Crackdown in Delhi

S S on Whatsapp: 23.08.23
rteoSsdonpigm0t910lhf52hi3fu63cflc197g16u1692mc3g7iug61gufga ·
Following their recent intervention at the private event in the HKS Bhavan in Delhi where several citizens had gathered to discuss some pressing issues, within closed doors, the Delhi Police needs to put out an announcement, in the public interest, about what kind of conversations it thinks can be had, between consenting adults, within private spaces, homes, offices, etc. that will not, henceforth, attract its punitive and restrictive attention.
While I am aware of section 144 of the IPC (which remains operational in a state of suspended animation until the draft text of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita translates into actual law) and that it can restrict the number of people who can gather in a public space, I am not aware of the exact police powers that can prevent invited people from gathering in a non-public space. For reasons of transparency, so that we all know what’s what, we should be informed of what we can or cannot do, can or cannot say, in private spaces, in Amrit Kaal.
Is, for instance, a conversation at the dining table within a home, or at lunch time amongst colleagues in a workplace, about, say, the price of tomatoes, permissible, or, can that be construed to constitute a threat to the security of the state?
Is the whisper of pillow talk, overheard through the paper-thin walls of a hostel room or apartment, over a post-coital cigarette, about the resignation of a professor after something that they had written, likely, now, to attract an unexpected midnight knock? Should people, just to be abundantly cautious, apply for anticipatory bail before indulging in pillow talk?
Perhaps, to make things clearer and easier, the Delhi Police could also publish a set of guidelines about permitted silent gestures. So that citizens do not, inadvertently let slip an unauthorised raised eyebrow, an illegitimate refusal to smile, or an untimely roll of the eyes, that can detract from the dignity of India’s G20 Presidency, or from the majesty of some other important national initiative.
Next, it should also inform us about permissible and impermissible thoughts, feelings and stray hunches, that remain unexpressed, but in circulation, within the consciousness and interiority of individuals, without ever finding public expression.
I ask this because I am sure that the Delhi Police and it’s masters in the Ministry of Homicidal Affairs know well that a silence that simmers, contagiously and continuously, can be just as ‘subversive’, in the long run, as speech