Freedom of Speech and the Growth of Silence

by Ravindra Dhanka

In small villages freedom of speech does not appear as televised debates or courtroom arguments because it exists in smaller acts such as asking questions at a meeting, criticizing local authority, organizing people, or expressing disagreement without fearing punishment.

In recent years this space has steadily narrowed through the quiet spread of fear as arrests of activists, journalists, and scholars under strict laws send a clear message that questioning power can bring serious consequences.

Even when such cases occur far from our villages their effect travels quickly through news, social media, and local rumor, and fear settles into daily behavior as people lower their voices, withdraw from meetings, and advise their children to stay silent.

Dr B R Ambedkar emphasized freedom of expression because he believed that democracy without criticism becomes hollow ritual, and when citizens stop questioning authority power begins to grow without limit.

In my work I have seen villagers hesitate to attend gatherings, women fear social consequences of participation, and youth erase opinions from their phones because a single statement can now follow a person for years.

Self censorship grows not through force alone but through uncertainty because people cannot clearly see what is permitted and what may suddenly become dangerous, and in such conditions silence feels safer than speech.

A society may continue to vote and celebrate constitutional values yet still lose democratic substance when fear becomes stronger than conscience.

When people censor themselves power no longer needs to suppress dissent openly because silence becomes its strongest protection.

If the vision of Ambedkar is to remain alive in practice rather than memory then freedom of speech must be felt as safe not only in capitals and courts but also in small villages where democracy is lived in ordinary conversations.