We, the People...

When one speaks of ‘democracy’, one means ‘rule of the people’. How beautiful this concept sounds! For it implies that unlike in monarchies or plutocracies, the power to change or influence the course of history, of their own destiny, lies not in the hands of one singular person or a group of individuals, but in the hands of the people who live this destiny. Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people” not only binds a democracy to the people but also implores the people to adhere to the values of democracy.

But then Acton has said “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Has this come to be true in India, a nation that prides itself on its ‘democratic’ traditions? Has our democracy lost its vitality, its zeal to work for the better of the people? And in truth, have the people of India lost their enthusiasm for democracy, for its institutions and for its mechanisms?

Two incidents stand out of the plethora of news flooding the television screen, incidents which serve to remind us that no matter how much we may tom-tom our democratic values, we remain a nation which has perhaps never really comprehended the true meaning of what it means to be a democracy. Two incidents, which may not seem out of the ordinary, and that they aren’t so isn’t a matter of pride or an excuse for their occurrence, but all the more reason for us to ponder over where we are headed as a nation.

At Bhagalpur, two policemen assaulted and dragged a criminal from a motorcycle till such time that he should become unconscious. And this was all done at the prodding of the crowd. That this occurred in a state notorious with the law being broken is no justification; that this occurred at the hands of the police, an institution already demonised as an unruly arm of the State, isn’t any defence. What is shocking, perhaps even more so, is that the people stood watching, encouraging the officials concerned to perform their dastardly act a little longer.

At Agra, famed city of love, an angry mob torched vehicles and brought the entire city to a standstill, all supposedly in the act of grieving for four young men killed by an errant truck-driver. And when the police went in to try and control the mob, the mass turned on them and proceeded to show them just who’s the ‘boss’.

Both incidents serve to illustrate that the people have perhaps lost their faith in the ability of the democracy that we have come to take for granted to deliver justice to them. They have decided that if justice will not come to them of its own, they will force it to come, but ‘justice’ will be done.

The two policemen have been suspended, which is a positive sign implying that no breach of the law will be permitted, especially by those entrusted with the responsibility of protecting it, but what about the mob? We are well aware that whenever we have the State committing atrocities, we have exact details on who did what. But when it comes to the masses, why is it that we choose to hide behind the illusion of the ‘faceless’ crowd?

That these incidents are but a mere footnote in our history is no reason not to wake up and smell the coffee. It is time that we decided the course of this nation, of how we will allow this nation to progress here on. And in this, we find ourselves bearing a most onerous responsibility. It will not be easy; it will certainly not be fast. But one thing’s for sure: the rule of the people must not be permitted to deteriorate into the rule of the jungle.

Is this the right way.....?

Intolerance goes deep in our ethos. And there’s nothing that we are doing to ensure that our children are not affected by this malaise. Or perhaps we do not wish to. Whatever the reason may be, it is a sad day when thoughts and ideas are sought to be stifled at the point of a dagger, at the barrel of a gun, at the edge of a fist, and no one wants to do anything about it.

When the Faculty of Fine Arts at Baroda got embroiled in the most controversial act of permitting outsiders to enter the Faculty’s premises and beating up a student for his allegedly ‘disrespectful’ works, liberals and ‘moderates’ throughout the country rose to deplore the act. And very rightly so, for even if the student concerned was being disrespectful, that wasn’t justification enough for someone to go up to him and bash him up.

That the perpetrators belonged to an organization supposedly espousing the aspirations of the Hindu community should really have had no effect on the volume of the deprecations. After all, a fanatic anywhere is a fanatic, irrespective of his/her faith or lack of it thereof. The denunciations were heartening, because they illustrated that while the aggrieved had the right to be so, there was a ‘right’ way to resolve such conflicts, a more sophisticated and cultivated manner, if you please.

And yet, the silence when concerning Ms. Nasreen is simply shocking, nay, deplorable. Ms. Nasreen may be a controversial writer, or rather a writer who survives on courting controversy. Her writings involving her faith may verge on the edge of blasphemy and irreverence.

