The Supreme Court of India has declared privacy a constitutional right. It was a rare unanimous judgement that has far-reaching implications for Indians.

As defined in the judgement, privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. However, what appears to be less clear are the implications the judgement will have on the use of state power in collecting personal information, as it recognises that there are compelling state interests in collecting such information.

For the common man to experience the true rights bestowed by this judgement, we need to see the establishment of a detailed and transparent information architecture detailing which agency or vendor shares what information with whom. This should go hand in hand with proper privacy architecture and a channel to protect yourself if the state messes with your identity.

To question or not to question

Never before has our ability to question things come under such intense scrutiny as now. Are we losing our ability to think as a country? This was quite evident across the country on the issue of ‘sedition’ at JNU. While the intellectuals were delivering lectures on nationalism with much clarity, easily understandable to the students of JNU, the rest of the people in the country could hardly make out anything constructive from these debates. The fact that there is a disconnect between the ‘public’ and ‘intellectuals’ is something that needs to be acknowledged.

news channels — ostensibly designed to represent public thinking and spirit in a vibrant society — have been reduced to a ‘shouting business’. In the absence of measured channels and dialogue, there is no room for a critical culture to evolve in India.

Do we need an alternative platform to discuss alternative views while steering clear of noise and propaganda? Its ultimate aim should be to engage the public in thinking about the kind of society they want to live in. But all of this calls for us to develop the faculty of ‘doubting’ since it is that which leads to questioning.

How do you make the public question? Especially in a technological and informational age where knowledge systems and information per se become the instruments of power and domination. Can professionals like you and me play the role of uncovering the hidden public issues that otherwise remain behind technocratic walls? Can we use our expertise in our respective fields to help the public in challenging the hegemonic designs of today’s informational and technocratic age? To nurture a role like this, there is the prerequisite need of a secular society where all and sundry have equal social and economic rights irrespective of their religious adherence. Questioning is the very foundational aspect of democracy that religious and cultural groups are trying to suppress so that their hegemony in society persists.