Section 1
“Talk about caste system, bring reservation in the private sector. Raise these questions, then I will believe that you have faith in this country.”[1] Just by asking for change through his words, Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested and subjected to police brutality. This incident demonstrates that there is an urgent need to protect Indian citizens’ right to protest. It is shocking that such a need has arisen given India’s rich history of protesting. It has been home to various protest-oriented social and political movements, such as the Telangana Movement, that have contributed to the creation of India’s democratic values and cultural consciousness. In the 1800s, such movements contributed to the creation of social consciousness amongst Indians by facilitating sympathy for the causes of women, farmers, and underprivileged social classes. Such movements were led by social reformers and their organizations, such as the Brahmo Samaj. This influx of social orgnaizations led to the birth of liberal democratic ideals, including liberation and equality, which contributed to India’s independence. These nonviolent movements encouraged common people to rise up against authoritarian rulers and fight for India’s freedom.[2] This created nascent feelings of unity amongst India’s many religious groups, which were eroded by the increased and violent tensions during its partition.[3]
After Independence, political freedoms and the rights of women, Dalits, workers, minority religions, and farmers once again became the center of the protest movements.[4] However, the recent actions of the police during the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests showcases that state authorities in India have tried to shut down protests and radical movements with violence.[5] This has imposed certain conditions upon India’s capacity to build its national identity. This authoritarianism began with the British attacking social and political reformers before India’s independence, which led to the Indian governments enforcing strongarm tactics to shut down radical movements such as Naxalism after the partition of 1947.[6] Today, it has led to the recent governments of India using questionable policing and legal measures to shut down protests. Ironically, a country that was born on protests is now not being allowed to continue its legacy.
Hence, in recent years, such governments have showcased an ugly side of the Indian State by demonstrating the challenges of protesting in India: the infringement of the human rights of Indian citizens such as their constitutional right to protest, police brutality, and the lack of involvement of the international community. However, the government has applied standards and practices such as the colonial sedition laws, invoked cultural norms, and despotic party alignment, leading to a reality of chaos and violence. Hence, given the recent protests in Ashok Nagar, New Delhi there is a need to come up with a policy protecting the rights of protestors which includes a political committee, media ethics body and increased funding to human rights organisations[7].
Beginning with the Nirbhaya Rape Case, the government tried to use ‘forceful tactics’ by enforcing the use of tear gas against the protestors, which led to several injuries.[8] It is appalling to imagine that the first response to a peaceful protest, of a democratic government that is party to several human rights treaties, is violence, demonstrating that human and moral values hold no meaning for the government.[9] In this case, by disregarding basic human rights such as Article 1, Article 9, and Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[10], the government and the bureaucracy used their ‘compulsory power’[11]to prevent the citizens from solidifying their support against the perpetrators of rape. The global community did not impose any international pressure and let the 2010 United Progressive Alliance Government of India off the hook. This stems from a normative outlook towards human rights, which is the first challenge that any activist faces in combating a problem within India. This normative outlook is also seen in the delayed judicial process, which can cause excruciating pain and trauma for the both the victims and the protestors. This singular case led to the normalization of deviance[12] against protestors, who voiced their opinions against the actions of the police and supported women’s rights in India. Hence, such an outlook towards human rights has prevented India from protecting the interests of women, which is ironic given how a significant element of the Indian cultural consciousness is the nation as “mother”.[13]
A few years after the Nirbhaya Case, New Delhi was again home to a new protest in Jawaharlal Nehru University,[14] which brought to light how the sedition laws, i.e, Section 124A[15] enshrined in the Indian Penal Code, promote authoritarian actions and affect the growth of the Indian state. The authoritative use of seditious acts can lead to the divisions between different sections of society in India, which can further result in the promotion of harmful rhetorics related to nationalism and patriotism. Such rhetoric in a country like India can often affect its development and global recognition. Colonialism involved state-caused famines and shootings, such as Jallianwala Bagh, and by enforcing laws made in that period, the government is perpetuating the same coercive tactics in the current independent Indian state. [16] These laws were formed by the British to curb the voices of the Indian freedom fighters and revolutionaries. However, as we have seen in contemporary times, dissent matters, and by limiting the voices of citizens, the government is preventing India from growing stronger as a diverse democratic nation that is free from its colonial identity. The power of dissent is important as in several nations, it has led to progressive and inclusive changes such as increased capacity for minority groups to demand change. It has the potential to improve the social, judicial, political and economic structures in various circumstances[17].
