The Great Repression

by Chitranshul Sinha

  38.The trial of Tilak is reported as (1898) ILR 22 Bombay 112. The report contains the translated text of the speeches and writings for which the prosecution for sedition against Bal Gangadhar Tilak was launched.

  39.T.V. Parvate, Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Navajivan Publishing House, 1958).

  40.N.C. Kelkar, Full and Authentic Report of the Tilak Trial (Indu Prakash Press, 1908), republished by the Publications Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India in 2017.

  41.T.V. Parvate, Mahadev Govind Ranade: A Biography (Asia Publishing House, 1963).

  42.Parvate, Supra at footnote 142

  43.From the text of the Judgment of the Privy Council in Gangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress, 19 November 1897.

  44.Ibid.

  45.Parvate, Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

  46.The district court handling criminal trials is known as the Sessions Court.

  47.Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India.

  48.A newspaper report in Sydney Morning Herald dated 25 November 1897 refers to the publication as Maharani and the names of the accused as Kishaltar and Harmolkar. The report was retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/14167690 (accessed 29 September 2018).

  49.Translated from the vernacular.

  50.Queen Empress v. Ramchandra Narayan and another, ILR 22 Bombay 152.

  51.Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India.

  52.Reported as ILR 20 Allahabad 55 (F.B.).

  53.Benches comprising of three judges is referred to as a full bench of a High Court.

  54.Present-day western Uttar Pradesh.

  55.The report of the judgment does not contain the contents of the offending article.

  56.Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India.

  57.Ibid.

  58.Ibid.

  59.Ibid.

  60.Ibid.

  Chapter 5: Revolutionary Sedition

  1.Lytton Strachey, Queen Victoria (Collins, 1958).

  2.Arthur Conan Doyle, The Great Boer War (George Bell & Sons, 1901).

  3.Abraham Ascher, Russia: A Short History (Oneworld Publications, 2002).

  4.Hirendranath Mukherjee, India’s Struggle for Freedom (National Book Agency, 1962).

  5.Published in Calcutta.

  6.Vinod Kumar Saxena, The Partition of Bengal (Kanishka Publishing House, 1987).

  7.Ibid.

  8.‘Hail, Motherland’, a poem written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in the 1870s and included in his novel Anandmath.

  9.Saxena, The Partition of Bengal.

  10.Bal Gangadhar Tilak: His Writings and Speeches (Ganesh & Co.)

  11.Sukla Sanyal, ‘Legitimizing Violence: Seditious Propaganda and Revolutionary Pamphlets in Bengal, 1908–1918’, Journal of Asian Studies 67.3 (2008). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20203424 on 13 October 2018.

  12.Reported as (1908) 35 Cal 945.

  13.Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India.

  14.Ibid.

  15.Sanyal, ‘Legitimizing Violence: Seditious Propaganda and Revolutionary Pamphlets in Bengal, 1908–1918’.

  16.In Tamil Nadu.

  17.Chidambaram Pillai v. Emperor, reported as ILR 32 Madras 9.

  18.Ibid.

  19.Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress (1885–1935).

  20.A Collection of the Acts passed by the Governor General of India in Council 1907 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1908).

  21.F.C. Daly, First Rebels: Strictly Confidential Note on the Growth of the Revolutionary Movement in Bengal (Riddhi India, 1911).

  22.Ibid.

  23.Sedition Committee Report 1918, prepared by a committee headed by Justice Sidney Rowlatt.

  24.Ibid.

  25.This chapter relies heavily on the account of the second trial of Tilak contained in Full & Authentic Report of the Tilak Trial by N.C. Kelkar (1908), and the judgment of the Bombay High Court as King Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak reported as (1908) 10 BLR 848.

  26.The articles were in the Marathi language. Titles and articles were translated into English for his prosecution.

  27.Leader of the Indian Muslim League and the first governor general of Pakistan.

  28.Kelkar, Full and Authentic Report of the Tilak Trial.

  29.Ibid.

  30.Justice Davar was referring to Tilak’s previous conviction for sedition and his subsequent release in 1898.

  31.Athalye, The Life of Lokamanya Tilak.

  32.Ibid.

  33.Reported as (1910) 12 BOMLR 105.

  34.From the abridged English version of Krantiveer Babarao Savarkar, a Marathi biography written by D.N. Gokhale (Shrividya Prakashan, 1979). Retrieved from savarkar.org/en/pdfs/babarao-savarkar-v003.pdf (accessed 4 November 2018).

