April 1, 2021
Dear Readers,
Greetings!
It is time we discarded several obsolete laws of the British Colonial period. One such law that has often been misused by the powers-that-be is of sedition. It is part of section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. In 1970, it was legally made a criminal offence. A number of provisions of this law go against our basic constitutional values, such as the right to assemble peacefully and the freedom of expression granted to citizens under the Constitution. These rights can be restricted in the name of the country’s security, integrity, and sovereignty. In Farooq Abdullah’s case, the Supreme Court made it clear that voicing dissent against the ruling establishment does not amount to sedition. This is well said. Even Jawaharlal Nehru had once spoken against this law. Still, why has it continued? The answer to this question is simple: it suits the ruling establishment to target independent-minded writers and media persons. However, we must not allow the sedition law to satisfy the wounded vanity of the ruling class.
In a major shift in policy perspective, the government of India seems set to check the misuse of social media. IT Minister Ravi Shanker Prasad has made it clear that “internet imperialism” by a few technology companies will not be allowed. He has charted new rules that will compel digital news publishers to strictly follow new official regulations. This has raised a critical question of whether the rulers would follow the “Chinese model of online surveillance and censorship”. However, we have to see how proper balance between voices online and unwanted political control can be ensured. We have to guard our most cherished task of freedom of expression as well as the basic principle of privacy.
Looking around, we have reasons to feel disturbed by the military coup in neighbouring Myanmar. What has been particularly upsetting is the overthrow of Aung San Sui Kyi, a vibrant symbol of Myanmar’s democracy. The people there have launched the civil disobedience movement against highly repressive policies of the military rulers. Regrettably, the democratic world has not yet found the right answer to help the people of Myanmar from repressive measures of the junta. Be that as it may, our goal has to be to work for the restoration of democracy in the Buddhist country.
From Pakistan’s Army Chief Qamari Javed Bajwa comes a surprise. He talks in a conciliatory tone and asks India to create a “conducive atmosphere” in Kashmir. He also throws up a vision of regional economic integration for the betterment of the sub-continent and South Asia. The moot point is: how trustworthy is Pakistan’s General’s peace signal. We cannot be sure since Islamabad is yet to give up its terror-related proxy war in J&K and the rest of India. We have to wait until General Bajwa comes out with a policy statement to put a stop to Pak-sponsored trans-border terrorism.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hari Jaisingh
Discard the colonial era sedition law
Although as many as 1,200 archaic laws were discarded in bulk some time back, the country is still following many obsolete laws of the British colonial period. This is quite regrettable given that even after 72 years of India’s Independence, the country has preserved these laws.
There is no justification for keeping the colonial laws, which have been discarded even by England. One such law that has often been misused by the powers-that-be is that of sedition. The law was introduced by British colonial rulers in India in 1835. National leaders Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, Maulana Azad, the Ali Brothers, and a number of freedom fighters had to bear the brunt of the British rulers. Even Gandhiji faced the provisions of this law when he was brought before court for his article in the weekly journal, Young India in 1922.
The point here is not to get lost in recalling the numerous moves by the British rulers against our freedom fighters. Although the term sedition vanished constitutionally, it has been retained under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as Section 124 A and was legally made into a criminal offence in 1970.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides restrictions on the right to assemble peacefully on the ground of it being a threat to public order. Similarly, free speech by individuals and organizations can be curbed in the name of the country’s sovereignty, security and integrity. All these go against our constitutional values and basic freedom of expression by citizens. In the Farooq Abdullah case, the Supreme Court has stated that voicing dissent against the government does not amount to sedition.
The Law Commission, in its 248th report on obsolete laws in 2014, had recommended repeal of the Act and said:
“It was enacted during the colonial era and extensively used to curb nationalist sentiments propagated through dramatic performances. It has no place in a modern democratic society”.
In fact, it is a violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Even Jawaharlal Nehru had once spoken against this law. However, the authorities never bothered about it since its provisions were useful to the ruling class to silence its critics, persecute and prosecute political opponents and target unfriendly media persons, independent-minded writers and academics.
