Hyper-nationality and the Untouchability of UAPA: A Postmodern Analysis

Navdha Sharma

---

José Guadalupe Posada, 'A courtroom scene.' Wikimedia Commons.

What if the law wasn’t meant to protect you, but to punish you for who you are? In the film Article 15 (2019), a police officer investigating caste violence is told, “We don’t need to change the system. We are the system.” This scene isn’t just cinematic, but reflective of Indian history and a reality where justice is often influenced by societal perceptions, even in modern democracies that uphold principles of equality and liberty.

The world today is witnessing a marked right-wing shift in its political discourse. From Giorgia Meloni’s Italy to Donald Trump’s USA and Narendra Modi’s India, hypernationalism has become the foundation of governance.  Central to this rhetoric is garnering the support of the masses by instilling in them the threat of impending doom, to be brought about by a certain set of people. Unlike earlier fears of outsiders, this supposed “threat” does not come from foreign spies or snipers but from the citizens of their very own country, who are themselves seen as deviants and outsiders.

The othering of individuals to create a narrative of hatred and segregation is not new to human society. However, in the post-modern world, this phenomenon is fueled by hyperreality and rhetoric-based politics entrenched through specific laws designed to suppress dissent. One such law is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), enacted in 1967 as counter-terrorism legislation, which has increasingly been used to target activists and dissenters. Reports highlight its role in arbitrary arrests and prolonged detentions, raising concerns about its function as a tool of systemic exclusion, rather than genuine national security. In this context, postmodernism’s hyperreality and the cultural constructs of nationalism contribute to the way UAPA operates. Postmodernism erodes objective reality, allowing for the construction of hyperreal threats that feed into hyper-nationalism’s need for a unifying enemy. Laws like the UAPA then function as instruments to enact this constructed reality, transforming subjective perceptions into legal truths that justify repression. 

This dynamic raises a crucial question: whether these cultural and ideological constructs make the UAPA untouchable, reinforcing its role as a tool of state control rather than a measure of national security? This paper explores the intersection of postmodernism, hyperreality, and legal authoritarianism, using Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulacra to analyse the UAPA.  Such an analysis illuminates how the UAPA, rather than simply functioning as a counter-terrorism tool, is entangled in the construction of hyperreal threats and ideological constructs. Examining the law in this context gives a more nuanced understanding of its role in perpetuating systemic repression. This approach offers a fresh perspective, urging a critical reassessment of the UAPA.

In developing this argument, the paper first lays a theoretical foundation, explaining how postmodernism dissolves objective truth and enables hyperreal constructs. Secondly, it analyses hyper-nationalism and the politics of fear, examining how media and the state manufacture consent. Thirdly, the legal and practical implications of UAPA are analysed, emphasising its disproportionate impact on marginalised communities. Finally, the paper critiques UAPA’s role in systemic repression, advocating for a justice-oriented legal framework.

A.    Postmodernism, Simulacra and Hyperreality

Postmodernism, as a philosophical and cultural movement, negates the existence of meta-narratives. Rather, it focuses on the subjective human condition, thus giving importance to the person. It questions the existence of an objective truth, instead positing that knowledge is socially constructed and subjective.  In doing so, it thus lays emphasis on plural and fragmented narratives.

Postmodern theorists such as Jean Baudrillard argue that in a world saturated with media and representation, we no longer engage with reality directly, but through layers of constructed meaning, as explained by simulacra. Baudrillard emphatically states, “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.”

Imagine a map created to depict an empire with absolute precision.  Gradually, the map decays and loses its accuracy, thus distorting the actual image of the empire. Eventually, the empire itself disintegrates, leaving behind only the remnants of the map. However, people begin to associate the reduced empire with this ruined abstraction that no longer exists, ultimately treating the abstraction as the original.

Simulacra is thus the acceptance of altered representations themselves, rather than accepting them for their correspondence to reality.  In the postmodern world, such abstractions increase and the distinction between reality and depictions is reduced. This leaves societies adrift in hyperreality, where the simulations feel more “real” than reality itself, and where constructed illusions are accepted as absolute truths. This dissolution of clear distinctions between reality and representation reflects a broader intellectual shift- the foundation of postmodern thought.

