Ambedkar-Nehru frosty ties that Parliament won’t recollect

(Edited Image Courtesy: PIB)

Have you ever come across any instance of a Prime Minister describing a departed national icon as “very controversial figure” in obituary?

Jawaharlal Nehru did so on 6th December 1956 while sharing his grief over demise of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. And in this hangs a tale of uneasy relationship between these two leaders – a relationship in which Dr. Ambedkar missed no opportunity to unmask and jab at Mr. Nehru.

This narrative is relevant as Parliamentarians are currently vying with one another in eulogizing Dr. Ambedkar as chief architect of Indian Constitution and prime mover of socio-political reforms. He also had premonition of his death. He had also cautioned the Government against taking the country to dogs!

Before recounting certain punches thrown by Dr. Ambedkar at Nehru, hear what Mr. Nehru stated: “Dr. Ambedkar for many, many years had been a very controversial figure in Indian public affairs, but there can be no doubt about his outstanding quality, his scholarship, and the intensity with which he pursued his convictions, sometimes rather with greater intensity than perhaps required by the particular subject, which sometimes reacted in a contrary way. But he was the symbol of that intense feeling which we must always remember, the intense feeling of the suppressed classes in India who have suffered for ages past under our previous social systems, and it is as well that we recognise this burden that all of us should carry and should always remember.”

Dr. Ambedkar resigned as Law Minister from Nehru Cabinet in 1951 following differences over former’s cherished Hindu Code Bill, which was not passed and later modified as Hindu Marriages and Divorce Bill, 1952.

He listened to Mr Nehru’s rambling and laboured rationalization of Government’s decision to tinker with the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal on Bank Disputes in Rajya Sabha on 2nd September 1954.

Dr. Ambedkar had a dig at Nehru’s statement: “The Prime Minister's case—if I understood him correctly—resembled the case of a woman who had given birth to an illegitimate child and when she was questioned on this issue, she said: ‘Sir, it may be illegitimate, but it is a very small baby.’ Well, I suppose we could separate the two issues, the fact that the decision is illegitimate and the fact that the decision probably is a small one.”

Participating in a discussion on report of Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC&ST) in the same month, he targeted Nehru for his indifference towards ostracization.  

Dr. Ambedkar stated: “Our Prime Minister has taken no interest in this matter at all. In fact, he seems to be not only apathetic but anti-untouchable. I happen to have read his biography and I find that he castigated Mr. Gandhi because Mr. Gandhi was prepared to die for the purpose of doing away with separate electorates which was given to the scheduled castes. He said in his biography, ‘Why on earth Mr. Gandhi is bothering with this trifling problem.’ Sir, I was shocked and surprised to hear the Prime Minister – rather Mr. Nehru then in 1934 – uttering these words. I thought that since the responsibility of Government had fallen on his shoulder he may have changed his view and thought that he must now take the responsibility which Mr. Gandhi was prepared to take on his shoulder, but I do not find any kind of a change in his mind.”

He continued: “Sir, in the year 1952 a conference was held at Nagpur under the Presidentship of my hon. Friend, Babu Jagjivan Ram. I understood that there was a very big shamiana. Two silver chairs were placed on the dais, one for Mr. Jagjivan Ram and one for Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. There was an audience of two hundred to three hundred and one thousand police. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was supposed to inaugurate that conference. I have got his speech here, but I do not wish to trouble the House by reading it, but this is the gist of it. He was, I am told, in great anger against Babu Jagjivan Ram for having organised the conference. He said roundly ‘I do not recognize that there is such a problem as that of the untouchables. There is a general problem of the economically poor and the problem of the untouchables is a part of that problem. It will take its place and receive its attention along with the other problems. There is no occasion, no purpose in bestowing any special thought upon it’.”

He added: “Sir, if the Prime Minister is prepared to throw such cold water— not cold, water from the refrigerator, so to say—what enthusiasm can we expect from the rest of the workers who have taken upon themselves the duty or the responsibility or the interest in carrying on with this particular problem: I do not think that untouchability will vanish.”

Participating in a discussion on international situation in August 1954, he blamed Nehru for delaying and complicating the issue of Portuguese exiting Goa.

Dr. Ambedkar stated: “There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister in pursuing the policy of getting Goa evacuated is quite right. It is a very sound policy and everybody must lend his support to him. I do. But there is one observation that I would like to make.”

He continued: “This question about the evacuation of Goa by the Portuguese and handing it over to India was, if I remember alright, brought to his notice very early when we got our independence. I possess with me some notes which were submitted to him by a delegation—I have forgotten their names. But I have got them with me—but the Prime Minister took no active interest in it.”

He added: “I am very sorry to say that, because I feel that if the Prime Minister had in the very beginning taken an active interest in the matter. I am sure about it that a small police action on the part of the Government of India would have been quite sufficient to enable us to get possession of Goa. But he has always been only shouting against them, only shouting and doing nothing. The result has been that the Portuguese have been able, so far as we know, to garrison Goa.”

Dr. Ambedkar also questioned Mr. Nehru’s foreign policy that hinged on three principles – peace; co-existence between communism and democracy; and the opposition to now defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). He also debunked Mr. Nehru’s Panchsheel principle, which was trampled by Chinese aggression in 1962.

He stated: “The Prime Minister has been depending upon what may be called the Panchsheel taken by Mr. Mao and recorded in the Tibet treaty of nonaggression. Well, I am somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister should take this Panchsheel seriously. The Panchsheel, as you, Sir, know it well, is the essential part of the Buddhist religion, and if Mr. Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhists in his own country in a very different way. There is no room for Panchsheel in politics and secondly, not in the politics of a communist country.”

As for his premonition about his death, Dr. Ambedkar, a diabetic, made a few philosophical repartees while participating in a debate on States Reorganization Bill in May 1956.

When a MP interjected in his speech and quipped: “God save your soul.”

Dr. Ambedkar responded: “Do not pray for my soul. I have no soul. I am a Buddhist. Nobody need take the trouble of praying for my soul. I do not believe in God. I have no soul. I have spared you that trouble.”

In the same debate, another MP hinted that only he had the requisite stature to succeed Home Minister G.B. Pant, if such an eventuality arose.

 To this, he retorted: “I shall die pretty soon. Don't enrol me. This country, by this kind of thing, is going to dogs. Our primary concern is to raise and train politicians so that they can learn to take responsibility upon their own shoulders.”

As the cliché goes, rest is history.

                                                           Ends

Modi’s shift from Proactive to Reactive PM shatters billion dreams

                                                 (Sunset for Modi?)

The prime mover advantage in political narrative is shifting from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the opposition parties.

The shift is set to gather momentum following the BJP’s debacle in Bihar polls that was preceded by drubbing in Delhi from rookie politician Arvind Kejriwal. The election results have delivered a decisive blow to Modi’s waning charisma and credibility.

