FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN VEDAS AND TIRUKKURAL AND MEDIA

*The term ‘ṛta’ is used in the specific sense in the RG Veda. The term
“ṛta” occurs in the RG Veda approximately four hundred and fifty times. *It
is a mode of “Being” because the gods, who are *ṛtajāta*, provide light,
wide space, safety, security, freedom, stability, visions etc., through
their association with, and by means of the power of *ṛta. *It is the
foundation for the functions of gods and men through which these entities
maintain both their relation with *ṛta *and the security of the cosmos as
well. The sacrifice is identified with *ṛta *because that rite harnesses
the power of *ṛta *by which men are able to gain the freedom, safety,
security etc., which are necessary for the persistent existence in the
cosmos. Sacred speech is *ṛta *because it is the mark of the *ṛṣi; *this
type of speech is the result of an *alaukika *or supernormal vision of that
which is real; Ṛṣi brings his acts and intentions into conformity with *ṛta
*in such a way that he, like gods, is able to siege upon *ṛta *as his mode
of being. Therefore, ṛta may be regarded as the necessary pre-condition for
the safety, freedom, reliability, truth, law, order of the sat which
manifested through the intentions and acts of men and gods   *Bhagavadgītā *is
concerned with the significance of world order /truth/law and the order of
men with the cosmos.

2     TIMES OF INDIA:  ” recent implementation of the government rules
related to social media and police raids on the offices of Twitter and
Facebook which are very troubling.  There are absolutely no sound reasons
for such actions which needlessly restrict the Freedom of Speech
fundamental to a democratic system and bring a bad name to India.

Oxford Dictionary defines Freedom of Speech as “the right to express any
opinion without censorship or restraint, retaliation or legal sanction.”
Exceptions have been listed as obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech
integral to illegal conduct or lawlessness danger to National Security,
copyright and intellectual property right violations and harm to others.
The problem with these exceptions is “Who will decide and how to decide the
application of these exceptions?”  All authoritarian governments cite
national security and public interests when they impose restrictions on
Free Speech.  Freedom of Speech is recognized as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (“CCPR”). One of the world’s first formal freedom of press
act was introduced in Sweden in 1766. The French Revolution in 1789
emphasized “the rights of man and the citizens’ Freedom of Speech is
fundamental in a democracy”.  Similar to the international standard for
Freedom of Speech and human rights, there could be international guidelines
and codes for the exceptions to the Freedom of Speech which should be
followed by the countries which want to impose restrictions.

Ancient India was the first one in the world to recognize the Freedom of
Speech and Freedom of Religion and implemented these rights to the extreme
with no exception. Any thought, expression, way of worship, even anti-God
views and atheism, were allowed.  There was no restriction on speech,
writing and other ways of expression. Sex and pornography were freely
discussed and depicted even in places of worship. There were many thinkers
who opposed Vedas and even called the authors of Vedas ignorant and
hypocrites.  Instead of their persecution, they were regarded as sages.
Buddha and Mahveera opposed Vedas and its teachings.  People were even
allowed to walk and preach naked such as Nanga Sadhus and Digambar Jain
Munis.  Shastrarth and public debates were common including on subjects
such as existence of God, soul, way of worship and other philosophical and
social issues.  Mahatma Gandhi was even willing to compromise his pursuit
for India’s freedom but not freedom of speech.  In the USA, burning and
desecrating the national flag are covered by the expression of freedom.  In
Sweden. Pornography is publicly permissible.  I am not supporting such
actions and would strongly recommend self restraints without government
actions. Once a government is allowed to control Freedom of Expression,
there will not be any end to it.

During the period of Emergency of 1975 – 1977, Mrs. Gandhi restricted
freedom of speech and the press.  She implemented Maintenance of Internal
Security Act (“MISA”) which had nothing to do with the National Security,
it was meant to secure Mrs. Gandhi’s position.  The Indian public resisted
such restrictions and forced Mrs. Gandhi to lift the Emergency and hold
elections.  For the first time, members of the Nehru family lost
elections.  I, along with others, formed Indians for Democracy and Friends
of India Society International to oppose the emergency.  Even though I was
living in the USA, arrest warrants were issued against me.  While the
Indian Government should respect Freedom of Expression, the news media
needs to self-regulate by not propounding fake, inaccurate news and
paid-for news and rumors.

