The ruling coalition—the Maha Yuti alliance comprising the Shinde Shiv Sena, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Ajit Pawar’s National Congress Party—has come under scrutiny for its ties to many of these incidents, with local leaders and affiliates implicated in attacks, intimidation, and censorship. These actions point to a growing intolerance for criticism and opposition, particularly against those who dare to report or speak out on politically sensitive issues. Maharashtra, long celebrated for its robust economic stature and industrial might, now faces an identity crisis as it grapples with the question: can it retain its democratic spirit under a regime increasingly willing to punish dissent?

Journalists have borne the brunt of this hostility, facing threats, physical assaults, and even murder. In 2023, the shocking death of Shashikant Warishe, a journalist in Ratnagiri, who was run over after publishing a critical report linking a BJP-affiliated land broker to political elites, underscores the risks that Maharashtra’s press faces today. Meanwhile, activists protesting environmental degradation and displacement, as well as students voicing concerns over academic freedom, have encountered police harassment, legal intimidation, and restrictions that send a clear message: criticism of the state’s policies will not be tolerated.

As the election nears, Maharashtra’s citizens are at the crossroads. For a state that prides itself on its industrial strength and democratic values, these growing restrictions pose an existential challenge. The upcoming polls are not only about choosing the next set of leaders but about deciding the kind of society Maharashtra aspires to be—one that respects democratic freedoms and protects the rights of its citizens or one that endorses a politics of fear and control. The choice before voters has seldom been clearer or more consequential, as the future of free speech, accountability, and the right to dissent hangs in the balance.

1. Mounting threats to journalists and press freedom

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Killing

1. 06.02.2023: Shashikant Warishe, mowed down by Pandarinath Amberkar (land broker close to BJP) , Rajapur, Ratnagiri district

Attacks

1. 09.08.2023: Journalist Sandip Mahajan attacked by supporters of the local MLA Kishor Appa Patil (Shiv Sena Shinde )
2. 09.02.2024: Senior journalist Nikhil Wagle,lawyer Asim Sarode, activists Vishwambhar Choudhar and Shreya Awale and driver Vaibhav Kothule attacked by BJP and Shiv Sena (Shinde) workers
3. 21.10.2024: Political leader Yogendra Yadav attacked by Vanchit Bahujana Aghadi workers and prevented from speaking, Akola, Maharastra

Threats

1. 27.04.2024: Journalist Sukhda Sadanand Purav threatened by supporters of Union Minister and BJP’s Mumbai North Lok Sabha candidate Piyush Goyal
2. 14.05.2024: Journalist threatened by BJP state spokesperson Shrish Boralkar, BJP Scheduled Caste cell state general secretary Jalinder Shendge and the BJP state executive member Anil Makariye
3. 20.08.2024: Journalist Mohini Jadhav covering the Badlapur rape case, threatened by Waman Mhatre, former Mayor of Badlapur (Shiv Sena Shinde)”

In Maharashtra, the chilling effect on press freedom is undeniable, with recent incidents revealing the grave risks journalists face in reporting the truth. One of the most harrowing incidents was the murder of journalist Shashikant Warishe on February 6, 2023, in Ratnagiri. Warishe was deliberately run down by Pandarinath Ambekar, a land broker known for his close connections with the ruling BJP. Warishe’s last article had shed light on Ambekar’s alleged involvement in controversial land deals tied to high-ranking politicians, including the Chief Minister. Hours after the article was published, Ambekar had allegedly attacked Warishe in a brazen display of intimidation meant to silence dissent. This brutal killing laid bare the high cost of reporting on politically sensitive issues in Maharashtra, where exposing inconvenient truths can cost a journalist their life.

The climate of impunity extends further, as seen in the assault on Pachora journalist Sandip Mahajan in Jalgaon district on August 9, 2023. Mahajan was attacked in broad daylight by supporters of local Shinde Shiv Sena MLA Kishor Appa Patil. Despite serious injuries, Mahajan encountered bureaucratic resistance when he tried to file a First Information Report (FIR). His struggle highlighted the systemic bias that protects those with political connections and discourages journalists from challenging power.

Threats against journalists have become a common tool to control narratives. In April 2024, Sukhda Sadanand Purav, a journalist who covered Union Minister Piyush Goyal, received menacing messages from BJP affiliates, pressuring her to retract critical articles. In May 2024, three BJP officials, including state spokesperson Shrish Boralkar, allegedly threatened another journalist for unfavourable coverage. A similar incident in August saw former Badlapur mayor Waman Mhatre intimidate journalist Mohini Jadhav for her reports on a local rape case. Such acts send a chilling signal that political commentary comes with personal risk, eroding the very foundation of an independent press.

2. Rising intimidation and censorship in academia

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Censorship in academia

1. 08.06.2023: Professor forced to go on leave after students owing allegiance to hindutva groups protest her comments on rapists having no religion, Kolhapur Institute of Technology, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur
2. Jan 28, 2023: Advisory issued to Students At Mumbai’s TISS against screening of BBC Series On PM Modi, screening held despite warning
3. 18.04. 2024: TISS suspends Dalit PhD student for 2 years for ‘anti-national activities’
4. 19.08.2024: TISS Ban on student body Progressive Students’ Forum, revoked after student protests
5. 20.09.2024: TISS convocation: students protest suspension of Dalit pupil, sacking of teachers, student Arghya Das forcibly removed and degree certificate withheld
6. Oct 20, 2024: TISS issues showcause notice to assistant prof over viral protest video” 

Academic institutions, often pillars of intellectual freedom, have also been deeply affected by the [partisan and oppressive environment prevailing in the country. In particular, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai has faced growing pressure to limit political discourse and protest, acting on which they have targeted Adivasi and Dalits scholars. On April 18, 2024, TISS took the drastic step of suspending a Dalit Ph.D. student, namely  Ramadas Prini Sivanandan, for alleged “anti-national activities,” citing his participation in student protests against government policies. The decision stirred widespread outrage on campus, with students calling it an abuse of administrative power to stifle dissent. The tension came to a head at TISS’s convocation in September, when students staged a protest demanding justice for the suspended student and for faculty members dismissed under similar circumstances. When Arghya Das, a graduating student, raised a placard during the ceremony, security forces forcibly removed him, withheld his degree, and detained him. These actions show how academic institutions in Maharashtra are increasingly becoming battlegrounds for free expression and political dissent.

Outside of TISS, other academic figures face similar repression. In June 2023, a professor at the Kolhapur Institute of Technology was placed on “forced leave” after responding to derogatory comments made by students affiliated with Hindutva groups. When she stated that “rapists have no religion,” her remarks went viral in a heavily edited form, fuelling a backlash from right-wing organisations that pressured the institution to remove her. This case underscores how ideological factions are working to shape the narrative within classrooms, using intimidation to limit critical discourse on topics of social justice.

3. The crackdown on activism and environmental protests

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Censorship of peoples’ protests, activists

1. January-March 2023: Detentions and externment orders of villagers and activists protesting Saudi-Aramco refinery in Barsu-Solgaon region, Ratnagiri
2. November 2023-March 2024 : Externment notice and proceedings against Aarey activist Tabrez Sayed, Mumbai
3. Oct 6, 2024: Rally Held in Mumbai Against Israel’s Aggression, Notices Issued to Organisers

Lawfare

1. 11.07.2024: Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, tabled in the Monsoon session of the Vidhan Sabha, draconian provisions against dissent and public protests; bill lapsed”

Beyond academia, Maharashtra’s crackdown on dissent extends to environmental and social activists. In Ratnagiri, protests against a Saudi-Aramco refinery in Barsu-Solgaon saw a wave of detentions and legal intimidation beginning in January 2023. Villagers and activists opposed the refinery due to fears of environmental degradation, displacement, and health hazards. In response, the government imposed externment orders, effectively banning key activists from their own villages, while deploying police forces to suppress protests. The government’s tactics not only disrupted peaceful demonstrations but sought to stifle dissent by removing activists from their communities.

The repressive approach continued with the case of Tabrez Sayed, a central figure in Mumbai’s Save Aarey movement, who was served multiple legal notices for his role in protests against the destruction of the Aarey forest. The planned metro construction in Aarey would decimate significant green space and displace indigenous communities, yet activists like Sayed faced mounting legal threats and harassment for voicing environmental concerns.

In July 2024, the Maharashtra government took a decisive step to institutionalise this repression by introducing the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill. Introduced by Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis, the bill ostensibly aimed to counter “urban naxals” but granted sweeping powers to the state to curb any form of organised protest. If passed, the bill would allow authorities to detain activists, seize assets, and dismantle movements deemed to threaten public order. Though it was not enacted, there is widespread concern that if the Mahayuti coalition retains power, the bill will resurface, providing legal cover for the clampdown on activism and free expression across the state.

4. Judiciary’s response: A mixed outcome

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Court cases

1. 22.08.2024: The bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Shyam C. Chandak of the Bombay High Court terms the arrest of journalist Abhijit Arjun Padale I January 2022 as illegal, awards compensation
2. 20.09.2024: Justice A.S. Chandurkar of the Bombay High Court delivered a “tie breaker” judgment in the case of Kunal Kamra and Ors. v. Union of India wherein he struck down the amendment to Rule 3 (1)(b)(v) (“Impugned Rule”) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (“IT Rules 2023”), seeking to set up a Fact Check Unit (“FCU”) to fact check content on social media, as unconstitutional.
3. 07.03.2024: Supreme Court quashes criminal charges against Javed Ahmed Hajam, professor at Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur district who hails from Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir, for his WhatsApp status describing abrogation of Article 370 as a ‘Black Day’”

Amid these escalating threats to freedom of expression, the judiciary has occasionally acted as a safeguard. In a landmark case on September 20, 2024, the Bombay High Court declared unconstitutional an amendment within the Information Technology Rules that sought to establish a government-controlled Fact Check Unit to monitor social media. This decision, protecting online freedom of speech, was widely seen as a victory against excessive government surveillance.

