Image: PTI

It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.

The nebulous universe of law and legal procedures is well known to this audience and there is precariously little that I can say of relevance to them. And, for reasons of prudence and much else, I dare not repeat here either Mr Bumble’s remark that ‘the law is an ass’ or the suggestion of a Shakespearean character who outrageously proposed in Henry VI to ‘kill all lawyers.’ Instead, my effort today would be to explore the practical implications that some constitutional principles, legal dicta and judicial pronouncements have for the lives of citizens.

An interest in political philosophy has been a lifelong pursuit. I recall John Locke’s dictum that ‘wherever law ends, tyranny begins.’ Also in my mind is John Rawl’s assertion that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’ and that in ‘a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled and the rights secured by justice and are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest.’ To Rawls, the first task of political philosophy is its practical role to see, whether despite appearances on deeply disputed questions, some philosophical or moral grounds can be located to further social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens.

The constitution of India and its preamble is an embodiment of the ideals and principles that I hold dear.

The people of India gave themselves a republic that is sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic and a constitutional system with its focus on justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. These have been embodied in a set of institutions and laws, conventions and practices.
Our founding fathers took cognisance of an existential reality. Ours is a plural society and a culture imbued with considerable doses of syncretism. Our population of 1.3 billion comprises of over 4,635 communities, 78% of whom are not only linguistic and cultural but social categories. Religious minorities constitute 19.4% of the total. The human diversities are both hierarchical and spatial.

It is this plurality that the constitution endowed with a democratic polity and a secular state structure. Pluralism as a moral value seeks to ‘transpose social plurality to the level of politics, and to suggest arrangements which articulate plurality with a single political order in which all duly constituted groups and all individuals are actors on an equal footing, reflected in the uniformity of legal capacity. Pluralism in this modern sense presupposes citizenship.’ (Aziz Al -Azmeh, lecture titled ‘Pluralism in Muslim Societies’ delivered on January 29, 2005, at the India International Centre).

Citizenship as the basic unit is conceptualised as “national-civic rather than national-ethnic” ‘even as national identity remained a rather fragile construct, a complex and increasingly fraught ‘national-civic-plural-ethnic’ combinations.’ In the same vein, Indianness came to be defined not as a singular or exhaustive identity but as embodying the idea of layered Indianness, an accretion of identities.

Modern democracy offers the prospect of the most inclusive politics of human history. By the same logic, there is a thrust for exclusion that is a byproduct of the need for cohesion in democratic societies; hence the resultant need for dealing with exclusion ‘creatively’ through sharing of identity space by ‘negotiating a commonly acceptable political identity between the different personal and group identities which want to/have to live in the polity.’ Democracy ‘has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard.’ Its ‘raison d’etre is the recognition of the other.’

Secularism as a concept and as a political instrumentality has been debated extensively. A definitive pronouncement pertaining to it for purposes of statecraft in India was made by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case and bears reiteration:
‘Secularism has both positive and negative contents. The Constitution struck a balance between temporal parts confining it to the person professing a particular religious faith or belief and allows him to practice profess and propagate his religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The positive part of secularism has been entrusted to the State to regulate by law or by an executive order. The State is prohibited to patronise any particular religion as State religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality. The State strikes a balance to ensue an atmosphere of full faith and confidence among its people to realise full growth of personality and to make him a rational being on secular lines, to improve individual excellence, regional growth, progress and national integrity… Religious tolerance and fraternity are basic features and postulates of the Constitution as a scheme for national integration and sectional or religious unity. Programmes or principles evolved by political parties based on religion amount to recognizing religion as a part of the political governance which the Constitution expressly prohibits. It violates the basic features of the Constitution. Positive secularism negates such a policy and any action in furtherance thereof would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution.’

Despite its clarity, various attempts, judicial and political, have been made to dilute its import and to read new meaning into it. Credible critics have opined that the December 11, 1995, judgment of the Supreme Court bench ‘are highly derogatory of the principle of secular democracy’ and that a larger bench should reconsider them ‘and undo the great harm caused by them’. This remains to be done; ‘instead, a regression of consciousness (has) set in’ and ‘the slide is now sought to be accelerated and is threatening to wipe out even the gains of the national movement summed up in sarvadharma sambhav.’

It has been observed, with much justice, that ‘the relationship between identity and inequality lies at the heart of secularism and democracy in India.’ The challenge today then is to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism’s basic principles: equality, freedom of religion and tolerance, and to emphasise that equality has to be substantive, that freedom of religion be re-infused with its collectivist dimensions, and that toleration should be reflective of the realities of Indian society and lead to acceptance.

Experience of almost seven decades sheds light on the extent of our success, and of limitations, on the actualisations of these values and objectives. The optimistic narrative is of deepening; the grim narrative of decline or crisis.
Three questions thus come to mind:

• How has the inherent plurality of our polity reflected itself in the functioning of Indian democracy?
• How has democracy contributed to the various dimensions of Indian pluralism?
• How consistent are we in adherence to secularism?

