Ashutosh Misra
Controversies emanating over the right to freedom of speech and expression is common to democracies. The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, the US and India, among others, constantly contemplate over how much is too much. As alumni of India’s premier institution, the Jawaharlal Nehru University, my wife and I too are debating this question in our household, in the wake of the slogan controversy that has engulfed the JNU.
For us, the JNU symbolised critical thinking, free speech and a vibrant debating culture thriving in classrooms, hostel messes and tea stalls. Students’ elections are unique as only hand-made posters are permitted and presidential debate remains the top attraction, uncommon in most other universities. The posters, put at designated spaces, not only reflect the core of various political ideologies represented on the campus, but also offer a sneak peek into key issues confronting national and campus politics. This was the JNU we admired.
But the slogans raised on February 9 on the campus by the Left-leaning activists and students, have triggered a nationwide outrage, prompting the arrest of the JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar by the police. Hinging on the freedom of speech debate, the incident highlights key trends that signify the socio-political churning that India is currently experiencing.
Growing radicalisation at campuses: The controversy was triggered by a widely advertised ‘cultural evening’ of artistes and activists, organised by one Democratic Students Union. The objective was to protest against the alleged “Brahmanical collective conscience, against the ‘judicial killings’ of Afzal Guru (2001 Parliament attack convict) and Maqbool Bhatt (a Kashmiri separatist), in solidarity with the Kashmiri people for their democratic right to self-determination”. The JNU administration denied permission upon knowing that it was meant for screening a film to commemorate Afzal Guru’s ‘martyrdom’. This led to the DSU-led demonstrations in which the following controversial slogans were raised: “Until the liberation of Kashmir, we shall fight”; “Until India is broken into pieces, we shall fight”; “Kashmir, Kerala want freedom”; “For every Afzal killed, one will emerge from every house”; “Afzal, we are ashamed that your killers (the Indian state including the Supreme Court that sentenced, and the President who rejected his clemency plea) are alive”; “India go back”; and, “Until the destruction of India, we shall fight”. These slogans symbolise a growing presence of the influence of Kashmiri separatists in campus politics across India, with such pro-Afzal Guru protests being reported from Jamia Millia Islamia (Delhi), Aligarh Muslim University (Uttar Pradesh), and now Jadavpur University (West Bengal), where the Chief Minister has remained tight-lipped for fear of losing minority support.
Sedition laws a necessary evil?A related issue that is linked to the above-mentioned trend is the invocation of sedition clause under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code by Delhi Police to arrest Kanhaiya Kumar. Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have abolished sedition laws. Should India follow suit? Given India’s tumultuous communal past that underpins the Hindu-Muslim discord and the rise of home-grown terrorism, and pending disputes, especially Kashmir, with Pakistan, India cannot repeal sedition laws. The UK has abolished sedition laws but the threat remains, as Prime Minister David Cameron observed: “All public institutions have a role to play in rooting out and challenging extremism. It is not about oppressing free speech or stifling academic freedom; it is about making sure that radical views and ideas are not given the oxygen they need to flourish. Schools, universities and colleges, more than anywhere else, have a duty to protect impressionable young minds…”
Political disunity and double standards: Given the blurred nature of India’s internal and external challenges, political honesty and understanding are fundamental requirements that curb political parochialism for the common public good. Instead, Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi defended ‘free speech’ to secure students’ support, forgetting that it was his great-grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru who had banned numerous newspapers, journals and magazines for criticising his policies; that it was his grandmother Indira Gandhi who had imposed Emergency, suspending all civic liberties and arresting most of her political opponents; and that it was his father Rajiv Gandhi who had banned Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.