|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW WAY OUT OF RAM-BABRI IMBROGLIO, By Inder Jit, 28 September 2019 |
|
|
Rewind
New
Delhi, September 28, 1990
NEW WAY OUT OF RAM-BABRI IMBROGLIO
By Inder Jit
(Released on 2
October 1990)
India’s secularism
today faces its biggest ever challenge. Yet the problem is not receiving the
cool, overdue attention it deserves. The recent meeting of the National
Integration Council at Madras was scheduled to hold “a detailed discussion on
secularism” in response to a demand made by some of us at the new Council’s
first meeting at Delhi in April last. But this did not happen, though the
subject came up indirectly on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. This was
indeed most unfortunate in view of the many fires of religious fundamentalism
that have come to be lit all round and are being stokes recklessly. An in-depth
discussion was also needed on one other score. Secularism as practiced today is
being unwisely taken for granted and a crucial fact of our national life
ignored. Our country is secular today because an overwhelming majority of the population
is Hindu. Convert this majority to Islam and India would surely become an
Islamic Republic – like Pakistan or Bangladesh, notwithstanding all those among
the minorities who swear loudly by secularism.
Many expected India
to become a Hindu Rashtra as a reaction to Jinnah’s pernicious two-nation
theory and the resultant dismemberment of the country. But the Hindus who
constituted an overwhelming majority generously ignored the role of the Indian
Muslims and chose to go along with Gandhi and Nehru in accordance with their
age-old ethos of tolerance and liberalism and become a secular state. All
thinking and concern thereafter came to be concentrated on the minorities. The
national leaders even titled towards them to prove by deeds to the world at
large their continuing commitment to their pre-partition stand that the Hindus
and Muslims were one nation, not two. Sadly, little thought was given to the
new hopes and aspirations roused among the Hindus on their liberation from a
thousand years of alien rule and tyranny. No one cared a fig for the Hindu
psyche, something which New Delhi largely refuses to note even today while
taking decisions on Punjab, where 46 per cent of the population is Hindu, or in
regard to Jammu and Kashmir.
The decision of the
Hindus consciously to opt for secularism was clearly an act of abnegation and self denial. (Even the
RSS cadres, I remember, assisted Sardar Patel during the partition riots in
Delhi to protect the Muslims against the angry demand to send them packing to
the homeland of their creation). This should have brought in return from the
Muslims of India an equally liberal and enabling response. Their leaders should
have taken the earliest opportunity to end the historic indignities inflected
on the Hindus by the despots among the alien Muslim rulers who had but one aim:
to sit astride their subjects and spit in their faces. Certain corrective steps
were thus needed from their side following independence. The Ram temple at
Ayodhya, the Vishwanath temple at Kashi and the Krishna temple at Mathura
should, for instance, have been honourably restored to the Hindus with full freedom
to do what they liked in keeping with their sentiments. Simultaneously, steps
could have been initiated to end some other communal irritants and tensions.
At any rate, Nehru
should have got these leaders to assuage the greatly injured Hindus psyche. The
need for this should have been understood from the decision of Sardar Patel in
1950 to rebuild the historic Somnath temple and of Dr. Rajendra Prasad to
attend its restoration ceremonies in the face of stiff opposition from Nehru.
The Sardar, whom I had the privilege of meeting on several occasions as a young
journalist, had made up his mind to undo “other mischief also.” Alas, he did
not live long enough and Nehru somehow failed to see the wisdom of the Sardar’s
initiative despite his knowledge of world history and his “Discovery of India.”
What is worse, he went on to indulge in what I would call “secular politics” by
subtly playing up to the minorities and the scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes. This virtually gave him a captive vote of 25 per cent and enabled him to
ride to power with the additional support of no more than 18 per cent of the
caste votes. Nehru never bagged more than 43 per cent of the votes polled.
Kemal Ataturk, the
builder of modern Turkey, took the earliest opportunity to end a great wrong
done by the Turks to Constantinople’s famous Cathedral of Santa Sophia, which
had been the centre of the Greek Orthodox Church for nine hundred years. In the
fifteenth century, the Osmanli Turks conquered Constantinople and the
unrivalled Cathedral was converted into the chief mosque: Apa Suphea. All the
inscriptions and mosaics of the Cathedral were covered with mud and plaster.
