Dr. Manmohan Singh used to be the butt of much criticism by leaders of the BJP for years. And why shouldn’t the prime minister be criticised for his policies?
I do not have statistics to prove it but I am fairly confident that never has there been such a widespread use of sedition laws as in the past couple of years. People – and now organisations – are being charged with sedition casually, as if it is a traffic offence. What is more, it appears that even the hawaldar level cop feels free to charge someone with sedition.
Here are a few random cases in the past few months—Kanhaiya Kumar, student leader from JNU was slapped with charges of sedition following allegations that he had raised “anti-India slogans”. The video on which the police based their charges was found doctored. A Kashmiri living in Chattisgarh was arrested because of something he posted on Facebook. The charge? Sedition. Hardik Patel was another victim. And who can forget cartoonist Aseem Trivedi who was arrested in 2012 for some silly cartoons that made fun of politicians and parliament and was promptly thrown into jail or Dr Binayak Sen, who was picked up for sedition for alleged links with Maoists?
And now, following a chaotic meeting in Bengaluru where some in the audience allegedly raised “azaadi” slogans, the organisers, Amnesty International India were accused of sedition. Amnesty has given a video of the meeting showing no one from the organisation raised any slogan, but that has not impressed the police. (The complaint, it must be noted, was filed by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student wing of the Sangh Parivar)
THIS government has a monopoly of handing out certificates of patriotism to all and sundry; lately some devotees have been saying that it is unpatriotic to criticise an elected prime minister. This is very rich, considering that.
The dictionary meaning of sedition is to make a speech that incites people to rebel against the authority or the monarch. The Indian sedition law that had been introduced by the British in India in 1870 is against speech that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.”
The British Raj used it against Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi for seditious articles in their respective newspapers; on another occasion, Tilak was arrested because his fiery speeches allegedly incited violence and led to the killings of two British officers. But that was the colonial government, a foreign power that Indians were fighting against. In a democratic country, freedom of speech has to be interpreted much more liberally. More important, sedition has to be applied after careful deliberation; in the most recent instance, there is no evidence that Amnesty was provoking violence or rebellion of any kind. Then why should it be charged with sedition? A former Inspector General of police S T Ramesh has been quoted as saying, “The term sedition loses its seriousness if it is invoked against sloganeering. It (sedition charge) should be filed only against those conspiring or waging war against the country.”
It is not that difficult to see why this is happening. A climate of intolerance is building up in the country. Dissent is seen as somehow unpatriotic. How often do we hear someone being called “anti-national” simply because their views go against the so-called mainstream? It is not just the online trolls, often anonymous and with no fear of reprisals or accountability who bandy about terms like anti-national; even politicians, who should be more responsible, are forever exhorting anyone whose views they do not agree with to “go to Pakistan.” That is another way of saying that such people have no place in India. From there to sedition is but a short step away, since they have already been condemned for being unpatriotic. This government has a monopoly of handing out certificates of patriotism to all and sundry; lately some devotees have been saying that it is unpatriotic to criticise an elected prime minister. This is very rich, considering that Dr Manmohan Singh used to be the butt of much criticism by leaders of the BJP for years. And why shouldn’t the prime minister be criticised for his policies?
Right from Jawaharlal Nehru during British rule to eminent lawyers now, there has been a demand to get rid of this pernicious law. It has no place in a democracy. Regrettably, no party ever bothered to address the issue while in power. As the above examples show, the Congress and the BJP have both misused the law. Governments seem to find it convenient.
Despite all the opposition to it, one can say with confidence that the law will not be taken off the statute books in the near future. Indeed, this government may not even want a debate on it. With the rising mood of ultra-patriotism in the country, the danger is that sedition will be used and abused even more. As we saw in the Bangalore case, it was deployed not against the alleged slogan shouters but against the organisers of the event, who happened to be an international agency that looks at human rights violations. The message is clear; if the government of the day doesn’t like you, it can get after you in a variety of ways, including accusing you of sedition. It is a message that should worry all of us.