The recent government actions not only resulted in a bad name for India, it
is against Indian tradition and detrimental to India’s democracy.  Some
actions by the Indian courts and legislatures to restrict Freedom of
Expression are also deplorable.  The Supreme Court’s decision of holding
Prashant Bhushan guilty of criticizing the Court was an insult to Freedom
of Expression which the Supreme Court is delegated to hold. In a democratic
country, no one, not even God, should be immune to criticism.  The recent
arrests under the antiquated Sedition Act are totally undemocratic.  In
fact, the Sedition Act implemented by Britishers should be held
unconstitutional and abandoned.

I can understand the pain caused to Muslims by the French Press by
needlessly mocking the Prophet, however, the killings of French journalists
were inhuman.  The French ban of Hijab is an undemocratic suppression of
Freedom of Expression. Similarly, the Shariat way of divorce is an
unethical suppression of Freedom of Expression by Muslim women.  The brutal
Chinese government’s suppression of Freedom of Expression of Uighurs and in
Hong Kong is highly deplorable.

Finally, India and the world should follow the true Freedom of Expression
propagated by Ancient India, French Revolution, and international
declarations and Mahatma Gandhi.”

3        Hinduism does not approve the concept of freedom of speech. In
Hinduism, speech is considered an organ of action (karmendriya). Just as it
emphasizes the importance of restraining all the organs in the body for
liberation, with regard to speech also its emphasis is upon self-restraint
and righteous conduct. The restraint has to be practiced from within for
personal, social and spiritual reasons as a responsible, Dharma (law)
abiding member of society rather than in deference to an external entity
such as the government or an institution.  In other words, Hinduism does
not approve freedom of speech just for the sake of honoring individual
freedom. It approves personal freedom within the boundaries set by the
principles of Dharma and karma and the prescribed code of conduct, which
may vary from person to person, depending upon their duties, circumstances
and social status. Since it recognizes three main sources of karma namely
speech, the mind, and the body, it is wary of the evils and the
consequential suffering and violence which may arise from unrestrained and
unethical speech.   In establishing the social norms and the code of
conduct for right speech, Hindu scriptures follow this broader approach.
They advise people to observe the same rules and restraints (yamas and
niyamas) in case of speech which they are expected to follow in other
areas. They suggest that speech must be truthful, nonviolent, virtuous,
pure and conducive to one's spiritual and material wellbeing. For people to
prosper and uphold Dharma, speech must be rooted in righteous conduct.
Through righteous speech they achieve the broader ideals of Dharma and the
chief aims of human life (Purusharthas) and contribute to order and
regularity. Since everyone is responsible for their own conduct and karma,
they emphasize self-control and restraint in speech

4       Manusmriti, which regulated the lives of upper caste Hindus for
centuries, identifies 11 organs in the body including speech which need to
be restrained since they have the tendency to run wild as horses when they
move among the alluring and sensual objects. It declares (2.160) that he
whose speech is pure and perfectly guarded gains the same reward
(liberation) as the knowledge of the Upanishads grants. Hence, it advises
people not to use harsh words to cause pain to others even in pain, harm
them through injurious thoughts or deeds or utter words to instill fear in
them since it will prevent them from going to heaven. According to Manu,
speech is reflective of a person’s character and essential nature (4.256).
His purity, sincerity, virtue and conduct are determined by his adherence
to truth. Hence, truth matters in case of speech also. If one wishes to
lead a good life and reap the rewards of good deeds, his speech should
never depart or deviate from truth or contain falsehood.  Manu also
suggests that one can avoid speaking truth only when there is a pious
reason (8.103) such as if it may hurt or harm others or lead to violence
and injury. In line with the Vedic tradition which holds that pure speech
which is righteous and in harmony with the will of God has the power to
create preserve and destroy, Manu declares that all things in nature are
controlled by speech only. Speech is their cause, and from speech they
proceed. Therefore, speech must reflect divine virtues and lead to peace
and happiness. According to him, speech is the measure of character and
conduct. He who is dishonest in speech is dishonest in everything. Since
the fruit of karma may arise from the triple sources of the mind, from
speech and from the body (12.3), one should exercise restraint in all the
three and avoid sinful consequences. He who gains control over them becomes
a triple-master (tridandin) and excels in virtue. Manu prescribes rules for
righteous speech for all classes of people, including students. He suggests
that students should exercise restraint in speech in front of their
teachers. They should not utter their names, whether in their presence or
absence, without using their honorific titles. Further, under no
circumstances they should justly or unjustly criticize them or defame them
or ridicule them (2.199-201).

