China’s inventive success has been a particular perplexity for those who see freedom of conscience as integral to originality, innovation and its economic yield. Perhaps its ‘re-education’ camps in Xinjiang are an isolated story. Or maybe that liberty falls in a grey zone, like in many other parts of Asia.
India’s Constitutional guarantee of this right often finds favour for reasons of expedience over economics, given the country’s social diversity. Either way, for its promise to hold, every law must pass its test.
Therefore, if Parliament outlaws failures of deference to ever more embodiments of national honour than already protected, it must not result in conflicts of conscience.
No doubt, a balance of ideals always calls for delicate judgements in a democracy, as seen in America’s flag debate, but one observation across the history of nation-states is now taken as axiomatic: that a minimal list is optimal for a national consensus. India must take note of this for a pragmatic reason too.
For overall social stability, nobody should be in a position to cite a particular enforcement of law as evidence that a basic right no longer holds. It’s also why all matters of nationhood demand wide deliberation.