The JNU attack also brought to light the communal politicizing of law as the Bharatiya Janata Party was driven by its conservative interests to convict protestors, which is troubling for maintaining principles of democracy as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It gave rise to the wrongful detention of protestors in India and the sense of false nationalism that currently permeates Indian society. Thus, the student leaders such as Kanhaiya Kumar were able to highlight the muscular nationalism that demonises political dissent[18]. However, since most of the popular news channels such as Times Now and ZEE had their interests aligned with the current ruling party, the media coverage of the protests changed the narrative from students fighting for justice to student leaders being treated as ‘anti-national’.[19] The actions of the government against student political groups for spreading information originates from the government’s reluctance to give Indian citizens an alternative voice in the national discourse. Even though India is a secular democratic republic, as mentioned in the preamble of the Indian Constitution,[20] citizens have been denied a voice in several matters, which has prevented the rise of policies that cater to all Indians. For example, the nuclear policy of India was made by domestic political powers; however, the lower sections of society had limited ability to influence policies and provide recommendations.[21]
In 2019, this lack of citizen input and governmental imposition led to the creation of the CAA bill, which caused the nation to finally become aware of the authoritarian nature of the ruling party. The actions of the police and the BJP’s student wing against the protesters highlights how human rights have become normatively repressed in the Indian current political climate. The CAA protest led to the government terming the gatherings of citizens as ‘unlawful assemblies’[22] and using police brutality to disseminate the momentum of the protests. The ruling party is still receiving mass support on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which is surprising given how the BJP has facilitated the exclusive non-acceptance of minority groups and the rise of Hindu nationalism. Hence, the intelligent use of Twitter by the BJP has divided and mobilized specific groups, preventing a unified response from Indian citizens. [23]The reaction to these nation-wide protests have been criticized by world leaders, as they are pushing minorities to the fringes of Indian society, with the aim of erasing them. However, the BJP still has not faced any repercussions from the international community or the United Nations for these human rights violations. This is due to how these protests do not fit into a western mould of protesting, and the lack of international awareness about the modes of protesting in India act as a challenge in combating the actions of the ruling government.
The recent protests have also provided Indian citizens and political organizations with opportunities to create instances where people have a voice in national discourse. The university protests have showcased how Indian youth are becoming more aware of the structural inequalities in India and the authoritarian nature of laws passed by the Parliament. This increased awareness has tried to halt the process of ‘making India Hindu and male’, [24]which has ushered Indian society into an urgency to develop more equitable policy. The spread of information has begun to trickle down to the lower strata of society, which is causing a transfer in political opportunities[25]. Such a shift provides the perfect platform for the rise in movements and protests from lower social classes.
The change in the mindset of people has made them realize the true evils of colonial rule and how its regressive policies continue to affect the state. For example, British reduced India’s share in the global Gross Domestic Product by twenty percent.[26] Such an understanding has been responsible for citizens protesting individual sections of the India Penal Code, such as Section 124A that continue to enshrine the authoritarian policies of British Colonialism. These actions have allowed Indians to reconnect with their historical roots of protesting and develop a national identity that is not afraid of opposing the government and challenging the norms of government hierarchical structures.
Such opportunities stem from the change in the western-dominated values and norms of the global community, as now they are more inclusive of non-western perspectives, which ensures that the voices of all nations are now being heard. It marks a shift in global ideas, as non-western perspectives have been elevated and promotes through the avenues of personal experiences or oral histories. [27]This emergence of diverse narratives prevents the global community from further falling into the ‘danger of a single story,’[28] which is necessary as populism is on a rise in many nations. However, it is important to note that this movement of literature is in its nascent stage, which marks the perfect time for Indian lawmakers to decolonize remnants of sedition rule. Such changes at the global and Indian national levels provide an opportunity for the Indian citizens to combat the challenges associated with protesting and voice their dissent.
Section 2
In the context of India’s rich protesting history, it is shocking that government authorities still have not improved their standards and practices to meet the legal, social, and cultural problems associated with the inability to protest. On the contrary, colonial British laws have given government structures extreme power to halt protests through imposing authoritarian rules that establish curfews, misclassifications of protesting that govern police reactions, and detaining protestors based on little information. The use of sedition laws have created standards and practices which have endangered the rights of several groups of citizens. For example, in between 2014 and 2015, seventy-three individuals were arrested on the count of sedition.[29] These charges were applied due to corrupt law enforcement and inefficient judicial processes. Furthermore, dominant attitudes and values have begun altering the legal meaning of the term ‘sedition’, as authorities are influenced by national discourse. For example, sixty-seven university students were charged with sedition for celebrating the Pakistani Cricket team’s victory against India, which goes against the legal meaning of the term. This is inaccurate, as historically, sedition refers to any action that harms the security of the nation. Hence, these charges were based on the attitudes of the Indian state against Pakistan at that time.[30]
Such actions are painfully similar to the British reaction of suppression towards Indian freedom fighters and journalists. For example, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, an Indian independence activist, was arrested for writing articles that were deemed seditious in nature. However, the British arrested him due to his public opposition, hoping to ultimately halt the Indian freedom movements.[31] The current Indian government is drawing upon this strategy, mobilizing the same oppressive tactics as the British to suppress supposedly seditious voices through the mainstream media.
