'Freedom On Trial' Book Review - Gripping Account Of Freedom Fighters' Encounters With Colonial Courts

Offences like sedition(introduced through an amendment in 1870), conspiracy and waging war under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were intentionally kept overbroad and vague to send a chilling effect and marked the criminalisation of dissent.  Even after more than 75 years of independence, these laws, in whatever form they exist, continue to haunt the ideas of dissent. Only in 2023, with the overhaul of the criminal justice system, was India able to replace these colonial-era laws.

It is in this context that the book 'Freedom on Trial' becomes an important read. Written by the author and advocate Akash Vajpai, the book contains 12 prominent criminal cases that not just shaped India's struggle for independence, but also the interpretation of these offences. The book deals with some of the famous trials of revolutionaries Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru; the trials of Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak; and lesser-known trials of Madan Lal Dhingra, Basant Biswas, and Sachindra Nath Sanyal.

Interestingly, the book begins with the Indian National Army(INA) trial (Red Fort trial) and ends with the trial of Mangal Pandey. This is symbolic because both trials involved soldiers who once had their loyalty to the British but turned their backs after the colonial authority betrayed their trust. While Mangal Pandey's trial had sparked the wave of nationalist sentiments across the country through the 1857 mutiny, the INA trial was a nail in the coffin, as it hastened the impossibility for the British Raj to continue.

Mangal Pandey was charged with inciting mutiny because he had revolted against the British officers for using cartridges greased with cow and pig fat. The author writes that the Britishers feared that the rebellion might spread among other soldiers, so they quickly set up a 14-member inquiry court, and he was punished and hanged within 3 days, even though he was seriously injured.

At the same time, Vajpai chose to begin the book with the INA trial because while the three senior officials, soliders 一 Hindu, a Muslim and a Sikh- were charged with treason as they were fighting against the British, they were ultimately released considering the overwhelming public support. After all, the British couldn't afford a mutiny akin to 1857.

An interesting fact of the INA trial was that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who had not donned his black robe and white band for nearly 30 years, had decided to be a part of the defence team that represented the three officials. Vajpai says the Congress regretted not extending legal assistance to Bhagat Singh and his comrades.

The reason for regret was genuine because while the three musketeers enjoyed immense support, they somehow lacked the legal assistance which paved the way for the British government to not only amend the legal provisions to deny any right of appeal, but they also carried out their execution 12 hours before the scheduled time.

Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt had thrown low-intensity bombs into the empty seats in the Old Parliament building, with pamphlets of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association to protest against the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Dispute Bill. It was aimed at making the 'deaf hear' and at using the trial as a platform to air their revolutionary ideas. The day, 8 April 1929, was purposely chosen because Mangal Pandey was executed on this day.

During the investigation of the bomb-throwing case, Bhagat Singh came to be charged in the Lahore conspiracy case. He, along with his comrades, accidentally assassinated ASP John Saunders, while the real target was SP James Scott for ordering the lathi charge during the arrival of the Simon Commission, resulting in the death of Lala Lajpat Rai.

Since the trial was not progressing, the then Viceroy Lord Irwin issued an Ordinance establishing a special tribunal without any right to appeal. It empowered the tribunal with in-absentia proceedings. Since nobody appeared for the accused persons, the tribunal concluded and sentenced them to death.

Vajpai says: “Countless men and women have laid down their lives for India's freedom, many fading into obscurity, remembered by none. Only a few survive in the nation's collective memory, immortal, honoured for embracing death at such a young age. Bhagat Singh's popularity, in a remarkably short span, rose to the level of Mahatma Gandhi's.”

While Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh both hoped for India's independence, they differed in their approach, and yet when Bhagat Singh was scheduled to be executed, Gandhi had reportedly written letters urging Viceroy Irwin to commute Singh's death sentence.

Gandhi too had stood in the corridors of (in)justice, charged with inciting disaffection against the British government through four articles published in Young India's magazine. Vajpai remarks that Gandhi's trial was so historic that after he pleaded guilty and was asked to make a statement, the judge had bowed before the very man he was sentencing.

Gandhi had said: “The Section 124A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his dissatisfaction, so long as he does not contemplate, promote or incite violence. But the section under which Mr Banker and I are charged is one under which mere promotion to disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under this section.”

Like Gandhi, Tilak's trial was also charged with sedition for his two articles in Marathi newspaper Kesari, and his trial significantly helped with the present-day interpretation of sedition. The prosecution alleged that in the first article, he had argued that the British government was solely driven by self-interest, and the article called for the transfer of power to Indians and advocated for 'Swaraj'. In the second article, the prosecution claimed Tilak instigated people to manufacture bombs and implied that other nations had secured their freedoms using bombs.

As per the prosecution, the intention of the person was irrelevant, and if the consequences of the words were such that they created "hatred or contempt' for the government, it was enough. Tilak had defended his own case and argued that the original articles were in Marathi, and distorted versions of the translation were placed. He argued that it should be considered what impact these writings might have on the minds of Marathi readers, who understood the language and the cultural context.

Most importantly, Tilak's trial established that physical violence is not necessary, as discursive violence would be enough. The words "hatred or contempt" were later added to Section 124A through an amendment in 1898.

Justice Dinshaw Davar of the Bombay High Court, while sentencing Tilak, had said: "You wrote about bombs as if they were legitimate instruments in political agitation. Such journalism is a curse to the country."

Overall, the book is an interesting read, especially for history aficionados. Vajpai's writing style is simplistic and factual, and yet it allows readers to visualise how charged the atmosphere would have been in those days. This book can prove a crucial reading for law students who are interested in reading legal history. It is also recommended to the judicial fraternity as a reminder that freedoms that have once stood on trial should continue to be safeguarded to prevent history from repeating itself.