For Modi sarkar, anyone who dissents needs to be crushed
On February 9, 1933, 10 days after Hitler became the chancellor of Germany, the Oxford Union debated that in an event of war should the union join the efforts of the country? 275 votes to 153, the motion that "This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country" won. This invoked several reactions: of support, of opposition, and of even a shock; but none came, in the form of a government action let alone a charge of "sedition".
That was more than eighty years ago.
Fast forward to this century. In an event organised at JNU campus a group of students chanted slogans in support of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat, calling them martyrs, and questioned the Supreme court ruling which gave them death sentence. There was also anti-India sloganeering at the campus. In an action against it, Delhi police arrested JNU students union president Kanhaiya Kumar charging him with the notorious 124-A, sedition.
JNU is not the only institution that has been oppressed by using coercive power of the state in this government's two-year term: be it IIT-Madras' Periyar Study Circle, IIFT or Dalit students of University of Hyderabad. The pattern is apparent; anyone who doesn't fall in line needs to be crushed.
Irrelevance not oppression, engagement not sedition
A democracy's essential feature is its right to dissent. The ability to question the norm and the collective without fear or intimidation constitute a strong free society. Any idea as abhorrent as it may appear needs be put on the table. Absurd ideas that, according to you, do not have place in the society need to be made irrelevant with your own ideas but are not to be oppressed with force. If people don't like them, they will die down anyway. That is how nations are born, evolved and eventually strengthened. Our own country gained independence with free speech as a critical tool.
A student's mind, especially, in a free society must be allowed to engage with every idea across spectrum. They must be given the freedom and space to push the envelop within their own ideals and principles. We - as a collective - must have faith in the founding principles of the country that they will find the balance. The youth of the nation have not disappointed us; they have always found that balance. We have had problems as a democracy but treason has never been one.
There are countless examples of how free societies around the world have dealt with dissent or even secessionist movements. I follow a Spanish football club FC Barcelona (I hope that's not seditious). In El Clasico, a game between FC Barcelona and the team from the capital Real Madrid, there are almost always big banners saying "Catalunia is not Spain". To understand its enormity, it is analogous to having "Maharashtra is not India" banners in a high pitch cricket match between Mumbai and Delhi. There are several other examples such as, the Young American's protest against their own country's involvement in Vietnam War and Iraq. Open proclamations of succession in Scotland, Wales, etc. are also well known. A free society has always allowed such voices, as it should.
In an article in Economic times, Aman Sharma cites an incident of 2010 on how P Chidambaram managed to engage with the crowd which showed black flags to him. He further adds, "Without any overt drama of raids and arrests inside one of the country's premier educational institutions, the government of the day achieved something significant: engagement with the students with a firm and articulate senior representative of the government."
People may have raised anti-India slogans. They may be bad in taste, they may be are wrong, they may not go down with your idea of reverence of Bharat Mata. So what? A patriot's love for the country doesn't get affected by sloganeering against it. Not one bit. A vibrant democracy such as India holds the ability to allow such voices without endorsing its content. There is no difference between what they do in Pakistan in the name of blasphemy, and what you're doing in the name of sedition.
Ownership of patriotism
There is an increasing phenomenon of classifying citizenry, forcing them to make a choice - even when they don't wish to. You're either with us or you're against us, you're reduced to binaries. Not just that, tags such as traitor, anti-national, which you would not have fathomed earlier are now thrown in a flash. It seems that the BJP and the ideology it propagates is bent on allowing only their version of Indianness Bharteeyta as valid while every other way is unacceptable.
In the midst of this noise, the essential question that gets overlooked is, what kind of environment are we creating? Who gave you the right to define patriotism and question someone based on your definition? Dissent, if it is intertwined with "nationalistic" ideas is a slippery slope, for one man's sedition is another's patriotism. For some, patriotism is glorification of their country, to sing paeans of its history. For others, it is act of criticising and challenging the inner conscience within the society by raising uncomfortable questions.
Does that make some people less Indian than others?
If few people chanting slogans threaten your patriotism, then problem doesn't lie with them. There is a feeling of insecurity that doesn't glorify a nation as great as India. It's time for you to introspect and let go of it.
I was feeling a little patriotic today, so I read the preamble of India, a shorter version of it says:
"We, the people of India, resolve to secure to all its citizens:
justice, social, economic and political;
liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;"
The part which mentioned liberty made me think. Again. And again.