'Amrit Mahotsav' of Independence?
This year marks the 75th anniversary of India's independence. On this occasion, the BJP government at the centre has been celebrating the diamond jubilee of independence naming it Amrit Mahotsav for the whole year with much fanfare. But, even after 75 years of independence, have we got real, true freedom? A few days ago, the Supreme Court of the country raised the question that why the article 124A of the Constitution written by the British rulers during the colonial period - the section on sedition will still be in the Constitution of the independent country? What is there in the section that even the Supreme Court raised such an odd question? This section provides that whoever by word, whether spoken or written, or by sign or writing or by the use of gestures, acts or attempts to spread hatred against the government established by law, disobeys the law, incites, he can be sentenced for life in prison. The clause is such that any protest or demonstration against the government can be termed as sedition and a protester can be jailed for life.
Not only has such a section of the law remained in place, but over the years it has been enforced in what is generally characterized as an abuse of the section. Even governments of various political parties have used this law to sentence opponents to life imprisonment. The list of people who have been arrested and even given life sentences under this law is not short but quite long.
The human rights activists or media have repeatedly raised the issue of misuse of this section, in view of which the Supreme Court asked the central government to repeal this law. But the BJP and the central government, who are celebrating the Amrit Mahotsav freedom festival across the country, have not agreed to repeal this law. After a lot of pressure, they said they would look into the law, but never did they once utter a word that they would withdraw it. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the use of Section 124A will be suspended for the time being, i.e. no FIR will be filed under Section 124A from now on.
Interestingly, the RSS leaders boast that they are the only ones trying to wipe out the colonial remnants. Is it really so? How are they doing that? Their minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, has purportedly opposed wearing British-era gowns at a graduation ceremony. Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has asked Rajya Sabha MPs to refrain from saying 'I beg to' as per the British-era tradition in the Rajya Sabha. Its welcome! But, aren?t these merely some petty colonial era legacies of absolutely insignificant importance? Where there are remnants of the old colonial rule like the Article 124A, the BJP or the central government has tried to keep it intact. Not only they themselves did not remove such colonial vestiges but even when the Supreme Court pushed and prodded them, they still refused to remove those colonial vestiges. In this way they proved that like the Congress party, they also want to preserve many remnants of the old British regime, even after 75 years of independence, other than a few cosmetic changes here and there. Everyone plays the game of changing names from time to time. Sometimes they do this by changing the name of the capital Delhi?s ceremonial boulevard Rajpath or Kingsway into Kartavya Path or by installing a statue of Netaji Subhas Bose near India Gate. The BJP-RSS, however, is using it for another purpose. They are bringing in old Hindu religious customs and traditions in the name of this country?s indigenous culture in place of some colonial name or some customs. In other words, there is another plot behind their talk of removing the colonial remnants. That is a separate discussion.
As a result of this order of the Supreme Court regarding the sedition law, the attempt to silence the anti-government voices by application of this section will certainly be prevented to an extent. But consequently will the activists of the democratic movement and the class movement really be spared?
Definitely not, because the oppressive character of the colonial ruling edifice is largely enshrined in the Indian constitution. Everyone knows about Rowlatt Act. The Act was originally intended to empower the police to detain without trial. The Jalianwalabagh massacre took place to quell protests against it. The Rowlatt Act is gone, so are the British rulers, but the law allowing arrest without trial has not gone. PD ACT was there, then MISA, TADA and now there is UAPA - different names, but the same substance in essence - to keep the people of independent India suppressed under their feet. The sedition law has been suspended but not abolished. And the most important thing is that almost any opposition to the government can be suppressed by applying the UAPA laws, the scope of these laws is so wide. In fact, the Constitution of India is based on the British-era Government of India Act of 1935. The Indian Penal Code or IPC is based on the British-era Penal Code. Owing to this, many of the old things have been preserved in them, even in independent India. The sum and substance of the legal framework of colonial India has not been changed.
Not only the constitution, but also the basic structure of the governance system of independent India was borrowed from the governance structure of the colonial rulers. The earlier administrative structure was based on the Indian Civil Service or ICS, now it is the Indian Administrative Service or IAS. A similar bureaucratic structure over which the people have no control. By providing them hefty salaries and various facilities they have been kept secluded from the majority of the population.