Viewed in this light, Delhi’s Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana needs to be complimented for his forthright observations while granting bail to Bengaluru activist Disha Ravi who had been arrested by the Delhi Police for creating a toolkit on the farmers’ protest, which was tweeted by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.
The Judge found that there was not even an iota of evidence showing that the ‘toolkit’ (a shared Google document) gave ideas on how to go about amplifying the protests to incite violence. In fact, the entire case was nothing more than a reflection of the government’s paranoia.
The Honorable Judge rightly observed that “citizens are conscience keepers of government in any democratic nation” and “cannot be put behind the bar simply because they choose to disagree with the state policies” and that the provisions of sedition cannot be invoked to satisfy the wounded vanity of government.
These are landmark observations by the Delhi High Court. It ruled that mere engagement with persons of dubious credentials “is not a crime”.
While the Supreme Court has so far kept itself away from tackling the intricacies of sedition law, the subordinate judiciary has started questioning the misuse of sedition law. This is just as well in view of rising number of such cases.
Judge Dharmender Rana has clearly stated that a dispassionate scrutiny is essential for protecting the liberty of those jailed on flimsy or politically motivated grounds. This calls for a thorough investigation of evidence and charges presented by the police to the court right at the beginning. The Judge thus saw Ms. Ravi’s activism as related to her freedom of speech and expression.
The senseless rise in the number of sedition cases has to be seen in this light. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, as many as 93 cases of sedition were filed in 2019. This showed a 165 percent jump from 35 cases in 2016. What is disquieting is the indiscriminate use of the law of sedition to curb the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights without reasonable cause. No wonder, India has slipped the 27th position in 2014 to the 53rd in 2020 in the Economic Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index Global ranking. In terms of freedom of the press as well, India ranks 142 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index 2020.
The main problem with the Indian polity today is one of senseless drift and erosion in the value system. Judge Dharmender Rana has shown refreshing clarity in maintaining that mere interaction with a group with dubious credentials cannot be used to consider someone culpable. It is, therefore, obvious that in a modern democracy such as India, there should be no place for the colonial-time sedition law, which is being used arbitrarily by the authorities for petty political wins to repress activism that goes against them. It must therefore be scrapped without further ado.
We must seriously look into these colonial era laws and not be afraid of opening this Pandora’s Box for fear of aggravating the present political-oriented divisions of mind. Nothing can be gained by intellectual cowardice in our vibrant democracy.
Incidentally, Washington-based think tank, Freedom House, has demoted India’s freedom score from “free” to “partly free”, stating that rights and civil liberties “have been eroding since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014”. The organization specifically refers to the use of sedition law and treatment towards Muslims. This is a serious matter and the Modi government has to take prompt steps to not only improve its global image but also to move back towards the path of restraint tread by past leaders.
March 5, 2021
Voices online and unwanted political control!
Jon Ronson, a Welsh-American journalist, author and filmmaker, once said:
“The great thing about social media was how it gave a voice to voiceless people”.
The problem, however, arises when critical utterances by the voiceless are not relished by the powers-that-be. In today’s increasingly polarized environment that we observe today, the Government of India’s IT Rules have imposed a ring of accountability in the digital ecosystem. The rules also ensure a degree of increased political control. Ravi Shankar Prasad – Minister of Communications, Law & Justice and Electronics & Information Technology and Communications – the other day came out with a number of new rules superseding the 2011 rules and presented them as a “soft-touch oversight mechanism”. Calling them as “progressive” and “liberal”, the new rules are projected as addressing “people’s varied concerns while dismissing any misapprehension about “curbing creativity and freedom of expression”.
The entire purpose of the government’s digital media guidelines is to put a stop to social media abuses and create a level-playing field by these rules which are supposed to be followed by online news and media platforms vis-à-vis traditional media outlets.
