When we think of freedom in our day to day lives, what do we complain about and what do we feel grateful for? Think about it and hold on to that thought... This post is about that F word. A few recent happenings around the world, in countries close to my heart, have me thinking about what kind of freedom is important and what's not.
1. Singapore's founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew rests in peace after creating one of the most successful countries in the world. I have always been intrigued by this great man, especially after having lived in Singapore. So Singapore is supposedly a multiparty democratic country but the People's Action Party has been in power ever since its independence. There are considerable restrictions on the freedom of press and anti-PAP sentiments are not tolerated. On the other hand, the economy is a new breed of State Capitalism where Government owned investment companies hold the majority stakes in all of the biggest companies in the country. So let's say a company like Walmart is owned in part by the government, then all the evils of capitalism will turn into revenue for the government (assuming the government is welfare oriented). In terms of economic freedom, Singapore is ranked #2 in the world as of 2015. Economic freedom affects every aspect of a society; higher the freedom, higher the incomes, lower the poverty as well as tax burden, cleaner the environments, higher the standards and quality of living. The index of economic freedom (The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation) is calculated by averaging 10 factors including property rights, freedom from corruption, labor freedom, govt spending, taxes and so on, all of which are looking great for Singapore. Schools and universities in the public sector are available to all citizens at subsidized rates and primary education is compulsory for all. Healthcare costs are made affordable by means of compulsory savings (that are also useful for buying homes), subsidies and regulation, for all citizens. It is however not completely free of cost, in order to avoid over-utilization of resources and instead making people self-reliant. Lee Kuan Yew believed that "no generation should bankrupt future generations by living beyond their means". That if people got used to receiving freebies from the government, they will always be dependent on the government and as a society people should first rely on themselves, then their family and only then on their government. The private sector however is not heavily regulated, the motto being - if you can afford it, go for it!
Apart from all that, when I was living there, I always had the freedom to walk home safely (or take a cab) at all odd hours of the night. Yes, Singapore has strict laws against offenders. Caning and even capital punishment are not unheard of. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew, in an interview with Fareed Zakaria, gives an example that really captures his outlook on punishments. He says, the way America deals with its huge drug problem is by going to other countries and supporting anti-narcotic agencies to stop the suppliers, paying for helicopters and herbicides and so on. When provoked, the president of Panama is brought to trial in Florida. He says Singapore cannot afford to control or capture drug trafficking warlords from other nearby countries. Instead it has a law that gives any customs officer or policeman in Singapore the right to have any suspect's urine tested. If tested positive, the punishments are severe. Now the same law in America could never be passed because it would count as an invasion to an individual's privacy.
To summarize: in Singapore, you have the freedom to choose between good healthcare and better healthcare, a high standard of living and a higher standard of living, being safe and being safer ... but you don't have the freedom to criticize the government that allows you all of the above freedom.
Let's look at my other foster motherland quickly, the second piece of recent news --
2. The Sultan of Oman returns home in good health after undergoing treatment in Germany. I am a big fan of his majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said. A lot of people say "err..where??" when I tell them that I grew up in Muscat. I follow it up with "..its near Dubai" and then they feel relieved and reassured of their geographical IQ. Oman is an absolute monarchy. In fact, Sultan Qaboos came to power by ousting his father in a bloodless coup in 1970. Since then he has transformed Oman by freeing up its economy, starting developmental projects to increase the standard of living, modernizing infrastructure, allowing different religious groups to co-exist in peace (there were 3 Hindu temples when I was there), no compulsory burkhas and other rules for women, lots of political reforms, etc. All Omanis are allowed free education and healthcare. In fact the government hospitals maintain such a high standard that if I were Omani, I wouldn't even want to go to a private hospital. Oman has a very high index of fiscal freedom (no tax burdens on individuals), and its overall economic freedom index is ranked #56 in the world. Just to compare, India is ranked #128.
In the recent Arab Springs revolution, there were only minor revolts in Oman (asking for more jobs and such) but none trying to oust the regime entirely. Apart from love for the regime, another main reason for peace in Oman is the fact that it follows neither Sunni nor Shia Islam. Instead it is one of the 2 countries in the world, the other being Tanzania (Zanzibar), to follow the Ibadi school of Islam. Here's the difference. The Muslim world split after the death of Prophet Muhammad into two main groups - Sunni and Shia. The Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad wanted them to choose the next leader or "caliph" that they find fitting and when the caliph dies, they choose the next and so on. The Shia Muslims believed that the Muhammad would have wanted God to choose the next leader, meaning it should be kept within the Prophet's family. They felt Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin should be their "imam". Sunnis were in majority, and therefore they won. Tensions between the two groups never ceased though. Ibadi muslims are a simple, moderate and peace-loving group that want unity amongst all the different sects of Islam. They believe that one single leader for the entire Muslim community is not required. If someone befitting is found, great, if not, don't sweat it. The community can look after itself. They decide whether or not to follow the leader picked by the Sunnis and Shias. For example, they approved of the first caliph but not the second on account of him being corrupt.
