Two big arrest warrants were issues this week that made headlines. This was the warrant of the renowned journalist and author Ajeet Bharti by the INC Karnataka Legal Team Head BK Bopanna, and the other was against controversial activist Arundhati Roy filed by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi VK Saxena.
Both cases do highlight the lack of laws to protect journalists, activists, authors and others in the fourth pillar of our democracy. This is not the first time we have seen these incidents pop up.
Journalists like Manish Kashyap also were sent to jail for reporting on the racial discrimination against Bihari laborers in Tamil Nadu, exposing the casteism in Dravidian politics. Nupur Sharma was forced into hiding for more than two years, and still counting for the most part, after she quoted Islamic scriptures. Suresh Chavhanke was another journalist who led an agitation in 70% Muslim-dominated Sambhal, against the incumbent Iqbaal Mehmood and his mining mafia was also sent to jail.
These instances of jailing journalists is nothing new, as we have seen such incidents across the political spectrum. It traces its origins to the First Amendment of Bharat’s Constitution, introduced by Nehru. One of the first journalists to go to jail was Majrooh Sultanpuri, who had called Nehru a “slave of the commonwealth” and a “chela of Hitler”. This sort of censorship trickled down till the present day, where we see books like The Satanic Verses and movies like Hamare Baarah banned repeatedly, or have crucial and critical elements removed. Many senior journalists and politicians in the right-wing sphere of the country were jailed in their youth during the Emergency Era.
In comparison, while we may consider ourselves to be living in more egalitarian times, with both Arundati Roy and Ajeet Bharti getting FIRs filed, we must look inwards and ask ourselves if this is really the future we want. Politics and journalism married to social media has made us more tribalistic about our politics than the older generations. The older generations after adopting technology have a harder time coping with this very tribalization, where the trivial is amplified, and the amplified is normalized, on all sides of the spectrum.
We must, therefore, look at each case individually, and work harder on developing our own personal moral compass. “Are we for free speech?” “What would we personally define as hate speech?” “If others believed in what I believed in, how would this impact religion, polity, education, families and economy if taken to the extreme?”
In that spirit alone, let us look at both the cases of Arundhati Roy and Ajeet Bharti, individually:
Table of Contents
Arundhati Roy
Arundhati Roy, along with Sheikh Showkat Hussain, recently had the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 slapped on them, for their speeches made in 2010. In these speeches, Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain refuted Kashmir’s integrality to Bharat, a Union of States. Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani, also convicted in this case, died due to old age, 14 years after their speeches.
The event was hosted by the ‘Committee For Release of Political Prisoners’ in Kashmir and was named ‘Azadi – The Only Way’. In this speech, arguments on how the Kashmiri Pandits, being Pandits, were the capitalist landowners who were subjugating the Kashmiri Muslims, the proletariat, were made. The talk concluded that only “freeing” Kashmir from the “Imperial Indian State” through “force” is the solution.
Watch the full speech here:
Arundati Roy is also known for other such provocative perspectives on the Liberation of Gomanta, and said similar things about the tribals in Jharkhand. Watch those here:
While in an academic capacity, these views are valid, we must consider who these speeches always target: the general category minority of this country (who is 40% of the population, of which only 3% is Brahmin).
Considering the dominance of the “upper caste” groups in ancient history of Bharat, and the privilege of the Secularized Brahmin and Baniya to get administrative positions during the colonial Mughal, Sultanate and British rule, provided they played down their religious identity (whereas Dalits and Tribals were dehumanized, killed or converted by these same colonizers), Arundati’s perspective in vacuum is a fair to have.
The problem begins when this academic perspective marries activism. The level of elaboration on perspective into specific present day cases makes the intent more precise, and this draws the ire of the law, more specifically the Brandenburg Test of severity.
Ajeet Bharti
Ajeet Bharti, on the other hand, had his FIR for quoting Pramod Krishnam, ex-INC member, on how Rahul Gandhi wants to set up a superpower committee to reverse the decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi Sthan, and close down the temple. Watch the full clip here:
After this video, several other ex-members of the congress verified that this sentiment did exist within the Gandhi family, and this rumor took off. You can watch the full video here.
While the INC and Rahul Gandhi never have said this publicly, they have also refused to deny this report. Maybe the filing of this FIR as misinformation can be a signal that the Ram Janmabhoomi is not to go anywhere, but this comes at a cost.
The video of Ajeet Bharti is him sitting in his room with a camera. He describes himself as an introvert, who does not step out of the house and does not like to socialize with others, not even politicians. He has also criticized the government for not supporting journalists enough, and has pointed flaws in the politics of BJP as well. Recently, Kangana Ranaut came in support of Ajeet Bharti.
While it may be careless on Ajeet Bharti’s part to not dig deeper into the “Ram Janmabhoomi superpower committee” comment or to say that he is quoting Pramod Krishnam earlier, we still have to see the larger picture here. Ajeet Bharti was not talking of any pacific case, he was describing the sentiment on the ground from various comments floating around.
If Ajeet Bharti can have an FIR filed against him for spreading misinformation, should the same not apply to Pramod Krishnam as well? Rather, it was Pramod Krishnam who spread this fake news; he should be arrested and not journalists like Ajeet Bharti who report on these cases.
As the old saying goes: “Don’t shoot the messenger”.
What does the constitution say?
The Constitution of Bharat describes Bharat as a Union of States, this we know. But if we read the constitution more deeply, the “Union of States” is defined as a “Integral and Indivisible federation, with infinitely divisible states”. This means that Bharat can divide its states into infinitely smaller states, but the country cannot be divided. There can be additions of more land, as we have seen with Sikkim. Hence, the idea of separating any state from the union, whether Kashmir or Kerala, is inherently a discussion against the constitution.
While such an argument has a place in intellectual circles, it should then square itself back to the constitution itself. Its anti-constitutional nature makes it murky and can cause discontent for people.
Meanwhile, misinformation comes under Section 505 of the IPC. It holds anyone who is spreading misinformation to target individuals and start rumors as guilty. The guilty party in this situation is clearly Pramod Krishnam, whereas a victim of this fake news like Ajeet Bharti is getting the brunt of the punishment. People from all sides of the political spectrum reported on this newhttps://youtu.be/x2-UQqtE5hUs of Pramod Krishnam, yet only one journalist is facing the punishment, and not the man who started the rumor.
For democracy to thrive, free speech must live and breathe. For democracy to die, messengers must be shot.
2 Comments
Pingback: Vikram Sampath launches Foundation for Indian Historical and Cultural Research on 20th June 2024: internet is excited - INPAC Times
Amazing grasp of subject, depth and discipline in expression….At such young age ,begining of a career. Wow. karthik