The recent decision of the government of Gujarat to lift the long–standing ban on government servants being members of the RSS has aroused much controversy. Many, already distressed by the policies of the state government of encouraging extremist Hindu parties, have seen it as yet another instance of a fanatical fascist group using its power to destroy the secular basis of our country. Others see nothing wrong in the decision; why not let civil servants belong to a party, they say, particularly as several ministers belong to, or are sympathetic to that very party?

A dispassionate discussion of this issue is called for. The issues involve a consideration of our Constitution, and the basic underlying principles of our parliamentary democracy.

Our Constitution declares that India is to be a secular republic. The Supreme Court has held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution which cannot be amended. What secularism means has been the discussed by the Supreme Court in the famous Bommai Case, when a large bench of the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of several BJP–controlled state governments after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Some observations in the judgements delivered in that case deserve to be quoted:

"Under our Constitution … religion cannot be mixed with any secular activities of the state. In fact, the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited."

"In matters of State, religion has no place."

"The Constitution does not recognise, does not permit, mixing religion and state power. Both must be kept apart."

The Constitution contains fundamental rights which include the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of association. These rights are not absolute, and can be curtailed in appropriate cases in the interests of public order or the integrity of India. The Constitution also contains Article 25 which confers on all citizens the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of their choice, and it is settled law that whilst conversions from one religion to another by threats or inducement can be prohibited, voluntary conversions cannot be restricted.

Our Constitution also contains a chapter on fundamental duties under which all citizens are under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, to uphold and protect the sovereignty, integrity and unity of India, and to promote the harmony and spirit of common brotherhood among the people of India transcending differences of religion, language, etc. These fundamental duties cannot be directly enforced, but are relevant in determining the legality and constitutionality of laws and restrictions on fundamental rights.

Government servants do not cease to be citizens, and have the right to enjoy fundamental rights, but restrictions can be imposed on their enjoyment of such rights which are necessary in the interests of the sovereignty or integrity of India.

We are a parliamentary democracy. This is also a basic feature of our Constitution. In a parliamentary democracy, power is enjoyed by a council of ministers which commands the majority support in the legislature. The ministers run the country with the assistance of the vast civil service which is permanent; the civil service does not change with a change in the government. It is expected to conscientiously discharge its duties, and execute the policies determined by the ministers. Parliamentary democracy cannot function efficiently unless the civil service is, and remains, wholly independent or impartial. The whole system would break down if members of the civil service get identified with political parties as they could not possibly execute the policies of another, rival, political party. Any identification of the civil service with a political party is also dangerous as there is then every likelihood of the politically inclined civil service using the machinery of the State, and its vast resources, to favour that political party.

A compromise has generally been struck between ensuring, on the one hand, an independent and impartial civil service, and ensuring that the civil servants themselves can enjoy the basic rights of citizens such as the right to vote, and the right even to belong to political parties. The right to belong to a political party enjoyed by civil servants is not, however, absolute, and must be restricted in the interests of parliamentary democracy and secularism.

The position in England is instructive. Civil servants generally cannot belong to organisations which are committed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy. Even as far as ordinary and democratic parties are concerned, a civil servant cannot publicly support any political party or its policies.

As we also are a parliamentary democracy, the principles followed in England are instructive. We also have to constantly bear in mind the basic principles of our Constitution and the fundamental duties imposed on all citizens. Obviously, government servants must discharge the same duties, and the obligation on them to do so is greater, as they occupy a pivotal position in the State.

Whilst government servants in India can undoubtedly belong to political parties which are committed to parliamentary democracy, and secularism, they cannot be allowed to belong to a political party which is committed to the very opposite. Let me give an illustration. Would the government of Gujarat allow its government servants to belong to an organisation, which recommends that Junagadh should be handed over to Pakistan, or the government of India allow its government servants to belong to organisations which recommend an independent Nagaland? Clearly not.

In fact any such political parties would be working against the integrity of India which it is the duties of all citizens, including government servants, to uphold. Any government which does not prohibit government servants from being in any way associated with such parties would be failing in its duty.

Suppose we have a political party, which proclaims that Hindus are bigoted and full of superstition, and should not be employed in public service. Surely, propagation of that point of view does the very opposite of what the Constitution enjoins as a fundamental duty on all citizens; not only does it not promote harmony amongst people belonging to different religions, it does its best to bring about discord and disharmony. If ordinary citizens do this, it is, to say the least, unfortunate. If, however, a government servant does it, it may well have calamitous consequences, as whatever he says would, at least in the minds of very many people, particularly those who are not well-educated, and live in rural areas, carry behind it the weight of official approval. Government servants must, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion. That is why there has to be imposed a much higher standard of care and circumspection on all government servants than on ordinary citizens. They cannot be permitted to be associated with any political party which is associated with any policy which destroys or threatens the integrity or unity of India or inter–religious harmony.

