Justice Chandrachud, in a “Justice PD Desai Memorial Lecture” at the Gujarat High Court, described dissent as the “safety valve” of democracy. In an article he wrote “The silencing of dissent goes beyond the violation of personal liberty and commitment to constitutional values, striking at the very heart of a dialogue-based democratic society which accords to every individual equal respect and consideration.” The current government has made every effort to label dissent as sedition; traitors who deserved to be shot. They were attacked with lathis and water cannons. Twenty-three people died in UP and those that survived were charged with damaging public property with crippling fines. If you were a dissenting writer you were dropped from the speakers lists like the Kossambi Festival of Ideas in Goa. If you were a journalist, your TV channel was targeted reducing some anchors to government spokespersons. If you were a businessman you were raided.
The obsession sparked a series of international gaffes. A German student’s visa was cancelled; a UK Labour MP was deported from Delhi airport. The External Affairs Minister cancelled a meeting with the Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee because it included Pramila Jayapal who had criticised the CAA Atish Taseer wrote a critical cover story for Time magazine “India’s divider in chief” and got stripped of his OCI status. All of this merely reflects a sense of insecurity rather than the diplomatic maturity of a nation that aspires to become a five trillion economy.
Matters went out of control in Delhi. For more than two months protestors, mostly women braved the winter chill, some with children in their arms, to persuade the government to rethink the infamous CAA; which targets the minority community, with detention camps already in the pipeline. During this period there was not a single incidence of violence; neither was there any attempt by any official, from the home ministry or PMO’s office to meet the demonstrators to engage in any dialogue. In spite of being contemptuously ignored, they did not flinch in their resolve. In the vitiated Delhi pre-election atmosphere this tactic was a deliberate attempt to turn “public” opinion against them. This diabolical scheme was trashed by the elections results. Hate speeches witnessed police officers looking on, approvingly. No effort was made to file FIRs against the hate mongers or take any action against them under the law. When Justice S Muralidhar expressed outrage over the police impotence in curbing hate speeches, he was transferred in a midnight order in the middle of a PIL hearing. The explanations given were as unacceptable as the police incompetence; and all the more questionable when a SC judge deviated from neutrality and declares Modi a “veritable genius”. This was a situation waiting to turn violent.
Without going into any discussion on who started what, it is inconceivable that a well-equipped police force of 80,000, in the second most policed State in India, failed to see the riots coming, or make any attempt to intervene and restore order. Whether this was by intent, impotence or incompetence remains a topic of endless debate. I believe such things do not happen by chance. With 45 deaths and counting, as the bodies lie on the cold slabs of the post-mortem rooms cut up and sewn up, one wonders who won and who lost?
The right to dissent is part of the freedom of speech and a fundamental right as long as the individual does not incite people to violence. The public often views the issue of fundamental rights as part of State largesse; a privilege granted to the people by the State. It most certainly is not. Fundamental rights are considered fundamental because they accrue to every individual by virtue of him/her being a human being and are not bequeathed by the State. Various SC judgments in celebrated cases, have described these, as “paramount”, “sacrosanct” “inalienable and inviolable” and the “ark of the constitution”. The conflict between the Judiciary and the Parliament over the right to amend the fundamental rights persists. At present whilst the right of parliament to amend the constitution is upheld, if the amendment alters the basic structure it must be examined in each individual case. Unfortunately, in deciding whether the Shaheen Bagh protestors had a right to obstruct the streets, it abdicated its responsibility to “interlocutors”.
Even the criteria for citizenship are riddled with confusion. Jabeda Begum submitted 15 documents to prove her citizenship; Nur Begum submitted 8. In both cases the courts were not satisfied in spite of the Assam Accord having a List A (pre 1971) of 14 documents and List B of 8 (for linkage) to qualify for the NRC. To confuse the issue further these rules do not apply to the rest of India which is in an unusual position of having a constitution that is committed to a secular society. Hence no rules can be implemented if based purely on the basis of any one religion. A press release issued by the Central Government in December last year stated “Citizenship can be proved by submitting any documents related to date of birth and place of birth. However, a decision is yet to be taken on such acceptable documents.”As a result of various confusing court judgments, the question ‘how to prove Indian citizenship’ continues to evade easy answers.
The anguish is aptly expressed in a poem Sab Yaad Rakha Jayega by Amir Aziz (pic) a student from Delhi.“Kill us we will become ghosts; And write of your killings with all the evidence; You write jokes in court; We will write “justice” on the walls; We will speak so loudly that even the deaf will hear; We will write so clearly that even the blind will read; You write injustice on earth; We will write revolution in the sky; Everything will be remembered; Everything recorded.”
(The writer is a founder member of the VHAG)