Indian citizens and organizations need to take action to protect their right to voice their grievances against the state, as the state currently employs violent counter-protest strategies that defy the basic principles of democracy. In the late 1900s, it was difficult to meet the challenges of a radical social movement such as Naxalism, as the government did not have enough financial resources. [32]However, this lack of resources is no longer the main issue. Recently, the current government’s idealization of India as a Hindu nationalist state has allowed authorities to use violent practices against people exercising their freedom of speech. They have been guilty of using tear gas and lathi[33] charges against several protestors in controversial circumstances. Paradoxically, the same corrupt police officers who are guilty of not registering numerous cases of rape and committing torture in jail have the power to arrest citizens exercising their freedom of speech. [34]
The government’s violent tactics would have shut down the Nirbhaya protests if it was not for activists using digital platforms to organize candle marches for the victim, showing that digital activism has created a platform for women’s rights.[35] Social media has led to the creation of campaigns such as Mard and shifted citizens’ understanding of rape jurisprudence.[36] However, even though digital activism was able to gather support for the Nirbhaya victim, the initially dismissive reaction of the government and delayed judicial processes has had a subsequently normalizing effect for later rape cases. Such a normalized outlook towards rape has prevented progressive discussion around India’s entrenched rape culture, where the psychological trauma of rape is dismissed and marital rape is not considered a crime under the Indian penal code.[37] Apart from the lack of action, social media has had the adverse effect of facilitating victim-shaming, as their identities and images are far more accessible.[38]
In times of need, citizens turn to mainstream media as a mode of authority, as it represents the third pillar of democracy and protects their rights to information. Nevertheless, most of the news channels are owned by institutional corporations, who are concerned solely with profit. This has led to the communalization of news, shifting attention away from issues concerning the majority of farmers and workers to the minority of the upper class. The media reporting on the JNU protests were aligned with the BJP and governmental corporate interests, leading to violent chaos in the national capital. Further, during the JNU protest, the media was focused more on painting student leaders as seditiously against the ideals of democratic India, rather than promoting the self determination of Kashmir, which was the main aim of the students’ protest. ZEE News used fabricated or limited information to ostracise students leaders, leading to further dissent against the nationalist regime and its associated ethics of media reporting.[39] The media is more concerned with sensationalizing content and increasing ratings rather than informing the everyman. Hence, the media industry requires further guidelines to prevent news channels from following such standards and practices, where they use party interests to further their profits.
Politicians have used cultural values and norms to inhibit citizens’ ability to protest rather than focusing on deconstructing structural inequalities. They use religious texts to claim that the aim of various protests act against the cultural identity of India, leading to the rise of anti-social activities by vigilante groups.[40] For example, in 2013 the current Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh stated that “Homosexuals are dangerous for social morality.”[41] Such cases of moral policing by state authorities and politicians through deeming homosexuality ‘a disease’ has lead to the ostracization of the LGBTQIA community in India. [42] It is troubling that, in a democratic nation, politicians encourage discriminatory rhetoric without consequence but students are arrested for exercising their freedom of speech. The popular support for such members of authority has spread the wrong message amongst the masses, preventing the queer population from receiving basic economic and social rights in India. This has also prevented rural India from breaking free of gender norms, allowing the government to create discriminatory policies such as the recent Transgender Bill.[43] Hence, cultural values are being mobilized by the state to undermine the very movements upon which India became independent.
As seen, the executive branch has followed standards and practices that are against basic human rights, giving rise to the involvement of non-governmental organisations. Such organisations have taken news reporting into their own hands, through individually broadcasting issues such as farmer suicide, police brutality, and caste discrimination. Due to executive violence, lawyers have also collaborated to give free legal aid to protesters, so as to prevent the ideals of justice from being corrupted. However, reduced funding for HROs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act has prevented organisations from developing a strong presence in domestic movements. They cannot extend their support to various protests within India, leading to further violations of citizens’ human rights. The Modi government has cracked down on non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace India on the basis of being supposedly anti-developmental and has reduced avenues for citizens to voice their dissent.[44] However, the Modi government’s true motivation is to stop the rise of alternative opinions, many of which are against the government’s conception of a Hindu State. Hence, there is a fundamental lack of protective modes in which citizens can voice their opinions, demonstrating an immediate need for policy reform in order for citizens to safely voice their dissent.
Section 3
In order to meet the challenges associated with protesting, a three-fold solution needs to be applied. Firstly, the Head of State should form a political committee composed of lawyers, human rights activists, bipartisan politicians and student leaders, whose goal is to form a ‘Right To Protest Bill’, which would include an alternative to the current sedition laws. The bill should also include a covenant of rights that protects the human rights of citizens during protests, and the disregards penalties associated with protesting. Such a covenant is necessary to meet the challenge of police violence and mob brutality. For example, during the CAA protests in January 2020, 48 % of protests reported at least one incidence of violence, demonstrating the inefficiencies of the current structures.[45] The covenant should also include provisions for emergency situations and circumstances, especially for women and children, as methods of protesting are continually changing.
