Intolerance, in the context of people, refers to one's unwillingness to accept views, beliefs and behavior different from their own. People are intolerant of others’ views and beliefs, and this is not only visible in the media but also in the public at large. In a country like India, famous for diversity among its people, it is obvious and natural for one's views or opinions to clash with others’, but these days, everyone sees things in black and white, and refuses to take into account the grey areas. People's reactions to these situations often questionable, and put at risk, the integrity of the Constitution and the fundamental rights of people. One such example of India's intolerance is the Kanhaiya Kumar case.
On 9 February 2016, students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) held a protest on their campus, despite the University administration withdrawing permission for the event shortly before it was due to begin, due to protests by members of the Hindu nationalist student union ABVP. The event saw clashes between various student groups. A video was circulated by the Indian news channel Zee news, in which a small group of individuals, (whom a later investigation described as outsiders to the University) were shouting "anti-India" slogans. Four days later, Kanhaiya Kumar, JNU's student's body President was arrested by the Delhi police under charges of sedition. During his interrogation, Kanhaiya insisted that he did not say anything that was seditious. During the time span of the case being filed against him, he was called on various news channels and was interviewed by the TV and social media platforms. The media used the issue as a TRP generator, and called him for debates, which often turned into a bash fest against him, for allegedly screaming anti-national slogans.
The media is the fourth pillar of a democracy, and media reports, in this case, inflated the issue to the point that people pounded on Kanhaiya Kumar and the institution of JNU with hate comments and death threats. Kanhaiya Kumar was attacked at the Patiala House Court complex on February 15 and 17, 2016. The entire scenario still stands as an example of the lack of accountability required of a crowd while “disciplining” an individual. Moral policing and patriotism soon turned to mob lynching.
The case is yet to find its verdict. The Delhi court expressed displeasure over the Delhi Police not being able to get requisite sanctions in the 2016 JNU sedition case, involving former student union president Kanhaiya Kumar and others, and said it will proceed in the matter without it. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Deepak Sherawat, was informed by Delhi Police counsel that the Delhi government has not yet given its approval to prosecute Kumar and others under IPC Section 124A (sedition). The Delhi government’s counsel replied that it is exploring all legal angles on the issue. The judge said he will proceed with the matter if the prosecuting agency is unable to get sanction with regard to the particular offence— for which sanction is a must from the competent authority-- by March 11. The court also said it wanted to see the CD on the basis of which police has arrayed them as the accused in the matter, and sought to know the evidence based on which the charges have been slapped. Police had claimed that Kumar was leading a procession, and supported seditious slogans raised on campus during an event on February 9, 2016, on the basis of a ‘CD’.
The law under which Kumar was arrested was designed under the British Raj, and it was believed that the arrest was “excessive police action” and a violation of freedom of expression.
Moral policing works well, when it is well-directed. Such was the case of the “viral aunty”. The aim of the viral video was for the victims to assert their rights, and avail justice. However, the outrage soon turned into death and rape threats, and outright harassment, directed at the woman responsible. The first three pillars of democracy, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, are rendered redundant and ineffective, when the general public takes over the responsibility of prosecuting the accused.
The Kanhaiya case has been simplified into an argument between right and wrong, the rightists and the leftists, between patriots and traitors. In reality, it is about intolerance. The matter is about the public reacting in an aggressive manner - dismissing the perspectives involved, jumping the trigger of judgment. Democracy is indeed the government of the people, and majority is the power, but, we need to be able to distinguish between the majority and the crowd. Just because we, as people, are the cornerstone of democracy, should not mean that we may run wild on account of our own judgments, without any individual accountability.
SOURCE(S):
https://thewire.in/law/sc-turns-plea-order-probe-2016-
attackhttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/jnu-sedition-case-kanhaiya-kumar-umar-
khalid-5605786/-kanhaiya-kumar