rule of law

What exactly is anti-national about shouting ‘Pakistan zindabad'?

It’s worth trying to understand what is meant by 'anti-national'.

Some months ago, Barkha Dutt was in Mumbai to record a “We The People” show about the execution of 1993 serial blasts convict Yakub Memon. At one point nearing the end, Dutt offered the mike to a young and clearly Muslim woman in the audience. This woman spoke briefly about her sense that justice is selectively applied in this country, and the insecurity she felt as a result.

How many people agreed with her, I don’t know. But her words seemed to ruffle a few feathers in the room. As I was leaving, a man came up and said, pointing to the woman: “How can she talk like that? These people held a big funeral for Memon! How is that supposed to make the rest of us feel about them? Isn’t that anti-national?”

His anguish, his discomfort over what had happened at Memon’s funeral, was clearly genuine. Therefore I was sure he would remember, as many of us do, another funeral in this city in late 2012.

Selective memory

Referring to the man who had died then, Justice BN Srikrishna’s inquiry report into the 1992-'93 massacres in this city said that he was “like a veteran General [who] commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims.” During those same massacres, the man who had died wrote several editorials in his party mouthpiece making many statements about his fellow-Indians. One such statement was this:

“Pakistan need not cross the border and attack India. 25 crore Muslims in India will stage an armed insurrection. They form one of Pakistan’s seven atomic bombs.”

These lines effectively labelled an entire section of Indians traitors by virtue of their religion. So consider them in the light of Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, which says:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or written, makes any imputation that any class of people cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious group, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India... shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.”

Did that editorial violate Section 153B?

For this man’s funeral procession, perhaps two million people poured onto the streets, dwarfing any funeral – or any event, really – before or since. For his cremation, he was wrapped in the Indian flag and given a gun salute. The spot where his pyre stood remains as a memorial to him; the government of Maharashtra is considering allotting land for a bigger memorial to him, and is actually building it using public money. In other words, millions of Indians this man called traitorous will actually contribute towards a memorial to him. How is all this supposed to make the rest of us feel? A photographer who covered the event found an answer in his father’s reaction:

“I told him he got state honours and his face sank… As I was about to leave, he asked, still unsure if I had told him correctly, ‘They gave him a gun salute?’”

Points to ponder

At Dutt’s show, in the space of a half-minute or so, I tried to tell the anguished man all this. I’m not sure he fully grasped what I was getting at, but he did look at me in some astonishment. I’m not sure why.

“Anti-national” is an empty, meaningless and yet destructive label to fling about. And as we all know, it has been flung about a great deal in recent days and weeks, especially on two well-known university campuses.

Merely saying it is meaningless, though, may not persuade anyone. After all, recent days and weeks also suggest that plenty of us are falling over ourselves and each other to call people anti-national. So perhaps it’s worth asking some questions instead:

  • If you distribute swords to a crowd that then slaughters several dozen Indians, is that distribution anti-national?
  • If such a sword-distributor is subsequently appointed as a minister, is that appointment anti-national?
  • If you become rich beyond any known source of income because you dip liberally into public money, is that dipping anti-national?
  • If you lie in performing your constitutional and judicial duties, is such lying anti-national? If you applaud such lying, is such applause anti-national?
  • If you pronounce that you will not be bound by the verdict of this country’s courts, is that pronouncement anti-national?
  • If you label one in every six Indians anti-national because of their religion, is such labelling anti-national? In fact, if you label anyone anti-national, is such labelling anti-national?
  • If you beat up journalists doing their jobs, is such beating anti-national?

I could go on, of course. But perhaps the point is clear. If you are really intent on painting some people as anti-national for some reason, you should be aware that others will find equally good reason, using irrefutable logic, to paint your heroes – maybe even you – as anti-national too.

At a meeting I attended in the wake of the JNU fracas, a burly lawyer rose from his seat. Given what some lawyers had been up to in Delhi, this might have set off a ripple of unease in the room. But this man walked to the front and mounted a passionate defence of JNU and free speech. Among other things, he suggested that the true test of a commitment to free speech comes when the speech offends – even, or especially, to the extent that you are tempted to lash out with that label “anti-national”.

“So I want to know,” he asked, “exactly what is anti-national about shouting ‘Pakistan zindabad’.”

Worth a thought.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Virat Kohli and Ola come together to improve Delhi's air quality

The onus of curbing air-pollution is on citizens as well

A recent study by The Lancet Journal revealed that outdoor pollution was responsible for 6% of the total disease burden in India in 2016. As a thick smog hangs low over Delhi, leaving its residents gasping for air, the pressure is on the government to implement SOS measures to curb the issue as well as introduce long-term measures to improve the air quality of the state. Other major cities like Mumbai, Pune and Kolkata should also acknowledge the gravitas of the situation.

The urgency of the air-pollution crisis in the country’s capital is being reflected on social media as well. A recent tweet by Virat Kohli, Captain of the Indian Cricket Team, urged his fans to do their bit in helping the city fight pollution. Along with the tweet, Kohli shared a video in which he emphasized that curbing pollution is everyone’s responsibility. Apart from advocating collective effort, Virat Kohli’s tweet also urged people to use buses, metros and Ola share to help reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

In the spirit of sharing the responsibility, ride sharing app Ola responded with the following tweet.

To demonstrate its commitment to fight the problem of vehicular pollution and congestion, Ola is launching #ShareWednesdays : For every ​new user who switches to #OlaShare in Delhi, their ride will be free. The offer by Ola that encourages people to share resources serves as an example of mobility solutions that can reduce the damage done by vehicular pollution. This is the fourth leg of Ola’s year-long campaign, #FarakPadtaHai, to raise awareness for congestion and pollution issues and encourage the uptake of shared mobility.

In 2016, WHO disclosed 10 Indian cities that made it on the list of worlds’ most polluted. The situation necessitates us to draw from experiences and best practices around the world to keep a check on air-pollution. For instance, a system of congestion fees which drivers have to pay when entering central urban areas was introduced in Singapore, Oslo and London and has been effective in reducing vehicular-pollution. The concept of “high occupancy vehicle” or car-pool lane, implemented extensively across the US, functions on the principle of moving more people in fewer cars, thereby reducing congestion. The use of public transport to reduce air-pollution is another widely accepted solution resulting in fewer vehicles on the road. Many communities across the world are embracing a culture of sustainable transportation by investing in bike lanes and maintenance of public transport. Even large corporations are doing their bit to reduce vehicular pollution. For instance, as a participant of the Voluntary Traffic Demand Management project in Beijing, Lenovo encourages its employees to adopt green commuting like biking, carpooling or even working from home. 18 companies in Sao Paulo executed a pilot program aimed at reducing congestion by helping people explore options such as staggering their hours, telecommuting or carpooling. After the pilot, drive-alone rates dropped from 45-51% to 27-35%.

It’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that the growth of a country doesn’t compromise the natural environment that sustains it, however, a substantial amount of responsibility also lies on each citizen to lead an environment-friendly lifestyle. Simple lifestyle changes such as being cautious about usage of electricity, using public transport, or choosing locally sourced food can help reduce your carbon footprint, the collective impact of which is great for the environment.

Ola is committed to reducing the impact of vehicular pollution on the environment by enabling and encouraging shared rides and greener mobility. They have also created flat fare zones across Delhi-NCR on Ola Share to make more environment friendly shared rides also more pocket-friendly. To ensure a larger impact, the company also took up initiatives with City Traffic Police departments, colleges, corporate parks and metro rail stations.

Join the fight against air-pollution by using the hashtag #FarakPadtaHai and download Ola to share your next ride.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Ola and not by the Scroll editorial team.