Is Sedition an outdated concept?

In light of the recent incident of Binayak Sen's life term imprisonment by a Chhatisgarh Sessions Court, the shock has been widespread and almost unanimous. That a doctor who let go of the luxury the world had to offer to dedicate his life to work with tribals should get a life term in jail on the charge of sedition seems most outrageous.  There have been many voices protesting this judgment. Most of them seem to say that such a guy could not be responsible for sedition. In fact, let me try to divide the paths that these voices have been taking as following.

1. That Binayak Sen does not fulfill the conditions for guilt for the crime of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. That evidence supposedly against Binayak Sen with regard to aiding rebels is based on flimsy ground and has been misconstrued by the Court.

And of course there is much weight in these arguments. However, it is notable that both of these arguments are working within the framework of the offence of sedition, that is their major object is to prove that Binayak Sen is not seditious. Now of course, it might be argued what exactly is seditious? Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code defines it thus, 

" 124A Sedition
Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards. [* * *] the Government established by law in [India], [* * *] shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.


Explanation 1-The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.    "

And of course, critics of the judgment can thus come up with a third argument to say:

3. That to be the medium of exchange of letters from a single person in jail to a Kolkata businessman cannot constitute "words that attempt to bring into hatred of contempt"..." or disaffection towards the government established by law."

Some others might come up with a fourth argument:

4. That the definition of Sedition under the Indian Penal Code needs an overhaul as it infringes upon other rights of the individual...say, the right to freedom.

Again, it come back to the same thing~ An attempt to prove that the actions of Binayak Sen fall out of the category of seditious...either legally, or morally, and hence he should not be convicted.

However, in this post, I will attempt to argue that the very concept of sedition is outdated and should be done away with.

If one looks at the history of the offence of sedition, it of course, emerged with the emergence of absolute States and assumed its present form with the colonial rule. In fact, sedition was omitted as an offence by Macaulay in the first version of the IPC (probably not intentionally though), and was brought in by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen almost a decade later. Much of the history of the legislation seems to convey its logic by citing what a huge problem it could be if personal religious interests clashed with the interests of the State. So that say, if a person was advocating that the State was in violation of Hindu religious beliefs, and thus inciting violence against the State, or say, saying that Muslims are set to destroy Hindus, and thus inciting violence within the State generally..."sedition" comes to the rescue, whereby it says that this won't do.

So Sedition has been traditionally a secular tool used by the State to fight against the arch enemy which Statehood, in its history, has been bent on replacing, that is, religion.

Switch to the present scenario, though. We live in a world where the State has many important enemies, as opposed to just one. Take terrorism itself for example. And almost 99% we equate the enemies of the State to the enemies of the people living within the State, which incidentally is a conclusion which is not always true. It is worthy to note that as citizens of a State and with the spread of the hegemony of nationalism, we have begun to equate our interests with the interests of the State. But is that really the situation? The most primary interest of the State is to ensure its own existence. True, that to much extent, there is a marriage of convenience, for we see the State as our protector from wars and suchlike, as largely propounded by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes in their theories of Social Contract; and if the State ceases to exist, we would supposedly be more vulnerable. But to equate all aspect of State action with our own personal interest would be a sorry mistake.

It is important to understand that the idea of a State itself has been founded upon individual interests of power. The State is in fact, a medium to retain power clusters, and thereby to maintain peace in the territory. Mostly, the idea is to find a balance of interests, which effectively means the suppression of one kind of interest.

As I have already noted in one of my earlier posts, that the values which a State tries to establish as standard, are not actually universally standard values, but values of a particular group, which concur in fostering the existence of the State.

And now, what does offence of sedition actually entail? Suppression of any value which goes against the interests of the State and not necessarily the interests of the people at large. It is another matter that we are hegemonised into thinking that the two are one and the same. ( Read Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities for more on this perspective of how nations are imagined.)

There are many instances of this, one which interests me to a great extent, being the approach to tackle terrorism. I do not say that I'm agreeing with the course of violence that most terrorism takes, but note that Section 124A , bans not violence, but words, and words which disseminate opinion the "Government established by law", thus essentially perpetuating the idea that Whatever may, the Government is right.

Critics of course would argue that if such a provision were not present, there would be total chaos, people going crazy left and right and the spread of propaganda uncurbed. To them I just want to reply, Consider the present situation, is it any better? We have let Binayak Sen be jailed, and yes, I would agree he was an opposer of state policies, for life.

Only because it has been done in a supposedly less-chaotic manner and as per procedure doesn't mean the situation is less insane. Procedure, is of course, something to abide by, but to say that the crime of sedition fosters procedural law should rather should make one ask...procedure for whose benefit? 'Cause it is worthy to remember that even Hobbes and Locke agreed that it was a Social Contract. One thing which then becomes pertinent to ask in the present scenario is whether we as mere people, and not people of any particular nation-State or regime, nor as citizens of a country, whether we, as mere human beings have been reduced to the lesser beneficiaries of such a contract? Sedition is one tool which lets the State exercise undue influence in its interest over tools for our interests as human beings in the contract, i.e. our human rights. It's high time we began asking, How far does the Reasonable Restriction Clause really stand meaningful in our lives, especially once we break out of the Statist universalism that we as people, and the State are not one and the same? And is all the violence imposed by the State in connexion with the restoration of that order which is in its own interest, worth it?

Tweet This