![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines the conflict between press censorship and free speech in post-partition Delhi, focusing on the Urdu press. It demonstrates how conflicts over free speech became a focal point for the intersection of two fundamental tensions underlying postcolonial state formation—between civil liberties and the authoritarian legacy of colonial rule, and between a secular democracy and a religion-based partition. The article explores the Urdu refugee dailies that relocated from Lahore to Delhi amid the partition upheaval and emerged as significant media voicing refugees’ interests, often at the expense of Muslim residents. Their provocative writings simultaneously challenged the boundaries of free speech and advanced an exclusionary notion of citizenship based on blood-based descent (jus sanguinis). This narrow conception of citizenship, underlying the partition migrations themselves, challenged the secularist vision of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. In response, the Delhi administration took actions against the refugee papers, making them central to contemporary struggles over press censorship. By taking the state to court, refugee editors promoted citizens’ right to free speech, but simultaneously advanced a circumscribed notion of ethno-religious citizenship. Navigating this dual role, the article unveils the exclusions and contradictions that marked citizenship formation in the early postcolonial period.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. I am also grateful to Kalyani Ramnath for her comments on an earlier version of this article. Research for this article was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 887/20).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 Supreme Court 124. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 Supreme Court 129.
2 During 1947, the administration issued 24 warnings and utilized various sections of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, to ban publications and demand and forfeit securities. See ‘Annual Report and Statement of Newspapers Published in the Delhi Province during 1946 and 1947,’ F. CC 8(72)/48, Home-Press, Delhi State Archives (henceforth DSA). On actions taken against the press in the period immediately preceding and following partition, see also F. DC 7/1947, Press Advisor, DSA (ten volumes); and the fortnightly reports on the press in files CC 1/47-C and 1/48-C, Confidential, DSA.
3 The transplantation of Lahore’s press world to Delhi is evident in the numerous applications for authorization of new publications processed by the Delhi CID. See files 9, 11, 274, 277, Delhi Police Records (henceforth DPR), Eighth Installment, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (henceforth NMML).
4 Census of India 1961: Delhi District Census Handbook, 124-125.
5 This was the estimate of the CID press branch. F. 89, DPR, Second Installment, NMML.
6 Jawaharlal Nehru to Sardar Patel, October 6 1947, in Singh, ed., Nehru-Patel, 247.
7 Jawaharlal Nehru to Sardar Patel, October 27 1947, in Singh, ed., Nehru-Patel, 30-31.
8 F. 35/48-C, Confidential, DSA. Deputy Commissioner Randhawa’s fortnightly report for the second half of January 1948, F. CC 1/48-C, Confidential, DSA. F. DC 162/48, DSA.
9 Fortnightly press report for first half of February, F. CC 1/48-C, Confidential, DSA. F. CC 8(29)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
10 Securities were demanded from two newspapers, including Pratap. Of the nine temporarily banned newspapers, five were in Urdu (including Milap), three in English, and one in Hindi. The majority of them were aligned with Hindu-right or Sikh politics. F. DC 15/48, DSA.
11 For protocols of the meetings on May 24 and December 11, 1948, see F. CC 8(81)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
12 Protocol of the meeting on May 24 1948.
13 See endnote 10. My analysis of this case draws mainly on F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
14 See letter from Delhi Public Prosecutor, January 21, 1948, in F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA. For the involvement of the Central Press Advisory Committee in the regulation of, and actions taken against, Pratap, see also R. N. Banerjee to Dharma Vira, D.O. No. 328/48-P.S., May 6, 1948. Letter from Press Officer Gopi Nath Aman to editors of Pratap, Swarajya, Milap, Bande Mataram, Preet, and Vir Bharat, August 24 1948. ‘Statement of grounds for forfeiting the security of Rs.5,000 deposited by … Pratap,’ in the same file.
15 Warnings were issued to the Urdu newspapers Swarajya, Milap, Bande Mataram, Tej, Preet and Vir Bharat, as well as to the Hindi Ujala, Vishwamitra, and Amar Bharat, among others. See press reports in F. CC 1/48-C, Confidential, DSA.
