Class 11 Political Science Book 2 Chapter 2 Freedom Notes in English

1 The Ideal of Freedom

Human history is full of examples of people and communities who were dominated, enslaved or exploited by more powerful groups, but it also gives us inspiring examples of heroic struggles against such domination. What exactly is this freedom that people have been willing to sacrifice their lives for? At its core, the struggle for freedom expresses people’s desire to control their own lives and destinies, and to express themselves freely through their own choices and activities.

Aung San Suu Kyi remained under house arrest in Myanmar for years, separated from her own children. When her husband was dying of cancer in England, she could not go to visit him, fearing she would not be allowed to return to Myanmar. She saw her own freedom as inseparable from the freedom of her people; Gandhiji’s thoughts on non-violence were, in fact, a source of inspiration for her own struggle. The stories of Mandela and Suu Kyi together reveal the power of the ideal of freedom, an ideal that was also at the centre of India’s own national struggle and of the struggles of the peoples of Asia and Africa against British, French and Portuguese colonialism.

2 What is Freedom?

A simple answer to “what is freedom” is: the absence of external constraints on the individual. By this definition, a person is free if they can make independent decisions and act autonomously, without being subject to external control or coercion. But absence of constraints is only one dimension of freedom. Freedom is also about expanding a person’s ability to express themselves freely and develop their own potential, whether in sports, science, art, music or any other pursuit. Freedom is considered valuable because it allows us to make choices and to exercise our judgement: it permits the exercise of the individual’s powers of reason and judgement.

To understand which social constraints are necessary, discussions on freedom need to look at the core relationship between the individual and the society (or group, community or state) within which she or he is placed. We need to see which features of society allow the individual the freedom to choose, decide or act and which do not, which are desirable and which should be removed. We also need to see whether the principles we use to separate necessary from unnecessary constraints apply to relationships between individuals, groups and nations too.

2.1 The Sources of Constraints

Where do restrictions on an individual’s freedom come from? The first source is domination and external control: constraints imposed by force, or by a government’s laws that embody the power of rulers over people, as with colonial rulers or the apartheid system in South Africa. Some form of government may be inevitable, but if it is a democratic one, citizens retain some control over their rulers; this is why democratic government is considered an important means of protecting freedom. The second source is social inequality, of the kind found in the caste system or in extreme economic inequality within a society.

3 Why Do We Need Constraints?

We cannot live in a world with no constraints at all; society would descend into chaos without some. People’s ideas and ambitions differ, and they may compete for scarce resources; disagreements can turn into open conflict. Rage while driving, fights over parking spaces, quarrels over housing or land, and disagreement over whether a film should be screened can all lead to conflict and even violence. Every society therefore needs some mechanism to control violence and settle disputes. As long as people respect each other’s views and do not try to impose their own views on others, they can live freely with minimum constraints.

But building such a free society also requires some constraints of its own: at the very least, a willingness to respect differences of view, opinion and belief. When we are confronted with attempts to bully or coerce us into conforming to others’ wishes, we need the support of law to protect our freedom. The real question is: which constraints on freedom are necessary and justifiable, and which are not?

4 Harm Principle

To decide which constraints on freedom are necessary and justifiable, political theory draws on an idea John Stuart Mill set out in his essay On Liberty, known as the “harm principle”.

Mill draws an important distinction here: between self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions.

4.1 Self-Regarding vs Other-Regarding Actions

Since freedom is central to a dignified human life, it should be constrained only in special circumstances: the harm caused must be “serious”. For minor harm, Mill recommends only social disapproval, not the force of law. For example, if a person plays loud music in an apartment building, other residents may show their disapproval socially (say, by refusing to greet that person), but they need not involve the police. Legal restriction is justified only when other-regarding actions cause serious harm to definite individuals. Hate campaigns are one such serious harm, and can be restricted, but the restriction must not be so severe that it destroys freedom itself; for example, life imprisonment for conducting a hate campaign would be excessive, some restriction on movement or public meetings is enough, especially if the campaign continues despite warnings.

In India’s constitutional discussions, the term used for such justifiable limits is “reasonable restrictions”: restrictions may exist, but they must be capable of being defended by reason, not excessive, and proportionate to the action being restricted, since otherwise they would impinge on the general condition of freedom in society. We must not develop a habit of imposing restrictions, since such a habit is detrimental to freedom.

4.2 Let’s Think: The Issue of Dress Code

5 Negative and Positive Liberty

Political theory calls freedom’s two dimensions, the absence of external constraints and the expansion of opportunities for self-expression, negative liberty and positive liberty respectively.

5.1 Negative vs Positive Liberty

Positive liberty is concerned with improving the relationship between the individual and society so that there are fewer constraints on personal development. The individual is like a flower that blossoms when the soil is fertile, the sun is gentle, the water is adequate and the care is regular. This requires three kinds of enabling conditions: material (freedom from poverty and unemployment, adequate resources), political (the opportunity to participate in decision-making) and social (access to education and other opportunities). Positive liberty recognises that a person can be free only within society, not outside it, while negative liberty is concerned only with that minimum inviolable area and not with wider social conditions, though it would like to expand this minimum area as much as possible, keeping in mind the stability of society. The two usually go together and support each other, but tyrants can sometimes justify their rule by invoking arguments of positive liberty.

6 Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is considered part of the same minimum area of “non-interference” described under negative liberty. In his book On Liberty, J. S. Mill gave four strong reasons why freedom of expression should not be restricted, even for ideas that appear false or misleading today.

6.1 Mill’s Four Arguments

Demands to ban books, plays, films or research articles have come up at various times: filmmaker Deepa Mehta’s film on the plight of widows in Varanasi faced strong protest on the grounds that it would show India in a bad light, and it could not be made in Varanasi, though it was later made elsewhere. Similarly, Aubrey Menon’s Ramayana Retold and Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses were banned after protest, as were the film The Last Temptation of Christ and the play Me Nathuram Boltey. Banning is an easy short-term solution but is harmful for the long-term prospects of freedom, because banning easily becomes a habit.

In England, anyone employed by the Royal household is contractually constrained from writing about its inner affairs, even after leaving that employment. Is this an unjustifiable constraint on freedom of expression, or, because the person accepted this condition voluntarily, does it not count as a curtailment of freedom at all? This is a distinction worth remembering: when constraints are backed by organised social (religious or cultural) authority or by the might of the state, they restrict our freedom in ways that are difficult to fight against. But if we accept certain restrictions willingly, or for the sake of pursuing our goals or ambitions, our freedom is not similarly limited, as long as we are not coerced into accepting the conditions.

We began by saying that freedom is the absence of external constraints. We now realise that freedom really lies in our capacity to make choices, and when we make choices, we must also accept responsibility for our actions and their consequences. This is why most advocates of freedom hold that children must be placed in the care of parents: the capacity to make the right choices and shoulder responsibility for our actions has to be built through education and the cultivation of judgement, just as much as by limiting the authority of the state and society.