Lines from the holy Quran in Arabic were then inscribed on its walls and the
Cathedral given an Arabic look. But in 1935, the Apa Suphea was no more a
masjid. Quietly, the hojas and the mullahs were sent to the other mosques.
Experts were called in from the US and Germany and the Cathedral restored to
its glory as the greatest achievement of the Byzantine Art. Santa Sophia was
made a museum and has continued to be so. Nehru seemed ever so right as I
walked around the Cathedral in April last on a visit to Turkey. He wrote in
1935, “Apa Suphea, in a way, went back again to the Christian era --- and that
on the orders of Kemal.”
This is not to
suggest, even remotely, that the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi temple and the Babri
Masjid be converted into a national museum. Such a step will defeat the very
purpose I have in mind: a Muslim gesture to India’s secularism. The Ram temple
at Ayodhya should be handed over by the Muslims themselves to the Hindus who, for
their part, should take full responsibility for shifting it to another site of
the former’s choosing. Any Muslim friends may throw up their hands in holy
horror at my proposal. However, what I am advocating is very much a part of the
ethos of our Muslim brethren in the Arab world as I discovered on a visit to
Riyadh and Jeddah a few years ago at the invitation of the Saudi Government.
(Regrettably, I was unable to visit Mecca because of a ban on non-Muslims.)
Mosques, however big or historic, are shifted or demolished in the country
without much religious or emotional ado. Likewise, graves are not allowed to
pose any problem. Many Mosques and graves were shifted to enable the Saudi
capital of Riyadh to be replanned and made modern and beautiful.
Not only that. What I
saw and learnt in Riyadh was confirmed during my visit in May last to Baghdad
and from there to the Mausoleums of Hazrat Ali at Nagef and of Imam Hussain at
Karbala, a round trip of some 400 km, including Babylon. (The weather was then
blazing hot: 42 degrees Celsius. But I felt strongly attracted to Karbala
having read Ais’ epic “Mersia” on Imam Hussain in Urdu during my student days
and having been greatly influenced by the observance of Muharram, especially at
Lucknow and Hyderabad.) My talk with several Arab and other Muslim Ambassadors
in New Delhi has also confirmed the impressions brought back from Riyadh,
Jeddah and Baghdad. In fact, I took the opportunity to share the information I
had gathered in Saudi Arabia with the National Integration Council at its first
meeting in New Delhi in April last. An eminent Muslim member interrupted me to
remark: “The Saudis are Wahabis ---- a sect of their own.” Nevertheless, my
Arab friends assert: “This makes no difference. Our basic position in regard to
mosques and graves stands.”
Where do we go from
here? The National Integration Council at its recent meeting at Madras did well
to indicate a direction in its unanimous resolution on the Ram
Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. It has called for a continuing dialogue “to
consider and decide the site of the temple at Ayodhya and allied problems to
the satisfaction of all concerned with a view to reaching an amicable
settlement.” It has also welcomed the initiative taken by the Kanchi
Shankaracharya and Janab Ali Mian of Nadwa and called upon the Home Minister,
Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, to also consult other respected leaders of both the
communities to find a solution. Simultaneously, it wanted the Government to
request the court to expedite the case ---- and all the parties concerned to
respect the decision of the Court. Mr.V.P. Singh, for his part, seems to lay maximum
store by the Court’s verdict. In fact, he told the Council: “The Court offers the only way out when there
are differences among the people.” Is this right and justified?
In the final
analysis, the court could run into an insurmountable road block, as succinctly
put across by Mr. Biju Patnaik at the Madras meeting. Said he: “Who can say
whether Rama was born at the disputed site at Ayodhya or that he was not born
there. Either way, no judge can really decide.” Wisdom, therefore, lies even at
this late hour in finding an honourable and amicable solution outside the court
and in not getting stuck in sterile legalities and in claims and counter claims.
The Muslims should understand the Hindus psyche and also appreciate the
decision of the Hindus in favour of a secular India. The historic wrongs need
to be undone without further delay. It is thus time for the Muslims to make
their long overdue gesture and contribution to secularism in India in their won enlightened interest.
