The right to personal liberty in the Indian Constitution is the right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether they are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. This right is comparable to personal freedom and fundamental rights, which includes the freedom of speech and expression.
Personal freedom can be understood as freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts, security of private property, freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public. There are other civil liberties or rights that encompass the right to personal liberty, including right to life, right to human dignity, right to security and right to privacy, among others.
These rights, however, are often restricted by the-powers-that-be in Nagaland. The most prevalent form of denying this right to individuals in our society is muzzling the individual of his opinion, of his right to freedom of expression. Of course, the complexities of any issue are there but the basic notion of individuals being constrained to remain silent, to not speak up, and to not question authority is true and real.
In a society like ours, where group identity is considered to be above that of the individual, it is very challenging to speak up and express one’s opinion without fear. And the saddest part of the situation is that the personal rights are curtailed without the individuals even realizing it. In fact, the individual becomes a passive participant in curtailing his own rights.
Take the case of an individual speaking up against, say, corruption in his own village. It would first of all require him to muster all the courage he can to simply exercise his right to freedom of expression. And if he does speak up at all, he would be doing so at his own risk. There is not much room for civil discourse and the individual is often compelled to remain silent “for greater good.”
When this newspaper asked citizens about their opinions on various schemes that the government has provided for the citizens, many were found to be reluctant to express their opinions for fear of inviting the wrath of those in authority. It appears that the individuals have no right to raise questions, no right to personal liberty, as if it were an authoritarian regime.