If a society is ever infected with utter silence, there shall be no life left in the civic and ethnic consciousness of the individual. In the past regimes of dictatorial and absolute monarchical authority, the consequences of silence have choked the birds, plucked the flowers, and executed the human flesh. History is proof of this. Today, this is unfortunately being repeated in India.
With the passing of the amendments of the Anti-Terror Law (UAPA, 1967) in the Lok Sabha, the government has burnt the torch to fire the pyre of intellectualism, freedom of thought and expression, and freedom of disagreement. The amendment empowers the government to label not only organisations (as in the past) but individuals as “terrorists” without being convicted, plainly on the hypothesis of suspicion and accusation. How is this possible in a democracy with public judicial institutions? How can an accused be labelled without being convicted? Imagine the consequences a person might face if his/her name is labelled as terrorist. Will he/she ever be able to live a life with dignity after that? Will the society ever accept him/her? Will the vulture media houses leave any brick unturned to falsely defame his/ her loyalty to the nation? Is it so simple to call a citizen a terrorist?
The government, as per the Bill, will notify the person labelled in the official gazette, and the person in question must give proof of his innocence to the government. It will be upon the person labelled to send an application to the Central government. If the application is rejected, the individual can ask for a review by a special committee which will also be set up by the government. The same government who in the first place labelled you as terrorist will set up a committee to examine you! Can you imagine the ultra-credibility of the report? And, there is a high probability of the committee being never formed. To make matters worse, the time limit of the process is not mentioned.
If you’re thinking that there will be a criteria of labelling, the fact is, regrettably, there is no such specification. Your criminal record, whether crystalline or malicious, doesn’t have any importance. So, it is entirely up to the whim of the government to label someone a terrorist. What about the freedom of expression of intellectuals, artistes, politicians and citizens? How sure are we that the bill won’t be used to extinguish the opinion of the opposition? Is it unlikely for a country like India which ranks so low in press freedom to not cut the tongue of the press? Considering the misuse of sedition charges against the opposition (be it intellectuals, students or artists), can we believe that the same won’t be repeated with the imposition of this new law?
In a healthy democracy, the people must be critical of the government. Electing a leader doesn’t mean he/she should be trusted for all his deeds. At the end of the day, it is their professional career. Their service isn’t free either. They are employed by us, the tax-payers, to look after the fundamental structure and institution of our nation. And like every good boss, we from time to time must go through their plans, listen with seriousness to the opposition’s version of it and analyse the pros and cons of its execution. For, it is not at all uncommon to lie in order to protect the post.
(The writer is a poet and writer.)
