The colonialists wanted to guard themselves against any kind of protest. Any activity that was unpalatable to the colonialists was conceived of as ‘treason’ and ‘subversion’. In order to maintain an untrammeled stronghold on the populace, the colonial administration thought it essential to promulgate a sedition law; an overarching law to protect what it thought was its sovereignty and suzerainty.
Interestingly, in the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) the law of sedition was not included. However, due to an ‘increase’ in ‘revolutionary’ activities and ‘unrest’ on the part of the Indian ‘rebels’, in 1870, the British inserted Section 124A and amended the IPC to include the law.
Suppression and subjugation through draconian measures were resorted to by the foreign power for its political and economic gains and ends, in a system that was tyrannical, authoritarian, and dictatorial, and ran through its course till 1947
Though the Constitution of India (with its oft-quoted Preamble) was to come a bit later, India did become a sovereign, socialist, democratic republic when it got rid of the colonial yoke. So, how come the Law of Sedition got carried over into a republic that became a free country and a democratic political entity?
On the one hand, why the need for a law of sedition in a free, sovereign country. On the other hand, a look at the way sedition is being interpreted currently.
In 1929, Mahatma Gandhi called sedition a “rape of the word law” and asked the people to go in for a countrywide agitation to demand the repeal of Section 124A. He said, “In my humble opinion, every man has a right to hold any opinion he chooses, and to give effect to it also, so long as, in doing so, he does not use physical violence against anybody.”
Subsequently, after Independence, during the debate on the first amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, called the law of sedition fundamentally unconstitutional and declared “now so far as I am concerned [Section 124A] is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons. The sooner we get rid of it the better.”
Intriguingly, the Law of Sedition was not repealed, as it should have been, ideally, during the first Parliament session itself; and has been retained during Nehru’s government and subsequent governments too.
Should the State feel helpless and orphaned if the law of sedition is to be repealed? The fact that for seven decades and more the State has staunchly held on to this law suggests so; more so today as during the last nearly seven years the number of times that the State has resorted to the use of this law is disturbing, to say the least. Besides, the State is arming itself with yet another draconian handle in promulgating the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA).
Was there ever such a low in independent India in terms of lack of tolerance on the part of the State? Any sort of criticism against the government seems to automatically get interpreted as anti-national. This manufactured binary — anti-government equals anti-national — has been the dominant credo ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014.
In a recent article, Amartya Sen says, ‘The confusion between “anti-government” and “anti-national” is typical of autocratic governance’.
Intellectuals, opposition leaders, activists in different realms, are all swept into the hold-all like sedition law. Also, international voluntary organisations, as also Indian NGOs, have been targeted and attempts are made to stifle them whenever there has been any criticism of the government, however, legitimate or valid the censure be.
The government’s actions have prompted UN Human Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet to raise issues of a crackdown on CAA protesters, UAPA, Hathras case, and marching orders given to Amnesty International. New Delhi’s response in its lame defence to the criticism has been: ‘The framing of laws is obviously a sovereign prerogative. Violations of law, however, cannot be condoned under the pretext of human rights.’