They should not allow the power of their vote banks under the present electoral
system to cloud their judgment. They will have none but themselves to blame if
India moves towards Hindu fundamentalism. All in all, one basic fact needs to
be remembered on all sides. Secularism cannot be a one way street.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Sri Lanka Elections:NEW DELHI RECLIBRATES STRATEGY,By Dr.D.K. Giri, 22 November 2019 |
|
|
Round The
World
New Delhi, 22 November 2019
Sri Lanka Elections
NEW DELHI RECLIBRATES STRATEGY
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof. International Politics, JMI)
The island state Sri
Lanka elected its 7th President last Saturday. The clear and
decisive winner is Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former Defence Secretary in his elder
brother Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government. His opponent Sajith Premdasa, son of
another former President Ranil Premadasa, lost by a margin of over 10 per cent.
The issues in the Sri
Lankan elections are not of great concern to India, as these are their internal
matters. The determining factors, however, were stability and security of the
country, which were the hallmarks of Gotabaya’s campaign. Compared to the
incumbent government’s inefficient rule, when the outgoing President Sirisena
created a constitutional crisis by
sacking the UPFA (United People’s Freedom Alliance) Prime Minister
Wickremesinghe and brought Mahinda in his place, which the Sri Lankan Supreme
Court overruled, and reinstated Wickremesinghe.
Later, in October
2018, the country was shaken by a barbarous Jihadi attack engineered by ISIS on
Christians worshipping in Easter. The government was accused of failing to
prevent the attack despite having early warnings. Third, the government failed
to carry out the constitutional reforms promised during the 2014 elections. On
the contrary, Gotabaya promised national security and protection against
extremism, which soothed the security anxieties of the majority Sinhalese
community who voted overwhelmingly for him.
Gotabaya is also
credited with finishing off the protracted civil war in the country when Tamils
were fighting violently for a separate State. He is accused of war crimes, as
at the last stage of the war, nearly 40,000 Tamils and their leaders were
killed. He was also charged with the White Flag case when Field Marshall Sarath
Foneska alleged him of murdering the Tamil fighters ready to surrender. It is
another matter that he has not been found guilty of any of these crimes by Commissions
set up to investigate.
What should concern
New Delhi more is the perception that Rajapaksa brothers including the current
President Gotabaya are pro-China! Such a perception is based on at least three
developments between Sri Lanka and China. Towards the end of the Sri Lankan
civil war, 2006-2009, New Delhi refused to be involved, pushing it to the
Chinese embrace. Sri Lanka was provided by China with F-7 fighters,
anti-aircraft guns, air-surveillance radars and armed personnel carrier etc.
These weapons and war equipments contributed to Sri Lankan army’s victory over
the dangerous, suicidal Tamil insurgents who fought for decades.
The second factor is
Chinese investment in Sri Lanka. Beijing and Colombo signed a strategic
partnership in 2013, during Mahinda’s regime. Up to 2015, China had invested $10
billion in Sri Lanka. By 2016, China-Sri Lanka trade touched $4.43 billion
surpassing that of India-Sri Lanka at $4.37. The notable Chinese investment is
in Hambantota port, not far from India’s shores. To maintain the
debt-servicing, Sri Lanka has handed over the port to China along with 15000
acres of land for 99 years. Although Sri Lanka’s claim that the port has been
given only for commercial purposes, one cannot ignore the strategic and
intelligence possibilities due to the port’s location.
Furthermore, on
connectivity, China is developing an airport at Matale in the constituency of
Rajapaksa. It is building a network of highways across the country, namely the
Katunayake Expressway and Southern Expressway. And the Chinese prompted Colombo
International Financial Centre -- a self-contained Chinese smart city project
is soon opening for business. This will expand Chinese commercial involvement
in Sri Lankan capital.
Admittedly, Sri Lanka
is aware of the risks in Chinese investment. Experts have figured out that
projects financed by Chinese are overpriced. In November 2016, Sri Lankan
government complained to the Chinese of their high interest rates. Japan funded
ADB loans come at 0.1% interest rate whereas Chinese loan is at 6% interest
although Chinese claim that it is only 2%. What is more, Chinese investment is
totally in the form of loan, whereas India’s is 70% loan and 30% grant. It is
no secret that China seeks to bind smaller countries in debt-traps. Sri Lanka
is aware that it is heavily indebted to China.
Obviously, Beijing is
conducting its expansionist foreign policy on the back of its new economic
might, and cash-strapped economies in the Asian region are enticed to tap the
surplus money in China. Nepal and Sri Lanka in the India-Pacific region are
falling fast for Chinese support. This puts extra burden on India which has
geographical proximity and closer historical-cultural ties with these
countries.
