It has emerged that the video where Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar is seen raising “anti-national” slogans may be doctored. Nidhi Razdan of NDTV questioned the role and responsibility of circulating such a doctored video that may have been elemental in Kanhaiaya Kumar’s arrest.
Razdan was in conversation with the chairman of The Hindu Group N Ram, former chief of Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave, former JNU Professor Mridula Mukherjee, ABVP secretary Saket Bahuguna, and BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra.
The BJP knows about doctoring of videos. Sanjay Joshi was a victim of it.Dushyant Dave, Former SC Bar Association Chief
Sanjay Joshi was a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) until he was ousted after a scandalous video of him was made public in 2005, according to a report by The Times of India.
BJP member Sambit Patra pinned the issue on news channels by saying he trusted news channels of the country with the authentication of the videos.
Razdan, however, grabbed the opportunity and countered Patra by pointing out that the channel did not run it as the channel does not “support anti-national elements”.
N Ram too slammed the organisations which not only circulated but also promoted the video based on which Kumar was arrested.
They built a case on fake, doctored video. The police have let us down. The justice system has not provided relief. But I think the truth will prevail. Numerous intellectuals have spoken against it.N Ram, Chairman, The Hindu Group
Sambit Patra then gave a conclusion to the debate, rather sarcastically.
The conclusion of this debate is this: Everyone is wrong. The government is wrong. The court is wrong. The police are wrong. Only the people who believe in anti-national slogans like “Bharat ke tukde honge” are right.Sambit Patra, Spokesperson, BJP
What Patra probably did not realise is that the first two sentences of his conclusion, however, ring true with more people than he would like to believe.
Follow The Quint’s blow-by-blow account of the happenings in JNU on Friday.
CNN-IBN debated on the issue of the pointless existence of the archaic laws of sedition on its Primetime debate.
Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested from the campus on charges of sedition after “anti-national” slogans were allegedly raised at an event held to mark the death anniversary of Afzal Guru.
Many people are of the opinion that the arrest was “unlawful” and lacked basic evidence. Following Kanhaiya’s arrest, another student of JNU, Umar Khalid is being hunted down by the police. Khalid has been on the run while there are rumours flying about his link with terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammad.
Under Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code sedition charges apply when:
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.Indian Penal Code
Moderator Zakka Jacob said that when Mahatma Gandhi was charged with sedition in 1922, he was of the opinion that such a law exists only to silence dissenters of the state.
Section 124(A), under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violenceMahatma Gandhi
The Vice President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union, Shehla Rashid said that the crackdown on JNU was not about anti-national sloganeering but the general branding of JNU as anti-national. Referring to RSS mouthpiece Panchyajanya, she said the RSS had already called JNU anti-national in an article published in 2015.
Questioning whether or not the colonial law should be applicable in modern India, Zakka Jacob pointed out the reasoning that was cited in the Supreme Court in 1962 to uphold the law. The court had said:
As long as the state exists, there’s a legal rationale for sedition to exist.
Kamini Jaiswal who is a senior lawyer at the Supreme Court immediately said that the law should be done away with.
She explained that times have changed since that rationale was upheld in 1962 and taking a cue from countries such as Britain (which had imposed the law in the first place in colonial India) and USA, India too should amend the law.
Criticism is not sedition. It is sedition when there’s violence involved.Kamini Jaiswal, Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court
Shehla Rashid further added that stories such as Umar Khalid’s link to Jaish-e-Mohammad were cooked up to justify the forceful enforcement of sedition.
Former DGP of Uttar Pradesh, Vikram Singh, disagreed with the rest of the panel members’ opinions on the “unlawful” basis on which Kanhaiya was arrested and JNU as an institution was being bullied. He maintained that the police merely performed its duty.
They’re talking about breaking the country. The police have a duty. The event that occurred is a consequence of long hours of preparation and indoctrination.Vikram Singh, Former DGP of Uttar Pradesh
The debate was concluded when all but one unanimously agreed the government must not try to “erase the distinction between criticism of the state and criticism against the nation”.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)