Pre-Independence India saw Gandhi refusing to apologise to a colonial court and be ready to cheerfully accept the punishment, today we have Prashant Bhushan invoking the Mahatmas principles
Prashant Bhushan. Pic/AFP
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan has threaded together a century of years, between 1920 and 2020, to point to the threats periodically posed to our freedoms. He has shown that the best way for people to counter these threats is to disobey unjust laws and willingly suffer the consequences of their disobedience. These ideas, indeed, constitute the nub of Bhushan's refusal to apologise for the contempt that he was convicted for by the Supreme Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bhushan justified his refusal by invoking the principles Mahatma Gandhi had cited in his submission in a contempt case of 1920. Thus was 1920 linked to 2020. Thus we have been also warned that India is drifting into the darkness from which it had emerged at the stroke of the midnight hour on August 14-15, 1947.
Among the darkest hours before the advent of Independence was the enactment of the draconian Rowlatt Act in March 1919. Yet, five lawyers in Ahmedabad declared that they would "refuse civilly to obey the Rowlatt Act". A miffed district judge, BC Kennedy, asked the five to explain why their sanads should not be cancelled. Their replies failed to convince Kennedy, who referred the matter, in April, to the Registrar of the Bombay High Court.
The five lawyers were served notices on July 12. One of their legal representatives was given a copy of Kennedy's referral, which was handed over to Gandhi. The referral letter was published in the August 6 issue of the weekly newspaper, Young India, of which the editor was Gandhi and the publisher his secretary, Mahadev Desai. In an accompanying piece, Gandhi said Kennedy's letter was proof that he was among the "traducers of civil resistance and civil resisters."
On October 15, the High Court let off the lawyers with a warning. By then, though, it had asked Gandhi to explain why he had published Kennedy's letter even as the proceedings against the lawyers were underway. Gandhi replied that he was well within the "rights of a journalist" to publish and comment on the letter. The Bombay High Court asked Gandhi to publish an apology in Young India.
Gandhi explained to the High Court, through a letter in December, that he was unable to apologise because he could not guarantee that he would act differently from how he had on Kennedy's letter in the future. On February 27, 1920, in yet another written statement to the High Court, Gandhi said, "I am sure that this honourable Court would not want me to tender an apology unless it be sincere and express regret for an action which I have held to be the privilege and duty of a journalist." He said he would, therefore "cheerfully and respectfully accept the punishment" given to him.
Bhushan self-avowedly emulated Gandhi. We have to now see whether the Supreme Court bench, due to pronounce the quantum of punishment to Bhushan, will follow the example of the three judges of the Bombay High Court, a colonial institution. They unanimously chose to "severely" reprimand Gandhi, but did not even impose a fine on him. In fact, in a separate but concurring judgement, the two judges said a reprimand was sufficient because the "respondents [Gandhi and Desai] seem to have posed not as law breakers but rather as passive resisters of the law."
It will seem an irony for Independent India's Supreme Court to either jail or suspend Bhushan's licence to practise law, even though a colonial court let off Gandhi lightly. But then, a democratic, post-colonial India abounds with ironies.
Take the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, under which 12 human rights activists have been booked for their alleged role in the Bhima Koregaon violence of 2018. Among them is academician Anand Teltumbde, who is married to the granddaughter of Dr BR Ambedkar, whom all parties vie to appropriate. Yet they, including Mayawati, the incomparable trumpeter of the Dalit cause, have not chosen to steadfastly interrogate the state for incarcerating him.
They have also not questioned the state's indulgence of Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote, the two Hindutva leaders also accused of fomenting the Bhima Koregaon violence. Bhide is yet to be arrested. Ekbote spent a month in jail before he was bailed out. By contrast, nine of the 12 activists have already languished in prison for two years.
The post-Independence state promised to treat all equally. The police have not grilled Bharatiya Janata Party leaders such as Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Verma and Anurag Thakur for speaking the language of violence before Delhi erupted in February. Contrast this to the five hours of interrogation of Delhi University professor Apoorvanand, whose writings sparkle with Gandhian ideas. It must take a febrile imagination to suspect he had a role in the Delhi riots, but not those recorded to have made hate speeches.
Think of those young men and women who were packed off to jail for opposing the discriminatory citizenship policy, with rarely a political party, and not even Muslim outfits and elite, interceding on their behalf. Regardless of the fate awaiting Bhushan, he has made us realise the irony of living 1920 in 2020.
The writer is a senior journalist
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper
Keep scrolling to read more news
Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and a complete guide from food to things to do and events across Mumbai. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates.
Mid-Day is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@middayinfomedialtd) and stay updated with the latest news
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
