Congress banned 'Akhand Bharat' calls, but free speech for 'tukde tukde': Jaitley
New Delhi, July 6 : Union Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday attacked the Congress for amending the Constitution in 1951 to restrict Syama Prasad Mookerjee from advocating 'Akhand Bharat' whereas currently it finds calls for 'tukde tukde' a "legitimate free speech".
"The first amendment to the Constitution in 1951 and the 16th amendment in 1963 imposed further conditions on the Right to Free Speech," Jaitley said in a Facebook post on the 117th birth anniversary of Mookerjee, founder of Bharatiya Jan Sangh, the predecessor of BJP.
Jaitley said then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was against idea of 'Akhand Bharat' (Greater or Undivided India) as he thought it would lead to wars. With no scope to contain Mookerjee from advocating the casue, Nehru went ahead with the first amendment of the Constitution.
"The restriction (brought by the first amendment) is very broadly worded. It empowers the State to prohibit free speech if it adversely impacts 'friendly relations with foreign states'. The State can even make the exercise of speech in this regard as a penal offence," Jaitley said.
Mookerjee was one of the key advocates of a united India which he referred to as 'Akhand Bharat'.
Two days before the "Nehru-Liaquat Pact" was to be signed in April 1950, Mookerjee, who was Industry Minister in the First Cabinet as a Hindu Mahasabha representative, resigned from the Cabinet in protest and took strong public position against the "Nehru-Liaquat Pact", Jaitley noted.
"Nehru over-reacted to Mookerjee's criticism. He interpreted the very idea of 'Akhand Bharat' as an invitation to conflict since the country could not be reunited other than by war," the BJP leader said.
Mookerjee, on the contrary, claimed that Pakistan wanted a war and was already at war with India having captured part of its legitimate territory of Jammu and Kashmir and, therefore, to suggest that his speeches on 'Akhand Bharat' would lead to a war was not acceptable.
"The paradox in our jurisprudential evolution is that we have applied a different yardstick to those who want to dismember India and commit an offence of sedition. This debate recently came into forefront during the 'tukde tukde' agitation at the Jawaharlal Nehru University."
Jaitley said a 1962 judgement of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath Singh's case was repeatedly cited in which the court interpreted Article 124(A) of the IPC to mean that utterances would be punishable only if it intended to incite violence and a speech per se advocating disintegration would not be sedition unless the element of violence was apparent.
"In the past 70 years, this country has witnessed a change in the situation where Nehru amended the Constitution so that a demand for 'Akhand Bharat' could incite a war and therefore should be prohibited. On the contrary, we all were told that to advocate a breakup of the country without inciting violence is legitimate free speech," Jaitley said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Campaign Against Hate Speech calls for action against Chandrashekar Swamiji for hate speech
Bengaluru: Campaign Against Hate Speech, a collective of lawyers, activists, and concerned citizens, has urged Karnataka’s Home Minister, Shri Parameshwara G, and Director General of Police, Dr. Alok Mohan, to take legal action against Chandrashekar Swamiji, the seer of Vishwa Vokkaligara Mahasamsthana Mutt. The demand follows an alleged hate speech made by the seer during a protest organized by the Bharatiya Kisan Union at Freedom Park on November 26, 2024.
The organization claimed that the speech was divisive and aimed at spreading communal hatred and enmity between communities. Chandrashekar Swamiji allegedly made inflammatory remarks, including false claims about the authority of the Waqf Board and a controversial suggestion that Muslims in India should be stripped of their voting rights. The speech, delivered to a large audience, has since been uploaded to YouTube by TV9 Kannada, amassing over 6,900 views.
The organization provided excerpts of the speech, which they say falsely accused the Waqf Board of arbitrarily taking over properties, including farmland, and asserted that minorities in Pakistan do not have voting rights. These remarks, they argued, not only mislead the public but also incite hostility against the Muslim community and misrepresent the functioning of the Waqf Board. The statement suggesting that Muslims should be denied voting rights was described as unconstitutional and harmful to the secular and democratic values of the country.
In their letter, the collective highlighted specific sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly the IPC) that they believe the speech violates. These include provisions against promoting enmity between communities, making assertions prejudicial to national integration, and spreading false or alarming information intended to incite hatred. They also pointed out that comments on the video supported the seer’s views, reflecting the potential for real-world consequences stemming from the speech.
While Chandrashekar Swamiji has since issued a written apology, Campaign Against Hate Speech argued that it is insufficient. The apology has not been widely circulated, while the original speech continues to be shared online, further amplifying its divisive message.
The organization has requested legal action against the seer and restrictions on the offensive video. They have also called for a broader public awareness campaign to educate people about the legal and social consequences of hate speech. Additionally, they suggested that the upcoming winter session of the Karnataka Assembly address the growing issue of hate speech comprehensively.
The letter underscored the importance of preserving Karnataka’s identity as a “garden of peace for all communities,” as envisioned by Rashtrakavi Kuvempu. Citing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of democracy as a mode of “associated living,” they stressed that such remarks not only threaten a specific community but also undermine the foundational values of the nation.
