The Indian struggle for Independence is something we have always taken pride in. Yet, the salient principles of protest and dissent that our freedom fighters engaged in, to gain independence, the very principles that they profusely encouraged in pre and post independent India are today being quashed.
Contemporary India is where one is forced to stand for the national anthem at movie theatres, where what citizens can or cannot see, read, eat and speak about is consciously dictated by the government. Dissent, particularly in Universities is being curbed and shouting slogans and raising flags have become tests for nationalism. The erroneous and arbitrary use of words such as anti-national and un-Indian by the government as well as members of the ruling party and organisations such as the RSS have stifled one’s right to express an opinion contrary to those propagated by the government. The controversies surrounding the concepts of anti-nationalism and patriotism have raised some very pertinent questions. Does the right to freedom of speech include the right to dissent? Is being anti-BJP the same as being anti-national? And finally, where do we draw the line between sedition and dissent?
The debate on right to dissent vs anti-nationalism came into the limelight in February 2016 after the arbitrary arrest of the student union president of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Kanhaiya Kumar along with three others who were accused of sedition for allegedly chanting ‘anti-India’ slogans. He, along with a group of students, was protesting against the ‘judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat and in solidarity with the struggle of Kashmiri migrants’. His contentious arrest without direct evidence, caused heated debates nationwide which widely showcased the idea of anti-nationalism which largely translated to any opinion against the views held by the certain right-wing groups.
A more recent incident was that of Gurmehar Kaur, a 20-year-old student of Lady Shri Ram College of Delhi University who dared to speak against the ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad), the student wing of the RSS. She was trolled, excoriated, threatened with rape and even death. Gurmehar Kaur, a woman with an opinion was termed anti-national merely because her opinions were contrary to the ideological beliefs of the ruling party.
What started much before February 2016 has today become a nationwide phenomenon with the terms sedition, anti-national and un-Indian being loosely thrown around. Although some prosecutions have resulted in dismissal, a large number of people who merely participated in peaceful speech against government policies, against the rule or even against Modi, have either been arrested and held in pretrial detention or have been defamed and called anti-national by right-wing groups. Although the constitution of India explicitly grants citizens the freedom of speech and expression, the problem lies in the fact that it is easy to silence free speech especially with the help of draconian sedition law.
Of all the laws that were inherited from the colonial regime in India, few have been as controversial as those related to seditious offences. Since independence, the law has been modified and interpreted to incorporate safeguards so it may withstand constitutional scrutiny. However, it still acts as an effective means to restrict free speech, and has been used by contemporary governments for reasons that are arguably similar to those of our former oppressive rulers (Saksena and Srivastava 2014, 1).
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines sedition as “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.”
It is important to note that this law was put into place by the British colonial empire who were actively involved in curbing free speech in order to defend their rule and suppress the freedom struggle. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi who was imprisoned under this section of the code called it “the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”. Using this colonial-era relic to arrest activists, journalists, critics of the Indian Government and human right defenders, simply for expressing their views is not just abhorrent but deplorable. The section is so vague and broad that it makes for an easy tool to stifle both dissent and debate. The point, however, must stand strong. Along with the right to freedom of speech also comes the right to dissent. After all, if freedom of speech means anything, it means a willingness to stand and let people say things with which we disagree, and which do weary us considerably (Chafee 1920, 336). When the right-wing ruling party along with organisations such as the RSS use these laws arbitrarily, questions must be raised on whether they are attempting to destroy independent thought altogether.
With the increase of suppression of dissent, there has also been a large suppression not only of speech but also independent thought. By propagating new rules and notions of nationalism and claiming that anything contrary to those rules is adhering to anti-nationalism, the BJP has been actively involved in a concentrated attempt to destroy criticism altogether.
Propagating the idea of a country which doesn’t allow its citizens to protest and criticise the actions of their government is to take on the philosophy of dictators, thereby making redundant the very democracy that our ancestors fought to establish. As long as a particular opinion doesn’t directly hamper national security, curbing it is unjust. What the government needs to realise is that quashing the freedom of speech does not destroy the underlying sentiment what it does do, however, is further alienate that section of society.
The right to dissent is the backbone of democracy and therefore cannot be either repressed or manipulated by any government. As AP Shah says in an opinion piece on The Quint – “The strength of a nation is not gauged by the uniformity of opinion of its citizens or a public profession of patriotism. The true strength of a nation is revealed when it does not feel threatened by its citizens expressing revolutionary views; when there is a free and open press that can criticise the government; and when citizens do not resort to violence against their fellow citizens, merely for expressing a contrary view. That is when we will have achieved liberty of speech. And that is when we will be truly free.”