Nonetheless, to barge on her person, to threaten to kill her are neither reverent nor justifiable acts for anyone, no matter how sacrilegious her words may seem to anyone. Does Islam permit any man to injure or harm an unarmed woman on the mere pretext that she has dared to insult his faith? Is Islam so weak on its feet that mere words would shake its very foundations? I think not.

Frankly, politics and faith are two completely different things, and ought to be maintained so. That they have not been so far is distressing, but definitely no cause for the same being propagated through the ages. No faith teaches the path of violence, and if it does, then it is unworthy of being venerated.

Those who perpetrated these offences weren't ignorant buffoons. They were legislators, expected to know the law, and yet that they chose to break it should not be reason for letting them off easily. In fact, they should be prosecuted even more harshly. A threat to murder someone is no laughing matter, and a murderer must not be permitted to hide behind the authority of the Legislature.

There is a legal recourse that can be relied upon. It may be slow, it may be arduous, but it is the right thing. Fanaticism must not be accepted, if not for our sake, then for our children, lest they find themselves in a world where speaking itself offends someone.

An eye for an eye....

I recently saw this feature film, Eye For An Eye (1996), which was basically about how a mother goes about avenging her daughter’s death by stalking the killer and then ultimately killing him. The daughter does not die because of any accident, nor is the killer a doctor whose negligence causes her death. The poor child is brutally raped and subsequently murdered by the demon. And all the time, while her daughter is being violated, the mother is doomed to listen to the entire chaos on the telephone, helpless, unable to help her child.

The film shows how the murderer is identified, but then acquitted on a technicality, something that is so very common in India. And this is what triggers the mother’s desire to see her daughter avenged, to get, in Biblical terms, an eye for an eye.

While the film ends predictably with the murderer killed, and the mother being seen as a victim rather than a perpetrator, I thought to myself that while this is all fine in the realm of imagination, but in reality, none of this ever could happen. Rapists are perhaps the worst of the breed of criminals that the human race can produce. I have always found them to be the most despicable of the criminal world, precisely because of the nature of their crime.

There is no greater offense against mankind, against society, than the one perpetrated by these sexual perverts. They fancy the whole world to be their realm, and the women in it their bonded property, to be used as they fancy, and when they fancy. They care not for the laws that bind people, nor for the niceties that govern societies, nor for the basic humanities which define us as a species (or perhaps not...)

The agony that the victim in this case undergoes is worse than that which a victim of any other crime, save murder, could conceivably undergo. A murderer, in his/her fury, may cut short a life, but a rapist does worse; he cuts short a life without giving the gift of death. A murderer seems humane in comparison to this demon, for he/she at least condescends to release the victim(s) from the pain that is entailed in the wounds that he/she causes.

But this deviant just doesn't wound the body; he wounds the very soul of the victim. He takes a living body, and leaves behind a sentient corpse. An irony, you say? Hardly. And yet, there are some who would plead for them to be treated in a 'humane' manner. I ask of you this, how does one treat these monsters, worse than even animals, for even animals have decency in them, in a manner contrary to their very nature? They ask that they not be hanged; that they be punished by being forced to serve a life sentence.

In India, and perhaps in many other nations, the system envisages a chance of the person reforming. Thereby, each prisoner is then given a chance to maybe show that he has changed for the better, and therefore can be sent back into society. But I submit that there are some who can never reform, who can never turn a new leaf. They are stuck on that same page of Life, and no matter how much the winds of change may blow, they simply refuse to look at life anew. Rapists are the prime examples of this category. And so, a life sentence is impractical.

Humanity is not just meant for the perpetrator. What about the victim and the victim's family? Are they not worthy of the warmth of justice, of the realization that even if their wounds could never be erased completely, that thorn which caused them injury will harm no one ever again? In the film, the mother hears, helplessly, as her daughter calls out for assistance. Imagine what a mother must feel when she looks at her broken daughter. Think of how completely useless the parents must find themselves for their inability to protect their beloved child.

Gandhi may have said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", but then when one is hurt so grievously, it is hard to remain so dispassionate. If there is a crime worthy of capital punishment, that is rape. Let there be no doubt about that. Let no more women suffer the scourge of such lustful deviants. Their crimes must come to roost, and they must realize that the law will penalize them, in a manner becoming of their horrendous crime.

