Republic of Rhetoric Quotes

“Yet, can merely showing a map depicting the de facto line of control in an internationally disputed geographical region amount to undermining the 'sovereignty and integrity of India'? By merely presenting an alternate map of Kashmir to its readers, could The Economist be said to have engaged in activity akin to the DMK's demands for secession and for the separate state of Tamilnad, which gave rise to the Sixteenth Amendment in the first place? Can it even amount to 'questioning' the territorial integrity of India, punishable as an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act? At a more fundamental level, can a person who merely questions the territorial boundaries of India be said to be undermining the 'sovereignty and integrity of India' at a level comparable with the movements in Madras, Nagaland and Punjab in the 1950s and 1960s?”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Ye, can merely showing a map depicting the de facto line of control in an internationally disputed geographical region amount to undermining the 'sovereignty and integrity of India'? By merely presenting an alternate map of Kashmir to its readers, could The Economist be said to have engaged in activity akin to the DMK's demands for secession and for the separate state of Tamilnad, which gave rise to the Sixteenth Amendment in the first place? Can it even amount to 'questioning' the territorial integrity of India, punishable as an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act? At a more fundamental level, can a person who merely questions the territorial boundaries of India be said to be undermining the 'sovereignty and integrity of India' at a level comparable with the movements in Madras, Nagaland and Punjab in the 1950s and 1960s?”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Some said that rather than making piecemeal amendments to the Constitution, a committee should be constituted to suggest comprehensive changes to be made to the Constitution once and for all. Citing a paper published by a senior researcher at the Indian Law Institute, H.N. Mukherjee said that words like 'sovereignty' and 'integrity' were vague and were susceptible to being misinterpreted by courts. H.V. Kamath cited the example of the Scottish Home Rule Party which was permitted to contest elections for seats in the House of Commons, and said that only speech which amounts to incitement ought to be outlawed.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“A member from Assam said that 'there is less affinity among the different peoples in India than among the different nations of Europe', because while European countries could at least 'claim the same pigment of their skin' and 'the same religion throughout the length and breadth of Europe', India was a country 'with a bewildering, often conflicting varieties of people, of languages, of sects, of faiths, of colours, of nationalities, of races' which could not make similar claims.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Sen informed the House that he had initially intended to speak in Hindi, but since 'most of the challenge came from areas whose representatives might not have understood Hindi,' he had decided to speak in English instead.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Many members of the Assembly were disappointed with the numerous exceptions which had been created against each of the freedoms set out in the right to freedom, including the right to free speech. For instance, K.T. Shah said that 'what is given by one right hand seems to be taken away by three or four or five left hands, and therefore the article is rendered nugatory in my opinion.' Lakshmi Narayan Sahi cited an Oriya proverb which translates as follows: 'It is no use making a house with so small entrance that one's entry into the house is rendered difficult without striking his head against the door frame.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“The law thus believed that those who read Indian language newspapers were 'ignorant and unintelligent', and that by contrast, only those who were capable of reading English language newspapers were informed and intelligent.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“In other words, while Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1898 could not be arrested for sedition by a police officer without an order from a magistrate, Kanhaiya Kumar (who, of course, is no Tilak) in 2016 could be arrested for sedition without any such order. It is not an oppressive colonial regime which has imposed this new restriction on the freedom of speech in India, but a democratic one which has done so.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Evidence for the Spoken Word: A person could be convicted for delivering a seditious speech (as opposed to writing a seditious article) on the basis of notes of the speech prepared by police officers who were present at the time the speech was delivered.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Truth Immaterial: It was no defence for a person accused of sedition to argue that what he had said was true. Quoting an Irish judge, Justice Mookerjee of the Calcutta High Court in one case held, 'the greater the truth, the greater the libel'.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“The lieutenant governor said that in India it would be impossible to accept the English Law test of direct incitement to violence. He added that educated Indians who were unable to find jobs had become 'discontented, disobedient, and sometimes troublesome young men' who had taken to engaging in seditious writings. Adapting Caliban's speech from Shakespeare's The Tempest, he said: 'We taught them language, and their profit on it is, they know how to curse.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Tilak's case had attracted a great deal of attention and a large number of Indian journalists had gathered in the courtroom to witness the proceedings, but there was insufficient chairs for all of them to be seated. It is said that when they took this matter up with the clerk of the crown, the official remarked that they should all take their seats in the dock, i.e. alongside Tilak as criminals.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Thus, the fact that Tilak was writing in Marathi was taken to mean that his audience was ignorant and unintelligent. This was a recurring theme in the sedition cases. Interestingly, one commentator in 1898 wrote in the Law Quarterly Review in England that Tilak's influence was likely to be 'wider than the number of copies printed' because 'it appears to be customary for Hindoos to gather round the village schoolmaster and listen while he reads the news.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Thus, if the government tells you that you can't hold a sign which says 'Please elect Mr. X', you could invoke your fundamental right to free speech and challenge the government's decision. However, if your private employer threatens to dismiss you from service if you hold up a sign which says so, you cannot invoke the fundamental right to free speech, because such rights are only available against the government and its instrumentalities.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India