Another judicial victory came in March 2024 when the Supreme Court quashed criminal charges against Javed Ahmed Hajam, a professor originally from Jammu and Kashmir working in Kolhapur, who had been charged for his WhatsApp status labelling the abrogation of Article 370 as a “Black Day.” These legal rulings underscore the judiciary’s crucial role in defending free speech, even as repressive measures intensify. However, given the scale of incidents affecting freedom of expression, these victories feel isolated within a broader context of diminishing rights.

Why the upcoming elections are critical

In Maharashtra, where economic development and social challenges coexist, the state’s stance on freedom of expression has profound implications. The forthcoming elections in Maharashtra, the voting for which will take place on November 20, represent a watershed moment for civil liberties and democratic values in the state. The Maha Yuti coalition’s tenure has seen a sharp increase in suppression of dissent, targeting journalists, activists, and academics with intimidation, legal threats, and violence. The attacks on the press, the censorship within universities, and the harassment of activists all suggest that the coalition’s governance model rests on silencing opposition. If these trends continue, they threaten to redefine the state’s relationship with free speech, casting a long shadow over Maharashtra’s future as a democratic society.

The ruling coalition’s recent actions highlight a troubling trajectory away from democratic ideals, where dissent is criminalised, and accountability becomes rare. The stakes of this election extend beyond the immediate political outcomes—it will shape the future of civil liberties, set a precedent for free expression, and either affirm or reject Maharashtra’s commitment to democratic values.

The elections present an opportunity for the people of Maharashtra to address these deepening infringements. For a state that grapples with high poverty rates, farmer suicides, and rising unemployment, the stifling of public discourse is not just an attack on individual freedoms but a barrier to addressing systemic social issues. Without a robust media and space for activism, these pressing issues will likely remain unaddressed, and the public’s capacity to hold leaders accountable will diminish.

If voters decide to support parties that pledge to protect free speech, it could signal a shift toward a governance model that values transparency and accountability. Conversely, if the current regime is re-elected, the impending revival of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill and other repressive measures could entrench authoritarianism in the state, silencing dissent for years to come.

Related:

CJP files complaint with Maharashtra Election Commission over communal posters featuring UP CM Yogi Adityanath

Pre-Election Gimmickry, Maharashtra: Mahayuti govt compelled to appropriate INDIA alliance Constitution driven call?

Despite legal promises, hate speech prosecutions in Maharashtra remain paralysed

CJP sent two preventive action complaints to Maharashtra Police

The post Maharashtra: Free speech has remained on the line of fire of the current regime, democracy on trial as state goes for election appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The said statement comes on days after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), at the behest of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued emergency order directing top social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X and Snapchat to block 177 accounts and links related to the farmers’ protest in order to maintain ‘public order’. Notably, these blocking orders were issued on February 14 and 19 and demand that specified accounts be suspended for the duration of the protest and be restored after the same is over. The statement released on the X account of Global Government Affairs touches upon the issues of the issuance of these executive orders, the writ petition against the powers of the union and the lack of transparency, which has been provided and discussed below.

Issuance of executive orders of blocking by the union government:

The statement released by the social media platform stated that “The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.  In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.”

Section 69A of the Information Act, 2000 (IT Act) empowers the union government to issue take down orders or blocking orders in India. The said legal provision states that the Union government can issue blocking orders to platforms in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and so on. These powers are being increasingly used by the Modi-led government to clamp down on any critical voices against his government and policies.

The writ petition by X Corp against these blocking orders:

In the statement released by X, it is further stated that “Consistent with our position, a writ appeal challenging the Indian government’s blocking orders remains pending. We have also provided the impacted users with notice of these actions in accordance with our policies.”

This sheds light on the ongoing legal proceedings taking place in the Karnataka High Court against the blocking orders being issued by the Union government by invoking Section 69A of the IT Act in complete darkness. On July 1, 2022, X Corp filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court after having complied with blocking orders issued by the Union government “under protest”. Through the petition, X had contested the blocking of 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets. According to the platform, the directive to block all accounts violated Section 69A and that the banning orders “demonstrate an excessive use of powers and are disproportionate” and are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision”. The platform had further argued that the Central government lacked the authority to issue general orders requesting the disabling of social media accounts and that such orders must include justifications that should be made known to users. Moreover, it also specified that only when the nature of the content complied with the requirements set forth in Section 69A of the IT Act could a blocking order be issued.

On June 30, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the said petition brought in by X Corp (then Twitter Inc.) by holding the company’s argument to be “devoid of merits.” Interestingly, the bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit had also imposed the company with a 50 lakh rupee fee to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 45 days of the judgement.

In October of 2023, the appeal preferred by X Corp against the dismissal of its plea by a single judge bench was accepted by the division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil after MeitY had informed the court that the government will not be reconsidering the blocking orders. As the appeal was accepted, the bench indicated that it would consider the issue of whether reasons of the blocking orders passed by the Ministry are to be communicated to the platform, users of the accounts. It remarked that recording reasons is mandatory.

Notably, during the January 30, 2024 hearing of the case, X Corp had argued against the Union Government review committee’s non-disclosure of its orders upholding the blocking of several posts on the platform. A Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Dinesh Kumar and Justice Shivashankare Gowda was hearing the said case. The counsel for X Corp, Sajjan Poovayya, had informed the court that with several of the blocking orders having been upheld by a review committee, the appellants were yet to be provided with a copy of the orders as they were deemed to be “secret”. It was further submitted by the counsel that as contesting such the emergency blocking orders is not easy, which is even the case in issuance of regular blocking orders, around 1,500 pieces of content were removed with a one line order. With regard to the same, the counsel questioned how the orders could be kept secret when the relevant statute stated that reasons had to be recorded. The social media giant had also raised concerns that the Review Committee had never actually met as required under Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (IT Rules).  Based upon these arguments, an Interlocutory Application (IA) had been moved by the appellants to gain access to the orders issued by the review committee upholding the blocking orders of the government, by deeming the same to be crucial to their case in contesting these government orders.

Ironically, on February 21, the union government had argued against the IA moved by the social media platform to gain access to the review committee reports by stating that they had no right to access to the same since X Corp is merely an intermediary and not the author or creator of the blocked content.

As per the government, a review of the decisions to block internet content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act serves as a safeguard against arbitrary usage of power and only the creators of the accounts or tweets can invoke this safeguard. The government further contended that review under Rule 14 of the IT Rules is an internal and independent safeguard mechanism and there exists no requirement to hear any party before passing the review orders.

“A party aggrieved by the blocking orders has the option of seeking judicial review, and has no right to insist on access to the proceedings of the Review Committee. The appellant (X Corp), being an intermediary, certainly has no locus standi to seek access to the proceedings of the Review Committee,” the counsel for the union stated as per Bar and Bench.

Lastly, during the said hearing, the government also highlighted that in the writ petition, X Corp had only challenged the blocking of 39 URLs, while through the IA it is now questioning 1,096 blocking directions. The government had also challenged this move, terming it an attempt to widen the scope of X Corp’s challenge.

The next hearing in the X Corp’s writ appeal is slated to be held by the High Court’s division bench in March 2024.

Non-publishing of the executive orders by X Corp

The statement further specifies the legal restrictions prohibiting them from publishing these executive orders and stated “Due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders, but we believe that making them public is essential for transparency. This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making.”

It is pertinent to highlight here that since 2023, pursuant to the takeover of the social media platform by Musk, X had stopped sharing takedown notices issued by the Indian government with Lumen Database, a website that collects and analyses legal complaints and requests for removal of online material. The same had been specified by Lumen Database who had said “As of April 15, 2023, Twitter has not submitted copies of any of the takedown notices it receives to Lumen. According to Lumen’s persons of contact there, Twitter’s 3rd party data sharing policies are under review, and they will update Lumen once there is more information.” 

The complete statement uploaded on Global Government Affairs can be read here:

The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.

In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however,…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) February 21, 2024

It is also essential to point out here that while the said statement has been made public by X Corp, no list with specific names against whom actions based on the executive orders have been taken is provided.

Legal provisions required compliance by X Corp to government orders

Releasing the statement while distancing itself from the oppressive censorship tactics being followed by the government marked X’s first confrontation with the Indian government since Musk took ownership of the micro-blogging platform. The existing legal structure of India is such that the social media giant can face serious consequences in case it does not comply with the orders being issued by the government in taking action, including suspension, withholding and taking down of accounts, against certain accounts or content.

The infamous section 69A of the IT Act provides that “The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” In simple words, if any intermediary, in this case X Corp, refuses to comply with the orders of the government, they may have to bear monetary fines as well as be subjected to a significant jail term. It is in this regard that in April 2023, Musk had deemed the social media laws in India to be ‘quite strict’ and that the company could not go beyond the laws of the country. Being compliant with India’s laws is better than having employees go to jail, Musk had stated as per the Economic Times.

Prior to Musk, Dorsey, who quit as Twitter CEO in 2021, had in an interview claimed that during his tenure as CEO, Twitter received requests from the Indian government to block accounts covering the 2020-2021 farmers’ protests and those critical of the government. Dorsey had also alleged that the Indian government had threatened the social networking platform with raids if it did not take down critical content during the farmers’ protests against the three farm laws.

“It manifested in ways such as: ‘We will shut Twitter down in India’, which is a very large market for us; ‘We will raid the homes of your employees’, which they did; and this is India, a democratic country,” Dorsey had said. It is important to highlight here that in the year 2021, Delhi Police’s special cell had ‘visited’ the Delhi and Gurgaon offices of Twitter, as was then known as, to serve notice to India’s managing director about an investigation into the social media giant’s tagging of a post by a ruling party spokesman, namely Sambit Patra, as “manipulated media”. While the aforementioned investigation had been used as a guise, the ‘visit’ had been a result of the current dispensation in 2021 asking Twitter to block certain provocative hashtags and the then Twitter initially gave in to the demand but it rolling back its decision citing ‘insufficient justification’.

In addition to this, the union government could also revoke X’s safe harbour that is granted to the platform under Section 79 of the IT Act. The said status protects intermediaries from being held responsible for “any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted” on its platform.

Pressure building on social media platform to bow before the Modi government

The current regime has applied increasing pressure on social media platforms to control the information as well as the criticism that circulates on social media. With mainstream media already under control, and the independent media facing cases and suspension of licences,  the right to speech and expression as well as the right to information, both guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, are threatened. By employing these repressive and oppressive steps, the Modi-led government is following the path of other autocratic countries, such as Russia, that is trying to control how and where messages can spread on social media. One should not forget that in March of 2021, the Russian government had provided that it would slow access to Twitter and in turn control one of the few places where Russians openly criticise the government.

Recently, privacy advocate Apar Gupta had taken to X to write on this issue. He had stated:

“Blocking orders for Twitter accounts of farm leaders have been issued in advance. This form of pre-censorship is without any transparency or natural justice.”

Twitter under new ownership will no longer disclose the URLs to the Lumen Database taking away any transparency. It also lost the Karnataka High Court case which employed theocratic (as opposed to constitutional) reasoning. I wrote on this separately, but that’s an aside.

The government on its part will not disclose or submit to accountability. Why block entire accounts in advance? Is the account itself illegal? It will not bother asking these questions for fewer people will ask them today than two years ago. As its march towards total power becomes menacing it commands greater levels of social compliance. Either by discipline, despondency or indoctrination. This is not surprising, what does provide anguish is the vile commentary against farmers on social media. How easy it is to forget that close to 750 protestors who lost their lives? Have we as a society lost all civility in disagreement?”

His post can be read here:

Twitter was a reliable and timely medium for farmers during their protests in 2020-21.

They issued official press releases, documented police excesses, built community and sympathy for their cause with hashtags. It became a vital informational pipeline for farmers to convey…

— Apar (@apar1984) February 13, 2024

To know about the farmers’ Protest, read here.

Related:

Farmers protest: Death of a farmer after teargas shells dropped by Haryana cops, protests intensify as 77 SM accounts banned by MEITY/MHA

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

Police Case Filed Against Woman Editor Of Magazine In Kerala

The post ‘X’ distances itself from the clampdown on freedom of expression by blocking accounts on the executive orders of the Union government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Fascists are known for their highly manipulative strategies which are meticulously planned. Top on their priority list is to throttle freedom of speech and expression, to curb every form of dissent and to do all they can to hide the plain truth and grim reality. They leave no stone unturned in order to attain their insidious ends: they threaten, they coopt, they compromise, they foist false cases, they intimidate and harass, use draconian laws like the UAPA to curb dissent; they misuse official agencies like the ED, the NIA, the CBI and even the police, to hound those who take visible and vocal stands; they incarcerate and even kill. It is not easy for journalists in India today to speak truth to power: journalism is under great duress!

It did not come as a great surprise that in the World Press Freedom Index, 2023, released last May, that India had reached an abysmal low rank of 161 out of 180 countries; slipping eleven notches from its previous ranking; freedom of the press in India is much worse than even its neighbours like Pakistan and Sri Lanka. This does not augur well for the future of democracy! Once the fourth pillar of democracy is throttled, made subservient to the whims and facies of the political masters, it does not leave much of an imagination to realise, that more than half the battle is lost.

The World Press Index 2023, says it all, as it minces no words commenting on the pathetic state of the press in India stating, “the violence against journalists, the politically partisan media and the concentration of media ownership all demonstrate that press freedom is in crisis in “the world’s largest democracy”, ruled since 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the embodiment of the Hindu nationalist right.”

The highly professional and authentically objective report continues to say, “with an average of three or four journalists killed in connection with their work every year, India is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media. Journalists are exposed to all kinds of physical violence including police violence, ambushes by political activists, and deadly reprisals by criminal groups or corrupt local officials. Supporters of Hindutva, the ideology that spawned the Hindu far right, wage all-out online attacks on any views that conflict with their thinking. Terrifying coordinated campaigns of hatred and calls for murder are conducted on social media, campaigns that are often even more violent when they target women journalists, whose personal data may be posted online as an additional incitement to violence. The situation is also still very worrisome in Kashmir, where reporters are often harassed by police and paramilitaries, with some being subjected to so-called “provisional” detention for several years.”

Where then, does Catholic journalism stand, in the wake of the onslaught that media in India in general, is subject to? Do they have the courage to exercise the prophetic mission to speak truth to power? Or have they also succumbed to the fears and duress to which media in general has fallen to? Questions which are rhetoric in nature, because the answers are obvious! By and large (barring a few notable exceptions) Catholic journalists and Catholic media in general, have abdicated their prime responsibility of speaking truth to power!

In January 2004, the General Assembly of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) held in Thrissur, Kerala, produced a path-breaking statement, ‘Called to be a Communicating Church’ in which they highlighted “that media have a prophetic role, indeed a vocation: to speak out against the false gods and ideals of the day — materialism, hedonism, consumerism and narrow nationalism”. The statement called for a Pastoral Plan for Communications which was meant to be implemented in every Diocese in India. How many of our Dioceses are today actually implementing this plan with empowered Communications Commissions (and with lay members) to monitor them? How many have spokespersons, particularly in the vernacular?

It is true that journalism today, is under duress! But should Catholic journalists also enter this comfort zone and continue with its projects, productions and ‘feel-good’ ‘sitting-on-the-fence’ communications? Don’t they have the moral and non-negotiable responsibility of responding to the cries of the poor and the vulnerable, the excluded and exploited, the marginalised and the minorities of the country? How many have written incisive articles on the reality which is destroying Manipur and the victimisation of the Muslims of Haryana? How many have written/done productions against the sedition, the UAPA and other draconian laws? the illegal incarceration of human rights defenders? the unconstitutional abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A regarding Kashmir? Has there been any concerted effort to rubbish false propaganda movies like the ‘Kashmir Files’ or the ‘Kerala Story’? the anti-conversion laws? the three farm bills and the labour codes? the monstrous and extravagant Central Vista project?  The mining mafia which is looting the country of its natural resources and denying the Adivasis of their jal, jungle aur jameen? what about the legitimate rights of the Dalits, LGBTQI and other vulnerable communities? the growing unemployment and spiralling prices? and much more? Catholic journalists must have the prophetic courage to take on the fascist and fundamentalist forces which are working overtime, to destroy the sanctity of the Constitution and the secular, pluralistic fabric of our beloved nation.

Indian Catholic journalists must take a cue from and be inspired by St Titus Brandsma. St. Titus, a Dutch Carmelite priest was a fearless, prophetic journalist. He was spiritual adviser to the Dutch Association of Catholic Journalists in 1935 and became its president after the Nazi invasion of the Netherlands. He worked with the Dutch bishops’ in crafting their message opposing Nazi ideology and the forced publication of propaganda in Catholic newspapers. Following Germany’s invasion of the Netherlands in 1940, Brandsma defended the freedom of Catholic education and the Catholic press against Nazi pressure. In the face of great risk, he visited the offices of Catholic media outlets around the country over the course of ten days, encouraging editors to resist pressure to publish Nazi propaganda. His actions drew the ire of the Nazi regime who arrested him in 1942. Several months later, he was transported to the Dachau concentration camp where he was killed by a lethal injection of carbolic acid. He had to pay the ultimate price for his visible and vocal stand against Nazim. St. John Paul II, who beatified him on 3 November 1985, defined Brandsma as a “valiant journalist” and a “martyr of freedom of expression against the tyranny of the dictatorship.”

The poem ‘Freedom’ of our Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, should inspire Catholic journalists to move into a more meaningful and fearless realm:

Freedom from fear is the freedom

I claim for you, my motherland!

Freedom from the burden of the ages, bending your head,

breaking your back, blinding your eyes to the beckoning

call of the future;

Freedom from the shackles of slumber wherewith

you fasten yourself in night’s stillness,

mistrusting the star that speaks of truth’s adventurous paths;

freedom from the anarchy of destiny

whole sails are weakly yielded to the blind uncertain winds,

and the helm to a hand ever rigid and cold as death.

Freedom from the insult of dwelling in a puppet’s world,

where movements are started through brainless wires,

repeated through mindless habits,

where figures wait with patience and obedience for the

master of show,

to be stirred into a mimicry of life.

It is certainly not easy to be a journalist in India today: one thing is clear, that if you stick your neck out, if you are visible and vocal, if you stand up for truth and justice; you will have to pay the price: and that price is heavy indeed! It is however worth it, for the future of our country!  Brandsma and Tagore show the way!

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer. He is the recipient of several international and national awards including ICPA’s ‘Louis Careno Award’ in 2021).

Related:

Manipur is Burning but who cares?

Freedom of Expression: Driver for All other Human Rights

Bishops of India must protest & speak out for peace, against injustices in Manipur & India: Jesuit priest

The post Speaking truth to power often means paying the price: India in 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over the past weeks we have been performing our play Words Have Been Uttered (WHBU), which is an exploration of the idea of dissent. It’s not structured as a conventional play (one major theatre festival in India even rejected it because it didn’t fit into their definition of a theatre piece).

WHBU is eight of us, actors, and a musician, sitting in a shallow semi-circle, with our books, our texts, and musical instruments sharing with the audience a diverse selection of creative expressions of dissent. We read, recite, sing, and perform scenes from theatre, poetry, songs, satirical pieces, and even personal writings from across time, across cultures, across languages. These amazing texts question caste, gender, organized religion, superstition, authoritarianism, majoritarianism, notions of nationalism and much more, illuminating how nuanced the idea of dissent is, and how universal it is.