5           The Chandogya Upanishad (1.1.2) declares speech as the essence
of a human being. Through the sacred chants such as the Gayatri it protects
all that exists here (3.12.1). Speech is important because a sacrifice can
be conducted in two ways only, by the mind and by speech (4.16.1). Speech
brings to life the sacred sounds that are hidden in the Vedas and the
sacred syllables such as Aum and Hrim. Through speech only the Vedic hymns
travel through space and reach the heaven. Through speech we come to know
and understand God's creation (7.2.1). Through speech only the Vedas are
known and heard. Through speech only knowledge of all types is gained or
disseminated including the knowledge of the right and the wrong, true and
the untrue, good and the bad, and the pleasant and the unpleasant. The
Upanishad contains several references to speech. One of them suggests that
speech is better when it is controlled by its master, the mind; and better
still if it is controlled by right intention, will or resolve,
intelligence, meditation and knowledge (vijnanam), apart from the mind
(7.5-7). Elsewhere it states that speech becomes excellent when one speaks
truth. One speaks truth when one has knowledge (vijnanam). One has
knowledge when one thinks and understands with discernment. One thinks and
understands with discernment when one has faith in the knowledge which he
learns from his teachers. Faith arises by serving them (7.16-20).

6        In  the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the earliest and largest
Upanishads, Yajnavalkya equates speech with intelligence and explains its
importance to Janaka in the following words, “A friend or relation is
discerned by speech only. By speech only, O emperor, are known the Rigveda,
Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvangirasa, (Vedic) history, Puranas, Brahma
vidyas, the Upanishads, slokas, sutras, elaborations, commentaries, the
knowledge of making offerings, oblations and the offering of food and
drinks, knowledge of this world and the next world, and all beings. Speech,
O emperor, is verily the supreme Brahman. Speech does not desert him, who,
knowing thus, worships speech. All beings come to him. He even becomes a
god and goes to the gods.”   The Upanishad also suggests (1.3.2) that
speech is vulnerable to selfish desires and evil thoughts. Since it can be
used for both good and evil, it cannot be left to itself but needs to be
controlled by a higher power, breath1
<https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_speech.asp#ref001>, which is its
support and inner controller (3.6.17) and which cannot be pierced by evil.
When speech (brihati) is thus controlled, it becomes enlightened as the
speech of Brihaspati, the teacher of gods (1.3.20). When it carries speech
beyond death through liberation, speech becomes a purifier as fire
(1.3.12). It means that the speech of a liberated person who transcends
death or controls his breath has a purifying effect upon those who listen
to him.   Thus, it can be seen that in Hinduism the emphasis is not upon
freedom of speech but upon self-control, right speech, virtuous speech and
restrained speech. People may exercise their freedom to speak, but they
must be wary of the karma, and the suffering which may arise from it.
Speech must be restrained by the mind and the mind by intelligence,
knowledge, virtue and the laws of Dharma.

