India enshrines freedom of speech as one of its principal values in its constitution and prescribes it as a fundamental right for all its citizens, and this is in practice quite true, but only to a certain extent. While Indian media does enjoy a great freedom in expression of opinion, there is still heavy censorship when it comes to antinationalist dissemination of information.
The pertinent question here Is whether it is right for a country that stands of sturdy pillars of transparency and democracy to curb freedom of speech of its citizens in any way to maintain internal peace?
Many people are of the opinion that it is in fact justified on the country’s part to restrict access to anti-nationalist media, especially in a country that is riddled with secessionist movements and communal disputes. There is a lot of controversy over films and books like Padmavati or The Red Sari because of their inaccurate appropriation of Indian history and society.
In countries like India where internal demand for autonomy places a threat to the unity of the country, censorship to a certain limit becomes essential in ensuring internal peace. Developing countries rightly prioritize economic and societal development and this will become nearly impossible to achieve if the country is torn with civil turmoil.
This is why censorship to a certain degree is justified, just as long as it allows space for the citizens to express their opinions and mobilize the public in a peaceful manner.