Oman is not a place for free speech. All newspapers and television channels are only allowed to propagate good things about the regime. This maintains some form of political stability which in turn allows for better welfare according to the monarch. I would call this benevolent dictatorship. For me, my parents and my other expat friends, the only time freedom was taken away from us was during the month of Ramadan when you're not allowed to eat outdoors. It is a strict rule but it has heart, and I like it. Schools actually closed one hour earlier during that month, so every class is cut down by about 10 minutes. Win win win! Apart from that, expats weren't given the freedom to own property. But well, the companies took care of that - we never had to pay rent either. Overall, I did not feel oppressed in anyway, which probably doesn't mean much because I was just a little kid.
Obviously, in the case of Singapore and Oman, the rulers are welfare oriented and that's why it works. North Korea for example, is not the kind of system I'm talking about. Anyway, moving on to what is the deal with freedom of speech in India?
3. Indian Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act that allowed the police to arrest people for their so-called offensive comments on social media. Yay. But Section 69A is still valid, which allows the government to block content on the internet that they find inappropriate and any intermediary failing to comply, will be imprisoned. Yikes. Either way, there still is a fair amount of freedom of speech. In fact sometimes there's too much. Case in point: Arnab Goswami. He has interviewed (harassed to be accurate) many people over the years without any legal consequences. If the Prime Minister makes an absurd statement somewhere, the social media immediately bursts with all sorts of funny memes about it. Whatever the media thinks is sensational, people share and re-share on Facebook and Twitter, making it go viral. I call them Internet Virologists. A society where such things are allowed (at least for the most part, I know its still far from perfect) does exist in India.
A discussion on politics today seems to be about who falls more for the click-baiting and who is more up-to-date with media sensationalism. I had the most mundane conversation recently with someone along the lines of Modi is useless, Kejriwal is a drama queen, Rahul Gandhi is a joke, India is doomed... yes, but if the average Indian has opinions based just on what the media feeds you and doesn't want to go beyond being an Internet Virologist, then yes India is pretty much doomed. Don't get me wrong, I love the media. Just not the sensationalism.
So what sort of freedom do we want from the government? Is freedom of speech everything? Does a person from a lower economic background have the freedom to get good quality healthcare? Does a woman have the freedom to walk in the streets of Delhi alone (or with a boy) at night? Does a "Dalit" have the freedom of equality in society or is he still made to feel inferior? I could go on, and so can you I'm sure. And I'm sure all of us care about these things when brought to our notice. So can we think of a system where all the freedom that we care about can be achieved? Either by looking at other successful countries for example or by being innovative ourselves. Only if we know what we want can we elect an appropriate government to fulfill our needs. Or even better, we can become the government. Let's not be satisfied with our politicians being comic relief on social media. Thinking about this is the first step, the more we think the more involved we feel and that will lead to something substantial in the future.
Can a system of governance exist in India that maintains freedom of speech but also political stability? Can an orderly disciplined safe country be established without some amount of freedom being curbed? I don't think so; you should be able to give up some kinds of freedom to gain others. If you agree, what sort of freedom would you be willing to give up in India?
P.S. 1. I haven't talked about LGBT rights and freedom because that is something people are slowly opening up to and I have hope for Singapore, India and Oman (in that same order) to get there soon.
P.S. 2. I am very much the average Indian I spoke of, not an expert at politics.
1. Singapore's founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew rests in peace after creating one of the most successful countries in the world. I have always been intrigued by this great man, especially after having lived in Singapore. So Singapore is supposedly a multiparty democratic country but the People's Action Party has been in power ever since its independence. There are considerable restrictions on the freedom of press and anti-PAP sentiments are not tolerated. On the other hand, the economy is a new breed of State Capitalism where Government owned investment companies hold the majority stakes in all of the biggest companies in the country. So let's say a company like Walmart is owned in part by the government, then all the evils of capitalism will turn into revenue for the government (assuming the government is welfare oriented). In terms of economic freedom, Singapore is ranked #2 in the world as of 2015. Economic freedom affects every aspect of a society; higher the freedom, higher the incomes, lower the poverty as well as tax burden, cleaner the environments, higher the standards and quality of living. The index of economic freedom (The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation) is calculated by averaging 10 factors including property rights, freedom from corruption, labor freedom, govt spending, taxes and so on, all of which are looking great for Singapore. Schools and universities in the public sector are available to all citizens at subsidized rates and primary education is compulsory for all. Healthcare costs are made affordable by means of compulsory savings (that are also useful for buying homes), subsidies and regulation, for all citizens. It is however not completely free of cost, in order to avoid over-utilization of resources and instead making people self-reliant. Lee Kuan Yew believed that "no generation should bankrupt future generations by living beyond their means". That if people got used to receiving freebies from the government, they will always be dependent on the government and as a society people should first rely on themselves, then their family and only then on their government. The private sector however is not heavily regulated, the motto being - if you can afford it, go for it!