Has nothing changed? Of course, there have been changes. Earlier all the people of India did not have the right to vote. Now every adult person has the right to vote. Now there is no British ruler at the top, the government is elected from among the citizens of India. They decide the policy of the country. The government officers are all Indians, not having to work under British rulers as before.
But, in terms of the people, the masses, has there been any radical change in governance? It didn't happen. The undemocratic, oppressive character of the regime, however, remains largely intact. Freedom of speech is recognized in the constitution. But, in many sections of the law, it has been greatly curtailed, constricted. From Article 144 to UAPA, NIA, Sedition Act, there are many laws where the right to speak, right to protest, right to organize and struggle have been curtailed to a large extent. The people have the right to elect the government, while at the same time the President has the power to dismiss the elected government under Article 356. In short, the undemocratic, oppressive character of the regime remains largely intact.
There is definitely one difference. Earlier this regime was controlled by the interests of the British imperialist capital. Now it is controlled by the big-capitalist-big landlord rulers of India, which is also largely dependent on the imperialist capital. Therefore, this regime does not only look after the interests of big capital-big landlords, but also the interests of the imperialists.
We have become accustomed or compelled to become used to this legacy of the colonial regime as if it were normal. But, how do the rulers of an independent country use the police-military force, bureaucracy and judicial system based on almost the same constitution as the colonial state structure created by the foreign imperialist rulers to suppress the rebellion of the people of a subjugated country? It is being even used by the same political leaders against whom the imperialist rulers used it during the anti-British struggle. Isn't this a contradiction or a huge anomaly? A little thought reveals that this is actually not an anomaly. The reason for this is that the independence of this country did not come through any revolutionary change, the aim of which revolutionary change is to have ruling power in the hands of the workers and peasants along with the oppressed people. Independence in this country came through a compromise which resulted in the transfer of power from the hands of British imperialists to the hands of domestic big capital and big landlords. Those who got power after this transfer are also a handful of exploiting big capitalists and big landlords like the imperialist rulers, who not only survive but thrive on exploiting billions of workers, peasants, farm laborers. In order to sustain the exploitation of the exploiter minority over the exploited majority, the exploiters need a very undemocratic and oppressive regime, by which they can suppress the protests of the exploited majority and sustain a system of exploitation for the benefit of the exploiter minority. In this respect, there is no fundamental difference between the interests of the colonial British rulers and the domestic big capitalist-landlord ruling class. Due to that reason, there was no contradiction of the interest of the new domestic rulers with the old colonial ruling structure. Rather, it appeared to them as a ready-made governance structure, the basic structure of which was largely in line with their interests. It was not in line with the underlying needs of the people because while the people were struggling to remove British imperialism from power, their underlying need was freedom from all forms of exploitation and oppression. It is this conflict that has manifested itself in numerous rebellions, struggles in the post-independence phase, and to deal with it, the Indian state has further refined its oppressive character. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act was introduced to quell the protests of the oppressed nations, a law so severe that it even vested the armed forces (i.e, the army or paramilitary) with the power of indiscriminate killing. From the PD Act to today's UAPA, detention laws without any trial have been promulgated under various names like Shree Krishna?s 108 names.
This regime is not only in the interests of big capital and big landlords. Since India's big capitalists are dependent on the imperialists from the beginning, this regime looks after the interests of the imperialists as well. Dependence on imperialism increased during the phase of globalization that started from 1991. As a result, this regime is eager to see their interests as well. We saw a proof of that during Maruti workers last struggle. Not only were the workers who rose up against the exploitation of the foreign Maruti Suzuki owners arrested and held in jail for days, the judge's reason for not granting them bail was that if the workers got bail, it would send a wrong message to foreign investors.
For that reason, changing some words or names, or changing some customs, or even amending or even annulment of one or two clauses of the constitution, cannot cover the undemocratic, oppressive character of this constitution and this governance structure, or even its colonial remnants. No matter how much fanfare Amrit Mahotsav is celebrated on 75 years of independence, India's governance structure is undemocratic and even stands against the real freedom of the people. In the tone of Macbeth we can say that no perfume can rid the smell of blood on his hands.
Therefore, for the conscious proletariat, this day is not Amrit Mohotsav day, the conscious proletariat and the toiling people will celebrate their Amrit Mohotsav on the day when they will be able to build a truly independent India by ending all colonial remnants, ending all forms of exploitation and oppression. A conscious proletariat can never deviate from that goal.
Comments:
No Comments for View