“In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, which tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.”
I would like to bring the issue of sedition within the Indian context. This is a web definition that I have found. The Indian constitution does say that mere speech which threatens sovereignty and does not involve any physically subversive activity that undermines the nation is not sedition. The politicians of India want this law to be scrapped. The politicians of India have made scapegoats of the Students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University and arrested them on charges of sedition just because they protested that it is the right of Kashmiri people to self determination. Kashmir is India’s powder keg with tendencies for separatism. The irony of Kashmir is that it was ruled by a Hindu King and populated with a Muslim majority. So he decided to cede Kashmir with India. I feel that the politics of India should engage in democratic dialogism and make the people of Kashmir cared for. In spite of the constitutional guarantee that mere speech is not sedition, the Delhi Durbar Politicians and the police have been ruthlessly cruel to the students. In a creative dialogic democracy mere speech cannot be labeled as sedition. On the other hand if a democracy wants to be coercive, authoritarian and monologic, then by mere speech would become sedition and that would destruct the very essence of democracy.