JNU Controversy: Indian Freedom of Speech & Expression and Indian Nationalism & Patriotism

Jawaharlal Nehru University (“JNU”), a central university was established by the laws of parliament with an objective to promote the study of the principles for which Jawaharlal Nehru worked during his life-time, national integration, social justice, secularism, democratic way of life, international understanding and scientific approach to the problems of society.[1] On 09.02.2016, a Cultural Evening was organized by Student Group calling it “Poetry Reading: The Country without Post-office” and despite being cancellation of the Event by JNU Administration, Organizer went ahead and organized the programme where allegedly certain objectionable slogans were raised against the country resulting into arrest of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and as expected, politics of left, right and centre wing started on the issue and warring forces started questioning the motives and forceful enforcement of ideology etc., which is not the subject matter herein. I am confining my write-up to the freedom of speech vis-à-vis Indian Nationalism and Patriotism. Article 19(1) of Constitution of India grant the Citizen a right to free speech and expression, however, this right to free speech and expression is not an absolute right, but this right is subject to such reasonable restrictions as would come within the purview of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India which comprises in the interests of (a) the sovereignty and integrity of India, (b) security of the State, (c) friendly relations with foreign states, (d) public order, (e) decency or morality or (f) in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. It is correct that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas[2], however, this right to freedom of speech and expression is coupled with duties as well as subject to reasonable restrictions.

I am asking questions to myself, is it correct to propagate or demand cessation or destruction of India as a nation by taking shelter of freedom of speech and expression? Does Freedom of Speech mean that someone should be able to say whatever he or she wants at any time or place whether the opinion or speech, majority of Indian don’t subscribe and believe and result into disorder? What is Indian Nationalism and Patriotism? Can one in the name of Nationalism resorts to violence?

The Right to freedom of speech and expression is basic to and indivisible from a democratic polity. It includes right to impart and receive information[3] however this right will come to an end as soon as the right of some one else to hold his property intervenes and interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state etc., are violated.  

The confrontation between freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) and provisions finding protection under reasonable restricts under Article 19(2) came for interpretation before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the very first year of coming into force of the Constitution of India wherein Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar’s case in majority declared the order and provisions prohibiting the entry and circulation of the petitioner’s journal in the State of Madras and same majority in the case of Brij Bhushan[4] quashed the order of Chief Commissioner of Delhi directing Editor of “Organiser” to submit for scrutiny all communal matter and news and view before publication till further order. Immediately thereafter, then Prime Minister of India, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru amended the Constitution vide the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951 wherein reason was given that “during the last fifteen months of the working of the Constitution, certain difficulties have been brought to light by judicial decisions and pronouncements specially in regard to the chapter on fundamental rights. The Citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) has been held by some courts to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence. In other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the state from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom. The Citizens reasonable restrictions which the laws of the state may impose “in the interests of general public”. While the words cited are comprehensive enough to cover any scheme of nationalization which the state may undertake, it is desirable to place the matter beyond doubt by a clarificatory addition to Article 19(6).”

This Amendment clearly shows that great thinker and socialist Prime Minister was very much aware of the danger of unregulated freedom of speech and expression and as such tried to strike a balance between people’s right to freedom of speech and expression and security of states, public order etc.,. Since he knew that it is equally obvious that freedom of speech can only thrive in an orderly society and Order is the basic need in any organized society implies the orderly state of society or community in which citizen can peacefully pursue their normal activities of life. Further being a lawyer, socialist & thinker, he knew that the purpose of law is to establish standards, maintain order and regulate the behavior of various group and classes, resolve the disputes among groups and classes & protect liberties and rights.

Nation again stirred in early 60’s, when a tendency on the part of the sizable sections of the Indian people to veer over to the idea of secession from the India was noticed by the Government of India and to check these tendencies, the then Prime Minister Sh.Jawaharlal Nehru, convened National Integration Conference in September-October, 1961 to find ways and means to combat the evils of communalism, casteism, regionalism, linguism and narrow-mindedness and to formulate definite conclusions in order to give a lead to the Country and in conference, it was decided to set up a National Integration Council (NIC) to review all matters pertaining to national integration and to make recommendations thereon and as per the Recommendation of Late Sh.C.P.Ramaswami Iyer, Chairman of NIC, Article 19(2) was amended so that adequate powers become available for the preservation and maintenance of the integrity and sovereignty of the Union, accordingly Article 19(2) was amended and after the words “in the interests of” the words “the sovereignty and integrity of India” was inserted[5].

It is relevant to pause here to deal with another important aspect that is Nationalism. Nationalism and Patriotism are two distinct words that should not be intermingled with each other. George Orwell says that “patriotism” mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. India is a country of multi-culture and since time immemorial India has accommodated and assimilated various outside elements into its growing culture. Swami Vivekananda was proud by saying that “I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth”. The term “nationalism” as defined in dictionary means “an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries”. Prof.Majid Husain says that Nationalism refers to the political movement based on the belief that a nation usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture, has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous community based on a shared history and common destiny. Extreme form of nationalism hold that nationality is the most important aspect of one’s identity and attempt to define the nation in terms of race and ethnicity.

At the cost of being labeled as “Bhakt”, I am not hesitate to accept that due to Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, image of India has enhanced globally and we, India & Indians, are emerging as a nation worldwide and if we really want to be a global power, we are required to find a striking balance between Nationalism, patriotism and freedom of Speech and Expression. We have to realize that National integration is necessary for modernization[6] and for growth as well, wherein we the people which include Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Jews & etc., of this country are required to readjustment of our loyalties and it can be summed up to signify a condition of unity in diversity in which components and the whole are equally valid and mutually interdependent. The Current Government, by various programs like Run for Unity etc., has evolved a feeling of nationalism but at the same time failed to strike a balance between Nationalism and Patriotism and JNU Controversy gave an opportunity to Nation to think on these lines. Justice William O. Douglas had wrote once that it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people as in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest or stirs people to anger but at the same time, citizen has to remain duty bound that this freedom of speech and expression comes with great responsibilities and duties towards the nation. Raising anti-India slogan and dreaming to breakout from Union in the name of free speech cannot and should not be accepted and State have full power and right to censor as well as punish the culprit under appropriate provisions of the law which amount to reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression and Jawaharlald Nehru had dreamt to create such democratic society and JNU was created to fulfill his visions. It is emphatically important there that the people who are creating mayhem has to understand that “Patriotism is, of its nature, defensive, both militarily and culturally” while Nationalism as dictionary suggest as well by George Orwell “on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality”, so lets be patriotic rather than nationalist. We can show our nationalism to other nation but not to our own citizens.
*****
(The View expressed are personal, Author is a Lawyer at High Court & District Courts at New Delhi. Copyright @ Vishnu Langawat)



[1]       The First Schedule to the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966
[2]       Romesh Thappar Vs The State of Madras-MANU/SC/0006/1950
[3]       Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, GoI & Ors Vs Cricket Association of Bengal & Others-MANU/SC/0246/1995
[4]       Brij Bhushan & Anr Vs The State of Delhi-MANU/SC/0007/1950
[5]       Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963
[6]       Prof.Majid Husain in Geography of India, 3rd Edition, Tata McGraw Hills



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Independence Day, It is one leave! Boss

Politics of perception & defamation