Many a citizen would henceforth view with suspicion whatever good initiative that Mr. Modi takes in future. They would suspect it as a part of larger Hindutva agenda.  

Similarly, the Opposition would take credit for anything good that Mr. Modi does in any socio-economic domain. They would say something like this: Modi is doing this because we created public pressure for him to act. He is backtracking because… and so on and so forth. As this process gains momentum in the coming months, Mr. Modi would be seen as a reactive leader and not as a proactive leader.

Barring sound and fury, he failed to act as a proactive leader on all fronts except his hobbyhorse, #SwachhBharat (Clean India). And action in this domain has been more theatrical and not holistic. It has hardly changed the ground actuality.  India thus continues to stink.  

When electorate gave BJP the Lok Sabha mandate to govern well, then it was swayed by Mr. Modi’s perceived passion for growth and reforms. The public saw him as a proactive leader who would cut Gordian knot of hurdles to herald #AccheDin (Good Days) for all.

He failed to rise to the occasion perhaps because he trusts only very few colleagues, who in turn have created their own cliques of trusted advisors. The bane of Modi regime is the distrust for established institutional framework and outside professional talent.

 Mr. Modi is also indifferent towards well-meaning advice that flows from institutions, analysts and small fries at large. (http://bit.ly/1QwEHB9   http://bit.ly/1hDDzNy http://bit.ly/1HndNcM http://bit.ly/1JCBxEb )

Be it the attacks on churches, be it arrogance-inspired land ordinance, be it ghar wapsi (conversion of Christians and Muslims back to Hinduism), be it cow slaughter, be it beef tamasha, be it abusive tongue-lashing by certain BJP leaders, Mr. Modi’s initial response has always be stoic silence.

Take any case and make a Google search. Pop comes the headline that runs on these lines: Modi finally breaks his silence.

In each case, the Opposition and other opinion leaders goaded PM to break his silence. And he always spoke too late and too little, thereby consolidating his image as reactive leader, who drew comfort from great escape from domestic grind by flying abroad ostensibly to build India’s image.

With this background, consider reactive PM scenario with five hypothetical situations in point.

Take the case of farmers’ suicides and worsening agrarian crisis especially in drought hit areas. Mr. Modi has avoided healing touch at the ground level like an ignorant person distancing himself from HIV patient. Now when PM finally spares time from his foreign tours and visits families hit by suicides, Rahul Gandhi would take credit for it. And rightly so: Mr. Gandhi has been taunting Modi repeatedly on this issue.

Consider now PM’s truancy from Parliament. Mr. Modi is the leader of Lok Sabha. He is country’s CEO. And yet he is extremely frugal in sparing time to participate in discussions in Parliament on burning issues. As and when, he now improves his visibility in Parliament, the Opposition would take legitimate credit for bringing escapist PM on the line.

Take the case of population explosion, an issue that Modi has shunned like plague after becoming PM. His Government has categorically ruled out formulation of new population policy (NPP) to replace the one framed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government in 2000. This policy was unveiled to implement recommendations of  a committee constituted by National Development Council (NDC) during Narasimha Rao regime in the nineties.

Modi has not even-reconstituted the National Population Commission (NPC), which last met in October 2010. In that meeting chaired by his predecessor, NPC resolved that “population stabilisation should be accorded high priority and brought back into the political discourse at all levels. (And) the Chief Ministers should provide leadership to the promotion of small family norms.”

As and when Modi Government revives NPC or initiates a move to frame NPP, it would be viewed as handiwork of RSS.

The Opposition would promptly point out that RSS had recently demanded formulation of NPP taking into consideration the decline in share of Hindus’ in total population and rise in share of Muslims. RSS articulated its stance on demography with the situation in Assam.

As put by RSS’ resolution passed at its conference on 30^th October, Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal (ABKM) observed: “severe demographic changes brought forth by the analysis of the religious data of Census 2011 highlight the necessity of the review of population policy. Vast differences in growth rates of different religious groups, infiltration and conversion resulting in religious imbalance of the population-ratio, especially in border areas may emerge as a threat to the unity, integrity and cultural identity of the country.”

And Modi critics would not fail to articulate their attack by recalling his 2002 quotable jibe “hum paanch hamare pachees” (We five (husband plus 4 wives and our 25 Kids) directed against a community.  

Leave aside this sectarian angle, the country urgently needs a NPP to rein in population growth to avoid further erosion of benefits of economic growth through multiplication of population especially among the poor. As it is, the existing population is unsustainable from the standpoint of limited natural resources particularly land and water.

Consider now the case of PM-chaired National Integration Council (NIC), which last met in September 2013. Modi’s distrust for institutions is obvious here: He has not reconstituted NIC, leave aside the remote idea of convening it. Now as and when Modi convenes NIC, the media would jump to conclusion that it is being convened following incessant campaign against growing Intolerance. Award Wapsi and Tsunami of other protests.

Take now PM’s rhetoric on cooperative federalism and Team India. The credibility deficit is yawning in this arena. Mr. Modi has not cared to reconstitute Inter-State Council (ISC), whose half-yearly meetings he demanded as Gujarat CM. ISC, a constitutional entity, has not met for almost nine years.

He has also not constituted ISC Standing Committee (ISC-SC) which is chaired by Union Home Minister. 

Like his predecessor Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Modi is keeping Maun Varat on recommendations of Commission on Centre-State Relations (CCSR) that submitted its seven-volume report in April 2010. 

Now as and when ISC is revived and meets, the Opposition would take credit for it. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s Chief Ministers’ Conclave on Cooperative Federalism would be cited as an instance of political pressure on Modi to respect federalism in letter and spirit.

We can consider more such instances of Mr. Modi’s failure to bank on institutions and established practices for good governance. When BJP licks the dust at the next Lok Sabha polls, Mr. Modi would have enough time to reflect over his failure to take the right decision at the right time.  

He might like to recall what almost every student learns in a good school: time and tide wait for none.

