What is Freedom? – by Sanjeev Sabhlok
Continuing the promised series of articles by Sanjeev Sabhlok, here is Sanjeev on Freedom. Please note that the emphasis is mine.
Freedom first
A country is jointly created by its citizens through a social contract to defend their life and liberty. Freedom actually comes before everything else even if we don’t often think about it. It is vital to our existence.
As Pearl S. Buck said, “Men would rather be starving and free than fed in bondsâ€. Even the poorest villager prefers to roam free and enjoy the sunset, than stay in solitary confinement for the whole of his life inside a large house with golden cutlery, lavish food, and a silken bed, but without windows, books, companionship, or awareness of the outside world.
What is freedom?
Freedom can mean many things:
- Liberty of the person, and protection against abuse of power, e.g. protection from slavery, detention, or oppression. This means absence of arbitrary exercise of authority. This is closely related to
- Being unhampered. This refers to our power to engage in actions without control or interference. Finally…
- Self-determination or the power of self-determination. This refers to the capacity to exercise choice through free will. This includes access to power, or the “right to be a participant in government†(Hannah Arendt).
Together, these tell us something about ‘freedom’. But taken out of context, any of these meanings can become problematic. Freedom must therefore be closely integrated with justice or accountability.
Unconstrained action can quickly degenerate into license. No one is free to steal or pollute or kill, or to throw their garbage on the streets.
Two points to note:
- Political independence of nations has little to do with freedom. When people talk of India’s ‘freedom’ movement, or a book is entitled, Freedom at Midnight, the issue refers to national independence, not freedom. Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and even Nehru’s India (no matter how democratic) were independent but they were not free.
- Freedom is not an exemption from unpleasant or onerous conditions. Being ‘free’ from poverty has little to do with freedom. Slaves or prisoners are not exactly poor, being given food and shelter; but they are not free.
FTI is looking for outstanding leaders to lead India to life and liberty. You must be prepared to contest elections after 1500 leaders like you have assembled and agreed to a detailed policy platform. More on FTI and Sanjeev here. Â
Related Posts:
My view:
Freedom: Free domain
This is the limitation of english language.
I can say “Mukt” instead of Freedom but the meaning is different.
When I say “Svatantra” then it becomes “Svah” + “Tantra” which now provides a deeper intellectual meaning.
I believe you were looking for “SVATANTRA” rather then Freedom.
Excerpts from Liberal Nationalism on Acorn’s blog.
Let’s start with an axiom: all individuals are free, and from this freedom, they possess certain inalienable rights. They possess these rights and freedoms at all times, but in a state of nature, their ability to enjoy the freedom and exercise the rights is circumscribed by their individual power. In Indian philosophy, the state of nature is termed as matsya nyaya, or the law of the fishes, a condition under which the stronger fish eats the weaker fish.
…To better enjoy their rights and freedoms, individuals trade-off a part of their freedom for the security offered by a state. Hence Kautilya writes
In Western philosophy, this trade-off forms the basis of social contract theories….
…This trade-off forms the basis of modern liberal democratic states. …In sharp contrast to Hobbes’ Leviathan, modern constitutions also, to varying degrees, make the government itself subject to the rule of law.
The upshot is that the state is necessary for the practical enjoyment of individual rights and freedoms. The survival and security of the state—often termed “the national interestâ€â€”is directly connected to the ability of citizens to enjoy their freedom. Put in another way, the “national interest†is the well-being and development of all its citizens.
If we adopt this people-centric definition of the national interest, how should one regard territory? Is territorial integrity uncompromisable? Not quite. To the extent territory is necessary for the well-being and development of all citizens, holding the territory is in the national interest. Where territorial compromises enhance the well-being of citizens, they are in the national interest. In the state-centric formulation, the objective question is whether acquiring, keeping or parting with a particular piece of land enhances the survival and security of the state, or not.
…the ultimate arbiter of international relations is power. It follows that to protect its national interests—whether expressed in the people-centric or state-centric terms—states have to maximise their power relative to others. …
The objective of the state then, is to maximise its own power to ensure that the international balance-of-power is in its favour.
This is how liberalism, nationalism and realism are connected with each other. Liberalism (or libertarianism, in its American usage) is concerned about individual freedom. To enjoy freedom in practice, the individual gives up some of it to the state. The state, a nation-state in India’s case, exists to ensure the rights, freedoms and well-being (yogakshema) of its people. So ensuring the survival and security of the Indian state—by maximising its relative power internationally—is wholly consistent with allowing its citizens to live in freedom.
Shantanu, Dr. Sabhlok,
You may enjoy this presentation:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
More from Nitin on ‘Liberal Nationalism’, In support of a liberal nationalism, Feb 23, 2016:
….Here’s the point though: from its earliest origins, Indian nationalism has been liberal in nature. The signature of the freedom movement was to expel the British, without hatred. The setting up of a secular state with a liberal constitution, in the face of a violent demand for and reaction to the creation of a Muslim Pakistan, is a remarkable monument to that national sentiment. This is consistent with India’s civilisational ethos and daily practice as well. We are liberal to varying degrees. We are nationalistic and patriotic to varying degrees. Some may be more liberal, others might be more nationalistic, but most of us are both….
and…
…Individual liberty is mere theory unless the state protects it and makes it real.