Amartya Sen on Siddhartha Varadarajan

Amartya Sen writes in the Wire-

Steps to undermine democracy in India are becoming increasingly common. The police action by the Uttar Pradesh government – ruled by the same political party that runs the Central government – against The Wire and its founding editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, shows how far-reaching the destructive stabs at democracy have become in India.

What was the police action? They delivered a summons to a Judicial hearing on the basis of a complaint made against Varadarajan for falsely claiming, in contravention of Indian Law,  that the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh had said that devotees of Lord Ram need not fear the coronavirus.

Neither Varadarajan, nor Sen, nor anyone else has said that the police were acting illegally. Yet, Sen claims this was a 'destructive stab at democracy'. How so? A journalist publishes fake news, in contravention of the law. On the basis of a duly verified complaint from a member of the public, the police serve him with a summons. This is perfectly proper.  Editors have no immunity from the law.

The Wire’s views on what is happening differ from those of the government,

The Wire retracted the false claim they made re. what the Chief Minister said. So, their view does not now differ from that of everybody else. Varadarajan will need to show the relevant authority that his paper published a retraction and give an explanation of his conduct to show no malice was intended.

but it is terrible to see, related to that difference, the attempt of the UP police to press the charge of criminality against The Wire, with the possibility of arrest of its editor.

Why is it terrible to see the police doing their duty in accordance with the law? Those laws were established by a democratic process. There is no wrong doing here.

As a proud Indian citizen, I have to hang my head in shame at the gross misbehaviour of our elected leaders – both for their attempt to curb media independence and for their efforts to violate freedom of speech in the country.

Sen is lying. He is not hanging his head in shame. In any case, there is nothing to feel ashamed about. The law places curbs on the media's freedom of expression. In this case, the police acted on the basis of complaints made by members of the public. The fact is, publications like the Wire are helpful to the ruling party because they injure the religious sensibilities of the majority of the population. This causes a backlash in favor of the BJP. Still, the police have to uphold the law regardless of questions of political expediency.

While recording my condemnation of this particular case – and demanding that the charges of criminality be immediately withdrawn –

as we demand Sen get a brain transplant

I cannot but reflect on the general subject of the decline of democratic freedom in my country.

because Sen doesn't like the ruling party and blames it for booting him out of a sinecure as Chancellor of Nalanda University.

The thoroughly unjust criminal proceedings against Varadarajan and The Wire are terrible developments for India.

Nonsense! They don't matter in the least.

They are so not just because they bring out – for the whole world to see – how incredibly intolerant the largest democracy in the world has become under its present leadership.

But people who take this view have no influence anywhere.

India’s fall from democratic norms has been, in recent years, a subject of widespread discussion – and frequent denunciation – in the world, bringing sadness to India’s friends and much joy to its enemies.

None of whom matter in the least.

Serious as this global fall is – from which India’s recovery would take time (after the present political leaders get replaced, as will no doubt happen sooner or later – that is hardly the worst aspect of this terrible police action and of similar acts of authoritarianism in many parts of India.

Sen thinks he and his ilk matter. But they don't because they proved to be as stupid as shit.

The main loss for India from such striking misuse of political power is surely its far-reaching domestic consequence.

But where is the misuse of political power? The police responded to a complaint. They are required to take firm action against people spreading fake news about the virus. Though Varadarajan's aim was to malign the C.M, the fact is by attributing to a Yogi with a huge popular following the view that Devotion to Lord Ram made one immune to the virus, the danger was created that some people in Uttar Pradesh might ignore the lockdown.

Democracy in India has accomplished many positive results.

Because it has punished those who spread fake news.

The persistent occurrence of devastating famines in India, which characterised British India, stopped immediately with the establishment of democratic governance and media freedom.

This is completely false. Look up the Wikipedia article on Indian Famines. The British stopped their occurrence after about 1900. Then, in 1937, they devolved power to the Provinces. The result was a big famine in Bengal in 1942-43 caused by corrupt and incompetent Bengali politicians. Lord Wavell put an end to it. After Bangladesh became democratic, it too experienced a big famine in 1974. Thus, Bengal had two big famines despite having 'democratic governance' and 'media freedom'.

There are many other achievements, for example the major advances by India in intellectual creativity, making use of a combination of democratic tolerance and extensive media freedom.

But 'fake news' is curbed by law. Otherwise, people of different communities would be killing each other in the streets. The very first amendment to the Indian Constitution had to do with criminalizing 'abuse of freedom of speech' by the media. This was in 1951. Romesh Thapar, a leftist and the brother of historian Romila Thapar, had published some criticisms of Nehru's economic policies. The Supreme Court held that he had the right to do so. So the Constitution was amended.

While there are other democratic objectives such as the removal of poverty and of gross inequality which need to be pursued further, they could be achieved with better policies within – and helped by – a democratic political system.

Or one of the Chinese type.

Even if China is seen as having done well notwithstanding its restrictions on press freedom, that is a partial story (China also produced the largest famine in history during the Great Leap Forward), and the achievements are thoroughly dependent on the commitment of China’s leadership to schooling and basic healthcare for all, in line with the core political faith of the leadership, which has no parallel in India. To go against media independence in conditions like India’s cannot be an intelligent development policy.

Yet it was the policy that Nehru and his daughter, with greater ruthlessness, pursued. Sen quietly emigrated to the UK before Indira committed her worst excesses.

By contrast, the BJP wants 'media independence' and gains from publications like 'the Wire' which serve to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Left.

Winning a general election gives the ruling party powers that can be interpreted in different ways, and sometimes more can be read into it than is constitutionally justified.

