The law within the current type finds its root within the Hate Speech Law Section 295(A) enacted by the Land Administration in the Republic of India. This act was caused within the background of a series of murders of Arya Samaj leaders World Health Organization polemicized against Islam. This started in 1897 with the murder of Pandit Lekhram by a Muslim as a result of he had written a book criticizing Islam.[2] Koenraad Elst argues that “Section 295b wasn’t instituted by Hindu society, however against it.
It had been obligatory by land on the Hindus so as to defend Islam from criticism”.[2] The murder series caught lime-light in Dec, 1926 when the murder of Hindu Shraddhananda for the protection he gave to a family of converts from Islam to Hinduism additionally to writing Hindu Sangathan, Saviour of the Dying Race in 1926.[2][3]
Precedence to the current law started even before this as during a case against Arya Samaj sermoniser Dharm Bir in 1915, 10 Muslims were sentenced for riot, however Dharm Bir was conjointly charged underneath section 298 for “using offensive phrases and gestures (…) with the deliberate intention of wounding the spiritual feelings” of another community; and underneath Section 153, for “wantonly agitating the riot that later on occurred” and “a choose was brought in World Health Organisation may assure conviction”.[4]
The idea of liberty is as historical as the French revolution that saw the rise of philosophers and free thinkers like Voltaire and Montesquieu. The idea has broadened in its meaning, what we see as the fundamental right of speech and expression is an inherent component of a democracy.
In the context of Indian freedom struggle, the concept of free speech and expression played a major role in attaining independence. The writings, the short stories, poems, articles, reports both in English and vernacular languages helped in mobilisation of public opinion due to which the Britishers were forced to level charges of ‘Sedition’ upon many of the eminent nationalists, more specifically Mahatma Gandhi, thrice on Tilak, Annie Besant and other stalwarts of freedom struggle.
The law of infringement came into image post the revolt of 1857 and within the wake of the Muslim movement once British people crown found it necessary to curtail mass mobilisation of individuals. It expressed that anyone WHO tries to unfold “disaffection” towards the govt. would be at risk of imprisonment, with or while not fine.
Post independence, this draconian law despite being rendered unconstitutional by high courts in two cases was still kept as section 124A of India Penal Code – Ever since, we have seen misuse of this highly serious and severe charges by various governments in power.
see him A person in their charged content with nationalism. sedition is often What termed is to be as understood anti-national in the as the difference government between in powerbeing “anti-national” and “anti-government”.
Freedom to criticise, debate and dissent is also an essential constituent of freedom of speech and expression. Students and intellectuals form an eminent part of these debates. Discussions on various issues either it may be land acquisition by neo liberal regimes, caste system, corruption, several harassment,gender discrimination, budgets, anti-labor policies, environmental degradation etc are all part of the academic culture, more specifically the JNU in its 50 odd year history. Their debates, sloganeering, striker, agitations, street plays constitute the basic fabric of the most liberal space in the country. But sudden invocation of the sedition law on these activities provide a stark reminder to the sheer depravity of me of our antiquated, colonial-era laws.
Indian nationalism was always liberal in nature. The longest constitution in the world was formed on consensus rather than majority basis. Also every aspect except the universal suffrage was debated upon in the constituent assembly. Even the signature movement was to expel the British without hatred. The formation of a Secular India in the face of Muslim Pakistan was a remarkable movement to the national sentiment.
Hence when the generations who have been brought up witnessing all such aspects of India, are termed “anti-national”, it raises some serious questions on the attitude of the government and many even tend to question the existence of such a draconian law that is seen as a “play thing” in the hands of the government.
Nationalism demands dialogue. Any issue in the country has to be solved by public debates, discussions and opinion. Nations flourish when they instil in its citizens a sense of belongingness and meaning to their diversity. It should provide for extending inclusive character and democratising hierarchies otherwise it would be within “Nationalism without a nation”.
An important part of education is to learn to ask questions and develop the capacity for disobedience and as reasoned arguments. How unfortunate is the nation that has only obedient, minds as its youth!
The spirit of dissent and debate refuses to be subsumed under the simple minded idea of mediocase nationalism of the current dispersion that wishes away every difference of opinion as an insult to the nation.
To conclude it is to be understood that to argue against sedition does not tantamount to arguing in favour of unlimited free speech. The words which directly provoke violence or theatre the maintenance of public order deserve censure is unquestionable but sedition is not what it seeks to achieve.
