https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/india/2023/06/an-indian-idol-well-worth-junking/
“Postcolonial history is chock-full of Third World dictators revered as great reformers: Ho Chi Minh, Kwame Nkrumah, Fidel Castro — and in India there is Jawaharlal Nehru. The first and longest-serving prime minister, he was an enemy of free speech, a persecutor of political opponents and, in regard to legislative legerdemain, a masterclass practitioner. Yet knowing all this, India’s intellectual class continues to approach his memory on bended knee.”
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution famously guarantees Americans near-absolute freedom of speech. It was foisted on an unwilling political class by anti-federalists who were wary of despotic rule by the newly-created national government.
The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, by contrast, limited Indians’ freedom of speech by explicitly granting the government the authority to impose “reasonable restrictions … in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
It was foisted on a mostly-illiterate population in 1951 by a political class that was wary of the growing power of the people in India’s newly-independent democracy.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first and longest-serving prime minister, was the chief architect of the first amendment, and he did not hesitate to say why he wanted it. In the formal statement of objectives for amendment, he personally wrote that “certain difficulties have been brought to light by judicial decisions and pronouncements specially in regard to the chapter on fundamental rights”.
What were those difficulties? The Supreme Court had ordered the release of political opponents who had been indefinitely detained by the government and invalidated the censorship of publications that had been critical of the government. In other words, Nehru did an end-run around the judiciary by changing the Constitution to suit his political needs.