Political
Diary
New Delhi,
22 June 2021
Dissent
Vital For Democracy
GOVT
NEEDS SELF CONTROL
By
Poonam I Kaushish
Democracy is a conflict of interests masquerading as a contest
of principles. An adage which nails our leaders’ angst when it comes to their
reactions on ‘anti-national’ speeches and ‘terrorism’ depending on which side
of the liberal-bigoted divide they are. Leaving one wondering if
anti-nationalism is the new black!
Kudos to the Delhi High Court for upholding the right to protest
as a Fundamental Right which can’t be termed as a ‘terrorist act’, while it
granted bail to three student activists
who faced charges under various provisions of the IPC and the draconian
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for being part of a premeditated conspiracy
behind the communal violence in north-east Delhi riots conspiracy case February
2020 during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act last week.
Observing, that “protests against Governmental and Parliamentary
actions are legitimate” the Court said it was constrained to note that in its
anxiety to “suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of
hand, the State has blurred the line between the Constitutionally guaranteed
‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction,
democracy would be in peril”, it noted. The Government cannot be “allowed to cry wolf” and “draw
inference” when no direct evidence exists.
Not
only this, it admonished the Police which too loves to slap colonial era
sedition laws to put those critical of the Government behind bars. Over the
last few years, the police have frequently been invoking UAPA and sedition to
silence critical citizens’ voices and put them behind bars under stringent
anti-terror law.
Amulya
Leona who raised “Pakistan Zindabad”
slogan thrice at AIMIM Chief Owaisi's anti-CAA-NRC Save Constitution rally last
year was slapped with sedition and imprisoned for 14 days in Bengaluru. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court times out of number
frowning on the rampant use of sedition.
Recall, when farmers gathered at Singhu
to protest against the three farm laws some of them were dubbed Khalistanis and
terrorists out to destabilize India. What to speak of the arrest
of a Muslim in Kashmir for objecting to the presence of an official from
outside the Union Territory at a meeting held by the Lieutenant Governor and a
BJP MLA castigating Nehru's pluralism for coming in the way of India becoming a
Hindu rashtra at
Partition.
Questionably, is the Government wanting
to peddle a patriotism whose condition of possibility is the wiping out of all
thought? Is its concept of nationalism per se a justification to stifle critique? No matter, that these
are symbolic of every Indian’s freedom credentials! How does merely criticizing
a law tantamount to spreading “hatred”? Is the Government, be it Centre or
State crushing free expression? Is it trying to tell us that outpouring by its
critics and activists not be tolerated?
By doing so does it not make a mockery of the concept of a
“nation” built on the values of democracy? Are we so paranoid or intolerant
that any outpouring is viewed as a threat to the nation, the Constitution or
the Government? Is the polity afraid of a clash of ideas in our public life?
Should this become litmus of one’s patriotism?’
Have we lost the ability to accept criticism? Bordering on a
narcissist phobia? Is it mere coincidence or a sign of an increasingly
knee-jerk, reactionary country? Should an assertion become litmus of one’s
patriotism?’
Obversely, is putting someone who protests or denounces a law
behind bars, the Governments’ way of teaching us a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti? Do we want to produce robots who only act at the
command of what their leaders and chela
thinkers, benefactors and wealth creators’ desire?
Even as Prime Minister Modi underlined India’s “democracy, its
vibrancy, diversity and civilizational ethos'” at the G 7 conclave, protests
ruled the roost in Lakshadweep where a BJP administrator’s crackdown on
non-vegetarian meals in schools along with a ban on beef consumption denoted scant regard for
dietary preferences of the locals.
Perhaps
this display of machismo, bravado or growing tentacles of majoritarianism, with
the Government acting as the enabler is to reassure its hardcore Saffronites of
its Hindutva and Hindu rashtra agenda
which galvanises the rank and file and polishes the Party's image as the
nation's savior, especially when it is directed against the minorities. Masked
by Modi’s clarion call for sabka
saath, sabka vikas, sabka vishwas.
Given
this dissonance between India's age-old civilization and its democratic temper vs suppression of criticism it cannot be
easy for the BJP to maintain its balancing act to convince the world that all
is well. Yet it needs to realize that dissent is the essence of a mature
democracy. Any criticism of the Government should not be treated as an act of
terror or declaration of war against the State.
A senior BJP leader blamed the Opposition, intellectuals and
Lutyen lobbyists who are obsessed with portraying negative news and painting
the Government in poor light, instead of highlighting “more positivity” and
what is needed to fix the system. The problem with them is it is easier to
blame the Modi Sarkar for everything
than take responsibility themselves.
Be
that as it may, the Court’s observations must serve as an eye-opener for all Governments
and police which violates citizens’ rights and arrest critics, dissenters and
protesters on the flimsiest grounds and charges them under draconian laws.
Undeniably, democracy is messy business but dissent, even while
being difficult, does not make it anarchic; it only tries to rearrange the
pattern. Having
a system where dissent can freely exist plays a critical role in holding Governments
accountable, making Governments work for the welfare of the people, decreases
the risk of corruption and ultimately makes the nation safer for its citizens.
A
culture of dissent allows civil society, press and social media to thrive which
are crucial to the sustenance of democracy. Societies where dissent is allowed
to exist usually have greater political stability, rule of law and Government
efficiency in policy making. Consequently, if democracy matters, our leaders need
to go beyond partisan politics and safeguard dissent in the country. People
should speak out every time they see dissent being curtailed. No one should
normalize the curtailment of dissent.
On
the other extreme is a sterile political system that is democratic only during
elections. To use a Covid analogy such a state of existence can be likened to
that of an individual hooked to a ventilator. It is not where we want to find
our democracy in.
In
fact, democracy is strengthened by the plurality of opinions and the freedom to
express them. People protesting peacefully for their ideals are an important
element of democracy and invoking the most severe penal provisions against them
belittles democracy, trivialises terrorism and undermines the intent and
purpose of Parliament in enacting a law.
Time
our rulers pressed the pause button and drew a clear demarcation line between
criticism of the Government, which is a Constitutional right and activities
that destabilise the country. As the Government walks the tightrope between our
multi-cultural tenets and the anti-minority temper of its Hindutva cadres it
should realize it could fall between two stools even as it is disdainful of
‘self-appointed’ critics. There is urgent need for temperance else democracy
will be in peril. ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|