Dissent Fuels Democracy; Slander Corrodes It—Never Confuse The Two
· Free Press Journal
Democracy, like science, advances on fierce disagreement, born out of rationality, not abuse. The history of science has taught us that dissent can never be suppressed with power or force, nor will dissent be heard when abuse becomes the language of disagreement. This distinction between disagreement and denigration appears increasingly lost in India’s political discourse. It is time that both ruling and opposition leaders remind themselves of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who famously said: democracy has space for Matbhed, not for Manbhed.
Visit betsport24.es for more information.
Having spent over four decades serving India’s scientific and cultural institutions, I believe that progress demands the courage to challenge established norms and beliefs. Einstein’s General Relativity superseded Newton’s two-century-old postulation of gravitation. In 1921, C. V. Raman, gazing at the Mediterranean from a ship’s deck, doubted Lord Rayleigh’s explanation that the blue colour of the sea merely mirrors the sky. That disagreement led to the Raman Effect, earning him the Nobel Prize.
In 1935, young S. Chandrasekhar presented his stellar-collapse limit to the Royal Astronomical Society. Arthur Eddington publicly rejected it. The disagreement was bitter and long, yet it relied on mathematics and evidence. Chandrasekhar prevailed, and decades later his work earned him a Nobel Prize.
Dissent Is Essential For Progress
Museums work the same way. Whether we debate the Rakhigarhi findings, nuclear energy or modern art, museums provide a public space where disagreement can become a means of advancing knowledge. Competing views, tested against evidence and offered with mutual respect, separate truth from conjecture.
Consider the COVID-19 controversy of 2020. Studies published in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, drawing on erroneous data, faced serious questions about reliability. The papers were subsequently retracted when the data could not be independently verified. The episode demonstrated an essential principle: institutions earn credibility not by claiming infallibility, but by permitting scrutiny and correcting mistakes.
Why, then, should politics operate by a different standard? A parliamentary Opposition does for democracy what peer review does for science: it checks the complacency of power. The Opposition, and more importantly the Leader of the Opposition, who holds a constitutional office with Cabinet rank, has the right to question. It is a legitimate weapon in politics. But when he posts, “Mr Rubio has summoned his employee to Mumbai,” on a platform with millions of followers, the argument diminishes the office of the Prime Minister.
No Party Has A Monopoly On Vitriol
The ruling establishment, however, cannot claim a moral high ground. Its own political ecosystem has repeatedly employed disparaging labels, questioned the patriotism of critics and portrayed legitimate dissent as disloyalty. Opposition leaders and their supporters – CJP – have faced language that reduces democratic disagreements to accusations of treachery. No party has a monopoly on either virtue or vitriol.
The deeper problem is the culture of mollycoddling leaders. Political leaders in India are surrounded by sycophants, who applaud every act of their leaders, warranting merit or otherwise, as a masterstroke for a political victory. Advisers who can counsel parliamentary behaviour end up becoming cheerleaders, since social media algorithms and television studios reward outrage.
The evening television spectacle compounds the damage. In pursuit of ratings, panel discussions frequently descend into shouting matches, mirroring what unfolds in Parliament. A serious debate about public policy becomes a verbal free-for-all and gets replayed across digital platforms. The end result is not who has the stronger argument, but who can deliver the most humiliating put-down.
The point is not to highlight the political profanity of our leaders but to remind them that young people watching their conduct absorb their lessons. When the political vocabulary of democracy begins to resemble the language of a street brawl, public responsibility becomes a casualty, leaving free speech open to abuse.
Protest Must Not Become Intimidation
During the ongoing protests in Delhi and elsewhere across India, we have seen the outcome of the conduct of our political leadership play out in public. Public anger has become a language that strips not only political leaders but also constitutional authorities and public officials of basic dignity.
We must remind ourselves that while protest is a democratic right, intimidation and personal vilification are not. We deserve political role models who demonstrate how to challenge authority without forsaking civility.
We must remind ourselves that respect for opponents and institutions need not mean unquestioning obedience. One can challenge a judge’s reasoning, question an election authority’s decision or oppose a government’s policy without denying the dignity of those involved. Constitutional democracy requires independent scrutiny; equally, it also mandates restraint while questioning others.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee captured this distinction in the idea of matbhed without manbhed – differences of opinion without bitterness of heart. It is a principle worth practising across party lines.
The remedy is neither censorship nor a demand that politicians and parties like the CJP must become uncontroversial. Strong criticism must remain protected, including criticism that is uncomfortable or embarrassing to those in power. But political parties must hold their own leaders accountable; authorities must enforce rules consistently; broadcasters must resist rewarding abuse with disproportionate airtime; and citizens must stop confusing virality with validity.
A scientist who cannot defend a hypothesis without abusing a reviewer undermines the credibility of the research. A politician who cannot challenge an opponent without degrading the office he or she occupies undermines the credibility of democracy.
India’s political leaders must decide what they wish to bequeath to the next generation: a culture in which the cleverest insult wins the day, or a republic in which the strongest argument commands respect.
Dissent is democracy’s lifeblood. Slander is its poison. We must never mistake one for the other.
Shivaprasad Khened is Senior Adviser to DG CSMVS, Mumbai, Trustee, Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Mani Bhavan, and former Director, Nehru Science Centre and NGMA Mumbai, and Visvesvaraya Museum, Bengaluru.