The price of dissent: From JNU to Kirtipur

Modern authoritarianism often operates subtly within formally democratic structures, not always through overt actions like suspending elections or deploying military forces. Instead, it can grow by gradually redefining who is entitled to democratic rights and by manufacturing an internal enemy against whom extraordinary measures are deemed necessary.

This political strategy involves portraying certain groups, such as "anti-nationals," urban extremists, foreign agents, or disruptive students, as exceptional dangers to society. The identity of this perceived enemy may shift, but the underlying political requirement remains constant: power needs an adversary to justify its actions. This method aims to diminish the dissident's standing, subsequently treating their demand for rights as proof of guilt.

“

The identity of the enemy may change, but the political requirement remains constant. Power needs an internal adversary against whom extraordinary conduct can be presented as necessary governance.

The article draws a comparison between Indian activist Umar Khalid, who has been incarcerated under India's Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the 2020 Delhi violence, and Nepali activist Majid Ansari, detained at the Kirtipur Holding Centre. While acknowledging the differences in scale, duration, and legal circumstances, the piece identifies a common political method: diminishing the dissident's status and framing rights advocacy as criminal behavior.

Before any legal determination of guilt, political communication can create a social verdict. Umar Khalid experienced this after the 2016 JNU controversy, describing a sustained campaign by ruling-party spokespersons, media figures, and online trolls that branded him "anti-national." He argued that public condemnation preceded legal proof, with allegations presented as facts, debate replaced by trolling, and political disagreement escalating into threats. In 2022, India's News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority found that several television broadcasts had violated impartiality and objectivity standards by portraying Khalid as guilty before a verdict, ordering the removal of sensationalist content. The article concludes that labels like "anti-national" serve a political function beyond mere insult, reducing a citizen's legal and cultural standing and making constitutional safeguards appear as undeserved privileges.

“

Once a person is placed outside the imagined national community, constitutional safeguards begin to look like undeserved privileges. Arrest becomes accountability. Prolonged imprisonment becomes prevention. Violence becomes a response.