Given the recent protests, the committee will have to come up with an alternative to current sedition laws in one month and present it to the Head of State. Once presented, the Parliament of India and state legislatures will have the opportunity to pass it with a simple majority and question the political committee. The judiciary will also have an opportunity to look at the bill if passed and once the judicial process is over, it should be applied immediately to the current situation in Delhi. The entire legislative and judicial process should be limited to a period of three months, as this is an emergency situation. Therefore, the creation of a new act by an inclusive body will ensure that cases of illegitimate action by state authorities are reduced, improving political engagement and social welfare of the state. However, the conservative lobbyists and the Hindutva[46] mindset in India may prevent such policies from passing.
Secondly, a media ethics body is required, which would include five members: three retired judges from the Supreme Court and two retired journalists from both sides of the political spectrum[47]. The President will have the complete power to appoint members of the body, who will be responsible for creating guidelines for mainstream media. It will have to address issues such as party alignments of the media, corporate interest of companies, social media accounts of news channels, communalization of news and the use of fabricated evidence. The body will have two months to come up with flexible guidelines in order to meet the new-age challenges of the media. The Contingency Fund of India will be responsible for the salaries of the judges and journalists, which would be determined by the Head of State. Furthermore, the legislature, on the advice of the body will allocate subsidies to news channels that focus on reporting on-the-ground issues, irrespective of the television ratings. This will ensure that news remains a source of discussion and not a source of pointless entertainment.
The body will be responsible for reprimanding politicians, who use social media and their comments on news channels to fuel discontent among the masses and further their own rhetoric. The body will present the remarks made by politicians on social media to the Lok Sabha, so that a censure or a disqualification motion can be made against such individuals. This will steer Indian politicians towards focusing on the interests of its common people, and not on spreading vitriol amongst their following. This will ensure that the problem of social media is mitigated with the help of efficient leadership and organisation.[48] Hence, such a body can change \ cultural norms and mentalities mindset in political and social spheres, deconstructing issues such as Indian wealth inequality and marital rape. However, the current majority of the BJP at all levels of the legislature may use such subsidies to support like-minded media outlets, giving rise to harmful precedents and further unnecessarily politicising the media.
Thirdly, the funding of HROs needs to be increased so citizens can protect their basic rights in situations of state-issued violence. In recent times, the Modi government has forced such organisations to scale back their involvement in protest movements. This has led to a lack of reporting on human rights abuses. The funding will increase through allocating five percent of the general budget to the various HROs. The Human Rights Commission of India will allocate the funds, who will also be responsible for discussing the validity of the FCRA and presenting their findings to the Head of State. Once the findings are presented, the Head of the State will have the power to determine the validity of the findings and apply them. However, the legislature or the executive will have no power to change the decision of the Head of State. Further, in order to ensure the increased allocation of budget does not affect other areas of development, the government should increase tax brackets for the top one percent in India. This will ensure that greater revenue is generated and widespread income inequality is addressed and reduced. The Human Rights Commision must also ensure that the HROs and NGOs used this increased funding to develop a permanent and local presence in India.[49] Such a presence will improve their role in domestic protests, which is integral for a democracy. Therefore, the use of HROs will ensure that dissenting voices are not silenced through power dynamics, which will shift the political landscape of the country. However, the problem of tax evasion in India may prevent the policy from being cost-effective for the government, which will affect the Indian economy.
The last two governments have demonstrated several challenges in response to protesting, such as media alignment, lack of human rights, and the adherence to colonial laws. Nevertheless, the recent JNU and anti-CAA protests have awakened the masses against the exclusionary regime, which has increased awareness of how the Modi government is using the same tactics as the British to further their own interests. This has increased the political ferment amongst citizens, which in turn has led to societal political divisions. Seeing this rise of dissent, the government has been using its authoritarian structure and conservative practices to silence any alternative opinions in public debates. As aforementioned, there is a necessity to create a strong policy that aims at combating the problem of sedition, human rights abuses, and ending this ‘great oppression’ in general. These solutions can help in forming a global order where all activists, irrespective of caste, creed, or religion in India can shout slogans of ‘azaadi’[50] without being called anti-national or being told to ‘go to Pakistan’. Through this, India will reclaim the principles of democracy and secularity upon which it was born.
