 |
| There is a real danger in relying solely on courts as some kind of saviours of the right the dissent, says Lawrence Liang |
March 3, 2016, NewsCrunch
The controversy in JNU has triggered an intellectual churn, and drawn many activists and scholars to the campus.
Legal scholar Lawrence Liang gave a brilliant speech in JNU on February 28.
He dissected the way Indian courts have handled sedition down the decades. The upshot: It would take a real stretch of imagination to pin the charge on JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar.
But he went on to warn JNU students that in the history of freedom of speech and expression, these rights are not granted by courts. They merely affirm what’s there.
Rights are born out of individual social struggles usually in extremely charged political moments where nation and nationalism are debated to the core.
He cautioned students not to rely only on judiciary to secure their rights. There is a long history of judgments taking extremely conservative positions.
Lawrence Liang cited a case against Bal Thackeray that was filed after 1992 Mumbai blasts. The Shiv Sena leader was booked under 295 A for inciting hatred against Muslims.
He cautioned students not to rely only on judiciary to secure their rights. There is a long history of judgments taking extremely conservative positions.
Lawrence Liang cited a case against Bal Thackeray that was filed after 1992 Mumbai blasts. The Shiv Sena leader was booked under 295 A for inciting hatred against Muslims.
The Mumbai High Court, made a regressive distinction between ordinary Muslims and those who were traitors, according to Lawrence Liang.
It got Bal Thackeray off the hook by saying 295A did not apply to members of the community, who were traitors.
There is a real danger in relying solely on courts as some kind of saviours of the right the dissent.
In the present political climate where the debate is polarised, judiciary may create its own discourse of nationalism and anti-nationalism.
But there is hope. As Lawrence Liang shows the evolution of rights is a glorious history of youngsters leading dissent and pressing for freedom of speech and expression.
It got Bal Thackeray off the hook by saying 295A did not apply to members of the community, who were traitors.
There is a real danger in relying solely on courts as some kind of saviours of the right the dissent.
In the present political climate where the debate is polarised, judiciary may create its own discourse of nationalism and anti-nationalism.
But there is hope. As Lawrence Liang shows the evolution of rights is a glorious history of youngsters leading dissent and pressing for freedom of speech and expression.