'Rowlatt Acts' India gifted itself

Detention without charge or trial is rampant today, but our legislators no longer seem to care about oppression by the state

Next month it will be a century since the law known as the Rowlatt Act was enforced on 10 March, 1919. Mahatma Gandhi, only four years after his return from South Africa led an all-India strike against the Act on April 6. One week later, April 13, a large crowd gathered in Amritsar to join the protest at Jallianwala Bagh. The Punjab administration under Governor Sir Michael O’Dwyer claimed that British rule was under threat and responded with violence, unleashing the Gurkha and Baloch Regiments on the civilians, killing over 300. All of us are taught this in school.

The government passed the Rowlatt Act in the face of opposition from all of the Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council. The British Raj claimed that the law would affect very few Indians. However, Gandhi made it his cause celebre. He called it an “affront to the nation” and was successfully able to mobilise the whole country. He moved on to the Non-Cooperation Movement and it made him a national leader that we see him as today. 

So what was so offensive about the Rowlatt Act (more properly, the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919)? Why were Indians so angered by it that they were holding public demonstrations and opposing it in the Council?

The Act did away with fundamental principles of the rule of law. It could detain people without charge or trial and it did away with jury trials, in favour of in-camera trials by judges. This is called administrative detention, meaning the jailing of someone without a crime having been committed, merely on the suspicion that they will commit a crime in future.

Illustration

Now let us have a look at the India of today, when we are a free people. In 2015, over 3,200 people were held in ‘administrative detention’ in India. Gujarat has the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act of 1984. It allows for detention without charge or trial for a year. Uttar Pradesh has the National Security Act allowing detention without charge or trial for a year to “prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India” or “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community”.

Recently, this law has been used to jail Muslims accused of cattle smuggling and slaughter in Madhya Pradesh. Tamil Nadu has the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. It allows the state to jail without trial or charge “any bootlegger or drug offender or forest offender or goonda or immoral traffic offender or sand offender or slum-grabber or video pirate...to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”.

Karnataka has the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Acid Attackers, Bootleggers, Depredator of Environment, Digital Offenders, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Money Launderers, Sexual Predators and Video or Audio pirates Act, 1985.

It allows for detention without charge or trial of up to 12 months of “any acid attacker or bootlegger or depredator of environment or digital offender or drug offender or gambler or goonda or immoral traffic offender or land-grabber or money launderer or sexual predator or video or audio pirate...to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”.

Some states have less ornate and more direct phrasing. Assam has the Preventive Detention Act, 1980. It can jail individual for two years, without charge or trial.

Bihar has the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1984. It allows for “detention without charge or trial for up to two years to prevent a person from i) smuggling goods, or (ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or (iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (iv) dealing in, smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods.”

Jammu & Kashmir has three laws, one allowing detention without charge or trial for six months, another for a year and third for two years. West Bengal has the Prevention of Violent Activities Act of 1970. 

Journalists in Chhattisgarh are regularly jailed under the NSA and kept in prison for a year for their reporting. 

As we can see from the dates, none of these are so-called colonial laws. These are laws we have gifted ourselves. Every state uses them liberally and there is no resistance from the judiciary. These days we have classified sections of the Indian people as the enemy through the use of the phrase anti-national. 

The Rowlatt Act was never implemented nationwide. But our Rowlatt Acts are used against Indians in every state. Why do we not have Jallianwala Bagh-type gatherings today? Why do our legislators not resist the oppression by the state of its citizens as did those of the Imperial Legislative Council? Is it that we no longer care about tyranny and due process and individual rights? Or is that it has become fine because it’s not foreigners doing it?