The new rules spell out ten categories of content that social media platforms are expected not to host. These include content that “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order, causes incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence or prevents investigations of any offence or is insulting to any foreign states”.
The new rules also prevent:
“defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy, including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of gender; libellous, racially or ethnically objectionable relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling or otherwise inconsistent with or contrary to the laws of India”.
While the offences under the IT Act range from tampering with documents, hacking into computer systems, online misrepresentation, confidentiality, privacy and publication of content for fraudulent purposes. The penal provisions on these counts vary from imprisonment for three years to a maximum of seven years with fines starting from INR 2 lakh.
It needs to be acknowledged that the regulations do bring accountability to social media platforms. No one would disagree that some codes of ethics or rules are necessary to check misinformation, fake news or propaganda online. All the same, the regulation of publishers of original content raises certain serious questions which suggest policing of speech and expression of views which cannot be brushed under the carpet of intermediary regulations. Here, it is necessary to specifically work out only reasonable restrictions on creative speech and artistic expressions as spelt out in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. For this intricate task, it is essential to go in for proper legislation, and not merely go by executive rules. In essence, as lawyer Malavika Raghavan states:
“For more online civility, we will need deeper engagement and careful legislation”.
Ravi Shankar Prasad is forthright and candid while talking about social media abuses. He says in an interview that the guidelines do not pertain to the way social media should be uses. He adds:
“It is to check the abuse and misuse of social media”.
He firmly states that the government will no longer accept “internet imperialism” by a select few technology companies of the world and will ensure that they respect local ideas, culture, traditions and sentiments.
He, therefore, asks:
“With over 130 crore users of social media and they have grievance, should they not have a proper grievance redressal mechanism?”
He clarifies that the government would have no role in this.
“It is for the platform to settle grievances”.
The IT Minister may not be disputed on this count. But fresh problem crops up here since the new rules force digital news publishers to a cumbersome three-tier structure of regulation, with a government committee at its apex. This is not desirable in a democratic country like ours. There has to be self-regulation of grievances from the people.
Viewed in this light, cumbersome extension of executive power to regulate online news media and video streaming platform is certainly not desirable. The need here is to guard against what is globally called a “Chinese model of online surveillance and censorship”.
Indeed, we need to guard against the autocratic approach which could go against our most cherished task of freedom of speech and expression as well as against the basic principle of privacy. Internet users in India do not mind ensuring accountability of Big Tech. However, this should not be at the cost of increasing political control.
Indian democracy is surely vibrant. More often than not, media here supplements the opposition role as a watchdog of democratic functioning of the ruling establishment. At the same time, the growing power of the Fourth Estate is viewed with awe. In today’s changing world of media, social media platforms provide space for dissenting opinions even from the grassroots. They have unleashed suppressed voices and in the process, have empowered communities.
To say this is not to deny that these platforms can be misused by Big Tech. It must be said that Big Tech needs to be made accountable. The Centre’s IT Rules will surely bring answerability in the digital media and OTT (over-the-top) platforms from Big Tech. The challenge, however, lies ahead for ensuring proper balance between voices online and unwanted political control in the name of light touch or blunt instrument!
March 12, 2021
Myanmar people’s open fight against coup rulers
India, as the world’s largest democracy, has reasons to be concerned about the state of affairs in Myanmar ever since the coup d’état on 1 February 2021 by the country’s armed forces that dethroned the democratically elected ruling party called the National League for Democracy (NLD).
This means the unseating of Aung San Suu Kyi, the symbol of Myanmar’s vibrant democracy. The people have turned against the military establishment and launched a civil disobedience movement. The protest movement has been growing in strength over the weeks in the face of highly repressive measures by the military leaders. These include internet and social media blackout, a large number of arrests and criminal sentences against protesters, the spread of disinformation and resort to violent acts to suppress protests.
Thousands of young protesters are participating in anti-military rallies in Yangon. Their ire is directed at Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces who staged the coup. Martial law has now been imposed by the military rulers. The move allows military commanders to take over administration of troubled areas, including courts. This is highly disturbing.
