We often say things and forget them after a while, rarely pausing to think if they might haunt us in the distant future. For Gen Z individuals like me, it’s difficult to remember what we did 14 years ago when we were in school. And it is much more difficult to remember what we said during that time. But a few weeks ago, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi sanctioned the prosecution of renowned author Arundhati Roy and professor Sheikh Showkat Hussain under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (UAPA) Act.
This is one of the first acts of NDA-III. Imagine the priority of a democratically elected government being to imprison writers and professors. While it is not the first time that academics and writers are being persecuted, it is ironic that those charged under UAPA are not terrorists or criminals (they are garlanded at times by forces supporting the state) but professors, journalists and people who advocate for human rights. I wonder what the officer explaining the charge would’ve said. Maybe something along the lines of: “Sir, we are arresting you for participating in a protest demanding equal rights and release of political prisoners, which is quite seditious.”
The law under which they’re arrested needs no introduction. Unlawful activities under UAPA can refer to any act which disrupts the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country or causes any disaffection against India. It is important to define these vague terms. What will disrupt the integrity of India? I am sure that communal violence and casteism will not be included but the same cannot be said about the advocacy against them. Disaffection is another term for which there is no precise definition.
In earlier societies, there was a legal bar on dissent, known as ‘Heresy’. Heresy can be defined as any deviance of opinion against the general standing beliefs of a society. Any new research or even an opinion could be considered as Heresy. While I don’t consider Roy’s views to be unlawful, my past experience with right-wing communities has led me to believe that for some of them, views can be seditious if the person has a history of dissent and especially if they criticise their ‘dear leader’.
To dissent is to think differently against other human minds. Dissent is a human tendency, otherwise, we would be robots who think and act similarly. To have a space that allows disagreement and not stifles diverse opinions is what makes a healthy environment.
Let’s go back 14 years. What did Roy and Hussain say back then that still haunts the majoritarian state? It might have caused inconvenience to some, but does inconvenience justify legal persecution? What changed in these 14 years to warrant being tried under this draconian law? These questions will not be answered by any human.
History will inform future generations. Even if erased or burned, words stay alive and are passed down, especially in a country with an oral tradition of passing religious scriptures. Time will tell if this law can survive the tests of democracy or if democracy will endure long enough to ensure the latter always prevails.
Jay Kholiya is a law student. He was formerly a district secretary in the ABVP.
