Dilemma of writers, who believe in ethics

By SAJIKUMAR NAIR

Writers’ who are shy of controversy and willing to avoid the wrath of rulers have a tough task in dislodging what is there in their mind, if that is against rulers. The precedent of setting “control” on “freedom” would only ruin the next generation, which is now being ruined by the unending storm of fake news. Let every truth be written in big letters by unbiased writers making no compromise with the writers’ conscience.

When I sit for a blog, I do not know whether I enjoy the freedom of expression or not. I am confused about the ethics of writing when I sit for speaking my mind and whether what I speak would be legible or forbidden and offensive or amiable. How difficult it is for an active writer to balance the stuff with no ‘incriminating elements in it! Every frank writing is not a violation of “civility”. In the name of “civility” a writer’s freedom cannot be curtailed. A writer is a sensible person and his or her writing reflects the prevailing social sentiment. This is what we conventionally believe. But we have come a long way from this.

Today, I do not know how many of the writers are in possession of their own heart and how heavily they have been bribed by themselves. It is reasonably understandable that every unchained and unquestioned fake news praises the lord, because the courtiers have immunity from being charge sheeted. On the other end, how well readers feel an openness to read something valuable or informative from a scholarly writer. But I am sure about one thing.  These days a professional writer is trapped in between freedom of writing and diminishing public interest in reading anything that is really readable. Rapid depletion of interest in reading among our new generation is as equally apprehensive as curtailment of writers’ freedom or self enforced check for fear of backlash from the discontented ruling class.   

Our new generation wants everything quick and in proverbial short-cut. They are inclined to use short messaging language, which most of the time their elder generation fails to understand. This is enough for us to understand how the generation is being shaped up. They don't want to use acronyms, but abbreviations for everything. Where they need to be reasonable with words they use unreasonable extravaganza. Sometimes, I feel, they are trained by themselves to work according to their fallacy, not by their virtue. On the other side, I am afraid, by mere use of technology and learning the syllabus of a flamboyant business degree, we will be able to achieve what is desirable for us. I don't think so. Forget about efficiency and a hard working mind, can we see any wisdom in their plans made within a decorative frame? I may not go wrong, if I become a pessimist in this. This is the status of our present generation. This is the generation a writer has to address and the ruler has to understand about.

 Nevertheless, let us not lay too many blames on them for their behavior or the legacy they acquired. It is the result of a transformation, obviously engineered by their elder generation. Information technology changed their mindset as rulers have changed the mindset of writers. But the living senior generation that has built the track for the transformation that we see around us couldn't live up to the time. They feel alienated. In a simple sense we could say, they aren't used to the ever changing information technology world. They have smartphones, though they may not use 90 per cent of the embedded features of their phone. But they are supposed to have better prudence, and say, better common sense too. This is where our lawmakers are different. A contradiction within the generation is starker. If they are taught that the freedom of expression is tightly fenced and that means only the courtiers’ freedom to praise the majesty, we are in for redefining our personal liberty.   

 Our elder generation understood the value of freedom - freedom to rule us by ourselves, freedom of speech and expression. They espoused a democratic and pluralistic society with a heart to accommodate diverse views. They dreamt our system to be friendly with people and for the people. A citizen has a freedom to express his opinion either by writing or by speech. This is a universally admitted citizens’ luxury in a democratic system. The mighty constitution of India grants this luxury to every citizen through Article 19(1)(a). A citizen has the freedom to ask for public service and opt for a way that he or she feels comfortable. That is not the ultimate connotation but only one side of the right that is guaranteed by our constitution.

 The Press is enjoying the freedom, often overwhelmingly without maturity in its obsession to sensationalise even trivial matters. One association is at loggerhead with another one mostly on the issue of freedom enjoyed by one. Often, even the freedom that harms none, but helps someone, is construed to be a penal error. This is just one of the umpteen instances. I think, somewhere we have gone wrong.

 We are not free from the chains of the ruling establishment, a tough entity to crack. Our overwhelmingly large constitution and impenetrable bureaucracy dilute the merits of freedom.

We need a deeper understanding of what is known as freedom that we are in possession. In a country where everything is of people, for the people and by the people, we need wiser lawmakers to retain the elixir of egalitarianism. Let them accept criticism in good spirit without using any of the ruling machinery to seal the mouth of critics. Let no ruling establishment be an instrument for torturing the rulers’ rivals. And let every writer write what is there in mind fearlessly. The moment we are afraid of expressing our mind freely, we become slaves of whom we are afraid. Freedom has a value that cannot be measured by any meter.