Section 124A of the IPC was altered in post-independent India to remove mention of British rule and define sedition as: 'an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India by words

Previous Next

Today, however, the government is charging increasing numbers of protesters with sedition – based on a colonial era law introduced in the late 19th century as a way of repressing those thought to be hostile to British rule. During the struggle for independence almost all the leaders of the movement, including Gandhi and Nehru, pleaded guilty to charges of sedition. Gandhi defended it as free speech, and told the judge that it was a “privilege” to be charged under this particular law: “If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite to violence”.

Sedition means dissent – in this case, dissent from agreement with those in power. Yet, in a democracy, citizens are free to disagree with their leaders and to express their own opinions. It seems strange that the sedition law survived the transition to independence in India, and stranger still that it is in such frequent use today, as more and more people face charges: from journalists to activists to students, or anyone who .decides to join a peaceful protest. Even schoolchildren: at the end of 2019 a primary school in Karnataka was charged with sedition for putting on a play that allegedly opposed the new Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)

Opposition to the CAA went far beyond schoolchildren, and the declaration of the act in December 2019 sparked peaceful protests throughout the country. Everywhere protestors were met with police violence or arrest: thousands of women holding a sit-in in Uttar Pradesh were also threatened with sedition charges, while in Delhi protests that began peacefully led to the worst outbreak of intercommunal violence in decades as a result of a harsh police crackdown. International organisations such as Human Rights Watch called on the government to stop using excessive force against protestors; meanwhile leaders of the BJP described the protestors as “traitors” and called for them to be shot.

After the riots were over, police arrested student activists accused of making incendiary speeches. In one of these speeches from the early days of the protests, Umar Khalid – a student leader who was among those arrested - said: “We won’t respond to violence with violence. We won’t respond to hate with hate. If they spread hate, we will respond to it with love.” This is what the government deems “incendiary” - a speech that exemplifies that spirit of peaceful protest based on non-violence that led to Indian independence more than 70 years ago.

Throughout the country, however, peaceful challenges to authority are harshly repressed, while state control of the media mean that protest movements do not get the press coverage they deserve. Andhra Pradesh, for example, is currently the site of one of the longest ongoing peaceful protests since independence – yet many people are hardly aware that it’s happening at all.

When Jaganmohan Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, announced his plan for a decentralised state government spread across three capital cities, it came as a huge blow to farmers around the city of Amaravati. Amaravati had been chosen as the new capital, and there were ambitious plans to turn it into “a new Singapore” – a world-class, business-friendly modern metropolis. Tens of thousands of farmers agreed to pool their land in exchange for a share in the new, vibrant state capital; with Jaganmohan Reddy’s change of plan, they were left with nothing. In response, they took to the streets in protest. These protests have now continued every day for almost a year – despite receiving little or no press attention.

The Amaravati protestors have also faced police violence and systematic state opposition. Recently, in October, a large gathering was forcibly dispersed by police, while the YSRCP-led government orchestrated a counter-protest against the farmers. “The police clearly sided with the YSRCP group of protesters. This is a clear abuse of power,” said one farmer.

These farmers are setting an example. Despite all the challenges they face, they continue to engage in peaceful marches and hunger strikes, determined to make themselves heard. The space for peaceful dissent in India is shrinking fast. It is up to all of us to make sure that it does not disappear altogether.