Chapter 2 Freedom

Human history is replete with instances of individuals and communities enduring domination, slavery, or exploitation by more powerful groups. Yet, it also offers inspiring accounts of courageous struggles against such oppression. What is the essence of this concept of **freedom** for which people have been willing to make ultimate sacrifices?

---

At its core, the pursuit of freedom represents the fundamental human desire to exercise **control over one's own life and destiny**. It is the yearning for the opportunity to express oneself, make independent choices, and engage in activities without undue external limitations. This value is cherished not only by individuals but also by entire societies and nations, who strive to protect their independence, culture, and future.

---

However, the reality of social living, where diverse interests and ambitions exist, necessitates some form of rules and regulations. These rules may involve imposing certain constraints on individual freedom. While constraints might seem counter to freedom, they can also provide security and create conditions that enable individuals to develop themselves. Political theory extensively debates how to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary social constraints and examines the potential limitations on freedom arising from societal structures, including economic ones. This chapter explores some of these debates.

---

The Ideal Of Freedom

The concept of freedom has been a powerful ideal that has driven individuals and movements throughout history. The autobiography of Nelson Mandela, *Long Walk to Freedom*, provides a poignant example. Mandela's struggle against the **apartheid regime** in South Africa was a fight against unjust constraints imposed on black people based on race. Apartheid involved forced segregation, restrictions on movement, denial of basic rights (including freedom to marry across racial lines), and severe discrimination. For Mandela and his comrades, the "Long Walk to Freedom" was the collective effort to remove these obstacles and secure freedom for all South Africans, regardless of race.

---

Mandela's commitment to this ideal led him to spend **twenty-seven years in prison**, often in solitary confinement, sacrificing his youth and personal comforts. His willingness to endure immense hardship and isolation solely for the freedom of his people demonstrates the profound power of the ideal of freedom. It highlights that the pursuit of freedom can demand immense personal sacrifice.

---

Similarly, Aung San Suu Kyi, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence, endured prolonged house arrest in Myanmar. Her struggle for democracy and the freedom of her people meant separation from her children and inability to visit her dying husband abroad due to fear of not being allowed to return to Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi views her personal freedom as intrinsically linked to the freedom of her nation. Her book, *Freedom from Fear*, emphasizes that **real freedom is freedom from fear**. She argues that a dignified human life is impossible if one lives in constant fear – fear of others' opinions, authority, community reactions, ridicule, or expressing one's thoughts. Overcoming such fear, she suggests, is essential for a dignified existence. These examples underscore the ideal of freedom as a driving force behind national struggles against colonialism and oppression in Asia and Africa.

---

What Is Freedom?

A simple definition of freedom is the **absence of constraints** or restrictions. According to this view (often called **negative freedom**), an individual is free if not subjected to external controls, coercion, and can make independent decisions and act autonomously. However, freedom has another crucial dimension: it is also about the **expansion of opportunities** and capabilities for individuals to express themselves fully and develop their potential. In this sense (often called **positive freedom**), freedom is the condition that enables people to realize their creativity and talents.

---

Both aspects are vital for a free society: the reduction of external constraints (freedom from) and the creation of conditions for self-development (freedom to). A truly free society would allow all its members to develop their potential with minimal social constraints.

---

However, total absence of constraints is impossible in society. Therefore, a key question in political theory is determining which social constraints are justified and necessary for social order, and which are not and should be removed. This requires examining the relationship between the individual and society (or the state) and identifying which societal features enable or restrict individual freedom of choice and action.

---

Swaraj

In Indian political thought, a concept analogous to freedom is **‘Swaraj’**. The term combines ‘Swa’ (Self) and ‘Raj’ (Rule), meaning both **rule of the self** and **rule over self**. During India's freedom struggle, Swaraj encompassed both the political demand for constitutional independence from British rule and a deeper value at the social and collective level, representing self-rule and self-determination. Tilak's famous slogan, "Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it," captured its political significance.

---

Mahatma Gandhi, in his work *Hind Swaraj*, highlighted the meaning of Swaraj as **‘Rule over the Self’**. He saw Swaraj as more than just political freedom; it was about liberation, redeeming one's self-respect, self-responsibility, and capacity for self-realization from dehumanizing institutions. Gandhi believed that understanding the true ‘Self’ and its relationship to community and society was crucial for achieving Swaraj. The development that followed, guided by the principle of justice, would empower both individuals and the collective. This understanding of Swaraj remains relevant today.

