Indian govt steps into mould of British who considered themselves aliens
By K Raveendran
Home Minister Amit Shah’s legislative package in relation to the country’s criminal law system, hailed by his ruling party as pathbreaking, has more symbolism than real reform and even includes a good measure of deception.
Of course, there are a couple of good things, such as stringent punishment for mob lynching, though without specifically mentioning as such, and crimes against women, but Shah makes the vital mistake of confusing English with British and in assuming that the two are freely interchangeable. His package ends up changing names of existing laws while in the process betraying an Indianised version of the British arrogance on the part of the present day rulers.
The propriety of giving Hindi names to the three main criminal laws – the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act – when the entire judicial process in the country is being conducted in English has already been questioned. There is nothing whatsoever to the change of nomenclature than symbolism.
Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin has raised the red flag over the change, accusing the Modi government of a certain linguistic imperialism and describing Shah’s package as representing re-colonisation in the name of de-colonisation. He is not much off the track.
The British considered themselves as aliens, for logical reasons too, and perceived people as their enemies as the colonialists were aware that they had usurped their rights. But BJP, despite all its protestations about Indianness, has stepped itself into the shoes of the British and is likewise treating people as their adversaries.
Shah’s introduction of the new bills was marked by a dramatic announcement that the British-era law against treason was being repealed completely. But even before the excitement died out, the realisation came that he has incorporated a new provision which is more draconian than the one that was being abrogated.
The existing sedition laws have been replaced by Section 150 which outlines that anyone who deliberately, knowingly, or through words, spoken or written, signs, visible presentations, electronic communication, financial means, or any other means, stirs up or tries to stir up secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, fosters separatist sentiments, or poses a threat to India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, or engages in such acts will be liable to imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to seven years, along with a potential fine.
Attempts at secession cannot be tolerated by any means, but the real danger here is that there is no proper definition of secession. In fact, the very word secession is missing in the new provision. This makes it easy for the government to interpret anything as secessionist and use the provision to suppress criticism. The new provision, in fact, brings through the back door what the Supreme Court had struck down more than one year ago.
In a landmark development, the Supreme Court had asked the Central government and States to refrain from registering any cases for the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli directed that proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance till the government’s exercise of reviewing Section 124A is complete. The bench also asked governments not to continue investigation or take coercive steps in all pending proceedings under the provision till the government’s exercise is complete.
Should such cases be registered, the parties are at liberty to approach court and court has to expeditiously dispose of the same, the bench added. “It would be appropriate to put the provision in abeyance,” the order further said.
The government’s intention behind the new provision is to circumvent the courts in cases relating to what it considers as objectionable conduct or event. This was essentially a law that the British framed to deal with any challenge to the imperialists’ authority and by retaining it in the new Sanhita, the government has got into the mould of the British, whose distrust for the people was a cardinal aspect of their rule in India. (IPA Service)