On February 12, Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union president Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested on charges of sedition for allegedly chanting slogans in support of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru and against India. The incident sparked off a student unrest and a series of events centering around verbal and physical confrontations between supporters of freedom speech and a central government that wants to keep in check what it calls anti-national elements and sentiments.
The churn in India has not gone unnoticed abroad. Letters of solidarity in support of the JNU students have poured in from foreign universities, while renowned world figures such as Noam Chomsky and Orhan Pamuk have also expressed their concern.
From India’s immediate neighbours to the US and Europe, the unfolding events over the past 10 days have received considerable reportage in the international press. Foreign publications have also devoted to space to editorials on the issue, mainly focusing on the nationalism debate and detailed examinations of the Narendra Modi government.
Here are excerpts from a selection of editorials and op-eds:
Global Times (China)
An op-ed written by Zhang Shujian in the ruling Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece said the protests heralded a new era of culture war for Narendra Modi.
The heart of the debate is still the ideological antagonism between the left and right wings of Indian society. Ever since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office, left-wing forces that uphold secularism have always been lashing out at the BJP and its political offshoot Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for promoting Hindutva (Hindu nationalism), hampering the freedom of expression and jeopardizing India’s tentative harmony.
While asserting that the protests would not shake the foundation of Modi’s rule, the writer admitted that the scale and effects of the agitation remain to be seen.
Dawn (Pakistan)
An editorial in the Pakistani newspaper expressed apprehension about democratic principles and fundamental rights being threatened in neighbouring India.
The controversy is yet another example of India’s lurch towards the hard right. In today’s India, those disagreeing with the Sangh’s version of how things should be are usually branded as ‘anti-national’.
These toxic levels of ultranationalism are diametrically opposed to democratic values; as we in Pakistan know all too well that if space is ceded to the hard right, very soon democratic principles come under attack.
… What is clear is that ultranationalism and hyper-patriotism are the first step towards the extinction of fundamental rights and freedom of conscience.
The New York Times (US)
An editorial titled “India’s crackdown on dissent” was unflinching in its criticism of the Modi government.
Responsibility for this lynch-mob mentality lies squarely with Mr. Modi’s government. On the day after Mr. Kumar’s arrest, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said, “If anyone raises anti-India slogans and tries to raise question on the nation’s unity and integrity, they will not be spared.” India’s Supreme Court has limited the definition of India’s colonial-era crime of sedition to speech that is “incitement to imminent lawless action.” Mr. Singh apparently does not realize that, in a democracy, voicing dissent is a vital right, not a crime.
… These Indian citizens are right to voice their outrage at government threats to the exercise of their democratic rights. Mr. Modi must rein in his ministers and his party, and defuse the current crisis, or risk sabotaging both economic progress and India’s democracy. The charge of sedition against Mr. Kumar should be dropped. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, warned in a recent opinion piece, members of Mr. Modi’s government “have threatened democracy; that is the most anti-national of all acts.”
Le Monde (France)
In an editorial, the French daily highlighted what it called the “worrisome nationalism” of the prime minister and said that freedom of speech had become a luxury in India.
The arrest of a student of JNU and a former professor in Delhi, accused of ‘sedition’, is the latest illustration of the authoritarian drift of a Hindu nationalist government.
The horizon of Indian democracy has oddly clouded since the coming to power of the head of Narendra Modi.
It is paradoxical to see the Hindu nationalists defend the Indian flag today, they have long denigrated to prefer the saffron flag, banner of a Hindu nation to be deployed to Afghanistan to Burma. It is curious to see these same Hindu nationalists pose as defenders of the nation.
The Guardian (UK)
An op-ed by Priyamvada Gopal in the British daily said the JNU protests were a watershed moment for India, which must now choose freedom over intolerance.
In short, it is a struggle between those who would lay claim to India as a democratic, heterogeneous, inclusive and at least incipiently egalitarian national project, and those for whom nationalism has devolved into a lethal cocktail of aggressive religious assertion and equally ferocious unbridled capitalist growth, where neither the body count nor widening inequality indices matter.
... For those committed to the idea of India as essentially a Hindu country, which includes many in the government of the prime minister, Narendra Modi, the list of potential “anti-nationals” appears to be compendious. It seems to include everyone from Muslim, Dalit, Christian, leftwing and liberal activists to those who question the Indian state’s actions in Kashmir or suggest that religious intolerance isn’t a good idea.
Now, as then, India is poised on the brink of a choice between the dangers of authoritarianism and its historic commitment to dissent. It is essential that the latter prevails.
The News International (Pakistan)
An editorial in the Pakistani newspaper said the “new and ugly face” of Modi’s India could be seen in the reaction to events at JNU.
The BJP government has shown it has no respect for India’s secularist traditions. The official narrative is that anyone who doubts the course of justice was properly followed in the Afzal case can now be jailed for voicing that opinion. This narrative does not allow for genuine anger to be felt at the way Kashmiri Muslims are treated, and makes a mockery of the concept of academic freedom.