top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Grim Reckoning

The heckling of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee during the latter’s visit to Sonarpur is a stark reminder that fear has an expiry date. For years, West Bengal’s politics has been defined by intimidation. First the Communist, and later during Mamata Banerjee’s TMC regimes, the state’s political discourse has been overwhelmingly accompanied by violence, cadre dominance, partisan policing and a culture in which dissenters were expected to keep their heads down and their opinions to...

Grim Reckoning

The heckling of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee during the latter’s visit to Sonarpur is a stark reminder that fear has an expiry date. For years, West Bengal’s politics has been defined by intimidation. First the Communist, and later during Mamata Banerjee’s TMC regimes, the state’s political discourse has been overwhelmingly accompanied by violence, cadre dominance, partisan policing and a culture in which dissenters were expected to keep their heads down and their opinions to themselves. Whether in villages, municipalities or university campuses, countless Bengalis, especially the Hindu community, have complained that political power was exercised not only through the ballot box but through fear during the TMC rule. Against this backdrop, the scenes that unfolded during Abhishek Banerjee’s Sonarpur visit was a symbolic moment. The TMC political class that once inspired fear suddenly found itself confronting fearlessness and the ire of ordinary citizens. Trinamool leaders accustomed to hectoring and threatening the public were forced to face its ire as Abhishek was heckled and pelted with eggs. The Trinamool Congress would be mistaken if it dismisses the episode as an isolated incident. Across West Bengal after the polls, there is a palpable anger against TMC leaders and their henchmen. That simmering rage appears increasingly difficult to contain. For years, Abhishek Banerjee had projected himself as the heir apparent to Bengal’s ruling establishment, speaking haughtily with the confidence of a man convinced that power was permanently on his side. Now that the TMC is out of power, Sonarpur offered a starkly different picture. It showed what happens when politicians who are accustomed to commanding the public are suddenly confronted by it. From the horrors of Sandeshkhali to the public fury unleashed after the R.G. Kar outrage, West Bengal witnessed episode after episode that laid bare the TMC’s intimidation and moral corruption. The crowd that confronted Abhishek Banerjee at Sonarpur was venting years of accumulated resentment against a political culture many Bengalis had come to associate with arrogance, patronage and strong-arm tactics. They reflected what a significant section of the public has increasingly come to see as the moral bankruptcy of a political order that believed it could rule indefinitely through fear and organisational muscle. Abhishek Banerjee, more than any other TMC leader, had became the face of that system. The hostility he encountered in Sonarpur was political payback delivered by a public no longer willing to whisper its anger. While no civilised society should endorse mob violence, no politician can expect public sympathy after years of bullying and intimidating citizens. He or she must realize that political arrogance has consequences and that public anger, when it finally erupts, grinds even the most powerful dynasties to dust. Abhishek Banerjee’s reception in Sonarpur may therefore prove to be more than an embarrassing political episode. It may become the defining image of Trinamool’s final decline and fall.

NCERT, Defamation and Academic Freedom

When state textbooks face judicial scrutiny

The Supreme Court of India’s recent direction to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to revisit and remove allegedly defamatory content from its textbooks raises a fundamental and somewhat uncomfortable question: where does academic freedom end and reputational harm begin when the state itself is the author of the narrative?


State Responsibility

At the outset, it must be acknowledged that textbooks prescribed by NCERT are not mere academic commentaries; they carry the imprimatur of the state and shape the intellectual foundation of millions of students. This institutional authority imposes a heightened duty of care. Unlike private publications, errors or insinuations in such textbooks cannot be casually dismissed as opinion; they risk acquiring the character of accepted historical or social truth. Therefore, when individuals or communities allege defamation, the claim cannot be brushed aside under the broad shield of academic autonomy.


Judicial Restraint

However, the Court’s intervention also invites scrutiny. Defamation, as understood in Indian law, requires a false statement made with the intent or likelihood of harming reputation. In the context of historical or sociological content, the threshold becomes far more nuanced. Academic writing often involves interpretation, critique, and even uncomfortable truths. If courts begin to adjudicate the correctness of such interpretations too readily, there is a real danger of creating a chilling effect on scholarship. Authors and institutions may resort to sanitised, non-controversial narratives, ultimately diluting the rigour of education.


The more prudent approach, in my view, lies in distinguishing between demonstrably false assertions and bona fide academic opinion. Where NCERT materials contain verifiable inaccuracies that directly harm identifiable individuals or groups, corrective action is not only justified but necessary. The state cannot be permitted to propagate falsehood under the guise of pedagogy. Yet where the content reflects a reasonable academic perspective, even if contested, judicial restraint becomes equally important.


Institutional Safeguards

Another dimension that cannot be ignored is procedural fairness. The process by which such content is reviewed and altered must be transparent, reasoned, and insulated from political or ideological pressures. If revisions are undertaken merely in response to litigation or public outcry, without a structured academic review, it risks undermining institutional credibility.


The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction, must therefore ensure that it does not inadvertently substitute expert academic evaluation with judicial determination.


This case also highlights the evolving intersection between constitutional values and educational content. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which extends to academic discourse. At the same time, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation. The challenge lies in maintaining a delicate equilibrium, protecting reputations without stifling intellectual inquiry.


It is equally relevant to consider the broader implications of such judicial directions. If every contested paragraph in a textbook becomes a potential subject of litigation, the education system may find itself in a perpetual state of revision. This is neither practical nor desirable. Instead, a robust internal mechanism within NCERT, comprising historians, legal experts, and educators, would be better suited to address such concerns proactively. Judicial intervention should remain a remedy of last resort, not the first port of call.


From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court’s direction appears to be driven by the principle that state-backed publications must adhere to higher standards of accuracy and fairness. This is a sound proposition. Yet, its application must be carefully calibrated to avoid overreach. Courts are not academic bodies, and their legitimacy in such matters stems from ensuring legality, not determining historical truth.


The issue is not merely about the removal of a particular passage but about setting a precedent for how educational content is governed in a constitutional democracy. The state must ensure that its textbooks are accurate, balanced, and non-defamatory. Simultaneously, the judiciary must exercise restraint, intervening only where there is a clear violation of legal standards. Anything beyond that risks tipping the balance either towards an unchecked state narrative or excessive judicial control, both of which are equally undesirable in a system that values both truth and freedom.


(The writer is the managing partner at KS Legal & Associates. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page