Writing As Sedition
By subhash Gatade
06 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org(Ahmedabad, August 29: It was a tragedy, which could have been averted. The unprecedented, massive floods, which defaced Surat and wrecked the Diamond City economically, could not have happened if authorities — who failed to sense danger or chose to ignore the rising levels of the Ukai reservoir — had started releasing water in a phased manner. Official figures put the damages at over Rs 21,000 crores, but the actual loss, if evaluated fairly, is much higher. (Express News Service)
The arrest of an editor of an eveninger from Surat, Gujarat charging him with ‘anti-national activities’ including ‘instigating people against a duly elected government’ has once again brought into sharp focus the way freedom of expression can be easily trampled with impunity by the powers that be. It was in the fitness of things that journalists of various hues in Surat took out a procession to declare solidarity with the arrested journalist and also protest government’s muzzling of the media and imposition of virtual censorship.
As reported in a section of the media, the law and order people felt offended when Manoj Shinde, editor of ‘Surat Samna’ the said eveninger in an editorial ‘..[a] ttacked several officials and BJP leaders for mishandling of the release of water from the Ukai dam resulting in the flooding of the city and causing colossal losses to the people’. (The Hindu, 30 th August 2006,Delhi). The complaint against Shinde on behalf of the government of Gujarat has been lodged under Section 124A (sedition: anyone who by words or expression of any kind brings or attempts to bring or provoke a feeling of hatred, contempt or disaffection towards government established by law shall be punished with life imprisonment) 292, 293, 294(b) (dealing with obscene publication), 500 (defamation), 501 (printing and aggravating matter against union territory or Chief Minister) and 502 and 505(1) (circulation of false statement against the public peace) under the Indian Penal Code.
As rightfully noted by a human rights activist Girish Patel “Shinde’s editorial doesn’t amount to sedition as the comments were against an individual. The tendency here is that the CM considers himself to be Gujarat. It is not sedition even if he is called Hitler. It may amount to defamation but not sedition.”(Indian Express, 31 st August 2006) Looking at the fact that the state government had received enough opprobrium for its handling of the floods, it is clear that the singling out of the journalist was an act of vengeance by the people in power.
One can say that the plight of the journalist for standing up to the misdeeds of the government can’t be said to be an exception. In fact the whole episode reminds one of the presence of such draconian provisions in the statue books of a sovereign democratic set up which helps the powers that be to apprehend anyone under its pretext.
To further elaborate about the leeway it gives to ruling elite one can have a look at a few cases during last few years where it can be clear to even laypersons that the ‘offenders’ were engaged in activities not even remotedly connected with sedition.Post 9/11 when the anti war movement took shape all over the world to oppose machinations of the USA for world hegemony, a section of its participants in Delhi had a tough experience at the hands of the then BJP regime. Six students belonging to Delhi university were charged with ‘sedition’ and were arrested for the "crime" of distributing anti-war leaflets and denouncing the communal-fascist war mongering stand of the Vajpayee government. It is a different matter that faced with large scale criticism at the hands of the media and civil society the government had to retrace its arbitrary move.
During Mayawatis third stint of power in Lucknow with due support of the BJP, peace activist and Magasaysay award winner Sandeep Pandey and his fellow activists also faced charges of ‘sedition’ and ‘inciting communal violence.’ Interestingly a poster put up by them on the dharana site in Faizabad (U.P.) which was organised to demand peaceful resolution of the Ayodhya issue was declared inflammatory.( 20 March 2003) The poster in question had a quote from a poem by Laxmi Shankar Vajpayee and said " Oh God, Please don't accept the temple which is built on the foundations of the dead and has blood stained walls."
Human Rights Watch in its report of 1999 tells us about the violation of dalit rights which is done with impunity. Under the heading ‘Criminalisation of Social Activism’ the report narrates the story of one Tirumavalavan a dalit rights activist from Tamilnadu and other members of his movement who are targeted by the police for organizing Dalits to claim their rights. According to the testimony of Tirumavalavan he is “.[o]ften arrested under Indian Penal Code sections 153(a) [for promoting enmity between different groups] and 120(b) [for criminal conspiracy], and also under the Sedition Act and the National Security Act.
A cursory glance at the genesis of the ‘crime of sedition’ would make it that it has its roots in an era when statesmen and political leaders were considered to be largely above reproach by the common man. It was a time when coups and revolutions were a constant threat and the resort to political violence a common phenomenon. Coming to Indian case one can see that while the British colonialists imposed it supposedly to rein in the natives but as an offence it originated in UK. Prior to 1606, treason (an offence similar to sedition) was punishable under the Statute of Treasons of 1352. The offence of seditious libel was first created in 1606 by the infamous Star Chamber decision in de Libellis Famosis18 and continued to exist at common law as a species of libel.
One can say that the rationale for incorporating sedition act has come in for criticism on two counts. Firstly its clear espousal of methods adopted by our colonial rulers to discipline the ‘natives’ and secondly its core concept which seems clearly antithetical to the underlying premises of modern democracy. A mere look at the ‘Sedition Act’ embodied under Indian penal Code section 124 A would make it clear what one wants to convey :
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added..
It is symptomatic of its anachronism that in most of the mature democracies, the law of sedition has now either formally been rescinded or is largely defunct. A considered observation of ‘Global Campaign for Free Expression’ is worth quoting in full : Pronouncements by courts and law reform commissions in a number of common law jurisdictions support the contention that the law of sedition serves no useful purpose, is anachronistic, is palpably undemocratic, and is an unconstitutional encroachment on the right to freedom of expression.
Whether India the ‘largest democracy in the world’ is ready to pay heed to the voices in the other mature democracies?
SUBHASH GATADE, writer and social activist, has done M.Tech in Mech Engg ( 1981) . Writes regularly for English, Hindi and Urdu magazines and newspapers, edits a journal in Hindi called ‘Sandhan’ . He can be contacted at [email protected]