Justice for all...?

The rule of law is expected to be equal for all, granting the shade of its protection to all and sundry. And though some would opine that law by itself is not justice, and is best an imperfect mechanism, I submit that it is the best that we have at present.

But it is at times like these when one’s confidence in the strength of the law, in the impartiality of the scales, is shaken to the core. When the guards turn on us and ravage us and our trust. The case of the false encounters in Gujarat and Chhattisgarh, as also the inhuman manner in which the State dealt with the anti-SEZ protests in West Bengal brings to fore this quandary that the nation finds itself in.

On one hand, the State is expected to safeguard the rights and privileges of its citizens from all harm. The fundamental rights that are enshrined in its Constitution are not its grant to the people; the people have given themselves the Constitution and with its included provisos, and only they have the right to abrogate the same. The State is asked to protect these rights of all its citizens, irrespective of their caste, creed or sex. It may not exercise its prerogative, implied or imagined, to discriminate in this protection.

On the other hand, the State is seen to infringe upon the very rights it is established to uphold, to undermine the basis of the Constitution that it is obliged to guard. The lack of due process in dealing with the above-mentioned cases, and the absolute lack of respect and sensitivity towards the emotions and feelings as also a wanton disregard for the sanctity of the fundamental rights of the citizens is glaring in itself, and that the State is no more apologetic for its acts is a sad and most distressing matter.

While the acts are in themselves deplorable, those who would attempt to defend them by stating the seriousness of the ‘threat’ that the victims posed to the stability of the nation are living in a fool’s paradise. No threat can ever justify such an act of wanton perfidy. To exist within the garb of justice and order and to perform such a horrendous treachery is the height of hypocrisy. And the guilty have the gall to say that they did the right thing and, given the opportunity, would do it again, if required to. If there could ever be a cause for accusing someone of treason against the people, this would be it.

The states in question are being touted as models of development, as the engines of India’s growth. If this is the cost for India’s growth, I say, let India languish, for India has not sunk to such depravity as of yet to depend on the shedding of innocent blood to wash away the poverty of the ages, nor to stand on the shoulders of assassins to rise to the skies.

The law enforcement agencies are entrusted with the task of ensuring law and order, of guarding the nation from subversive elements, and the law from those who would want to break it. But I ask, in the words of Juvenal, who will guard the guards themselves?

Be not silent now...

We claim the privilege of calling ourselves 'civilized', of being 'mature' individuals, of having the capability to reason between right and wrong. This claim is echoed even more so by those who blog, and I would like to believe that bloggers inherently are people who are more mature than the rest.

That is why the death threats issued to Ms. Kathy Sierra, a prominent blogger and technology writer, are distressing. The very act of abusing someone, to demean someone's identity, and to degrade his/her person is the worst that can be inflicted on an individual, and is worthy of nothing short of the highest penalty available to a civil society. Irrespective of the victim's gender, the act is as serious as things get, and becomes even more so when the abuse starts bordering on actually threatening to injure, maim or even kill the victim.

Ms. Sierra has understandably been shocked and shaken by this, especially since these threats were issued over public forums and on blogs which feature or are supported by some of the most respected names in the sphere of blogging. To be so betrayed by one's comrades is the highest grief that one can bear. Ms. Sierra writes that she is scared to move out of her house; she fears every moment that someone would come and perhaps try to kill her. A threat, a verbal threat possesses within it the capability of reducing a previously confident and assertive person to a wrecked and scared shell and that is deplorable, if anything.

Those who have made these statements might be apprehended eventually, and suitably punished, but the damage has been done to the psyche of a person whose only offense had been to express her opinions in a frank manner, being true to her heart and to reason. And this damage is not just limited to Ms. Sierra but transcends to all those who affirm by her creed of writing true to one's convictions and beliefs. Law enforcement agencies can do the most of apprehending a criminal once a crime has been committed, but that such a crime can occur is an abominable thought.

