Born free, yet no freedom

Govt's 'no-right' to vote stand is unjust, writes Sunil Lala in Boston Diary.

The news that the dual citizenship bill is chugging along, comes as a huge relief to all NRIs. The process of sending my passport to the Indian Embassy in New York to get a visa to visit the country, where I was born was weird at best and humiliating at worst.

So, it is a welcome development that the Indian government is finally giving us the right to be citizens again. The question I have is, why does the government not allow us to vote?

And as soon as I say that, I check myself.

Give us the right? Allow us to vote? Aren't we asking the wrong questions? Shouldn't the question be - can we allow the government to play with our rights?

Does the government even have the power to decide who among its citizens can vote and who cannot? The issue is not how much right the government should give us.

It is - how much power should we, as citizens of a free and democratic country, allow our government. That is the issue that we, as a society, must resolve.

The biggest difference between India and the US is in our understanding of the concepts of freedom and rights. Both countries have free societies, and both are well-established democracies. In India, while individual freedom does exist, many times the so-called "good of the society as a whole" takes precedence.

In the US, freedom of the individual reigns supreme. There's the Patriot Act of course, but more about that later.

So, which approach is correct? Well, at the outset, I must confess that there are problems with each. There is a whole lot of abuse of rights that occurs in both countries. But there is a difference.

In the US, most of the abuse is by individuals and most of it happens because individuals have, well, too much freedom. In India, most abuse is by the government, simply because the government has too much power. And that is a crucial distinction. Everything considered, I believe that the approach that the Constitution of United States takes, is better than what India currently has in place.

In the US, I can stand in front of the White House and heap abuse and scorn on President Bush, or as I prefer to call him, "little Georgie", and nobody can touch me.

In India, I have the right to do the exact same thing to our Prime Minister. So far so good. Now, let's take this concept one step further. Let us raise the stakes.

What if the Ku Klux Klan decides to hold a public rally at Kenmore Square in Boston, and spew vitriol against blacks, and against us "brown Indians" who migrate to the US and take away jobs from deserving whites? Or, what if I, as a person of Indian origin, burn the American flag in my front yard, as a protest against the Iraq war?

In the same vein, what if militant Hindu organisations hold a huge anti-Muslim rally at India Gate, or a few hundred Muslim extremists gather outside Jama Masjid, burn the tri-colour, and loudly praise Pakistan?

Does that make your blood boil? Does it make you cringe in disgust? Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Our response to these obviously extreme situations will help us determine whether we truly are a free society.

So, what should the government do in each of these instances? To me the answer is clear as crystal. Absolutely nothing. Why? Simple. The State shouldn't have the power to do anything to stop people from exercising their absolute freedom of speech.

But aren't these acts simply too extreme, too racist, too hateful, too disgusting? Absolutely. And that is exactly the reason why they must not just be tolerated, but actively protected.

Popular speech by definition doesn't need protection. It is exactly this kind of offensive speech, which must be granted protection from the government. You don't like it? Well, exercise your right to ignore it. Or better still, counter it with your own right of speech.

The same is true for other freedoms as well. Censorship is a fine example. In the US, there is almost no censorship of any kind. There is no censorship in movies, and cable channels are free to show what they want.

In India, censorship is rampant. We actually have an official Censor Board and accept it as part of our lives. We have been brainwashed into believing that a few people somehow have the right to decide for all of us, what is appropriate for our viewing.

Another example of individual freedoms suppressed in the name of a larger good. The "larger good", as defined by Big Brother of course.

Freedom must be individual. Freedom must be personal. Freedom must be unconditional and absolute. A citizen's rights must be irrevocable. There is no such thing as too much freedom. Individual freedom must always, and in all cases, override the rights of the society as a whole.

For it is only in protecting these "inalienable rights" of the individual, that we can ensure the protection of society. Our rights and freedoms exist not to protect our society from individuals. They exist to protect individuals from their government.

And so, we come back to the Patriot Act and to voting rights for NRIs. I ask little Georgie to get rid this ridiculous Act once and for all. It's a disgrace to all freedom loving people.

And in all humility, we NRIs request the government of India… no, scratch that. Let me rephrase. I demand, as a citizen of India, that my right to vote, which has been illegally stolen by the government, be restored without delay. I furthermore claim that the Constitution of India bestowed this right upon me, and that the government has neither the right nor the power to take it away from me. I insist that this matter be resolved expeditiously.

Either that, or I'll have my attorneys talk to your attorneys.