Stop making sedition accusation casually

The recent statement by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat that India achieved “true independence” only with the consecration of the Ram temple at Ayodhya is problematic at multiple levels. Bhagwat’s remark, made during a speech at Indore, amounts to a serious undermining of India’s freedom struggle and its national movement, which culminated in its independence from colonial powers on August 15, 1947. His statement contradicts the very adoption of India’s Constitution, which has at its core democratic, federal, and secular principles. The Indian Republic was founded on the Constitution; the enduring significance of the document was evident during its 75th anniversary celebrations in November last year that transcended party lines.

Bhagwat’s statement would seem to suggest that he does not accept our times as a period of true independence. The RSS has, in the past, had reservations about the Constitution. Do those reservations exist now? India is a secular country, and it cannot accept the building of a temple as a marker of its independence, though it may be considered a political landmark by parties and organisations. The RSS chief would also be seen as party to a larger attempt to rewrite the country's history. Opposition parties have condemned the statement. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has termed it “shameful,” and Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee has described it as “anti-national”. Demands for legal action have also been raised. The import of Bhagwat’s words has been ignored in the intense political exchanges that followed, with the ruling BJP and its allies training guns on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his statement— made in response to Bhagwat —  that his party was “fighting the BJP, the RSS, and the Indian State itself”. The Congress leader’s comment has attracted accusations of sedition and attempts to debilitate the country. An FIR has also been registered against him in Assam in connection with the matter. The distinction in political science between the State, the nation, and the government is not always easily comprehensible. As the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul cannot claim ignorance about the distinction between outraging against a government and countering the State. However, it should be clear that in this situation, he meant the government.

The row and the political heat it is generating could prove a setback for the opposition I.N.D.I.A bloc, already reeling under internal strife, as it tries to take the fight to the BJP. These are times when statements by Opposition leaders, especially Congress leaders, are often dubbed seditious and anti-national. Sedition and anti-national conduct are among the worst crimes in the statute. In a democracy, they should not be invoked so casually to further political primacy.