  35.Reported as [1910] 12 BOMLR 105.

  36.Sedition Committee Report 1918.

  37.Gokhale, Krantiveer Babarao Savarkar.

  38.As reported by FirstPost on 19 December 2017, https://www.firstpost.com/politics/lok-sabha-passes-two-bills-to-repeal-245-laws-including-calcutta-pilots-act-prevention-of-seditious-meeting-act-4266527.html.

  39.Hirendranath Mukherjee, India’s Struggle for Freedom.

  40.Donogh, A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India.

  Chapter 6: Dark Acts and the Black Act

  1.Judge of the King’s Bench of the High Court of Justice in England.

  2.Chief justice of the Bombay High Court.

  3.Judge of the Madras High Court.

  4.Member of the Board of Revenue of the United Provinces.

  5.Lawyer practising in the Calcutta High Court.

  6.Resolution No. 2884 dated 10 December 1917 by the home department of the government of India, published along with the Sedition Committee Report in 1918.

  7.Covering letter dated 15 April 1918 published along with the Sedition Committee Report in 1918.

  8.Chapter 1, ‘Revolutionary Conspiracies in Bombay’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  9.Ibid.

  10.Ibid.

  11.Ibid.

  12.Chapter 4, ‘Revolutionary Crime in Bengal’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  13.Ibid.

  14.Prussian general and military historian.

  15.Chapter 7, ‘German Plots’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  16.Ibid.

  17.Chapter 11, ‘Revolutionary Movements in Punjab’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  18.Ibid.

  19.Ibid.

  20.Ibid.

  21.Present-day Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu.

  22.Chapter 12, ‘Revolutionary Crimes in Madras’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  23.Ibid.

  24.Chapter 14, ‘A Muhammadan Current’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  25.Ibid.

  26.Chapter 16, ‘The Difficulties That Have Arisen in Dealing with the Conspiracies’, Sedition Committee Report,

  1918.

  27.Ibid.

  28.Ibid.

  29.Chapter 17, ‘The Legislation Required’, Sedition Committee Report, 1918.

  30.Ibid.

  31.Ibid.

  32.Ibid.

  33.Ibid.

  34.Ibid.

  35.H.N. Mittra, Punjab Unrest: Before & After, second edition (Bela Press, 1921).

  36.A.G. Noorani, Indian Political Trials (Oxford University Press, 2005).

  37.Ibid.

  38.Judgment dated 9 November 1916 bearing title Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Emperor reported as (1917) 19 BOMLR 211.

  39.Judgment reported as (1917) Law Weekly Vol. V Parts 1&2 at Page 1.

  40.Ibid.

  41.Ibid.

  42.Kanji Dwarkadas, India’s Fight for Freedom, 1913–1937: An Eyewitness Story (New Delhi: Popular Prakashan, 1960).

  43.Ibid.

  44.Ibid.

  45.Statement of Lord Sinha, undersecretary of s
tate for India, to the House of Lords of the British Parliament on 6 August 1919, retrieved from https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1919-08-06/debates/dc781f78-1bdb-4f1d-bcb4-e7ea87273063/MartialLawInIndia (accessed 12 December 2018).

  46.Dwarkadas, India’s Fight for Freedom, 1913–1937: An Eyewitness Story.

  47.Ibid.

  48.Mittra, Punjab Unrest: Before & After.

  49.House of Commons Debate, 8 July 1920, Vol. 131 cc1705-819. Retrieved from https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1920/jul/08/army-council-and-general-dyer (accessed 12 December 2018).

  50.Bugga v. Emperor, decided by the Bombay High Court on 20 February 1920 and reported as (1920) 22 BOMLR 609.

  51.House of Lords debate on ‘Martial Law in India’ held on 6 August 1919 (Vol. 36 cc490-504). Retrieved from api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1919/aug/06/martial-law-in-india (accessed 23 December 2018). The debate focused on the treatment meted out to Harkishen Lal by the government of India for which questions were asked of the British government. Lord Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, the undersecretary of state for India, answered the questions on behalf of the government.

  52.Kali Nath Roy v. King Emperor, decided by the Bombay High Court on 9 December 1920 and reported as (1921) 23 BOMLR 709.