How should India
respond to this new development, the election of so-called pro-Chinese President
elect in Sri Lanka, and re-calibrate its policies towards Sri Lanka in order to
prevent it sliding further towards China? The first thing New Delhi needs to do
is to remind itself of two maxims in international politics. One, that there are
no permanent friends or enemies, and second, human instinct is to fall for
time-tested friends rather than fair-weather ones.
India has, in
cultural economic and security terms, interdependent relations with Sri Lanka.
India has the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, in addition to the historical
relations, over 2500 years old. Basi Rajapaksa, the other brother of Mahinda, who
was the campaign-in-charge of Gotabaya, had said in an interview to the Indian
media, that “Sri Lanka may have economic relations with China, but in political
and security matters it will turn to India”. But it may take a lot more for New
Delhi to make Colombo pursue an India-first policy, both in letter and spirit.
New Delhi must draw the ‘Laxman Rekha’
(red line), an appropriate metaphor for Sri Lanka and enforce it even through
coercion.
New Delhi and Colombo
are members in more than one regional institution – Bay of Bengal initiative of
which Colombo is the current chair, BIMSTEC, Indian Ocean Rim Association
(IORA) and of course the defunct SAARC. New Delhi tends to engage Sri Lanka
bilaterally more for short-termism, but it should deal with Sri Lanka in
multilateral forums as well although they are slow and complex. This would help
Colombo shed off the small-power complex, which is often a psychological
obstacle in India’s relation with all its neighbours.
The existing ties
between India and Sri Lanka notwithstanding, New Delhi will have to counter
Chinese incursions into New Delhi’s ‘sphere of influence’, its neighbourhood.
New Delhi has taken the first correct step. The foreign minister was the first
to call on the new President, who is visiting India next week, the 29th
November. New Delhi says, it had foreseen the election outcome and was prepared
for it. Mahinda Rajapaksa is said to have made up with New Delhi after he had
assumed and alleged that New Delhi was partly responsible for inciting the
defection of Sirisena from his (Mahinda’s) tent. So, in fitness of things, New
Delhi should smooth-sail with Gotabhaya.
Despite the optimism,
it will not be a cake-walk for New Delhi to insulate its neighbours like Sri
Lanka from Chinese economic seduction. This is where New Delhi needs to turn to
its allies like Japan, USA and others who have a stake in Sri Lanka. The US has
considerable interest as it considers Sri Lanka to be “a significant strategic
opportunity in the Indian ocean”. Last year it extended $39 million to Sri
Lanka countering Chinese investment. This is a part of $300m package Washington
had set aside for South and South-east Asia to ensure a “free, open, and
rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific region. US military presence in Diego
Garcia is also of great help.
Likewise, India and
Japan were building a deep sea container terminal in Colombo. Japan had
extended $180m grant to Sri Lanka for maritime activities. India was roping in
Oman to build a $3.85 billion refinery around Hambantota.
New Delhi needs to
co-ordinate more with its allies to deepen its influence in the region. On its
own, India could not compete with Chinese trade and investment. Hence,
strategic alliance building is necessary for hedging South Asia against Chinese
incursion into the area. At the same time, it needs to win over the Sri Lankan
state, not just Tamils for better relations. It has such soft spots in its
foreign policy towards Sri Lanka and Nepal for Tamils in the former, and the
Madhesis in the latter. New Deli has erred in overstating the soft spots in the
past; it should leave them as the internal matters of those countries and
re-focus on bilateralism. This is not too radical a shift to make. Is it?
---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Quota in Promotions: INGENIOUS ROSTER SYSTEM, By Dr. S. Saraswathi, 21 November 2019 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 21 November 2019
Quota in Promotions
INGENIOUS ROSTER SYSTEM
By Dr. S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The practice followed in fixing seniority for
awarding promotions on the basis of reservations in State government services
in Tamil Nadu was struck down as unconstitutional by the Madras High Court a
few days back. It is no surprise or shock for those following the course of
Reservation Policy which is a continuous battle fought in courts. The concerned
sections in the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016
had been enacted superseding a Supreme Court judgement of 2016 upholding Madras
High Court verdict of 2015 which set aside the practice followed by TN Public
Service Commission in promotions since 2003.