16 Additional actions against the vernacular press in December 1948 involved forfeiting the security and temporarily banning the publication of the Urdu daily Ranjit Nagara, due to its comments on the Hindu-Sikh controversy. The Hindi daily Aj and Urdu weekly Maha Punjab faced temporary bans, while the Hindi daily Bharat Varsh was indefinitely banned. Securities were demanded from the Urdu weekly Hakumat and Hindi Sanmarg, and prior restraint was imposed on the Urdu weekly Panth. See fortnightly press and CID reports for December 1948, F. CC 1/48-C, Confidential, DSA.
17 The orders stated that the objectionable materials fell under the act’s §§ 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(h)—that is, items that ‘tend directly or indirectly … to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the administration of justice in British India or Government established by law in British India or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said government or … (h) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of his Majesty’s subjects … ’ Cited in the Punjab High Court judgment in Urdu Daily Newspaper “Pratap” vs. The Crown, April 5, 1949 (1949 CriLJ 813)., 2-3. (I quote here and in what follows from the copy of the judgment included in F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA). As pointed out in the ruling, clause (d) was very similar to §124-A of the Indian Penal Code, which defined and provided punishment for sedition.
18 ‘Maulana Azad aur Qidwai,’ Pratap, May 2, 1948. Included in F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
19 Dharma Vira to R.N. Banerjee, May 4, 1948, F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
20 ‘Ek dukhi dil ki purdard pukar,’ Pratap, May 6, 1948. Included in F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA. That Urdu papers—both Hindu and Muslim—published fictitious readers’ letters that were in fact written by the editors themselves was a recurrent charge by the Press Office, the CID, and the newspapers themselves against each other.
21 ‘ … tumhein ma’lum hoga ki apne kaun the aur begane kaun.’
22 Chief Commissioner Shankar Prasad’s affidavit concerning the second confiscation in the High Court, CC F.8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
23 The petitioner was Kidar Nath, owner of the Printers Ltd. Press of Ambala Cantonment. He petitioned under §23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act against an order by the East Punjab government under §3 of the act to deposit 8,000 rupees as a security on account of the publication of an article in the weekly Insaf on August 4, 1948. See Kidar Nath S/O Siri Ram vs. The Crown, December 23 1948.
24 Re: The Newspaper “The Daily Pratap” an Urdu Daily of New Delhi, 4 July 1949, 950 CriLJ 725. See below.
25 Both Kidar Nath and Narendra of Pratap did not yet have the Constitution at their disposal and could not challenge the constitutionality of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931, so they used §23 of the Press Act itself, which allowed the press to appeal to the courts.
26 Urdu Daily Newspaper “Pratap” vs. The Crown, April 5 1949 (1949 CriLJ 813). The bench consisted of Chief Justice S. R. Das, Achhru Ram, and D. Falshaw. The ruling pointed out that §23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, ‘under which this application has been made, confers on the High Court powers of a very limited character. All that this Court is authorised by this section to do is to decide if the newspaper in respect of which the Order of forfeiture has been made did or did not contain any words, signs or visible representations of the nature described in Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Act,’ p. 2.
27 See, e.g., Pothan Joseph v. Unknown (1932), 34 BOMLR 917. This judgment emphasizes that the Press Act of 1931 was even more strident than §124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in that a finding of sedition requires a mere tendency, directly or indirectly to rouse disaffection for the government. According to Pothan Joseph, it is irrelevant whether the allegations made in the article are true or justified, as the act does not provide for constructive criticism of the government: ‘The effect of the ordinance seems to us to bring within Section 4 of the Indian Press Act every charge of misconduct by Government, whether such charge is well-founded or not.’
28 “Pratap” vs. The Crown, 1949 CriLJ 813, 7.
29 Niharendu Dutta Majumdar v. Emperor, AIR (29) 1942. The Supreme Court judgments in the Crossroads and Organiser cases also referred to the Niharendu Majumdar case.
