The first half of this piece is on the killing on July 16, on the Afghan side of the Pak-Afghan border, of Danish (= Daanish) Siddiqui, the New Delhi-born photographer. About 39 years old, Siddiqui was killed while covering an armed fight between Kabul’s security forces and the Taliban.
After leaving TV reporting for still-photography, Siddiqui had acquired a global reputation. In 2018, he and a colleague received the coveted Pulitzer prize for their portrayal of Rohingya refugees. In February 2020, Siddiqui captured the humiliation of Delhi’s Muslims at police hands. Earlier this year, he recorded the scale and shame of Covid’s horrors. Tributes paid to him refer also to the coaching that Siddiqui seems to have readily provided to young photographers.
Spin Boldak, the town where he was killed, lies south of Afghanistan’s classical city, Kandahar, connecting it, on an old route, to the Pakistani city of Quetta. The website of the Pakistani newspaper, Dawn, provides samples of Siddiqui’s extraordinary work.
The death of Siddiqui, who leaves behind a wife and two young children, is a reminder of the daily risks that journalists take to keep the world informed. It’s a reminder, too, of the hazards long associated with life in Afghanistan, hazards probably heightened by America’s seemingly unavoidable departure from there.
To many in India, Siddiqui’s death will also bring fresh attention to Jamia, the university in Delhi where he had trained himself to work in media, and where, according to reports, he was to be buried. A precious creation of India’s freedom movement, Jamia has in recent years been pressurized, in full public view, by the government of India and the Delhi police. Aspects of this pressure on Jamia, too, were caught by Siddiqui’s camera.
The second half of my comment has to do with hints of something that was not widely expected: a new boldness in India’s Supreme Court. Chief Justice N. V. Ramana, who assumed his prestigious office on April 24 this year, has publicly questioned the propriety of an 1860 law against sedition: the notorious Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The top court is likely before long to give its ruling on a string of petitions demanding its repeal.
Used by British as well as post-independence Indian rulers, this IPC section makes “the promotion of disaffection against the government” a crime that may be punished by life imprisonment. It has been employed with extra vigour by current BJP ministries in different states. Against journalists who write critically of the government, and against citizens who accuse ministers or other politicians of wrongdoing.
In 1962, the Supreme Court had ruled that criticism by itself, no matter how harsh, did not amount to sedition, which would require evidence of incitement to violence. Despite that ruling, harassment of journalists and citizens by touchy politicians has continued. On receiving a signal, the typical police officer who re-reads his copy of the Indian Penal Code and invokes Section 124A against the resented critic is not necessarily aware of the 1962 judgment.
If, going a step further, the Ramana-led court removes 124A from the IPC, that would be a welcome stroke for human rights in India.
Severe laws citing national security will remain. Yet a farewell to Section 124A could start a process, long overdue, of restoring respect for dissent and opposition in our national life. Chief Justice Ramana’s term will end a year from now, in August 2022. Those troubled about the state of India’s democracy will have something to cheer if during his tenure anxieties about the independence of India’s judiciary are replaced by confidence that this crucial pillar of our house will remain firm.
It looks as if the Chief Justice may not be required to wage a lonely battle. One of his colleagues on the bench, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, has just said the following:
“Any semblance of authoritarianism, clampdown on civil liberties, sexism, casteism, [or] otherisation on account of religion or region is upsetting a sacred promise that was made to our ancestors who accepted India as their Constitutional Republic.”
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-is-with-people-to-protect-civil-liberties-cji-ramana/article35377648.ece