The person(s) who have issued the threats may have intended them to be read as criticism of Ms. Sierra's works. Perhaps. But no criticism warrants such use of language. No freedom is unrestricted. Even the most paramount freedom, that of expression, which is so very sacred to all bloggers, is not unrestricted in its sweep. One may express, but keeping in mind that such expressions not go to harm the society in which one lives, or to any specific individual without due and justifiable cause or reason (due and justifiable cause could be like criticizing Bush for the Iraq war etcetera) as also that one may never advocate the use of violence against an innocent soul in sheer spite.

Bloggers chafe at being asked to conform to a code of ethics, stating that such a code could restrict their expressiveness. I fear that if such expressions are needed and protected by the right to express, that blogging as a culture is doomed to be relegated to the sidelines. We need to comprehend the fact that bloggers have a responsibility to society akin to that borne by the writers and philosophers of yore. Their behaviour reflects even more starkly on the societies that they live in, and influences even more so the people in such societies. Their attitudes, their biases, and their prejudices can go a long way in determining how a society views a particular issue.

And so such unreasonable and intolerable behaviour needs to be condemned for what it is: sheer barbarity. I fear that if such comments and such threats are permitted to go unchecked, tomorrow bloggers would fear to express themselves even when they are in the right, merely because they could become potential targets for such deranged delinquents. The blogsphere cannot afford to be silent now; it has to be vocal, for if not now then when?

Ms. Sierra's blog

Double standards...

Today marks the 39th anniversary of an incident that perhaps changed the course of the Vietnam War, and firmly established the duplicity that has come to characterize the American stand toward many issues, terrorism included.

The My Lai massacre, committed on March 16, 1968 by U.S. soldiers on hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians, remains to date a shameful blot on the U.S.'s claim to being a nation founded on liberty and freedom. U.S. soldiers had killed more than 300 Vietnamese, which comprised mainly of aged people, women and children, purportedly in a search operation aiming at rooting out Vietcong guerrillas and their supporters.

The search operation found no insurgents in the village. On questioning the villagers present there, the U.S. soldiers found them either pleading ignorance, or showing reluctance to provide any information, a logical stance, considering that the U.S. weren't exactly very popular at this stage in the war. Fearing, or so they claim, that these villagers were in truth Vietcong supporters, the U.S. soldiers herded them into ditches and mercilessly executed them with automatic firearms. The commanding officer, at the height of this killing frenzy, even expressed the desire to throw hand grenades into trenches harbouring villagers.

From an account gathered by the Peers Inquiry from one of the participants who described using a baby for target practice during the massacre:

He fired at it with a .45. He missed. We all laughed. He got up three or four feet closer and missed again. We laughed. Then he got up right on top and plugged him.

Convinced beyond doubt that any and all villagers of My Lai were a threat, the soldiers decimated the entire village, killing innocents in the age group of one to eight-five. If a one-year old can be a threat to the U.S., God save them!

The military then shamelessly attempted to camouflage the carnage as a military victory with the death of over 100 'enemies'. Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State and then investigating officer, simply white-washed all allegations of brutality on the part of the U.S. and the South Vietnamese forces towards innocent civilians. It was only when returning soldiers echoed stories of such horror in the U.S. to the media that the incident was brought to light, and the offenders prosecuted.

The Americans did not find it a tad difficult to execute leading military personnel of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany for having issued the orders to commit crimes against innocent people. But when it came to punishing Americans guilty of the same crimes, the U.S. showed a strange reluctance. Of the 26 men charged with the crime, only one, the commanding officer, would be convicted, and he too would serve barely 4 years in prison before being pardoned, purportedly because an officer cannot be prosecuted for following orders.

Whatever may have been the justification for the Vietnam War, the conduct of the U.S. soldiers sorely fell foul of the principles of jus in bello. The acts of war should have been directed against those who have wronged the U.S., and not towards innocents caught in situations not of their making.

That the My Lai massacre was barbaric goes without saying. Comparing this with the Holocaust would be presumptuous, and yet the sheer abandon of reason is the same, whether it was by the Nazis or by the Americans. My Lai would strengthen the anti-war movement in the United States, and eventually, after 7 years, the U.S. would withdraw, in what would be the only military defeat they had suffered till then.