Caste Politics Turns leaders Blind to Unique Fair Deal for Poor

(Image Courtesy:National Commission for Scheduled Castes)


If a Chaiwala (tea seller) can become Prime Minister of the country, what stops a beggar from aspiring for the same coveted post?
The answer lies in the conspiracy of silence among all political parties on India’s most revolutionary socio-political reform mooted by late V.P. Singh in August 1990. He, as PM, mooted the reform as an add-on to the National Front Government’s decision to implement Mandal Commission Report (MCR).
The public thus knows Mr. Singh best as provider of 27% reservation of jobs in Central Government and central public enterprises (CPEs) for other backward classes (OBCs) in keeping with MCR.
Very few know that he pitched for two vital caste and religion-neutral reforms for the poor as a class without encountering any opposition. He could not implement the two ideas as his Government fell in November 1990 after withdrawal of support by certain parties.
Mr. Singh’s two crucial forgotten reform proposals are: Reservation of 40% of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies for the poor and fixation of 5-10% jobs quota for poor in the Central domain.  
Even Chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Mohan Bhagwat, has not mentioned this unfinished reforms agenda set by Mr. Singh.
Clarifying the decision to implement MCR in Rajya Sabha on 9th August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “If 40 per cent of the people are below the poverty line, in the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha and Assemblies, we can reserve seats for the poor to that extent. In Rajya Sabha, in Lok Sabha and in the Assemblies, we can really speak for the poor to the extent. These will be the real social changes which history will expect of us.”
He continued: “If there is a consensus of the House, we from the Government side are ready to bring forward Constitutional Amendment Bill. It will necessitate constitutional change for which we do not have the majority. But certainly, with your support, we have made four changes. We can make the fifth one also which the coming generations will remember.”
Mr. Singh added: “Let us forget that the poor are begging for some crumbs. They have suffered it for thousands of years. Now they are fighting for their honour as a human being.”
Late Sita Ram Kesri, longtime Congress Party Treasurer and later its President, instantly welcomed Mr. Singh’s idea.
An MP then quipped: “What about the Leader of the Opposition?”
Mr. P. Shiv Shanker (Congress) replied: “I have thumped the table. What more do you want?
Mr. Singh later thanked the House for supporting the proposal. He stated: “I think it is very happy moment for me. It is one of the happiest moments. I did have to muster a lot of courage to say it.”
In October 1990, PM wrote a letter to leaders of all parties in both houses of Parliament, articulating his proposal to reserve 40% seats in all legislatures.
Noting that numerous initiatives to ameliorate the lot of poor have failed to significantly reduce poverty, Mr. Singh observed: “All this has pushed the poor further into a state of hopelessness and the feeling that they are not masters of their own destiny.”
Explaining the rationale for his reservation proposal, he wrote: “No more should we perpetuate the giver-taker relationship that has been institutionalized in our society where the poor are the mere “receivers” of certain State-funded “benefits” without having any real say in decision-making.”
He continued: “This would call for the realisation that the problem of poverty is not just one of economics alone, but it is, in truth, one of sharing of power in the political economy of the country. We should now think of a strategy and mechanism by which the poorest of the poor can reach out to the sanctum sanctorum of power where decisions affecting them are made.”
Concluding his soul-stirring letter, Mr. Singh stated: “This suggestion (40% seats reservation) was welcomed by several member of Parliament. We now have to debate this issue seriously and generate a consensus so as to make this idea a reality.” (See three-page text of the letter for more).
In another clarification on Mandal Commission report in Rajya Sabha on 27th August, 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “At the same time, the Government is equally concerned about the future of our Youth in general. In the Rajya Sabha, there was a suggestion from the Members to provide reservation for the poor over and above the reservation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and I had said that we would sympathetically consider some reservation for the poor, irrespective of social groups. This was reiterated by the Finance Minister, Prof. Madhu Dandavateji in the intervention in
the Lok Sabha. We propose to provide an additional reservation of 5 per cent to 10 per cent for the poor, irrespective of social groups, entirely on the basis of appropriate economic criteria, after taking the sense of this august House.”
Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi have the gumption to take Mr. V.P. Singh’s caste-neutral agenda for making poor equal partners in decision-making and development?

Three-page Text of V.P. Singh's letter to leaders of all political parties

Kejriwal’s sack Drama Pales Against ‘PM sacked Deputy PM’ case

(Edited Image Courtesy: delhi.gov.in)

Now that #AAPWalksTheTalk twitter party is over, we can dish out some sobering thoughts for Aam Adami Party (AAP) Supremo-cum-Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his fans.

The anti-bribery jubilation also has an embedded message for a section of the mainstream media, which projected Mr. Kejriwal's  “live” sacking of Food Minister Asim Ahmad Khan as “unprecedented” and refrained from asking critical questions to CM. 

First fact first. Mr. Kejriwal is not the first Chief Minister/Prime Minister to sack a minister. In March this year, tainted Tamil Nadu Agriculture Minister S.S Krishnamoorthy was not only sacked from the Cabinet but also stripped of all AIADMK party posts. He was later sent to judicial custody too. (http://bit.ly/1QfU66s)

Certain CMs in different States have sacked ministers of dubious reputation without flaunting corruption charges as that might later be trashed by the courts. Even the so-called “weakest” Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had goaded Union Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan of the alleged ‘jayanthi tax’ fame resign from UPA Cabinet in December 2013.

Way back in August 1948, PM Jawahar Lal Nehru had dropped (sacked according to one version) India's first Finance Minister R.K. Shanmukham Chetty for allegedly being soft towards certain business houses in pursuing taxation cases against them. Later, Mr. Nehru kept the finance portfolio with himself for about a month. (http://bit.ly/1jV9uem & http://bit.ly/1L5D61x )

 If these instances appear weak in theatrics which is Kejriwal’s trademark, let me take him and AAP's teenyboppers to a unique case of Prime Minister sacking Deputy Prime Minister on grave charges of misconduct: Late Mr. V.P. Singh had sacked the No.2 man, Late Chaudhary Devi Lal, in the National Front Government in August 1990.

At that time, private TV news channels had not cropped up. There was obviously no online social media. Mr. Singh had to thus sack Mr.Lal through an official release. And yet Mr. Singh's sacking of his Deputy PM was more credible and dramatic than Mr. Kejriwal's action.

PM had slapped three charges on Mr. Lal: 1) Quoting a forged letter in an interview with a weekly magazine. The letter was allegedly written by Mr. Singh in November 1987 to the President of India when he was a minister in Rajiv Gandhi Government, levelling charges against the then cabinet colleagues. 2) In the interview, Mr. Lal made serious, unsubstantiated allegations against his Cabinet colleagues. 3) He also made derogatory remarks against PM in the interview.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Lal on 1st August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “For these acts of yours, of violations of all cannons of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, I have recommended to the President of India to drop you from the Council of Ministers.”

Consider now the second fact. In this case, Mr. Singh had given an opportunity to Mr. Lal to defend himself on these charges through a letter dated 29th July 1990. Mr. Lal failed to answer razor-sharp queries on the forged letter. Nor did he provide evidence to substantiate allegations against other ministers.

Mr. Kejriwal, on other hand, did not give an opportunity to Mr Khan to reply to the alleged case of bribery, which is based on a recorded telephonic conversation. This is evident from his initial reaction immmediately after a Press Conference. A daily quoted Mr. Khan as saying: “I have not heard the recording and am in a state of shock. The party said that till the inquiry is on, I should not be in office.”

The very next day, Mr. Khan trashed Kejriwal's charges at a Press conference. He attributed his sacking to AAP’s internal politics and an attempt to save some big gun within the party. He reportedly said: “I am the sacrificial goat”. He also resolved to expose the conspiracy against him in a few days.

