_“The human race is in such a dreadful state that no rational person __can talk about it without resorting to seditious and obscene language” – HL Mencken_ Observing the media debate on

Aseem Trivedi has filled me with a sense of despondency. Most of the debates seemed to lack a sense of direction with many experts unsure as to the issues involved. A classic example of this

was the debate on _Times Now_ where Arnab Goswami had brought in the recently released Trivedi and made him confront two very senior cartoonists. It degenerated into a debate over rights

and responsibilities of the cartoonists where the senior cartoonists took it upon themselves to patronisingly offer unsolicited advice to Trivedi and prophesy that if he continued in this

what constitutes sedition and how it differs from treason. More importantly we could have debated whether it is legitimate for any free country to have an ill-defined crime such as

“sedition” on its statute! The definition of sedition in the Indian Penal Code, devised in 1860 in Section 124 A is: _ Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible 

representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, 2 [the Government established by law in 3[India], a

4[shall be punished with 5[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine._ In other

words, if in the judgment of the authorities my columns here serve to engender contempt towards the ministers indulging in corruption OR if my words here serve to “excite disaffection”

towards corrupt police officials and bureaucrats, I can be hauled up for sedition! Enough has been written about how the British, who coined the Indian Penal Code, abused it with impunity

and slapped it on nationalists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. More distressing is the manner in which free India’s elected governments have never shrunk from using this 

provision time and again. Apart from Aseem Trivedi, a charge of sedition was also slapped on noted physician Binayak Sen. And there has been no effort at all to repeal this archaic and 

antiquated provision as every potential government sees some potential of utilising it to serve their own unsavoury ends. I shall not even delve into elaborating “treason” but suffice it to 

say that “treason” is a crime (along with “piracy”) which attracts death penalty even in United Kingdom – a country that has supposedly abolished death penalty. I personally feel that the

time is apposite for all of us to have a debate on whether the statute needs to be retained in its present form. Let us recall what the great philosopher John Locke said centuries ago – “But

there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotion, and that is oppression”. I feel a need to confess to my own actions during the infamous Emergency era. I was actively

involved in promoting disaffection with the dictatorial and oppressive regime at the time, as were a vast number of my generation. It does not require an understanding of rocket science to

figure out that we were indulging in what could very reasonably described as a seditious act – against a government that had suspended the Constitution and done away with all my rights

including my right to live. Whether Trivedi exercised wisdom is a separate matter altogether. Personally I have not seen the cartoons but from the way Arnab described them, they would appear

to be in poor taste. I _have_ seen pretty vicious cartoons in the UK and US and I am almost confident that Trivedi’s vituperation did not match the ones that I am alluding to. I also noted

some very strong comments by Justice Markandey Katju who promised us that he would make sure the politicians and police responsible for this action were locked up. He would have my support

if he does. Time has come for all of us to join hands and demand a repeal of the statute as it exists now. And to conclude, I guess there is no better way than to respond to one of the

queries posed by one of the senior cartoonists to Trivedi i.e. would he deign to cartoon religious symbols the way he had cartooned the national emblems? Trivedi waffled volubly. The

landmark judgment of the US Supreme Court on flag burning addressed these very issues. Justice Brennan, one of the most distinguished jurists of the century wrote the majority verdict which 

reads – “Under the circumstances, Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment…Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration

coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. While the government generally

has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word”, it may not “proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements.” Even

more succinct was Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring judgment – “For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome

can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the

Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for

fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases. Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in

expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs

commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.” I was surprised that in none of the debates this particular landmark ruling was alluded to.

We may find Trivedi’s conduct distasteful – personally I found him naive, immature and poorly informed. But I find the state’s conduct in the whole matter even more loathsome.