The Americans choose to depict the Nazis and the Japanese as the ultimate symbols of evil. But I wish to state that for their reluctance to prosecute, for their desire to subvert justice under the garb of command responsibility, they have done the world greater wrong than the twain could ever have done. Those who claim a moral high ground are obliged to maintain those heights. Even Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, for Caesar to be venerated.

This is not the time to turn back....

Terror has no name, no face, no religion, no creed, no commune, and no emotions. Those who are wont to inspire such horror in their fellow beings have no humanity, no civility, and no sense of propriety. Their mission is disadvantaged by their affiliation. Their fellows from their communes and religions are maligned because of their cowardice. And innocent blood lies on their heads, preventing them entry into the heavens, if there be something such as so.

The blasts on the Samjhauta Express on Monday are the most dastardly and horrendous of crimes that a people can have committed on them. When, despite all odds, they have resolved to forgo their differences, and come together to forge a new future, that such cowards should so try to delay and destroy the path to a peace that this subcontinent sorely needs is nothing short of a horror.

But this is not the time to sit in grief, to just mourn the dead with tears and floral tributes. This is the time to show the terrorists that we are not on this road to move back. That this is not a journey that we have undertaken just to give up when faced with a few boulders. That we will not be defeated by their tactics of hate, that we want to live a new day, a day of peace, a day of happiness. It is a moment to show that innocence has no nationality, that grief binds us even stronger than before, and that this grief, which they have wrought upon us, will see us through this and all other assaults that they may shower upon us.

Those who have conspired to such a horrendous act do not deserve even the most basic of human prerogatives, for by this act, they have abnegated their humanity. Only by punishing the guilty with the highest penalty that the law provides for, can we hope to lay the souls of the departed truly at rest.

Looking within...

When a society gives in to wanton pressure from a fringe group, and denies itself the right to introspect on the more horrific incidents of its past, it stands the risk of repeating them again. The right to introspect, the right to know and to realize the horrors of the past, is perhaps one of the most fundamental rights and duties of a civilized society, and that which should perhaps be defended to the best of its capacity.

An integral part of this right is the right to evaluate events in the past in the media, both print and celluloid. The celluloid media is perhaps the most effective one of the two, because of the immediate nature of its impact on the minds of viewers. The print media still remains a tad limited by its insistence that you be literate enough to comprehend the language of the presentation, a problem that celluloid rarely faces, as it is more in the lingua populi.
Over time, Indian cinema has evolved from a purely entertainment outlet to a combination of education and entertainment. While the latter genre is still woefully inadequate, and unlike Hollywood, indie films are still a rarity here, the situation is improving for the better, at the least. Films are being made on social topics, on topics that serve more to awaken the people, to make them aware of issues facing the nation etc. This isn't a new phenomenon; only, the habit had been discarded in between.

We have had films like Amu (on the 1984 Sikh massacres) and Black Friday (on the 1993 Mumbai blasts), which have attempted to investigate all angles of the issue concerned, and present a very disinterested view of the whole matter, a thing which is helpful as it encourages people to make their own conclusions. There will be elements within society who would rather not have so unprejudiced a viewpoint in the open, for it exposes their duplicity, their crazed intentions. They will threaten to destroy all those avenues that a honest film-maker may want to take to showcase his work, to showcase the truth.
And will we stand silent while truth is being so murdered? Will we watch while our society is being denied her chance to improve herself for the better by some worthless delinquents? I pray not, and yet I fear that is what is so very expedient for most of us. Time and again, what could have been an eye-opener was itself snuffed out, leaving us blinded to our faults, rendering us incapable of avoiding repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Parzania is possibly one such eye-opener, something that Indian civil society sorely needs. In the end, in the quarrels of creed, of race, and of community, the identity of the dead is not determined by his creed, race or community; the victim is sans identity; he is merely a victim of a devilish frenzy. We need to acknowledge this once and for all, and stop this maniacal charade of communalism, of parading one's religion as superior by denigrating the others. Don't those who indulge in the denigration of others realize that by pushing others in the mud, they aren't lifted to the skies; they stay where they were.
Let the State Government of Gujarat offer security and credible security to all those who are fearful for the safety of their theaters, should they display Parzania. Let it show for once that it is capable of upholding the rule of law. Let it show its resolve to combat the demon of Time by its horns, and help society to improve itself for the better.

Nemo me impune lacessit...

The Noida Ripper’s case is becoming more and more sordid by the day. Theories are flying back and forth. Some would have it that the culprits were part of a larger human organ smuggling racket, while others contend, on the basis of photographic evidence found, that child pornography is the real story behind the curtain. And politicians are dropping to unimaginably low depths, what with cash compensations to grieving parents and comments about the crimes being a ‘small and routine’ affair.

I sometimes find it odd that politicians can be so very detached from reality, so removed from public emotions. I mean, no sensible person, no reasonable individual would ever state the crime as a small and routine matter. Come to think of it, the patrician who uttered this beauty must be regretting this faux pas, because he ends up achieving quite the inverse of what he must be intending to do. Perhaps he meant to say that while this was a serious matter, the police wasn’t taking this to be a small and routine matter either, or maybe not. Notwithstanding his intentions, the message that the world got, and that too from none other than the brother of the Chief Minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh where the crime took place, is that crimes of such a serious nature are so very mundane. I shudder to think what would count as a serious crime in the eyes of the notable patrician.

Many saw with glee and amazement the fall of Laloo Prasad Yadav’s cliché in Bihar last year. Reasons for this event were numerous, right from the growing awareness of the people to the disinclination of the people to give a corrupt administration another breath of life, to the desire for change, and that too serious change. Maybe this all contributed to a great extent, but there is one thing that I feel turned the tables against Mr. Yadav. His cliché’s government failed to ensure public safety to such a basic level that even children were no longer safe from the arms of organised crime. Kidnappings were commonplace. Children were seized in broad daylight, and kept in captivity for weeks together.

In the end, man is a primitive being, given to the primeval instincts of survival. No human will bear in silence harm being done to his loved ones, and those who permit such harm to be done bear his wrath. The phrase of “Nemo me impune lacessit” doesn’t evoke strong emotions for nothing. And when a government shows itself of protecting even children, I am confident that no sentient soul would ever dream of reposing any faith in it, and so it was, and the result is there for all to see.

Why I chose to relate this particular tale is rather simple. Uttar Pradesh is similar to Bihar, and given reforms that have taken place since last year in Bihar, maybe even worse than it now. This incident puts into context the appalling state of affairs as far as law and order are concerned. The verdict seems inevitable; what remains to be seen is whether those who will emerge victorious will do anything to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Have we lost it...?

Two cases have emerged, which would shock and appal even the most hardened of souls. The serial kidnappings and subsequent killing of children in Noida, and the murder of an 11 year-old child by his friends serve to remind us what a disturbed world we live in. That no matter how much we may advance in technological terms, in the context of the mind, the intellect, we are more backward than even the primeval man.

The Noida kidnappings were at one moment mysterious, and yet so long as the skeletons of the children had not been found, there still existed a semblance of hope that the children would return to their homes, maybe not unblemished, but definitely alive. But the discovery of the skeletons must have dashed all these hopes. The local law enforcement authorities predictably failed in their duties once again, and the end result is that too much innocent blood has been shed.

To my mind, rape and sexual abuse have always been the most horrendous and horrible of crimes that an individual may perpetrate. Even murder pales before it, because at least in the case of murder, the victim is granted death, thereby releasing him from his agony. But a rapist offers no such solace, no such reprieve. He impales not only the body, but also the soul, the mind, and leaves not a person, but an empty shell in the wake of his cruel passions. Such a crime is not just reprehensible; it is plain abominable.

But nothing compares with abusing children. I mean, how can someone be so depraved as to blemish an innocent soul, to so torment that which has been so often described as God’s most beloved, with such a satanic act? Paedophilia is perhaps the worst that a dissolute mind can conjure from the depths of Hell. It is still possible for adults to emerge out of the shock, out of the pain that rape may induce, but it is impossible to imagine that the ordeal that the juvenile victim faces could vanish or even be reduced in the face of the passing years of Time.