  53.At that time there was no written constitution and litigants relied on the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. An unwritten constitution is an uncodified constitution which includes acts of Parliament, judgments of courts and conventions which are customary.

  54.Bugga v. Emperor.

  55.Lord Sinha’s address to the House of Lords.

  56.Ibid.

  Chapter 7: Gandhi, Azad and Nehru: Politics of Sedition

  1.Mahatma Gandhi, Freedom’s Battle: A Comprehensive Collection of Writings and Speeches on the Present Situation (Ganesh & Co., 1922).

  2.Ibid.

  3.Reliance is placed on Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. III, Parts I–III, published in 1965 and edited by Prof. N.R. Pathak. These volumes deal specifically with Mahatma Gandhi and cover the period from 1915 up till 1922, the year of his incarceration. The material was collected from the Maharashtra state and government of India records and was published by Government Central Press in Mumbai. A hat-tip to A.G. Noorani whose notes led me to this treasure trove, which consists of many volumes containing authentic information on the Indian independence movement.

  4.Mahatma Gandhi’s address to a meeting of the Satyagraha Sabha in Bombay on 27 April 1919.

  5.R.C. Majumdar, History of the Freedom Movement in India.

  6.Ibid.

  7.Ibid.

  8.Ibid.

  9.Pathak, Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. III, Parts I–III.

  10.Published on 15 June 1921.

  11.Published on 29 September 1921.

  12.Published on 15 December 1921.

  13.Published on 23 February 1922.

  14.R.K. Prabhu, Two Memorable Trials of Mahatma Gandhi (Navajivan Publishing House, 1962).

  15.Ibid.

  16.Noorani, Indian Political Trials.

  17.Mahadev Desai, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (Shiva Lal Agarwala & Co., 1946).

  18.Frank Moraes, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography (Jaico Publishing House, 1959).

  19.Retrieved from online resources made available by the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library at http://nehruportal.nic.in/fifth-imprisonment-19-october-1930-26-january-1931 (accessed 19 January 2019).

  20.Ibid.

  21.Moraes, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography.

  22.Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru (Vol. 6), Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund (1972).

  23.Ibid.

  24.Nehru’s statement to the court contains this contention, Ibid.

  25.Nehru’s oral statement to the court, Ibid.

  26.Ibid.

  27.Retrieved from online resources made available by the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, http://nehruportal.nic.in/seventh-imprisonment-12-february-1934-%E2%80%93-3-september-1935 (accessed 19 January 2019).

  Chapter 8: No Love Lost

  1.Kamal Krishna Sircar v. Emperor, reported as AIR 1935 Cal 636.

  2.Ibid.

  3.Satyaranjan Bakshi & anr. v. King Emperor, reported as AIR 1927 Cal 698.

  4.Vishambar Dayal v. Emperor, reported as AIR 1941 Oudh 33.

  5.Satyaranjan Bakshi & anr. v. King Emperor, reported as AIR 1927 Cal 698.

  6.In re Anand Bazar Patrika, AIR 1932 Cal 745.

  7.AIR 1949 Sind 46.

  8.Kshitij Chandra Roy v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Cal 547.

  9.Rule 34(6) of the Defence of India Rules 1939.

  10.Reported as AIR (29) 1942 FC 22.

  11.Reg. v. Sullivan cited as 11 Cox 45.

  12.Reported in AIR 1947 PC 82.

  13.Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, reported in (1897) ILR 22.

  14.V.P. Menon, The Transfer of Power in India (Orient Longmans, 1957).

  15.Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2018).

  16.Constitution Assembly Debate dated 29 April 1947. Retrieved from cadindia.clpr.org.in/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/3/1947-04-29 (accessed 26 January 2019).

  17.Constitution Assembly Debate dated 30 April 1947. Retrieved from cadindia.clpr.org.in/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/3/1947-04-30 (accessed 26 January 2019).

  18.Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution.

  19.Socialist representative from the United Provinces.

  20.Constitution Assembly Debate dated 1 December 1948. Retrieved from cadindia.clpr.org.in/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/7/1948-12-01 (accessed 26 January 2019).

  21.Representative from Bombay.

  22.Representative from the Central Provinces.

  23.Constitution Assembly Debate dated 1 December 1948. Retrieved from cadindia.clpr.org.in/constitution_assembly_debates/volume/7/1948-12-02 (accessed 26 January 2019).

  Chapter 9: Courting Sedition

  1.Reported as AIR (29) 1942 FC 22.

