The whole JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) episode is important for one reason. It has forced us to think of nationalism, sedition and what should be allowed under the concept of ‘free speech’. But for Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of JNU Students’ Union, we would have not visited this issue, though it was discussed some years ago when scholars and activists like Dr. Vinayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, etc., were charged under the dreaded section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But then Dr. Sen and Roy were senior people who knew what they were talking and doing. In the case of Kanhaiya Kumar, it is the case of university students and their right to protest against some policies of the state.
The JNU incident and what constitutes sedition
It is clear by now that the JNU issue is more about the nature of Indian nationalism and whether it can take in its stride different voices, or is it like any intolerant nationalism which is good at suppressing different voices? Some youngsters, whether students of JNU or not, had allegedly raised anti-India slogans in JNU campus. They were arrested by the police and slapped with section 124 A. The occasion for the students’ gathering was the death anniversary of the hanging of Afzal Guru by the Indian state. Some students wanted to express their feelings about the “illegal” way in which the Indian state hanged Afzal Guru. The organisers had openly expressed the purpose of this meeting. Consequently, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad (ABVP) met the authorities of the JNU and requested them to cancel the meet. This request was accepted and the permission to hold the meeting was cancelled at the last moment. Yet, the organisers decided to go ahead with the meeting in which some anti-India slogans were allegedly raised. This is the sequence of events.
Now the police will have to establish who shouted those anti-India slogans and then move accordingly. That aside, at stake are deeper issues about our right to free expression and our right to hold different opinions about our government. And the most important, what does sedition constitute in Republic India? The law of sedition was not part of the original IPC drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860. It was added in 1870 by Sir James Stephen to deal with the growing unrest against the colonial power. This provision was invoked in the celebrated case of ‘Queen Express v/s Bal Gangadhar Tilak’ in 1897. Other stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi were tried under this section and were sent to prison.
Even before Independence, the British government realised that this section would be misused. Hence, the Federal Court made it clear in the famous case ‘Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v/s The King Emperor’ in 1942 that this section could not be used to stifle criticism. This view was reiterated by our Supreme Court in 1962 in ‘Kedar Nath Singh v/s State of Bihar’. The Supreme Court argued that section 124A is not violative of the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). And this section should apply only to those activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public order. Merely raising slogans cannot be treated as sedition. When former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in October 1984, some people shouted slogans like Khalistan Zindabad and Raj karega Khalsa. The Supreme Court released the accused who were charged with sedition. Now in 2016, the Indian State is booking university students under this section for merely shouting slogans, if at all they have shouted, which is yet to be established. This needs serious discussion.
It is argued by many that the advanced democracies like USA and UK have taken such law off their legal system, then why not India? This is a specious argument as the conditions in USA and UK are totally different from India. These countries do not have to face separatist forces since its birth like India has been doing in Jammu & Kashmir, and the Northeast. Even today these threats have not subsided. On the contrary, thanks to the help from across the border, the separatists have been troubling the Indian State a lot more than before.
The Constitution makers decided in their wisdom to retain section 124 A in our legal system. For many years this section was rarely used. This does not mean that there has been unanimity about this section. The Law Commission in its report of 1971 recommended that the punishment under this section should be reduced to a maximum of seven years of imprisonment. But the Commission too did not recommend the abolition of this section.
Is freedom possible without dissent?
At the heart of the debate is the right to free speech and expression without which there could be no meaningful, genuine democracy. No freedom is possible without dissent. As a system we must encourage the ‘nay-sayers’, for without them the democratic model of governance losses its vibrancy. Free men, in exercise of free thought, will give vent in free speech. No matter how abhorrent the thought, or its manner of expression, a mature democracy will tolerate it, and even encourage its publication. Only totalitarian regimes suppress dissent and dissenters. Human history has progressed, thanks to those dissenters who questioned the prevailing and dominant ideas, and thereby paved the way for the progress of civilisation.
A few examples from modern India will also throw light on this issue. In October 1986, the Maharashtra police had arrested late Krishna Raj, the respected editor of Economic and Political Weekly (EPW). This was because in one article (not written by Krishna Raj) published in the EPW, the writer had alleged that there were atrocities by the army on civilians during ‘Operation Blue Star’. The issue of arrest of Krishna Raj was brought to the notice of Rajiv Gandhi who was the Prime Minister then, who promptly instructed the police to call off the action. Then there is another episode that took place in 2001. Some students of Delhi University had protested in front of US Embassy (9/11) in Delhi for the US attacks on Afghanistan. They were arrested by the Delhi Police and charged with sedition under article 124 A. This time too, the intervention by the then Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani saved the situation. Where are such leaders today who have that same magnanimity?
Let me also quote an incident narrated by Dom Moraes. Dom was a student in UK in the 1950s and 1960s, called the swinging sixties. Those days, the university campuses in many European universities were bursting with unrest and discontent. Dom was part of that milieu when the students were questioning everything: the education system, the government policies, etc. In due course, things settled down as they always do. Years later when Dom was in his 50s and was in UK, he called on his professor. Dom profusely apologised to his professor for shouting anti-establishment slogans in the 60s. The professor, now in his 80s, said to Dom which needs to be told today, “Dom, don’t feel sorry. In fact your generation’s protest forced us to revisit, rethink our position about the education system. You made us think all over again. This is how it should be. Each generation must challenge the wisdom of the earlier generation and thereby take the world forward. Thank you for being my students”.
Do I need to say anything more?
