Kr Swarn Kishore Singh
“Consider, what nation it is whereof we are and whereof we are the governors: a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit acute to in-vent subtle and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point the highest that human capacity can soar to. Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. If certain books were to be extinguished, the ideas within them could never be destroyed because once an idea has been created in a mind, it can always be spread by word of mouth”, said John Milton, the famous English poet, scholar in his speech popularly titled as ‘Aeropagitica’, while addressing the British Parliament and opposing licensing and censorship of printing of books. This speech is one of the most credible defence of freedom of speech and expression and even today the expressed principles of Aeropagitica are being used as basis of modern justifications.
The protection of freedom of speech is not only a question of protecting freedom for its own sake, but also a tacit protection of truth. Censorship is not only a weapon in a political struggle; the stakes are higher, it further catalyses the suppression of truth itself. In 1643, British Government came up with a licensing order which stated that authors must have a Government approved license to have their work published. At that time Britain was going through a phase of civil war and the political situation therein was pretty volatile. Government was doing every possible thing to curb the freedom of press of which the infamous licensing order of 1643 was a highlighted extension. But this censorship law did not go well with their intelligentsia and hence John Milton had to write the famous Aeropagitica.
Just after the second world war and the burning of books frenzy in Germany, United Nations General Assembly in its third session on December 1948, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wherein Article 19 states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
India is a proud country of different civilisations, religions, communities and castes; wherein the people are the source of power, therefore making a difference of opinions and subsequent dissent very ostensible. To give an ear to every voice and ensure no one is ignored, we chose a democratic set up for ourselves. In such a set up every individual has a voice and that too of same intensity and therefore the majority decides what to do and what to refrain from. Although democracy too has some drawbacks i.e. some times the majority becomes too ruthless and intolerant for a contradictory opinion. Therefore for maintaining a balance between all such stake holders and to keep a check,there needs to be a system wherein dissent is fearless and does not invite any adverse repercussion. The citizens be bestowed with a right to dissent without fear of any sort of victimisation; therefore our forefathers jot down certain rules to balance the majority view and the ideal situation and that rule book is our Constitution i.e. Constitution of India. Our constitution assures us equality, freedom and justice , which our democratic set up bestowed upon us. Our constitution is one of the most progressive documents which directly translates the hopes, ambitions of the crores of its subjects. The constitution can also be considered a sort of vision document for fulfilling of the dreams and aspirations of the crores of citizens. Then the constitution gives us an institution called as judiciary wherein the horizons of our rights and duties are defined. And one of this right is given in Article 19 i.e. right to freedom of speech and expression; which ensures we speak our heart without any fear or fright. But before we start taking this enrichment as a final and unqualified one, we must know that the same article 19 in its sub-clause (2) talks about certain restrictions as well. There are some other restrictions as well, but we have a problem while we are aware of certain rights given to us we forget that at the same time, other citizens are also being guaranteed the similar rights. The restrictions are there just to make sure that these empowering provisions are not misused to harass anyone and democracy works in a healthy manner; wherein criticism is received well and harassment is discouraged.
When we see a group of students in JNU shout slogans like “Bharat ki barbaadi tak, Jung rahegi, Jung rahegi”, “Afzal Guru hum sharminda hain, tere qatil zinda hain””tum kitne Afzal maroge, ghar-ghar se Afzal niklega”, when students in Ali-garh Muslim University organise a mourning function to mourn killing of a Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist, Manan Wani, when the students in JNU organise event to protest the hanging of dreaded terrorist and parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, when some Gautam Naulakha incites rebellion against the state, when some urban naxalites plan assassination of or Prime Minister; it is not just dissent but an act of treason, an act of rebellion against the country.
We are all free to express our disagreement with ideas, doctrines, decree, opi-nions etc of Government, political party or even a religion, this is dissent and is acceptable as well. But organising incitement of rebellion or civil disorder against state and to propagate a plan to effectuate a coup in a country is sedition. When Mani Shankar Aiyar seeks help of Pakistan to help remove sitting Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, it is treason. Opposing an opponent should be with certain principles, we can even afford to have disagreements with our Government or an authority therein, but to effectuate a coup with foreign intervention is nothing a ruthless treason. This is something needs to be taken seriously and the seditionist be taken to task.
Then comes the unpopular section of Indian Penal Code i.e. section 124 A. The draft of the section goes like; “Sedition.-Whoever by words, either spoken or writ-ten, 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, or with fine.
Section 124A was a part of first published draft of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was in year 1870, that sedition was defined in IPC via incorporation of section 124A in IPC. Even Mahatma Gandhi was charged under this section for his ar-ticles in Young India Magazine. It is said that Mahatma Gandhi famously de-nounced this section in court and said : “section 124A under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of citizen”. This can’t be denied that even today section 124A is used as a tool to harass few and rest scoot through easily. Geelani addresses a huge gathering somewhere in Kashmir and says “Hum Pakistani hain, Pakistani hamara hai” no case under sedition gets registered against him but in year 2012 when a cartoonist, Aseem Trivedi who as a disgruntled youth made a cartoon highlighting the level of corruption prevailing in the country at that time gets booked under section 124A of IPC and then gets jailed. So, the selective usage of this section of IPC warrants its misuse therefore deserves another introspection. Even Law Commission of India had in a consultation paper very popularly said; ” Speaking against government is not sedition, right to offend and criticise history is free speech”. Prime Minister Nehru had once described this section as “highly objectionable and obnoxious”.
But when I am saying that the section 124A is misused, it does not mean I am calling for it’s scrapping, what needs to be done is to redefine sedition. Speaking against policies of a Government or any leader can never be sedition, hate for a political set up can’t also be sedition, even contempt for a Government can’t be sedition. It is a harsher dissent but when someone says; “Bharat tere tukde honge, Inshallah, Inshallah!”. It is high time the term sedition needs to be rede-fined and the scope of its application be exhaustively explained or this section will be misused as a political tool to silence some a dissenting voices in the socie-ty which is drastic and a blot to modern India.
(The author is an advocate & a political and legal analyst)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel