+ Follow
image by unsplash.com

Democracy lives on disagreement. The right to question those in power, to challenge bad policies, and to protest without fear isn’t some favour handed down by the government — it’s baked into our Constitution. In India, freedom of speech and expression are supposed to be sacred. Yet lately, something worrying has been happening. Activists, young students, and thinkers who dare to ask tough questions are landing in jail, facing charges, and spending years behind bars. It’s not just about arrests anymore. It feels like the very act of disagreeing is now seen as a danger to the country.

Dissent isn’t treason. It’s how democracies stay alive. Look back through history — every big change, from civil rights to cleaner rivers, came because ordinary people stood up and said: “This isn’t right.” India’s Constitution talks a lot about protecting peaceful protests and different political views. On paper, we celebrate that. In real life, though, the line between speaking your mind and committing a crime has started to fade.

Once someone gets called “anti-national,” everything changes. The tag has no real legal meaning, but it sticks like glue. Suddenly, that person isn’t a citizen with an opinion anymore — they’re a suspect. The real question is: are we scared of the dissent, or just scared of how uncomfortable it makes those in charge feel?

Take Sonam Wangchuk. He’s an engineer from Ladakh, famous for building artificial glaciers and creating new ways to teach kids in the mountains. People around the world respect him for his practical solutions to climate problems. But when he started pushing for full statehood for Ladakh and Sixth Schedule protections to save tribal land and the fragile Himalayan environment, things shifted. His protests were peaceful — marches, hunger strikes, and open talks. Then, after some tension during rallies in Leh in September 2025, he was picked up under the National Security Act. NSA lets the state hold people for months without a proper trial. His supporters say he was using his democratic rights. The other side claims public order was at risk. The whole thing blew up nationally and left many wondering how quickly good work can be painted as a security threat.

Remember the Citizenship Amendment Act protests back in 2019? The law fast-tracked citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from three neighbouring countries. Those who liked it called it a kind gesture. Those who didn’t argue it mixed religion with citizenship and went against India’s secular promise. Students, teachers, and ordinary folks poured into the streets. Most marches stayed peaceful, though a few turned ugly. After the violence that followed in Delhi in 2020, the blame game started. Student leaders like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam ended up charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the riots conspiracy case.

UAPA is meant for terrorists, but it’s been used more broadly. Bail is almost impossible, so people sit in jail for years waiting for their day in court. The punishment starts long before any judge decides guilt or innocence. That’s not how justice is supposed to work.

Then there’s the Bhima Koregaon case from 2018. A bunch of lawyers, academics, and activists who spent their lives fighting for Adivasi rights were arrested under the same UAPA, accused of links to Maoists. One name still haunts many — Father Stan Swamy. The 84-year-old Jesuit priest had worked quietly with tribal communities for decades. He had Parkinson’s and other health issues. Arrested in October 2020, he repeatedly requested medical bail. Denied every time. He died in custody in July 2021, never convicted of anything. For a lot of us, that death became a symbol of what happens when pre-trial detention drags on forever. Justice delayed really can become justice denied.

Laws like NSA and UAPA were created for real emergencies — stopping bombs, stopping violence. No one argues that governments don’t need tools to protect people. But when those same tools get used against people who organise rallies, write critical articles, or speak up for the poor, something feels off. The line between genuine security threats and plain old criticism gets blurry. Suddenly, the legal process itself becomes the punishment. People start thinking twice before opening their mouths.

The ripple effects go deeper than the courtrooms. When students see their seniors dragged away, they stop asking questions in class. Journalists think twice about digging into sensitive stories. Neighbours choose silence over signing a petition. Slowly, the marketplace of ideas shrinks. A country that fears its own citizens’ voices doesn’t become safer — it just stops thinking.

History keeps showing us that societies get stronger when they listen to criticism instead of locking it up. At the same time, we can’t pretend threats don’t exist. Riots happen. Violence happens. Governments have a duty to stop real danger. The trick is balance. Use the laws too loosely, and you invite chaos. Use them too tightly, and you kill the soul of democracy. What we need is fast trials, clear evidence, and judges who actually oversee these cases instead of letting them drag on for years.

These stories — Wangchuk in the cold mountains, students in Delhi, old priests in Ranchi — aren’t isolated. They point to a bigger tension. How much disagreement can a democracy handle before it starts treating disagreement like an enemy? Our Constitution gives us the right to speak, protest, and participate. But when people rot in jail without trial, when every march gets called a conspiracy, and when criticism lands you in handcuffs, those rights start looking like words on paper only.

Democracy isn’t proven when everyone claps for the government. It’s proven that people can boo and still be safe. The real test isn’t whether dissent exists — it always will. The real test is whether we protect the right to question power, or turn it into a crime.

.    .    .

REFERENCES:

Discus