Outlaw The Anti Sedition Law
By Vidya Bhushan Rawat
03 August, 2012
Countercurrents.org
It is often claimed that dissent is an inherent part of any system if it truly democratic. This respect for dissent was the famous note of philosopher and one of the architect of French revolution Voltaire who said,’ I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to disagree with me’. The point was that political arguments must be countered with arguments and that there is no scope for violence in a truly democratic society. All issues are settled amicably with negotiations and those in the power structures gives opportunity to dissenters and try to reduce the differences with political viewpoints. It means that if despite that there are differences then there will be a political decorum and we will not doubt the integrity of the people.
A political democracy would virtually fail if the societies are not democratized and will meet the same problems as the countries in South Asia including India. We embarked on political democracy on August 15th, 1947 and had our republican constitution on January 26th, 1950. Our Parliament was sovereign and constitution came into being only after a heavy discussion on each topic included in it. Despite, all their short comings, a majority of the parliamentarian that time were by and large secular (not in a true humanist sense but in typical Indian situations with following their own religious values strictly). While the constitution was new and every aspect of it was thoroughly debated in Parliament, the country inherited many laws developed by the colonial government and these laws still govern us.
The forest act, the companies and societies act, criminal procedure Code, and many other codes were developed during the British Raj and now it is felt that these laws must be changed and tuned to Indian situation. Many of these laws have been changed but one such law which need a complete change is the Sedition law in India and it is being used to harass activists, writers, protesting groups. The most celebrated victim of this law is Dr Binayak Sen, who is vice president of People’s Union for Civil Liberties and based in Raipur, Chhatisgharh. He was charged with connection with Maoists.
Another PUCL activist in Uttar-Pradesh Seema Azad who is a journalist too along with her husband Vishwavijay, has been charged with sedition. The charges again are links with Maoists and keeping the Maoist literature. Now, it is quite strange as why we are afraid of a literature which is already available on the internet. Why does our government harass people of being ideological? Is democracy losing war ideologically and using laws to harass people according to their class and caste. Actually, India is a clear example how our political class have used laws to suppress growing assertions and demands of the marginalized and minority communities.
I have not come across any writings of Binayak Sen or PUCL which are more threatening or hate mongering than Bal Thackery or Sadhwi Ritambhara. Thousands of people have been killed in violence and open instigation of violence by various offshoots of Sangh parivar. In fact, most of the inquiry commission reports have open charged them with various activities spreading hatred against particular communities but hardly do we see any action being taken against them. The recent bomb blasts cases reveal role of the Hindutva outfits in terror and yet they are not treated as terrorists. The initial reaction of Maharastra police to Pune’s recent blasts was that it was not a ‘terror’ attack. It seems the police had suspected the right wing Hindu element in it at the initial phase and hence did not want to name them.
While activist like us feel that we have a right to question the very authority of the state in deciding about the rights of the people. There were many people and communities who have been staying at a certain place for years and much before the current Indian state and constitution came into being. It is not that we delegitimize the state because we all believe that it is our country and when we criticize the action of the state, it comes from the inner feeling that the state action should be better. Our heart cry for our people and that is why reaction comes against state brutalities. When state is a welfare state then questioning withdrawal from the welfare meaning itself has to be done.
Interestingly, the biggest votaries of these terror laws are the rightwing Hindutva forces whose own track record related to violence and instigating hatred is well known and well documented. Unfortunately, our TV channels and newspapers have legitimized their actions and placed their crafty questions to Indian psyche. Therefore, in India, an upper caste Hindu cannot be anti-national. It will be rare because he or she will get so much of sympathy and support. The selectivity of Indian state is visible at every place. You can see that the victims of 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi are roaming free. The champions of Babari Masjid demolition have enjoyed power and in fact the biggest culprit presided over the Home Ministry and is still looking forward to become the prime minister of the country. Another culprit of violence against three thousand Muslims in Gujarat is getting certificate of the ‘best’ chief ministers of India and he is also make ‘valiant’ efforts for Delhi 2014.
The Muslims were killed in Gujarat. They were killed in the aftermath of Babari mosque and it is they who fill are jails under POTA and TADA laws. The media was trapped in its own definitions and hence used the framework which is suitable to the dominant class networks of India and hence most of the time these debates look farcical. We know we cannot change the law as we will only change the level. TADA was dropped and we brought a more dangerous law then it named as POTA. And whether it is TADA or POTA, a huge majority of those arrested and humiliated were Muslims. This was a case when the so called ‘ Sikh’ terrorism was on the prime then every Sikh was a ‘terrorist’ and could be identified easily.
Our laws easily get into that simplification and today all Aadivasis who are asking questions and seeking recourse are termed as Maoists. The question is why our government is really afraid of Maoists? What can a handful of Maoist do? And if the government thinks that Maoist propaganda is more powerful than its own propaganda what is it doing? Is government machinery failed in these regions and if yes the why? Just saying whether you are a Maoist or not, the media tend to pass judgment on a person’s right to speak and question the state. We never question any one whether he is Hindutva party member or not. You cannot kill ideologies through such brutality and defamation where media become a strong arm of the state’s propaganda machinery or right wing forces who pretend to provide opposition in parliament and assemblies but remain same on the major issues related to minorities and marginalized.
