Sedition law

Defining Democracy
Vidya Bhushan Rawat

It is often claimed that dis sent is an inherent part of any system if it is truly democratic. This respect for dissent was the famous note of philosopher and one of the architects 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 give opportunity to dissenters and try to reduce the differences with political view-points.

A political democracy would virtually fail if the societies are not democratized. The people of India embarked on political democracy on August 15th, 1947 and the republican constitution on January 26th, 1950. Indian Parliament was sovereign and constitution came into being only after a heavy discussion on each topic included in it. Despite, all their shortcomings, a majority of the parliamentarians that time were by and large secular (not in a true humanist sense but in typical Indian situations 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 India.

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 present day Indian reality. Many of these laws have been changed but one such law which needs 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 had to face sedition charges because of his alleged connection with the 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 possessing Maoist literatures. Now, it is quite strange as why the government is so afraid of a literature which is already available on the internet. Why does the 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 political classes have used laws to suppress growing assertions and demands of the marginalized and minority communities.

This writer has not come across any writings of Binayak Sen or PUCL which are more threatening or hate mongering than Bal Thackery or Sadhvi 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 openly charged them with various activities spreading hatred against particular communities but hardly does one see any action being taken against them. The recent bomb blasts cases reveal the role of Hindutva outfits in terror and yet they are not treated as terrorists. The initial reaction of Maharashtra 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 activists like this writer feel that they have a right to question the very authority of the state in deciding about the rights of the people. There are 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.

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, 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. One can see that the organizers 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 minister of India and he is also making 'valiant' efforts for Delhi in 2014.

The Muslims were killed in Gujarat. They were killed in the aftermath of Babari mosque and it is they who fill the 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. TADA was dropped but the government brought in a more dangerous law and named it 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.

Laws easily get into that simplification and today all Adivasis who are asking questions and seeking recourse are termed as Maoists. What can a handful of Maoists do? And if the government thinks that Maoist propaganda is more powerful than its own propaganda what is it doing? Has government machinery failed in these regions and if yes then why? Just saying whether one is a Maoist or not, the media tends to pass judgment on a person's right to speak and question the state. One cannot kill ideologies through such brutality and defamation where the media becomes 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 adivasi issue. In the entire debate against seditions or Indian laws, the vital issues of discrimination against minorities and marginalized are ignored. 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. Haryana state has succumbed to the Jat fancies and Jats 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. Why this much of freedom is not available to the dalits speaks volumes about the class bias of this democracy. One cannot move in  Jharkhand or Chhatishgarh or even in zones of Uttarakhand with a Che Gueavara T-shirt.

Is Indian state that week that it could be threatened with people who challenge its authority? Do the people in Kudankulam have a right to protest against Nuclear Power Plant or not. 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 feels 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.  Those who have been slaughtered at the altar of a grand Indian ego of a 'powerful nation' will always protest and ask for their legitimate right.
Why can't the Kashmiris say that Indian 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. The Hindu nationalism wants to dictate the terms and conditions to adivasi nationalism or Kashmiri nationalism and hence the crisis and then only meaningful thing is possible through a dialogue, one cannot bulldoze them with the army and power. At the end of the day, one has to go through democratic process.

Sedition laws are like Blasphemy laws which are being used to silence the opponent in a selective way. Everybody knows 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 has 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 adivasi 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 as India's political democracy has betrayed 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 discontent with the so-called mainstream India. It is equally important to revisit the planning process of those areas where tribals live and how far have they been able to integrate themselves in the mainstream.

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 marginalized 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.

[Source : www.countercurrents.org/rawat030812.htm]

Frontier
Vol. 45, No.9, Sep 9-15 2012