Quandary of divergent opinion

The above statement of John Stuart Mill brings to light a remarkable phenomenon, though rare, called ‘dissent’, that is, to differ in opinion or feelings, or “to disagree”, which is the hallmark of the inquisitive spirit of mankind. If the opinion is true, then by suppressing it, humanity is deprived of the truth and will not progress. If the opinion is false, then humanity again loses, because if the opinion is false it will be shown to be so, but its expression is useful, for it forces us to restate the reasons for our beliefs. Hence, humanity benefits when a person is free to express himself, even if he finds himself alone in averring his opinion.

One thing that the recent protests and counter-protests across the nation have demonstrated is that Indians today are more vocal about their political views and that they are more prejudiced than ever before against opinions different from theirs. Depending on the side you pick, you are either going to be branded a bhakt or an ‘anti-national.’ This hyperdrive of harsh labelling leaves no room for a contrarian view. The criticism directed against the government or the opposition centres more on their perceived ideologies than the issues. Thus, amidst all the cacophony of pitched opinions, a constructive dialogue between the two sides remains conspicuously absent.

The battle lines are drawn, and the armies are marshalled by the gaggle of reporters and media personnel in their newsrooms, delivering ‘breaking news.’ But amidst the discordant and often contradictory news items, the accuracy of the news often remains obscured. The truth is never black or white as the news anchors elucidating at the top of their voices present it to us as. Rather, it is often a shade of grey and remains largely glossed over. In the absence of facts, it is of little wonder that most of the panel discussions today resemble verbal scrimmages than civilised debates.

Nowadays, protests take place as much on the streets as they do on the social media platforms. In this era of social media civil wars, cyber-bullying, trolling, and meme-shaming are the weapons of choice against those who hold contrarian views. People online are bombarded with an overwhelming barrage of news items, a lot of it unverified and unsubstantiated. As a result, misinformation is spread with a swipe of our fingers. In such a scenario, the patience to understand and analyse an issue reasonably are virtues gone extinct.

However, if we take a step back, we can observe that the rabidly vocal groups do not reflect the mind-set of all Indians. Most of us want to understand an issue before formulating an opinion on it. However, the fear-mongering by prime time news, the feeds on our Facebook page and messages on our WhatsApp groups rarely allow us this luxury, and we are expected to react one way or the other.

The role of social media as a way to foster democracy has been following a similar painful trajectory. Initially welcomed as a democratic panacea, social media has increasingly come to be seen as a mixed blessing – a potentially useful tool that can nevertheless be blocked and relegated by clever tyrants. Recent research suggests that in some cases, social media may actually help dictators, so long as they put up sufficient barriers to contrary views.

Caught in a mental predicament by the desire to understand the issue and the pressure to react instantaneously, the majority chooses to remain silent as they do not want to be caught in the crossfire between either of the groups and be branded with a tag. Consequently, people censor themselves and refrain from voicing an opinion, a phenomenon termed as ‘chilling effect’ in legal terms.

The celebrated American jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that “the world is a marketplace of ideas.” Woefully, today, the very idea of such a concept is unpalatable to many. Upholding the superiority of one’s viewpoint and ignoring the others, to the extent of proscribing expression of a large number of people, has dangerous ramifications.

United we stand, divided we stand for different ideologies, making us easy picking for people who benefit from conflict. Fractured societies cannot be functional. A direct repercussion of this fallout is that the media is, unfortunately, losing credibility amongst huge swathes of Indians. The media acts as a catalyst for democracy, helping to make meaningful public participation. If the media is honest and its integrity is intact, democracy is bound flourish and the gaps present in any governmental system can undoubtedly be beavered to the fullest contentment of the citizens. As even Benito Mussolini once observed, “Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical and destructive than one, if he be a tyrant. It is the fear of being exposed by the media before the public that most of the politicians keep themselves under control to some extent.”

On the contrary, if the media is prejudiced, crooked and speaks only for power, it will patently be treacherous to the functioning of democracy. The fabled fourth pillar of Indian democracy is crumbling, and if curative measures are not taken it is going to be calamitous. Empowering free media to discharge the critical roles of being an ombudsman over government and educating people about the real issues affecting the lives of citizens not only requires skilled and principled journalists but also necessitates supporting professional organizations for journalists.

(The writers are Professor of Law and student at National Law University, Odisha, respectively)