Ironically, the government is ready to speak to those who are with arms as Mani Shankar Iyer says but feel more threatened from a writer or author who writes sympathetically to the aadivasi issue. In the entire debate against seditions or our laws, we actually ignore the vital issues of discrimination against minorities and marginalized. And that it is they who are the victims of these laws. Sita Ram is a Dalit who was charged with Sedition for burning the effigy of Haryana Chief Minister, Bhupinder Singh Hooda. Now we were question about why did they burnt the effigy but the question is why don’t we debate the entire issue of Bhagana and how the jats have thrown away the villagers from that place. Don’t we know how the Haryana state has succumbed to the Jat fancies and Jat can do no wrong in Haryana.
The Indian state is notorious in such selectivity. Anna Hazare and his friends have been using the filthy language against all the institutions of Indian state. They condemned the political class, charged the prime minister of corruption, defaced the wall of prime minister’s house and even questioned the legitimacy of the parliament but there was no action. I believe in their right to do so because I sincerely feel that Indian people know more than Hazare and his group about India and they can decide about their future in a much better way. What one feel is why this much of freedom is not available to the people in those Zones. I cannot move in Jharkhand or Chhatishgarh or even in zones of Uttarakhand with a Che Gueavara T-shirt.
My point is simple. Is Indian state that week that it could be threatened with people who challenge its authority? Do the people in Kudankulan have a right to protest against Nuclear Power Plant or not. We all know it is important for the nation building but then why can’t these plants be placed in some other locations. Why the people are not taken into confidence because the state of India does believe in threatening people and it feel it can dislocate all the people at its own wish. Yes, it is these situations which are like ‘karo ya maro’ for those who suffer. It may have no impact on us and we can shout slogans with Vande Mataram and inquilab Zindabad but for those who have be slaughtered at the altar of a grand Indian ego of a ‘powerful nation’ will always protest and ask for their legitimate right.
Often questions are asked our army is fighting battle for us and hence we cannot belittle their efforts. Why can’t the Kashmiri say that our army is fighting battle for them? Why the people in Delhi have to say that. There is no country without people. And if India is united, it is not because of its army but because of its people and their common will to live together. Therefore, the issues in Kashmir and elsewhere cannot be settled with heavy handedness of the army and according to the prism of nationalism based in Delhi. We will have to see nationalism in these small units too and whenever the two nationalisms contradict each other there is crisis. The Hindu nationalism wants to dictate the terms and conditions to aadivasi nationalism or Kashmiri nationalism and hence the crisis and then only meaningful thing is possible through a dialogue. You cannot bulldoze them with your army and power. At the end of the day, we have to go through democratic process.
Sedition laws are like Blasphemy laws which are being used to silence your opponent in a selective way. We all know how Blasphemy law is used against minorities in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. All the Indian laws in the name of ‘terrorism’ or Seditions have similar stories to narrate. Those who have blood at their hands of innocent people enjoy power and the government failed to provide justice to those people and very unfortunately it is the victims who are being victimized further in the name of national integration. A society full of discrimination cannot be saved through such drastic laws. Indian state will have to make way for negotiations and bring the tribal people into mainstream. By branding each aadivasi as Maoist the government is serving its own purpose to intervene and hand over those natural resources to the big power corporations.
All such laws which humiliate people must go. The government has to improve its functioning and reach out to the people. The answer to internal insurgency is more democracy. The government must admit that our political democracy has betrayed to the most marginalized and they feel isolated and alienated in it and unless they are part of it and are represented fairly in it, there will always be disconnect with the so called mainstream India. It is equally important to revisit the planning process of those areas where tribal live and how far have we been able to integrate them in our mainstream. Unless, we discuss these issues threadbare and comprehensively, no debate on Sedition laws or anti-terror laws would be completed. Just targeting people based on meeting someone or reading some book or magazine show the absolutely jingoistic state which want to control your ideas and dictate what you want to read.
Democracy is successful when there is a dissent and political opposition. Not every dissent is meant to weaken the democracy and the fact is most of the human rights activists, those fighting for the rights of tribal and marginlised are doing so to strengthen the democracy and not to convert it into an oligarchy of a rich caste elite based in a few metropolitan cities of the country. The country should be thankful to dissenters who despite being lesser in number dare to do so taking great risk of their lives and liberty. The state should respect that and in the greater interest of democratic polity, such draconian laws and their interpretation must immediately be withdrawn and a process of negotiations should start with all the stake holders so that a just and permanent peace could be established in the region. Let the multiple ideas flourish to strengthen democracy so that there is no need for seditions and any other antidemocratic law which violate individual freedom and right to freedom of expression.
Vidya Bhushan Rawat is a social and human rights activist. He blogs at www.manukhsi.blogspot.com twitter : freetohumanity skype : vbrawat Facebook : Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Comments are moderated