I say, hang these degenerate criminals; there can be no notion of mercy in such cases. I have always been a strong proponent of capital punishment, but can and will permit the judiciary’s decisions to grant punishments other than this in crimes such as murders. But when it comes to such crimes, crimes which don’t just break the law, but also threaten the very normalcy of society, there can be no reprieve, because such felons do not deserve any kindness, because to do so would be to rub salt in the wounds of the victims and their families. We cannot afford doing that, not now, not ever.

Justice is served.

Justice is deemed served only when the victims feel a sense of closure. It is imperative that one understands that while justice may be delivered, by virtue of a sentence or a verdict, it may still remain far from allaying or soothing the angst of the victim(s), if it doesn’t take into consideration their emotions, and merely judges the issue on the basis of cold facts.

The Jessica Lal case, which has rocked India, has come to an end. Some would exclaim the ultimate conviction of Manu Sharma and his accomplices as the victory of justice, and a reaffirmation of the trust that the common man reposes in the corridors of the judiciary. Some would see this as another indication, another vindication of the principle that all are equal before the law, be they a king or a commoner. And quite rightly they believe so.

And yet, 7 years is too long for justice to be served. In these years, the parents of Jessica Lal passed away, in wait of their daughter’s murderer’s conviction. Allegations of the most reproachable and reprehensible manner have been leveled against the late Ms. Lal herself, and not much was said or done about the one who made these comments. Evidence was tampered with, and the entire judicial process mocked at. What absolute power can achieve if it wishes to do so is aptly demonstrated by way of the manner in which the convicted tried to subvert the system. That despite all this, justice was delivered is in itself a matter of pride, a matter of great celebration.

The family of Ms. Lal had declined to ask for the death sentence for the convicted, on ideological grounds. So, life imprisonment for them is a just punishment, and perhaps somewhere these beliefs of theirs must have weighed heavily with the court when it took the decision of whether to pronounce the death penalty or life imprisonment.

I am a supporter of the death penalty, and advocate it being used to punish those who commit the most abominable crimes, such as pedophilia, patricide, matricide, and even rape. Homicide involving torture of the victim also ought to qualify, as it isn’t simply an act of passion therein, but a coolly planned crime, aimed at causing the greatest degree of horror.

But in this case, the rarest of rare criterion is inapplicable, simply because this was a crime of passion with no ulterior motive behind it. And I do not find it odd to say that by declining to punish Mr. Sharma by way of the death penalty, the court has judged rightly, and judged solely on the basis of the facts before it, and not on the media outcry and the public sentiments associated with the case. The fears of the defense counsel have been shown to have been unfounded, and one’s faith in the judiciary has been reaffirmed once again, manifold.

Judicial activism, say you?

The decision of the legislative and the executive to launch a joint attack on the judiciary for what they term as unwarranted judicial activism shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. After all, when such skirmishes have occurred barely 2-3 years after the birth of the Indian nation, that things should now come to this is neither a matter of surprise nor of astonishment. However, it is definitely a matter of concern.

The Constitution is clear in its demarcation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The legislatures are empowered to create laws, the executive to implement them, and the judiciary to ensure that all and any laws created are within the ambit of the Constitutional framework, as also that the executive is implementing the laws in the best and most effective manner. There is no ambiguity in this matter.

The authority of the judiciary to review the statutes created by the legislatures empower it to strike down such statutes as may be deemed as violating the provisions of the Constitution. Judges may strike down a statute, sure, but on what reason? And who is to say that their interpretation of the provisos of the Constitution is correct?

The judiciary may basically adhere to either of the two most prominent interpretative theories in law, viz. strict constructionism and living constitutionalism. Basically, the former asks of the judiciary to view statutes solely in view of their actual content, and not question the motive or intent of the legislature behind bringing about the said statute. They may only view the validity of the statute in terms of its adherence to the letter of the Constitution. The latter on the other hand grants the judiciary the right to interpret the statute in view of the Constitution provisos, but at the same time, keeping in mind whether the provisos with regard to the present have been adhered to, i.e. whether the statute adheres to the spirit of the Constitution.

Whether the Indian judiciary follows the constructionist or the living constitutionalist approach is a matter of study. The current judicial environment points towards a slightly constitutionalist tilt, but whether this tilt can be viewed as activism is debatable.

Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court has made a very poignant statement regarding judicial activism. He says and I quote, “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” But this doesn’t mean that the judiciary may not discharge their responsibility of interpreting the law and enforcing the limits the Constitution places on either the legislature or the executive. Judicial vigilance in upholding constitutional rights is in no sense improper activism. It is not judicial activism when the courts carry out their constitutionally-assigned function and overturn a decision of the Executive or Legislature in the course of adjudicating a case or controversy properly before the courts.

The courts, in having convicted two sitting Members of Parliament, have displayed maybe a sense of activism, but whether it is unwarranted activism is a matter of introspection. The legislature is deemed the representative of the people, and that within its folds, protected by its privileges, individuals continue to display wanton disregard for the law, flouting it day in and day out, is a distressing and disturbing thought. In such a matter, should not the judiciary be empowered to strike down or at least strip such individuals of such unjustifiable protections? Should not it be allowed to demonstrate that although Parliament is supreme as regards the law, it is Salus populi suprema lex esto (let the good of the people be the supreme law), which is the ultimate guiding principle?

The question is laid, and answers are sought. Time will tell the fate of this conflict.

Justice restored.

The Lady would be pleased today. For once, those who had always been beyond her pale, those who had refused to submit to her diktats, those souls now tremble at her feet, wondering what greater travails she will choose to inflict on them.

The conviction of Mr. Shibu Soren, 'distinguished' member of the Union Cabinet of Ministers, and 'father' of the State of Jharkhand, by a sessions court in Delhi, in a kidnapping and homicide case, and his consequent life imprisonment is a sign that India may be a flawed democracy, but it's flaws have a long way before they may be deemed sufficient to overpower reason altogether. That there are protesters who are declaring the 'innocence' of Mr. Soren doesn't deny this fact; rather it was expected, as Mr. Soren is after all a politician, a leader of the 'masses', and would be expected to find some support from amongst them.
But then I pray that there be no miscarriage of justice, that no laws be passed to overrule such revolutionary convictions, wherein an incumbent member of the Executive has been charged with homicide in cold blood, and has received the second highest form of punishment possible under the Indian Penal Code.
Let this judgement serve as a reminder to both the Executive as also the Legislature that they are at best the representatives of the people, their legates in the halls of power and authority, not their overlords. Let them know that the people have enshrined in their hearts the slogan of ancient Scotland, Nemo me impune lacessit (No one wounds me with impunity). Let this judgment be a wake-up call for all those who know where the rot lies in the system, and cause them to start cleaning it up, not just for this generation, but for generations to come. Let not the Lady be forced to pull on her blindfold again; let this be her prerogative, not her misery.

The struggle must go on!

The brutal murder of Maniappan Raman Kutty, an employee of the Border Roads Organisation, by the Taliban in Afghanistan is yet another example of how a warped vision of the world can try to drown out the legitimate concerns for development and progress of the people. The Taliban's sole aim seems to have become the overthrow of the Hamid Karzai administration, and the reversion of the Afghan state back to the Dark Ages. In this process, if innocents die, merely because they did the unforgivable deed of assisting the current Afghan government in dispensing its duties, well that's fair, because this is war.
But, it really isn't fair. If you have an issue with Karzai, talk with him, or even declare an open war on him, and resolve the matter once and for all. Don't slowly and steadily corrode the nation for which even you profess love and affection. Don't harm those whose intentions are noble, who only desire to assist your people in their aim to progress, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the world. They don't seek to take sides in your struggle, they don't care who rules the State, so long as they can go about their job of helping the people smoothly. These are the basic expectations from those who seek to help your people.
And, whilst I write this, I am cognizant that somewhere down there, even I am reconciled to the fact that we are speaking to a wall. That those who seek to harm, harm not because of ideological persuasions, but out of sheer animosity, a despicable desire to undo all the good that can be accrued out of development and progress. Kutty hasn't died a victim; he has died a matyr; a matyr to the cause of humanity, a hero for the oppressed people of this world, a man who despite all odds persevered to assist those who were related to him, not by blood, but the holiest of all relations, by their humanity. His death must not go in vain. His deeds must live on. The struggle must go on.