#dnaEdit: Timely interventions

On a day when the Delhi high court lifted the home ministry’s freeze on the bank accounts of Greenpeace India, the Madras high court observed that a writers’ association petitioning for the setting aside of a peace committee decision that led to writer Perumal Murugan announcing his “death”, should be raising the greater issue of threat to freedom of expression. Taken together, it is heartening that two top courts in two geographical ends of this large country have struck powerful blows against acts of State transgression and in favour of free speech. In the case of Greenpeace, the Delhi HC found fault with the home ministry for freezing the accounts without issuing notice to the NGO or offering it an opportunity to defend itself. Further, the court rapped the home ministry for not submitting any material on record in court that could justify its decision to penalise Greenpeace India. Only last week, a Greenpeace India activist was unceremoniously offloaded from a London-bound flight, where she was headed to address a British parliamentary forum, on the NGO’s agitation against mining activities in Madhya Pradesh’s Mahan forests. 

The “national interest” excuse was cited again, claiming that the activist violated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act in accepting flight tickets purchased by Greenpeace UK. However, questions have been raised as the statute treats foreign funding for travel and lodging costs as foreign hospitality, and not foreign contribution, for which only public officials need governmental nod. In May, a leaked Intelligence Bureau report dubbed Greenpeace as a “potential threat to national economic security” and its efforts were focused on “ways to create obstacles in India’s energy plans” and “pressure India to use only renewable energy”. In the course of the high court hearing, the judge had a plausible explanation for the home ministry’s actions. The judge noted that NGOs were entitled to have their views and they could not be accused of acting against national interest “merely because its views do not match the government’s viewpoint”. Moving to Tamil Nadu where an assortment of fringe religious and caste outfits forced Murugan into forsaking his writings, if not his “life”, the actions of the Namakkal district administration are no less drastic. From eyewitness accounts, it appears that, at what was euphemistically called a “peace meeting”, the “unconditional apology”, the “undertaking” to withdraw all copies of Mathorubhagan, and delete the “offending” portions, was extracted from Murugan under duress. 

It has to be assumed that the district officials were acting on instructions from higher-ups in the hierarchy considering that the hartals and violent threats against Murugan had raged for several days. The agitators had the right to protest; the administration has the right to uphold law and order; but both parties clearly exceeded their freedoms when they infringed on Murugan’s inalienable freedom to write. No one thought it fit to involve the state government or the judiciary. Under these circumstances, the Madras HC’s decision to implead Murugan in the case and hear his version of events is an important gesture, because this is the first signal from any arm of the State to the beleaguered writer. It will also, hopefully, encourage the writer to emerge from his self-imposed exile. Ironically, the leading Dravidian parties, past votaries of social justice and progressive thought, had maintained a studied silence until the writer announced his “demise”. The judiciary’s intervention in both cases, on the side of civil society, and against administrative overreach, is heartening. After all, a State which cannot tolerate dissent or a society that fears creative expression can only be described as anachronistic.