Manmohan’s Govt Seldom Spoke, this Govt Seldom Listens: Dileep Padgaonkar
By Anandita Ghosh and Saranga Ugalmugle
Proceedings of PUCL-NAPM meeting on `Repression in Educational Institutions and Misuse of Sedition Law’, 23rd February, 2016 in Pune
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) and other progressive organizations held an open meeting on the repression of educational institutions and journalists and the misuse of sedition law, on the 23rd of February in Pune. To register their protest against the events in JNU and Patiala court house recently, they issued a public statement and appeal. [The entire statement is at the end of this article.] The open meeting included speeches by Dr. Nitish Navsagaray (law professor), Mr. Dileep Padgaonkar (senior journalist), Mr. Suhas Palshikar (Political theoretician), Dr. Manisha Gupte (Feminist Activist) and Dr. Ramesh Awasthi (President, PUCL Maharashtra). Each speaker explored different aspects of nationalism and the need of the hour.
Dileep Padgaonkar, distinguished journalist, brought out the realities of the media. He said that one has to realise and understand that there is pressure on the media- political, ideological as well as commercial. Given the background and especially the way things are today, objective reporting is difficult to come by, but even more difficult to find is fair comment. In a scenario where TV anchors ‘bash’ guests and there are shows called ‘The Big Fight’, there is little room for nuanced analysis or discussion. There has been a polarization of opinions and ideologies; people don’t like going into nuances.
Padgaonkar observed that during the elections of 2014, the condition of the media changed- there was ideological polarisation, commercial pressures increased, and this government and prime minister have a unique communication strategy. Their communication strategy is one way, in one direction. He said, “Manmohan Singh’s government seldom spoke, this government seldom listens”.
The PM tweets to wish people on birthdays, but there is silence when a man gets lynched on suspicion of consuming beef; that is a communication strategy. So at an official level there is no communication, and on social media, there are reactions.
Referring to the manner in which JNU videos were doctored and publicised, Padgaokar said that the Indian media is a planter’s paradise- investigative journalism is not up to the mark, and therefore, it is extremely easy to plant material. The media no longer reflects reality but also guides and shapes reality. When twitter has a comment linking JNU to LeT, despite coming from a fake account, the damage is already done. “That night the nation wanted to know and the nation decided that the tweet was right!” said Padgaonkar.
Commenting on the present government, Padgaonkar said, “It was obvious to me right from May 2014, the current government will be double faced. One face will speak about the modernization of the economy and the modernisation of the armed forces. And whatever, needs to be done to modernise the economy and modernise the armed forces will be done and will be done by and large correctly.” He went on to add, “The second face is ensure that in education and culture there is no progression but regression, and the agenda for education, the agenda for culture was straightforward, no ambiguity. We have a certain line that must be imposed. That line is- I define what culture it; I define what Indian culture is; I define what nationalism is; but most of all, I define what anti-nationalism is.” The right wing in India feels threatened by pluralism. Any criticism is attributed to a big conspiracy.
However, he says there is hope- the staggering incompetence of the right, the lack of strong intellectuals and creative minds. He ended by saying that the only way to rise to the vicious challenge of the present was to become ‘Constitutionalist Patriots’- where patriotism stems from the constitution, where patriotism means to believe in pluralism, diversity, and non-violent means to achieve ends. He said he loves his nation but when cornered and forced to choose, he would stand by the people of the nation rather than the state; he would be with the citizens of the country rather than the institutions of the country.
Dr. Nitish Navsagaray, a Dalit rights activist and a lecturer at a Law College, presented a strong case for the need of repealing the law on sedition from the Indian Penal Code. Sec 124 A of the IPC defines law of sedition which states that anyone who brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government by words spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, is guilty of the offence of sedition. The definition does not leave out of its purview any possible mode of self expression, simply by using the words “or otherwise”. The punishment for the offence of sedition is life imprisonment but lesser punishment can also be awarded. Sedition was not a part of the original Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1860 and was introduced in 1870.
Navsagaray referred to the two cases of sedition filed by the British government, one against Bal Gangadhar Tilak and one against Mahatma Gandhi. Taking some historical cases into account to show how this law of sedition has been used as a political tool by the Governments in power to curb voices of dissent, he mentioned another landmark case, in which the scope and nature of sedition as defined in the IPC was explained – Sadashiv Narain Bhalerao’s case (King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narain Bhalerao in 1947). The Privy Council held, “but even if he (accused) neither excited nor intended to excite any rebellion or outbreak or forcible resistance to the authority of the Government still if he tried to excite feelings of enmity to the Government that is sufficient to make him guilty under the section”.
Before 1962, as per the law in the Penal Code no incitement to violence or insurrection was necessary in the speech to be termed as sedition as long as it excited “dissatisfaction” towards the government. In 1962, in the case of `Kedarnath v. State of Bihar’, the court, however, adopted the view of the Federal Court of India that the gist of the offence of sedition is “incitement to violence” or the “tendency or the intention to create public disorder”. So, as per the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, a person can be charged with sedition only if there is incitement to violence in his speech or writing or an intention to create disorder.