These fractured narratives pave the way for identity politics and create fertile ground for division and polarisation.  It increases localised, subjective truths and creates a profound sense of uncertainty. This absence of a shared foundation encourages the formation of fragmented identities, where individuals seek belonging within narrower, more insular groups, defined by religion, ethnicity, or ideology. This identity-based discourse augments an “us versus them” dynamic. Technology and social media then operate as echo chambers, reinforcing constructed narratives. As representations gain dominance, they begin to dictate public discourse, often replacing objective reality with carefully curated images.

This dynamic extends into broader social and legal frameworks, where labels and representations hold greater power than objective reality. The process of categorisation itself, whether as a "terrorist," an "anti-national," or a "threat", becomes a self-sustaining truth, often independent of concrete evidence. This reflects Baudrillard’s simulacrum, where the representation of a person or event is accepted as reality, collapsing the distinction between truth and fabrication.

This blurring of truth enables the state to construct threats, justifying laws like the UAPA. Dissent is reframed as betrayal, consolidating hyper-nationalist narratives. As fear-driven governance takes hold, legal mechanisms turn into instruments of repression. This intersection of hyper-nationalism and the politics of fear forms the backdrop against which UAPA operates, turning legal mechanisms into instruments of ideological control.

B.    Hyper-nationalism and the Politics of Fear

First enacted in 1967, UAPA was originally designed to counter threats to India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Over time, it has been expanded to combat terrorism and broader national security threats, granting the state significant powers. Though intended for national security, the law has faced criticism for being misused against activists, journalists, and marginalised groups, often undermining fundamental rights and due process. Its broad application and several amendments have made it a tool to bypass fundamental legal rights and procedures such as the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Bail.

This legal expansion coincided with the growing dominance of hyperreal symbols in public discourse, where representation overtakes reality. Within this environment, laws like UAPA operate as instruments of control, shaping narratives that blur the line between genuine threats and constructed fears. The state and media meticulously cultivate fear by portraying certain communities, activists, and dissenters as existential dangers to national security. The result is a self-perpetuating cycle where legal frameworks like UAPA gain a near-sacrosanct status, shielding them from critique while simultaneously eroding foundational legal principles, such as due process and the presumption of innocence.

Over the last 10 years, the weaponisation of UAPA to target human rights defenders and curb dissent has exponentially increased. UAPA accords the authorities the power to designate an individual as a “terrorist” and detain them without having to produce incriminating evidence, leading to misuse of the law enforcement tools and abuse of the accused. In this landscape, repression becomes justified not through evidence but through the carefully manufactured spectacle of perpetual threat.

As fear-driven governance reshapes legal and social landscapes, the absence of shared truths creates a void—one that is swiftly occupied by forces seeking to impose order. In India, right-wing ideologies have capitalised on this uncertainty, offering rigid world-views rooted in nationalism, cultural purity, and traditional values as an antidote to perceived chaos. By presenting a binary choice between order and disorder, these ideologies manufacture a sense of belonging while simultaneously fostering division. They leverage the fragmentation of truth to construct an alternative reality where fear of the “other” and nostalgia for an imagined past justify exclusionary and repressive policies.

In such an environment, the state’s need for control seamlessly aligns with hyper-nationalist narratives that equate dissent with disloyalty. Hyper-nationalists idealise the nation-state and merge it with a singular cultural identity, creating the manufactured consent needed to sustain the status quo.

This interplay between hypernationalism, media power, and legislation such as the UAPA strengthens state authority in the name of security. Understanding the UAPA in this context requires a closer examination of its legal structure and practical application, revealing how its broad provisions and implementation further entrench the cycle of repression and manufactured consent.

C.    UAPA: Legal and Practical Implications

One of the most criticised aspects of UAPA is its excruciatingly low conviction rates and extended pre-trial detention. Despite its increased use, only 2.2% of cases registered from 2016 to 2019 ended in a court conviction. This highlights the fact that UAPA has become a tool used by the ruling dispensation to not only punish its opponents but also create an atmosphere where the process itself becomes the punishment. The case of Umar Khalid is a prime example in this regard; the student activist has been incarcerated for over 4 years, without trial or bail.

This systemic use of UAPA can be understood using Noam Chomsky's theory of manufactured consent, which explains how the state and propaganda media build public opinion to silently accept repressive measures as the requirement of the moment for national security.  Chomsky contends that mass media, controlled by influential elites, selectively report information to frame public opinion and uphold state authority. By magnifying government-sanctioned accounts and marginalising oppositional voices, the media constructs an appearance of free debate, while subtly guiding public opinion to accept repressive policies as necessary for national security. The Bhima Koregaon case exemplifies this manufactured consent, where activists were labeled as "Urban Naxals," intent on destroying the state from within, and arrested under UAPA despite weak evidence. By amplifying the government's narrative and suppressing counterarguments, mainstream media legitimised the crackdown on dissent, fostering public acceptance of repressive measures.

