By Bharti Garg
Stephen G. Tallentyre had once remarked, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say.” This is what a healthy democracy predicates — ‘a marketplace allowing free trade of ideas where the best of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the market competition’. Freedom of speech and expression is one’s oxygen and thus, essential that passage is not clogged mindlessly. Indian Constitution is the guardian of multiple interests which can all be accommodated only if equal space for their expression and harmonization is assured. However, the long rope to freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be restrained only on the grounds categorized under Article 19(2) thereof and none other, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
It cannot be overemphasized that currently India has the youngest population in the world, and also that still a large number of it remains untapped. Indian universities provide significant platforms not only for education but also for political debates and the exchange of ingenious ideas, and have been the be-getters of many inveterate political leaders. Nevertheless, the recent Ramjas College furore demands re-appreciation of this interaction between student and politics in campuses.
The rabid reaction by ABVP must be understood as a concomitant to the similar incident which happened in JNU last year when Umar Khalid had raised certain objectionable slogans which led to the launching of a sedition case against him. The matter being sub judice, Ramjas inviting him this year to speak at the ‘Culture of Protest’ festival, a gesture at which ABVP took great offence. The basis of sedition is that such statements have the tendency to incite violence, but ABVP this year saw a massive and violent protest and studied their own strength. However uncivilized one might consider the invitation to Umar Khalid and his cohort to deliver their speeches, no corner of the Constitution does even slightly justify such a counteraction.
The question as to whether the slogans propagated by Umar Khalid were subversive or not is yet to be decided by the court, but it is relevant to mention here the legal position in regard to the offence of sedition as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, wherein it held that it is only when an extreme degree of hatred, disloyalty, contempt or enmity is created or attempted to be created to topple the government that the charge of sedition is attracted. It therefore upheld the constitutionality of the same as being covered under one of the exceptions, ‘public order’, by circumscribing its scope.
But despite the judiciary intervening and belabouring its precedent in a number of cases, the police often fails to toe the legal line and resorts to hasty arrests which allude to its falling into political clutches. Even in the Ramjas case, the action taken by police against the perpetrators was neither prompt nor commensurate with the degree of violence.
The backlash by ABVP amounted to a sort of imposition of pre-censorship (that too without any authority) of views and displayed its ineptitude to do justice to its position. But what was more deplorable was that they branded it as their ‘Nationalism’. Universities are meant to promote healthy influence of ethics and not to become the microcosm of unscrupulous politics which has already marred the transparency of our governments.
With this scenario, the very purpose of engaging students in political discourse sounds like a thin end of the wedge. Unless the speech is such as is likely to shake the societal peace, respect for human dignity and his freedom warrants the power of tolerance from its listeners, failing which the ideals of our Constitution will be severely undermined.
On the other hand, one can also learn from these incidents to form opinions only after appraising all the circumstances and not appreciate the abuse of freedom that one enjoys, as it is only a ‘means’ to our ultimate goal and to consider it as an ‘end’ would be to only devalue its importance.
It is a dangerous tendency to impetuously distrust others’ patriotism merely because their way of expressing it is different. This is a grave affront to their emotions. Nationalism is a feeling of love for one’s country, of course, but more importantly it is an effort to constantly identify and apply in our lives the ideals of the Constitution, which is not merely a document but a force which propels our lives and resounds in our ears the pledge to safeguard dignity of individuals and unity of nation.
It preaches tolerance, and like a parent, constantly endeavours to mend the faults of its child. It doesn’t give up on us, why should we?
Has democracy truly fallen prey to such banal tactics?