<p>It was highly inappropriate of Uday Mahurkar, Information Commissioner at the Central Information Commission, to suggest that treason charges should be filed against those who “instigated” Islamic nations to protest against the remarks made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and the party’s former Delhi media chief Naveen Jindal. The Information Commissioner’s post is not a constitutional position, but it is an independent office, and those who hold it should keep away from politics. What the Commissioner has made is a political statement that shows where his sympathies lie. The remarks made by Sharma and Jindal roiled the country and had international repercussions. To assume that the international responses were the result of some persons in India instigating other countries to react is to shift focus from the actual offence and point to an unreal one, making that out to be a bigger crime. It is embarrassment over the incident and the inability to do anything about the foreign response turning into anger against easy targets at home. </p>.<p>If the remarks of the duo became the talking point in the country and many people objected to them, it cannot be called “instigation” and “treason”. Criticism within the country of words and actions of the government and BJP leaders is not “instigation” of an international response to them. Such criticism has been described as anti-national in the recent past, and Mahurkar’s charge of treason follows that pattern. It should be noted that no action was taken against the two leaders for days after they made the offensive remarks, and it was taken only when there were protests from other countries. That means that the party was not worried about the remarks as long as there was no adverse international reaction to them. Mahurkar’s thoughts about instigation and treason arose from this mindset. That an Information Commissioner should base himself on a conspiracy theory, his own or that of others is embarrassing and unacceptable. It degrades the position and takes away from its credibility. As an institution, the Information Commission has an important role, independent of the government, if not adversarial. If those who man it show keenness instead to please the government and the ruling party and its politics, even on issues the Information Commission has nothing to do with, that will only weaken the institution. </p>.<p>Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal’s offensive remarks have elicited support and found justifications on some forums. There are individuals and sections within the party that disapprove of the actions taken against them. Some may even be happy that they have hurt the sentiments and sensitivities of the minority community. That is a sign of how grossly vitiated and communally divided the country’s political and social milieu has become. </p>
<p>It was highly inappropriate of Uday Mahurkar, Information Commissioner at the Central Information Commission, to suggest that treason charges should be filed against those who “instigated” Islamic nations to protest against the remarks made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and the party’s former Delhi media chief Naveen Jindal. The Information Commissioner’s post is not a constitutional position, but it is an independent office, and those who hold it should keep away from politics. What the Commissioner has made is a political statement that shows where his sympathies lie. The remarks made by Sharma and Jindal roiled the country and had international repercussions. To assume that the international responses were the result of some persons in India instigating other countries to react is to shift focus from the actual offence and point to an unreal one, making that out to be a bigger crime. It is embarrassment over the incident and the inability to do anything about the foreign response turning into anger against easy targets at home. </p>.<p>If the remarks of the duo became the talking point in the country and many people objected to them, it cannot be called “instigation” and “treason”. Criticism within the country of words and actions of the government and BJP leaders is not “instigation” of an international response to them. Such criticism has been described as anti-national in the recent past, and Mahurkar’s charge of treason follows that pattern. It should be noted that no action was taken against the two leaders for days after they made the offensive remarks, and it was taken only when there were protests from other countries. That means that the party was not worried about the remarks as long as there was no adverse international reaction to them. Mahurkar’s thoughts about instigation and treason arose from this mindset. That an Information Commissioner should base himself on a conspiracy theory, his own or that of others is embarrassing and unacceptable. It degrades the position and takes away from its credibility. As an institution, the Information Commission has an important role, independent of the government, if not adversarial. If those who man it show keenness instead to please the government and the ruling party and its politics, even on issues the Information Commission has nothing to do with, that will only weaken the institution. </p>.<p>Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal’s offensive remarks have elicited support and found justifications on some forums. There are individuals and sections within the party that disapprove of the actions taken against them. Some may even be happy that they have hurt the sentiments and sensitivities of the minority community. That is a sign of how grossly vitiated and communally divided the country’s political and social milieu has become. </p>