By Harihar Swarup
Mahatma Gandhi is, of course, the Father of the nation but how often do we remember what he said and, and more importantly, how often do governments abide by his wishes? As you will soon discover this is not a rhetorical question. Actually, if we still have a conscience, it might be embarrassing one!
On March 18, 1922, writing in Young India, Gandhi explained his attitude to governments and those in authority over us. “I hold it as a virtue to be dissatisfied towards government”, he wrote. “One should be satisfied free to give the fullest expression to his satisfaction, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or to incite violence. These are words our government should have inscribed in stone and placed prominently in every minister’s office.
Let me explain why they’re relevant today. Fourteen years after she allegedly questioned whether Kashmir is an “integral” part of India and reportedly advocated the secession of the erstwhile state, the lieutenant governor of Delhi has granted permission for Arundhati Roy to be prosecuted under Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act. The fact that for almost a decade and half -which includes— 10 long years under government—no decision was taken, or was considered necessary, speaks volumes. It also raises the question: why now?
This is not the first time a prominent Indian, who is a globally known writer , has questioned the accession. In his maiden Rajya Sabha speech on May 1, 1962 C N Annadurai did precisely this: “Dravidians demand the right of self-determination……We want a separate country for South India”. Nehru may have blanched but Annadurai was not prosecuted. It wasn’t considered anti-national. Yes, offensive national distasteful it may have been but six decades ago. India accepted this part of right to free speech. At the time, we recognized the concept includes the right to offend. And we honoured Gandhiji’s famous statement—–“I hold it as a virtue to be disaffected towards the government.”
If anything, the world has taught us the need to be more tolerant and accommodating today. If the Scottish nationalist in Britain, the Parti Quebecols in Canada or the Catalans in Spain can campaign for secession and be considered respectable and not anti- national, doesn’t that suggest that mature enlightened democracies, don’t suggest call for secession anti-national?
Is it because the person who spoke out and upset us is Arundhati Roy? Is it because hers is an irresistible and usually convincing voice heard in sharp criticism of the government? Is it because she troubles our shallow peace of mind by raising doubts we do not want to confront. (IPA Service)