---

The Sources Of Constraints

Restrictions on individual freedom can originate from various sources:

• **Domination and External Controls:** Imposed by force, or through laws enacted by rulers (backed by state power). Colonial rule and the apartheid system are historical examples of such oppressive constraints. In a democracy, citizens have some control over rulers, providing a mechanism for protecting freedom, though some governmental constraints are inevitable for social order.
• **Social Inequality:** Constraints arising from structures like the caste system, or extreme economic disparities, which limit opportunities and capabilities for disadvantaged groups. As highlighted by Subhas Chandra Bose, genuine freedom for a country requires addressing these internal social and economic constraints, not just achieving political independence.

---

Why Do We Need Constraints?

The necessity of constraints arises from the potential for conflict in society due to differing ideas, opinions, ambitions, and competition for scarce resources. Disagreements can easily escalate into conflict and violence, leading to harm and disruption. Therefore, every society requires some mechanisms, including legal and political restraints, to control violence, settle disputes peacefully, and prevent individuals or groups from coercively imposing their views or actions on others. While ideally, we should respect differences and pursue our choices freely, the reality of human interaction sometimes necessitates external rules to ensure mutual respect and prevent harm.

---

The crucial and challenging question is to identify which constraints are necessary and justifiable for maintaining social order and protecting others' freedom, and which are arbitrary or excessive. This involves debating what sort of external authority can legitimately impose constraints and whether there are certain areas of life that should remain free from all external interference.

---

Harm Principle

To address the issue of justifiable constraints, political theory considers the **‘harm principle’**, famously articulated by John Stuart Mill in his essay *On Liberty*. Mill proposed a distinction between actions that affect only the individual performing them (**‘self-regarding’** actions) and actions that also have consequences for others (**‘other-regarding’** actions).

---

According to Mill's harm principle, the **sole justification for society, individually or collectively, to interfere with the liberty of action of any of its members is to prevent harm to others**. With respect to self-regarding actions (those affecting only oneself), the state or any external authority has no legitimate basis for interference. This aligns with the idea of individual autonomy: "That’s my business, I’ll do what I like." However, for other-regarding actions that may cause harm to others, there is a case for external intervention, as individuals should be protected from harm caused by others' actions.

---

Mill emphasized that freedom is crucial for a dignified life and should only be constrained in specific, serious circumstances. The **harm caused must be ‘serious’**. For minor harms or inconveniences, Mill argued for only **social disapproval** rather than the force of law. For example, playing loud music that disturbs neighbors is a minor harm, warranting social disapproval from neighbors, but not police intervention or legal punishment. Society should tolerate minor inconveniences in the spirit of protecting broader freedom. Legal constraints should only be applied to other-regarding actions that cause significant harm to identifiable individuals.

---

Society should tolerate different ways of life, viewpoints, and interests, provided they do not cause serious harm to others. However, this tolerance does not extend to actions or views that endanger people or incite hatred against them (e.g., hate campaigns cause serious harm to others' freedom and security). Constraints on such actions may be justified, but they must be proportionate and not so severe as to undermine freedom itself (e.g., restrictions on movement or public meetings rather than excessive punishment for hate campaigns).

---

In constitutional discussions in India, the term used for justifiable constraints is **‘reasonable restrictions’**. These restrictions must be capable of being defended by reason, not excessive or disproportionate to the action being limited, to avoid infringing on the general condition of freedom in society. There is a caution against developing a habit of imposing restrictions, as it is detrimental to freedom.

---

The Issue Of Dress Code

The choice of clothing can be seen as an expression of individual freedom. However, there are many situations where dress codes or restrictions are imposed. Examining these situations raises questions about the justification, authority, and impact of such constraints on freedom.

---

Examples of restrictions on dress include:

• Mandatory wearing of ‘Mao suits’ in China during Mao's regime (justified as promoting equality).
• Religious decrees (fatwas) imposing specific dress codes, particularly for women.
• Rules in sports requiring specific attire (e.g., white dress in cricket test matches).
• School uniforms.

---

Debates surrounding dress codes involve asking:

• Is the restriction justified in all or only some cases (e.g., safety in sports vs. ideological conformity vs. religious dictate)? When does it become an infringement on freedom?
• Who has the legitimate authority to impose such constraints (state, religious leaders, sports bodies, school authorities)?
• Is the restriction excessive or disproportionate, significantly limiting individuals' means of self-expression?
• What are the consequences of accepting such impositions (e.g., does mandatory uniform truly create equality, does required attire in sports unfairly exclude some)?

