Sedition — an arcane notion in democracy

Politicians from nearly all parties have from time to time faced sedition
charges
Over 75 years after their independence from the British rule, both India
and Pakistan carry on some of the colonial legacies, including pieces of
draconian legislation that was supposed to regulate relations between
the rulers and the ruled through intimidation and fear. The sedition and
contempt of court laws are some of the reminders of the legislative
architecture that was a combination of the British rules and regulations
and an improvised framework to govern the Indian sub-continent.

Let us look at what the Sedition Law, section 124A in both the Indian
Penal Code and Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) states:

“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 the
federal or provincial government established by law shall be punished
with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be
added, or with fine.”

In India, sedition cases under the Modi government increased by 28%

and since 2014, authorities filed more than 500 cases, involving more
than 7,000 people, according to a database compiled by news website
Article-14.

This rampant misuse of the sedition prompted the Indian Supreme Court
in May 2022 to stop invoking this law, saying it is “not in tune with the
current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was
under the colonial regime”. In an interim order, the court urged the Centre
and the state governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the
said provision until the Centre re-examines the British-era law.
While appearing in court in 1922, Indian iconic leader Mahatma Gandhi
called the law the “prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal
Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”. He was sentenced
to six years in prison.

“A century later, and, this law remains a powerful tool used by the
authorities to criminalise dissent and arrest peaceful critics of the
government. The Bharatiya Janata Party government led by Prime
Minister Narendra Modi is carrying out an escalating crackdown on civil
society, targeting activists, journalists, students, academics, members of
religious minorities, and peaceful protesters using sedition and other
draconian laws,” wrote Linda Lakhdhir Legal Adviser, Human Rights
Watch’s Asia Division (https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/18/sedition-
law-why-india-should-break-britains-abusive-legacy).

The law, argued Ms Lakhdhir, also violates article 19 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979. Under
the covenant, restrictions on expression must be narrowly drawn on
principles of necessity and proportionality to curtail speech as little as
possible, she said, urging the Parliament to overturn this law.

The situation in Pakistan is no different: politicians from nearly all parties

have from time to time faced sedition charges. Reckless police officials
don’t spare even students when trying to tame protests. In February
2020, Ammar Ali Jan, a student rights activist, had petitioned the Lahore
High Court, questioning the legality of an FIR lodged against him under
Section 124(a). Ex-PM Imran Khan is the latest casualty of this arcane
law. That is why PPP Senator Raza Rabbani had in June 2020 moved the
Pakistan Penal Code (Amendment) Bill — 2020 in the Senate, seeking to
abolish the Section 124-A but the PTI law minister opposed it.

Jurists, however, also blamed both the PPP and the PML-N for not
abolishing the sedition law during their respective tenures.

The UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, Ghana, Nigeria and even Uganda,
have already banished the “sedition law” as an undemocratic,
undesirable and unnecessary law that conflicts with the democratic
freedom of speech. When will Pakistan quash this arcane law that is
often used for suppression of opposition as a political weapon?

Published in The Express Tribune, September 19 th, 2022.

Article 2

WITH the economy in dire straits, backbreaking inflation and the

country reeling in the aftermath of the devastation caused by record
rainfall and floods, what is the reaction of the Pakistani politicians
across the political divide?

They are obsessing over who will be appointed the next army chief when (and if) the
incumbent retires at the end of November this year. The supporters of the governing
PDM alliance could object to being bracketed with the opposition PTI and may argue
that the prime minister is leading the flood relief and economic revival effort.

Read: Who will be the next army chief?

To them, I’d say let’s turn back and look at the no-confidence move earlier this year.
PML-N sources have told me that the party supremo Nawaz Sharif was not excited at
the prospect of the no-trust move against former prime minister Imran Khan, but
was presented with a compelling argument during the debate in the party. Two
factors or scenarios were discussed. The economic crisis had already erupted, with a
spiralling current account deficit sounding the death knell (not just ringing the alarm
bells), the IMF package on hold, and delusional PTI economy managers thinking
they’d find the money from somewhere to fund their near-suicidal fuel subsidy
against the backdrop of skyrocketing global energy prices.

Imran Khan has been open in wanting all key institutions to support
him and not be ‘neutral’.

