PUCL Statement on Sedition Case against Amnesty International India - Drop the FIr
**
(19th August, 2016)
PUCL condemns the actions of the Bengaluru Police in foisting a case of
sedition, creating enmity and other charges against Amnesty International
India and unnamed staff for holding a meeting on 13th August, 2016 in
Bengaluru on human rights abuses in Kashmir in which families of victims
participated. From the statement of Amnesty it is evident that the police
had been informed about the meeting, were present at the venue and had
observed firsthand the event and therefore had knowledge that the
allegations of the VHP about the meeting were politically motivated and
false. That the Karnataka police chose to register a FIR despite all this
only highlights the dangers of arming the state with such draconian laws
like the anti-sedition laws.

The 13th August, 2016 event itself was in the backdrop of the 2015 Amnesty
International report “*Denied: Failures in accountability for human rights
violations by security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir*”. The Report
focused on the travails of families of persons who lost their loved ones
due to excesses by security forces. This report is in the public domain.
Families of victims of State violence were present to narrate in first
person, the situation in Kashmir and the difficulties in claiming justice
and accountability in cases where innocent people are killed in encounters
or enforced disappearances. The meeting itself included showing video films
of testimonies of other victim families,  a panel discussion, musical
performance and skit.

PUCL sees the recent registration of an FIR for sedition against Amnesty
International, India and the witch hunt into the finances / funding of the
organisation as yet another instance in the long string of events where
the  State has used right wing, majoritarian groups to stifle dissent,
prevent discussion and control debate. There is a visible pattern across
the country – from the incidents in JNU, Hyderabad Central University,
Allahabad University, or the witch hunt against  Teesta Setalvad and Javed
Anand and their organisation CJP, Indira Jaisingh and Anand Grover of
Lawyers Collective, Green Peace and now Amnesty International – where, in
every meeting discussing human rights violations suffered by minorities and
dalits, or excesses of security forces whether in Kashmir, North East or in
Maoist regions, a small fringe group creates a commotion, which is used to
first disrupt the meeting and thereafter to harass the organisers by
slamming cases against them. Seldom is any action initiated against the
individuals who disrupt meetings in the first place.

For instance, in the present incident, the local police were informed and
were present at the meeting. Why were the disruptors not removed by the
police present in the venue or why was no FIR registered against the
persons who appeared to have come prepared to disrupt and actually
disrupted the meeting?

It also needs to be highlighted that the repeated invocation of the
anti-sedition offence (sec. 124 A IPC) over any other section of IPC is
mainly to create a public opinion that those who demand accountability of
the state and its agencies, including the police, para military and
security forces, are essentially “anti-national”. This creates a negative
image about them amongst common people; the `anti-national’ tag, in turn,
ensures that the state can further persecute them without much adverse
public opinion.

It is in this context that we need to also notice that irrespective of
political party in power, most governments tend to abuse the extremely
coercive, anti-democratic, anti-sedition provision, sec. 124A IPC to
silence dissent and crush criticism. There is little difference between a
BJP government invoking sedition provisions against Dr. Binayak Sen in
Chhattisgarh or the AIADMK government invoking sedition laws against
peaceful, anti-nuclear protestors in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu or
cartoonist Aseem Trivedi being arrested in Maharashtra or the case launched
by the TMC government in West Bengal against academics; more recently in
the last one year itself, is the sedition case against JNU Students Union
leader, Kanhaiya Kumar in Delhi, the Tamil folk singer Kovan in TN for
criticising the government’s liquor policy and against Hardik Patel for
rallying the anti-reservation struggle involving Patels or Patidars in
Gujarat; the latest to join this long list of infamous sedition cases is
the present case against Amnesty International India launched by the
Congress government in Karnataka. In all these cases, what weighed were
political considerations of the ruling parties and governments dealing a
death blow to the rule of law and functioning of the criminal justice
system.

It has been a long held position of PUCL that the anti-sedition law (sec.
124A IPC) should be repealed immediately. It is ironical that in Britain
itself the sedition clause has been repealed  while India continues to
retain it.

PUCL appeals to all concerned citizens, democratically minded groups and
human rights movement to once again give a call for repealing sec. 124 A
IPC and to launch a mass citizen’s campaign to make ordinary citizens aware
of the dangerous, anti-democratic nature of this archaic, colonial era
provision of law.

PUCL also demands that the Government of Karnataka and the Karnataka Police
immediately withdraw the FIR lodged against Amnesty International,  India
for the meeting organised by it on 13th August, 2016 in the United
Theological College in Bengaluru.


Prof. Prabhakar
Sinha                                                           Dr V. Suresh

President,
PUCL
General Secretary, PUCL