Political arrests have been a recurring theme in India’s turbulent political history. These arrests have often been used as tools for control, suppression, and intimidation. This practice can be traced back to the dark days of the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975, marking a significant chapter in the annals of political repression in India.
During the Emergency, civil liberties were suspended, the press was censored, and political opponents were jailed in large numbers. Indira Gandhi’s government used the state machinery to crack down on dissent, leading to the arrest of thousands of opposition leaders and activists.
The Emergency, which lasted for 21 months, is often cited as a blatant example of the misuse of political power to stifle opposition. This period was a stark reminder of how political arrests can be used to undermine democracy and suppress voices of dissent.
In the subsequent years, the trend of using political arrests continued, albeit in a more sophisticated manner. India’s premier investigative agencies like the CBI and ED have often been accused of being used as political tools. During the tenure of P. Chidambaram as the Home Minister, the CBI’s role came under scrutiny.
Often referred to as a ‘Caged Parrot,’ many alleged that the agency was being used to target political opponents and dissenters. High-profile arrests and investigations during this period raised questions about the impartiality of the CBI and its susceptibility to political influence.
Fast forward to the present, and the scenario appears to have not changed much. The current government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has also faced allegations of using arrests to target political rivals. Several opposition leaders have been arrested or investigated on various charges, leading to accusations of political vendetta. Critics argue that these arrests are often timed to coincide with elections or other politically sensitive periods, suggesting a strategic use of state power to weaken the opposition.
However, a new dimension has emerged in recent days: the targeting of influential activists such as Arundhati Roy and Medha Patkar. These individuals, who have a substantial and diverse following, represent a different kind of threat to the political establishment. Unlike traditional political leaders, popular activists often operate outside the conventional political framework. They command a wide fan base that spans various segments of society, making them influential voices of dissent.
Arundhati Roy, an acclaimed author and activist, has been vocal about various social and political issues, often challenging the status quo. Medha Patkar, known for her role in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, has been a prominent advocate for the rights of marginalised communities.
The arrest or targeting of such figures is entirely different from arresting a political persona. While political arrests can be dismissed as routine political manoeuvring, the targeting of activists strikes at the heart of civil society and free speech.
These activists have the ability to mobilise public opinion in ways that traditional politicians often cannot. Their influence extends beyond political affiliations, resonating with a broader audience that includes academia, students, artists, and common citizens.
This makes them a potent force in shaping public discourse and challenging government policies. Arresting or intimidating such figures narrows the space for dissent and critique, leading to a homogenised political environment where alternative voices are silenced. It reflects a worrying trend where the government is not just targeting political opponents but also those who question its policies from a civil society perspective.
The significance of these influential activists lies in their unique position within the societal structure. Unlike conventional politicians, their influence is not limited by party lines or political loyalty. They represent a confluence of diverse societal interests, embodying the concerns and aspirations of a wide array of people.
This broad-based appeal enables them to foster a more inclusive and participatory form of public discourse, challenging the often exclusionary and hierarchical nature of traditional politics.
Moreover, the arrest or intimidation of such figures sends a chilling message to civil society. It signals that dissent, even when it comes from respected and influential figures outside the traditional political realm, will not be tolerated. This not only stifles free speech but also erodes the fundamental principles of democracy, where diverse voices and opinions are supposed to be heard and debated.
Several other non-politically affiliated individuals have faced similar repression. Sudha Bharadwaj, a lawyer and trade unionist, have been arrested for her activism in support of labour rights and indigenous communities. Anand Teltumbde, a scholar and writer, was arrested for his critical views on caste and class injustices.
Father Stan Swamy, a Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, was imprisoned for his advocacy for Adivasi rights and died in custody. These cases, like those of Roy and Patkar, highlight how the targeting of influential non-political figures strikes at the core of civil society.
The shift from targeting traditional political opponents to activists marks a troubling evolution in the use of political arrests in India. While the suppression of political rivals can be viewed as a strategic, albeit undemocratic, maneuver within the political arena, the crackdown on activists strikes at the very core of civil society and free speech.
It is imperative for a healthy democracy to protect these voices of dissent, ensuring that the space for critical dialogue and opposition remains open and vibrant. Only then can India truly uphold the democratic values it prides itself on.
Nirmanyu Chouhan, a researcher at Lokniti, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, earned his Bachelor’s degree in History from Hindu College, University of Delhi. His areas of interest include caste politics, literature, history, and Indian politics.
