How the Modi Regime Shot Itself in the Foot Over JNU Controversy

A true democracy must learn to live with views that run against the tide of mainstream opinion, says Abheek Barman

Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code was written in 1860, 87 years before India won independence from her British rulers: it is the law of sedition. On February 9, Kanhaiya Kumar, a native of Bihar’s Begusarai district, who is the president of the students’ union at Delhi elite Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was arrested by police and charged with this offence.

It is almost certain that he will never be convicted by any court. But because the sedition charge is non-bailable, he might spend a few nights in jail at the taxpayers’ expense.

Kumar is in august company: Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mohandas Gandhi were both imprisoned under the same law. In court Gandhi welcomed his arrest, arguing that since sedition amounted to expressing “disaffection against the state” he was honoured. He had no affection for the dispensation that ran the colonial state.

Kumar could argue likewise. The circumstances of his arrest are murky. In the days that have passed, it has become clear that the BJP government in power at the Centre, especially home minister Rajnath Singh, who controls Delhi’s policing, are trying to hound young people who disagree with Hindutva out of campuses.

The Obnoxious Law

• Section 124 (A) of the Indian Penal Code was written in 1860 which is the law of sedition.
  
• In a series of judgments, SC has ruled that someone can be convicted for ‘sedition’ only if words are accompanied by violence.
  
• Kanhaiya Kumar, president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University students’ union, was charged and arrested under the sedition law.
  
• Kanhaiya’s arrest gave much ammunition to the claim that the BJP-run administration was intent on creating social discord and intolerance.
  
• Liberal intellectuals have been repelled by the attack on students and muzzling of dissent on campus.
  

Muzzling Free Speech

On February 9, Kumar – whose political allegiance is with AISF, the students’ wing of the Communist Party of India (CPI) – attended a function to mark the anniversary of the hanging of Afzal Guru, convicted for assisting attackers who stormed India’s Parliament in 2001.

The administration says that anti-India and pro-Pakistan slogans were raised during this meeting, where the predominantly-Left student body of JNU squared off against hecklers from the ABVP, the students’ wing of the BJP.

It is unclear exactly who shouted those slogans. Video footage telecast by broadcaster Zee News claimed to have identified the sloganeers as members of the ABVP, planted among the agitators to provoke a reaction from the state.

The police claim it is testing the authenticity of this – and other clips – of the incident.

After the sloganeering got over, Kumar and his supporters got together and the JNUSU president gave an impassioned speech where he unambiguously expressed his allegiance to the Constitution of India, fathered by people like Bhimrao Ambedkar.

He attacked the ABVP and BJP, which said were trying to foist another ‘constitution’ on people, one drafted in “Nagpur and Jhandewalan.” Nagpur is the headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), parent of the BJP and some three dozen other organisations; Jhandewalan is where the RSS’ Delhi office is located.

Kumar spoke about the poor and disadvantaged and claimed that the current dispensation in Delhi had no time for them. It is necessary to listen to this speech, before jumping to the conclusion that Kumar is ‘anti-national.’

In any case, in a series of judgments delivered from 1950, the Supreme Court has said that someone can be convicted for ‘sedition’ only if words are accompanied by violence or direct incitement to violence.

Kumar’s words, above, contain neither. Instead he makes a rousing appeal for nationalism that abides by the letter and spirit of the Constitution – democracy, equality, free speech and justice for all. If the BJP establishment thinks these views are anti-national, it will have to invent a warped version of nationalism that represents the interests of a tiny, Hindi-Hindu-upper caste only.

The Right to Dissent

In a democracy, the right to dissent and argue is a given. Without constant questioning, societies risk stagnation as the dead weight of the status quo drags down all progress. A true democracy must learn to live with views that run against the tide of mainstream opinion: and yes, that includes painting Afzal Guru as a martyr, or someone who got an especially raw deal from India’s prosecution system.

The JNU episode has – and will have – several unintended consequences for the ruling establishment.

One, it has added much ammunition to the claim, made by opposition parties, artists, intellectuals and civil society, that the BJP-run administration was intent on creating social discord and intolerance. What better example than cops barging into an iconic campus and muzzling the rights of kids to have their say?

Two, it will galvanise unity among opposition parties like the Congress, Left and Delhi’s own Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The optics of Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi sharing a platform with Left leaders at JNU were impossible to miss.

Three, the JNU episode is almost certain to scupper the Budget session of Parliament which begins February 23. Apart from the Finance Bill, there is little or no chance of getting any meaningful legislation passed.

Four, it exposes the hollowness of the BJP’s claim as the only upholder of ‘nationalism’ in India.

Today, it is jailing students who expressed sympathy for Afzal Guru. Less than 24 months ago, it had no compunction while forming a government in Jammu and Kashmir with the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Its founder, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who died January 7, was outspoken in defence of Guru. The PDP-BJP coalition, already shaky before the JNU incident, is now in tatters.

Finally, India’s liberal intellectuals, some of who were earlier willing to cut some slack for the Narendra Modi-led regime in New Delhi, have been repelled by the attack on students and muzzling of dissent on campus.

On Monday, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who heads the Centre for Policy Research, a Delhi-based think tank, began his column thus: “The arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar and the crackdown on political dissent at JNU suggest that we are living under a government that is both rabidly malign and politically incompetent.” It is headed, “An act of tyranny”.

(The writer is a Delhi-based senior journalist)