JOIN USGujarat’s young rebel Hardik Patel is learning the hard way, which is that taking on the Bharatiya Janata Party in the state can land him in serious trouble. Hardik Patel, who is a Patidar, led the campaign demanding reservations for his community. The Patidars, popularly called the Patels, are a dominant caste and have been big supporters of the BJP for several years. Hardik disrupted the cosy relationship and caused much worry in the BJP camp over his agitation. Unfortunately for Hardik, the government has slapped two sedition cases on him as a result of which he is cooling his heels in jail since October 18.
Hardik’s case needs to be viewed from a larger perspective. Simply put, if anyone dares to take on the government, all that needs to be done is slap a case of sedition and neutralise the protest. With Hardik out of the way, under Gujarat Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, the BJP hopes it can woo the Patels back to its camp. Hardik’s case is a clear instance of increasing intolerance across the board. Sedition cases are being slapped on people using the flimsiest of pretexts – for satire against a chief minister (as in the case of folk singer Kovan in Tamil Nadu), for criticising the Supreme Court judgment on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (against Finance Arun Jaitley which was quashed) and for expressing discomfiture over increasing tolerance (against actor Aamir Khan), to name a few. The sedition law was introduced by the British to quell the independence movement. Ironically, even the British used it sparingly. According to Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code, an individual can be charged with sedition only if his/her speech “attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government”. The Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that only speech which incites violence against the government is liable to be prosecuted as seditious.
The key point is that if the state uses sedition against an individual, he or she is liable to be incarcerated for a long time. Whether the charge is proved or not becomes irrelevant as the immediate purpose is served, which is to take the individual out of action and break the intensity of the protest, whatever that might be. Hardik’s case, and that of the others, is an eye-opener for those interested in safeguarding the right to free expression and democratic protest. The Modi government had promised to repeal colonial-era laws irrelevant in today’s India. The sedition law must be among the first to go, if Prime Minister Narendra Modi intended to walk the talk.