The Substance of Freedom

Three decades ago the phrase 'substance of freedom' was used in a sense that is almost forgotten now. Gandhiji pleaded for the 'substance of freedom' being given to India although the British connection might be retained. That compromise was an important bridge-head in the controversy of those days.

     Now the same words 'substance of freedom' may be used in connection with the controversy over the internal question of how far citizens are free in a socialist polity. Nations may enjoy the substance of freedom even though the British connection may still be there as in Canada or Australia. And under certain conditions they may not have the substance of freedom even though the British connection may still be there as in Canada or Australia. And under certain conditions they may not have the substance of freedom even if they are free from the British or other connection. We may have achieved political freedom as a nation, but the nation may be so governed as to rob individuals of the substance of freedom. The sun may be out of an eclipse, but clouds of the sun's own making may still hide the sun from us.

     All appeals for right conduct, all moral exhortations make sense only when addressed to men who are free to choose. If citizens' lives are interfered with and controlled in numerous significant directions, it is useless to talk of freedom. There can be no personal freedom without economic freedom and this freedom goes down in a steep curve under socialist economy.

     The border disputes between the State and the citizen are more important than the border disputes, for example, between Mysore and Maharashtra. The adjustments between the freedom of the citizen and the majority rule which the citizen must accept in parliamentary democracy are of the greatest significance to his life. Freedom is an illusion if the State is raised to the level of the final owner of all things and master of all activities and the citizen only a tool in the employ of the state.

     The State is not just a word spelt with five letters but the will of a majority of people with whom you may be in complete disagreement and who rigidly control the opinions of even the individuals composing that majority. Party government makes the frontier between the State and the citizen very important, because the choice is not between right and wrong, but between your opinion and that of others who are just the same in all respects as yourself but who happen to be able, for a variety of causes, to commander more votes in their favour.

     That the Organization called the State is necessary for modern human existence and progress must be conceded. But it is erroneous to assume that nature or expediency demands the omnipotence of the State. Its power must be strictly limited if the sense of freedom is important, for ultimately that sense lies in the individual's consciousness and nowhere else. The citizen must be free and feel that he is free.

     What should be the limitations on the power of the State is the real and important question. 'What are the frontiers of the citizen's freedom ?" is the form the question takes in a socialist State. The assumption behind the question as thus put is wrong. It is the citizen that is the reality and the tangible and unalterable fact. His freedom must be taken for granted for all mechanism which may be good or bad, being made in parliamentary democracies out of a majority of votes and many other circumstances not altogether perfect or even good. The frontiers of this mechanism created by citizens for their good must be strictly and carefully limited. The frontiers of the citizen's freedom must be as wide as possible. The benefit of the doubt must ever go to the latter.

     In a socialist polity the State claims all power and what remains may belong to the citizens. in a free polity the citizens are free, and just what power is needed for ordered co-operation is given to the State. It is not a mere matter of words but one of very great significance whether, in fixing the limits between the State and its citizens, we go on the principle that the citizen is the primary and the State secondary, or whether we go on the reverse principle. We should have maximum freedom for the citizen and minimum power for the State under one principle If we proceed on the opposite basis, we shall have minimum freedom for the citizen and maximum power for the officials of the State. The former is what the Father of the Nation wanted The latter is what prevails in the socialist States of China and Russia.

     The angle of approach is important. It greatly affects the course of the necessary compromises between freedom and regulation when details are to be worked out. It is important to preserve the initiative and the incentive of the citizen; for the power and stamina and the progress of a people depend on this and not on the regulations that the State imposes. The individual's energy is at the base of all productive activity, while all that the State can claim is what it needs for maintaining order and effective co-operation. Its purpose is negative in whatever words that negative may be clothed. The positive source and the mechanism for energy are the individual's potential which must enjoy the maximum opportunity and only the necessary minimum retardation. A socialist State not applying the whip of compulsory labour is ever only a retarding mechanism. If it remains true to its professions of abstention from compulsion, it is a drag and not a help.

     Not only was the Father of the Nation interested in minimum government, but the Constitution-makers who gave us the law in 1950 laid down the frontiers very clearly when they wrote down the chapter on Fundamental Rights. These rights include the economic freedom of the citizen which are now the subject matter of a severe attack on the part of the forces of the State and the Congress Party. The ruling party has decided that India should be a socialist State, which means that all the boundary disputes between the citizen and government should be decided in favour of the latter. The ruling party fights from a position of advantage against anyone that challenges this policy. The Congress Party rules and holds the strings of economic life and holds elections with all those advantages. It claims that it is a fair fight, which it certainly is not.

     The substance of freedom is for this reason in great jeopardy. Those who realize the importance of winning this battle must see that all available courage is summoned and the battle fought with heroic determination. The ruling party will win easily if this is not done and the economic hold on the citizen will be further tightened making a second battle hopeless. Those who are most entangled in the State's tentacles must be the first to realize the significance and supreme importance of the struggle and throw away the many temptations to drift.

     Nothing fails so despicably as fear, and nothing so succeeds as courage. Tyranny cannot be overcome by fear but only by courage, the courage to give a straight battle. To flee in terror or hide oneself away from the straight fight and hope to succeed in compromises on details will end in a rout. At best, such tactics will only result in getting the better of your fellow men which is a miserable game.

     The call of freedom is loud and insistent. The future depends on the response. When the battle for freedom was fought against Britain we called for courage and the taking of risk and the response was such as brought success. In the battle for the freedom of the citizen, which is the true substance of national freedom, there is the same call for courage and the taking of all the risks involved, and may it be that the response will be equally good!