Are we moving towards Orwellian society?

The new list of unparliamentary words has created some unease among the political parties. The clarification from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha has hardly settled the issue. In fact, it has made the opposition more restless. He has said that no word has been banned and that enlisting of such words has been routinely done.

However, his assertion that members are expected to maintain the decorum of the House while expressing their views indicates everything. It is well known that every censorship starts with some conditionality, like you are free to speak but you have to follow this or that rule. The Speaker's statement has clearly indicated that members could be restrained if the decorum of the House is breached. Thus, his statement only reinforces the apprehension of the Opposition that there will be curbs on attacking the government in Parliament.

Whatever the Speaker has said while clarifying on Parliament's move to issue an exhaustive list of unparliamentary words and expressions, is largely technical in nature. He is right in saying that the chair has the sole right to decide on what language should be used and what not. He rightly says that the chair protects members in exercising his right. The Constitution has mandated that the Speaker be the final authority in conducting the House.

Here arises the question: Has the Speaker been able to protect the right of the opposition members to question the government? Has he or she been non-partisan in conducting the House? Only a few names come to mind. In the recent past, Somnath Chatterjee has been one such speaker who rose above the party lines and even risked his political career to maintain his impartiality. Can anyone expect the same these days? The answer is negative. In recent years, we have seen a contrary trend. The Opposition hardly expects any impartiality on the part of the Speaker.

The new list of unparliamentary words and expressions is not a matter of concern only to the members of Parliament. It is also not merely the list of words or expressions expunged in the Indian parliament and state legislatures in 1921 and the different Houses of Commonwealth countries in 1920. What the Speaker is saying is also correct in that the list of expunged words was compiled previously.In recent years, the practice has become routine, though.

The major cause of concern is the choice of words and expressions. There is a clear pattern in it and that has been pointed out by the opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, Mahua Moitra and others. Words used in discussions and debates which correctly describe the PM's handling of the government, now banned from being spoken. "This seems to be true. A careful look at the list makes it clear that the words selected for it have been causing pain to the Prime Minister and his government.

But the issue becomes all the more serious when we see it from the wider perspective of the ongoing decline in Indian democracy and its slide towards an authoritarian system. Is an attempt being made to develop a language suitable for a totalitarian system? Various trends in our democracy strengthen this apprehension. Though we do not have state-owned media as is the case with the Orwellian state, we can see how it has been reduced to a propaganda machine of the ruling dispensation. The way individuals and communities are being declared enemies of the state is similar to what is described by George Orwell in his classic "1984". The portrayal of the rulers on our screens follows the same pattern.

The language of condemnation used against the dissenters also has a clear pattern. The shortening of vocabulary and putting slogans to boost the image of those who are in power are also common. In this scenario, what else can the opposition think of a move by the parliament which has all the potential to gag their voice?

The list contains words such as "Jumalajeevi", "Snoopgate", "Tanashah", and Tanashahi that have been often used against the Prime Minister and the Government. But several common words are there. Abuse, theft, untrue, lie, touts, corrupt, corruption, smuggling, negligence, murder, criminal, mislead, misinformation, mafia, crocodile tears, looting, gag, illegally, incompetent, hypocrisy, fraud, false, fake, erroneous, eyewash, drama, dump, cruel, criminal, and so on are examples.

How can any expression describe the lapses of the ruling regime or the state of affairs in society without these words? How can one imagine free expression without these words? Is it not beyond imagination that these words will violate the decorum of the House? It is also incomprehensible that the supreme body of a country that has a quarter of its population illiterate prevents the use of the most commonly used words. One will have to struggle to find synonyms for them to express the pain of the common man.

One more aspect that has been ignored in the debate over the list of unparliamentary words; many words such as "anti-national", "appeasement", "aapatkaal" (emergency), and "anti-development" are conspicuous by their absence. These are the words that are frequently used by the ruling party to malign the main opposition party, the Congress. They are also used against other opposition parties. The propaganda machinery of the ruling party has coined many words by using these words as keywords.

Many of us may think that restriction on using these words will only affect the proceedings of the parliament. This is not the case. This will set an example and other institutions will follow it. It will impose an automatic restriction on using these words in the public space. Will it not be undeclared censorship? Will it not be a curtailment of the right to free speech? Are we moving towards an Orwellian society?

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)