Regardless of the Cost, Dissent Must Continue Post JNU Controversy

In JNU crackdown, Modi government sought to stifle a conception of nation other than its own, writes Suhit K Sen.

‘Nationalists’ have been emboldened to assault those who construe the idea of the nation, or nationalism in a different vein. (Photo: The Quint)

In Delhi, the pot simmers as the nationalism/anti-nationalism ‘debate’ keeps flaring up. It began with the arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University students’ union, on sedition charges. It continued when he was beaten up by lawyers on the court premises. And later, while Kumar got conditional bail, two other students – Anirban Bhattacharya and Umar Khaled – were arrested on the same charges and have only just got bail. Finally, a committee appointed by the university has recommended that five students, including the three mentioned above, be expelled and has proposed other penalties for a number of students.

There are two facets of the debate. The first involves points of fact. What was the extent of involvement of those against whom action was taken in organising the meeting in which some people raised slogans protesting the execution of Afzal Guru, who had been convicted for his involvement in the attack on Parliament, and advocating the dismemberment of India? And, did the three students who were arrested raise such slogans?

JNU students participate in a march organised to press for their demands in New Delhi, on March 15, 2016. (Photo: IANS)

The simple answer to these questions is that the university authorities and the agencies of the state do not know the answer to either question, especially given the demonstrated fact that video clips unearthed to prove their involvement were doctored. The inescapable conclusion is that the police acted in haste, without investigating the incident before making the arrests. In doing so, they were clearly instigated by complaints made by a BJP MP who was himself pushing an agenda driven by the party’s student wing – the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad.

Fault Lines Exposed

The second facet involves the question of a fundamental right guaranteed to all Indian citizens – the right to freedom of speech and expression and by extension the right to form, hold and be able to vent opinions. The JNU incident exposes once more a fundamental fault-line in Indian political and public life. One side of the divide is represented par excellence, though not exclusively, by the BJP and the Sangh Parivar; the other is represented by liberal and left-leaning opinion, which may or may not have party affiliation.

Since coming to power at the Centre, the BJP has been pushing its ideological agenda in a manner not entirely unanticipated. Thus, while the top leadership either remains silent or murmurs occasionally, others from the party, including ministers, make provocative statements even to the point of inciting actions that celebrate the Hindu majoritarian view of what the Indian nation ought to be with the express purpose of intimidating the minorities, mainly the Muslims.

Though the minorities are the primary targets, the effect of this campaign to enshrine at the heart of the political process a muscular Hindu nationalism is felt by all those who do not subscribe to it. Kumar and his comrades are examples, but there are many of their ilk across the country. In the case of the JNU incident, for instance, there has been a frenetic attempt to create an atmosphere in which it becomes difficult for people to support the positions or predicament of the arrested students.

JNU students participate in a march organised to press for their demands in New Delhi, on March 15, 2016. (Photo: IANS)

Review of Sedition Law

• JNU incident has exposed the stark ideological difference between the right led by the BJP and the left faction.
  
• Few leaders from the ruling party including ministers don’t shy away from making provocative statements with an aim to intimidate the minorities.
  
• In case of JNU, there has been an attempt to create an atmosphere in which it becomes difficult to support the arrested students.
  
• Sedition law may be under review but law in itself cannot provide a political environment in which dissent is accepted as normal.
  

Nationalist Notion

Obviously, not everyone concurs with the BJP’s version of majoritarian nationalism. Many do not even sign up for the diluted version of nationalism that seems to emerge from the JNU case. To put it simply, not everyone believes that any criticism of the establishment amounts to a betrayal of the nation as conceived on the statist register.

Thus, for instance, BJP leaders and others have argued that meetings and rallies protesting Afzal Guru’s execution warrants action because it amounts to criticism of a Supreme Court judgement. Far from being illegal, such criticism is actually normal. What the establishment is actually trying to do is intimidate any interrogation of what is conceived of as the sacrosanct and unitary conception of the nation and, therefore, nationalism.

Thus, for instance, if someone were to advocate the idea that the Kashmiri people (or the Nagas) have the right to self-determination and consequently the right to constitute themselves into a sovereign nation it would be read as ‘anti-national’ and, therefore, seditious, thereby inviting prosecution and imprisonment under a colonial-era law.

JNU student assemble near Mandi House to participate in a protest rally in New Delhi, on March 15, 2016. (Photo: IANS)

Right to Dissent

Very recently the government conceded that this law is anachronistic and has too wide an ambit. It has referred it for review to the Law Commission. Amending or replacing this law is just one step in the right direction. By itself it will not, however, give the ‘nation’ a political environment in which dissent is accepted as normal and can thrive.

For, it is not just a matter of laws. ‘Nationalists’ have been emboldened to assault those who construe the idea of the nation, or nationalism, in a different vein not just because they have the backing of law but because they reckon that given the current political climate they can afford to do so. They have the patronage of the political establishment. This is primarily a political not a legal issue, though the latter is salient as well.

The unfortunate thing is that the blocked channels of dissent are not likely to unclog themselves in the foreseeable future. For that to happen, those mindful of dissenting must continue to do so, whatever the cost.

(The writer is a Kolkata-based freelance journalist and researcher.)

Also read:

‘Mother India’ Hysteria: Patriotism or Political Ploy?