This manufactured legitimacy ensures that legal overreach is not only tolerated but also perceived as necessary for national security, allowing UAPA to function with minimal scrutiny. Several national and international human rights watchdogs have raised concerns over India’s debilitating democratic structure, with journalists and dissenters bearing the brunt of repressive laws. Amnesty International has noted that, along with laws themselves, the Indian government is even exploiting guidelines relating to terror financing to target and silence critics as ostensible recipients of this financing. Similarly, the Civicus Monitor has warned against the increasing use of draconian laws to stifle dissent in India.

The indiscriminate application of UAPA does not affect all citizens equally; it disproportionately affects marginalised groups, entrenching social and economic hierarchies. Selective repression underscores the intersection of legal authoritarianism and structural inequalities, where state power is exercised as an agent of exclusion.

D.   UAPA and Social Inequities

In a postmodern context, laws are transcending their legal function to become instruments of societal control. This is exemplified by UAPA, which not only stifles dissent but also the very process of contesting power structures, while exacerbating existing social hierarchies.

The UAPA’s disproportionate targeting of marginalised communities, including Dalits, Adivasis, and Muslims, augments the entrenched social inequalities of the society. The law is often used to silence activists advocating for these groups’ rights, painting them as enemies of the state. This practice magnifies systemic discrimination by criminalising dissent under the guise of national security. A 2023 Human Rights Watch report also highlighted the suppression of marginalised communities. This trend has only increased with the rise of the right-wing in the country, and subsequent changes brought about in the law itself.

An illustrative case is the arrest of Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, arrested under the UAPA for alleged links to Maoist groups. This reflects how hyper-nationalism constructs certain identities as threats, regardless of their actual actions. Marginalised communities, whether Adivasis, Dalits, or Muslims, are disproportionately targeted under UAPA, as their calls for justice and equality are reframed as dangers to the nation.

Hyper-nationalism feeds on exclusion, building a strict national identity that has no space for non-conformists. By tying the concept of the nation to one religious and cultural ethos, marginalised communities become perpetual outsiders— threats rather than citizens. This exclusion is not accidental; it is systematically maintained through manufactured consent. The government and media cooperate to define popular perception, calling dissent sedition. As repression is normalised, the structural inequalities underpinning these stories are intensified, so exclusion can masquerade as national security and oppression can be disguised as stability.

E.    Conclusion

Laws are intended to shield the powerless, but UAPA succeeds in a world where power defines truth. Today, the law has turned into a performance: one where guilt is presumed, and innocence is irrelevant. But justice is not an illusion; it is a pursuit.

The aim, therefore, is not merely to critique the law itself but to dismantle the state’s carefully constructed narrative that enables its misuse. The core issue with UAPA does not lie in its legislative framework alone but in its execution, where broad provisions are leveraged to justify prolonged detentions and suppress dissent.

This paper interrogated the UAPA through the lens of postmodernism, explaining how hyperreality, simulacra, and manufactured consent sustain its legitimacy. It elucidated the law’s evolution from a counterterrorism measure to an instrument of ideological control, exposing its disproportionate impact on marginalised communities. By blurring the distinction between dissent and crime, UAPA augments the weaponisation of law in the service of hyper-nationalist narratives. This deliberate conflation not only stifles democratic discourse but also normalises a legal regime where fear replaces freedom. Restoring the law as a tool of justice rather than fear requires targeted reforms: stricter judicial oversight, reinforcement of the presumption of innocence, and clearer guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests. Strengthening bail provisions, instituting an independent review mechanism, and ensuring accountability within law enforcement are crucial steps toward curbing its misuse.

For in the end, a democracy that punishes its critics is merely a tyranny in disguise. The question is not whether UAPA can be reformed; it is whether we have the will to demand its transformation before silence becomes the status quo.

---

Navdha Sharma is a second-year law student at Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai. Her academic interests lie in constitutional theory, civil liberties, and the intersection of law and politics.

Feature image: José Guadalupe Posada, 'A courtroom scene' (circa 1880-1910). Source: Wikimedia Commons.