The instance shows the obstinate adherence of
the State government to the Reservation Policy against all odds to maintain its
posture as the saviour of backward classes. Tamil Nadu has indeed enriched the
policy by enlarging its application and advancing ahead of other States. The
verdict has pointed out the failure of the State government to follow court
rulings.
This adds another court decision to the legal
literature on the Reservation Policy which is already voluminous recording
court cases of 67 years starting in 1952 in the then Madras Presidency which
led to the first amendment of the Constitution. The policy, however, began in
that province in 1927.
The policy has withstood many hurdles. Courts
can apply breaks but cannot reverse the policy as political interests are
involved. Already DMK President has condemned the failure of the State
government “to uphold social justice” which is believed to be and repeatedly
asserted as the quintessence of Reservation Policy. At the same time, voices
are heard from many sides doubting the efficacy of Reservation Policy to remove
social and educational backwardness in the society and demanding alternative
strategies to eliminate inequalities growing within the backward.
The judgement has also made some general remarks
on the working of the Reservation Policy and has issued caution in its
application that is usual in many of the earlier judgements also. The outcome
of the verdict will have its repercussions in other States as well. It is a
setback to the over-enthusiasm of governments and political parties indulging
in appeasement of vote banks.
“Any reservation is not automatic, but can
only be on need basis”, remarked the judgemen, striking at the very root of the
policy that is fostered as a right. The roster point system adopted by the
government in fixing seniority is “nothing but an indirect way of providing
reservation beyond 69 per cent”, and thus “unconstitutional”, declared the
court. Tamil Nadu is very forward in its backward (class) policy to devise
ingenious ways of extending 69 per cent reservation.
The roster system is an application to govern
reservation of posts in a cadre for different categories like SC, ST, OBC,
etc., with reference to the applicable percentage of reservation. The
application draws the reservation roster (s) by earmarking each post for one or
the other category and also helps to determine the category by which the post
which has fallen vacant is to be filled up. This system is a variation of the
rotation system devised in pre-independent Madras Presidency in which turns are
pre-fixed for each recognised category in specified unit of appointments.
Reservation in recruitment and selection is
different from reservation in promotion. Different yardsticks are to be applied
in the two cases as per the verdict of the court. The State government
employees had challenged the 200-point roster system followed by the government.
The famous Mandal Judgement of 1992
pronounced that Article 16(4) did not provide for reservation in promotions to SC
or ST. But, under various orders passed by the State governments, promotions
were brought under the Reservation Policy which practically could not be cancelled.
The court allowed its continuation for five years.
The 77th amendment of the
Constitution added 4A in Article 16 in 1995 which provided for reservation in
promotions for SC and ST. It led to a situation where a person promoted under
reservation could become senior to his seniors. This anomaly was addressed in
two judgments in 1995 and 1996 which introduced a rule to protect the affected
person’s seniority.
What is known as “Catch up Rule” was introduced
by the Supreme Court by 1999 to enable general candidates to regain their
seniority immediately on promotion over SC and ST who had been promoted earlier
under reservation and earned seniority over them. It was withdrawn by Parliament
in 2001.
The 85th Amendment of the
Constitution was adopted in 2001 providing for extension of reservation to
SC/ST in case of promotion with provision for “consequential seniority”. The
Supreme Court reintroduced the “catch up rule” in a case from Rajasthan in 2010.
Several cases pertaining to this rule emerged in many States.
There are a number of verdicts of High Courts
of different States on the issue of reservation in promotions which are not
consistent with one another. The apex court at times allowed status quo to
continue which has helped to avoid utter chaos and confusion.
For instance, the quota law of Karnataka of
2002 on promotion which did away with the “catch up rule” and provided for
“consequential seniority” to SC/ST to posts in Civil Services in the State was
struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2017. The court ruled that in
order to provide reservation in promotions, the States must first determine
whether the criteria of “inadequacy of representation”, “backwardness”, and
“overall efficiency” were fulfilled.
In this scenario, it is futile to refer to
textbooks on the principles of public administration. Max Weber’s concept that the
system of promotion is according to seniority or achievement or both and that
promotion is dependent on the judgement of superiors requires several
modifications today. Traditional criteria for promotions are given up under the
Reservation Policy. The undefinable concept of social justice takes precedence
over administrative needs.