Against this backdrop, there was a sense that the PML-N did not need to intervene
and that the PTI government would collapse under the weight of its own
incompetence and ineptitude. This view was strengthened by several by-election
results across the country, which demonstrated support was plummeting for the
governing party.

On the flip side, however, if the PTI was allowed to continue in office till the end of
the year, it was certain that Imran Khan would appoint his own man as the army
chief. With the prime minister and COAS in tandem, the opposition would be
persecuted endlessly and kept out of power for the foreseeable future, possibly over
two terms.

This scenario clinched the argument for support to the no-confidence motion. After
all, the individual expected to be Imran Khan’s choice was seen by political detractors
as having a track record of silencing the media, of manipulating the 2018 elections
and then shepherding every ‘independent’ member of parliament into the PTI’s
arms. He was also credited with ‘managing’ court verdicts against PML-N leaders. It
was said, even as others had lost faith in the former prime minister barely three years
after propelling him into the chief executive’s office, that his commitment to ‘Project
Imran’ remained unflinching.

Once Shehbaz Sharif was elected to replace Imran Khan, those in the PML-N-PDM
who supported immediate elections were out-voted by the premier’s group, which
wanted to stay in office and enjoy power while citing the national interest in taking
exceedingly unpopular decisions to save the country from economic ruin as their
motivation.

Out of office, Imran Khan went on the offensive and started to attack everyone he
wanted to fall in line — from the judiciary to the military. He has been open in
wanting all key institutions to support him and not be ‘neutral’ (as the Constitution
lays down) in what he describes as a battle of ‘good and evil’. He has mocked those
suddenly assuming ‘neutrality’ after running years-long vilification campaigns
against all politicians, with his sole exception.

Given the resultant uncertainty, every bit of speculation, every rumour is believed
and not taken with a pinch of salt. Stability so vital to an economic revival is the
obvious casualty. Nobody reads history or they would realise that no matter who
appoints the chief, once in office, his hand is not guided by gratitude towards the
prime minister who chose him from a list of a handful of three stars, but by other
factors. Gen Douglas Gracey was the chief of general staff and acting C-in-C (as
Pakistan’s first commander-in-chief Gen Frank Messervy was away on leave in the
UK) in 1947 when he declined to obey the civilian governor-general Quaid-e-Azam’s
order to send troops to Kashmir and preferred to obey ‘supreme commander’ Claude
Auchinlek’s ‘stand down’ order. Yet, he was promoted to chief in 1948 and continued
in office till 1951.

Although prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan appointed Gen Ayub Khan as C-in-C to
replace Gracey, superseding three senior officers, it was no secret that the prime
minister’s influential aide Iskander Mirza lobbied hard for Ayub’s elevation. A few
years later, Mirza was elected president.

With the opposition challenging Mirza’s party, the president imposed martial law
and named Ayub Khan as supreme commander of the armed forces and the chief
martial law administrator. Within months, Ayub was to remove Mirza as president
and banish him into exile.

A decade later, karma was to visit Ayub Khan. Faced with severe unrest and bloody
street protests against his rule, particularly in East Pakistan, Ayub wanted his C-in-C
Yahya Khan to proclaim martial law and bring the situation under control. Yahya
said if he imposed martial law, he’d be in charge and Ayub had to go.

History repeated itself with Ziaul Haq turning on his benefactor Z.A. Bhutto, who
had ignored several excellent three stars senior to Zia to pick the latter; then Gen
Abdul Waheed Kakar sent packing president Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who’d appointed
him as COAS, along with prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who’d locked horns with the
president.

In 1999, Musharraf sent Nawaz Sharif, who made him chief, packing. Musharraf’s
choice as COAS, Ashfaq Kayani, acquiesced in his exit on the coalition government’s
demand. Nawaz Sharif’s appointee Raheel Sharif made life difficult for the prime
minister and, under his successor, Sharif was manoeuvred out of office and politics.

The point is that any chief will represent his personal and institutional interests once
elevated to office and forget who ushered him in. Political parties will be well advised
to focus on clean, effective governance and delivery to the impoverished multitudes.
That is what will empower them and not one individual or the other in this office and
that.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas.nasir@hotmail.com