With the Jawaharlal Nehru University issue taking several twists and turns, The Hindu takes a look at how the issue started and where.
The debate around Afzal Guru
Earlier, students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University > organised an event on Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru who was hanged in 2013. This was to be done the day after Guru’s third death anniversary.
The event organisers had pasted posters across the campus inviting students to gather for a protest march against “judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat” and in solidarity with the “struggle” of Kashmiri migrants at the Sabarmati dhaba in the campus.
The programme called “A country without a post office — against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt”, was supposed to showcase the protest through poetry, art and music.
This set off the row, with the Members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) staging a protest to demand expulsion of the organisers.
The university administration > ordered a “disciplinary” enquiry and said the event organisers “went ahead without permission.”
ABVP members alleged that the protest march consisted of students shouting ‘anti-India’ slogans. A purported video from the event shows students shouting anti-India and pro-Pakistan slogans. Students in the video are heard saying slogans like: “Kashmir ki azai tak bharat ki azadi tak, janh rahegi jari”.
The students who were part of the committee that organised an event to mark the death anniversary of Afzal Guru said that > none of them were part of the group that was shouting slogans.
A student who was a part of the event organising committee, told The Hindu : “The programme was a cultural evening organised to question the working of the Supreme Court. It was also meant to bring the grievances of the Kashmiri citizens to light. The struggles of ‘self-determination’ must be openly spoken about. Considering this is a democratic republic, why should dissent be suppressed?”
A case of sedition against several unknown students was lodged at Vasant Kunj (North) police station. It was registered under IPC Sections 124A (sedition), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (acts done by several persons with a common intention).
The university also initiated action, barring eight students from academic activity pending an enquiry, though they would be allowed to stay as guests in the hostels.
Arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar
JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on sedition charges after allegations of ‘anti-national’ sloganeering against him surfaced. He was ordered to three days of police custody.
Why did the police take action?
The police struck after videos of the alleged protest went viral. Home Minister Rajnath Singh talked to Delhi Police Commissioner B.S. Bassi and released a statement: “If anyone raises anti-India slogans, tries to raise questions on the country’s unity and integrity, they will not be spared.”
Students protest ‘police raj’ within campus
> Students of JNU gave a shutdown call , saying that they will not allow classes to be held on the campus till students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar is released. JNU teachers too, joined the students in boycotting classes and said they would take classes on “nationalism” in the varsity lawns.
The university teachers had earlier rallied behind its protesting students and questioned the administration’s decision to allow the police crackdown on the campus even as they appealed to the public not to “brand” the institution as “anti-national” but they had not joined the strike earlier.
‘Fake’ Twitter handle
Rajnath Singh alleged that JNU students had the backing of Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed. But, his statement was based “fake tweet” from an unverified Twitter account. The account has posted funny messages in the past, with many on the social media considering it as a parody account. The account @HafeezSaeedJUD is no longer in use.
When contacted, a senior officer who handles the Delhi Police Twitter account said, “What proof is there that it was a parody account? Our domain is not to check parody accounts but to red-flag any incendiary content on social media. The law is very clear on this, Internet is just a medium of communication. Idea was to caution young people and students to not get carried away by such messages.”
Journalists, activists attacked in front of Patiala Court
O.P. Sharma’s comments
The BJP MLA O.P. Sharma who was also in Patiala House Courts during the scuffle, got > embroiled in the controversy when a video of him started surfacing. The video showed Mr. Sharma beating up a CPI worker outside the court’s gate number 4.
“As I was leaving the court I saw a man raising anti-India and pro-Pakistan slogans. I lost my cool, like any patriot, and asked him to shut up. And when I turned, he attacked me with an object.”
Mr Sharma doesn’t know what he was hit with, but the people around him got “offended seeing the MLA being attacked” and started beating up the attacker, read “anti-national”. “The problem of this country at present is that terrorism and being anti-national are considered being progressive. And JNU is promoting this kind of ideology and producing anti-nationals. JNU should be sealed,” Mr. Sharma said.
Rahul Gandhi’s role
Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi > criticised the BJP government , accusing it of > “bullying” the prestigious institution . Soon after visiting the JNU campus Mr. Gandhi called an emergency meeting at his residence where he discussed ways to “tie up” every compelling issue the students are facing in India today and place them in its anti-BJP narrative.
Rahul Gandhi > met President Pranab Mukherjee over the JNU row and the alleged targeting of students in various parts of the country. Accompanied by senior leaders and also the young MPs of the party, the Congress vice president highlighted the “lawlessness” in Delhi in the wake of Patiala House court attacks and the way the government has handled the JNU row.