The Supreme Court’s contention in the
Karnataka case that a State’s view on the adequacy or inadequacy of
representation of SC/ST in State services would not be subject to enquiries by
courts empowers the governments to go further in the policy and its
implementation.
The court this time has made a vital remark
that Article 16(4) is designed to ameliorate social inequality and cannot be
used to enhance it. No classification which does not pass the “test of
arbitrariness and unreasonableness” can be considered as valid. A “negative or reverse
discrimination is also against social justice”, said the court indicating
disapproval of the tendency of many State governments to enlarge reserved
places and disregard the requirements of administration.
It is also clarified by the court, though it
is already clear except for interested political leaders that horizontal
reservation cannot be granted in addition to vertical reservation. The former
relates to sub-sects and special categories like women, the handicapped,
destitute, ex-service men, etc., within the reserved quota, and the former to
reservation on community basis.
Reservation has certainly helped to uplift
individuals and communities. But, its benefits cannot percolate deep in the
society without a strict practice of eliminating the creamy layer – the forward
within the backward.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Review of Ayodhya Verdict: NOW RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM?, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 20 November 2019 |
|
|
Events
& Issues
New Delhi, 20 November 2019
Review of Ayodhya Verdict
NOW RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Notwithstanding the
Ayodhya verdict, the debate and controversy refuses to ebb. Though major
sections of the Muslim fraternity have accepted the judgment, the All India
Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat-ulama-i-Hind is unwilling to relent. They
have decided to file review petition in the Supreme Court. And while the
judgement based on some scientific report of the Archaeological Survey of
India, has brought relief to the ruling party as it can keep its poll promise, far
more crucial issues, mainly in the economic arena, plaguing lakhs of people in
the country, remain ignored and beg the government’s attention.
While it can be
presumed that the Ram Mandir may now be built and bring religious satisfaction
to the majority community, the AIMPLB saying it will not accept the 5-acre plot
awarded by the five-judge Bench, triggers uncertainty of how the situation pans
out. The judges had relied heavily on Hindu and Sikh religious texts to assert
individual’s view that Hindus always took the disputed site to be Ram’s
birthplace.
In this connection,
mention may be made of historical records, where Joseph Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit
missionary who visited India in 1740, mentioned ‘Bedi’, a cradle, where Beschan
(Vishnu) was born in the form of Ram. Alexander Cunningham, Director General of
the ASI referred to Ayodhya in his 1862 report as the birthplace of Lord Ram. Additionally,
P. Carnegie, Commissioner and Settlement officer, Faizabad, mentioned in his
1870 report that “Ajudhia’ is to Hindus what Mecca is for Mohammedans”.
However, it is
pertinent to make a note that the verdict came a day after Moody’s Investor
Services trimmed its rating outlook for India to ‘negative’ from ‘stable’,
citing increasing concerns that Asia’s third largest economy will grow at a
slower pace than in the past. Moody’s said the cut in the outlook “reflected
government and policy ineffectiveness in addressing economic weaknesses like
prolonged financial stress among rural households, weak job creation and, more
recently, a credit crunch among non-bank financial institutions, which has led
to the present slowdown.”
At the same time it
is also worth noting opinion on the verdict which is said to have given a pro-Hindu
weightage. Former Supreme Court Justice, Asok Kumar Ganguly, questioned the
matter as it pertained much before the Constitution was adopted or before the
establishment of the democratic republic of India. “Then where a masjid was,
where a mandir was, where a Buddhist stupa was, where a church was . . . if we
sit down to make such judgments, a lot of temples and mosques and other
structures will have to be demolished”. Justice Ganguly also questioned the
emphasis on a mythological character like Ram who has no historical evidence as
the whole matter happened, if at all, five centuries ago.
Further, Inquilab, one of the largest circulated
Urdu dailies, posed an important question –“If the court accepted that a mosque
existed at the site and had been demolished illegally, why wasn’t the verdict
in favour of the mosque?” It goes on to suggest that the verdict seems to be
based on circumstances rather than evidence. Another point made by the newspaper
stated that the court ruled that “Muslims have also the right to be given land
as compensation for the loss (but) the timing and place has not been decided”.
