Two perceptions were evident from the
tone and tenor of interactions and murmurings within the upper echelons
of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)-led Sangh Parivar, especially
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), in
the last week of August. One of them had a sense of satisfaction that
its political, social and cultural action plan based on the broad theme
of “nationalism versus sedition”, which had been advanced over the past
two and a half years, was gathering momentum in new areas and on new
fronts. The other had an element of consternation that the interventions
by sections of the intelligentsia and the reactions these had evoked
from the judiciary were impeding the smooth advancement of this plan.
Indeed, both these perspectives were linked to the concrete developments that unfolded on August 28 and 29. On August 28, the Pune Police, controlled by the Home Department of the BJP-led State government in Maharashtra, conducted simultaneous raids in multiple cities on the pretext of investigating the December 31, 2017, Elgar Parishad in Pune and arrested five prominent activists—Sudha Bharadwaj in Faridabad, Varavara Rao in Hyderabad, Gautam Navlakha in New Delhi and Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Mumbai. The Pune Police had claimed that all of them were “urban naxalites” who had links with the Left-extremist Communist Party of India (Maoist) and were “in the process of creating large-scale violence, destruction of property resulting in chaos”.
The
police were planning to shift the activists to Pune and keep them under
custody there. However, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court,
consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud
and A.M. Khanwilkar, prevented their transfer to Pune by directing the
police to place them under house arrest. This was in response to a
petition filed by the historian Romila Thapar, the economists Prabhat
Patnaik and Devaki Jain, the sociologist Satish Deshpande and the human
rights activist Maja Daruwala. Observing that those arrested were
prominent rights activists, professors and lawyers, Justice Chandrachud,
during the hearing of the case, pointed out that “dissent is the safety
valve of democracy” and “if dissent is not allowed, then the pressure
cooker may burst”. (At the time of writing this, the apex court has
placed the activists under house arrest until September 12.)
While the proceedings on the petition filed by Romila Thapar and others are bound to continue after September 12, there is little doubt that the early reactions from the apex court have acknowledged the arguments made by the petitioners with gravity. The petitioners characterised the police action as “gross abuse of police power in the country, which is intended to stifle, if not kill, independent voices and a differing ideology from the party in power”. The petition went on to state that “the impugned actions” of the Pune Police were the biggest attack on the freedom and liberty of citizens and that the police resorted to high-handed actions “without credible material and evidence”. The entire exercise, it stated, was to silence dissent, stop people from helping downtrodden and marginalised people across the nation, and instil fear in the minds of the people. “The timing of this action leaves much to be desired and appears to be motivated to deflect people’s attention from real issues,” it said.
The petition also pointed out that the police had “embarked on a motivated process of arresting a large number of human rights activists, lawyers and journalists, who are all known for their commitment to the cause of respecting and promoting the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised communities, in particular the Dalits, Adivasis, women, landless labourers and the poor”.
The Pune Police, on their part, sought to argue in court as well as outside, at a press conference, that they were not motivated by an “urge to curb dissent” or by “difference in ideology” but had “cogent evidence” to show that the arrested persons were “active members” of the banned CPI (Maoist). The police’s argument was that the August 28 arrests were essentially in continuation of the investigations following the arrest of Shoma Sen, Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Antachi Chalwal, Surendra Gadling and Mahesh Raut in June 2018. The allegations against them were that they had sourced funds from banned Maoist groups to help organise the Elgar Parishad. It also accused them of planning to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a manner similar to Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.
