Jaitley charges Cong with double-speak on free speech

On the birth anniversary of Jan Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Union Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday sought to underline the Congress’ inconsistencies on nationalism and freedom of speech.

In a Facebook post, the senior BJP leader said the Congress had restrained Mookerjee’s “Akhand Bharat (United India)” pledge, but was supportive of “ Bharat tere tukde honge (India, you will be broken into pieces)” that was declared by some radicals in Jawaharlal Nehru University in February, 2016.

Congress President Rahul Gandhi had visited the JNU campus to support students who asserted that they were being unfairly targeted by the RSS’ student wing, which had circulated a video of a meeting where the infamous slogan was allegedly raised.

The BJP and Jaitley have, in the past, underlined that the Congress has shifted from being a mainstream, centre-left party, to left-wing adventurism, which was especially illustrated by Rahul Gandhi’s visit to JNU.

In his latest Facebook post, the Minister, who was himself part of student politics and the anti-Emergency JP movement, made a polemical connect between Nehru’s steering of the Constitution’s first amendment, which restricts freedom of speech in the context of affecting “friendly relations with foreign States”, and the freedom that exists today to advocate divisions of our own country.

Jaitley highlighted that the first amendment to the Constitution restricting freedom of speech was pushed by prime minister Nehru because he did not want Mookerjee’s “Akhand Bharat” slogan to overshadow his pact with Pakistani premier Liaquat Ali Khan which was aimed at securing peace to protect minorities in both countries.

“…It (the first amendment) empowers the State to prohibit free speech if it adversely impacts ‘friendly relations with foreign states’. The State can even make the exercise of speech in this regard as a penal offence. The same would be constitutionally justifiable,” said Jaitley.

He said while this amendment crushes entirely legitimate debate on foreign affairs, there are no such restrictions on debates that are not in national interest.

“A debate in any liberal democracy on the policy that the government of the day follows would be perfectly permissible. Governments can be cautioned or appreciated for the course that they follow. They can even be criticised. In the absence of debate, and even criticism, there would be only one opinion expressed which is detrimental to a democracy. Why then was this provision introduced?” Jaitley asked, while delving into the context in which the first amendment was enacted.

“Prime Minister Pandit Nehru and the Pakistan Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan signed an agreement which is popularly known as ‘Nehru-Liaquat Pact’ or the ‘Delhi Pact’…There were many in India who were opposed to the very idea of Partition. Among the leading opponents undoubtedly was Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee. He was one of the key advocates of a united India which he referred to as ‘Akhand Bharat’… Pt Nehru over-reacted to Dr Mookerjee’s criticism. He interpreted the very idea of ‘Akhand Bharat’, i.e. united India, as an invitation to conflict since the country could not be reunited other than by war,” said Jaitley.

Pointing out that this Constitutional amendment was a result of “intolerance” against Mookerjee and his philosophy and can be subjected to a challenge, Jaitley went on to highlight the “paradox” that the Congress’s political positioning has brought about in the law.

“But the major paradox today is that the essence of this amendment was that a mere speech advocating “Akhand Bharat” or of united India is a threat to the country, it can be an incitement to a war and, therefore, any talk of the same could be prohibited. The paradox in our jurisprudential evolution is that we have applied a different yardstick to those who want to dismember India and commit an offence of sedition. This debate recently came into forefront during the “Tukde Tukde” agitation at the Jawaharlal Nehru University… The court interpreted Article 124(A) of the IPC to mean that utterances would be punishable under section only if it intended to incite violence or had a reasonable tendency to create disorder or disturbance to public order by resorting to violence. A speech per se advocating disintegration would not be sedition unless the element of violence was apparent,” said the former Law Minister.

COMMENT NOW