Repressive sedition laws aimed at one group unite otherwise unsympathetic groups against the state

Evidence

The relationship between the Khan brothers’ case and the passage of Section 124A demonstrates how the language of liberalism knit together diverse protests into a broad defence of liberty. Official correspondence on Section 124A cited the threat of Wahhabi fanaticism to justify greater powers to punish anyone believed to be spreading disaffection. The press in India saw the amendment as a threat to freedom of expression. A few months before the amendment passed, the Bengali paper Som Prakash, in language reminiscent of J.S. Mill’s On Liberty, warned: Where the press is not free it has all the more power, as is evidenced in the history of France. — Julia Stephens, The Phantom Wahhabi, 137

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes contemporary debates over anti-terror policing that alienates entire populations and produces ‘radicalization blowback.’ — connects to: State repression of dissent solidifies community solidarity and legitimates even lethal internal enforcement — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 539
• SEED: Article angle: how targeting a feared minority under liberal-security language recruits unexpected allies into a shared grievance coalition.