Appendices
Appendix 1
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) seeks to provide citizenship to non-Muslim minorities fleeing religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Opponents claim that the legislation is in violation of the constitution, which prohibits religious discrimination against citizens. In conjunction with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), activists also claim that it specifically seeks to target Indian Muslims. The NRC aims to identify illegal immigrants by requiring individuals to prove their citizenship based on specific documentation prior to a certain cut-off date, including land and tenancy records. The NRC has so far only been implemented in Assam, where more than 1.9 million people failed to qualify as of August and were subsequently put in detention centers. However, on November 20, Home Minister Amit Shah said that the NRC will be implemented nationwide. While the NRC will expose all illegal immigrants, opponents of the CAA argue that the act isolates Muslim Indians as it favors all non-Muslim religious minorities who may fail to qualify for the NRC but will nonetheless be assured citizenship. The CAA has also received opposition – particularly in several northeastern states – due to fears that it will encourage an influx of immigrants that will affect the ethnic balance. The Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) passed the CAA legislation on December 9, while the Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament) passed the bill on December 11. India’s Supreme Court refused petitions to halt the implementation of the CAA on December 18. A hearing on the act has been scheduled for January 22. At least 23 people have been killed in clashes between police and protesters, and police officers have arrested several hundred demonstrators since December 11.( As of December 26, 2019)
Appendix 2
In the late evening hours of December 16th, a young woman was brutally gang raped by six men (one of them a juvenile at the time) for 90 min on a moving bus in New Delhi, the capital city of India. The woman and her male companion were initially tricked into boarding the bus. What followed was a nightmare of events for the couple: the victim was gang raped with such extreme brutality that her intestines came out of her body; sexually assaulted numerous times including with an iron rod; her male companion was so severely beaten that he became unconscious; and after the assailants were ‘done’, the woman and her companion were thrown out of the bus onto a secluded street almost naked on a freezing Delhi night. The pair was found later that night by a police patrol. Despite specialized medical care in New Delhi and later in Singapore, the young woman succumbed to her injuries on 29 December 2012. The rape was first reported in the media on the evening news on December 17th, and within days candlelight vigils began, followed by relatively small demonstrations in the capital, mainly in front of the Chief Minister’s residence. These were initially led by students, concerned citizens, and by some women’s organizations. By December 21st, the demonstrations were joined by political parties, other groups, and by ordinary citizens. As the scale of the demonstrations grew in the city, the government employed special police to manage the crowds. Reports of clashes between demonstrators and police emerged over the next few days, resulting in injuries for hundreds and the death of one policeman.
Appendix 3
On 9 February 2016, a group of students staged a protest against the hanging of Afzal Guru, who had been convicted of the 2001 attack on India’s parliament and sentenced to death. Counter protests followed and police and student leaders, including the then president of the JNU Student Union, Kanhaiya Kumar, dispersed opposing groups. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed with the police on 11 February 2016 on the basis of ZEE News coverage and a CD provided by the Hindi news channel. Kanhaiya Kumar and two other student leaders, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, were charged with sedition under a colonial-era law and Kumar imprisoned. Khalid and Bhattacharya went into hiding but subsequently surrendered to the police and were also charged with sedition against the Indian state. Kumar’s first visit to the Delhi High Court was marked by violence. The police at hand did not intervene as Kumar, along with student supporters and journalists, were assaulted by a mob.
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
- The reported rape cases in India have doubled between 1990 and 2008, yet there is an abysmally low rate of conviction for the rape cases in the country reported by National Crime Records Bureau.
- In 2011, out of the total number of cases that went to court, the overall rate of convictions was 26.4 per cent, as 4072 convictions were upheld, while 11,351 of the accused were acquitted.
- Smitha (name changed), a 26-year-old woman is HIV positive . Her husband died in the year 2007 due to AIDS. She has been staying in Bangalore. After her husband’s death she started handicraft work, for which she used to earn Rs. 2000 rupees per month. She has a 7 year old daughter. She said Rs. 2000 per month was insufficient to meet the basic needs and to maintain the health of herself and her HIV negative daughter.For all the pain that she has borne, she blamed her husband who was a driver, and she cursed him after his death. She said that her husband infected her consciously and forcibly. She said her husband had extramarital affairs. He had sexual diseases and infections, and in the past she had requested her husband to use condoms, but he did not listen to her. In the year 2005, after 3 years of marriage, her husband underwent some medical check-up, but did not disclose the results (diseases) of the medical tests to her. Subsequently, she got infected with STD (sexually transmitted diseases) and started having other health problems. Her husband often used to engage in forceful and violent sex with her. She said, ‘with sexual illness, it was very difficult to bear the torture’, but she could not deny her husband the relationship. Despite her unwillingness for unsafe sex, her husband raped her several times. She could not reveal her personal problems to any relative, and bore the pain, and was infected with HIV. The cultural acceptance of marital rape made her life more miserable.
- Lastly, the provisioning of consent to marital rape by the Criminal Law makes it further difficult to understand the crime and its implications, such as trauma, psychological disorder, ill-health and HIV.
Paranjay Sahanii is pursuing a BA(Honours) degree at the University of Toronto. He is majoring in International Relations and Public Policy, with a minor in economics. He wants to apply the academic knowledge that he learns through his time at university and conceptualise new ideas. He wants to use this opportunity to spread more awareness about the issues in Southeast Asia and develop his research skills.
Bibliography
Acharya, Amitav. “‘Idea-Shift’: How Ideas from the Rest Are Reshaping Global Order.” The UN and the Global South, 1945 and 2015, 2018, 10–24. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315309293-2.
Adichie, Chimamanda. “The danger of a single story.” Filmed July 2009 at TEDGlobal, 18:49. https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en.
Bannerji, Himani. “Making India Hindu and Male.” Ethnicities 6, no. 3 (2006): 362–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796806068325.