I usually introduce the evening to the audience to prepare them for what is to follow, and while doing so I acknowledge that the while the idea of dissent in our times seems particularly loaded and edgy, it has always been so. It is not easy for any society to deal with dissent, and it requires maturity and tremendous self-belief to engage with dissent in a positive and constructive way. Ideas need space to be aired, and people who are willing to listen. We need to be able to listen, agree, or disagree, and move on without fear of violence, humiliation, and threat.

We all agree that such spaces are shrinking, and we believe that theatre, in a fundamental way, offers such a space. The isolation of Covid-19 times brought into sharp focus what it means to be able to assemble and engage with live performance. A space where you enter as an individual and very quickly become a part of a group of people sharing a unique moment. Theatre is about story-telling, about personal experiences, and the use of metaphor. The mode of communication can be nuanced and appeal to mind and to the heart. Such a space can nurture ideas and open conversations – and be a radical counter to the frightening culture of hate, intolerance, violence and majoritarianism that we see around us. The overall response to Words Have Been Uttered by different kinds of audience validates this belief.

We are faced with challenges all the time whether it is censorship, cynicism, or of the threat of recrimination from the state. But the biggest enemy of arts practitioners which is perhaps the most difficult to overcome is self-censorship.

Over the past 10 to 15 years our work at Theatre Arpana, and Tamaasha Theatre has been across various genres of theatre practice and has been engaging with and presenting the complex nature of contemporary India, in conventional theatre spaces as well as in various alternative spaces. The work spans across themes and issues that concern modern Indian society, across class, caste, gender and other inequalities. Our choice of work has been possible because of an understanding of the theatre ecosystem in India, careful strategising, and a belief that theatre can respond to our times without losing out on audience engagement, and in fact, by celebrating the human spirit.

We may then wonder why the potential of theatre to play this role is not explored often enough. There are many different reasons why people make theatre. There is a large theatre practice which believes that theatre has to entertain and no more, a conviction shared with practitioners of other forms like cinema.  Unfortunately, the accepted norm is that entertainment and meaningful work cannot go hand in hand. This is not a place to argue that point, but I will add that cross overs have been tried, and several have succeeded. There are many examples in Marathi language theatre for instance where plays and theatre makers, both, have straddled the worlds of commerce and artistic practice. In our own work we have deliberately tried to place “our kind” of theatre thinking in mainstream spaces, and while we may not have been able to sustain this over time, our attempts have not been entirely unsuccessful.

Our 2012 production of Ramu Ramnathan’s play Cotton 56, Polyester 84 was a re-telling of the history of the textile mill workers of Mumbai. Told by two out of work mill workers, the play was developed by Ramu based on interviews with mill workers and their families, from court room trials where textile trade unions fought the powerful mill owners to secure the rights of mill workers, and Meena Menon and Neera Adarkar’s oral history of the history of Mumbai’s textile mills and trade unions. The play brought to light the suppressed history, subculture and marginalisation of the mill workers of Mumbai, whose plight was largely ignored in the raging public debate on the development of the mill lands.

As you can imagine Cotton 56 could be no stretch of imagination be called a conventional entertainer, and yet audiences in Mumbai and across the country responded to the play both intellectually and emotionally.

A few years later we made Sex, Morality, and Censorship written by Shanta Gokhale and Irawati Karnik, which dealt with the idea of censorship by examining the censorship of Vijay Tendulkar’s play Sakharam Binder in 1972. Using archival material from India and abroad, theatre history, arguments and scenes from Sakharam Binder, the play was again not conventional story telling. As a director I was very aware that we were constructing an argument about censorship of a play in the context of its times. Sex, Morality and Censorship went on to perform across the country, often in large auditoria, engaging with diverse audiences who seemed to connect to the ideas of the play.

In Loretta we adapted the colourful Goan Tiatr tradition to talk about narrow parochialism, language and identity, and linguistic purity and hybridity. This at a time when we were being asked to prove our “Indian-ness” by the rapidly growing ranks of right wing bhakts.

In Words Have Been Uttered we tried to push our own boundaries further by dispensing with frills and narrative support devices, and concentrate purely on the core idea of the play – dissent.

These and several other examples have convinced us that even audiences whose only exposure is to the conventions of mainstream theatre can surprise you with their acceptance of new ideas, non-conventional forms of theatre making. Unfortunately, there are gate keepers, in our own community, who show scant respect for audience “intelligence” and perpetuate the myth that audiences are not willing to engage with plays that have a more meaningful intent.

It is within the ecosystem of “smaller theatre” you are more likely to find work that is artistic in intent and responds to the time. The is the space we largely inhabit for a variety of reasons. To begin with, the economics and availability of smaller spaces are manageable. Often audiences that come to smaller plays and spaces are seeking something different, and hence are more open to new ideas and conventions. That’s half our battle won.

The downside? We get comfortable, even complacent, in a safe space, and you may be “preaching to the converted”. Of course, gatherings like these have importance too. There is tremendous value in people who share similar beliefs gathering and experiencing something that validates, or expands, the world of ideas they subscribe to. We know this doesn’t happen enough, and we must be careful not to take a cynical view of this. But the need to reach out to new audiences is critical, and difficult as it maybe, there is not getting away from it.

When we founded Tamaasha Theatre about ten years ago we did so with the clearly stated intent of working outside conventional theatre spaces, creating a theatre of ideas, and forging a different relationship with an audience. We expanded our definition of theatre beyond merely producing and performing plays, to training, study, and audience building.

Audience building is one of the most important aspects of theatre practice. This is not about merely publicising your performances where you look to get an audience into the performance space. It’s about building a longer-term relationship with people so that they see themselves as co-travellers in your journey. When we build audiences we also look to create diversity so that a broader representation of society engages with the work and ideas. Various strategies help this – pricing of shows, open sharing of ideas, diverse programming to cater to specific interest and so on.

We run a studio space in Mumbai, as an arts centre, where theatre practitioners, students, musicians, and occasionally dancers can meet, make work, and perform for audiences that are enthusiastic about engaging with the arts in more than a passive way.  In the last few years, we have often asked ourselves, how do we respond to the times. There is our own need, and also an expectation from our audiences and from our larger community.

These are our some of our dilemmas:

The space available for alternatives views, ideologies, and thoughts has always been limited, but in more recent times the situation has become much more fraught. It doesn’t take much for someone to take objection to a piece of work, or a thought, and for the authorities to slap rather serious charges on the hapless “offender”

We are not activists, so are we psychologically and otherwise prepared for this kind of an eventuality?

On the other hand, today more than ever before, the need for alternative narratives is critical.

Why do artists have an added responsibility? Can art provide the nuances that journalism cannot? Even the best of journalism? Can art resist the numbing influence of the mainstream? We believe the answer to both is yes.

And two events that took place at our studio validated this belief.

The first was when we did an evening of Urdu texts – poetry and fiction – that dealt with different ideas of Kashmir. The texts were written by some well-known writers both from within Kashmir, and outside, and some less known voices. As you can imagine, the evening was somewhat tense for us. We are open to all audiences and we exercise no control on who attends. There is a degree of unpredictability to an evening such as this. But as the texts unfolded within the framework of a context which was both literary and political, we sensed a mood of deep involvement and thoughtfulness in the audience. There was emotion, there was humour, there was on offer many ways of seeing a land, a culture, and a people over time. In the post reading discussion that followed we saw restraint and responsibility in the way people spoke. Not all views were similar, but everyone heard the other out, and discussion flowed outside the venue into our open terrace space.

On another evening we had a rendering of texts from Palestine and Syria, but we were careful to frame it within the context of a land under occupation, and how common images and ideas are often found in the cultural expressions of people under siege.

This time in the post-performance discussion, after the first polite questions, a dam seemed to burst, and there was an animated discussion.  A sense of relief at being able to speak was palpable in the room. This time connections were made to radical poetry from other parts of India and the world. There was an honesty and open-ness that was powerful.

We really are in no position to understand what happens after an evening like this. Perhaps the conversations are forgotten, perhaps they remain. It’s hard to say. Also, we have touched no more than 40 people in an evening. A tiny, tiny micro drop in our vast ocean. Are we deluding ourselves about the impact?

Difficult questions …

For those of us who learnt our theatre fundamentals in the 1970s and 1980s the times we lived in had a deep impact on our view of theatre. This was a turbulent period — the great railway strike in 1974, Jayprakash Narayan’s “total revolution” which led to the clamping of Emergency by Indira Gandhi, the birth of the human rights movement, emergence of the Dalit Panther party, and the textile strike of 1982. It was very clear to us that your work wouldn’t be taken seriously if it did not respond to its times. Today the situation is more fraught because authoritarianism is highly visible and resistance to it virtually invisible. There seems endless darkness. But we often remind ourselves of the inspiring words of the great writer Toni Morrison, 

“This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

(Sunil Shanbag is a Mumbai based theatre director and producer. He is the co-founder and artistic director of Theatre Arpana, and Tamaasha Theatre. Over the past 45 years, Sunil’s work spans across themes and issues that concern modern Indian society, across class, caste, gender and other inequalities) 

Related:

Art must mirror an urgent need, the personal and the political: Asmit Pathare

इंक़लाब, इश्क़ है, Love is rebellion

Part 1: Where did our constitution come from? | Teesta Setalvad

The post Breaking silences makes civilisations heal: theatre director, Sunil Shanbag appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To mark India at 75, PEN America reached out to authors from India and the Indian diaspora to write short texts expressing what they felt. Together they make a historic document. Authors who were born in British India responded, as did India’s Midnight’s Children and grandchildren. Authors from around the globe sent us their thoughts, as did authors from India’s many languages, communities, faiths and castes. Some voices are optimistic, some prayerful, some anguished and enraged. Some suggest defeat, others venture hope, still others are defiant. The authors hold a spectrum of political views, and may be in disagreement about much else, but they are united in their concern for the state of Indian democracy. We invite you to read their ideas of what India was and ought to be, and what it has become.