7         For a moment, just visualize the kind of public debates that
happen today – on television, in the newspapers, and in person. In the
light of these images floating in your mind, read the following lines:

Why fear them? Why pay attention?
Why listen to your opponent’s words?
Just contradict them immediately.
You are sure of victory in the debate!
The five rules for victory are:
be cool, be shameless, be mocking,
despise your opponent, and
praise those in power.
If the mediator is not learned,
shout your way to victory.
If the mediator is learned,
simply accuse him of being biased!

Don’t these words perfectly align to the images in your mind? Just that
these lines are taken from Nilakanta Dikshita’s satire *Kali Vidambana*,
‘mockery of the *kali yuga*,’ written sometime in the 17th century. And it
is perhaps significant that he begins his composition with the above lines,
poking fun at the intellectuals of his time. A common feature in public
discussions and debates of today is that people are more interested in
forcing their view than embarking on a joint quest to know the truth. The
debaters seem to have an opinion about everything. In fact, they are
offended if one doesn’t have an opinion on something. Further, there seems
to be little or no accountability in standing by what they have said.

8               One of the earliest discussions on this subject is found in
the story of Sulabha in the *Mahabharata* (Shantiparva / Book 12, Chapter
308). Sulabha, a wandering woman mendicant, debates with Janaka, the
philosopher-king, who has become over-confident and pompous due to his
spiritual achievements. While Janaka stoops to character assassination and
vulgar speech, Sulabha patiently and methodically demolishes his arguments.
The *Mahabharata* doesn’t tell us who won the debate but clearly Sulabha’s
words stand out as opposed to the deluded Janaka.

In the course of their discussion, Sulabha mentions (MB 12.308.79) that in
an assembly of intellectuals, the statements made by the debaters should
reflect the following five qualities:

   - सौक्ष्म्य (*saukshmya*) – subtlety, finesse
   - साङ्ख्य (*sankhya*) – listing out the points
   - क्रम (*krama*) – order, logical flow of arguments
   - निर्णय (*nirnaya*) – decisiveness
   - प्रयोजन (*prayojana*) – being clear about the purpose of debate or
   discussion

Later on, she mentions the various imperfections in discourse. (MB
12.308.88-90) They may be divided into flaws of expression and flaws of
intent.

*Flaws of expression*

   - गुर्वक्षरसंबद्धम् – verbose
   - पराङ्मुखमुखम् – complex
   - अनृतम् – untrue
   - त्रिवर्गेण विरुद्धम् – opposed to the three basic purposes of human
   life: *dharma* (principles), *artha* (resources), and *kama* (enjoyment)
   - असंसकृतम्  – uncultured, ungrammatical
   - न्यूनम् – deficient, too brief
   - कष्टशब्दम् – strained usages, forced language
   - व्युत्क्रमाभिहितं – arrogant tone
   - शेषम् – incomplete
   - अकल्पेन – ambiguous
   - निष्कारणम् अहेतुकम् – without reason, baseless

While making a statement, one should not be affected by the following
emotions –

   - काम (lust)
   - क्रोध (anger)
   - भय (fear)
   - लोभ (greed)
   - दैन्य (self-pity)
   - अनार्यत्व (disgrace)
   - ह्री (shame)
   - अनुक्रोश (pity)
   - मान (arrogance)

Sulabha then makes a wonderful observation – “During the course of a
discussion, when the speaker, the listener, and the words spoken agree with
one another without conflict, then the meaning comes out clearly.” (MB
12.308.91)