We cannot overlook China’s hand in Myanmar’s military rule. This is a worrying point for the world’s democratic regimes as they have not yet worked out right answers to help restore democracy in the country.
It may be recalled that the coup d’état occurred the day before the Parliament of Myanmar was due to swear in the members of elected by the November 2020 general election, thereby preventing the swearing ceremony of President Win Myint and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. They were detained, along with ministers and their deputies and members of Parliament.
Despite various repressive measures by the military rulers, the people’s protests have grown in size and spread to other cities across the country. The protestors call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, raising slogans against the military dictator. A number of Burmese celebrities and politicians have publicly supported civil resistance protests, posing with the three-finger salute in social media posts.
Things are getting further complicated as the military commanders are going about their anti-people crackdown ruthlessly. In such a complex situation, it is difficult to keep count of number of casualties and deaths. Latest media reports suggest that the security forces killed a large number of pro-democracy demonstrators. One girl got shot down in the head and a boy got shot in the face in different cities.
What is regrettable is that ‘battle tactics’ have been used by the coup leaders to crackdown the protesters. Independent international observers have disputed the military claim of the fraudulent election held in November 2020, saying no irregularities were observed. Equally baseless have been their charges against Suu Kyi of illegally accepting USD 600,000 and 11 kg of gold. No evidence has been provided on these counts. The military commanders cannot thrive by feeding the world with lies and misplaced allegations. It is clear that having ruled the country for most of the time after becoming independent from Britain in 1948, they seem to be missing the fruits of power ever since Aung San Suu Kyi came to the fore after free election in 2015.
A number of Myanmar politicians ousted in the coup have vowed to continue with their revolutionary protests against the military authorities. In his first public address, prominent leader Mahn Win Maung Khaing has said:
“This is the darkest moment of the nation”.
He is hopeful of ending the dictatorship for good.
Interestingly, “anti-coup tattoos” have become popular form of resistance in Myanmar. The most popular of the tattoo displayed is that of the ousted leader, 75-year-old Aung San Suu Kyi and the famous three-finger salute which has been adopted by pro-democracy activists.
The most moving scene was seen when a Catholic nun with her hands spread, was seen pleading with the forces “not to shoot and torture the children, but to shoot me and kill me instead”. This has won her praise in the majority Buddhist country.
The moot point is: what next? The US, Japanese, Australian and Indian leaders in a joint statement have underlined the urgent need to restore and strengthen democratic resilience of the people in Myanmar. They, however, have not spelt out how they would go about this onerous task. The problem arises since this is basically people’s fight and they have to continue their protests against the military commanders.
This is surely going to be a difficult task. This does not look like a short-term struggle. I am sure the country’s youngsters have the “fire” within and they would succeed in their freedom struggle under the inspiring leadership of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi. The global support will continue for the struggling people of Myanmar.
However, what is disquieting amidst the economic crisis is hunger for the poor who are facing rising food and fuel prices across the country. The UN Human Rights office needs to take some urgent steps to come to the assistance of the poor and victims of the military crackdown.
The US has denounced the bloodshed. However, Washington and other democratic nations need to work out urgent measures to help end the repression and come to the rescue of the poor and the have-nots of suffering Myanmar. The Military rulers cannot be allowed to continue their repressive measures against the people. Democracy has to be restored in Myanmar.
March 19, 2021
Dealing with General Bajwa’s “peace overtures”
It has not been the practice of Pakistan’s army chiefs to talk in conciliatory tones when it comes to India. They have thrived on tough postures towards this country. Pakistan military dictators striking soft lines occasionally are seen as tactical moves. In this context, General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s signalling of change in his otherwise tough stance comes as a surprise.