The entire report may be read here

 
Of the several pieces in the compilation, here are some that stand out:

ALTAF TYREWALA

I NEEDED A GOD TODAY

TODAY I needed to confess

That I was back to needing

A father in heaven

Back to needing

Being afraid of sin

Of hellfire and demons

And a belief in the invisible

I needed a god today

But he’s closed for business

The prayer house is padlocked

The priests have disappeared

A sign on the door says

Seek Me in your heart’s shrine

You mean that shrine I razed?

That altar I burned?

That sanctuary I demolished?

That pedestal I smashed?

What resides in those ruins

Is belief’s ghost

And the echo of a prayer

To never need a god again

I needed a god today

I needed to tell him

That heart’s shrine

Is now a mausoleum

To disbelief and to living

Altaf Tyrewala is the author of three fiction books and has edited a crime fiction anthology. His works have been published around the world and he was awarded the DAAD Artist-in-Berlin literature grant. He has also curated a literature festival. He hails from Mumbai and now lives in Dallas.

JERRY PINTO

1977. A cinema hall in Mahim, Mumbai. Amar Akbar Anthony is playing. It is a Manmohan Desai special, which means we, the audience, those who love Hindi films, were ready for a rollick. We did not expect to cry.

To those lucky people who have not seen AAA, as we learned to call it: A terrible rich man kills someone by mistake; he asks his loyal driver, Kishanlal, to take the blame and promises that he will look after the driver’s family and his three children. Kishanlal takes the fall, goes to jail and when he comes out, he finds his wife is dying of tuberculosis and his sons are starving. He goes to confront his boss and in return for his loyalty, his boss orders his henchmen to kill Kishanlal. He eludes them and jumps into a car full of gold bullion and comes home to find his wife has gone off to commit suicide. The goons are still in hot pursuit so he stashes the children for safety in a nearby park, in the shadow of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi and continues to take evasive action. His eldest son runs after the car but is knocked down, and left by the side of the road. A policeman takes the boy home, adopts him and names him Amar. The second boy is adopted by a Muslim tailor and named Akbar. The third child falls asleep in front of a Christian church and is adopted by the priests; he is Anthony. The boys grow up and one day, they are called to a hospital to give blood to a woman who is in need of it. They do not know it but they are donating blood for their mother.

Now, everyone knows that when you go and donate your blood, you fill a bottle and it is whisked off to the blood bank. But in Manmohan Desai’s magnificent and corny spectacle making, this could not be how we would see it. The three young men are seen lying down in a ward and each would declare his name as a nurse hooked him up to a blood donation line.

“Amar,“ declares the Hindu as his blood rises up, against the laws of gravity, to meet the blood of Akbar and Anthony. And then these three bloodstreams, conjoined, flowed down into the arm of their mother.

The man in the next seat began to weep. The whole theater was weeping together as a song underlined the message: Kya iski keemat chukaani nahin? (Will you pay your debt?) They got it. You don’t get India unless you have Amar, Akbar and Anthony, blood and blood and blood, paying their debt to the motherland.

I wept too. I was eleven years old.

At the end of the film, we all came out of the theater having cried and laughed and rejoiced when the three brothers are reunited in the end.

I used to say that the trope of three brothers separated at birth and reunited at the end was Hindi cinema’s way of thinking about Pakistan and Bangladesh. That we don’t make these films any more is perhaps our way of reconciling to the new political reality of the subcontinent.

I showed the film to a group of students recently. One of them said: “I’d really like to know what happened afterwards. Was Akbar circumcised by his Muslim father? Did Anthony remain a Christian?”

On bad days and there are so many of them, I know the answer to that one. On days of hope, I cling to the promise/premise of those lines: Anhonee ko honee kar de, honee ko anhonee. Ek jagah jab jamaa ho teenon: Amar, Akbar, Anthony

A rough translation of which would be: When the three of us, when Amar and Akbar and Anthony, get together, we make the impossible, possible.

Jerry Pinto is a poet, novelist, and translator in Bombay, and the author of several works of fiction, translations, and poetry, including Em and the Big Hoom. He received the Windham-Campbell Prize for Fiction in 2016

KIRAN DESAI

Eight Haikus for Asifa, age 8

I

as if a girl is

evening blue and green that just

hovers a moment

before the night’s dark then falls

II

as if a girl is

what it takes to rape and kill

it takes a village

it takes a policeman

a temple custodian

a tax man, a son

who took the bus all the way from meerut because

it takes a village

III

as if a girl is

a mother without a child

the moon still rising

IV

as if a girl is

a bad luck curse parents flee

over this mountain

the next and over

the border to lose their names

so we can’t find them

V

as if a girl is

snow obscuring mountains

and lies covering truth

VI

as if a girl is

chinar leaves or grass marked red

bloodied by murder

VII

as if a girl is

a ghost making a devil

of us all

she haunts

VIII

as if a girl is

only eyes—that’s all that’s left

warning—don’t forget!

Eight year old Asifa was gang raped and murdered in a temple in 2018, Kathua, Kashmir. When she died she became a symbol of the hate that has overwhelmed today’s India. But she also became India’s daughter, the daughter of us all. India may be in darkness, but we will forever remember your light, Asifa!

Kiran Desai is the author of Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard and The Inheritance of Loss. Among her honors are a Guggenheim, a National Book Critics Circle Award and a Man Booker Prize

MADHUSREE MUKERJEE

15 August, 1942. Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Azad and thousands of other freedom fighters are in prison. More than 90,000 people will be arrested and up to 10,000 killed as the Quit India movement is crushed. Kasturba Gandhi and Mahadev Desai will die in prison. Millions will perish of hunger. India is an occupied and hostile country, says a British general. Virtually no one—not the rulers looting the country’s wealth, nor the people crushed under their weight and induced to fight one another instead of their exploiters— can imagine, in this darkest of dark times, that in a few years the land will be free.

15 August, 2022. Anand Teltumbde, Hany Babu, GN Saibaba, Gautam Navlakha, Arun Ferreira, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson, Mahesh Raut, Vernon Gonsalves, Khalid Saifi, Meeran Haider, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Aasif Sultan, Siddique Kappan, Sanjiv Bhatt, Teesta Setalvad and countless other freedom fighters are in prison. So are thousands of Muslims, for being Muslim, Dalits, for being Dalit, and Adivasis, for living on mineral-rich land that billionaires covet. Stan Swamy is dead. Gauri Lankesh, Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, MM Kalburgi and far too many other truth tellers—rural reporters, Right-to-Information activists—are also dead. Murdered. And innumerable people whose crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Three-quarters of Indians are malnourished and being induced in their desperation to turn upon one another instead of their exploiters. Just one of their rulers is the world’s fourth-richest man.

India is once again an occupied and starving country. It’s hard to imagine, in this darkest of dark times, that the country will soon be free. But history repeats. And great evil always falls to great courage.

Madhusree Mukerjee is the author of Churchill’s Secret War and The Land of Naked People. She is a Guggenheim awardee and serves as a senior editor at Scientific America

M V RAMANA

In his famed 1947 poem Subh-e-Azadi (Freedom’s Dawn), Faiz Ahmed Faiz had bemoaned the fact that the end of British colonialism had turned out not to be “that clear dawn in quest of which those comrades set out” (translation by Victor Kiernan). Those were the terrible days of partition, with millions of people being displaced from the homes they had grown up at, perhaps over a million killed, and thousands of women abducted and raped. And yet Faiz was hopeful enough to end that poem with “Let us go on, our goal is not reached yet.”

Seventy-five years after that, it is hard to find such hope in today’s subcontinent. In so many ways, the situation seems more dire. Except for a small set of ultra-rich that have made out like bandits, few are optimistic about the future. But that is not all. The greater threat is the growing power of the religious right, and the goals they strive for will eventually destroy even the very possibility of shared existence.

M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India (2012) and co-editor of Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream (2003).

P SAINATH

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s lockdown speech of March 24, 2020 gave a nation of 1.4 billion people four hours to shut itself down. It would devastate hundreds of millions of livelihoods within days. Minutes after Modi’s speech, his government listed the essential services that would remain operational through the lockdown.

Refreshingly, that included ‘print and electronic media, telecommunications, internet services, broadcasting and cable services.’

In the next few months, major media houses, mostly corporate-owned or controlled, sacked between 2,000 and 2,500 journalists. They achieved much of this by extracting ‘voluntary resignations and retirements.’ The classification of media as an essential service did not save a single job. Or life. Covid-19 killed at least 700 journalists in the first 20 months of the pandemic.

All these numbers are gross underestimates. The sackings, especially. I was a member of the Press Council of India sub-committee to investigate the retrenchments; our letters seeking information from major media houses were met with anger and aggressive lawyers’ replies.

The country’s biggest newspaper group told us that the Press Council had no right to question the sackings. They were recruitment and labor issues and had nothing to do with press freedom (the Council’s purview). The government stayed silent on the sackings.

The media’s failure to cover the exodus of millions of migrant laborers from cities back to their villages was not unrelated to the Great Downsizing. These same segments of the media, too, have said barely a word in their editorials on the arrests, detentions, denial of bail, and the hundreds of cases against media persons—some under sections of laws not applied to journalists in over 100 years. The ‘mainstream’ media’s silence on the assault on democracy that India has seen for years now is not just about cowardice—though there’s dollops of that—but also about complicity and collaboration, coaxing and coercion.

