A Republic, A Protest and the Curious Case of a Withdrawn “Seditious” Tweet
Disclaimer: Any and all views purported in this article belong to the Author in her individual capacity. All Characters are purely Non-Fictional and all incidents cited, available for verification in public domain. The author’s views stand in sync with the democratic principle of the Freedom of Speech as laid down:
Article 19(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
And in stark contrast to the following:
“Section 124A. Sedition — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine,
With the requisite legal locus standi as a citizen of a free country that preserves my fundamental right of dissent and a moral standing of one who must adhere to her conscience above all, I seek some answers from those willing to answer them, without fear or favour.
It is here that I must establish the explanation of “Sedition” before I ask my questions:
In Queen-Empress vs Jogendra Chunder Bose And Ors. on 25 August, 1891, the court stated, “Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or hatred. Disapprobation means simply disapproval. It is quite possible to disapprove of a man’s sentiments or action and yet to like him.”
This article is a disapprobation of certain ideas and ideals propounded by certain factions of authorities and citizenry within India, that fits within the “self-imposed reasonable restrictions” as laid down by the law of the land.
Further, as in the case of Lokmanya Tilak, (Queen Empress v. Balgangadhar Tilak, ILR (1898) 22 Bom. 112) which was tried by a jury, the presiding judge, Justice Strachey, while explaining to the jury stated:
“The offence as defined by the first clause is exciting or attempting to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government. What are “feelings of disaffection”?….. disaffection means simply the absence of affection. It means hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility, contempt and every form of ill-will to the Government. “Disloyalty” is perhaps the best general term, comprehending every possible form of bad feeling to the Government.”
While I may question the Government today, I am neither disloyal or hostile to the authority vested in the hands of those who continue to enjoy a clear mandate by virtue of a technicality: the Elections.
Should you be frustrated enough by the length of this disclaimer, just remember that you may be the next should you claim to stand on the other side of the spectrum. God forbid if you, much like me are Creative, Christian, or a Convert, then you may find yourself further marginalised and vulnerable as members of the Unheard Minority. In the event that you happen to fulfil two of the above conditions as I had in my previous article, The Saffronisation of Hope you could be labelled as I have: “A Christian Hinduphobic.” This despite my absolute and unequivocal respect for every religion be it Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism or Christianity.
One cannot but lament the sorrowful turn of events that unfolded on 26th January 2021, when members of this very Republic decided to Reclaim their right and take the law in their own hand. None can justify the Act of violence that ensued and I shall never support ANY act that seeks to undermine the values that our political forefathers have fought for, but with it comes the realisation that having navigated swiftly through the framework of “The Legal Right,” will I forgive myself for not exercising my Moral Right, The Right to Question, “Why?”
When did this country’s farmers metamorphose into the French who stormed the Bastille in 1789? When did the silence of the spade of hard labour find it imperative to duel with the lathi of the khaki? Truth be told, this was the only duel where both opponents were equally innocent and paying the price for a mistake that neither had caused.
While the tricolor can and will never be replaced by another, do we still reserve the Moral Right to hoist it with the fervor we always have, when one community of the country has been languishing in the cold, battling a pandemic and the rejection of their right all at the same time?
A few prominent journalists and an MP have been singled out for “their wilful disaffection towards the government” which further fuels the need for answers. So here are a few questions to each one reading:
“Is your loyalty to your country fragile enough to split in the middle at the behest of a 280 character tweet of a sitting MP and 5 journalists?”
“Can a tweet withdrawn within 30 minutes of its issuance as an immediate reparation of a mistake committed in what could qualify as a defining moment of India’s collective emotions, be treated as disloyalty, and incitement of hatred and violence against the ruling Government?”
And for the defining moment of this article:
“Will the author’s questioning of the character, plot and setting of this international drama, now be credited as an act of sedition?”
For in asking these questions the author has but exercised her freedom of Speech and Expression as granted and guaranteed to her by the laws of the land within the framework of Legislative Restrictions without Compromising her Moral Right and power of discernment to be fairly read, justly countered and civilly answered.
I write having studied what Pericles once said, “Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” I’m trying. Are you?