Kanhaiya Kumar thrashed
In a shocking sequel to the incidents of February 15 in the Patiala House courts complex, > violence was unleashed barely moments before a hearing on sedition charges against JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar was to start at 2 p.m.
The Delhi Police again filled the role of a “silent spectator” as attackers defied the Supreme Court’s order for restricted entry to the trial court complex, bashed up Mr. Kumar en route to his court hearing and hurled the choicest abuse, gravel and a jagged end of a flowerpot piece at a six-member team of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, hand-picked by the Supreme Court to verify and report back on the ground situation in the court complex.
Three ABVP members resign
Three members of the RSS student wing, Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarti Parishad (ABVP), > have resigned from their positions in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) unit of the party, citing ideological differences. In a letter jointly issued by the three students, they have “dissociated themselves” from any further activity of ABVP. The letter adds that they cannot be the “mouthpiece” of a government that has unleashed oppression on student community.
Kanhaiya Kumar released from Tihar
A court in New Delhi > ordered release of the JNUSU president from the Tihar jail after he furnished bail bond of Rs. 10,000 in the sedition case, a day after he was granted six months’ interim bail by the Delhi High Court.
Mr. Kumar was granted interim bail for six months by high court which had observed that FIR lodged in connection with an on-campus event that led to his arrest on sedition charge suggested it “is a case of raising anti—national slogans which do have the effect of threatening national integrity“.
'We want freedom in India, not freedom from India'
Addressing a huge gathering of students on the campus, soon after release from Tihar Jail, Mr. Kumar said: “It is not azadi from India, it is azadi in India [we want]... from the corrupt practices that are going on inside the country.” Mr. Kumar > made his fiery speech at the same place where he had addressed students just a day before his arrest.
Here's what The Hindu has published over the years about Sedition laws:
The Sangh Parivar’s student wing across campuses has been given the responsibility of raising the slogan of anti-nationalism wherever democratic aspirations are expressed.
Section 124-A of the IPC, pertaining to sedition, negates the right to dissent, which is an essential condition of any reasonable government. Viewed thus, it is Section 124-A that is ‘anti-India’.
The Delhi Police seemed to have taken the cue from a remark made by Rajnath Singh that “anti-national activities” would not be tolerated.
Vice chancellors hold charge of the university in trust. To give the police a free hand militates against the very spirit of the university as a space for critical engagement
The government would do well to review such outdated penal provisions. Legislation exists to deal with unlawful activities and armed movements.
Sedition, defined as “incitement to violence” or “disorder”, is a legislation meant to suppress the voice of Indian people and has no place in a 21st century democracy.
Landmark sedition cases in India
Sedition was not a part of the original Indian Penal Code(IPC) enacted in 1860 and was introduced in 1870. Since then, the law has been applied several times and has undergone several interpretations. Here are some of the sedition cases that have made an impact.
Queen Empress Vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897)
This was the first instance where the law on sedition, specifically the Section 124 (a) from the Indian Penal Code was defined and applied. The Privy Council was of the view that acts like incitement to violence and insurrection were immaterial while deciding the culpability of a person charged with sedition.
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar Vs. King Emperor (1942)
The Federal Court held that “public disorder or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the gist of the offence”. These judges were of the view that sedition implies resistance or lawlessness in some form. If there is no incitement to violence, there is no sedition.
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar (1962)
This was the first case of sedition tried under independent India. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court interpreted the law in line with the 1842 case - a person can be charged with sedition only if there is incitement to violence in his speech or writing or an intention to create disorder.
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on (2015)
The court ruled that a person could not be tried for sedition unless their speech, however offensive, annoying or inconvenient, had an established connection with any incitement to disrupt public order.
Offences against the State, 2014
- Total 512 cases against the state
- As many as 872 persons were arrested
A. Sedition (under Section 124A IPC)
- Of 512, 47 cases were reported under sedition
- 58 arrested
- 73% of cases in two states: Jharkhand (18) and Bihar (16)
Kerala (5), West Bengal (2), Odisha (2), Andhra Pradesh (1), Assam (1), Chhattisgarh (1), Himachal Pradesh (1)
B. Waging war/collecting arms to wage war (under Sections 121, 121A, 122 & 123)
- 129 cases
- 166 persons arrested
- 75% of cases in three states: Assam (55), Meghalaya (32) and Manipur (10)