Section 124A of the IPC punishes sedition. Sedition via words spoken or written, visible signs etc are covered in this. The interesting part is the way this section defines sedition. Attempting to bring hatred or contempt, disaffection towards the government, disloyalty etc are defined as sedition.
So when M.K.Gandhi wrote in Young India articles entitled "Disaffection a virtue" and "Tampering with loyalty" it was easy to frame charges against him under this section. The titles themselves said he was trying to spread disaffection and disloyalty towards the government and so, Gandhi and the publisher Mr.Banker were brought to trial. This IPC section exists till date and has been used according to the whims and fancies of the government of the day as only the government has the final say regarding what can be constituted as "disaffection" and what should not. Even a mild criticism towards the government can be booked as sedition under this section. Last year this section was used to arrest a few college students in jaipur who supported the pakistan cricket team!!
Similarly there exists section 66A of Information Technology Act which was used to arrest 2 girls last year for criticizing the bandh organised subsequent to Bal Thackeray's death. And there is also section 295A of IPC which punishes "acts" intend to outrage religious feelings.
Again what exactly is an "act" and to what feelings get outraged are completely subjective. This subjectivity benefits the mighty. My religion must be strong enough in politics to make sure the government of the day punishes "acts" which outrage my religious feelings. So when Mr.A.K Ramanujam's essay regarding different versions of Ramayana is included in DU's History syllabus, Mr.Dinananth Batra's feelings get outraged. And considering his power, even though the committee set up by Delhi HC recommended including the essay, the DU academic council removed it from the syllabus. The final say regarding what exactly is Ramayana is to be decided by Mr.Batra. He also decides there can be no alternative history for hindus and ensures that "The hindus: An alternative history", a book by Wendy Dongier gets pulped.
If my religion is powerful enough, I can ensure that movies are shown to me before getting released. I can force the director to mute koran recitals or even alter the screenplay. Despite my power, voices against me do emerge here and there. There was one poor girl in Pakistan, named Malala, who criticized our decision to ban girls from going to schools. We had to respond to her with bullets.
My religion is so sacred and no one can question it. Questioning something sacred offends my religion. I will keep on expanding the domain of sacred to ensure protection for my religion.
How exactly can freedom of expression benefit a society? There was a thinker named J.S.Mill who defended freedom of expression. He defended it in the following ways.
First argument- No idea is completely false. If we try to ban false ideas, we may miss out the element of truth in it. And truth always runs the risk of being reduced to an unthinking cliche. It is only by exposing truth to opposing views that it can be made sure truth is truth. Else earth would still have been in the center of solar system.
Looking the current relevance of J.S.Mill's first argument, 98% of the people who oppose a particular book have never seen the book, 1% have seen it but never read it. And of the remaining 1%, are afraid of the truth present in that book. Can someone opposing Perumal murugan's novel(madhorubagan) tell me what exactly is the truth regarding that annual car festival in tiruchengode?? If you can tell, just tell. Nobody would oppose your view and you too don't oppose Perumal Murugan's view.
The next argument of J.S.Mill is that. "truth does not emerge by itself". Only through conflict of opposing views that truth emerges. But a certain fact which may not be true can exist as "truth" today. This fact may benefit a particular section and these sections have vested interest to ensure that fact remains a truth perpetually. Thats why the Church suppressed opposing views. Women are not allowed to educate themselves in certain religions lest they come up with an opposing view threatening the "dominants".
Coming back to Gandhi's great trial for charges under section 124A of IPC, Gandhi gave 2 options to the judge trying his case. It was to either resign his post or to inflict on Gandhi the severest penalty if he believes that the law he is trying to protect is doing good for the people. Gandhi also pleaded guilty of the charges and submitted himself to the highest penalty for what in law was a deliberate crime but considered by Gandhi as the highest duty of a citizen.
We too have 2 options. The first is to allow opposing views in the search of truth and to make truth trustworthy by pitting it against opposing views. The second option is of course to stay static, suppress opposing views and walk back to the dark ages.
P.S-I am not unsympathetic to anyone's feelings. But it is hard for me to believe feelings gets hurt by a novel or a movie. Gandhi once said "One cannot hurt me without my permission". Opinions and views can't hurt you without your permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment