It's easy, brand them anti-national

Section 124 A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the
political sections of the Indian Penal Code
designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen
– Mahatma Gandhi, March 18, 1922

Hardik Patel is neither a superhero nor an inspiring leader with an inclusive vision who could usher in change. The 23-year-old’s claim to fame is through his leadership of a series of protests for quota for his community, a demand that several think is unreasonable. Possibly, there could be no argument over these arguments. But Gujarat government has bestowed him an honour! It has bracketed him with a galaxy of luminaries – from countless freedom fighters to protesters of people’s causes by making him face the wrath of sedition charges. Patel would not be too unhappy over the charge as he is in an august company.

The Gujarat Police slapped sedition charges against Hardik for conspiring with his followers to pressurise government through violence to achieve their demand. His organisation’s protest was not at all non-violent. The administration had a tough time. But does it warrant slapping the most controversial section of the penal code? Is it anti-national to raise a demand, which has a provision in the Constitution? Even if the government finds the demand unreasonable, can it be seen as an affront to the country? Is the Indian Penal Code bereft of sufficient provisions to handle such situations? Several questions remain unanswered.

Patel’s example is not an isolated one. No government likes dissent. Only in February, students at Jawaharlal Nehru University faced sedition charges. Their crime was that they asked questions and stood up to authority, despite being called names. Three students spent some weeks in jail on charges of sedition. In January, Rohith Vemula, a young Dalit scholar, committed suicide in Hyderabad Central University after a long fight over his suspension. Technically, he was not charged under sedition, but was dubbed anti-national. His crime was that he criticised the status quo and questioned the execution of a terror convict based on his principled stand on death penalty.

If the first two months of 2016 was a testing time for the country’s student community, activist-folk singer Kovan found himself an anti-national in October last year. A song criticising Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa landed him in the soup. The police lost no time in slapping charges of sedition on the 54-year-old singer for questioning Jayalalithaa’s intent on alcohol prohibition. The song had gone viral as Kovan asked the government how wine shops are open when schools are shut. Any criticism is anathema for those in power.

In Tamil Nadu, Kovan is not alone. There were reports of around 8,000 villagers being slapped with sedition charges in late 2011 and early 2012. They believed that the Kudankulam nuclear plant was a recipe for disaster. Under the leadership of S P Udayakumar, they mobilised people and took on the government. The easy way was slapping sedition charge. The figure of 8,000 may be an exaggeration, but several leaders like Udayakumar are facing sedition charges.

Like the Kudankulam protesters, now the NGOs face charge of acting against national interest when they raised issues related to environment protection and tribal rights. Young cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, too, faced trouble for his not-so-flattering depiction of national emblems during the anti-corruption agitation in 2012. No time was wasted on slapping sedition but the judiciary was quick to give him relief. The court felt he could be accused maximum of drawing artistically tasteless cartoons but sedition was too much.
Another prominent case was that of activist-doctor Binayak Sen. He was in jail for years and finally got justice from the Supreme Court.

The government is forcefully assuming the ownership of national interest and the masses have no say in it. A large majority has no stake in defining national interest. Even if someone tries to deviate through legitimate means, they face the ignominy of being branded anti-national. The custodians of national interest are now part of a private limited company. The Ministry of Home Affairs, too, acknowledges that as per existing provisions, one could be charged under sedition even for a legitimate democratic activity like criticising the government. But a review is a distant dream. 

Independent India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru might have opined in 1951 that the “highly objectionable and obnoxious” sedition provision should one day go. However, Section 124(A) has now become the easiest tool to terrorise people. The characteristics of people in power have not changed. It remains as crude as during the colonial rule.

The state wants to crush the will of the people. It wants subservient citizens. Nobody would like a jail term and this fear of the masses is used against them. It is easy to brand someone a traitor. Former prime minister Indira Gandhi used the “anti-national” bogey whenever she found it convenient. During the UPA regime, Kudankulam protesters and others became the target and during Narendra Modi’s time, the scene is no different.