But only the Bench decides how the Constitution can be read. Unlike the Nehru dynasty, the BJP- being meritocratic- wants an independent Press so as to get rid of its own deadwood and to promote those who are perceived as doing a good job.

The issue is not so much whether the spectacular outcome in the 2019 general elections was strongly influenced by a war – which tends to favour ruling parties (as the Falklands War turned Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from trailing in the polls in 1982 to a resounding victor in 1983), nor whether it was pivotally influenced by the immensely larger electoral resources that the ruling party had.

Sen is being silly. Churchill won a war but lost the elections. George Bush won a war but lost to Clinton. Thatcher won in '83 because Labour had split in 1981. The SDP/Liberal alliance won 25 % of the popular vote against Labour's 28 percent. Had Labour been united, it could have beaten the Tories.

Mention of 'electoral resources' too is silly. The fact is Dynastic Parties sometimes prefer to pocket the funds they raise rather than spend them on buying votes. That's what has been happening in the last couple of Indian elections.

It concerns, rather, the misinterpretation of the powers that legitimately follow from a victory in a legislative election.

Sen has an unusual view as to what 'powers legitimately follow' from electoral victory. He thinks the new Government, no matter what the manifesto it was elected on, should only do stuff he approves of. Otherwise it is being naughty. No one shares this view of his.

A victory here does not give the rulers the moral – or even legal – authority to identify someone as being “anti-national” merely because he or she is opposed to the government (which is not the nation).

Everyone has the moral and legal right to identify a person acting against the national interest as 'anti-national'. Under Indian law, this is not an abuse of freedom of expression. Winning an election does not result in the loss of this right.
It is not an offense, under Indian law, to be anti-national. However, certain actions against the national interest are punishable by law.

Nor does it allow the government to characterise a political disagreement with it as “sedition” (as has been repeatedly done by the Indian government).

Sen is saying 'Victory in an election does not allow the government to do something which, as a matter of fact, has been repeatedly done.' This is like saying 'Cats can't say miaow as they have repeatedly done.' There is no way this sentence can be true. It contradicts itself.

Nor, in the present case of the UP government’s police action, can any criminality charge be drawn based on a journalist’s different reading of facts from what the government wants people to believe.

This is utterly false. The complaint against Varadarajan is that he sought to create enmity against a specific religion by falsely claiming that Yogi Adityanath, a holy man from that religion, said 'Lord Ram would protect devotees from the coronavirus'. This would cause people to fear that devotees of Lord Ram would behave irresponsibly and thus spread this terrible disease. One day later, the Wire retracted this statement. Maybe, this will be enough to satisfy the magistrate. Still, many people in India may take a dim view of the professionalism or impartiality of the man who uttered this falsehood.

I end with two final points. First, no government lasts forever, even though the ruling groups might have the illusion that they would.

But this is equally true of the false beliefs that characterize people like Sen. They too will fade away.

The terrible departures from acceptable norms that the government may be able to push through right now may not be viewed in quite the same way in the future.

But what Sen is protesting here is not a 'terrible departure' at all. Journalists who spread fake news during a lockdown should be held responsible in accordance with the law of the land.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s famous poem ‘Hum Dekhenge’, written in protest against President Zia ul Haq’s rule, pointed to a time in the future, when today’s deeds would be judged differently.

But what was that future for Pakistan? The fact is, Benazir helped the Taliban come to power. The country has gone much further down Zia's, not Faiz's, road. Where is the Left in Pakistan today? For that matter, where is it in India or the UK or the US? 'Hum dekhenge' means 'we will see'. What have we seen? Faiz's and Sen's brand of Socialism has no takers anywhere- even Venezuela or Bolivia. But radical Islam has gone from strength to strength. Look at Turkey. Where are its Left-Secularists now?

Zia was all-powerful then, but how is he viewed today?

Zia is the father of modern Pakistan. The Army has a pliant tool in the shape of Im the Dim- with his Islamic clairvoyant wifey. Zia's Afghan strategy looks as though it will finally pay off. Trump has done a deal with the Taliban. Of course, the country has now fallen behind Bangladesh. But that would have happened even if, Faiz's pal, Bhutto hadn't been hanged and his dynasty had presided over that country's decline.

And how are the politically invincible authoritarian rulers of Latin America of the past typically seen today?

Chavez's successor, Maduro, is still around. Castro's brother still runs Cuba. What point is Sen making? Only the truly brutal authoritarian regimes survive there? Corruption is not enough?

Are powerful rulers in India thoroughly indifferent to judgments that history will make?

Yes. Historians are quite cheap to buy. 

The second point concerns our national history. India fought for democratic rights for a long time during its struggle for independence – many people gave their lives, and others went through huge hardship, to establish an independent democracy in our country – with a wonderful combination of citizens with many different religions, persuasions and convictions.

But Ceylon got universal suffrage in 1930. India did not precisely because Muslims were a large enough minority to prevent Democracy, save at the price of Partition.

That struggle was not for the arbitrary governance by an imperious regime that fits the UP police action against media freedom, combined with the attempted arrest of great journalists.

There was no 'attempted arrest' of a fat- not great- journalist. The man, or rather his wife, was served with a summons.

We did understand in our colonial past the inferior status of being a citizen of the British Raj. But can we really accept having a similar subjugation in our own democracy?

Siddhartha Varadarajan is an American citizen. Sen is not- but he left India long ago to further his career. He made no protest, from his vantage point of safety in the UK, against Indira's Gandhi's Emergency. Can we really accept him as a moral authority on Indian democracy?