Opinion: Kunal’s Karma And The Reasons India Cannot Achieve Free Speech Absolutism

The debate over free speech in India is as old as the Republic itself, yet it has taken on a new urgency in recent years. On the surface, it seems like an issue that should unite people across ideological divides. After all, who could oppose the fundamental right to express oneself? Yet, the reality is far more complex. While voices from the Left, Right, and Centre occasionally converge in their opposition to restrictions such as in the case of criminal defamation laws, their unity is fleeting, dissolving as soon as political convenience demands. The recent controversies surrounding figures like Kunal Kamra, Nupur Sharma, and Kangana Ranaut reveal the contradictions and hypocrisies that plague India’s free speech discourse.  

Salman Rushdie’s famous declaration “Nobody has the right to not be offended” has become a rallying cry for free speech absolutists. The idea is seductive in its simplicity: if speech is truly free, it must include the freedom to offend, provoke, and challenge. But can such a principle function in a civilisation as ancient, diverse, and historically layered as India’s? The framers of the Indian Constitution, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, did not think so. The very first amendment to Article 19 introduced “reasonable restrictions” on free speech tied to public order, defamation, national security, and morality. Even at the time, this was met with fierce resistance from figures as varied as Acharya Kripalani, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Yet, decades later, those restrictions appear not as shackles on liberty but as necessary guardrails for a society perpetually on the brink of fracture.  

ALSO READ | Delimitation Debate — Balancing Regional Representation In India

Delicate Balance 

India is not like the West, where free speech evolved in relatively homogeneous societies with shared cultural reference points. Here, the nation is bound not by a single language, religion, or ethnicity, but by something far more intangible. The survival of this civilisation has depended not on adversarial debate but on a delicate balance of mutual respect and restraint. Absolute free speech, in such a context, is not a tool for enlightenment but a weapon of disruption. Imagine if every community, caste, or ideological group took it upon itself to “criticise” others in the most provocative manner possible, hiding behind the shield of free expression. The result would not be a vibrant marketplace of ideas but a cacophony of resentment, retaliation, and eventual breakdown.  

Moreover, the idea that absolute free speech creates a level playing field is a myth. In reality, it disproportionately empowers those who are already dominant, whether politically, socially, or through sheer vocal aggression. Take the case of Nupur Sharma, whose remarks about the Prophet Muhammad led to death threats, nationwide riots, and the brutal murder of supporters. Contrast this with the silence from many self-proclaimed free speech champions when Kangana Ranaut’s office was bulldozed by the Uddhav Thackeray government, or when Kunal Kamra openly mocked the incident. If free speech were truly absolute, the state would have no legal recourse to prevent incitement, leaving minorities and dissenters at the mercy of mob justice. The reality is that speech is never free when its consequences are lethal.  

India’s geopolitical and historical realities further complicate the matter. This is a country that has survived Partition and multiple insurgencies, and constant attempts at demographic subversion. External forces and internal factions have, time and again, exploited inflammatory rhetoric to destabilise the nation. In such an environment, treating speech as an untouchable right immune from consequences is not just naive but dangerous. The law must distinguish between dissent and incitement, between criticism and provocation designed to incite violence. 

Long before the Indian Penal Code or the Constitution, India’s ancient texts emphasised the sacred responsibility that comes with speech. The ‘Arthashastra’ prescribed punishments for ‘mithyarop (false accusations)’ and ‘vakparushya (abusive language)’. The ‘Manusmriti’ upheld the duty to speak truthfully, especially in matters of justice. The ‘Upanishads’ carried a striking metaphor: the sage Uddhalaka Aruni warned Yajnavalkya that his head would fall off if he spoke without true knowledge. These were not restrictions on freedom but reminders that words carry weight — that speech, like an arrow once let loose, cannot be taken back.  

ALSO READ | Advantage Assam 2.0 Summit A Transformative Leap For Northeast. But Real Test Begins Now

Need For ‘Reasonable Restrictions’

This is not to argue for draconian censorship or state overreach. Criticism, satire, and dissent are vital to a healthy democracy. But freedom cannot mean licence. The law must protect citizens from defamation, hate speech, and incitement, while allowing for robust, even fierce, debate. The problem arises when free speech is weaponised — when it becomes a selective shield for some and a sword against others. Kunal Kamra may mock Hindutva with impunity, but fall silent when Islamist threats emerge. Right-wing voices may decry “cancel culture” but cheer when their opponents are silenced. This hypocrisy undermines the very principle they claim to defend.  

Ultimately, India’s survival as a civilisation-state depends not on who shouts the loudest or who claims the mantle of ‘free speech warrior’, but on those who understand that liberty without responsibility is chaos. The Constitution’s “reasonable restrictions” are not a betrayal of freedom but its necessary condition. In a land of a billion voices, speech must be free but never free from consequence. The true test of a mature democracy is not whether it allows offence, but whether it can distinguish between the right to speak and the duty to speak wisely.

The writer is a technocrat, political analyst, and author. 

[Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.]

blog