Events
& Issues
New Delhi, 12 September 2018
Stifling Dissent
GOVT ANXIETY RISING?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The recent cases
against rights activists and their ‘house arrest’ additionally point to the
fact that the Government is bent on stifling dissent in the country. Some
experts have analysed the situation as a case of nervousness in view of growing
protests by different groups against the Centre’s policies, the relentless
Congress attacks against the Government over its lack of transparency on the
Rafale defence deal and also the RBI’s revelations that the demonetisation
exercise failed to achieve the objective of unearthing black money. Whether in
the political, economic or social fields, it is generally believed that the Government
has virtually failed to live up to the challenges.
The intelligentsia
has revolted against the political philosophy of the ruling party and its
determination to curb any dissenting opinion. Some regional leaders have
pointed out that the present situation in the country is akin to the conditions
prevailing at the time of Emergency. It is indeed quite strange why the BJP is
acting in such a way.
Meanwhile, while
inviting views on the sedition law, a consultation paper brought out by the Law
Commission observed: “In a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark
of patriotism. People should be at liberty to show their affection to their own
country in their own way. For doing the same, one might indulge in constructive
criticism or debates, pointing out the loopholes in the policy of the Government”.
The paper further
added “every irresponsible exercise of right to free speech and expression
cannot be termed seditious.....Expressions of frustration over the state of
affairs, for instance, calling India ‘no country for women’, or a country that
is ‘racist’ for its obsession with skin colour as a marker of beauty, are
critiques that do not threaten the idea of a nation”.
This clearly shows
that even the judiciary does not support the Government’s stand which had slapped
Section 124A that is, the sedition law on youth leader, Kanhaiya Kumar, Gujarat
Patidar leader, Hardik Patel and some of the recent arrests.
Discontent is in the
air. It is palpable in the growing protests and the appearance of non-sectarian
mass movements in different parts of the country. Farmer protests have broken
out in several States; Dalits are a disenchanted lot and have taken to active
protests, from Una to Saharanpur, despite the systematic attempt to woo them;
the ongoing student protests in universities highlight the continuing
resistance against assaults on the autonomy to think and the right to engage
with ideas, which the ruling dispensation disapproves of. Even though these
protests are not pervasive and do not pose a serious challenge to the BJP’s
winning spree in elections, they have nonetheless invited the wrath of the Government.
At a broader level,
dissent has been curbed through a combination of coercive and non-coercive
means. These include reducing the remit of Right to Information (RTI), curbs on
foreign-funded NGOs, criminalisation of dissent through sedition provisions of
the penal code, and the hounding of human rights activists and civil society
groups. One can add to this list the CBI raids on NDTV which many people have
rightly read as a message to the media in general to fall in line, if they
haven’t already done so.
This is similar to
the way in which the Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Film and Television
Institute of India were targeted earlier with the express purpose of
eradicating important sites of dissent. Each of these institutions is perceived
as a threat to the ideological agenda of the regime, raising inconvenient
questions that the regime feels needed to be silenced.
Thus, not just at the
central level but in many parts of the country, specially West Bengal, the
ruling party in power does not want Opposition parties to function as is
normally done in a democracy. Can one imagine that around 25,000 candidates
could not file their nominations in the recently held elections in the State?
Stifling dissent not just of the Opposition but also those who may not be
actively involved in politics has been a tendency of many regional parties
though they talk of democracy, off and on.
The reports of
violence that have hit the headlines during the past one year or so are a
pointer to the fact that people do not have the right to involve in
constructive criticism or follow life styles that may not be in consonance with
what is preached and practised by the party in power. This indeed is a very
disturbing trend that obviously does not augur well for a democracy.
The present situation
is definitely not conducive for healthy growth of society and its different
institutions that have virtually lost their independence and become stooges of
the ruling establishment. The intelligentsia is thus frustrated in such a
situation. Added to this is the distressing economic scenario of the widening
disparity between the rich and the poorer sections as also between the urban
and the rural sectors and the organised and the unorganised sectors in matters
of income. As is well known, whatever politicians may claim about high GDP
growth, it reduces inequality or measures the same.
All this may have
retarded what politicians frequently refer to as ‘inclusive development’ with
power and authority being imposed from the top. Thus those at the top – the big
business houses have gained from Government’s policies while the income levels
and living standards of the poor and the economically weaker sections have
virtually remained unchanged.
At this juncture,
when uncritical nationalist fever is running high in the country, such
arbitrariness and arrogance of the political establishment will make it more
and more difficult to exercise the right to protest, which is an integral part
of constitutional guarantees.
The question arises
where does this leave the issue of democracy? This is precisely the space in
which dissent and democracy make their connection. Freedom of expression and
its concomitant, the concept of dissent, are essential for democracy. It is a
concept that contains within it the democratic right to object, oppose, protest
and even resist.
In the end, keeping
dissent alive is to practise what Edward Said called “speaking truth to power”
in his penultimate 1993 Reith Lectures. As he rightly observed: “No one can speak up all the time on all the
issues. But, I believe, there is a special duty to address the constituted and
authorised powers of one’s own society, which are accountable to its citizenry,
particularly when those powers are exercised in a manifestly disproportionate
and immoral war, or in a deliberate programme of discrimination, repression,
and collective cruelty.”
Over the years Indian
democracy has provided space for many different and contradictory visions and
voices to express themselves. Under the present dispensation – possibly guided
by the RSS’s monolithic view of the world -- these spaces have been shrinking
steadily and the Government is stifling dissent. Unfortunately, the
international media is quite critical of the existing state of affairs. This
has to change as not only is the Government losing its goodwill among the
critics in India and abroad but also among the aam janata, who are the potential voters. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|