Democracy vs Majoritarian will

V.Balakrishnan ​​​​No.19, Ist main RoadKarpagam Garden

Adyar, Chennai-600 020

Cell:98401-21596Mail:balakrishnanv@icloud.com

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

Sub: Democracy Versus majoritarian will

 

 

A series of articles in the lead page and your leader have started of an intense debate on the freedom of expression,freedom of speech as enshrined in our constitution. New insights, interpretations of the provisions have emerged from this intense discussions and informed articles, penned by qualified competent and experienced jurists, eminent lawyers and intellectuals.

 

One of the fundamental arguments, which have been missing in the debate, I thought, was the right of the every citizen of“to listen to divergent views and expressions as derived fromthe right to freedom of expression and speech of individuals.This I believe is embedded as an integral part of the freedom of expression which gives us as individuals “The Right to be exposed to speech and writings, new thoughts, ideologies, religions etc”. The Majoritarian will assumes it has the right to suspend this essential right of every citizen of India which eventually would lead to a vacuum of new ideology and ideas.

 

This is highly objectionable and a collective approach is needed to present a new interpretation and get directions fromdemocratic institutions such as our apex Court to bring backthe rights of every citizen of India into normal parlance. Majoritarian will should not deny us, a citizen of India, right to listen and right to agree which a contrarian view and celebrate the Independence of India and every religion / ideology practiced here.

 

Thanking you,

 

 

 

 

V.BALAKRISHNAN

 

 

Journalistic independence

A series of Op Ed article, the responses from the individuals who feel aggrieved through these exposes, have set me thinking as to what is the role of journalism in democracy. To start with, an opinion which is that of the journalist that some thing is wrong or some one has been doing some wrong on to someone, becomes the core basis or belief to construct a story. What if that opinion is wrong or is best on purported facts, which turned out to be untrue at a later date?

Does the journist pay a price? The journalist might have been a mere instrument, who has been manipulated by an interested party. Since we hold the journalist and/ or the papaer that brings the stories in high esteem, our opinion is also high jacked and we also become victims. 

What does one do in such circumstances? How does one punish the manipulator? And how do we sto these happening again?

It is time we raised these questions and debated answers to bring in more security to our democratic functioning.