 In playing a taped conversation in which Mr. Khan is allegedly seeking bribes at the Press Conference, Mr. Kejriwal not only showed contempt for the Law but also rationalized media lynching of suspects.

It is here pertinent to quote what the then Chairman of Law Commission Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, stated in its 200th report captioned ‘Trial by Media: Free Speech Vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971)’ submitted in August 2006.

Mr. Rao observed: “According to our law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a Court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial.”

If Mr. Khan drags Kejriwal Government to the court and wins a defamation suit, would Mr. Kejriwal resign as CM? Was this question raised in the feted Press conference?

Third, if Mr. Kejriwal is sincere in battling corruption at top echelons of power, why has he not made public all the files on corruption complaints in which some of his ministers are suspects, the latest case being that of alleged nepotism towards a firm owned by a kin of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia?

Any clean head of a government would have no hesitation in suo moto disclosure of all files on all commercial deals. After all, transparency is the key to prevention of bribery.

Why has Mr. Kejriwal left the post of anti corruption ombudsman, Lokayukta, vacant for several months? Why has he dragged his feet over Jan Lokpal bill? Why has he not referred to CBI several cases of irregularities that happened during the previous Congress regime at Delhi? And what about the donations scam that rocked AAP on the eve of Delhi Assembly elections?

Fourth, Kejriwal deserves praise for outsmarting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in anti-corruption theatrics. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Modi/BJP would accept Kejriwal’s gauntlet and take decisive political steps in Lalitgate, VyapamGate, Rajasthan mining scam, etc.  

         #BeefPolitcs Rants Prove Activists’ Duplicity on Lynching by mobs

    

(Indian Civil Society should create such online museum on lynching by mobs in the country)

Is there a good or bad lynching by mob? Do media especially #ShrillNow TV channels and self-certified, #CivilSociety have different set of ethics on lynching debates?  Should there be different levels of concern over two types of death – one resulting from lynching and the other from court verdicts? 

These issues would stir the mind of any rationalist who values all human lives irrespective of the lynched person’s profile. These would equally disturb any citizen who wishfully prays for enforcement of the rule of the law in the country.  

The two triggers for these concerns are: hysterical response of certain sections of the intelligentsia over lynching of father-son duo in a village at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and hanging of 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon. 

In the latter case, civil society indulged in unprecedented theatrics to delay implementation of reconsidered Supreme Court verdict even as it kept mum on heinous instances of lynching during the same period. 

In both these cases, the common factor is that lynched/hanged persons belonged to a particular religion. This reflects the inherent bias of the media, civil society and vote bank-obsessed politicians for a particular segment of society. Both cases served as a perfect opportunity for dubious intellectuals to bash BJP in particular, and Sangh Parivar in general. 

And this bias becomes crystal clear if we compare shrill and repeated condemnation of deaths in these two instances with numerous cases of lynching. The latter type of tragedies often gets tucked away as fringe news on inside pages of most dailies. These are also under-reported by TV channels perhaps due to their lower prospects for boosting TRP ratings.  

Vocal civil society (as distinct from silent, hard-working, ground zero NGOs) has not even cared to issue namesake press releases or tweets condemning lynching in most of such cases. 

Consider a few cases which did not result in media and civil society outcry.

Two days prior to Dadri attack in which father died and son is battling for life, another person was beaten to death in a Kanpur village in UP on suspicion of his being a Pakistan terrorist. And last month, five innocent tribal women were stripped and lynched in a village on the outskirts of Ranchi in Jharkhand on suspicion of their being witches. As many as 49 tribals women were lynched in the State last year on charges of practising witchcraft. 

On 14th July 2015, six members of a tribal family including a three year-old were lynched on suspicion of practising witchcraft in Keonjhar district of Odisha. Did any of the celebrity critics of Yakub Memon commented on lynching of tribal family, leave aside filing a PIL in Supreme Court for protection of tribals?

On the 30th July, the day Memon was hanged for heinous crime, an alleged dalit rapist was freed from Police lock-up in Mathura in UP and lynched to death. Neither #ShrillNow channels nor human rights activists criticized this Kangaroo Court, which was similar to the one held in Diamapur in Nagaland in March 2015.

Coming back to defence of lynched tribal women, over 2500 tribal women were lynched after being dubbed as witches over 15 years, according to a study report in 2010.

Such cases are routinely reported, under-played or ignored because they are bereft of political punching opportunity. The only exception about activists’ indifference towards the rights of tribals is the case of Vedanta bauxite mining proposal. In this case, they had opportunity to repeatedly attack a corporate house perceived to be close to powers that be. 

The loud mouth anchor, whose TV channel advertises him as the only trusted journalist in the country, did not wonder whether India is a banana republic when it came to brutal lynching of tribal women.  

The banana republic contention is, however, valid in the case of lynching of women as alleged witches because the crime recurs in a dozen States in spite of enactment of anti-witch hunting laws by some States.  

The narcissist TV anchor hyped Dadri incident as Politics over beef. So did a few other media entities.  But none of them interpreted slaughter of innocent tribal women as politics of rituals or faith. It is quite possible that tribals perform certain rituals to propitiate their deity. Who decides which ritual is witchcraft and which ritual is paying obeisance to the Nature or gurus or demi-gods or the God? 

Let Prime Minister Narendra Modi stand up in defence of tribals rituals in his Mann Ki Baat. He should must political will to say tribal rituals are as important as the ones practiced by persons from all other faith. After all, he is the Prime Minister for all Indians and it is his duty to defend all religions as provided for by the Constitution.

Coming back to duplicity of media and civil society, they become hyper-active when it comes to another form of lynching called honour killing. Their livid response to honour killing is at its best when they target Khap Panchayats and the ruling political party’s failure to book them for breaking the law of the land. 

As for cow slaughter/beef-linked lynching, Sangh Parivar needs to do introspection as such cases are more pronounced when BJP is in power.  Recall the lynching of 5 dalit youths in Jhajjar in Haryana on allegations of cow slaughter in October 2002 when BJP-led NDA was holding the reign at the Centre. 

As many as 80 dalits from Gurgaon villages from which the lynched youths hailed   converted to Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as a protest against the lynching. 

According to a report datelined 28 October 2002 in Times of India, one Dalit, who embraced Islam, renamed himself as Saddam Hussein!

                   Is Modi keen to tone down his image as global fashion icon?

              (PM dressed in pinstriped suit greeting President Obama. Image Courtesy: PIB)

Once bitten, twice shy. This idiom seems to have gripped Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s persona, if his cautious approach to fashion-related gifts presented to him is taken as a cue. 

Mr. Modi has apparently become wary of using gifts even of insignificant value such as a Cuban shirt and a hat, leave aside expensive ones like gold and diamond made cufflink.