Barnett, Michael N., and Martha Finnemore. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 699-732. Accessed February 1, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/2601307.
Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 39-75. Accessed February 6, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/3877878.
Basu, Amrita. Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India. The Case of Hindu Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Butalia, Urvashi. The Other Side of Silence Voices from the Partition of India. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2014.
Calman, Leslie. PROTEST IN DEMOCRATIC INDIA: Authority’s Response to Challenge. London.:Westview Press,1985.
Chattarji, Subarno. “Student Protests, Media and the University in India.” Postcolonial Studies 22, no. 1 (February 2019): 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2019.1568170.
Chaudhuri, Rosinka. “Questions of Minority, Agency and Voice: Student Protests in India in 2016.” Postcolonial Studies 21, no. 3 (March 2018): 338–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2018.1497936.
Chaudhuri, Soma, and Sarah Fitzgerald. “Rape Protests in India and the Birth of a New Repertoire.” Social Movement Studies 14, no. 5 (2015): 622–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1037261.
Cole, Wade M. “Mind the Gap: State Capacity and the Implementation of Human Rights Treaties.” International Organization 69, no. 2 (2015): 405–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002081831400040x.
Desk, India Today Web. “Here’s What JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar Said in His Speech.” India Today, February 18, 2016. https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/kanhaiya-kumar-jnusu-president-speech-anti-national-308986-2016-02-16.
“Deepika Padukone’s Silent Presence at JNU Protests Will Change the Game.” The Wire, January 9, 2020. https://thewire.in/politics/deepika-padukones-jnu-protests.
Dey, Adrija. Nirbhaya, New Media and Digital Gender Activism. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018.
“Dr Shashi Tharoor MP – Britain Does Owe Reparations – YouTube.” Youtube. OxfordUnion, July 14, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4.
Ellis-Petersen, Hannah. “Delhi Rocked by Deadly Protests during Donald Trump’s India Visit.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 25, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/25/delhi-rocked-by-deadly-protests-during-donald-trumps-india-visit.
Gupta, Vijay Kumar. Women, Social Justice and Human Rights. New Delhi: MD Publications, 2009.
Haider, Huma. “Social Media and Reform Networks, Protest and Social Movements.” GSDRC, May 1, 2011. https://gsdrc.org/publications/social-media-and-reform-networks-protest-and-social-movements/.
“India: Anti-CAA Protests in Several Cities Dec.26; Further Scheduled on Dec. 27 /Update 23.” GardaWorld, December 26, 2019. https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/299851/india-anti-caa-protests-in-several-cities-dec26-further-scheduled-on-dec-27-update-23.
“Indian Penal Code, 1860: Bare Acts: Law Library.” AdvocateKhoj. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/index.php?Title=Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Kaplan, William. Why Dissent Matters: Because Some People See Things the Rest of Us Miss. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press, 2017.
Lodhia, Sharmila. “From ‘Living Corpse’ to Indias Daughter: Exploring the Social, Political and Legal Landscape of the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape.” Womens Studies International Forum 50 (2015): 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2015.03.007.
Moinuddin, Shekh. The Political Twittersphere in India. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019.
Murdie, Amanda, and Tavishi Bhasin. “Aiding and Abetting: Human Rights INGOs and Domestic Protest.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 55, no. 2 (2010): 163–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002710374715.
Ruparelia, Sanjay. “A new India, new China.” Talk at International Issues Discussion Forum, Toronto, February 26, 2020.
Sagan, Scott D. “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb.” International Security 21, no. 3 (1996): 54. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539273.
Sahu, Skylab. “Rape, Deterrence and Rehabilitation: a Need to Relook the Policy Discourse.” Journal of Social and Economic Development 19, no. 2 (September 2017): 283–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-017-0046-y.
Sherman, Taylor C. State Violence and Punishment in India. London: Routledge, 2010.
Singaravelu, Naresh. “Data: How Many People Died during Anti-CAA Protests?” The Hindu. The Hindu, January 6, 2020. https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-how-many-people-died-during-anti-caa-protests/article30494183.ece.
Singh, Anushka. Sedition in Liberal Democracies. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Singh, Dalip. “PROTEST MOVEMENTS IN INDIA.” The Indian Journal of Political Science 52, no. 4 (1991): 448-57. Accessed February 29, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/41855582.
Singh, Kuwar. “‘Disease’, ‘Dangerous,” ‘Curable’: What Key Public Figures in India Think of Homosexuality.” Quartz India. Quartz, October 10, 2018. https://qz.com/india/1380027/section-377-what-ramdev-adityanath-zakir-naik-think-of-gays/.
Singh, Pawan. “Between Legal Recognition and Moral Policing: Mapping the Queer Subject in India.” Journal of Homosexuality 63, no. 3 (July 2015): 416–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1124700.
Tarrow, Sidney G. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations General Assembly. United Nations, 10 December, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
Wahl, Rachel. Just Violence: Torture and Human Rights in the Eyes of the Police. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017.
