A writer, Kamal C Chavara, was arrested in Kerala on charges of sedition for a Facebook Post.  Why was this done on a complaint by the BJP youth wing?  Is this not an assault on the freedom of expression?

Sudarshanan, Kozhikode

The police had arrested Kamal Chavara on the basis of a complaint lodged by some members of the BJP Yuva Morcha in Kollam district.  After he was arrested in Kozhikode, it was announced by the police official that he has been charged under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which is of sedition.

The arrest of Chavara under this section was unwarranted.  The Facebook post about which the complaint was lodged had nothing which could attract the charge of sedition.

When this matter became public, the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who is also the home minister, instructed the police authorities to drop the charges of sedition.  Later the Director General of Police clarified that there is no basis for these charges.

The CPI(M) state secretary, Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, also made a public statement that laws such as sedition and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act should not be used against political activities and dissenting views. 

It has been noted in this column earlier that Section 124A of the IPC concerning sedition is used widely in India against people who protest against government policies or those who conduct agitations and struggles. In Kerala, some years ago, under the UDF government, some people were charged with sedition for not standing up for the national anthem in a cinema hall in Thiruvananthapuram. This is being done despite a Supreme Court directive that the sedition clause can be applicable only if there is incitement to violence.

The LDF government intervened promptly to ensure that this sedition clause was not used in this particular case.

The CPI(M) has been opposed to the clauses of sedition in the Indian Penal Code and its misuse.  This is a colonial relic which continues in the statute books.  The Political Resolution of the 21st Congress of the CPI(M) held at Visakhapatnam has demanded the scrapping of the sedition clauses in the IPC.

As far as the Supreme Court judgment directing that the national anthem be played before the screening of the film in a cinema hall and that all people should stand up to respect the anthem, the CPI(M) has already criticised this verdict as uncalled for; such State-sponsored diktats is not the way to instill patriotic and national sentiments amongst the people. Unfortunately, the state governments are bound to implement the Supreme Court order. But, the LDF government can ensure that non-compliance with this order is not dealt with by any penal measures.  The BJP’s zealous interventions to create a nationalistic chauvinism in this regard must be rebuffed.