The Code of Conduct (CoC) for Union and State Ministers specified the norms for acceptance of gifts and their submission to Government treasury named Toshakhana. CoC also mentions the condition under which Toshakhana returns any gift valued below Rs 5000 to the recipient. The minister is given the option to buy a gift valued above this cut-off limit. 

Indian & foreign Media fancied Mr. Modi donning different hats on different occasions when he served as Gujarat Chief Minister. The news coverage reached a new high during June 2014 when the US media went gaga over Mr. Modi’s dressing sense. The Washington Post said: “The world has a new fashion icon. And no,  it’s not Valdimir Putin, despite his fitness regime – it’s India’s new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi.”

Times Magazine foresaw Mr Modi as “apparently the next big thing in Indian fashion.” Such adulation perhaps prompted him into donning a personalized, pinstriped expensive suit in January 2015 during US President Barack Obama’s visit to India. 

The Indian Media focused on Modi’s suit, which was drummed up as Rs 10-lakh gift from a Gujarati businessman.  This served as ammunition for the opposition parties. They took a dig at PM for wearing a suit with his name embroidered into golden pinstripes. 

The very next month, Mr. Modi tried to cast off the fashion icon label by facilitating auction of the pinstriped suit and other gifts. The proceeds of the auction were earmarked for Ganga clean-up mission. The controversy should have ended with the suit getting sold off at a whopping bid of Rs 4.31 crore. The Congress has, however, kept the issue live. 

Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi enlivened the controversy by describing Modi Government as “suit-boot ki sarkar” in Parliament during May. On another occasion, Mr. Gandhi said: "No PM in the country had ever donned a suit worth Rs 10 lakh. He's fast becoming a fashion icon ignoring the common man."

Against this background, a reality check on gifts presented to PM by various dignitaries is called for. 

Mr. Modi was gifted One Cuban shirt of “no commercial value” and two kurtas (shirts) valued at Rs 4000 that his office deposited in Toshakhana in April this year. Toshakhana returned these gifts back to the recipient. 

PM also deposited in Toshakhana a hat and two pieces of cloth during June 2015. These gifts of “no commercial value are yet to be collected by the recipient”, says an official comment on the Status of gifts. The “Yet to be collected” does not necessarily mean the recipient is willing to take back the gift.

Mr. Modi also submitted a packet of cloths valued at Rs 1500 to Toshakhana in June 2015. The gift is “Yet to be collected by the recipient” according to latest official update on Toshakhana. Same is the case with another packet of clothes (of no commercial value) that was deposited during the same period. 

He also deposited in Toshakhana two jackets valued at Rs 2500 each during June 2015. The official remark on these gifts is a standard one: “Yet to be collected by the recipient.”  Ditto is the case with a pair of Kurta Paijama valued at Rs 2500 that Mr. Modi deposited in Toshakhana during the same month.

As for fashion accessories, PM deposited a gift of Gold and diamond made cufflink valued at Rs 75,000 in Toshakhana during February.  He submitted a gift box containing a necklace and a pair of ear rings valued at Rs 35 lakh to Toshakhana in April 2015.

Mr. Modi deposited a pair of silver cufflink valued at Rs 2600 and another such pair valued at Rs 1600 in Toshakhana during October 2014. Both items carry the same trite comment- “Yet to be...”

Selfies-savvy and digitally enlightened PM has not yet decided whether to buy from Toshakhana LG mobile phone with box and accessories valued at Rs 15000, (b) Samsung Mobile without box and accessories worth Rs 25,000 and (c) LG Watch worth Rs 20,000. He deposited these gifts in Toshakana during June 2015 As put by the official comment, “Option of the recipient pending.”

According to CoC, “A Minister may receive gifts when he goes abroad or from foreign dignitaries in India. Such gifts fall into two categories. The first category will include gifts which are of symbolic nature, like a sword of honour, ceremonial robes etc. and which can be retained by the recipients. The second category of gifts would be those which are not of symbolic nature. If its value is less than Rs.5,000/- it can be retained by the Minister. If, however, there is any doubt about the estimated value of the gift, the matter should be referred to the Toshakhana for valuation. If the value of the gift, on assessment is found to be within the prescribed limit of Rs.5,000/- the gift will be returned to the Minister. If it exceeds Rs.5,000/- the recipient will have the option to purchase it from the Toshakhana by paying the difference between the value as assessed by the Toshakhana and Rs.5,000/-. Only gifts of household goods which are retained by the Toshakhana, such as carpets, paintings, furniture etc. exceeding Rs.5,000/- in value, will be kept in Rashtrapati Bhavan, Prime Minister’s House or Raj Bhavan as State property.” 

MPs & Journos Flaunt Their Poor Knowledge About Farmers' Suicides

(Image Courtesy: National Crimes Record Bureau)

Several Indian MPs and journalists have once again proved right Lord Macaulay's maxim--Half Knowledge is worse than ignorance. They did so by ranting over love affairs and impotency, which figure in the list of non-agrarian causes of farmers’ suicides.

These causes were mentioned by Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh while answering a question in Rajya Sabha on Friday. The written reply also mentioned agrarian causes such as indebtedness, crop failure, drought, etc.

Certain TRP-obsessed Shrill TV channels and camera-friendly MPs chose to overlook or underplay these factors. They could not digest the fact that farmers, as members of society, can also be victims of impotency and failed love affairs. They conveniently forgot that honour killings are outcome of unapproved love affairs including extra-marital relationship.

What they would find now nauseating is the fact these very causes of farmers suicides have been mentioned several times in Parliament over the years without inviting any tantrums. And they have been reported by media without any fuss!

Was the parliamentary ruckus and media ridicule in the instant case driven by their proclivity to run down Modi Government at the slightest pretext?  Or was it another unintended tribute to Lord T.B. Macaulay, 18th Century British administrator? He introduced English-medium education and Indian Penal Code in the country.  

The Indian intelligentsia right from Prime Ministerial prospect Rahul Gandhi to obscure social media activists deplored Modi Government's insensitivity towards suicide committed by farmers.

Mr. Gandhi said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should advise his ministers to visit villages to check the ground realty. The Samajwadi Party MP Naresh Agarwal reportedly demanded an apology from Mr. Singh for his “irresponsible” remarks. Another leading MP KC Tyagi described the reply as insult to farmers. One Nagendar Sharma tweeted: “Modi Govt breaking all record of absurdity: agriculture ministry now blames love affairs, drugs & impotency for farmers suicides.”

All leading TV channels and dailies reported the furore in Rajya Sabha over Mr. Singh's reply with shrill TV channels ridiculing the reply. One Channel quoted an MP threatening to file a privilege motion against the Minister for giving a wrong reply!

There is in fact a case for filing a privilege motion in the deemed Citizens' court against the intelligentsia for misleading the country time and again through their half-knowledge, ignorance and distortion of facts.

