English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Scrapping sedition law: fake propaganda that it is anti-national

Published

on

Scrapping sedition law: fake propaganda that it is anti-national

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

By Rajesh Sinha

The entire discourse on Congress promise to scrap the sedition law, painting it as anti-national and pro-secessionist is based on a distorted picture projected successfully by the BJP to grab the initiative in setting the agenda for debate.

Section 124A that deals with sedition is only one of the ten in Chapter VI of IPC for offences against the state and scrapping it does not enable anyone to commit treason.

When the Congress came out with its manifesto promising to address a host of critical issues like jobs, minimum income guarantee, separate budget for farmers, hike in allocation for education and health, it was expected that these would set the agenda for the country in the 2019 Lok Sabha election.

However, the BJP led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, latched on to a couple of rather innocuous points like promise to scrap sedition law and review of Armed Forces Special Powers Act in specific areas and successfully projected a distorted, twisted picture to slam the Congress as anti-national and supporter of ‘tukde-tukde gang’ (separatists intent on dividing India) and the manifesto as ‘made in Pakistan’.

The Congress released its manifesto on Tuesday, April 2. The very next day, PM Modi slammed the Congress promise to wind up the sedition law, saying the party was encouraging anti-national sentiments and strengthening the hands of secessionists.

Other BJP leaders raised the pitch and to the credit of BJP’s effective, noisy propaganda machinery and dominance in means of mass communication, aided in no small measure by a passive, lazy Congress, nationalism vs anti-nationalism was back as the talking point. So much so, that many Congress leaders became jittery and criticised the party leadership for including such points in the manifesto and providing ammunition to the BJP.

“It is suicidal to give Modi a chance to build a narrative of Congress supporting anti-nationals,” a Congress leader was reported to have said.

They had not done their home work to rebut Modi and the BJP.

The Congress manifesto has promised to scrap Section 124A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) which is about government and not about the country (‘state’), and has been misused to throttle criticism.

It says: 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.”

Section 124A is only one of the ten sections, Section 121-130, in Chapter VI of IPC which deals with Offences Against the State.

Chapter VI
Of Offences Against The State
121 Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India
121A Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121
122 Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India
123 Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war
124 Assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power
124A Sedition
125 Waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with the Government of India
126 Committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with the Government of India
127 Receiving property taken by war on depredation mentioned in sections 125 and 126-
128 Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or war to escape
129 Public servant negligently suffering such prisoner to escape
130 Aiding escape of, rescuing or harboring such prisoner

 

It is not as if simply removing the provision against criticising the government sets people free to commit treason or wage war against the country, as the BJP has been projecting.

It is, however, quite in line with the BJP under Modi-Amit Shah to brand opponents as anti-national and call the manifesto ‘made in Pakistan’, with their cohorts picking up the chant of ‘go to Pakistan’.

Some instances of how they projected a distorted picture”

* Addressing a rally at Pasighat in Arunachal Pradesh, PM Modi said, “The Congress wants to encourage those who burn the Tricolour, do not chant ‘Jai Hind’ like you and me and instead make divisive cries like “Bharat tere tukre tukre”, play into foreign hands, disrespect the Constitution and break statues of saint-like Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar.”

“Shouldn’t we have a sedition law to deal with those who work against the country and its Constitution,” he asked. The Congress wanted to scrap the sedition law, he added.

Remarking that the Congress can stoop too low to come back to power, he said, “Is it not a step to strengthen the hands of secessionists? Is the Congress with secessionists or patriots?”

* Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath lashed out at the Congress on Wednesday for promising to scrap the law of sedition, which the party mentioned in its recently released manifesto.

Speaking at an election rally, Yogi Adityanath said, “It is shameful that the Congress in its manifesto has promised to scrap the provision on sedition, which is used against terrorists and those involved in terror activities, if the party comes to power.”

* In an interaction with villagers in Saharanpur on Wednesday morning, BJP candidate Raghv Lakhanpal said, “It appears the Congress manifesto was printed in Pakistan. Such a manifesto cannot be printed by Indians.”

