[In fact: <<(M)ere membership of a banned organization cannot incriminate a person unless he is proved to have resorted to acts of violence or incited people to imminent violence, or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to imminent violence.>> (Excerpted from: 'Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam; decision dated 3-2-2011 of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.889 of 2007 – held applicable.' p. 1-2 at < https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/SupremeCourtReport/2011_v4_pii.pdf >.)
But the Hindutva gang want people they detest be just silenced, by whatever - howsoever ridiculous, means, by whomsoever - state or non-state actors. That's the long and short of their whatever arguments (sic). That's what drives one to file a police complaint against Girish Karnad as the epicentre of Maoist activities in Karnataka! That's what needs be clearly acknowledged. <<Take just a few examples. Public prosecutor Ujjwala Pawar pronounced in court that Arun Ferreira — one of the five activists she tried to arrest — had held photo exhibitions about mob lynchings, which created “anti-government opinion among young minds”. Ferreira tried to convince “young leaders”, she said, to meet Varavara Rao, another of the activists. Besides, she also claimed, the activists had formed an “anti-fascist front” aiming to overthrow the government. As Pawar herself must know, holding photo exhibitions — even of mob lynchings — is not a crime. Creating anti-government opinion is not a crime (if it was, everyone who complains about potholes, for example, would break the law). Persuading “young leaders” to meet someone — whatever that may mean, whoever that is — is not a crime. And if this “anti-fascist front” really exists, Pawar is actually calling this government fascist. Not only should she explain that, but by being anti-fascist, this “front” is standing up for India and its constitution. But as Pawar herself also has to know, none of these arguments will hold up in any reasonable court. So why does she make them? For the same reason the prosecution produced piles of made-up and flimsy “evidence”, and innumerable insinuations, while prosecuting Binayak Sen. Yes, none of it would have persuaded any reasonable court. But this one in Chhattisgarh was enough in awe of the political powers-that-be in that state that it passed a judgement — sentencing Sen to life imprisonment — that makes as little sense as the “evidence”. That, some three years after his arrest. Nearly eight years later, the case still languishes. The torturous judicial process itself, more than the sentence that came down, is the punishment the state sought to mete out to Sen. And that’s the goal now, with the Pune police’s efforts: to harrass these activists by entangling them in court. And in that pursuit, they are helped along no end by every one of us stupid enough to think having sympathies, even Maoist ones, is a crime.>>] http://forceindia.net/guest-column/all-that-is-not-a-crime/ All That is Not a Crime There is no law against sympathising with an ideology, even Maoist Dilip DSouza A few months after the 9/11 attacks, I attended a press conference of some kind in Bombay, I can’t remember what. Towards the end, an intrepid journalist put up his hand and yelled: “They are displaying posters of Osama bin Laden! When are you going to arrest them?” I wasn’t sure who he meant by “they”, nor even who he meant by “you” — the conference had been called by two retired judges — but I was intrigued by this demand. So when I got a chance, I made my way through the room to his side and asked: “What do you want them arrested for, again?” “For displaying posters of Osama!” “Got it,” I said. I had heard him correctly the first time. “But tell me, what’s the crime here?” “Displaying Osama’s posters!” he spluttered. “But what’s the crime in that?” Unable to splutter any more, he looked at me, bewildered and incredulous that someone might actually challenge his demand. “There’s a law!” he said finally. “Give me your number. I’ll call you tomorrow with what it is, exactly.” I gave him my number and made sure to take his as well. A few days later, there was nothing from him, so I called. He repeated his promise to tell me “tomorrow”. As you can guess, most of 17 years later, he hasn’t called. Why? Because there is no such law. There is no law against displaying a poster of anyone, Osama included. I mean, I’m sure the man finds Osama and/or his images repellent — so do I — but not even such distaste makes merely putting up a poster of Osama a criminal act. Nobody who knows the law would, in their right mind, seek to arrest someone for doing so. In fact, I believe it’s not even about knowing the law. It’s about knowing the spirit and meaning of democracy — the form of government that, for better or worse, for every imperfection in theory and practice, we Indians have chosen. In a democracy, you cannot have a law that makes displaying an image a crime. It’s that simple. In much the same way as that journalist did over Osama images, plenty of people loudly demand punishment for those who have “Maoist sympathies”. This