“Love affairs, barrenness/impotency” have figured in the long list of non-agrarian factors in the answer to Parliament questions for several years! These two factors that rattled Intelligentsia's conscience have been mentioned almost verbatim in the reply to Parliament questions posed during NDA and UPA regimes.

‘Love affair’ and ‘impotency’ were mentioned in at least seven questions raised during the tenure of UPA-II. And these two offending terms figured in the answer to six questions posed during first year of Modi Government before the seventh one triggered the storm.

All these years no one even squirmed over such non-agrarian factors that the Ministry sourced from “Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India” report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). In some replies, they figure prominently in the open paragraph.

And the most derisive aspect of the brouhaha over impotency and love affairs is that they were reported by media in a sterile manner in August 2012.

The media that carried news stories including Indian Express (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/2.90-lakh-farmers-committed-suicide-during-19952011-govt/995981/),  Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-31/news/33521331_1_agrarian-reasons-bankruptcy-or-sudden-change-change-in-economic-status) and Outlook Magazine (http://www.outlookindia.com/news/printitem.aspx?773784).

The news stories were developed from the reply given by UPA regime's Minister of State for Agriculture Harish Rawat (presently Uttrakhand CM) in response to a question dated 31 August 2012. (http://164.100.47.5/qsearch/QResult.aspx).

Did Mr. Gandhi snub Mr. Rawat for mentioning two offending causes in his reply?

Parliament questions in which impotency and love affairs figured in replies during the UPA regime include: 1)Answer given by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar in response to a question numbered 147 and dated 16th August 2013. In the very first paragraph of written reply, Mr. Pawar stated: “Number of suicides of farmers since 1999, yearwise and Statewise, as compiled annually by National Crime Records Bureau is at Annexure I. Causes of suicides include family problems, illness, drug abuse/addiction, unemployment, property dispute, bankruptcy or sudden change in economic status, poverty, professional/career problem, love affair,  barrenness/impotency, cancellation/non-settlement of marriage, dowry dispute, fall in social reputation, causes not known, etc.”

Ten days prior to this, Mr. Pawar had given the same verbatim reply in the very first sense of response to the question numbered 24 put in Lok Sabha on 6th August 2013. 

The Minister of State for Agriculture Tariq Anwar stated the same non-agrarian factors (including the offending ‘love affair’ and ‘impotency’) in the very first paragraph of his reply to question numbered 2964 raised in Rajya Sabha on 21st February 2014. 

It is not only NCRB that has recorded non-agrarian factors as the additional causes for farmers’ suicides.  Expert Committees and studies have delved into these issues.

Answering a question numbered 483 in Rajya Sabha on 1st March 2013, Mr Anwar stated: “The Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness pointed out, interalia, that suicide is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, the risk factors can be either neurobiological or socioeconomic and root cause is not indebtedness alone, which is just a symptom.”

The underlying message of this uncalled for ruckus is that all stakeholders of shoot-and-scoot journalism should do their home work before speaking. 

Kejriwal amasses monumental deficit in battling corruption

(Edited Image Courtesy: Transparency International)