  2.Reported in AIR 1947 PC 82.

  3.Section 124A underwent cosmetic changes in the years 1937, 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1955. After the amendment of 1955, it has been left untouched by Parliament.

  4.Substituted in place of ‘transportation for life or any shorter term’ in 1955 w.e.f. 1 January 1956.

  5.Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State, decided on 28 November 1950, reported as AIR 1951 Punjab 27.

  6.Promoting enmity between different groups.

  7.Five judges.

  8.AIR 1950 SC 124.

  9.AIR 1950 SC 129.

  10.Extracted in Ram Nandan v. State, reported as AIR 1959 All 101.

  11.Reported as 1954 CriLJ 758.

  12.Sagolsem Indramani Singh & ors. v. State of Manipur, reported as 1955 CrLJ 184.

  13.Ram Nandan v. State, AIR 1959 All 101.

  14.Reported as AIR 1962 SC 955.

  15.D.R. Mankekar, The Guilty Men of 1962 (Tulsi Shah Enterprises, 1968).

  16.Robert W. Stern, ‘The Sino-Indian Border Controversy and the Communist Party of India’, Journal of Politics 27. 1 (1965). Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2128001 (accessed 29 January 2019).

  17.Ibid.

  18.Reported as 1967 CriLJ 1110.

  19.The Constitution (Sixteenth) Amendment Act, 1963.

  20.Manubhai Tribhovandas Patel v. State of Gujarat & anr., reported as 1971 CriLJ 388.

  21.Reported as AIR 1976 AP 375.

  22.Operation conducted by the Indian military between 1–8 June 1984 to capture and evacuate Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale from Harmandir Saheb, also known as the Golden Temple, the most important shrine for the Sikh community. Bhindranwale was a militant religious leader and the leader of the Khalistani Movement, which demanded secession from the Indian State to form the Sikh state of Khalistan. The operation resulted in the desecration of the shrine and caused major civilian casualties. It actually provided impe
tus to the Khalistani Movement and was directly responsible for Indira Gandhi’s assassination. See ‘Operation Blue Star: India’s First Tryst with Militant Extremism’, DNA, 5 November 2016, www.dnai.in/dDSZ (accessed 1 February 2019).

  23.India Today, ‘The Last Day of Indira Gandhi’, 31 October 2018, www.indiatoday.in/india/story/the-last-day-of-indira-gandhi-1379440-2018-10-31 (accessed 1 February 2019).

  24.Balwant Singh & anr. v. State of Punjab, reported as 1995 (1) SCR 411, decided on 1 March 1995.

  25.Reported as 1997 (7) SCC 431.

  26.Dr Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, bearing case no. Crl. Appeal 20/2011, decided on 10 February 2011.

  27.Ibid.

  28.Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, bearing case no. SLP(Crl) 2053/2011, decided on 15 April 2011.

  29.The Hindu, ‘Binayak Sen Gets Bail in Supreme Court’, 15 April 2011, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Binayak-Sen-gets-bail-in-Supreme-Court/article14685491.ece (accessed 17 February 2019).

  Chapter 10: Stories of Sedition

  1.ESPNCricinfo, http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8532/report/710301/india-vs-pakistan-6th-match-asia-cup-2013-14, 2 March 2014 (accessed 7 February 2019).

  2.Published on March 6, 2014 at https://nyti.ms/1ifLxvQ (accessed 7 February 2019).

  3.Ibid.

  4.Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported as 2015 CriLJ 3561.

  5.Ibid.

  6.Writ Petition bearing No. WP(C) 683/2016 titled Common Cause & anr. v. Union of India.

  7.FIR No. 110/2016 dated 11.02.2016 registered at Vasant Kunj North Police Station, South Delhi District, Delhi

  8.District Court for New Delhi District.

  9.https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jnu-delhi-police-kanhaiya-kumar-patiala-house-court-india-news (accessed 12 February 2019).

  10.Judgment dated March 2, 2016 in WP(Crl) 558/2016 titled Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi.

  11.Ibid.

  12.https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/jnu-sedition-case-delhi-police-files-chargesheet-against-kanhaiya-kumar-umar-khalid-and-others-142103 (accessed 12 February 2019).

  13.https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/setback-to-delhi-police-court-refuses-to-take-cognizance-in-jnu-sedition-case-against-kanhaiya-others-142248 (accessed 12 February 2019).