call found renewed vigour, of course, at the end of August, when the Pune police raided the homes of activists and lawyers across the country, and sought to take five into custody. This is not the place to dissect the reasons the cops proffered for this action, to the extent they were able to proffer any. Instead, I want to first focus on the substantial approval their actions found among citizenry of a certain persuasion. You know whom I mean: folks who like to wave about epithets like “sickularist”, “libtard” and “urban Naxal”. For these people, the epithet is enough. Using it absolves them of any fidelity to logic, reason, or indeed the law itself. So it’s no wonder they graduate from what they think is abuse to what they think is a crime to be punished, and in the process offer me plenty of moments similar to the one with the journalist who never called. “Maoist sympathizers”, they say, lip curling. “Must be arrested.” Not during a press conference, but through a couple of days in late August, I had arguments on Twitter with a few people — just like with the journalist who never called. “Dream up” whatever names you like, I said in a tweet — “‘urban naxal’, ‘half-Maoist’ and ‘sickularist’”. Those are just words, after all, and if people want to fling them about that’s their prerogative. But “even if you have ‘Maoist sympathies’, what is your crime?” Here’s a sample of the handwaving that resulted, via tweets, direct messages and even email: * “Having maoist sympathies [is] not a great idea.” * “Supporting Maoists may not be a direct crime, but enabling them to unleash violence against the state certainly is.” * “Sedition.” * “Being a naxal is a crime and … maoists need to be terminated asap.” * “Being a maoist sympathiser is ughh.” In other words, the only actual crime anyone cited in response to my query was “sedition” (no, “ughh” isn’t a crime either). And even there, there’s no understanding of how sedition is defined in our laws and what our courts have said about it. Quite apart, that is, from the argument over whether sedition should be a crime in the first place. The point, at the risk of overemphasizing it? Having “Maoist sympathies” is no crime, just like having “capitalist sympathies” or “BJP sympathies” or “Hindutva sympathies” is no crime. The Supreme Court of this country itself has made this clear. While granting bail to Binayak Sen in April 2011, the two-judge bench observed: “[Sen] may be a [Maoist] sympathiser, but it (does) not make him guilty of sedition. The worst that can be said is that he was found in possession of general documents (sympathetic to Naxalism), but how can it be said that such possession would attract the charge of sedition? If someone has an autobiography of Gandhi … will he be called a Gandhian?” Now showing up the foolishness of a gaggle of Twitter jockeys is one thing, of course. The real problem is that essentially this argument about “sympathies” — along, as it happens, with displaying images — is what is officially being used by the Pune police. Take just a few examples. Public prosecutor Ujjwala Pawar pronounced in court that Arun Ferreira — one of the five activists she tried to arrest — had held photo exhibitions about mob lynchings, which created “anti-government opinion among young minds”. Ferreira tried to convince “young leaders”, she said, to meet Varavara Rao, another of the activists. Besides, she also claimed, the activists had formed an “anti-fascist front” aiming to overthrow the government. As Pawar herself must know, holding photo exhibitions — even of mob lynchings — is not a crime. Creating anti-government opinion is not a crime (if it was, everyone who complains about potholes, for example, would break the law). Persuading “young leaders” to meet someone — whatever that may mean, whoever that is — is not a crime. And if this “anti-fascist front” really exists, Pawar is actually calling this government fascist. Not only should she explain that, but by being anti-fascist, this “front” is standing up for India and its constitution. But as Pawar herself also has to know, none of these arguments will hold up in any reasonable court. So why does she make them? For the same reason the prosecution produced piles of made-up and flimsy “evidence”, and innumerable insinuations, while prosecuting Binayak Sen. Yes, none of it would have persuaded any reasonable court. But this one in Chhattisgarh was enough in awe of the political powers-that-be in that state that it passed a judgement — sentencing Sen to life imprisonment — that makes as little sense as the “evidence”. That, some three years after his arrest. Nearly eight years later, the case still languishes. The torturous judicial process itself, more than the sentence that came down, is the punishment the state sought to mete out to Sen. And that’s the goal now, with the Pune police’s efforts: to harrass these activists by entangling them in court. And in that pursuit, they are helped along no end by every one of us stupid enough to think having sympathies, even Maoist ones, is a crime. - By Dilip D'Souza - [email protected] -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
