Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The question then arises whether the document in question is of such a character as is described in Section 4 (1)(a) of the Act. If we are not satisfied that it is of such a nature, then it is open to this Court under Section 25, Press Act, to set aside the order demanding security from the petitioner. As the English translation of the document which formed a part of the affidavit filed on behalf of Government was objected to as not being an accurate translation of the original so as to give a correct impression of the tenor and contents of the document, we have had the document translated by a translator of this Court. I have read the document both in original as also from a Romanised copy thereof and I have also read the aforesaid translations. The document is written in high-flown Bengali language and contains a good deal of demagogic claptrap with some pretence to poetic flourish. The first few paragraphs indicate that the writer of the document finds wrong and tyranny pervading all over from the past to the future. It says that history records the names of those who struggled against this tyranny in the past, and so shall history record the names of those who struggle against it in the future. The writer says he is starving and begging for a fight and his revolt is against oppression, fascism and wrongful harassment. He, therefore, calls upon everyone to join the struggle and to build a new world order by bringing about a complete revolution. So far there could not be anything objectionable in the pamphlet because revolution, can be both, by constitutional or non-violent methods and it can also be by a bloody and violent struggle resulting in death and carnage on a mass scale. As the subsequent paras of the document indicate, the revolution contemplated by the writer is not a non-violent or constitutional revolution but. a revolution of the last category, namely, a revolution brought about by bloodshed and destruction. He wants revolution and wants destruction; through struggle and revolution the world is to be built anew after the oppressors have perished. Ha says that this struggle has to be brought about by courting death and suffering and the struggle is directed personally against those who are directors of the wrong and the injustice. The writer thinks that there is no protection against the oppressor except by standing up to fight in a body and destroy the oppressor. In one of the paragraphs the writer says:

This passage may be rendered into English as follows:
I am the cremation ground, I am the blood thirsty goddess Kali who lives and moves about in the cremation ground. Hague or Famine is my great joy. ... I am thirsty, I want blood, I want revolution, I want faith in the struggle. Tear, tear the chain of wrongs. Break, break thou the proud head of the oppressor;
and further on the writer says that he personifies total destruction and that he is the venomous fangs of the snake. These passages, to my mind, indicate beyond any shadow of doubt that the revolution contemplated by the writer is a revolution built on blood and carnage by the destruction of those who are in the opposite camp; in other words, persons who are regarded as oppressors. The writer wants a total destruction of those oppressors, and he appears to enjoin upon the readers of the pamphlet that they should break and break the proud head of the oppressor. The writer desires that his cries should be heard by people far and near, that his call should be hearkened far away across the hills, the jungles, across the rivers and rivulets and all those who hear should come forward to join the ranks in destroying the oppressor. He says that he is the messenger of death. He says that his revolutionary song signals at the door of each of the listners and signals to them to come out if they have life, if they have health, if they have courage to come and dash to pieces those who commit oppression on the mother; and he says with his blood and with the blood of those followers let the revolution grow in volume. About this symbolic mother, in a later passage, the writer observes that if mother-tongue be equal to mother, then the said language is the most revered goddess and disgrace should not be allowed to spread in her name. The pamphlets then winds up with an invocation to the readers which translated reads as follows:
If you are true, if you are the gift of God, if you are not a bastard, then come forward with a fearless heart to struggle against the oppressor's improper conduct, oppression and injustice. We should not tolerate wrongful oppression. Oh thou the people,, with the burning pain of thine heart burn the heart of oppressive, highhanded oppressor. Let all wrongs, all highhandedness, all oppressions all tyrannies be burnt in the dame.
These passages I have only quoted to show that the document as a whole is a clear invocation to the readers to join a total and a deadly struggle to bring about a revolution by violence resulting in complete annihilation of those whom the writer considers as oppressors. There is a clear implication in the pamphlet that in the opinion of the writer the present order of society is totally oppressive and must be destroyed at all costs in which people should combine to lend a helping hand and fight to. the finish. The "oppressor", it is true, is not very clearly defined in the body of the pamphlet. At one place the writer suggests that his protest is against parochial national politics. At another place the writer suggests to his readers to take up courage and dash to pieces those who commit oppression on the mother, At yet another place the writer suggests that the mother-tongue is equal to the mother, and that the said language is his most revered goddess: therefore no disgrace should be permitted to spread in her name. These expressions are undoubtedly vague. They may have reference to some language controversy which perhaps might have been going on at the time of the publication in Purulia; and the publication of the pamphlet under those circumstances must have clearly conveyed to the readers what the intention of the writer was and against whom the pamphlet was directed in particular; but the innuendoes contained in the publication have not been explained on behalf of the State, In the absence of any such material we cannot assume to whom the writer actually refers in those passages as being the. perpetrators of the tyranny or the oppression against which he is raving.
I respectfully agree with these observations of his Lordship (though not without some irony to myself). It is true that the pamphlet in the present case does not encourage any particular kind of violence or murder but in general it talks of violence and destruction and of bloodshed in order to bring about a revolution in the country after destruction of the oppressors, under whose tyranny the writer of the pamphlet appears to be smarting and groaning. For the petitioner it has been very strenuously urged by Mr. Ghosh that the language of the pamphlet should not be too literally construed, and that the expressions used are merely figures of speech in order to make the appeal of the writer effective. The learned Counsel urges that even if they refer to bloodshed and violence the reference is only to the persona engaged in the struggle who have to die struggling and court death and destruction. It does not talk of violence or destruction of anybody else, and, therefore, it cannot be said that it encourages the commission of any offence of murder or cognizable offence involving violence. In my opinion, this cannot be the correct reading of the pamphlet in question. Expressions like the following which have been so often used in the document, namely, "Let all oppressors perish;" "death is my darling;" "I am blood-thirsty goddess Kali who lives and moves in the cremation ground;" "I am thirsty, I want blood, I want revolution;break, break the proud head of the oppressor;" "I am total destruction;" "I am the messenger of death:" "if you have got courage come and dash to pieces those who commit oppression on the mother" unquestionably connote that the writer of the pamphlet does not merely want that he and his followers should alone spill their own blood but that they should also spill the blood of others. Total destruction of those against whom they are Struggling, namely, persons who in the opinion of the writer are the oppressors or who are directors of wrong and injustice or who take part in parochial national politics or who bring into disgrace the mother-tongue is the chief object of the publication. I, therefore, cannot but hold that the pamphlet to which exception has been taken by Government does fall under Section 7 (1)(a) of the Act, and I cannot agree with the contention of Mr. Ghosh that it contains mere empty slogans carrying no particular meaning except some amount of figurative expression or language borrowed at random from various authors with a touch of poetic flourish about it. The central meaning of the writer of the document is absolutely clear, The central theme which runs through the whole gamut of the offending pamphlet is that the author is anxious to bring about a bloody revolution and challenge completely the present order of things by causing a total annihilation of the persons and the policies of those who, according to him, are in the opposite camp. Such a pamphlet, therefore, does come within the mischief of the clause referred to in the notice and the demand for security would be justified under the Act unless we were to hold that the said provision of the Act was repugnant to the Constitution of India and infringed the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression as provided in Article 19 (1)(a), Constitution Act.