“I want this Government to be criticized. Criticism makes democracy strong” – Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi.
These words by the Prime Minister of the largest democracy of the world propounds and builds on what philosophers like John Locke considered to be a cornerstone of a modern-day democracy, ie freedom of expression. Criticism of the authorities in power by the common man is one of the foundational structures to what we deem as freedom of expression and so can be inferred from Prime Minister Modi’s statement. This narrative however, astonishingly so, seems rather untrue in the case of present-day India.
Earlier this year, the report published by the Human Rights Watch claimed that the Indian government has rigorously partaken in harassment, detainment, and prosecution of its critics through “politically motivated” cases. It emphasized on the vague and rather controversial changes in the media policy last year Jammu and Kashmir which outright seems to restrict and penalize legally protected speech. Though the intentions put forth by the government for the same were to stabilize the situation in Kashmir and maintain peace post the abrogation of article 370, the reality of it seems far from this.
It is heavily evidenced that during the riots in the national capital in February 2020, Kapil Mishra a BJP leader who played a very direct role in inciting violence both with his on-record speeches and actions was let go scot-free. If ‘peace’ was the motivating factor behind the persecution of activists and political leaders in Kashmir, it is only reasonable to expect the same on all covers, especially when they were as obvious as in the case of Kapil Mishra. It is hard to not insinuate a clear agenda established by the ruling government – a complete shutdown of any valid criticism.
In recent months, this ‘systematic crackdown’ has spread to the realm of social media as well. Multiple tweets of valid criticism of the government in respect with their actions (or rather lack-there-of) to control the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic were removed by the platform at the instruction of the government. Multiple legal charges have also been filed for the same against individuals critiquing the government. To add to this, the rather open ended and vague nature of the new IT rules leaves a room for the government to pursue discretionary powers when it comes to “acceptable criticism”.
It does not help that these very IT rules were passed as an ordinance and not as a parliamentary act where there could be a more democratic discussion regarding the subject matter of the said act.This further provides an argument for the growing authoritarianism with the current ruling government which is now even being recognized by the very allies our country holds near and dear. US official Dean Thompson, the Acting Assistant Secretary of South and Central Asian affairs, raised concerns over the growing “restrictions on freedom of expression” and the crackdown of human rights activists and journalists by the Indian Government.
This might seem rather concerning and rightly so, however it is to keep in mind that the people of the country are the ones in power and will always continue to be so. We elect our representatives, and that power cannot be taken away from us. However, the distinction between the country and its government needs to be acknowledged, voicing opinions against the government does not constitute to betraying the country and all that it stands for.
Puru Sharma
Law Student, Lancester University, United Kingdom.
Systematic crackdown on criticism of the Indian Government – A threat to freedom of expression?
June 13, 2021 in Education
“I want this Government to be criticized. Criticism makes democracy strong” – Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi.
These words by the Prime Minister of the largest democracy of the world propounds and builds on what philosophers like John Locke considered to be a cornerstone of a modern-day democracy, ie freedom of expression. Criticism of the authorities in power by the common man is one of the foundational structures to what we deem as freedom of expression and so can be inferred from Prime Minister Modi’s statement. This narrative however, astonishingly so, seems rather untrue in the case of present-day India.
Earlier this year, the report published by the Human Rights Watch claimed that the Indian government has rigorously partaken in harassment, detainment, and prosecution of its critics through “politically motivated” cases. It emphasized on the vague and rather controversial changes in the media policy last year Jammu and Kashmir which outright seems to restrict and penalize legally protected speech. Though the intentions put forth by the government for the same were to stabilize the situation in Kashmir and maintain peace post the abrogation of article 370, the reality of it seems far from this.
It is heavily evidenced that during the riots in the national capital in February 2020, Kapil Mishra a BJP leader who played a very direct role in inciting violence both with his on-record speeches and actions was let go scot-free. If ‘peace’ was the motivating factor behind the persecution of activists and political leaders in Kashmir, it is only reasonable to expect the same on all covers, especially when they were as obvious as in the case of Kapil Mishra. It is hard to not insinuate a clear agenda established by the ruling government – a complete shutdown of any valid criticism.
In recent months, this ‘systematic crackdown’ has spread to the realm of social media as well. Multiple tweets of valid criticism of the government in respect with their actions (or rather lack-there-of) to control the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic were removed by the platform at the instruction of the government. Multiple legal charges have also been filed for the same against individuals critiquing the government. To add to this, the rather open ended and vague nature of the new IT rules leaves a room for the government to pursue discretionary powers when it comes to “acceptable criticism”.
It does not help that these very IT rules were passed as an ordinance and not as a parliamentary act where there could be a more democratic discussion regarding the subject matter of the said act.This further provides an argument for the growing authoritarianism with the current ruling government which is now even being recognized by the very allies our country holds near and dear. US official Dean Thompson, the Acting Assistant Secretary of South and Central Asian affairs, raised concerns over the growing “restrictions on freedom of expression” and the crackdown of human rights activists and journalists by the Indian Government.
This might seem rather concerning and rightly so, however it is to keep in mind that the people of the country are the ones in power and will always continue to be so. We elect our representatives, and that power cannot be taken away from us. However, the distinction between the country and its government needs to be acknowledged, voicing opinions against the government does not constitute to betraying the country and all that it stands for.
Puru Sharma
Law Student, Lancester University, United Kingdom.
About The Author: Legax
More posts by Legax