A point that has been
raised, and quite rightly, by the minority politicians is why the apex court
entrusted the ‘vandals’ responsible for demolition of the Babri Masjid the task
of identifying an alternative plot of land to build a mosque. Also, the
question where the land will be allotted-- whether in the Ayodhya town or in
the district, remains a big question and may complicate matters further?
However it is
pertinent here to mention what the five Judges stated summing up the verdict:
“Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the
Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means
which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule
of law. The Constitution postulates the equality of all faiths. Tolerance and
mutual co-existence nourish the secular commitment of our nation and its
people”.
Whether the apprehension
of some analysts that the verdict would only hasten India’s transition towards
a ‘Hindu Pakistan’ – or ‘Hindu Rashtra’ as Asaduddin Owaisi, four time member
of the Lok Sabha alleged -- remains to be seen. But the ruling party’s endeavour
for a united Hindu community may not succeed as a significant section is
opposed to fundamentalism and believe in Swami Vivekananda’s vision of unity of
all religions. However, with religious nationalism being promoted by the
government and the majority community being pampered, the future trend is not
all that encouraging. One cannot deny that the trend in projecting religion as
the core area of being a nationalist is most unhealthy for healthy growth of
society.
Earlier people were
not so assertive towards their respective religion but this gained ascendancy
in recent times. The politicians are quite happy in making people religious
conscious as this enabled the masses, as also even the educated sections, to
take their attention away from core economic issues that are affecting the
country. Thus, instead of attending to the pressing issues of the day,
politicians are more interested in highlighting religious issues to back up
their case for nationalism.
A few years from now,
the mandir and the masjid may be built but what is necessary is the need for
religious amity and respect for each other’s philosophy and way of life. While
secularism devoid of any obscurantism should be the mainstay in society, a
communitarian approach to life would be the best way to shape our social life
when two communities live and work together.
However, it needs to
be pointed out that economic well-being is also a key factor in keeping people
happy and this can only be possible through improving the standards of life specially
in Ayodhya as also other parts of the country.
Politicians should
not try to bring divisions within the communities to meet their political ends
but try to ensure that their living standards improve. Special mention needs to
made here of the young generation, which should be put on the right track and
engaged in employment so that they maintain a balance between religious faith
and socio-religious life. However, only time will tell what emerges in the new
Ayodhya district. The Mandir should not be an issue which should take
precedence over matters of governance. The issue at hand is bound to linger and
the government needs to set its priorities right.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Law & Order Clash: TU KAUN MAIN KHAMKHA, By Poonam I Kaushish, 19 November 2019 |
|
|
Political
Diary
New
Delhi, 19 November 2019
Law & Order Clash
TU KAUN MAIN KHAMKHA
By Poonam I Kaushish
It
all started over who had rights to a particular parking spot which escalated
into a free-for-all epidemic of mob violence between law and order with lawyers
setting fire to police vans and policemen ransacking lawyers' chambers in the
Union Capital a fortnight back. Resulting in three lawyers shot and many
policemen injured followed by an unprecedented 11-hour mass protest by the
guardians of order and an indefinite strike by the custodians of law. A classic
case of an ego battle of Tu Kaun Main Khamkha!
Undeniably
the escalating tension between the two pillars of our criminal justice system
has raised alarm bells in the country as it underscores we are an uncivilized
society with scant respect for the rule of law. Of how both sides can commit a
vile act, intimidate each other, exploit their positions and attempt to
camouflage their transgressions thereby taking the system for granted and
brazenly subverting it.
The
face-off which reverberated in Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and Chandigarh not
only highlights the love-hate relationship between lawyers and police with a
long history of clashes but also brings to the fore old fissures of an unspoken
contest to maintain supremacy in their dealings. Supposed to work in close
coordination with each other for prosecution of offences, their relationship
suffers from inherent dislikes.
At
one end lawyers have become a law unto themselves who don’t think twice before
attacking a police officer on duty with impunity at court complexes in full
public view whatever the provocation. At the other, security personnel who
symbolize Governmental authority take lawyers to task outside, sending a clear
message that they are powerful with high connections, can do whatever they want
and get away with it. Let the aam aadmi languish in jails awaiting justice for
years.
Questionably,
does a section of society sit comfortably above the law? What becomes of those
upholding the law? If policemen can be blatantly assaulted and the perpetrating
lawyers not brought to justice, then why would anyone want to follow laws?