9                  In the *Bhagavad-Gita*, Krishna gives a holistic view of
right expression by saying, “Speaking words that are truthful, pleasant,
beneficial, and not causing distress or anxiety, as well as the study and
recitation of scriptures – this is austerity of speech.” (BG 17.15).  In
his comment on MS 12.113, Kulluka Bhatta says that it’s no use blindly
following the letter of the law; if we don’t ponder upon the matter with
our common sense, then *dharma* may be violated (we find a similar idea in
*Brihaspatismrti* 1.1.19). This is particularly instructive in grey areas
where no specific rule can be invoked (for example, what counts as being
obscene in a movie?)  Kautilya’s *Arthashastra* (3.18) prescribes specific
monetary fines for *mithyaropa* (false accusations) and *vakparushya* (abusive
language). Further, Kautilya says that slander is bad but abuse of money
and property is worse (A 8.3). Basically, if we think bad thoughts, nobody
can punish that; if we speak bad speech, then that is punishable in small
measure; and if we do bad deeds, then that is punishable in larger
measure.   The Rig Vedas state clearly: “Let noble thoughts come to us from
all sides.” Pedants might argue that this applies only to “noble” ideas,
not to “ignoble” ones, but a broader analysis of the Indian tradition shows
that this applied to ALL ideas, regardless of their pre-judged merit.  The
great poet Bhāravi says in his magnum opus (Kirātārjunīya 11.38) that
speech should, in essence, evoke serenity, cheerfulness, and positive
energy.

10         In our quest from ignorance to the truth, we start out with
bias. Each of us has our biases and stereotypes; these are often based on
flimsy evidence. The next stage of refinement is opinion. Having thought
about the subject at hand, we form our views and impressions; this doesn’t
require deep study, only cursory analysis and logic. Further refinement
leads to perspective. When we examine the available facts and look at the
different sides of the argument, we take an informed stance on the subject;
after much toiling we construct our worldview. The final stage before we
reach the truth is vision. Not only do we examine all the facts from
different sides but we also internalise the various ideas, thus developing
a holistic vision. We become clear about what our assumptions are, what the
facts are, what constitutes our analyses, and finally, what the purpose of
the study is. It is interesting to note the importance that Kauṭilya gives
to ānvīkṣikī, ‘reasoning’ in the Arthashastra (1.2).

11             Tirukkural says in so many kurals how to speak; Iniya
ulavaga innadha kooral; theeyinar sutta pun ullarum aaradhe navuinar sutta
vadu”; 91.Pleasant words are words with all pervading love that burn; Words
from his guileless mouth who can the very truth discern. *Sweet words are
those which imbued with love and free from deceit flow from the mouth of
the virtuous. 92. A pleasant word with beaming smile's preferred, even to
gifts with liberal heart conferred. Sweet speech, with a cheerful
countenance is better than a gift made with a joyous mind.93. With brightly
beaming smile, and kindly light of loving eye, and heart sincere, to utter
pleasant words is charity. Sweet speech, flowing from the heart (uttered)
with a cheerful countenance and a sweet look, is truevirtue.94. The men of
pleasant speech that gladness breathe around, through indigence shall never
sorrow's prey be found. Sorrow-increasing poverty shall not come upon those
who use towards all, pleasure-increasing sweetness of speech.95. Humility
with pleasant speech to man on earth, Is choice adornment; all besides is
nothing worth. Humility and sweetness of speech are the ornaments of man;
all others are not (ornaments).96. Who seeks out good, words from his lips
of sweetness flow; In him the power of vice declines, and virtues grow. If
a man, while seeking to speak usefully, speaks also sweetly, his sins will
diminish and his virtueincrease.97.The words of sterling sense, to rule of
right that strict adhere, To virtuous action prompting, blessings yield in
every sphere. That speech which, while imparting benefits ceases not to
please, will yield righteousness (for this world) and merit (for the next
world).98.Sweet kindly words, from meanness free, delight of heart, In
world to come and in this world impart. Sweet speech, free from harm to
others, will give pleasure both in this world and in the next.99. Who sees
the pleasure kindly speech affords, why makes the use of harsh, repellent
words? Why does he use harsh words, who sees the pleasure which sweet
speech yields? 100.When pleasant words are easy, bitter words to use, Is,
leaving sweet ripe fruit, the sour unripe to choose. To say disagreeable
things when agreeable are at hand is like eating unripe fruit when there is
ripe.*

12         Thus Freedom of speech is only conditional; and shall in public
forum, shall not offend the public in whatsoever manner.  KR IRS 17123

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo%3Dze-OaFmNQH3YCs158xKVscovLQxEbsDuiexZvU1Wzg%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to