The photograph of Delhi BJP MLA O P Sharma thrashing CPI’s Ameeque Jamai at Patiala House Courts complex on Monday is a picture of the level to which political discourse has plummeted in the country. Students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University had gathered outside the court for the bail hearing of Kanhaiya Kumar, who was arrested and charged with sedition. An argument broke out between two lawyers and within minutes the area was engulfed in one-sided fight with goons, allegedly dressed as lawyers, beating up students while the police remained as mute spectators. In the second round mobile phones were snatched to prevent recordings of the incident. The BJP MLA was unrepentant and said he would beat up people who raised anti-India slogans. The police is now probing a possible terror angle, a Pakistani angle and an LeT angle and till date has no evidence to show that the unrest was instigated from across the border.
At the heart of the matter is a sedition law enacted by the British to curb dissent against the government by Indians fighting for freedom. The law was introduced in 1870 by Lord Macaulay, 10 years after the Indian Penal Code became law. This law was used to jail Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and many others. Raja Hari Singh of Kashmir tried Sheikh Abdullah on sedition charges in 1946. A working paper by the Law Commission of the United Kingdom had recommended that the law on sedition be abolished as it was unnecessary and redundant. However, the law was rescinded only in 2009 in the UK. The United States introduce a sedition law in 1917 to deal with anti-war protests, but it was repealed in 1920 after the end of the first world war.
The law on sedition is archaic and its use against students or any citizen for that matter, reveals a colonial mindset. In the present circumstances the use of the law puts on display the vulnerability of the BJP and its affiliates in the light of dissent, and hence one might easily conclude that the only use of the law is to suppress views not in line with the ruling party or government or to protect a distorted definition of nationalism. Section 124A of the IPC is so ancient in its wording and so general in its sweep that every utterance against the government could easily be construed as seditious. Even though the Supreme Court has redefined the law and made incitement to violence as a mandatory requirement, the Centre continues to misuse it to protect its version of nationalism. A serious debate on the relevance of the sedition law in a modern nation is therefore, the need of the hour.
With BJP president Amit Shah and HRD, Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Minister Smriti Irani backing the action of the police there is not an iota of doubt that a decision was taken at the highest level to fan the fires of right-wing politics. The Narendra Modi government was voted to power on the promise of inclusive politics and development. Now it seems to be reneging on this promise by pursuing the politics of confrontation. It appears the party has not learned its lessons from the Bihar elections where attempts to polarize voters on the beef issue proved disastrous for the BJP.