Certainly, it decreases respect of law
amongst citizens and exposes law upholders having feet of clay who are only
interested in saving their skins and protecting their jobs. The cliché that
there are no poor troops, only poor generals rings home tellingly.
Worse,
the issue is further complicated by the notoriety of both lawyers and policemen
who equally misuse their powers to harass the aam aadmi. Indeed, there are
umpteen instances of both sides misbehaving with those belonging to the poor
and marginalised sections of society and people who have no access to higher
echelons. Today, they are getting a taste of their own medicine.
Undeniably
incidents like these are portents of that sinking feeling that something is
seriously wrong with our system as nothing justifies police-lawyers’ violent
clashes. While policemen aver that instead of their uniform being viewed with
respect as upholders of law, they have come to symbolise an easy punching bag
which goons in black coats and citizens kick around and walk on merrily.
Clearly,
this fracas has brought several important issues to the fore. One, a chain is
as strong as its weakest link. The justice system in the country depends on
both lawyers and policemen for efficient functioning. Lawyers’ frequent strikes
and tantrums paralyze the judiciary resultant in high pendency of cases, while
poor quality of investigation and corruption in the police close the door to
justice.
Moreover,
both lawyers and police have by and large poor capabilities. While policemen
are not provided sufficient funds to equip themselves, are poorly paid having
long duty hours, insufficient vehicles and arms. Consequently, they have to
rely on brute force to extract confessions to solve crimes.
Appallingly,
while crime per lakh people has increased by 28% from 2005 to 2015, expenditure
on police accounts for only 3% of Central and State Government budgets. Add to
this, State police forces had 24% (5.5 lakhs) vacancies and Central forces 7%
in January 2016, severe weaponry and vehicles shortage and only 14% funds for
modernisation of infrastructure used by States.
It
is pointless to argue that the State has withered away. Shockingly, the police
still functions according to the Police Act of 1861. This provides it with a
negative role. Notably, umpteenth number of Commissions have been set-up over
the years, from the Dharma Vira Commission down Julio Riberio Committee, Soli
Sorabjee Commission and the Padmanabiah panel and all have drawn the same
conclusions ---- change the mindset of the force, improve the public interface
and image and prevent politicization, criminalization and corruption in the
police. The result: zilch.
Importantly,
the supremacy of the Rule of Law should be clearly spelt out and the police guided
by the Law having the legal option to disregard all instructions running
contrary to that. Alongside, the administration and superintendence of the
force should remain exclusively under professional police supervisors wherein
it should be highlighted that the vardi exists for the service of the citizens.
Simultaneously,
the protests boosted by social media points to a larger crisis in the justice
system where reforms are long due. After all, justice is a sovereign function
of the State. Lawyers are often confident about the legal protection available
to them as citizens. They are also better placed to get judicial protection
against coercive action by the police.
However,
lawyers need to realize they are sentinels of justice which separates rights,
freedoms and protection and the rule of law from chaos and anarchy. A bulwark
against excesses or injustices carried out against the common man from the
misuse of power by the Government or corporate sector.
Hence,
it makes the job of the police even more difficult to take action against
lawyers unlike other pressure groups as there is a close relationship between
the Bar and Bench. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the bar associations
and senior police officers to maintain close cooperation.
True,
lawyers and police do not enjoy a savoury reputation in the eyes of the people.
Yet both are important pivots of the criminal justice system. Thus, it does not
behove members of both fraternities to indulge in or display conduct that
lowers their own standing in the eyes of the people who are the mainstay of the
entire system.
While
lawyers and police officers may or may not be considered great men yet, their
conduct must be exemplary in public and must inspire confidence in people. Our
leaders and judiciary better pay heed before it is too late. The bottom line is
clear. When push comes to a shove there is no easy option. Tough times call for tough action.
Undeniably,
the current crisis is an opportunity to push for long-standing police and
judicial reforms. It is imperative we get our priorities right with the
citizens hooting for answerability and accountability from the pillars of law
and order. The goal should be to reinforce the Rule of Law and uphold the Iqbal
of the State.
As
Herman Goldstein succinctly said: “The strength of democracy and quality of
life enjoyed by citizens is determined by the criminal justice system to
discharge duties honourably.” A time to ponder and introspect: Kiska kanoon aur
kiska danda? Remember, nobody claps with one hand! ----- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 19 - 27 of 4622 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|