‘All parties together in corruption: Arvind Kejriwal’. So ran the headline for the PTI story datelined 17th August 2012 published in Economic Times and certain other publications.
At that time, Mr. Kejriwal had not formed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He loved playing the role of anti-graft crusader. He is now struggling to retain this carefully-crafted image in the eyes of Aam Aadmi.
 After regaining power in Delhi in February, he, as Chief Minister, has failed to act in suspected/alleged cases of major corruption. And to deflect the public attention from his flop-show, Mr. Kejriwal is now resorting to gimmicks. A case in point is the outsourcing of manpower for Delhi Government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) from Bihar Government.
He is also dragging his feet over his hobbyhorse, Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, which has not even been introduced in the State Assembly till today.  He has thus not kept his word to introduce the Bill in the in the first session of re-constituted assembly.
He has also not exercised the existing option for the interregnum, i.e., facilitating appointment of Delhi Lokayukta. This post is lying vacant since October 2013, leading to massive pile-up of cases requiring investigation. It has already triggered a public interest litigation that has led Delhi High Court to admonish his Government to act fast on this subject.
Lokpal or Lokayukta, Kejriwal is caught is a situation similar to one faced by a novice riding the tiger. The ombudsman, whatever be its legal basis, is likely to unmask him by taking up potential cases involving his party and MLAs. A notable case that no anti-corruption watchdog can over is the dubious Rs 2-crores donation that his party received from four shell companies.
Mr. Kejriwal is thus haunted with the risk of the public throwing back at him, the same charge that swept him to power - All parties (AAP included) are together in corruption.
And there is notable circumstantial evidence to drive home this imminent prospect. Before listing the evidence, hear what Mr. Kejriwal stated in that story and how it is applicable to him today.
Referring to CAG reports on coal blocks, power and Delhi airport, Mr. Kejriwal stated: “We have just one question. Prime Minister, please tell us, where should we go to register an FIR on the basis of these reports. All the agencies are under the Prime Minister’s control and that is why we demand Lokpal.”
He continued: “We say all parties are involved in this (corruption) and no one wants to pass the Lokpal Bill. All parties are involved in this loot of natural resources. The states have benefitted the private companies in their respective states.”
He added: “If Jan Lokpal was there then on the basis of this report, we would have complained and in six months, the probe would have been completed. In one year, the case would have been completed and the accused would have been sent to jail in 18 months,” he said.
What would be Kejriwal’s reply if mainstream media were to toss these very questions to him on issues that he has ducked.
Barring the FIR-filing in KG basin gas price hike in January 2014 under his first stint as Delhi CM, Mr. Kejriwal has not ordered any probe on the basis of other CAG reports and serious charges available in public domain. He has not yet produced any outcome on gas pricing which is otherwise a Central Government’s subject, except for ranting against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). Not even ACB’s probe report which should have been completed in six months as per his own norm!
There has thus been only sound and fury in AAP’s battle against graft with focus on necessity-driven petty bribes and virtually zero-action on greed-driven big-ticket graft.
Mr. Kejriwal is today haunted by his own silence on irregularities in areas such as commonwealth games scam including misuse of funds earmarked for Scheduled Castes. Many irregularities have been highlighted by CAG reports on Delhi including three latest ones presented in Parliament in August 2014.  Like much-maligned Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Kejriwal is practicing Maun Vrat on irregularities that have the potential to blow into major corruption scandals if probed independently.
This is best illustrated by GMR-controlled Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL), which operates the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA). It was privatized by the UPA with a formal support agreement with the Delhi Government. This agreement, coupled with the CAG report, offers a perfect reason for Mr. Kejriwal to order a probe as we would discuss later. 
A month before forming AAP in November 2012, Mr. Kejriwal claimed that he was gathering evidence of politician-business nexus against GMR Infrastructure, DLF and India Bull group of companies.
As put by a story datelined 17th October 2012, “He has accused the companies of having investments by politicians and is seeking information from the public about these firms.”
Mr. Kejriwal has maintained deafening silence on this self-authorized probe since then, even though tonnes of information are available in the public domain.  Take first the CAG report on Implementation of Public Private Partnership (at) IGIA presented in Parliament in August 2012. CAG’s findings were articulated and corroborated by Public Accounts Committee during February 2014.
In the report, CAG concluded: “It was noted that the concept of upfront fee was used to lease out an additional land of 190.19 acres for a paltry one-time payment of Rs 6.19 crores. Other Government offices like Director General of Civil Aviation and Bureau of Aviation Security were given a much harsher treatment when 7.60 acres of land was leased out to them at a license fee of Rs 2.41 crores per annum.”
CAG explained: “Out of a total land area of 5106 acres of IGIA, AAI (Airport Authority of India) initially leased out 4608.9 acres for development of the airport. An additional 190.19 acres of land was leased to DIAL, thus bringing the total demised premises at 4799.09 acres.”
CAG’s 2nd charge: Ministry of Civil Aviation and later AERA (Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India) allowed DIAL to collect Development Fees amounting to Rs 3415.35 crores. The order of Ministry in February 2009 allowing this was in contravention of the OMDA, AAI Act and the AERA Act. Contrary to the provisions of OMDA (Operation, Management and Development Agreement), DIAL was allowed to use the amount collected as Development Fees to meet the project costs. In fact, only 19 per cent of the project cost came from equity, approximately 42 per cent came from debt. The remaining project costs were met from security deposits and Development Fees.
CAG stated: “Allowing these post contractual benefits violated the tendering process by which the JV partner was selected.”
CAG’s another charge: “Many observations in the present report would indicate that whenever DIAL raised an issue regarding revenue to accrue to it or expenditure to be debited to Government in contravention of the provisions of OMDA, the Ministry and AAI interpreted the provisions always in favour of the operators and against the interest of the Government.”
Apart from CAG report, Kejriwal Government has had another valid ground to order anti-corruption probe in privatization of Delhi airport. This by virtue of it being successor to Congress-led Government that signed an agreement dated 26th April 2006.
This agreement named ‘State Government Support Agreement (SGSA)’ between Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GONCT) and DIAL provides for all kind of assistance that the former would be required to provide the latter in development, operation and management of the airport.
And DIAL is exuding confidence in its empowerment to get work done from Delhi Government. In its offering memorandum dated 27th  January 2015 issued to international investors, DIAL says: “Under the terms of the SGSA, the GONCT agreed to use its best endeavors to, among others, (a) clear land required for the provision of aeronautical services at the Airport of any squatters occupying such land, (b) provide additional land necessary for the provision of aeronautical services at the Airport, (c) upgrade, modernize and maintain existing access roads to and from the Airport, namely National Highway 8, as well as make reasonable endeavors to develop additional modes of public transport to and from the Airport, (d) provide sufficient utility services to the Airport, (e) maintain cleanliness in the area surrounding the Airport and prevent any interference from animals or birds in such areas, and (f) provide us with all consents, licenses, approvals, permits and other authorizations or permissions required from GONCT under applicable law that we properly apply for in order to perform our obligations under the OMDA.”
The agreement’s clause relating to eviction of squatters conflicts with AAP’s solemn electoral promise that “slums will not be demolished under any circumstances.”
Why has Mr. Kejriwal not ordered review of all such contracts that were signed by Congress Party solely to serve the interest of the private companies?  Why has he not smelled rat in such contracts?
Turn now to CAG report on GONCT’s revenue and social and economic sectors (PSUs) presented in Parliament in August 2014 when the State Assembly was in suspended animation. The report has listed instances of revenue leakages running into several hundred crores of rupees. The leakages/revenue loss has been caused by short levy of taxes or failure to collect taxes and due to attempts to favour private companies.
Has Mr. Kejriwal asked ACB to probe such glaring irregularities mentioned in this CAG reports on Delhi? Information on this count is hard to come by in the public domain. 
Aam Aadmi is thus baffled by Mr. Kejriwal’s strategy to selectively target a few firms especially the ones promoted by Ambani brothers and maintain stoic silence in other instances. AAP is generous in issuing statements against Ambanis’ companies.
A case in point is the release dated 12th December 2014 targeting Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL). It says: “The reported opinion of the government’s top law officer, Attorney General, Mr Mukul Rohatgi advising the government to pay Rs 1800 crores to a subsidiary company of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) for terminating the contract of Delhi airport metro with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is a blatant attempt to help this company at the cost of public money and is nothing short of a multi-crores rupee scam.”
All this muck ultimately recoils into one issue: Has Mr. Kejriwal got hooked to the great Indian politics’ rope trick – Roar like a lion against corruption on public platforms and utter Meow Meow in privacy?

Loudmouths have Erred over PM’s 5-Star Activists Remark

                                                  (Edited Image-Courtesy: PIB)

The ruckus over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's observations as to whether public perceptions and five-star activists were driving court verdicts is an instance of dreaded shoot and scoot journalism. It is a classical case of half knowledge in action at certain TV news channels. 

There was nothing new in his comment that kept the Opposition and the mainstream media busy haranguing against PM for almost two days.  Mr. Modi merely paraphrased what different chief justices of India (CJIs), Supreme Court judges, high courts and other legal entities have stated over the years.

Mr. Modi’s predecessor, Dr. Manmohan Singh, had also voiced concern over certain aspects of judicial activism and public interest litigations (PILs). He had also done some plain-speaking on encroachment of the Executive turf by judicial activism in his speeches during his two tenures as Prime Minister. Did Loudmouths cry hoarse over Dr. Singh’s observations that would be elaborated later? 

Even the appellation ‘five star activists’ for foreign funded NGOs is an old hat. Mr. Modi has been using this term for more than a decade. He perhaps spun this label in London while addressing a meeting in London on 18th August 2003. 

Mr. Modi’s observations appear muted compared to what certain legal luminaries have stated boldly, honestly and emphatically to stem the growing rot within the judiciary. PM’s speech should have thus served as agenda for a serious debate on the nexus between judicial-NGO-media activism that has thrived largely due to governance-cum-legislative deficit. 

The critics distorted PM's balanced speech out of context. Why they overlooked judiciary’s loud introspection over judicial populism & corruption over the years?

The Loudmouths from the Opposition parties and the TV channels who accused Mr. Modi of the Contempt of the Court thus owe an apology to the nation for lowering the dignity of PM’s office and for vitiating public discourse. 

Before recalling mind-boggling observations made by eminent CJIs and other judges, we need to recapitulate what PM said while addressing the Joint Conference of Chief Justices of States and Chief Justices of High Courts on 5th April.

As the Government often does not issue the English translation of the text of PM’s speeches delivered in Hindi, we have to rely on news reports published by reputed dailies. 