Speaking to Frontline from Lucknow, a senior RSS activist admitted that the intervention by sections of the intelligentsia and the judiciary’s response have “caused some operational problems” for the larger socio-political-cultural action plan on the “nationalism versus sedition” theme. He said: “It is clear that we would not be able to advance this merely on the basis of the police investigation records but would have to come up with a more direct and cogent political campaign. However, tangible plans of this are yet to be formulated.” This leader, as well as a number of other Sangh Parivar activists, recalled how the idea of developing and advancing the plank of “nationalism versus sedition” was conceived and how its organisational parameters were worked out at the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakarini Mandal Baitak (national executive committee meet) of the RSS in October-November 2015 in Ranchi, Jharkhand. The meeting, attended by the leaderships of more than 35 associate organisations of the Sangh Parivar, including the BJP, did not have a pre-announced agenda. However, as the meeting unfolded, the Sangh Parivar leadership took up the matters of “growing religious imbalance in Indian population figures” and “concerns for national unity”. It was the discussions on these two issues that led to the concretisation of the “nationalism versus sedition” plank.
Indeed, both these perspectives were linked to the concrete developments that unfolded on August 28 and 29. On August 28, the Pune Police, controlled by the Home Department of the BJP-led State government in Maharashtra, conducted simultaneous raids in multiple cities on the pretext of investigating the December 31, 2017, Elgar Parishad in Pune and arrested five prominent activists—Sudha Bharadwaj in Faridabad, Varavara Rao in Hyderabad, Gautam Navlakha in New Delhi and Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Mumbai. The Pune Police had claimed that all of them were “urban naxalites” who had links with the Left-extremist Communist Party of India (Maoist) and were “in the process of creating large-scale violence, destruction of property resulting in chaos”.
While the proceedings on the petition filed by Romila Thapar and others are bound to continue after September 12, there is little doubt that the early reactions from the apex court have acknowledged the arguments made by the petitioners with gravity. The petitioners characterised the police action as “gross abuse of police power in the country, which is intended to stifle, if not kill, independent voices and a differing ideology from the party in power”. The petition went on to state that “the impugned actions” of the Pune Police were the biggest attack on the freedom and liberty of citizens and that the police resorted to high-handed actions “without credible material and evidence”. The entire exercise, it stated, was to silence dissent, stop people from helping downtrodden and marginalised people across the nation, and instil fear in the minds of the people. “The timing of this action leaves much to be desired and appears to be motivated to deflect people’s attention from real issues,” it said.
The petition also pointed out that the police had “embarked on a motivated process of arresting a large number of human rights activists, lawyers and journalists, who are all known for their commitment to the cause of respecting and promoting the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised communities, in particular the Dalits, Adivasis, women, landless labourers and the poor”.
The Pune Police, on their part, sought to argue in court as well as outside, at a press conference, that they were not motivated by an “urge to curb dissent” or by “difference in ideology” but had “cogent evidence” to show that the arrested persons were “active members” of the banned CPI (Maoist). The police’s argument was that the August 28 arrests were essentially in continuation of the investigations following the arrest of Shoma Sen, Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Antachi Chalwal, Surendra Gadling and Mahesh Raut in June 2018. The allegations against them were that they had sourced funds from banned Maoist groups to help organise the Elgar Parishad. It also accused them of planning to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a manner similar to Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.
Speaking to Frontline from Lucknow, a senior RSS activist admitted that the intervention by sections of the intelligentsia and the judiciary’s response have “caused some operational problems” for the larger socio-political-cultural action plan on the “nationalism versus sedition” theme. He said: “It is clear that we would not be able to advance this merely on the basis of the police investigation records but would have to come up with a more direct and cogent political campaign. However, tangible plans of this are yet to be formulated.” This leader, as well as a number of other Sangh Parivar activists, recalled how the idea of developing and advancing the plank of “nationalism versus sedition” was conceived and how its organisational parameters were worked out at the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakarini Mandal Baitak (national executive committee meet) of the RSS in October-November 2015 in Ranchi, Jharkhand. The meeting, attended by the leaderships of more than 35 associate organisations of the Sangh Parivar, including the BJP, did not have a pre-announced agenda. However, as the meeting unfolded, the Sangh Parivar leadership took up the matters of “growing religious imbalance in Indian population figures” and “concerns for national unity”. It was the discussions on these two issues that led to the concretisation of the “nationalism versus sedition” plank.
No comments:
Post a Comment