“The Congress has said they will repeal sedition law. Shouldn’t there be a law to punish those who raise slogans like ‘Bharat Tere Tukde Honge’,” Lakhanpal added.

Even the law commission recommended doing away with the Colonial era relic not too long ago. In August 2018, the commission invited public opinion on the repeal or restructuring of Section 124A saying the right to free speech and expression was an “essential ingredient of democracy”.

In a consultation paper published later, the Centre’s top legal advisory body said an expression of disappointment over the state of affairs cannot be treated as sedition and India should not retain the sedition law, which was introduced by British to oppress Indians.

Law Commission of India, Consultation paper on Sedition, Aug 30, 2018

8.1 In a democracy, singing from the same songbook is not a benchmark of patriotism. People should be at liberty to show their affection towards their country in their own way. For doing the same, one might indulge in constructive criticism or debates, pointing out the loopholes in the policy of the Government. Expressions used in such thoughts might be harsh and unpleasant to some, but that does not render the actions to be branded seditious. Section 124A should be invoked only in cases where the intention behind any actis to disrupt public order or to overthrow the Government with violence and illegal means.

8.2 Every irresponsible exercise of right to free speech and expression cannot be termed seditious. For merely expressing a thought that is not in consonance with the policy of the Government of the day, a person should not be charged under the section. Expression of frustration over the state of affairs, for instance, calling India no country for women‘, or a country that is racist for its obsession with skin colour as a marker of beauty are critiques that do not threaten the idea of a nation. Berating the country or a particular aspect of it, cannot and should not be treated as sedition. If the country is not open to positive criticism, there lies little difference between the pre-and post-independence eras. Right to criticise one‘s own history and the right to offend are rights protected under free speech.

8.3 While it is essential to protect national integrity, it should not be misused as free speech. Dissent and criticism are essential ingredients of a robust public debate on policy issues as part of vibrant democracy. Therefore, every restriction on free speech and expression must be carefully scrutinised to avoid unwarranted restrictions.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Yogi Adityanath’s do namoone remark sparks Akhilesh Yadav’s jab on BJP infighting

Yogi Adityanath’s ‘do namoone’ comment in the UP Assembly has been countered by Akhilesh Yadav, who termed it a confession of BJP’s internal power struggle.

Published

on

Yogi Adityanath

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s recent “do namoone” comment in the state Assembly has triggered a sharp political exchange, with Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav turning the remark into an attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s alleged internal discord.

The comment was made during a heated Assembly discussion on allegations of codeine cough syrup smuggling in Uttar Pradesh. Opposition members had accused the state government of inaction, claiming that timely steps could have saved the lives of several children. Rejecting the allegation outright, Adityanath said that no child in the state had died due to consumption of the cough syrup.

While responding to the opposition benches, the Chief Minister made an indirect jibe, saying there were “two namoone”, one in Delhi and one in Lucknow. Without naming anyone, he added that one of them leaves the country whenever there is a national debate, and suggested that a similar pattern applied to the Samajwadi Party leadership. The remark was widely interpreted as being aimed at Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, a former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and current Lok Sabha MP

Akhilesh Yadav calls remark a ‘confession’

Akhilesh Yadav responded swiftly on social media, calling Adityanath’s statement a “confession” that exposed an alleged power struggle within the BJP. He said that those holding constitutional posts should maintain decorum and accused the ruling party of bringing its internal disputes into the public domain. Yadav posted his response shortly after the Chief Minister shared a video clip of the Assembly remarks online.

The Samajwadi Party has, on several occasions, claimed that there is a tussle between the Uttar Pradesh government and the BJP’s central leadership. Party leaders have cited the appointment of deputy chief ministers and certain bureaucratic decisions as evidence of attempts to curtail the Chief Minister’s authority.