According to a news report in one national daily, Modi said, “It is never too difficult to deliver justice within the boundaries of the law and Constitution. But it is very difficult to find the truth between perception and reality. It must be pondered over whether five-star activists are driving the judiciary today… if havoc is created to drive the judiciary. It has become difficult to deliver justice in an atmosphere of perception.”

Another national quoted PM as saying “The judiciary is not as fearless today as it used to be ten years back. Are five-star activists not driving the judiciary? Are they not attempting to do so? Judges fear what the reaction of five-star activists would be when they render justice as per law and as per Constitution.”

The same daily also quoted Mr. Modi as saying: “It is not difficult to dispense justice as per Constitution and law. But while doing so, judges must differentiate between perception (created by social activists) and fact.”

Turn now soul-stirring observations made by legal luminaries about the decay within the judiciary over the last 15 years. 

The issue of perception-driven verdict was aptly elaborated by the then CJI S.H. Kapadia in January 2012 while presiding over the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Trust Lecture.

Justice Kapadia reportedly observed: “Apart from independence from politics, the judiciary also needs independence from popular interest.” 

He averred: “If an order is not in favour of a particular group, then the judge faces a backlash. An atmosphere is created whereby pressure is exerted on the judge.”

Way back in July 1998, Press Council of India chairman and former Supreme Court judge P B Sawant expressed disquiet over the populism cult and corruption in the judiciary. 

Addressing the high court bar association in Nagpur, Justice Sawant said, “These two are very disturbing developments.” He said corruption was happening at “some place at all levels” and even if one or two judges were corrupt, it marred the image of the entire judiciary.

According to UNI report published by rediff.com, he stated that the populist trend among certain judges was more damaging than corruption. In the garb of judicial activism, things were done to humour the public opinion.

As put by the news report, “Justice Sawant said that instead of playing to the gallery, a judge should be ready to take the podium and ‘swim against the tide’. But in the garb of judicial activism, these judges were laying down wrong laws and precedents. He said populist judgments adversely affected the entire society.”

A wacky instance of such perception-driven verdict is Supreme Court’s ruling extending the definition of fundamental right to life to the right to sleep (in a public place) in February 2012.  This interpretation of the Constitution was done by a SC bench while ruling that Delhi Police had violated this right while acting against a sleeping crowd at Baba Ramdev’ Rally in Delhi under a suo-moto case. 

This led Justice Kapadia into doing some plain-speaking on judicial activism. In his lecture on ‘Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure’ in August 2012, he stated that judges should not govern the country. They should not frame policies. They should apply “enforceability” test on the verdicts such defining right to sleep as a fundament right. 

He also reprimanded the civil society activists for questioning Parliament’s authority to frame laws and by draping themselves with “we the people” authority. 

Justice Kapadia is not the first CJI to articulate the need for judiciary exercising self restraint on judicial activism.

Way back in 1999, CJI Dr. A.S. Anand stated: “With a view to see that judicial activism does not become ‘judicial adventurism’ and lead a Judge going in pursuits of his own notions of justice, ignoring the limits of law, the bounds of his jurisdiction and the binding precedents, the courts must act with proper restraint and self-discipline.”

Inaugurating the golden Jubilee Celebrations of Rajasthan High Court, Justice Dr. Anand added: “The danger of the judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without possibility of adequate enforcement is a real one. It must be guarded against. The judiciary should not become an institution of mere form bereft of substance.”

As put by Jusice Dr. Anand in his speech, which is available at Eastern Book Company’s website, “There are real limits to what the judicial process should attempt to accomplish and the judiciary should resist the temptation to cross those limits. The decisions of the courts should be within the zone of juridical legitimacy.”

According to a news report in a business daily published in March 2015, Madras High Court has ruled that judicial activism cannot encroach on other organs of democracy.

It is here also pertinent to quote a comprehensive analysis of judicial activism penned by ex-Solicitor-General of India T.R. Andhyarujina in the Hindu dated 6th August 2012.  

Listing several instances of the judiciary interfering in purely policy and routine governance issues, Mr Andhyarujina pointed out that the Supreme Court has made an order even in a military operation. 

He added: “In 1993, the Court issued orders on the conduct of military operations in Hazratbal, Kashmir where the military had as a matter of strategy restricted the food supplies to hostages. The Court ordered that the provision of food of 1,200 calorific value should be supplied to hostages.”

Commenting on this, an Army General wrote: “For the first time in history, a Court of Law was asked to pronounce judgment on the conduct of an ongoing military operation. Its verdict materially affected the course of operation.”

This shocking case might have perhaps rankled in Dr. Manmohan Singh’s mind in August 2006 when he identified one of the challenges faced by the society as: “the judiciary-executive relationships and the legislative tools that can be used to tackle the menace of terrorism while respecting human rights.”

Speaking at the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Law Institute, Dr. Singh also shared his unease about the quality of public debate. He observed: “In a functioning democracy like ours public debate is an important mechanism for facilitating the formulation of both laws and policies. They influence the interpretation of law and influence legislation.”

Inaugurating a conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts on ‘Administration of Justice on Fast Track,’ in April 2007, Dr. Singh stated public interest litigations (PILs) have great utility in initiating corrective action but these cannot become vehicles for settling political scores. “We need standards and benchmarks for screening so that only genuine PILs with a justiciable cause of action based on judicially manageable standards are taken up. This will also ensure consistency in judicial pronouncements”. He suggested that the Supreme Court could take a lead in framing rules in this regard.

Inaugurating the Commonwealth Law Conference in February 2011, Dr. Singh said: “it has to be ensured that the nonnegotiable premise of the constitutional scheme – defined as the basic structure of the constitution is not subordinated to political impulses of the moment or to the will of transient majorities. Also while the power of judicial review must be used to enforce accountability, it must never be used to erode the legitimate role assigned to the other branches of government.”

As for appellation ‘fire star activists’, it aptly captures the spirit voluble NGOs who frequently fly abroad to attend lavish international conferences on environmental and human rights agenda as defined by the West. Some of them NGOs also finance the visits of journalists to conferences or sites to further their agenda in public discourse! 

All NGOs and civil society activists are not paragons of virtue. Many of them aggressively push narrow and distorted agenda to appease their foreign donors. They are averse to showing a holistic understanding of rights of one section versus rights of the other section and arriving at a balanced resolution of complex issues. They don’t factor in constitutional duties of the citizens in their agenda.  Above all, dubious NGOs are reluctant to making their operations 100 percent transparent and filing income tax returns. Some of the dubious ones circumvent black-listing by floating new NGOs.

With this ground reality, Loudmouths should introspect whether they are highly biased against Mr. Modi. They must make amends to improve the quality of public discourse which Dr. Singh considers as vital for ensuring transparency in decision-making process in the country.