[1] India Today Web Desk, “Here’s What JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar Said in His Speech,” India Today, February 18, 2016.
[2] Dalip Singh, “PROTEST MOVEMENTS IN INDIA,” The Indian Journal of Political Science 52, no. 4 (1991): 450-453. Before India’s independence, the citizens of India had been subjected to protestant organisations, which aimed at changing the religious structure of India. This shows how the current government is using colonial tropes to further its own agenda.
[3] Urvashi Butalia, The Other Side of Silence Voices from the Partition of India (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2014), 1-7.
[4] Singh, “PROTEST,” 453-455.
[5] The Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) was passed by the legislature, with the aim of fast tracking citizenship for all religions, except for those who are Muslims. Such an exclusionary policy led to the citizens protesting against the law, which caused clashes between the citizens and the police. “India: Anti-CAA Protests in Several Cities Dec.26; Further Scheduled on Dec. 27 /Update 23,” GardaWorld, December 26, 2019. See Appendix 1.
[6] Singh, “PROTEST,” 454-457.
[7] Hannah Ellis-Petersen, “Delhi Rocked by Deadly Protests during Donald Trump’s India Visit,” The Guardian (Guardian News and Media, February 25, 2020). The recent protests are fueling the narrowmindedness of the Indian people towards religion, which showcases that the principles of secularity in India have perished. The protests have led to the deaths of innocent citizens, stripping of individuals to prove their religious affiliations, burning of mosques, and Muslim shops
[8] Soma Chaudhuri and Sarah Fitzgerald, “Rape Protests in India and the Birth of a New Repertoire,” Social Movement Studies 14, no. 5 (2015): 623. As mentioned in the same part, for the first time in India, rape protests led to a wider discussion about women’s rights and protets were no longer limited to women’s organisation. See Appendix 2.
[9] Wade M. Cole, “Mind the Gap: State Capacity and the Implementation of Human Rights Treaties,” International Organization 69, no. 2 (2015): 405-407. The government does not take exhaustive actions to reduce human rights abuses as they are expensive. Hence, the actions of the government are based on a cost-benefit analysis and not on morality.
[10] “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations General Assembly (United Nations, 10 December, 1948). The response of the executive has mainly violated the following rights
Article 1 of the declaration gives everyone the right to be treated with dignity; however, the violent action of the police and mobs have clearly violated this article. Article 9 talks about the prevention of arbitrary arrest of individuals. Nonetheless, by getting students leaders such as Kanhiya Kumar arrested for voicing their alternative opinion, the executive has gone against the ideas of this article. Under Article 20, Indians have the right to assemble peacefully; however, with the imposition of Section 144 in Delhi, the government is preventing the citizens from voicing their opinions.
[11] Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, “Power in International Politics,” International Organization 59, no. 01 (2005), 49-51. By using police violence and bureaucratic pressure, the government applied direct pressure upon the protestors, so as to prevent the protest from growing at a national level.
[12] Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore, “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations,” International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 721-722.
[13] Amrita Basu, Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India. The Case of Hindu Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015): 99. The BJP has been trying to use this portrayal of India as mother, who needs to be protected against the Muslims, to further their own aim of a Hindu Nation.
[14] Rosinka Chaudhuri, “Questions of Minority, Agency and Voice: Student Protests in India in 2016,” Postcolonial Studies 21, no. 3 (March 2018): 1-2. The article also talks about how the government was treating the minority citizens as stateless migrants. This is in tune with the majoritarian sentiment of turning India into a nation that excludes alternative opinions and outlooks.
[15] Section 124A, “Indian Penal Code, 1860: Bare Acts: Law Library,” AdvocateKhoj, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/index.php?Title=Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[16] Taylor C. Sherman, State Violence and Punishment in India (London: Routledge, 2010), 14-17.
[17] William Kaplan, Why Dissent Matters: Because Some People See Things the Rest of Us Miss (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017), 1-7.
[18] Dr. Sanjay Ruparelia, “A new India, new China,”(Talk, International Issues Discussion Forum, Toronto, February 26, 2020). The talk further focused on how Narendra Modi was taking inspiration from the actions of the Chinese Government and the attacks of the Indian executive on the civil society are a byproduct of that.
[19] Subarno Chattarji, “Student Protests, Media and the University in India,” Postcolonial Studies 22, no. 1 (February 2019): 83. Appendix 3.
[20]The Preamble, “The Constitution of India,” National Portal of India, accessed 10 February, 2019.
[21] Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security 21, no. 3 (1996): 64-68. Even though the domestic powers were involved in making the nuclear policy, many Indian citizens were not given any choice in the matter. This brings up the lack of use of referendums in India, which has given the government’s autonomous power in framing India’s domestic and national policy.
[22] Section 141, “Indian Penal Code, 1860: Bare Acts: Law Library,” AdvocateKhoj, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/index.php?Title=Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[23] Shekh Moinuddin, The Political Twittersphere in India (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019), 83-84.Social media, specially twitter, has become the source of political opinions and party support in India, which has led to certain politicians using it for the sole purpose of destroying the opposition. See Appendix 4.