Adityanath has consistently dismissed these claims, maintaining that he holds the post because of the party’s trust in him. The latest exchange has once again brought the narrative of BJP infighting into political focus, even as both sides continue to trade barbs ahead of key electoral contests

Continue Reading

India News

Sonia Gandhi calls weakening of MGNREGA a collective moral failure, targets Centre in op-ed

Sonia Gandhi has accused the Centre of weakening MGNREGA, calling it a collective moral failure with serious consequences for crores of working people.

Published

on

Sonia Gandhi

Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has sharply criticised the Central government over what she described as the steady dismantling of rights-based legislation, with a particular focus on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

In a recent opinion article published in a leading English daily, Sonia Gandhi argued that MGNREGA was envisioned as more than a welfare measure. She said the rural employment scheme gave legal backing to the constitutional right to work and was rooted in Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Sarvodaya, or welfare for all.

Calling its weakening a serious failure, she wrote that the decline of MGNREGA represents a “collective moral failure” that will have lasting financial and human consequences for crores of working people across India. She stressed that safeguarding such rights-based frameworks is crucial at a time when, according to her, multiple protections are under strain.

Concerns raised over education, environment and land laws

Sonia Gandhi also flagged concerns beyond rural employment. Referring to education policy, she claimed that the Right to Education has been undermined following the National Education Policy 2020, alleging that it has led to the closure of around one lakh primary schools across the country.

On environmental and land-related legislation, she stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was weakened through the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022. According to her, these changes removed the role of the gram sabha in decisions related to the diversion of forest land.

She further alleged that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act has been significantly diluted, while adding that the National Green Tribunal has seen its authority reduced over the years.

Warning on agriculture and food security laws

Touching upon agriculture reforms, Sonia Gandhi referred to the now-repealed three farm laws, claiming they were an attempt to deny farmers the right to a minimum support price. She also cautioned that the National Food Security Act, 2013, could face similar threats in the future.

Reiterating her central argument, she urged unity to protect statutory rights, stating that the erosion of such laws has implications that extend well beyond policy, affecting livelihoods and dignity on the ground.

Continue Reading

India News

Renaming MGNREGA removes core spirit of rural employment law, says Shashi Tharoor

Published

on

Shashi Tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has strongly criticised the renaming of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), saying the move strips the rural employment programme of its core essence. His remarks came after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, also referred to as the VB-G RAM G Bill.

Speaking to media, Tharoor said the decision to remove Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the scheme “takes out the heart” of the rural employment programme that has been in place for years. He noted that the identity and philosophy associated with Mahatma Gandhi were central to the original law.

Tharoor also objected to the way the new name was framed, arguing that it unnecessarily combined multiple languages. He pointed out that the Constitution envisages the use of one language in legislation, while the Bill’s title mixes English and Hindi terms such as “Guarantee”, “Rozgar” and “Ajeevika”, along with the conjunction “and”.

‘Disrespect to both names’

The Congress leader said that inserting the word “Ram” while dropping Mahatma Gandhi’s name amounted to disrespecting both. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas, Tharoor said that for Gandhi, the concepts of Gram Swaraj and Ram Rajya were inseparable, and removing his name from a rural employment law went against that vision.

He added that the name of Lord Ram could be used in many contexts, but questioned the rationale behind excluding Mahatma Gandhi from a programme closely linked to his philosophy of village self-rule.

Protests over passage of the Bill

The VB-G RAM G Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 18 and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of December 19 amid protests from Opposition members. Several MPs opposed the manner in which the legislation was pushed through, with scenes of sloganeering and tearing of papers in the House.

Outside Parliament, members of the Trinamool Congress staged a sit-in protest near Samvidhan Sadan against the passage of the Bill. Congress also announced nationwide protests earlier this week, accusing the government of weakening rights-based welfare schemes.

Despite opposition criticism, the government has maintained that the new law will strengthen rural employment and livelihood security. The Bill raises the guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per rural household and outlines a 60:40 cost-sharing formula between the Centre and states, with a higher central share for northeastern, Himalayan states and certain Union Territories.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com