Sure, there are rare exceptions—like the Dainik Bhaskar group that held out bravely despite the income tax and other raids on it. Mostly, though, truly courageous resistance has come from smaller, non-corporate media whose journalists and editors suffer severe harassment, tax raids, arrests, jailing. That have seen donors and sponsors pull their funds in fear. That are unsure of paying their staff salaries in the current financial year.

The new trend: arresting journalists and editors for ‘economic offenses’—‘money laundering’ being the official favorite. That vilifies journalists, hurting their credibility and making it hard for them to be viewed as political prisoners.

It’s worth knowing that four major public intellectuals assassinated in the past decade—Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M.M. Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh—had this in common: they were journalists, columnists or India at 75 107 writers who wrote in Indian languages. Also, rationalists who challenged religious fundamentalism.

Meanwhile, the super-rich, heading India’s biggest corporate houses, are rapidly acquiring more media properties. (With 166 of them, India ranks 3rd among nations in dollar billionaires. But ranks 131 in the UN Human Development Index). Owners whose billions flow from government contracts and huge public resources privatized for their benefit, and who contribute fantastic sums to the ruling party.

What did bother the government was the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontières’ ranking India 142 (among 180 nations) in the World Press Freedom Index, 2020. (This year’s rank – 150). And Twitter’s latest transparency report confirms India made more ‘legal’ demands than any other nation to remove content posted by verified journalists and news outlets during July-December 2021. We’ve also seen what amounts to months of internet shutdowns across entire regions like Kashmir.

Indian journalists can always be shown the error of their ways. The worst you can do with non-Indians is to deny them visas. Yet, they acted swiftly to rebut the RSF report and index ranking.

In May 2020, the government set up an ‘Index Monitoring Cell’ (IMC) on the directive of the Union Cabinet Secretary, perhaps the country’s most powerful bureaucrat. One who reports directly to the two most important men in India—the Prime Minister and Home Minister. I was one of the IMC’s two original journalist members.

In December 2020, a subgroup presented the committee with a draft report striking for the absence of the word ‘draft’ on its cover. It failed to reflect the content of our discussions. And it made outrageous claims, some of which seemed to mock the sufferings of journalists in Kashmir.

I wrote a note of dissent which, among other things, listed 100 instances of arrests of, legal notices to, and FIRs and cases filed against, journalists in the span of just some months. Such as the October 2020 arrest of Siddique Kappan, a freelancer from Kerala who had gone to Uttar Pradesh to cover the Hathras rape and murder atrocity against Dalits. He was not allowed to meet a lawyer for weeks and remains in jail 22 months later.

Or Zubair Ahmed, a journalist in the Andamans booked on multiple charges for this tweet: ‘Can someone explain why families are placed under home quarantine for speaking over phone with Covid patients?’ Ahmed died by suicide this July, supposedly in depression—but an investigation is still on.

Immediately after that note of dissent went in—the committee simply vanished and has never been heard of since. Right to Information queries have failed to elicit any reasons for this. My friends find me ungrateful. ‘At least,’ they say, ‘it was the committee report that disappeared, not the journalist.’

And so you have the Indian media @75.

For three of my four decades as a journalist, I argued that the Indian media are politically free but imprisoned by P SAINATH India at 75 108 profit. Today I’d say they are still shackled by profit, but are increasingly politically imprisoned as well

P Sainath is the founder-editor of the People’s Archive of Rural India and author of Everybody Loves A Good Drought. His new book, The Last Heroes: Footsoldiers of Indian Freedom, will be out later this year. Sainath has won more than 60 national and international awards and fellowships for his reporting

Related:

Whose FREEDOM@75?

75th Anniversary: What Do Indians Want?

Reflections on 75th anniversary of India’s Independence

Women’s dissent: India’s feminist legacy

The post Uneven yet Eloquent: PEN America’s anguished cries on India at 75 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a panel discussion, organised by the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum, Justice (retd.) Deepak Gupta of the Supreme Court talked about the Right to Dissent in India and the court’s response to sedition cases in the country.

The sedition law (section 124A of the Indian Penal Code), punishes any Indian citizen who brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India. The provision encompasses a wide range of punishment from three years to life imprisonment and in some cases only fine.

He said, “Right to dissent is a hallmark of the democracy. Even if one party comes into power, it is not immune to criticism and right to dissent allows such criticism. Look at the conviction rate, it is so low. One’s reputation is destroyed even if one is not convicted”.

While India being a democratic country lets its citizens enjoy freedom of speech and expression, Justice Gupta opined that the term disaffection is so broad, that could be grossly misused and anything could amount to sedition. “There can be no progress if we stifle dissent”.

Highlighting the current state of affairs, Justice Gupta also shared his apprehension regarding cracking jokes as there is a high probability of people getting offended by it. He stated that in the past nine to ten years, Indians have lost their sense of humour. In response to whether the Supreme Court of India should take up cognisance of stifling of right to dissent and not be a mute spectator, Justice Gupta stated that the court cannot take suo moto cognisance in every case.

At this point, Advocate Manali Singhal referred to how her daughter Shreya Singhal was of the same age as Disha Ravi (21 years) when she had challenged section 66A of the Information Technology Act and that now, any dissent against the Government is seen as anti-national. In Shreya Singhal vs UOI (2015), the top court had struck down section 66A as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The discussion moved to the laws of arrest in India, on which Senior Advocate Rebecca John shed some light. Referring to the arrest of Disha Ravi in the toolkit case, she said that a transit remand was not obtained and according to a Delhi High Court judgment, a transit remand order is mandatory when an accused is transferred from one jurisdiction to the other.

The criminal law expert said that once a person is arrested by an agency that does not belong to the person’s jurisdiction, he/ she must be asked for a lawyer of their choice. “I don’t understand, when she had her lawyer of choice, why was he not brought in. There was no transit remand order also taken. The Delhi High Court order of 2019 categorically states that transit remand order is required, unless exigencies exist”, she asked rhetorically.

She also emphasised on the role of the Magistrates to carefully look at the FIRs and case diaries to see the nature of investigation and whether further remand is needed or not. She opined that such judicial functions are treated casually nowadays. She also cited an example of an individual who was arrested under bailable sections but yet, remanded for 8 days in custody. She added that these problems are occurring in a big city like Delhi which is not an obscure part of India.

“Personal liberty is intrinsically related to procedural law”, she remarked. UAPA is grossly misused- academics, students, policy makers, all are getting apprehended under this stringent regime. Further, she said that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act defines terrorist activities under section 15 and those are violent physical acts. But people who have made mere speeches are pushed to jails for speeches under UAPA. She asserted that, “this makes bail a virtual impossibility under section 43 D (5)”.  

She weighed in on the concept of bail stating that it is treated as the be all and end all, rather than treating it as a right. According to John, courts are hesitant to grant bail even though bail is a right and jail is an exception. She also said that people in India should learn to manage criticism more constructively and persons critiquing the establishment should not be seen as anti-national elements.

She ended on a note that the country is in a dire need of judicial leadership and that laying down principles against invocation of UAPA and sedition laws will send a strong message that will permeate downwards. “UAPA, sedition laws are all violent acts, it punishes the mind, speech, etc. and that cannot be the intent of law”, she noted.

Chitranshul Sinha, an advocate and author of the book “The Great Repression”, was also one of the speakers on the panel to discuss the right to dissent and the concept of sedition. He explained that mere sloganeering does not constitute as sedition. He provided the viewers with an example of some Kashmiri students who supported Pakistan in a cricket match and were later booked under sedition.

He importantly pointed out that the State cannot be threatened by an individual act. “Our democracy is not that brittle”, he claimed. Elaborating further on the spirit of the sedition law, he said that it cannot be invoked unless there is a danger of disintegration of our Republic. The impugned act must directly affect the State to invoke sedition.

‘Dissent is our duty. The government is for the people, citizens are the masters of the Government. There should be stringent guidelines to allow only the State to file sedition cases and not individuals”, he opined. Going a step further, he said that he believes that there is no place for a law like this in a democracy.

During an interactive session between the panelists and the viewers, a question was posed to Justice Gupta about the overburdened subordinate judicial officers who are not able to discharge their functions properly. Justice Gupta disagreed and said that some of the recent judgments like the one delivered in favour of Priya Ramani and the sedition verdict by Additional Session Judge Dharmendra Rana of the Patiala Court is commendable and correct in law.

In MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani, Justice Ravindra Kumar Pandey acquitted Ramani and held that women subject to sexual harassment can approach the courts even after decades and that the right to reputation cannot be protected at the cost of right to life. On the other hand, in the sedition judgement, ASJ Rana held, “The law of sedition is a powerful tool in the hands of the state to maintain peace and order in the society. However, it cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under the pretense of muzzling the miscreants”.

Related:

Toolkit content does not incite violence, not seditious: Former SC Judge Deepak Gupta

Does the new SC judgment offer hope for bail under UAPA?

Sedition cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under pretence of muzzling miscreants: Delhi Court

Right of reputation can’t be protected at the cost of Right to life: Delhi court acquits Priya Ramani

The post Right to dissent is a hallmark of democracy: Justice Deepak Gupta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Free speech and censorship as a topic of discussion have been trending in recent times. Following the recent call for accountability on Facebook, people have also started considering the impact of hate speech on social media.

Ironically though, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has always known about the significance of hate speech and has meticulously booked those who have expressed any hostility or disagreement towards BJP leaders like Narendra Modi, Amit Shah or Yogi Adityanath.

Following a list of journalists who were arrested for speaking against such leaders, here is a list of a few cases where people were booked inside and outside India for criticising the BJP government.
 