[24] Himani Bannerji, “Making India Hindu and Male,” Ethnicities 6, no. 3 (2006): 362. The BJP has invented several traditions to further its own political agenda, which has led to the creation of a Hindutva based Indian culture. These traditions are filled with racism and caste modalities. (Bannerji, “Making,” 375.)
[25] Sidney G. Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 7.
[26] “Dr Shashi Tharoor MP – Britain Does Owe Reparations – YouTube,” Youtube (OxfordUnion, 1:40, July 14, 2015).
[27] Amitav Acharya, “‘Idea-Shift’: How Ideas from the Rest Are Reshaping Global Order,” The UN and the Global South, 1945 and 2015, 2018, 1156-1158.
[28] Chimamanda Adichie, “The danger of a single story,” filmed July 2009 at TEDGlobal, 18:49,
[29] Anushka Singh, Sedition in Liberal Democracies (New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 2018), 311.
[30] Singh, Sedition, 318-319.
[31] Singh, Sedition,141-144.
[32] Leslie J. Calman, Protest in Democratic India: Authority’s Response to Challenge (London: Westview Press, 1985.
[33] Lathi refers to a heavy stick often of bamboo bound with iron used in India as a weapon, especially by the police.
[34] Rachel Wahl, Just Violence: Torture and Human Rights in the Eyes of the Police (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017), 61-62.
[35] Adrija Dey, Nirbhaya, New Media and Digital Gender Activism (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018), 99.
[36]Sharmila Lodhia, “From ‘Living Corpse’ to Indias Daughter: Exploring the Social, Political and Legal Landscape of the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape,” Womens Studies International Forum 50 (2015): 93-95
[37] Skylab Sahu, “Rape, Deterrence and Rehabilitation: a Need to Relook the Policy Discourse,” Journal of Social and Economic Development 19, no. 2 (September 2017): 283-284. The article also talks about how the women are scared of registering rape cases due to the stigma and humiliation attached to it. This has forced prople to not raise their voices against inhuman acts such as marital rape, which has become an everyday occurance in the lives of many married women. For example, in 45% of the cases of marital dispute in Bengal, the women faced forceful sex in their married life.(Sahu, “Rape,” 296.) It is appalling that in the same country that we worship Indian women as carriers of wealth and happiness, we also degrade them to the point that they have no voice in their own married life.(Appendix 5)
[38] Adrija Dey, Nirbhaya, New Media and Digital Gender Activism (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018), 192.
[39] Chattarji, “Student,” 83-89.
[40] This relates to the recent Beef Ban in India, which led to the rise in mob lynchings by groups such as the ‘Cow Protectors.’ Such groups are being backed by the regressive Hindutva ideology that permeates the current Indian society.
[41] Kuwar Singh, “‘Disease’, ‘Dangerous,” ‘Curable’: What Key Public Figures in India Think of Homosexuality,” Quartz India (Quartz, October 10, 2018).Several thnikers have tried to paint homosexuality as a disease imported form the west, which has made it difficult for the queer population to be accepted in the new India culture.
[42]Pawan Singh, “Between Legal Recognition and Moral Policing: Mapping the Queer Subject in India,” Journal of Homosexuality 63, no. 3 (July 2015): 417-420.Social media informed citizens about the rights of the LQBTQ population in India and how, until recently, they were treated as lawbreakers for following their preferences. This increased understanding and protests forced the Supreme Court to decriminalize Section 377.
[43] Under this bill, the district magistrate will be responsible for issuing gender certificates. This can give rise to a feeling of exclusion and humiliation for transgenders in India.
[44] Dr. Sanjay Ruparelia, “A new India, new China,”(Talk, International Issues Discussion Forum, Toronto, February 26, 2020).
[45] Naresh Singaravelu, “Data: How Many People Died during Anti-CAA Protests?,” The Hindu (The Hindu, January 6, 2020).
[46] Hindutva refers to right-wing Hindu Nationalism.
[47] The body should only include retired judges as they are not influenced by salary gains from the executive, hierarchical structure of the judiciary, and the fear of transfers.
[48] Huma Haider, “Social Media and Reform Networks, Protest and Social Movements,” GSDRC (May 1, 2011), 6-8.
[49] Amanda Murdie and Tavishi Bhasin, “Aiding and Abetting: Human Rights INGOs and Domestic Protest,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 55, no. 2 (2010): 183-185. Furthermore, the HROs and NGOs should get celebrities to promote and publicize their protests or causes. For example, the involvement of Deepika Padukone, an Indian film actress, in the January CAA protests increased the support for the students and made the masses more aware about the cases of mob brutality by the ABVP. (“Deepika Padukone’s Silent Presence at JNU Protests Will Change the Game,” The Wire, January 9, 2020.)
[50] “Azaadi” is a Hindi-Urdu word that refers to freedom.
Leave a Reply