Sedition: How you can land up in PRISON.

---

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Voltaire

Remember your 8th-grade Civics textbook proudly claiming that you are guaranteed all kinds of rights under the constitution of India of which Right to equality, Right to freedom, Right against exploitation, Cultural and Educational Rights and Right to constitutional remedies are the most fundamental. You must also remember reading how you were lucky enough to be born in a country which guarantees “Jus soli” (Citizenship by birth) and therefore you are entitled to all of those rights, how about reading a separate paragraph on as a citizen the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech were integral factors influencing democratic politics, delivering justice and protecting minorities ? What you must’ve never seen in those textbooks is a little piece of law in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 124A, that deals with Sedition. This and other such laws curb and potentially set limits on “Free speech”.

This Section defines sedition as an offence committed when “any person 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".

Not only was this law formulated by the British Government as far back as 1870, but was designed to suppress voices that spoke up. Historians agree that this law in its most rudimentary form was a response of the Colonial Government to the growing might of the Wahhabi movement. Basically epitomizing what the colonial rule did for nearly two centuries ( 1757-1947), The inclusion of this law in the Constitution of free India was opposed by many prominent figures including Gandhi and Nehru.

“Section 124A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Surprisingly, when I found out that such a law existed, I wasn’t shocked, an ambitious constitution that has provisions for laws such as the Public Safety Act (1978) which Amnesty International dubbed “A lawless law” and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (1958) which has come under the scrutiny of the United Nations and various international human rights organisations, which in fact the UN's Commissioner for human rights in 2009 termed as a “dated and colonial-era law that breaches contemporary international human rights standards.” is expected to have the audacity to take this ambition a step further with laws that fall right into the hands of the majority by not being region-specific but rather used to control the masses as a whole and to suppress dissent in any way, shape or form.

The categorical narrative/definition is too vague so much so that this led to 60 students in Kashmir being slapped with charges of sedition not for advocating separatist ideology(Which was the law’s mandate at the time of its inception), but for cheering for Pakistan in the Asia Cup (All charges to the students were dropped later).

The thing that makes sedition unique is that it is a non-bailable,non-compoundable (that does not permit compromise between accused and victim), cognizable (not requiring an arrest warrant) with sentences ranging from 3 years to life imprisonment and/or a fine.

Most cases of ‘Manslaughter’ and ‘Trafficking’ get a sentence of 10 years in prison whereas, Marital rape is not even a crime but dissent can get you thrown in jail for life. Very ‘progressive’ indeed ….. It’s noteworthy how “democratic” laws have such a double standard when it comes to individual rights.

Some people argue that this is law doesn't function only because of the lack of parameters and a clear line of distinction between dissent and dialogue. Well, even if such a distinction was put in place then we would have to deal with the arbitrary consequences of regulating such a vague conglomeration. Therefore such a distinction also is useless.

---

Q) Inflammatory and hateful speech is wrong innit?

In that case, Is there such a thing as “Hate speech”? Yes, people say hateful things all the time. Morally reprehensible,quasi-criminal, brutal thoughts are spun around from everywhere to everywhere. There is no denying that that happens. So how do you deal with it? You decide to regulate it because “duh it’s hateful”. Well, then you face another problem, Inorder to regulate anything you must first define it. So, the question arises, Who defines hate? Well, the answer is pretty simple “People that you would want least to define it”. But those people want nothing to do with the defining process because they want nothing to do with legislation that they have no prior affiliation. So, you end up with people(Legislators) that gravitate towards (Political) power making an ethical case to have controlling power over the language of other people.

Now that such legislation is through, Regulation will lead to two outcomes: One where people don’t express their views and there is no room for proper civil discourse( Indirect suppression) or they become aggressive and retaliate. Whatever the outcome the solution becomes the problem just like it did in various marquee events all through modern history.

So , what should we do ?

In a democracy, all ideas however offensive or inflammatory have a right to be expressed, no ifs or buts. In the words of Jordan B Peterson,

" Let people who wish to utter hateful things do so and let everyone hear them because that’s the best way to ensure that what they're saying will be understood and rejected" .

The instant that we as a collective stop talking just because it offends other people is the instant that we as a collective stop thinking and well if you stop thinking, you end up with nothing more than a society whose ability to determine problems is non-existent, and the solution to said problems never comes through. In conclusion, the next time someone offends you, “Use your words, not your fists…... kid”

---

Sources: (Click here)

Credits:

1) Jordan Peterson, University of Toronto.

2)Stephen West, Philosophize This!