Dissent Will Not Be Sanitized
Dissent will not be sanitized. It is anti-democratic forces, pliant institutions and coward men who ‘equate’ citizens with subjects and who have forced upon Indians a ‘tryst’ with tyranny. Dissent against them will not be sanitized. Dissent will not seek permission from police thanas of the same police which join rioting mobs, which are blatantly partisan and to put it mildly-radically evil.
The people sitting in the dozens of Shaheen Baghs across the country, the millions who turned out to protect democracy did so at great ‘inconvenience’. Inconvenience not only of the chilling December winter but also of the knowledge that they will indubitably be targeted by a majoritarian and vengeful political power on a rampage. Inconvenience of the knowledge that this country, our only home, is under grave peril from the people who pay lip service to democracy and spit at it from those very lips. Inconvenience of having a conscience which was unable to pretend that it was business as usual, despite the fact that crores of Indians had been threatened with displacement by their own government. Inconvenience of knowing that the institutions charged with protecting them will turn away their gaze and say- let the violence stop first, the same violence which was being experienced, inconveniently, by those out to protect the constitution which has created these institutions. Dissent will not be sanitized.
We, the people, are unable to lie to ourselves even as we gasp for breath in a flood of lies which insists on devouring us. We are unable to seek the charity of the state to dissent in ‘designated’ places while we struggle to breathe. We urge those in power to use the ‘designated places’ to build more concentration camps which go by the name of ‘detention centres’ these days. We have no use for them for we are unable to pretend that our very existence is not at stake in this historic moment. Our dissent will not be sanitized.
Those in power treat democracy and freedom as absconding fugitives. Both find refuge only in the bosoms of those who risk inconvenience. They can be found, safe, stubborn, thriving in the jail cells of Sudha Bhardawaj, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and many more. They can be found in the hearts of all those who risk the inconvenience of speaking up for India and against the powerful out to extinguish the flames of our tryst with destiny. We are aware that we risk the inconvenient punishment for harboring them. Our dissent will not be sanitized.
The phrase ‘self rule’ has been folded in an envelope, the envelope sealed and put in the file of the case pertaining to the constitutionality of electoral bonds. Despite the power of sealed envelopes and electoral bonds, our dissent will not be sanitized.
The words ‘reasonable restrictions’ stand outside the buildings of TV studios which incite hatred and harm democracy every night. They shake and hide in a corner while ‘goli maaro’ rallies are taken out. They are powerless in the face of rioting in the national capital. They are like the batons and tear gas guns of the police waalas, used only when the innocent dissent.
The time spent writing this judgment was spent better on hearing the case about the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act. We never sought permission. We do not seek permission. We will not seek permission. We stood up across India knowing very well that our standing up in public spaces is against the law. We were prepared to be removed. In Uttar Pradesh, in Delhi, in many places across the country, the police responded with illegal and disproportionate violence. It beat up peacefully protesting citizens of all genders and of all ages. It entered universities and libraries and rained violence on students. This did not, has not, and will not deter us. Our dissent will not be sanitized.
The Citizenship Amendment Act, the NRIC and the NPR are unjust, immoral, inhuman laws. The occupation of public space has two objectives. First, to be seen — we, on who you impose this unjust law, exist; we are human. It is a response against the constant dehumanization waged by oppressive and indifferent forces. The second objective is to demonstrate non-cooperation with an oppressive force and an unjust law. We were not going to wait for displacement to be effected to perform disobedience. It was a moral imperative for us, the people, to perform disobedience and non-cooperation however we could, wherever we could.
Whether the government is colonial or not is not determined by nomenclature. It is determined by whether we, the people, are made to feel like we have been colonized or not. In any event it is not our intention to overthrow the government established by law. It is our intention to compel the government to act under the law, under the constitution. Those who have authored and who support CAA-NRIC-NPR are the ones who want to overthrow the rule of law, the essence of which rule is stated best in the preamble to the constitution which we read out repeatedly.
The judgment cites some quotations. We quote Howard Zinn: “Civil disobedience, as I put it to the audience, was not the problem, despite the warnings of some that it threatened social stability, that it led to anarchy. The greatest danger, I argued, was civil obedience, the submission of individual conscience to governmental authority. Such obedience led to the horrors we saw in totalitarian states, and in liberal states it led to the public’s acceptance of war whenever the so-called democratic government decided on it…In such a world, the rule of law maintains things as they are. Therefore, to begin the process of change, to stop a war, to establish justice, it may be necessary to break the law, to commit acts of civil disobedience..”
Do not quote Ambedkar’s distaste of civil disobedience to us, his words had a certain context. He spent his life fighting for principles which stand in contrast with the CAA-NRIC-NPR. Above all, we rely on the moral authority of Bapu’s legacy. Dissent will not be sanitized. Dissent will thrive.