Apart from all that, when I was living there, I always had the freedom to walk home safely (or take a cab) at all odd hours of the night. Yes, Singapore has strict laws against offenders. Caning and even capital punishment are not unheard of. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew, in an interview with Fareed Zakaria, gives an example that really captures his outlook on punishments. He says, the way America deals with its huge drug problem is by going to other countries and supporting anti-narcotic agencies to stop the suppliers, paying for helicopters and herbicides and so on. When provoked, the president of Panama is brought to trial in Florida. He says Singapore cannot afford to control or capture drug trafficking warlords from other nearby countries. Instead it has a law that gives any customs officer or policeman in Singapore the right to have any suspect's urine tested. If tested positive, the punishments are severe. Now the same law in America could never be passed because it would count as an invasion to an individual's privacy.
To summarize: in Singapore, you have the freedom to choose between good healthcare and better healthcare, a high standard of living and a higher standard of living, being safe and being safer ... but you don't have the freedom to criticize the government that allows you all of the above freedom.
Let's look at my other foster motherland quickly, the second piece of recent news --
2. The Sultan of Oman returns home in good health after undergoing treatment in Germany. I am a big fan of his majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said. A lot of people say "err..where??" when I tell them that I grew up in Muscat. I follow it up with "..its near Dubai" and then they feel relieved and reassured of their geographical IQ. Oman is an absolute monarchy. In fact, Sultan Qaboos came to power by ousting his father in a bloodless coup in 1970. Since then he has transformed Oman by freeing up its economy, starting developmental projects to increase the standard of living, modernizing infrastructure, allowing different religious groups to co-exist in peace (there were 3 Hindu temples when I was there), no compulsory burkhas and other rules for women, lots of political reforms, etc. All Omanis are allowed free education and healthcare. In fact the government hospitals maintain such a high standard that if I were Omani, I wouldn't even want to go to a private hospital. Oman has a very high index of fiscal freedom (no tax burdens on individuals), and its overall economic freedom index is ranked #56 in the world. Just to compare, India is ranked #128.
In the recent Arab Springs revolution, there were only minor revolts in Oman (asking for more jobs and such) but none trying to oust the regime entirely. Apart from love for the regime, another main reason for peace in Oman is the fact that it follows neither Sunni nor Shia Islam. Instead it is one of the 2 countries in the world, the other being Tanzania (Zanzibar), to follow the Ibadi school of Islam. Here's the difference. The Muslim world split after the death of Prophet Muhammad into two main groups - Sunni and Shia. The Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad wanted them to choose the next leader or "caliph" that they find fitting and when the caliph dies, they choose the next and so on. The Shia Muslims believed that the Muhammad would have wanted God to choose the next leader, meaning it should be kept within the Prophet's family. They felt Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin should be their "imam". Sunnis were in majority, and therefore they won. Tensions between the two groups never ceased though. Ibadi muslims are a simple, moderate and peace-loving group that want unity amongst all the different sects of Islam. They believe that one single leader for the entire Muslim community is not required. If someone befitting is found, great, if not, don't sweat it. The community can look after itself. They decide whether or not to follow the leader picked by the Sunnis and Shias. For example, they approved of the first caliph but not the second on account of him being corrupt.
Oman is not a place for free speech. All newspapers and television channels are only allowed to propagate good things about the regime. This maintains some form of political stability which in turn allows for better welfare according to the monarch. I would call this benevolent dictatorship. For me, my parents and my other expat friends, the only time freedom was taken away from us was during the month of Ramadan when you're not allowed to eat outdoors. It is a strict rule but it has heart, and I like it. Schools actually closed one hour earlier during that month, so every class is cut down by about 10 minutes. Win win win! Apart from that, expats weren't given the freedom to own property. But well, the companies took care of that - we never had to pay rent either. Overall, I did not feel oppressed in anyway, which probably doesn't mean much because I was just a little kid.
Obviously, in the case of Singapore and Oman, the rulers are welfare oriented and that's why it works. North Korea for example, is not the kind of system I'm talking about. Anyway, moving on to what is the deal with freedom of speech in India?
