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
Comments