In any genuine democracy, the opposition is a fundamental pillar that allows citizens to hold power accountable, review policies, and demand justice. India has long been renowned, as the world's largest democracy, for its diversity of ideas and the freedom of peaceful protest. However, in recent years, a troubling phenomenon has emerged; peaceful dissenters are being imprisoned using strict laws, while those accused or convicted of serious crimes or hate speech remain free without any serious accountability. This paradox reflects a serious imbalance in the Indian judicial system.
Double standards
This situation highlights a reality of double standards, where we find activists and academics such as Umar Khalid, Gulfsha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, and Irfan Maharaj, who have spent years in prison without a fair trial. In contrast, figures like Ram Rahim, Yati Narsinghanand, Pragyah Thakur, and Kuldeep Singh enjoy notable leniency despite being accused or convicted of heinous crimes.
This stark disparity raises profound questions about the credibility of justice and the rule of law, pointing to a disturbing shift that may undermine the foundations of democracy that India prides itself on.
Imprisonment of Activists and Peaceful Dissenters
In recent years, numerous cases have emerged showing the systemic targeting of peaceful dissenters, with Umar Khalid at the forefront. The former student leader at Jawaharlal Nehru University was arrested in September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with his only "crime" being participation in peaceful protests against policies deemed unjust to minorities. More than 1,550 days have passed, and no fair trial has been held to date.
Similarly, activist Gulfsha Fatima, residing in Delhi, has faced similar circumstances since April 2020. Her detention without substantive progress in legal proceedings illustrates the authorities' insistence on using legal tools to suppress free voices.
In the case of Sharjeel Imam, a prominent researcher at Jawaharlal Nehru University, he was arrested merely for a speech he delivered during protests. These examples clearly reveal how the UAPA has become a repressive tool targeting peaceful dissenters. Not far from this, we see the case of Kashmiri journalist Irfan, who faces vague charges merely for exposing uncomfortable truths.
The UAPA was initially formulated to combat terrorism but has become a sword hanging over the necks of activists, academics, and journalists, leaving them languishing in jails without trial for extended periods.
Leniency Towards Inciters and Those Convicted of Serious Crimes
On the other side of the spectrum, we observe clear leniency towards individuals convicted or accused of serious crimes, and even incitement to hatred. Ram Rahim, leader of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, was convicted of heinous crimes including murder and rape; nonetheless, he received temporary release on conditional pardon. This blatant leniency raises questions about the state's commitment to enforcing justice.
Yati Narsinghanand
On another front, we find Yati Narsinghanand, a Hindu priest known for his incendiary speeches against Muslims, continuing his public incitement without any serious accountability, despite numerous legal challenges against him. He remains at large, reinforcing the sense of double standards.
As for Pragyah Thakur, a politician in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the main suspect in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, she was granted bail in 2017 and even succeeded in the 2019 parliamentary elections. This political victory clearly reveals the exploitation of political influence to evade justice.
Finally, Kuldeep Sengar, the former BJP MP who was convicted of raping a girl and murdering her father, was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, he was granted conditional medical release, highlighting a flaw in the enforcement of penalties against influential figures.
Double Standards in the Indian Judicial System
These examples reveal a recurring pattern of selective justice; strict laws like the UAPA are clearly applied selectively against minorities, activists, and political opponents, while perpetrators of violence and hate speech receive unjustified leniency. Political affiliation, religious identity, and sectarianism play a crucial role in determining the course of justice. This duality undermines the judicial system's credibility and negatively impacts society as a whole. Silencing dissent and suppressing activists fosters a culture of fear, while unleashing hatred exacerbates societal divisions.
The Role of Opposition in Democracy
Opposition is not a crime; rather, it is the lifeblood of any democracy. History is filled with peaceful resistance that has led to societal progress and political reform. From the Indian independence movement to modern movements demanding justice, peaceful struggle has played a pivotal role in achieving positive change. It has always relied on free voices to correct course and achieve justice, from the independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi to contemporary protests. The suppression of dissenting voices not only violates constitutional rights but also weakens the foundation of democracy in the country. Imprisoning students, journalists, and activists sends a clear message: criticism and opposition will not be tolerated, even at the expense of democratic values.
Restoring Justice and Accountability
The path to true democracy begins with reforming the judicial system and ensuring its independence and integrity. There must be:
- Accelerated trial procedures; activists and journalists should not be left languishing in prisons for years without trial.
- Prevention of the abuse of stringent laws; there should be a reassessment of how laws like the UAPA are applied to ensure they are not used as repressive tools.
- Accountability for hate crime perpetrators, regardless of their political or social affiliations; anyone who incites violence or commits serious crimes must be brought to justice.
Strength of India lies in its diversity
The strength of India lies in its diversity and multitude of voices. Maintaining opposition and protecting freedom of expression are the only guarantees for upholding democratic values. Silencing opposition and stifling free voices may serve short-term agendas, but it comes at the cost of justice, equality, and humanity.
In summary, India must recognize that protecting freedom of opinion and accountability is the responsibility of everyone. These values form the cornerstone of a just democracy that embodies the true spirit of India: a nation that embraces all, appreciates their diversity, and ensures justice and equality for all its citizens without discrimination.
