Freedom is absence of constraints. Freedom is said to exist when external constraints on the individual are absent. In terms of this definition an individual could be considered free if he/she is not subject to external controls or coercion and is able to make independent decisions and act in an autonomous way

There is a close relationship between freedom for the individual and freedom for the nation. Some people say that freedom is said to exist when external constrainsts on the individual are absent. Absence of constraints is only one dimension of freedom. Freedom is also about expanding the ability of people to freely express themselves and develop their potential. If a nation is a free every individual of it will be free. Freedom in this sense is the condition in which people can develop their creativity and capabilities. Greatness, power, development of a nation depends on cooperation, creativity and capabilities of individuals of a nation.

Both aspects of freedom—the absence of external constraints (imposed by a nation or a society or state) as well as the existence of conditions in which people can develop their talents – are important. A free society would be one which enables all its members to develop their potential with the minimum of social constraints.

No individual living in society can hope to enjoy total absence of any kind of constraints or restrictions. It becomes necessary them to determine which social constraints are justified and which are not, which are acceptable and which should be removed.

To understand which social constraints are necessary, discussions on freedom need to look at the core relationship between the individual and the nation (e.g. Society or group or community or entire state) within which she/he is placed. This is, we require to examine the relationship between individual and society or nation.

The Role of the state in upholding freedom of its citizens are mentioned below:

(i) The type or form of the government decides the limit or scope of freedom of its citizens. If a state is an authoritarian or will not like to give all types of freedom to its citizens. Similarly in a monarchy the citizens can enjoy freedom according to will of the rulers.

(ii)But in a democratic state the state grants certain types of freedom as a part and parcel of fundamental rights of its citizens. A democratic government has a free and fair judiciary, a written constitution and grants freedom and equality of its citizens.

(iii) Practically state is controlled by the government what government or states do is relevant because it affects freedom of the citizens in many different ways. If the state or government in power allows any conflicts to become violent markets, schools, colleges are closed down people cannot go out from their homes.

(iv)If state is fails to manage army, police and courts of laws, then the security of the people of the country would be in danger. They have to face the problem of law and order. If state considers that freedom is valuable and lovable to all. If it allows its citizens to make choice and to exercise their judgement.

(v)It permits the exercise of all citizens powers of reason and judgement. In fact now–a–days all democratic states are considered to be very important means of protecting the freedom of their citizens.

(vi)A welfare state is always worried to protect the freedom of downtrodden people, of backward castes, economically and educationally weaker sections and senior citizens as well as of the women.

One of the issues that is considered to belong to the minimum area of non–interference is the freedom of expression.

(i)Freedom of expression is a fundamental value and for that society must be willing to bear some inconvenience to protect it from people who want to restrict it. 

(ii)Reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression : Freedom of expression is a fundemental value and for that society must be willing to bear some inconvenience to protect it from the people who want to restrict it.

(iii)At various times there have been demands to ban books, plays, films, or academic articles in research journals.

(iv)Let us think about this demand to ban books in the light of our discussion so far which sees freedom as ‘The making of choices,” Where is a distinction made between negative and positive liberty, where we recognise the need for justifiable constraints but there have to be supported by people procedures and important moral arguments.

(i)Negative liberty’ seeks to define and defend an area in which the individual would be inviolable, in which he or she could ‘do, be or become’ whatever he or she wished to ‘do, be or become’. This is an area in which no external authority can interfere. It is a minimum area that is sacred and in which whatever the individual does, is not to be interfered with. The existence of the ‘minimum area of non-interference’ is the recognition that human nature and human dignity need an area where the person can act unobstructed by others. 

The negative liberty tradition argues for an inviolable area of non-interference in which the individual can express himself or herself. If the area is too small then human dignity gets compromised. 

(ii)In contrast, the arguments of positive liberty are concerned with explaining the idea of ‘freedom to’. The individual to develop his or her capability must get the benefit of enabling positive conditions in material, political and social domains. That is, the person must not be constrained by poverty or unemployment; they must have adequate material resources to pursue their wants and needs. They must also have the opportunity to participate in the decision making process so that the laws made reflect their choices, or at least take those preferences into account.

Positive liberty recognises that one can be free only in society and hence tries to make that society such that it enables the development of the individual whereas negative liberty is only concerned with the inviolable area of non-interference and not with the conditions in society, outside this area, as such. Of course negative liberty would like to expand this minimum area asmuch as is possible keeping in mind, however, the stability of society.