AN ‘OPPRESSIVE’ REGIME LIMITS FREE SPEECH IN INDIA, CIVIL LIBERTIES EXPERT SAYS

["It's been an incredibly oppressive regime in terms of crackdowns on free speech and protests," she said, citing the arrest of a cartoonist, Aseem Trivedi, in September over a satirical cartoon. The Maharashtra government charged Mr. Trivedi with sedition, disrespect of a national emblem and violation of the same information technology act. Though later, the sedition charge was dropped.]

By Sruthi Gottipati

Associated PressShaheen Dhada, left, and Renu Srinivas, right, leaving a court in Mumbai on Tuesday. They were arrested for a Facebook post, questioning the shutdown of Mumbai after Bal Thackeray’s death.

A Supreme Court lawyer, Karuna Nundy, spoke to India Ink to take stock of the recent arrest of two young women for their Facebook activity, the laws that were used to justify their arrest, and the way to resolve this case. Ms. Nundy, 36, has worked on a number of civil liberties cases and also advises governments of various countries on their compliance with local constitutions and international law.

Here are highlights from the conversation:

There are tight restrictions on speech and broad definitions in law:

Ms. Nundy attributed India's colonial past to the country's inheritance of what she describes as "oppressive laws."

She noted that in a democratic society, laws that are oppressive are torn out with time after the country's independence. But in India, "what's actually happened is that the restrictions on speech have tightened," said Ms. Nundy.

She cited examples like India's Information Technology Act of 2000, and the amendments in 2008 that restrict Web content that can be considered "disparaging," "harassing," "blasphemous" or "hateful."

On Sunday, police arrested Shaheen Dhada, 21, who lives on the outskirts of Mumbai, after she posted a status update on Facebook questioning the citywide shutdown following the death of a powerful right-wing politician, Bal K. Thackeray.

"Respect is earned, given, and definitely not forced," Ms. Dhada wrote, according to the Indian media. "Today, Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not due to respect." A friend, Renu Srinivasan, 20, was also arrested for "liking" Ms. Dhada's post.

"The last time I checked, causing annoyance or inconvenience shouldn't throw you in jail for three years whether it's online or in real life," Ms. Nundy said.

She said it was "bizarre" that the Indian law doesn't necessarily punish a person who says something inflammatory to a crowd of people, but "if you say something online that annoys someone, then you can have criminal proceedings against you."

Ms. Nundy said the law that was cited in the women's arrest, Section 66A, is "far too broad" and needs to be harmonious with other laws in the Indian constitution.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2008, among other things, criminalizes information sent digitally that is "grossly offensive" or has "menacing character."

"Section 66A is just wrong. It just has to go," Ms. Nundy said.

The current administration has a poor report card on free speech:

Ms. Nundy credited the governing United Progressive Alliance and the Indian National Congress party for passing an accountability law, the Right to Information Act, which is India's version of the Freedom of Information Act in the United states. But she argued that the application of Section 66A in recent years has considerably weakened India's reputation as a champion of free speech.

"It's been an incredibly oppressive regime in terms of crackdowns on free speech and protests," she said, citing the arrest of a cartoonist, Aseem Trivedi, in September over a satirical cartoon. The Maharashtra government charged Mr. Trivedi with sedition, disrespect of a national emblem and violation of the same information technology act. Though later, the sedition charge was dropped.

She said the current climate involved "blackmailing by fundamentalists" and the government's "appeasement" of them by using what she described as "draconian laws that stifle free speech and cut off one of the main arteries of a healthy democracy."

"It's not just the laws that are problematic -- it's also the application of laws that operate in favor of the powerful," Ms. Nundy said.

The chilling effect on social media is already apparent: "Don't speak truth to power on Facebook or Twitter"

"Now you have a young woman who, in pretty respectful terms, made a more honest critique than much of the national media. Yet, the force of the criminal law is brought to bear on her," Ms. Nundy said.

"The chilling effect on Facebook and Twitter is already apparent," she said, noting that people are using vague terms on the Internet to talk about Mr. Thackeray and his role in the communal riots in Mumbai in 1992-93.

"If you say something on Facebook or Twitter, you have to worry about goons on one hand and criminal laws on the other," Ms. Nundy said.

Social media users who repeated Ms. Dhada's post in a show of solidarity are essentially "sticking their necks out," Ms. Nundy said. "They are overcoming fear to do this."

The lesson from all this? "Don't speak truth to power on Facebook or Twitter," she said.

The media in India are "lionizing" polarizing figures:

Ms. Nundy was also critical of the mainstream media in India, which have been running reports about polarizing figures that bordered on adulation.

"There's a tendency to lionize people so easily," like the media did with Mr. Thackeray after his death, she said. "His last few days have really exposed the entire circus for what it is."

A possible solution:

Ms. Nundy said that the trial of the two women arrested for their Facebook activity is unlikely to drag on in court.

"These trials never go on to the end because you need state government sanction to prosecute," she said.

Here is Ms. Nundy's solution: A formal apology from the police to the women, a refund of their bail and compensation for Ms. Dhada's uncle, whose hospital was attacked by members of Mr. Thackeray's party, Shiv Sena, which would be paid by the party and by the government as well, for failing to protect it.

And she would also encourage users to continue to engage in debates on social media.

"Only then will a message go out that India's state and central government is democratic," Ms. Nundy said.

@ The New York Times

IMRAN KHAN'S PARTY DEMANDS HANGING OF SARABJIT IN RETALIATION FOR KASAB'S EXECUTION

TNN | Nov 22, 2012, 05.33 PM IST

NEW DELHI: Following the quick and secret execution of terrorist Ajmal Kasab in Pune on Wednesday, former cricketer Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has demanded the hanging of Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh in retaliation who has been convicted and sentenced to death on terrorism charges in Pakistan, reports Times Now.

In a demonstration organized by the party in Multan, PTI leader Naeemullah Khan said, "India waited for less than a month after the final verdict by their judiciary and we are protecting the terrorists for the last eight years."

Blaming the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, he said that the president was the biggest hurdle to execution of terrorists on death row in the country.

Sarabjit Singh has been on death row for over two decades. India and Sarabjit's family maintains that he is innocent who happened to stray over the international border in an ebriated state and his was a case of mistaken identity.

When contacted, Sarabjit's sister Dalbir Kaur refused to comment. She said, "Mujhe darr laga hain yaa darr nahi lag raha main kuch bhi bolna nahi chahti hoon." (I would not like to say whether I am scared or not scared for my brother).

On Imran Khan's party's stand, she said, "He is not in the government so there is no need for me to a react ... but, I'm thankful to (former interior minister) Rehman Malik."

After Kasab was hanged yesterday, former Supreme Court judge and Press Council of India chairman Markandey Katju wrote a letter to the prime minister and president of Pakistan appealing yet again for clemency for Sarabjit.

Katju had argued Sarabjit's case vis-a-vis Kasab's and stressed how both the cases are different and why Sarabjit deserves a pardon.

"You must have heard that Ajmal Kasab has been hanged in India. I wish to respectfully point out to you that this case is totally different from that of Sarabjit Singh who has been on death row in Pakistan for 21 years. About Kasab, there is no doubt about his guilt as he was caught red handed. However, there is great doubt about the guilt of Sarabjit Singh. So, the two cases are not similar," Katju said in the letter.

@  The New York Times