---

Liberalism

**Liberalism**, as a political ideology, is strongly associated with the value of **tolerance** – defending the right to hold and express opinions even when disagreeing with them. More distinctively, modern liberalism centers on the **individual**, giving priority to individual liberty over collective entities like family or community (unless valued by the individual). Liberals are often suspicious of excessive political authority and advocate for limited government intervention, historically favoring free markets. However, contemporary liberalism also acknowledges the role of a welfare state and measures to reduce social and economic inequalities.

---

Negative And Positive Liberty

As noted earlier, freedom has two dimensions often termed **negative liberty** and **positive liberty**.

---

**Negative Liberty:** This concept defines freedom as the **absence of external constraints or interference**. It focuses on establishing and defending an **inviolable area** around the individual where no external authority (state, society, etc.) can interfere with their actions, choices, thoughts, or being. This "minimum area of non-interference" is considered sacred for human dignity. Negative liberty is concerned with explaining **‘freedom from’** – freedom from external coercion or obstruction. The question it asks is: "Over what area am I the master?" The size of this area is a matter of debate, but the existence of such a protected sphere is fundamental to negative liberty. The choice of clothing, for instance, might be argued to belong to this minimum area of non-interference, sparking debates about external authorities' right to regulate dress.

---

**Positive Liberty:** This concept is concerned with the **expansion of opportunities and capacities for individuals to express themselves and develop their potential**. It is concerned with **‘freedom to’** – the ability to act, to be, to become, and to chart one's own destiny. Positive liberty arguments focus on the conditions within society that enable individual development. It views the individual as potentially able to flourish when provided with favorable material, political, and social conditions. This includes having adequate material resources (not constrained by poverty or unemployment), opportunities to participate in decision-making (political freedom), and access to education and other resources for intellectual and personal growth. Positive liberty recognizes that freedom is realized within society and seeks to shape society to facilitate individual development, rather than just defining a protected zone of non-interference.

---

Generally, negative and positive liberty are complementary and support each other. However, they can sometimes be in tension, and arguments for positive liberty (emphasizing state provision of enabling conditions) could potentially be used to justify increased state interference, which advocates of negative liberty would resist. Advocates of negative liberty seek to expand the area of non-interference as much as possible without undermining social stability, while positive liberty focuses on creating the societal conditions necessary for individuals to achieve their potential.

---

Answer:

---

Freedom Of Expression

**Freedom of expression** is often considered a core component of negative liberty – a fundamental right within the minimum area of non-interference, meaning it should not be easily restricted by external authority. John Stuart Mill passionately defended freedom of expression, including freedom of thought and discussion, in *On Liberty*. He argued for allowing even ideas that appear false because: (1) False ideas may contain an element of truth that is lost if suppressed. (2) Truth emerges from the conflict of opposing views. (3) Challenging accepted truths with opposing views keeps those truths vital and prevents them from becoming dogma. (4) Ideas considered false today may turn out to be true in the future.

---

Despite the strong arguments for freedom of expression, there are often demands to ban books, plays, films, or other forms of expression, raising the question of when such restrictions are justified. While blanket banning is seen as detrimental to freedom (creating a harmful habit), limited censorship exists (e.g., film censorship, restrictions on expression in specific contexts like within the royal household). The debate lies in identifying justifiable restrictions and the process by which they are imposed. Constraints on expression are justifiable if they are reasonable, not excessive, defended by reason, and necessary to prevent serious harm to others (e.g., incitement to violence, hate speech). However, the test of 'serious harm' is crucial to avoid suppressing dissenting or controversial ideas simply because they are unpopular or offensive to some. Protecting freedom of expression requires society's willingness to tolerate some inconvenience or offense in order to uphold this fundamental value.

---

Different types of constraints exist in life, backed by social, cultural, religious, or state authority. Constraints backed by organized authority or state power are harder to resist and can significantly limit freedom. However, if we voluntarily accept restrictions for specific goals or ambitions (e.g., contractual obligations), our freedom is not necessarily curtailed, provided the acceptance is not coerced.

---

Freedom Of Expression

(This subheading is a repeat, content already covered above).

---

In conclusion, freedom is more than just the absence of external constraints; it also involves the capacity to make choices and the ability to develop oneself. Exercising freedom entails taking responsibility for one's actions and their consequences. Developing the capacity for reasoned choices, judgment, and responsibility requires both education and cultivation of these abilities, as well as the necessary societal conditions and limitations on external authority to allow individuals to flourish.

---

Exercises

(Exercise questions are not included as per instructions.)