Social status doesn’t give immunity to Arundhati

Amitabh Thakur November 04, 2010
Just because Arundhati Roy is hailed as intellectual, law must not be misinterpreted to legalize her act of sedition. Because no law permits such transgression wrapped in pleas and rhetoric where its very foundation is questioned
Arundhati Roy needs no introduction in India or abroad. A Booker Prize winner, she has over the period emerged as a social activist who has her own perspectives and thoughts on many pertinent issues. More often than not, these views get into lots of controversy. There are people who say that these controversies turn into an advantage for Arundhati Roy, who always comes up with larger number of fans and followers in the aftermath of each such controversy.

Possibly following the same thing, in a meeting on Kashmir called “Azadi — The Only Way” organised in LTG Auditorium, New Delhi, on October 21, she along with SAR Geelani and Syed Ali Shah Geelani spoke words which clearly come in the purview of sedition. She said, “Kashmir should get azadi from bhookhey-nangey Hindustan … India needs azadi from Kashmir and Kashmir from India. It is a good debate that has started. We must deepen this conversation and am happy that young people are getting involved for this cause, which is their future.” Similarly at a seminar on “Wither Kashmir: Freedom or enslavement” held in Srinagar Arundhati Roy said, “Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian Government has accepted this.”
Now, we all know that Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution provides right to freedom of speech and expression to all its citizen but at the same time Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State etc. Similarly, section 121, 121A and 124A of the Indian Penal Code talk of waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India and also about sedition. Sedition is very clearly defined as an act “by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise” bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.
So far these laws remain very much in force in India. In fact, Article 19(2)(a) and section 124A of the IPC has been challenged many a times even in the Supreme Court but the highest Court of the land has upheld it as being constitutional and illegal. Thus, as ordinary citizen of India we are duty bound to follow them. In case anyone of us have views divergent to the above laws, we only have two options — either to get them amended in the Parliament or to get them stuck down in the Court. None of these has been done and hence it becomes the duty of a citizen to follow them in letter and spirit. Or to face the legal consequences when we violate it. There is not much genius required to understand this, this is simple logic.
Yes, we all have the right as human beings to have certain opinions and views and also to firmly believe in them but when it comes to expressing these views in the public domain, each one of us has to adhere to the law of the land. There exists the paramountcy of law, as long as it exists in a given format and no one, including Arundhati Roy can be considered to be above law. And when the matter is related with the basic integrity and unity of the nation, the seriousness of the matter increases manifold. This is important because any laxity or relaxation on this account might act as a motivating factor and precedence to others to take law in their own hands, to the extent of playing with the nation’s very basic foundations. The situation becomes all the more serious when the persons committing the crime are considered among the respected members of the society and claim to be intellectuals and thinkers in their own way.



I don’t need to explain why the words quoted above as being that of Arundhati Roy fall under the purview of sedition. Can one think of any nation which would allow open talks of its own dismemberment? When the very basic foundation and existence of the country is lost, how can it cater to its other required duties? So, just because Arundhati Roy is a celebrity and has widely been hailed as an intellectual, do her illegal and unconstitutional words become legalised?
After the matter became hotly discussed, Arundhati Roy is quoted to have said that she said what millions of people here say every day. She says that her speeches are fundamentally a call for justice and that she “spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world”. She also blames someone (presumably India) in the following words- “Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice”.
But do all these pleas and rhetoric make a crime, as defined in a law book, as something else? Which law would permit such a transgression where it’s very foundations are questioned? And if a person still feels that what he or she is speaking is true, then another thing shall happen simultaneously — the code of law shall be imposed in the most impassioned, efficient and value-neutral manner, without thinking twice about who it is that is violating the law. This is the basic criteria and definition of law that we all understand and adhere to.
--The writer, presently on study leave at IIM Lucknow, is an IPS officers of UP Cadre.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/294261/Social-status-doesn’t-give-immunity-to-Arundhati.html