Editor,
The Op-ed that appeared in your paper on Reformed Multilateralism by DC Pathak (ST Sunday, April 2, 2023), discussed India’s current Presidency of G 20.
I would like to draw attention to the G 20 Finance Ministers Meeting at Bengaluru , February 24 – 25 and the G 20 Foreign Ministers Meeting at New Delhi, March 1-2 . Multilateralism as the foundation for a global peace and prosperity formed part of the Chair’s Summary & Outcome Documents of both the meetings. So there is nothing new in the Op-ed by Pathak who also dwelt on bilateralism by India as part of reformed multilateralism. The fact is India is already engaged in the latest ‘ism’ now called minilateralism, like the I2U2 ( India , Israel, US and UAE), for good reasons, though it sounds confusing to lesser cerebrals day by day.
What is however conspicuous or even more important is what was not said in the document at the meetings of the Finance Ministers and Foreign Ministers . What can the G 20 Presidency of India do to end the Ukraine War – which has generated untold hardships and uncertainties the world over, especially the Global South for which India is today the leading protagonist .
It is fine about propagating India’s ancient sublime ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam or Prime Minister Modi calling for One Earth, One Family, One Future. But – is there one India today? One of the G 20 Forums is the G 20 Religious Forum which calls for healing, harmony and hope. Paradoxically, India today is afflicted with majoritarianism, fundamentalism and religious hatred. Besides, several international organizations have downgraded India’s democracy as Electoral democracy and pointed to the declining press freedom in India. This is why India cannot act with the courage of moral conviction to assert itself as the G 20 President and propose how to end the Ukraine War because the G 20 members could see through the internal foibles of India .
Yours etc.,
Rudi Warjri,
Via email
English a Universal Language
Editor,
20th March 2023, the first day of the budget session of the newly elected Assembly marked the discontentment of the VPP MLAs over the Governor’s Address in Hindi. VPP President Ardent M Basaiawmoit was right to stage a walkout in protest against the Governor speaking in Hindi. I believe that an insignificant percentage of members in the House can understand Hindi. A person who can speak or understand Shillong Hindi will not understand pure Sanskrit Hindi which the Governor was speaking.
I understand that Basaiawmoit as a responsible MLA, attending the Assembly Session wishes to listen to and understand every word of the Governor’s address so that he can take part in the discussions after the speech which is very important. One would expect that constructive and fruitful debates take place in the House so that meaningful decisions can be made for the betterment of the state and the people. Had the Governor’s address been in English which everyone could understand, the House would have been lively and positive results would have emerged.
Learning Hindi is a great opportunity. English is a universal language; it commands usefulness in Literature, Science, Engineering etc. However, it is not Language that builds the Nation; it is understanding that builds the Nation.
Yours etc.,
Namphrang Hynniewta,
Via email
Pakistan court throws out sedition law
Editor,
India is the largest democracy in the world but as far as sec 124 A of the law is concerned it is being kept in abeyance. Interestingly, in Pakistan sec 124A had been annulled by a single judge of the Lahore High Court. It is to be noted here that the same judge Shahid Kareem had delivered judgement against Parvez Musharraf. The order of the court came following a set of petitions filed by citizens challenging the sedition law on grounds that the government used it against its own citizens. It was argued in the petition that the sedition law was enacted in 1860 which makes it a colonial law. It added that this law was used for slaves under which a case can be registered on anyone’s request.
It was stated in the petition that the Constitution of Pakistan gives every citizen the right to freedom of expression but still, Section 124-A – Sedition – is imposed for making speeches against the rulers. According to the petitioners, Section 124-A of sedition is being used for political purposes and should be struck down.
Sedition is defined as “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 Federal or Provincial Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fines may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. The expression disaffection includes disloyalty and enmity.
Comments expressing disapproval of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without inciting or attempting to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection cannot constitute an offence under this section. In fact the sedition law was used to hound opponents and critics of the government during the British Raj when it found its oppressive apparatus insufficient to contain the rising tide of resistance. Sadly this continued after Partition, and was used by successive governments as a means of control.
Its most recent use was to register FIRs against PTI leaders Shahbaz Gill and Azam Swati, who were booked and then for attempting to incite mutiny. The striking down of this law saves both of them from being tried for the offence of sedition, and prevents FIRs being registered against all those PTI social media activists who might have posted material against the previous or present Chief of Army Staff (COAS). One reason the law was retained was that it provided an easy means of preventing criticism of the military. Freedom of speech was not allowed to override it, and the previous arrangement, whereby the judiciary validated any actions the military took, no matter how badly they violated the Constitution, kept it alive for 76 years. Now, however, it has been struck down.
However, this should not be regarded as a culmination, but should be seen merely as a beginning. There is the practice of registering multiple cases under Section 124A, so that the accused (some opponent of the regime) either has to get bail in multiple cases, or else is paraded throughout the country, going from one court to answer the charges. As sedition is now committed on the electronic media, those FIRs can be registered anywhere where someone could have seen the offending material.
Considering that a post in Timbuktoo in the depths of Africa, might be seen in the icy wastes of Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, that law is made to be abused. It is bad enough if only colonial-era laws were thus abused, but even post-Independence laws are used not to fight crime, but to curb dissent. The Anti-Terrorist Act is a case in point. While terrorism is rising, the ATA is being invoked against opponents so as to deny them bail. All laws need to be examined, and independence should mean freedom from tools of oppression inherited from a Raj frightened of another Mutiny.
Section 124-A is identical in India and Pakistan. Now in Pakistan it has been struck down but in India it is kept in abeyance. Now a stage is reached when it will be struck down in India too since a similar situation prevails in India.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email