30 Quoted in ‘Successful Appeal By Delhi Paper,’ Statesman April 7, 1949.
31 “Pratap” vs. The Crown, 1949 CriLJ 813, 24. For the extensive coverage of this paragraph in the press, see the articles in Amrit Bazar Patrika, Delhi Times, Hindustan Times, Indian News Chronicle, National Herald, Statesman, Tribune, and Vishwamitra, included in F. CC F.8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
32 Re: The Newspaper “The Daily Pratap” an Urdu Daily of New Delhi, 4 July 1949, 950 CriLJ 725. The judgment pointed out that To determine whether ‘any words, signs or visible representations’ contained in any newspaper fall within the mischief of Clause (d) it is necessary to determine the meaning of the words ‘bring into hatred or contempt’ and ‘excite disaffection towards the Government.’ The question came up before this High Court recently in two cases Kidar Nath v. The Crown … and … Narendra v. The Crown … My Lord the Chief Justice in disposing of the last mentioned case discussed the entire law on the subject and enunciated the principles which must govern the decision of such cases. The matter has been so admirably dealt with in this judgment … that I need do no more than summarise briefly the main principles set out in that judgment.
33 See endnote 27. See also a case decided by the Calcutta High Court after the Pratap judgment, which treated the truth or facticity of the words as irrelevant: Saptaha v. Unknown, AIR 1950 Cal, 444.
34 “Pratap” vs. The Crown, 1949 CriLJ 813, 23.
35 See clippings from Delhi newspapers on the case in F. CC 8(11)/48, Home-Press, DSA.
36 “Pratap” vs. The Crown, 1949 CriLJ 813, 20.
37 “Pratap” vs. The Crown, 1949 CriLJ 813, 21.
38 “Pratap” vs. The Crown, 1949 CriLJ 813, 21.
39 Interview with Shankar Prasad, Oral History Transcript No. 494, NMML.
40 ‘Yeh chiragh phunkon se bujhaya na jaega,’ Pratap, 25 May 1949. The concluding sentence, which is also the editorial’s title, is a quotation from the nineteenth-century Urdu poet Ameer Minai. For Pratap’s assertive articulation of its right to free speech, see also the editorial ‘Pratap Ki Dusri Zamanat,’ Pratap, December 16 1948.
41 The Delhi administration felt paralyzed, as § 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 was declared void by the Supreme Court, § 24 of the act was declared void by the Punjab High Court, and provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 for demanding a security were declared void by the Patna High Court. See Chief Commissioner Shankar Prasad to Ministry of I&B, August 14, 1950, and Letter from Home Secretary to Delhi’s Chief Commissioner, Y.N. Verma, to the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, December 7, 1950, F. CC 4-A(5)/50, Passport & Political, DSA.
42 See the legal advice from M.L. Vijh on whether an article by Urdu daily Nayi Duniya is actionable and under what law, June 26, 1952, F. CC 8(137)/52, Home-Press, DSA. See also legal consultations regarding Nayi Duniya in F. CC 19(47)/54, Home Department, DSA. See Secretary to the Government of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs H.V.R. Iengar to All States Governments, September 17, 1952, F. CC 117/52, Confidential, DSA. Iengar’s circular focused on the need to curb communal matter in the press, especially in the vernacular newspapers.
43 Note from the Public Prosecutor Narain Sharma to Press Officer Rajendra Nath Shaida, June 14, 1954, F. CC 14(13) 1954, Press, DSA. See also his letter from May 18, 1954 in the same file.
44 For such legal deliberations over Pratap and its Hindi-language counterpart Vir Arjun, see: F. CC 14(13) 1954, Press, DSA. F. CC 14(9) 1954, Press, DSA.
45 This emerges clearly in Pratap’s and Vir Arjun’s editorials, included in F. CC 8(145)/1952, Home-Press; F. CC 14(13) Press 1954; F. CC 14(9) 1954, Press, DSA; F. 469, DPR, Eight Installment, NMML. These editorials’s content is very similar to the Organiser’s articles, analyzed in Nair, Hurt Sentiments, chapter 1.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Rotem Geva
Rotem Geva is a historian of South Asia with a focus on the twentieth-century India, particularly urban history, decolonization, territorial partitions, and state formation. She is a Lecturer in the Department of Asian Studies and the History Department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She earned her PhD in history from Princeton University. Her recent book, Delhi Reborn: Partition and Nation Building in India's Capital (Stanford University Press, 2022) explores the transformation of Delhi under the pressures of World War II, decolonization, and partition.