September 2020: Two youths arrested for objectionable photos of Modi, Shah

Two 20-year-old men, Zakir Husain Aalam and Sadi Ali Khan, were arrested in Ghaziabad on September 28 for allegedly posting an “objectionable” photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah on Facebook. The local police said they booked the two men under charges of printing or engraving defamatory matter and for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form after an FIR was lodged by Advocate Akash Vashishtha. The complainant said he felt obligated to report the two men as a responsible citizen. He claimed that such posts brought shame to the country and to Modi.

September 2020: Columnist of Amnesty International booked for comments on Modi

Columnist and former Executive Director of Amnesty International India Aakar Patel was arrested and then let out on bail in late September for allegedly posting “offensive” tweets against the Ghanchi community in Gujarat, two of which included Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Patel was booked for several non-bailable offences for his tweets that claimed that Modi belonged to the Ghanchi caste, an Other Backward Caste, that is “well-off” and “meat-eating.” He went on to say that Modi became a vegetarian after taking on the manner of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS.)

September 2020: UP Police Sub-Inspector arrested for social media post on PM, CM Yogi Adityanath

Suspended Sub-Inspector Vijay Pratap Singh was arrested on September 19 for making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and a particular religion on social media. Local residents had filed the complaints against Singh accusing him of making derogatory remarks about the two Ministers. As per news reports, Singh had earlier been ‘warned’ from making such comments on social media.

September 2020: Odisha man arrested for posting hate messages against PM, CM

A 42- year-old man in Odisha was booked on sedition charges for allegedly posting hate messages against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on September 4 said a New Indian Express report. The man was arrested at the state’s Cuttack district and held by the Uttar Pradesh police team on September 3. The Odisha police said they cooperated with the UP police to “nab the accused.”

August 2020: Journalist Prashant Kanojia arrested for “some tweets”

For a second time, the UP police arrested Delhi-based journalist Prashant Kanojia on August 18 for his social media posts. He was taken from his south Delhi residence to Lucknow for further investigation “in connection with some tweets.” In April, Kanojia was booked for allegedly making some ‘objectionable remarks’ against Modi and Adityanath. The complainant Shashank Shekhar Singh, a BJP leader, had filed an FIR on the charges of defamation, printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory, circulating mischievous comments and obscenity under the Information and Technology Act.

April 2020: 4 NRIs charged for hate posts against Modi and Yogi Adityanath

Censorship of free speech isn’t just restricted to India this year. On April 23, an NDTV report also talked of four non-resident Indians from Kasya near Gorakhpur who were charged for allegedly posting objectionable remarks against PM Modi and CM Yogi Adityanath on social media. Although the Indian police could not arrest the four people living abroad, they filed a case against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The complainant was Hindu Yuva Vahini leader Om Verma, who complained against the NRIs following the night he saw their posts on Facebook.

March 2020: Professor arrested for insulting Modi

A physics teacher in Gurucharan College Souradeep Sengupta was arrested following accusations by his own students of posting ‘objectionable material on Facebook’ on March 1. The 10 students claimed that Sengupta had made derogatory remarks, abusing the Sanatan Dharma and said that Modi was a mass murderer. At the time, even Dilip Ghosh, a BJP leader and serial hate speech offender, had demanded for Souradeep’s arrest. Sengupta was booked under various sections of the IT Act.

Related:

Journalism is a hazardous profession in Uttar Pradesh

Gau Rakshaks Spare PM, Instead Thrash Two More Dalits

10 worst hate speeches of 2019

Living in dangerous times: Venom in the name of Hindutva

The post Is criticising BJP leaders a crime? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a statement issued today, 99 former senior bureaucrats with the government of India have bemoaned the consistent attack on the freedom of expression and the right to dissent by the Modi 2.0 regime

The signatories include Ravi Vira Gupta, Former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Wajahat Habibubullah, former Chief Information Commissioner & Secretary, GOI, Sundar Burra, former Secretary. Government of Maharashtra, MG Devasahayam, former Secretary, government of Haryana, Sushil Dubey, IFS, former Ambassador to Sweden and Julio Ribeiro, former Ambassador to Romania and former DGP, Punjab.
 

The entire statement may be read here:

“This statement by our group of former civil servants arises from our deep concern at the assault on the Rule of Law in India and on its citizens’ rights to free speech and dissent, basic elements of any democracy. The whole constitutional edifice is dependent on the Rule of Law, which implies the subjection of all the organs and instrumentalities of the state to the law and the absence of arbitrary power. The rights to Freedom of Speech & Expression, Freedom of Assembly and the like, guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, are a corrective to the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged across the axes of income, gender, religion, caste and community. To uphold the rule of law and enforce the rights to freedoms, the judiciary must be the vigilant sentinel guarding the values of constitutional propriety.

“Scholars like Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen have established that the elimination of famine, a colonial legacy in India, came from the clamour of the media, the legislatures and the courts as also concerns of political parties seeking re-election. Public Interest Litigation has given voice to the suppressed on issues like bonded labour, child labour and the illiterate without work or food finding resonance in the corridors of power. Article 19 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing freedom of speech is the key in this struggle.

“The rampant erosion of the rule of law in evidence today militates against the actualization of the freedom of speech which is the cornerstone of democratic functioning. The gulf between the Rule of Law rhetoric and reality is getting wider and wider. The police establishments across the country appear to have become proxies for the respective ruling parties. Independent experts like Special Rapporteurs and members of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions associated with the United Nations, in referring to the arrest of eleven activists, including Kafeel Khan, Safoora Zargar, Akhil Gogoi and Sharjeel Imam, say succinctly: “These defenders, many of them students, appear to have been arrested simply because they exercised their right to denounce and protest against the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), and their arrest seems clearly designed to send a chilling message to India’s vibrant civil society that criticism of government policies will not be tolerated.” Journalists like Gauri Lankesh, a free-spirited journalist writing in Kannada,  have been murdered, shot in cold blood allegedly by right-wing groups.

“According to the Press Freedom Index of Reporters without Borders, India stands at 142 out of 180 countries in 2020, falling 6 places since 2015. Flagrant misuse of draconian laws of sedition and the Unauthorized Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has led to the arrest of journalists, intellectuals, university students, film-makers, human rights activists and popular figures who dared criticise the present regime. When, as happened in Karnataka, in consequence of a school play critical of the CAA  a primary school teacher and the mother of a student  are charged with sedition and two young children aged 9 and 10 are questioned by police over many days, this becomes a theatre of the absurd.  

“Any criticism of government is considered “anti-national” and invites punitive wrath. The law of sedition, itself a colonial relic, is resorted to by a succession of governments, but its application has sharply increased. From 2016 to 2018, 332 persons were arrested under this law but only 7 convicted, exposing the absence of evidence and exercise of vendetta. The online portal Scroll.in reported that more than “10,000 Adivasis in Jharkhand have been accused of sedition and disturbing public order” in connection with the Pathalgadi movement.

“In the case of UAPA, court proceedings drag on while detention continues. In the celebrated Bhima-Koregaon case several of India’s finest social and human rights activists like Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen and Gautam Navlakha and public intellectuals like Anand Teltumbde languish in prison under the malevolent label of “urban Maoists”, which consigns such exemplars of civic life to the reviled category of “anti-national”. Attacks on students of Jawaharlal Nehru University  and Jamia Milia Islamia  recently choked the rights of students and faculty to voice their criticism of the existing state of affairs, including the CAA.

“The corona pandemic has been an excuse for curbing freedom of speech across States. A report of the Rights and Risks Analysis Group has it that 55 journalists were singled out for writing on the mishandling of the Covid situation: threats, FIRs, assaults and arrests were amongst the intimidatory tactics used. Though the largest number was in UP, such cases also took place in States with governments of different political parties. Dhaval Patel in Gujarat and Rahul Zori in Maharashtra, with FIRs filed against them, and Major Singh Panjabi being beaten up in Punjab by the police are examples. Earlier in the year, one Dr Indranil Khan in Kolkata was interrogated, threatened with arrest and had his phone and SIM card confiscated for commenting online of deficiencies in the supply of PPE to doctors and nurses working with corona patients. In a rare defence of the freedom of speech, the Kolkata High Court in his case said: “Freedom of speech and expression which is granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India has to be scrupulously upheld by the State. If an expression of opinion brings the government into disrepute, it cannot defend this allegation by intimidation of the person expressing the opinion by subjecting him to prolonged interrogation, threatening arrest, seizing his mobile phone and SIM card and so on.”

“When Siddharth Varadarajan, founding Editor of The Wire, faced criminal charges for reporting that the UP Chief Minister attended a religious event after the lockdown was announced, more than 4600 signatories protested, amongst them eminent academics, a retired Supreme Court Judge, a former National Security Adviser, a former Chief of Naval Staff and well-known persons connected with the arts. “A medical emergency should not serve as the pretext for the imposition of a de facto political emergency” they wrote.

“The detentions in Kashmir of hundreds of political activists and the suspension of communications for several months after the revocation of its special status is a blot on India’s democracy, with Kashmir described by the International Press Institute as amongst the “world’s most repressive spots for the press.” In many parts of India, Section 144 is imposed for extended periods of time to prohibit the assembly of people despite the Supreme Court ruling that such curbs be restricted to emergencies.

“Finally, the investigations into the riots in north-east Delhi have betrayed an institutional bias against the minority community.  Dr M.A. Anwar, the proprietor of Hind Hospital in New Mustafabad, whose prompt action in providing help to injured people during the targeted violence in North East Delhi in late February 2020 was praised by many, including the Delhi High Court, is now named in a charge-sheet filed in a murder case and for instigating local people against the government on the issue of CAA-NRC. The UAPA has been used against activists who opposed the CAA through peaceful protest. People like Harsh Mander and Yogendra Yadav have been named in charge sheets even though they are not amongst the accused. Harsh Mander’s speech, which called for peace, was made in December, 2019,  weeks before the outbreak of any violence. Yet there are rumours of his intended arrest which, were it to occur now, would make a travesty of the law. Meanwhile, Kapil Mishra and Anurag Thakur, BJP leader and Minister respectively, who had openly called for violence, widely projected in the media, which followed almost immediately thereafter, face no action.