In his speech at Islamabad’s high-powered event called Islamabad Security Dialogue, he set out a vision of regional economic integration for the betterment of India and Pakistan as well as for South Asia. He specifically asked New Delhi to create a “conducive environment” in Kashmir for the resumption of a dialogue for peace between the two countries. He did not spell out the nature of “conducive environment” in Kashmir. We know it well that Pakistan’s low-cost proxy war, started by General Zia-ul-Haq, has mainly been responsible for creating areas of tensions between the two countries in Kashmir and beyond.
The Talibanisation of Pakistan has already upset the old equations between India and Pakistan. Also, the official embrace of religious terrorism has surfaced at a time when there is a growing resentment against such a tendency even in the West.
The Pakistan army has been known to have been “covering fire” for years to militants’ terrorists entering Kashmir, apart from providing funding and training. I have always said that Pak-sponsored trans-border terrorism has been the core issue, and not Kashmir, which has not allowed “conducive environment” for peace in the subcontinent. In fact, terrorism cannot be viewed in isolation. It has to be seen as a major threat to the very existence of India as a democratic polity.
General Bajwa, this time, did not recite Islamabad’s old mantra by recalling the old Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. At the same time, he made it clear that without the resolution of Kashmir dispute through peaceful means, “sub-continental reproachment” would always remain “susceptible to derailment”. He, therefore, felt that it is time “to bury the past and move forward”.
The question is: why this change of attitude on the part of Pakistan’s military establishment? The simple answer is: Pakistan’s serious economic and financial crisis. So much so that it is faced with the threat of being blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). FATF threat apart, Islamabad is faced with multiple domestic issues in different parts of the country, which even the Pakistan army is finding it difficult to control.
At a strategic level, faced with a huge economic crisis that has only got worse due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and amid a geopolitical flux in West Asia, humiliating demands from even friendly nations to return their loans, Pakistan has been signalling to the world that is rethinking its national security model.
Islamabad’s North-West Frontier has become a breeding ground for a growing Islamic militancy, which threatens the very stability of Islamabad. Stability in Pakistan’s federally administrated tribal areas and North-West Frontier Province also threatens NATO’s strategic Khyber Pass lifeline to Afghanistan.
Indeed, amidst corruption, mismanagement and misplaced priorities, Pakistan’s economy is in shambles. The only thing that has kept Pakistan somewhat economically afloat has been borrowings, both from domestic and foreign sources. Its total external debt stands at a whopping USD 111 billion. This indebtedness has come at a time when Islamabad is already living beyond its means.
Amidst these harsh economic realities and ongoing domestic troubles from Islamic militancy, General Bajwa’s changing stances towards India can be understood. Islamabad’s military supremo, no wonder, talks about a rational choice to see the region in terms of geo-economic integration rather than geo-strategic rivalries. However, if the General means business, then he will have to reframe the entire range of policy and strategic framework towards India, keeping Kashmir in view. There can be no half way house to the peace process.
True, Pakistan military rulers have generally failed to appreciate India’s sensitivities and its ability to hit back, if need be. Pakistan has had to pay heavily every time it engaged this country in an armed confrontation. Even the China factor is not going to make much difference for Pakistan this time. Therefore, the question to raise is: how serious is General Bajwa about his peace overtures? We can only express doubt on this count unless Pakistan gives up its terror-related proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir and beyond.
It may be worthwhile for Islamabad to remember that the world is more determined than ever before to crush terrorism. Given the increasing menace of terrorism, even the Islamic world is no longer in a position to sit on the fence. It is sure to take a clearer stand against terrorism.
These hard facts should prompt Pakistani policymakers and strategists to work out a new blue print for its relations with India and the rest of the world. Viewed in this light, it must stop sending armed infiltrators across the border in Kashmir and beyond.
Will General Bajwa and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan come out of Pakistan’s old mindset? Unless this is convincingly shown, India cannot be sure of General Bajwa’s proposed road to peace. In any case, Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to have an open mind about the evolution of Indo-Pak ties in the right peaceful direction.
I would, however, prefer to keep my fingers crossed. The best option for New Delhi right now should be wait and watch till General Bajwa shows his next concrete move forward to curb terrorism.
March 26, 2021