By Dr. Waleed Rasool
After the revolt on the 17th of June, the Writers Union Secretary disseminated pamphlets along Stalinallee, proclaiming that the populace had lost the trust of the government and could regain it solely through intensified endeavors. In such a scenario, wouldn’t it be simpler for the government to disband the people and select a new one?
In the wake of recent events, reminiscent of the June 17th uprising, parallels can be drawn to the strategies employed by the Modi Authoritarian political regime which subvert pluralism, curtail both individual and collective agency, suppress freedoms, dismantle the separation of powers, and enact stringent laws.
These authoritarian regimes rely on intimidation and coercion, operate opaquely, centralize power, escalate militarization, and exploit societal rifts. The governance within such regimes becomes intricately connected with mobs, militias, and diverse expressions of social and political violence.
| The ominous shadow of UAPA looms large, selectively targeting activists and minorities. This pattern of abuse creates a chilling effect, strategically sowing fear to furnish an authoritarian regime with the pretext it needs to act ruthlessly |
Worryingly, the Indian government’s use of “anti-terror” laws has resulted in the targeting of minority communities, racialization of Muslims and a surge in Islamophobia. Enacted in 1967 and subject to amendments in various years, the UAPA experienced significant expansion in 2019 under the regime of the Modi government.
The UAPA, in its maturation, has become a formidable weapon for stifling dissent, exploited by successive administrations under the veil of the “procedure established by law. Within the confines of the UAPA, the government possesses the prerogative to label an individual as a “terrorist,” circumventing conventional judicial procedures and fair trial practices traditionally reserved for groups, not individuals. The presumption of guilt on the basis of alleged claims is a distinctive feature of the UAPA, providing substantial authority for detention, arrest, and charging.
From 2015 to 2019, Manipur saw a significant decline in its UAPA-related arrests, dropping from 61.3% to 19.81%. Meanwhile, Assam experienced a reduction from 11.34% in 2015 to 5.75% in 2020. Conversely, Jammu & Kashmir witnessed an increase from 0.8% in 2015 to 11.6% in 2019.
Muslim Kashmiris, minority individuals, and the caste-oppressed bear the brunt of the UAPA’s severity, while cases involving hate speech, terror, and violence perpetrated by Hindu nationalists seem conspicuously overlooked by the law.
In Kashmir, the UAPA is utilized to foreclose the possibility of bail, quell dissent within civil society and social movements, penalize expressions of grief, anger, and mourning, and hinder human rights activities and journalistic endeavors.As articulated in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no one should undergo arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.
The Indian state’s reliance on extreme laws normalizes absolute nationalism and facilitates the development of contemporary social erasure techniques. Legal violence is justified as both unavoidable and crucial for national security, with the prejudicial detention of Kashmiri Muslims serving as a method in the governance of nationalist ideals.
Modi’s government has witnessed a discernible decline in horizontal accountability, particularly in terms of legislative scrutiny of executive actions. Post-2019, the evaluation of bills by committees, a critical component in assessing proposed legislation, has shrunk to a mere 13 percent. This sharp decrease contrasts significantly with the 71 percent of bills scrutinized during the parliamentary period of 2009–14, predating Modi’s leadership. Notably, during Modi’s initial term from 2014 to 2019, only a quarter of bills underwent committee scrutiny. This trend is troubling, especially when considering that pivotal laws and political decisions, such as the sudden imposition of a national lockdown, demonetization, and farm laws, were enacted without parliamentary consultation amid opposition protests.
Asaduddin Owaisi President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen  stated in his speech that he believes Muslims are being discouraged from asserting their rights. According to him, in the current political climate, which he characterizes as approaching fascism, the government employs the stringent UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) to curtail the freedom of speech of Muslims. He contends that the UAPA, often referred to as a “black law,” results in prolonged detentions of Muslims, followed by lengthy legal processes before they are granted bail. Owaisi has consistently opposed the UAPA, emphasizing that he sees it as a threat to the religious freedom and liberty of Muslims, and he pledges to continue opposing it in the future.
The recent categorization of ‘Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, J&K (TeH)’ as an ‘Unlawful Association’ under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has sparked inquiries into the government’s course of actions the contentious abrogation of Article 370, which was executed forcefully, potentially compromising sovereignty through a controversial interpretation and manipulation of the constitution. The application of the UAPA in this context has raised apprehensions about its potential use for political purposes, contributing to the broader discourse on civil liberties and minority rights.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, rooted in the colonial era, persists as a relic in our postcolonial democratic system, casting a concerning shadow. Originating from a time when opposing colonial authority led to imprisonment, this law has historically targeted those who spoke against ruling powers. Despite shift to a democratic nation embracing values of liberty, its continued existence raises fundamental questions about dissent suppression.
In a democracy, where leadership is chosen by a diverse populace, dissent should be inherent. However, the prevalent use of political imprisonment prompts scrutiny. Why does dissent face resistance in a democracy? A democracy allows citizens to represent diverse opinions through elected leaders, yet certain individuals and ideologies are perceived as threats. This raises questions about the state’s prioritization and protection of specific ideals.
This issue in India prompts examination of the role of dissent in a democracy and the expectations a democratic state has for its citizens. When a democracy claims that criticism of the government is fundamental to its core, how does it reconcile this with the apparent crackdown on dissenting voices?