“All Indians must unite in defence of the Rule of Law and Article 19, the repository of the democratic right to freedom of speech and to dissent.

SATYAMEVA JAYATE”

Constitutional Conduct Group (99 signatories as below)

The post Unite in defence of the Rule of Law & Article 19, senior bureaucrats tell Indians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Did the PM know whether our military was ready to face the attack? If he knew then why did he not disclose that he directed the Indian Army to throw out the Chinese from the land of India? Why did India not prepare itself for so many days? Why was the border not secured with enough soldiers? Why were they not well equipped?  And if the entire issue is unknown to him then who kept him in dark? I want to know whether the government is guaranteeing that what has happened will not be reiterated? These questions are neither raised by Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi nor by any member of the Opposition.

A person had once claimed, “At the time of the instant crisis, our Government is not willing to make it clear that there is a huge negligence on their part about China’s intentions, their military preparations and their incursions in our land. On the contrary, China has made us insignificant in front of the whole world, in front of our neighboring countries and more so in our own eyes. By carrying out this attack, they have proved how weak we were in terms of security. China will now offer themselves as the form of the embodiment of peace. But their motive has been fulfilled in one way or another.” No, no one from the present opposition camps had criticized the Modi government by saying anything like this.

Then who said all this? If we rummage through the old records of Parliament, we definitely find on November 9, 1962 a young Rajya Sabha MP slammed the then government. He was none other than a great leader and one of the greatest orators of yesteryears, Atal Behari Vajpayee. Then he was only 36 years old and called the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru, then at 72 exactly twice Vajpayee’s age with a two-thirds majority backing him.

What would he have been called if Vajpayee had asked all these questions today? The so-called ‘nationalist’ saffron gang obviously criticized him by saying that Vajpayee is trying to create turmoil when India should unite against China. He is breaking the morale of the Army, disrespecting the Army and trying to gain political advantage by raising questions about national security!!

All the leaders of BJP starting from top to bottom cast the same aspersions upon all those from the opposition camp who raise questions about the Chinese infiltration in Ladakh and killing 20 soldiers, including a Colonel. Opposition has made a serious allegation that the Sino troops have been occupying Pangong Tso Lake in India since May 5, 2020. Whether the government has suppressed that fact? What is the truth? Why did they conceal it?

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh replied that he will give all the answers in the Parliament. But no one knows when the session of Parliament will be called in wake of the coronavirus outbreak. Forget about the session, the Opposition is demanding a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee through video conferencing but nobody is listening to that plea either. The lawmakers of the ruling party said it might compromise the confidentiality of the meetings by citing Rule 266 which mandates that all committee meetings have to be held in private. But in 1962, when Vajpayee sought an immediate convening of Parliament, Nehru instantly agreed on that without any hesitation. Both houses were immediately summoned on November 8, 1962.

Around 4 A.M on October 20, 1962, the Chinese forces invaded Indian territory in today’s Arunachal Pradesh, then called NEFA. On October 26, 1962 Nehru’s government issued a Proclamation of National Emergency. And on the same day Vajpayee met with Nehru and demanded an immediate convening of Parliament. It was actually an objective lesson in how the democracy functions in the time of armed conflict.

Need to remember that the number of MPs’ of Jan Sangh was only four then and PM Nehru enjoyed the 2/3rd majority. Despite that Nehru accepted Atal’s demand. He never made any excuse by saying that when there is a conflict with another State; the opposition should stand by the government instead of criticizing. He called the session on November 8, 1962. Before that he already accepted the resignation of the then Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon. If Nehru wanted, he could have called a closed-door session because there was a proposal to that effect. But he chose to go public by saying, “The issues before the House are of high interest to the whole country. Right at the beginning, to ask for a secret session would have a bad effect on the country and send a bad message to its countrymen.” Not only would he welcome criticism, he also encouraged it. The session was continued for one week. Then Vajpayee was in Rajya Sabha. He got his turn on November 9, 1962. The war was not stopped. It was still continuing. When Vajpayee, the fiery orator, was in his top form, bombarding Nehru inside the Parliament then the Chinese troops were climbing one mountain after another in NEFA.

Today, in Ladakh, China is occupying Indian territory, obstructing Indian military surveillance in its own soil and building bunkers to set up their bases. The Foreign Ministry and the Army openly admits it. In fact, India’s main demand while bargaining with China is for China to retreat and return to its territory on the opposite side of the LAC. But PM Narendra Modi called an all-party meeting and claimed that no one has entered in Indian territory or captured any military post. Later, the PMO issued a statement by saying that attempts were being made in some quarters to give a ‘mischievous interpretation’ to the remarks made by the Prime Minister.

Vajpayee lamented the government’s reluctance to accept the reality in 1962. He mentioned in the Rajya Sabha with heavy heart, “We should not hesitate to admit that we have committed a great crime with the country by neglecting the aspect of national security.” In a Parliamentary democracy neither he was stopped by shouting that day nor did anyone even try to label him as ‘anti-national’.

India lost that war. Didn’t the opposition try to take political advantage of India’s defeat in that war? Of course they did. They left no stone unturned. Post 1962 war in the consecutive four by-elections, Jan Sangh and other opposition parties fought unitedly against the Congress treating the country’s defeat as a tool. Two Socialist leaders JB Kripalini and Ram Manohar Lohia, Minoo Masani of Swatantra Party and Deendayal Upadhyaya, the then General Secretary of Jan Sangh collectively fought against Congress with full vigour.

This is the history of democracy of this country. Our country is not run by dictators. In this country, not only the Opposition, rather everyone has every right to raise questions and the government must be held accountable and that is the sine qua non of a republic. If Vajpayee raised his voice during 1962, at the same breath Congress also raised a finger during the Kargil war. Not long back, during the Manmohan era veteran leaders Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj also pointed their fingers and raised their pitch at the failure of the government when Pakistan and China tried to infiltrate. They did not sit idly by thinking that the unity of the country or the morale of the army might be affected.

The question is, is there any Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the opposition camp today? Like the question, the answer is very easy too and we all know it.

Though Rahul Gandhi threw several questions to Modi but his ultimate goal is to establish himself as a leader of the opposition camp. Attempts have been made to bring him back to the post as Congress President. But the Congress itself is weak now. Besides that, most of the opposition parties are not on the side of the Congress. Rather, the opposition parties are leaning towards BJP. Even the strong alliance of Congress like NCP and DMK are reluctant to sharply criticize the government in the face of conflict with other countries.

Like Nehru, Modi also enjoys the same advantage. During Nehru’s rule the opposition camps were practically dispersed. The same condition is also omnipresent now. Therefore, the Modi government does not have to be held accountable. No one can ask the government how the problem was created in Ladakh or how it will be solved? Because no one is raising questions like Vajpayee – “The way China deceived us, sent huge numbers of troops to attack, then complained that we attacked first, will we forget that? If it is forgotten, will it not affect the morale of the people and the army? What is the guarantee that China will not re-enter even after leaving our territory?”

The author is an advocate, Calcutta High Court

Related:

What was so ‘anti national’ about interviewing China’s ambassador to India?

Indian government bans 59 Chinese mobile apps amid border standoff

PMO issues clarification on Modi’s comments on India-China border situation

The post Can raising the right questions ever be dubbed ‘anti-national’? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delhi-based freelance journalist, Prashant Jagdish Kanojia, has been booked for allegedly making objectionable remarks on social media against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, reported The Times of India.

BJP leader Shashank Shekhar Singh, son of late SP MLC Ajit Singh, had complained to the Aashiana police on Tuesday, after which the cops registered a case against Kanojia. The FIR was registered on the charges of defamation, printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory, circulating mischievous comments and obscenity under the Information and Technology Act, said Beenu Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment.

TOI reported that Singh in his FIR stated, “On Sunday night, I was browsing tweets on coronavirus. Suddenly, I noticed the profile of one Prashant Kanojia. Kanojia had posted photo of the prime minister and made a derogatory comment.”

In one tweet, Kanojia had posted a photo of the PM along with a derogatory statement and in another tweet, he had posted objectionable remarks against CM Adityanath.

However, this isn’t the first time Kanojia has been booked. He was once earlier arrested by the Lucknow police for making objectionable posts against CM Adityanath. At the time, he was released on bail by the Supreme Court after journalists and his supporters held protests against his arrest in various parts of the country.

The FIR against Kanojia comes days after the Uttar Pradesh police had booked a senior journalist, Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of The Wire over his comments on Twitter claiming that the day the Tablighi Jamaat event was held in Delhi, CM Yogi had insisted that a Ram Navami fair would take place as usual.

The FIR registered at the Faizabad Kotwali police station under Section 188 (disobeying an order duly promulgated by public servant) and 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief), referred to one tweet by Varadarajan which said, “On the day the Tablighi Jamaat event was held, Adityanath insisted a large Ram Navami fair planned for Ayodhya from March 25 to April 2 would proceed as usual and that ”Lord Ram would protect devotees from the coronavirus”.

In his second tweet, Varadarajan had written, “I should clarify that it was Acharya Paramhans, Hindutva stalwart and head of the official Ayodhya temple trust, who said Ram would protect devotees from coronavirus, and not Adityanath, though he allowed a public event on 25/3 in defiance of the lockdown and took part himself.”

Reacting to the FIR, Varadarajan had said that it was politically motivated and a blatant attack on the freedom of the press.
 

Related:

Food prices surge, farm sector suffers as supply and transportation hit amid Covid-19

Ground Report Assam: Covid-19 leads to mass starvation as water-starved farm lands run dry

The post Scribe booked for alleged defamatory content against PM Modi and CM Adityanath appeared first on SabrangIndia.