go read a summary of the Indian constitution before reading comments on here. I will offer my own opinions on the matter, but you'll likely find that my answers are in stark contrast to some others on this thread. The Indian constitution (and its amendments) is one of the most liberal and social-justice oriented constitutions of any nation in the world. It was primarily drafted by independent India's most famed social justice proponent: Dr. Ambedkar and the blessings of Gandhi and Nehru, who'd fit right into the sociology departments of academic universities in the US in 2023. In broad strokes it attempts to empower states with federalism on social issues and governance, but central economic and national policy. It tries to allow social insularity of communities, linguistic or religious. So, religious minorities get to have their own personal civil law (marriage, inheritance) and independent institutions (religious schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, etc) and land ownership. On the other hand, it is paternalistic towards the Indic religions (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and partially sikhs) taking full ownership (for better or for worse) of issues pertaining to those religions. Similarly, its individual states get a lot of power over how bills are implemented on that ground, meaning that a strong central govt (like Modi's) is still quite weak and can be completely blocked by a uncooperative state govt. (TN, Kerala, WB, Delhi, etc). India was formed as an insecure nation, desperate to show how secular it was, as a counter weight to Pakistan's religious fundamentalism. Here are a few accommodations in the constitution that stand out: * Article 334 [1] of the Indian constitution explicitly grants affirmative action in all govt. institutions to those that belong to lower castes. * The judiciary is FULLY independent. This means, that unlike the US, the Indian Govt. cannot pick judges, with the judiciary internally handling issues of selecting judges all the way up to the Supreme court. [2] * The standard fundamental rights. They almost entirely focus on protection of minorities. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India#:~:text=Article%20334%20of%20the%20Constitution%20lays%20down%20that%20the%20provisions,of%20the%20States%20shall%20cease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-fifth_Amendment_of_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India#The_Constitution_and_the_Judiciary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India#The_Constit... [3] https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights/ https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights/
mr_toad 3y ago
Having a constitution means nothing if it is not enforced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution

Only majority community (Upper caste - hindi speaking - hindus have freedom of speech). Infact they are so free that they can call for genocide on live television, and get away with it. If you're minority (especially a journalist), you'd be Jailed without trial for years (UAPA and NSA). Think of it as a modern day Gulag.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nsenifty 3y ago

There is freedom of speech, but the first amendment[0] ironically added measures to restrict free speech. Even aside from that, it's a minefield of colonial era Sedition laws, blasphemy laws, anti-terrorism laws etc. The state can also make it pretty miserable for you even if you didn't break the laws just by arresting you and denying swift justice (since the court cases can take decades). You could also be "made to disappear" if you sufficiently piss off a powerful non-state entity. So yeah it's pretty bleak. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_Constit...

corbulo 3y ago
Its all too common for states to have soft free speech. I wonder why Indians haven't pushed more for nailing that down.

screye 3y ago

I highly recommend you go read a summary of the Indian constitution before reading comments on here. I will offer my own opinions on the matter, but you'll likely find that my answers are in stark contrast to some others on this thread. The Indian constitution (and its amendments) is one of the most liberal and social-justice oriented constitutions of any nation in the world. It was primarily drafted by independent India's most famed social justice proponent: Dr. Ambedkar and the blessings of Gandhi and Nehru, who'd fit right into the sociology departments of academic universities in the US in 2023. In broad strokes it attempts to empower states with federalism on social issues and governance, but central economic and national policy. It tries to allow social insularity of communities, linguistic or religious. So, religious minorities get to have their own personal civil law (marriage, inheritance) and independent institutions (religious schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, etc) and land ownership. On the other hand, it is paternalistic towards the Indic religions (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and partially sikhs) taking full ownership (for better or for worse) of issues pertaining to those religions. Similarly, its individual states get a lot of power over how bills are implemented on that ground, meaning that a strong central govt (like Modi's) is still quite weak and can be completely blocked by a uncooperative state govt. (TN, Kerala, WB, Delhi, etc). India was formed as an insecure nation, desperate to show how secular it was, as a counter weight to Pakistan's religious fundamentalism. Here are a few accommodations in the constitution that stand out: * Article 334 [1] of the Indian constitution explicitly grants affirmative action in all govt. institutions to those that belong to lower castes. * The judiciary is FULLY independent. This means, that unlike the US, the Indian Govt. cannot pick judges, with the judiciary internally handling issues of selecting judges all the way up to the Supreme court. [2] * The standard fundamental rights. They almost entirely focus on protection of minorities. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India#:~:text=Article%20334%20of%20the%20Constitution%20lays%20down%20that%20the%20provisions,of%20the%20States%20shall%20cease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-fifth_Amendment_of_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India#The_Constitution_and_the_Judiciary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India#The_Constit... [3] https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights/ https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights/

mr_toad 3y ago

Having a constitution means nothing if it is not enforced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution