"Secular" writers suggest Balkanisation Of India - Govt. tolerates sedition - Is tolerating anti-national elements greatness?

On 18 August 2008, Monday just three days after India celebrated its Independence Day, noted anti-national activist of India, Arundhati Roy, a Booker Prize winner, opined that Kashmir should secede from India.

After participating in a rally to the UN office (organized by the pro-Pakistan elements) in Srinagar, she said, "The reaction of the people in Kashmir is actually a referendum. People don't need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves. India needs freedom from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs freedom from India."

Reacting to it, the Congress party’s spokesperson on Wednesday said she was a "loose cannon" who had "abused the liberal traditions of India".

"She (Roy) is a loose cannon who has abused liberal traditions of India to its fullest. It is a great tribute to the tolerance of India's ethos that a person who openly calls for Balkanization of country is not being locked up and the keys are not being thrown away," said Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari.

Is it the great tradition of India to tolerate anti-national elements?

Recently Vir Sanghvi, a self-declared "secular" journalist preached India that the right of self-determination should be given to Kashmiri Muslims.

“If you believe in democracy, then giving Kashmiris the right to self-determination is the correct thing to do” he said in an article. Why? Because, “there is active hatred of India.”!

Some pen-pushers in India are now openly suggesting (and, demanding) the Balkanization of the country. But our government is showing its "greatness" by ignoring them!

Are we duty-bound to prosecute these worthies for what they are? let us examine the official position and legal aspects.

First, let us see the the state-constitution of Jammu and Kashmir itself. In part II, Article 3, it says: "The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India." Since Pakistan has illegally occupied more than one third of the state through aggression in 1947, which parts of the state that the constitution is referring to? Article 4 answers this: "The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State."

On February 22, 1994 Indian Parliament has passed a resolution, which, once gain, declared in clear terms that the state was, is, and shall be an integral part of India. This resolution was passed by the whole house unanimously. BJP member Atal bihari Vajpayee was keen on introducing the resolution in Lok Sabha. But the then prime minister P. V. Narasimha Rao suggested that this should a national resolution. Hence, it was introduced by the then speaker of the house Shivraj Patil (now, incidentally, the insensitive home minister, who is fomenting trouble), and cutting across party lines, the entire house voted in favor of it and adopted it unanimously.

The resolution firmly declared that: (a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from
the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means; (b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity (c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir they have occupied through aggression.

We have Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - 1967, that clearly states that asking for secession and even suggesting somebody to secede amounts to treason.

The Act clearly defines “unlawful activities” in Section 2 thus: “‘unlawful activity’, in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),- ; which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India."

Now come to the IPC. According to Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."

You see, Indian laws are very clear about this issue. Only issue that remains is that you do not have a government that applies them in the interest of the nation.
This is not the first time that Arundhati is acting against the interests of India. When India conducted nuclear tests on May 11, 1998, she declared that she was seceding from India and called herself a "mobile republic". On Narmada issue she openly challenged the authority of the Supreme Court of India and even got a "token" punishment from the court for contempt of court.

The time has come to show Arundhati and others their right place in jail. Tolerating anti-nationals is not greatness. The government is duty bound to prosecute them on the charges of sedition and treason.