What is the RSS? It is not like other political parties. Historically, let us not forget, people of the RSS–mindset were responsible for the heinous murder of the greatest Indian of modern times, Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhiji has been, and is, revered all over the world, but many members of the RSS are still full of praise for those who murdered him. The RSS is a group of people who are fascist in their thinking, and openly recommend the substitution of our parliamentary democracy and secular republic. Many of their policies are violently anti–Muslim, and, of late, particularly in the state of Gujarat, viciously anti–Christian. It is impossible to be a member of the RSS and also abide by the fundamental duty of every citizen, that is, to abide by the Constitution, or to respect its ideals and institutions, or to promote harmony and brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Christians. Further, a member of the RSS, if also a government servant, cannot by reason of the very tenets of the RSS keep the Hindu religion and state power apart. The long-standing ban on membership of the RSS and other communal organisations, was, therefore, right.

For any state government to allow government servants to belong to the RSS or, indeed, to any communal or secessionist organisation, would be wrong. The ban has been in force for many years. For a government run by the BJP, which has close links with the RSS, to revoke the ban is doubly wrong. It is favouring its own party, and jeopardising the impartiality and independence of the civil service. It is sending a message to the whole State, and in particular, to the citizens belonging to the minorities, that the whole State government will be run as the RSS wants.

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2000. Year 7  No, 56, Controversy
 

The post Saffron babus in khaki shorts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tarkunde celebrated his 90th birthday on July 3, 1999. Few men could have led so full a life, a life so rich in achievement, a life devoted without a break for what is right, what is fair and just.

Having become a barrister, he started practising law, first in Pune, then in Bombay. From the very beginning, he devoted a large part of his life to social work. Social work for Tarkunde meant hard and uncomfortable work in the villages which he was fully qualified to do as he had a degree in agricultural economics. He did not do such work for publicity and self–advancement, but because he thought it right to do it. After he shifted to Bombay, social work meant assisting the trade union movement. He was also involved in the freedom movement.

He was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court and proved to be an outstanding judge with a passion for justice. For Tarkunde, the very object of law was to bring about justice. He analysed the underlying principle behind the law and to the extent possible decided in a manner that was fair and just. He was a judge for 12 years during which he delivered a number of judgements of distinction in the field of administrative and other branches of law.

On retiring, he started practising in the Supreme Court. He soon had a flourishing practice. He was always, however, available to appear for an impecunious client or a worthy cause. Many lawyers have done such work but few have done it so extensively. And, unlike most lawyers, Tarkunde did such work whenever required, not only when convenient so as not to disturb the flow of flourishing and paying work. Tarkunde in fact gave priority to such work and there were weeks when he did nothing else.

He was always in great demand for such work as he devoted all his energy and formidable legal ability to such work. But that was not all. He did not merely appear in court for good causes. That is easy. He also attended conferences and conventions all over the country, participated in demonstrations and protests. He travelled to small towns, staying in inconvenient and uncomfortable places. He was not afraid, and on at least one occasion, he was in a silent procession which was ruthlessly dispersed by the police, with Tarkunde himself being beaten up.

It is not even possible to list his many activities. He was at the fore–front of the campaign to end police atrocities against the Naxalites. After the vicious anti–Sikh pogrom in Delhi which followed the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, he took the lead in exposing the involvement of the Congress leadership and the higher police authorities in the pogrom. He supported the Bohra reformists in exposing the policies of the Bohra priesthood in suppressing all kinds of dissent. When the Khalistan movement was at its height, he had the courage to condemn the way in which the police and the para–military authorities had functioned. He did the same when Kashmir was racked by militancy later.

Unlike some activists, he condemned all acts of violence and atrocities, whether committed by the police or by the militants. He had the courage to do so in Srinagar when he was attending a militant rally!

Tarkunde is not a Gandhian in the formal sense; he does not wear khadi, and he enjoyed his game of golf. But if being Gandhian means a devotion to truth and principle, he is a great Gandhian.

He is a person who puts the human being first, above all "isms"; what he is devoted to is the freedom and welfare of the man. He abhors dogma and fundamentalism of all kinds.

At the function held to felicitate him on his 90th birthday in Mumbai, he spoke and made a few points which sum up the man, and which deserve to be widely known.

He stressed that he believed in morality which he explained meant doing what was good and right, not to oblige others, not to be thanked or praised, but because doing good should satisfy and please the person who does it. He called this enlightened self–interest. He said that he was a nationalist, but also a democrat; nationalism to him meant not believing in an abstraction called the nation, but working for the welfare, freedom and happiness of the people who constitute the nation. And speaking at the height of the Kargil crisis, he said that he unhesitatingly condemned the action of the militants in torturing and killing some Indian jawans, but reminded the audience not to forget that thousands of Kashmiris who had disappeared without a trace after being arrested by the police. Saying this required courage and this reveals the real Tarkunde, a man of great courage with the highest principles.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 1999. Year 6  No. 51, Tribute 1

The post Crusader for Human Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.