This being the historical stand on sedition by the judiciary, one must not forget that Tilak, a freedom fighter, and Gandhi, one of the founding fathers of our nation, had long back taken a stand against the law of sedition. Pandit Nehru himself called sedition an obnoxious piece of legislation and mentioned the need of removing it from our statute books. In spite of the same, we continue to have the archaic law of sedition, a relic of the colonial rulers. This law has been used to gain political points and to subdue any sort of dissent against the government. Being a modern democracy, India cannot continue to criminalize dissent, and thus Navsagaray stated the urgent need to repeal the law on sedition from the statute books!
Suhas Palshikar, another eminent journalist and professor of political science, spoke about interference of the state in educational institutions. The JNU incident, he said, highlights the issue of autonomy of educational institutions and state interference in the same. “We have stopped looking at universities as a space which fosters intellectual growth and curiosity but have instead made them into governmental departments.” said Palshikar. He raised concern over how educational institutions have been reduced to industries which manufacture graduates and technicians to meet some statistical demands!
Palshikar, while speaking of nationalism, questioned what amounts to nationalism. Is nationalism love for the state imposed on the people at gunpoint or under pressure of arbitrary state law? Should it be out of love for the people, society and their concerns? Is nationalism ownership over a piece of land or the quest to work for the voiceless people of the society? JNU,HCU, etc. are not isolated events; they raise pertinent questions about where this nation is headed? What is our idea of India?
It is time to contemplate over the relationship between democracy, which asks questions, and nationalism, which insists on love for the nation.
Manisha Gupte, a feminist activist and member of PUCL, spoke of the alarming similarities between Germany during the rise and reign of Hitler and present day India and the need to stand up to the present situation. While Hitler and Goebel harped on the past glory of Germany, the vision of an undivided Germany, and who was a true German, the present government, much along the same lines, talks of a glorious past, an undivided India, and defines who is a nationalist and who is not. And the manner in which cultural nationalism is being shaped, is dangerous. The BJP is openly violent and discriminatory. One only has to look at the interviews of the lawyers who brag about beating Kanhaiya; there are those who talk of petrol bombs and even hanging, and these are the people who are labelled nationalists. On the other hand, people who debate whether capital punishment should be abolished or not become anti-nationals.
Much like Germany’s SS and SA troupes, we have groups like the RSS and Bajrang Dal. These groups work to establish fear on the roads, in everyday life; and then there are the lone wolf attacks-Kalburgi, Dabholkar. They attacked individuals whose houses and minds were open for all.
In Germany, the gas chambers were set up by doctors, very educated individuals. Even in the setting up of the RSS, there were many doctors and highly educated people. She said, “Highly educated and progressive are not the same. Along with modernization, modernity of mind is required.” The nation is headed towards a scary path. When Vajpai was in power, we were critical of him. Then came Advani, and Vajpayee seemed moderate…then came Modi and everyone before him seemed moderate. The fear is tomorrow we will have someone who will make even Modi seem moderate.
Manisha ended saying, “We, and there are thousands like us, will not allow such a day to come; so if we have to go, let’s go out with the first lot and not wait to be the last person standing”.
Dr. Ramesh Awasthi, the president of PUCL Maharashtra, commented on the nature of present day nationalism. He pointed out that present day nationalism was a modern form of tribal territorialism. Akin to tribes that define boundaries and kill invaders on sight, nationalism is being shaped not only along physical boundaries but also ideological and cultural boundaries.
He cited the example of a 13 year old Bangladeshi girl who was shot and hanged on the barbed wire at the Bangladesh border of our country by the armed forces as she had mistakenly come over to India, similar to tribes that set such examples to warn others. The idea of protection seeps down to the state level and further to communities and localities.
There is rising jingoism on various grounds; one example being linguistic jingoism. There is bound to be unrest if such uniformity is forced on people. India is plural, and the manner in which nationalism is conceptualised has to be inclusive, plural, and sensitive to diversities. If diversities are not taken care of and there is majority jingoism, will the marginalised feel at home? Speaking from experience, he gave an example- when Dalits are routinely violated and abused, would they feel pride or love towards their village? It is the Maratha’s who feel love for the village or are concerned about its ‘honour’. When you don’t take care of all the people, can you expect the wronged to feel the same sort of love and affection towards the institution?
Any sort of Jingoism breaks the county. The limited conceptualisation of nationalism is damaging the social fabric of the nation. He emphasized that it is crucial that even as we stand up to the present, we also think of the ongoing and future process of healing.
It was heartening to see the number of young people who attended this open meeting. The speakers put forth diverse perspectives and encouraged thinking. And as Dr. Awasthi pointed out, the process of healing will be a long drawn process. But, however murky the present may seem, as the speakers said, there is hope; and hopeful we must stay as we fight on!