The article, Why does this gigantic state fear our hopes, our dreams? by YSR Murthy discusses the case of Professor G N Saibaba, a political dissident and prisoner of conscience in India. Here are the main points: Prof. Saibaba, disabled since childhood, became an activist and academic despite physical challenges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged Maoist links. In October 2022, the Bombay High Court initially acquitted him, finding no valid sanction under UAPA. However, in March 2024, the High Court re-convicted him on merits. During his decade-long imprisonment, Saibaba faced harsh conditions and health deterioration. Despite this, his writings showed optimism and a refusal to give up on his ideals. The author argues that how the state deals with political dissidents and prisoners of conscience is a test of civilisational strength. As a country we are as weak and groundless as the laws that we have; and as strong and grounded as the laws that we have.
The case of Professor G N Saibaba, as presented in this article, illustrates some concerns about how the UAPA could potentially be misapplied. Broad interpretation: The UAPA allows for wide-ranging charges related to terrorist activities. In Saibaba's case, the article suggests that his conviction was "merely based on the alleged downloading of materials containing Communist or Naxal philosophy." This raises questions about whether possessing or studying certain ideological materials could be conflated with actual terrorist activities. Lengthy detentions: Saibaba's case involved a "decade-long incarceration under harsh, subhuman conditions." The UAPA allows for extended periods of detention without bail, which can result in individuals spending years in prison before their cases are fully adjudicated. Impact on dissent: As an academic and activist, Saibaba's case may have a chilling effect on intellectual discourse and political activism. The article describes him as a "political dissident," suggesting that the law could be used to silence critics of the government. Potential for bias: The law's broad scope could potentially lead to disproportionate targeting of certain groups, ideologies, or individuals perceived as threats to the state.
Why does this gigantic state fear our hopes, our dreams? by YSR Murthy. In: The Deccan Herald, 16 October 2024. |
It's crucial to note that anti-terrorism laws like UAPA serve important national security purposes. However, this case study suggests the need for robust checks and balances to ensure such laws are not misused or applied in ways that infringe on civil liberties, academic freedom, or legitimate political dissent.
Article Abstract
Comments
Post a Comment