3. Indian Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act that allowed the police to arrest people for their so-called offensive comments on social media. Yay. But Section 69A is still valid, which allows the government to block content on the internet that they find inappropriate and any intermediary failing to comply, will be imprisoned. Yikes. Either way, there still is a fair amount of freedom of speech. In fact sometimes there's too much. Case in point: Arnab Goswami. He has interviewed (harassed to be accurate) many people over the years without any legal consequences. If the Prime Minister makes an absurd statement somewhere, the social media immediately bursts with all sorts of funny memes about it. Whatever the media thinks is sensational, people share and re-share on Facebook and Twitter, making it go viral. I call them Internet Virologists. A society where such things are allowed (at least for the most part, I know its still far from perfect) does exist in India.
A discussion on politics today seems to be about who falls more for the click-baiting and who is more up-to-date with media sensationalism. I had the most mundane conversation recently with someone along the lines of Modi is useless, Kejriwal is a drama queen, Rahul Gandhi is a joke, India is doomed... yes, but if the average Indian has opinions based just on what the media feeds you and doesn't want to go beyond being an Internet Virologist, then yes India is pretty much doomed. Don't get me wrong, I love the media. Just not the sensationalism.
So what sort of freedom do we want from the government? Is freedom of speech everything? Does a person from a lower economic background have the freedom to get good quality healthcare? Does a woman have the freedom to walk in the streets of Delhi alone (or with a boy) at night? Does a "Dalit" have the freedom of equality in society or is he still made to feel inferior? I could go on, and so can you I'm sure. And I'm sure all of us care about these things when brought to our notice. So can we think of a system where all the freedom that we care about can be achieved? Either by looking at other successful countries for example or by being innovative ourselves. Only if we know what we want can we elect an appropriate government to fulfill our needs. Or even better, we can become the government. Let's not be satisfied with our politicians being comic relief on social media. Thinking about this is the first step, the more we think the more involved we feel and that will lead to something substantial in the future.
Can a system of governance exist in India that maintains freedom of speech but also political stability? Can an orderly disciplined safe country be established without some amount of freedom being curbed? I don't think so; you should be able to give up some kinds of freedom to gain others. If you agree, what sort of freedom would you be willing to give up in India?
P.S. 1. I haven't talked about LGBT rights and freedom because that is something people are slowly opening up to and I have hope for Singapore, India and Oman (in that same order) to get there soon.
P.S. 2. I am very much the average Indian I spoke of, not an expert at politics.
Rum.yeah and me had a longish discussion on whatsapp about this. I am pasting the conversation here.
ReplyDelete[6/12/2015, 9:24 AM] Brat: It's nice. I like it. Personally if you ask me, I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech and thought and also personal liberty in the social sense. If a freedom has to be snatched from me, I would choose something economic. Higher taxes for example.
[6/12/2015, 9:26 AM] Ramya Natrajan: Just shared it kn Google plus for a possible discussion
[6/12/2015, 9:27 AM] Brat: Also I do not agree on the political stability thing. The incumbents always need to be on their toes. People should be able to question their leaders and put checks and balances.
[6/12/2015, 9:41 AM] Ramya Natrajan: :) I also wouldn't want my freedom of speech and expression taken away. Political stability is more in terms of cooperating for the greater good. Just because someone brings about reservation and it doesn't serve your own need, you don't go protest and bring it down. Instead you think about whether the freedom taken away is reasonable. If tomorrow a rule gets made saying and implementing "you can't buy your way through the judiciary ", the rich dudes will remove their support from the government and it will collapse
[6/12/2015, 10:08 AM] Brat: My point is precisely the same but from the opposite perspective. Let's assume a politically stable government is in place that thinks reservations are inconvenient for their majoritarian supporters and want to get rid of it. You need a strong opposition to protest this and mobilize people on the ground.
[6/12/2015, 10:13 AM] Ramya Natrajan: Why would the opposition care about the minority at the risk of losing popularity with the majority? I agree this system works only if a good government is elected. A benevolent dictatorship
[6/12/2015, 10:14 AM] Brat: Classic example in the Indian context is mayawathi or the mandal parties. That they screwed up is a different matter. But the fact remains they were able to get under represented people into the political mainstream and get their voices heard. And in my analogy, it's the role of the opposition to change the view of the majority. A government that is happy serving majority rights like say a khap pamchayat is, will only cause long term problems. The concept of benevolent dictator is also super slippery. You die a hero or live long enough to see yourself becoming the villain. A political flux kind of a situation may delay good things but will usually have checks in place for bad things. A strong centralized leader may get a few things done quickly but s/he will have quirks due to which s/he will cause bigger problems
Well in an ideal case the opposition would keep checks on the ruling party agreed. In India right now, as long as you're rich and powerful, no opposition can keep any checks on you. Amma's acquittal for example? All the planning that went behind it. The rich are ruling India in a non benevolent dictatorship
Delete