Heightening security measures and going after spies who helped the enemy is a necessary operation, but there is little need to go overboard as seems to be the case of a state government acting those who may have made comments on social media on ‘Operation Sindoor’, even if some of it could be perceived as offensive to the national cause in a war-like situation
These are sensitive times. With an enemy at the door prepared to set terrorists against tourists in the Kashmir Valley and then launch drones and missiles taking aim at civilians as well as non-military targets, including shrines, in the name of retaliation, it is a tense time that demands extreme alertness to thwart Pakistan’s evil designs.
Heightening security measures and going after spies who helped the enemy is a necessary operation, but there is little need to go overboard as seems to be the case of a state government acting those who may have made comments on social media on ‘Operation Sindoor’, even if some of it could be perceived as offensive to the national cause in a war-like situation.
Taking just one example of an action like the arrest of a university associate professor that seems excessive even in the present circumstances, it is pertinent to note that the hallmark of a democracy is tolerance for dissent. A part of his comment, particularly the one aimed at the women officers who briefed the nation on the May 7-10 events, may have been crass and socially offensive.
It was on the complaint, first by the Haryana State commission for women, before which he did not appear when summoned, and then a complaint by a sarpanch, that the academic was taken from his Delhi home to Haryana. While what he said about the women officers‘ briefing as “optics” was nasty and “hypocrisy” a tasteless charge, his post was by no means a threat to national sovereignty or security.
In any case, it must be up to a state of the Union or the Centre to file charges in such cases rather than an individual like a sarpanch or even a women’s commission. A person could be responding to whataboutery on social media or plain dissent on the part of another, but that gives him no locus standi to register an FIR and for authorities to act on such complaints.
There is a clear case for the state to be the authority to decide on acting against what may constitute acts or expression of ideas against sovereignty or national security. A reworking of the laws may be needed for the Centre or state governments to be the deciding authorities which can order action against a perceived offender, whereas it would be anyone's right to approach it with complaints, but a nonentity who is hardly affected by the act or word cannot be the complainant on whose word arrests are made.
The Centre and the states should be sensitised in the matter of being resilient rather than taking offence at the slightest note of dissent or criticism, as has often been the case with rebellious comments against political leaders being taken to be so offensive as to attract the most stringent forms of punishment. However complex the political climate may be, it ill behoves of governments to clamp down on dissent with an iron hand.
At a time when India is making a global case for world powers to hear what Pakistan has done by using terror proxies as an instrument of state policy, such clamping down on the slightest expression of disagreement or even discord does not carry a good message. As a nation India is far bigger than having to take offence at social media posts that may run contrary to the general view, or even misuse the freedom of expression, at a time such as this when external threats abound.
