India, the world's most populous democracy, has been relegated to the status of "Partly Free" by Freedom House and downgraded from an “Electoral Democracy" to an "Electoral Autocracy” by Varieties of Democracy Institute in their respective 2021 reports on democracy worldwide. This democratic decline can be ascribed to a variety of causes. One of which is the clampdown on political and public dissent against the government with countless examples over the past two years.
POWER AND PROTEST
Peaceful protests are a hallmark of any free and civilised democratic country. People have the right to express their disapproval of and dissent toward a state’s action. Protests, dissent, and dialogue run parallel to and are complementary forces within a democracy. They help strike a balance between the majority rule and minority rights.
India, as a nation, has nurtured an effective culture of validating its citizens’ freedom of speech and expression. The right to dissent peacefully has been recognised in articles 19, 21, and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a signatory, and enshrined under article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Ideally, the government formulates law and policies for the betterment of its people, and the dissent in response to such policies helps address deficiencies in those laws. However, over the last few years, India has witnessed a contrasting and constrictive approach when facing peaceful protests and dissenting viewpoints.
In 2019, the country witnessed an overnight abrogation of article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which grants special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The move prompted protests. The government response has been to detain opposition leaders, journalists, and civilians criticising the move. In addition, India was put under its longest internet shutdown to restrict the media coverage of the protests, though the government claimed this was to regulate the spread of false information.
Later the same year, widespread protests were staged nationwide against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which excluded Muslims from a programme granting Indian citizenship to religious minorities forced to seek shelter in India due to religion based persecution. Here again, the state retaliated with police using force on protesters and even ransacking libraries in educational institutions. Protesters have been charged as seditionists under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Furthermore, the protests in Shaheen Bagh were hosed and declared unconstitutional by using the state machinery in the form of the judiciary.
Thereafter, the ongoing farmers’ protest on the borders of the capital New Delhi is the most recent example of the government’s handling of peaceful protests. The agricultural reforms enforced by undermining legislative scrutiny and democratic process sparked the world’s largest organised protest. However, the government again reacted with hostility, deploying police on unarmed marching farmers trying to enter into the national capital and then by barricading, installing nails, and digging trenches on the roads to restrict movement and basic necessities at the protest site.
HOSTILE APPROACH
In numerous other instances, protests and dissent have been clamped down upon with police brutality and arbitrary detention. The charges of sedition under UAPA are liberally applied, labelling dissenters as “anti-nationals'' or “terrorists,” demonising them. Additionally, the government has used administrative bodies and biased media houses to vilify and discredit protesters in the eyes of the general public. Such actions by the government strike at the very soul of a liberal democracy.
International organisations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations have voiced concerns over India’s hostile approach towards protesters and dissenters of government policies and actions. One of the major concerns of these organisations lies in the fact that India as a nation is moving away from constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms to an authoritarian state with little-to-no room for public opinion.
However, it is not only international organisations that see a degradation of democratic machinery and narrowing of the pluralistic culture of the country. Prominent Indian jurists concur with these assessments. In conclusion, it is on the Indian government to engage in confidence-building, deliberative discourse and to constructively use dissent and public dialogue to improve policy formulation. This will harmoniously accommodate the interests of the minorities along with the majority voices, which is the essence of secular and pluralistic democracy.
Nyamat Sekhon is a constitutional law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, India. Research interests include environmental law, human rights and protection of rights of women and children.
Sukhman Sandhu is a criminal law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, India. Research interests include gender justice, restorative legal frameworks and human rights.