Debate ignites over whether chanting ‘Jai Palestine’ infringes upon legal and constitutional boundaries. Critics argue it promotes free speech, while opponents claim it incites unrest. This controversy raises vital questions about the balance between expression and public order in a democratic society. What does the law truly say?
As it’s within legal limits for members to say anything that is not “unparliamentary”, even Jai Palestine cannot be called “illegal” as such.
Asaduddin Owaisi, the Member of Parliament representing Hyderabad constituency in Lok Sabha, has courted controversy yet again, this time about his oath, but for doubtful reasons this time. A number of politicians, including Madhavi Latha Kompella, the BJP opponent he defeated in the recent general elections, as well as various Sangh Parivar outfits, including Telangana BJP, have been lambasting him for saying “Jai Palestine” while taking oath as the new member on Tuesday. The accusation against the AIMIM leader was that he was “demonstrating his loyalty to another nation”.
In tune with her image as a rabble-rouser, Madhavi Latha pointedly asked Owaisi who he was and for whom he became a member of parliament. “In the parliament, which we consider as a temple, in an auspicious moment, this person should have taken oath in the name of god, or Allah, if he wants. But this person did not want to show his loyalty and love to this country and said Jai Palestine. I would like to ask this person, who are you? Are you loyal to this country? In whose interests have you become a legislator?” she said in a widely televised diatribe.
She termed Owaisi’s oath-taking unconstitutional and illegal, questioning how Owaisi was elected and accused him of large-scale rigging, impersonation, and booth capturing. Madhavi Latha also blamed the Telangana government for misusing state machinery in favour of Owaisi.
Owaisi’s loyalty questioned
In her usual provocative tone, she appealed to the “National Security Council” (whatever it is!) to take Owaisi to task. She also voiced the same old Sangh Parivar rhetoric: “After enjoying the fruits of this motherland, after using each and every institution of this motherland, after accumulating properties on this motherland, after becoming a legislator in this motherland, now you want to show your loyalty to another land. Are you showing your loyalty to Hamas?”
What did Owaisi actually do to earn this wrath? He initially read the mandatory oath in Urdu as “I, Asaduddin Owaisi, who has been elected as a Lok Sabha member, swear in the name of Allah, that I will remain solemn and loyal to the Constitution of India. I will maintain the supremacy and integrity of India, and I will fulfil my duties assigned to me under this position with loyalty.” He concluded the oath with the slogan, “Jai Bhim, Jai Meem, Jai Telangana, Jai Filisteen”.
While there is no actual legal position on whether a member could prefix or suffix with whatever he or she thinks is right, the Constitution of India, in Schedule 3, under III B, prescribes a specific format for “oath or affirmation to be made by a member of Parliament”. Owaisi did just that.
‘Jai’ slogans after the oath
After reading the oath, he raised four different slogans; this has become quite common for members of parliament or legislature these days.
“Jai Bhim” is a slogan praising Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, the chairman of the Constitution drafting committee. It has become a symbol of Dalit assertion and self-respect. One hears this slogan anywhere and everywhere in the meetings of Dalits and friends of Dalits.
“Jai Meem”, of late, has become a slogan of Muslim self-respect, and in the last couple of decades, it has become popular in almost all progressive circles in the country. Though the word “meem” does not mean anything, the Urdu alphabet seemingly refers to Muslim identity. It has been symbolising an assertion of identity only and is not in any way tantamount to being unconstitutional or illegal.
“Jai Telangana” is a slogan of pride for the people of Telangana, particularly through the decades of struggle to assert their identity and aspiration of achieving a separate state.
‘Jai Palestine’
Then, the only slogan that can be remotely seen with suspicion is “Jai Palestine”. As it is within legal limits for members to say anything that is not “unparliamentary”, even Jai Palestine cannot be called “illegal” as such.
Coming to the “unconstitutional” part, Owaisi only voiced the official stand of the Government of India expressed in various international forums for decades. Even as late as 2 February 2024, V Muraleedharan, the Union Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs answered an unstarred question in Lok Sabha: “India’s policy towards Palestine has been long-standing and consistent. We have supported a negotiated two-state solution towards the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine within secure and recognized borders, living side by side in peace with Israel.”
If one traces the history of this “long-standing and consistent” policy, India voted against the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel in 1947 at the United Nations General Assembly. India was among the early nations, in 1974 itself, to recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. India recognized the state of Palestine in 1988. In contrast, though India recognized the state of Israel in 1950, it did not enter into diplomatic relations with it till 1992.
Consistent with tradition
Owaisi took a cue from this tradition of the “long-standing and consistent” policy of India, whereas the government of India itself reneged on this policy when it did not support a UN resolution for a “humanitarian truce” in Gaza on 27 October 2023 and abstained from voting. While a war of genocidal proportions is going on against Palestine and Gaza, killing more than 38,000 Palestinians, including 15,000 children, along with bombing hospitals, schools and media establishments, it is the government of India that is aiding this cruel and inhuman war preparation.
At best, the slogan raised by Owaisi is a show of humanitarian solidarity towards a people, particularly children dying in thousands in a genocidal war thrust upon the country. It is a humane and civilized act. At worst one may call it inappropriate, but certainly not “unconstitutional” and “illegal” and “disloyal to the motherland” by any stretch of imagination. #hydkhabar
About The Author
