RIGHT TO DISSENT: A MORE DEMOCRATIC RIGHT BUT A LESS PRAGMATIC RIGHT

Abstract

The chasm between what I believe and what I express is too wide to bridge. This ever-widening gap leads to the creation of two polarized units who are euphemistically called Self and the Other. The fear of “other” impels one (self) to not to express what one believes which rewidens the gap between two different ideologies. The dissection of ideologies can place in two ways. Either two ideologies create two sects or two sects gives birth to two different ideology. The essay expounds that how right to dissent, a democratic right, is less practicable to be exercised in India. Furthermore, the author attempts to show that how the selection of ideologies does not occur by choice but rather happens by the fear of the ideological group that possess power. The essay highlights the recent incidents of the repression of dissenting voices in India which paved the way for legitimization of violence by state. Here, the question arises that if binary choice exists in the form of self and other, then who is the other and who is self and why it is what it is. The dissection of two polarized entities gives birth to a polemic problem of monopolization of violence which has always been a nightmare for the people who differ the majoritarian opinion. This legitimization of violence further monopolized by the pretext of national security.