Confusing national interest with nationalism helps India's enemies
Your freedom ends where my nose begins. That is what "reasonable restriction" to free speech means: Say and do what you want as long as you don't break the law - or impinge on others' freedom.
Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. Incitement is its death knell. In India, however, dissent often crosses the red line into incitement. Insurgent groups have many benefactors: Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, Maoists, Kashmiri separatists.
They instigate dissent with the hope that it will morph into violence and anarchy. The key for any government is to differentiate between dissent and incitement.
By treating both with the same heavy hand, it plays into the narrative of those who want violence and not debate. The "anti-national" controversy is a red herring. Journalists opposed to the government are not anti-national. But some of the causes they espouse are. The relationship between journalists and politicians is, by definition, adversarial. The fourth estate must be a watchdog, not a lapdog.
Instigators
In the debate over "anti-nationals", the real anti-nationals escape scrutiny. They are the hidden instigators and their reach is both wide and malignant. They include a relatively small section of students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
The Modi government made a mistake treating all students in the JNU crackdown with the same bludgeon. That gave the real culprits - those who seek to weaken India, not just engage in dissent - the pretext they were looking for.
The obvious error was using the draconian law of sedition against the president of the JNU Students' Union Kanhaiya Kumar. That elevated a students' protest into an anti-government movement - exactly what the instigators wanted.
Sedition is a serious matter. It should be invoked in the rarest of rare cases. A colonial-era law aimed at curtailing Indian freedom fighters against the British, it has no place in an independent country.
Fortunately, the courts agreed. As jurist Fali Nariman wrote in The Indian Express last week: "In 1962, when a challenge was made to the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition as incorporated in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court held that it preferred to follow the more liberal interpretation of the term 'sedition' as given by the Federal Court in 1942 rather than the pedantic and strictly 'colonial' interpretation of 'sedition' rendered in the Privy Council opinion of 1947. As a consequence, 'sedition' in India is not unconstitutional, it remains an offence only if the words, spoken or written, are accompanied by disorder and violence. Mere hooliganism, disorder and other forms of violence, though punishable under other provisions of the penal code and under other laws, are not punishable under Section 124A of the penal code."
Sedition
One of the publications in my media group, Sterling Newspapers, carried a cover story by our national affairs editor, Harish Mehta, on the Khalistani agitation. In the course of the story, Harish interviewed a terrorist, Rajinder Kaur, who made "seditious" remarks against a then serving prime minister.
Within weeks of the cover story being published, the home ministry issued us a notice. An FIR was filed. We were accused of sedition. The offence carries capital punishment. All of us were charged: Myself as editor-in-chief and publisher, my national affairs editor Harish Mehta and the terrorist Rajinder Kaur.
We got a stay on the trial from the Delhi High Court. Eventually, the stay was vacated and the trial began in the Patiala House Court complex - where the trial of Kanhaiya Kumar could be held unless the Delhi High Court, following his bail hearing next Monday, quashes the case.
We thought were lucky. Our defence rested on a journalist's right to convey the truth without inciting violence. We had an outstanding judge in the trial court.
Despite a dozen visits to Patiala House Court between 2009-11, including deliberate adjournments by government lawyers, the case was thrown out. We received a clean acquittal.
Vigilance
The charge of sedition against Kanhaiya is unjustified. He has been used as a pawn by vested interests. While attention is focused on him, real culprits like Umar Khalid may get away. They are instigated by groups whose raison d'etre is anti-Indianism.
The "anti-national" debate over Kanhaiya confuses real issues. First, anti-national elements will use every opportunity to weaken India's unity. The government must target these treacherous elements in India and outside - but not students who are their sacrificial goats. To book rogue students, the Indian Penal Code has sufficient provisions. Sedition isn't one of them.
Second, don't let anti-nationals control the narrative. They know India is too big and stable to be damaged beyond a point. Their aim is disruption, not destruction. Deal with them with clinical precision.
Third, use the law of sedition sparingly - on those who incite violence and advocate the overthrow of the state - not on sloganeering students. It's counter-productive.
Nationalism can't be forced upon citizens.
By definition, it is voluntary. Much more important is national interest. That needs protection and constant vigilance. Confusing nationalism with national interest allows the enemies of India to hide behind a veil provided by overwrought students and their instigators.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)