Our democratic polity is pluralist because it recognises and endorses this plurality in (a) its federal structure, (b) linguistic and religious rights to minorities, and (c) a set of individual rights. The first has sought to contain, with varying degrees of success, regional pressures, the second has ensured space for religious and linguistic minorities, and the third protects freedom of opinion and the right to dissent.

A question is often raised about national integration. Conceptually and practically, integration is not synonymous with assimilation or homogenisation. Some years back, a political scientist had amplified the nuances:
‘In the semantics of functional politics the term national integration means, and ought to mean, cohesion and not fusion, unity and not uniformity, reconciliation and not merger, accommodation and not annihilation, synthesis and not dissolution, solidarity and not regimentation of the several discrete segments of the people constituting the larger political community…Obviously, then, Integration is not a process of conversion of diversities into a uniformity but a congruence of diversities leading to a unity in which both the varieties and similarities are maintained.’
How and to what extent has this worked in the case of Indian democracy with its ground reality of exclusions arising from stratification, heterogeneity and hierarchy that often ‘operate conjointly and create intersectionality’?
Given the pervasive inequalities and social diversities, the choice of a system committed to political inclusiveness was itself ‘a leap of faith.’ The constitution instituted universal adult suffrage and a system of representation on the first-past-the-post (Westminster) model. An underlying premise was the Rule of Law that is reflective of the desire of people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical.’

Much earlier, Gandhiji had predicted that democracy would be safeguarded if people ‘have a keen sense of independence, self respect and their oneness and should insist upon choosing as their representatives only persons as are good and true.’ This, when read alongside Ambedkar’s apprehension that absence of equality and fraternity could bring forth ‘a life of contradictions’ if the ideal of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ was not achieved, framed the challenge posed by democracy.

Any assessment of the functioning of our democracy has to be both procedural and substantive. On procedural count the system has developed roots with regularity of elections, efficacy of the electoral machinery, an ever increasing percentage of voter participation in the electoral process and the formal functioning of legislatures thus elected. The record gives cause for much satisfaction.

The score is less emphatic on the substantive aspects. Five of these bear closer scrutiny – (a) the gap between ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the law’, (b) representativeness of the elected representative, (c) functioning of legislatures, (d) gender and diversity imbalance and (e) secularism in practice:

• Equality before the law and equal protection of the law: ‘The effort to pursue equality has been made at two levels. At one level was the constitutional effort to change the very structure of social relations: practicing caste and untouchability was made illegal, and allowing religious considerations to influence state activity was not permitted. At the second level the effort was to bring about economic equality although in this endeavour the right to property and class inequality was not seriously curbed…Thus the reference to economic equality in the Constitution, in the courts or from political platforms remained basically rhetorical.’
• Representativeness of the elected representative: In the 2014 general election, 61% of the elected MPs obtained less than 50% of the votes polled. This can be attributed in some measure to the first-past-the-post system in a fragmented polity and multiplicity of parties and contestants. The fact nevertheless remains that representation obtained on non-majority basis does impact on the overall approach in which politics of identity prevails over common interest.
• Functioning of legislatures, accountability and responsiveness: The primary tasks of legislators are legislation, seeking accountability of the executive, articulation of grievances and discussion of matters of public concern. The three often overlap; all require sufficient time being made available. It is the latter that is now a matter of concern. The number of sittings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha which stood at 137 and 100 respectively in 1953 declined to 49 and 52 in 2016. The paucity of time thus created results in shrinkage of space made available to each of these with resultant impact on quality and productivity and a corresponding lessening of executive’s accountability. According to one assessment some years back, ‘over 40 percent of the Bills were passed in Lok Sabha with less than one hour of debate. The situation is marginally better in the Rajya Sabha.’ Substantive debates on public policy issues are few and far in between. More recently, the efficacy of the Standing Committee mechanism has been dented by resort to tactics of evasion by critical witnesses. A study on ‘Indian Parliament as an Instrument of Accountability’ concluded that the institution is ‘increasingly becoming ineffective in providing surveillance of the executive branch of the government.
  The picture with regard to the functioning of the state assemblies is generally much worse.
  Thus while public participation in the electoral exercise has noticeably improved, public satisfaction with the functioning of the elected bodies is breeding cynicism with the democratic process itself. It has also been argued that ‘the time has come to further commit ourselves to a deeper and more participatory and decentralized democracy – a democracy with greater congruence between people’s interests and public policy.’
• Gender and diversity imbalance: Women MPs constituted 12.15% of the total in 2014. This compares unfavourably globally as well as within SAARC and is reflective of pervasive neo-patriarchal attitudes. The Women’s Reservation Bill of 2009 was passed by the Rajya Sabha, was not taken up in Lok Sabha, and lapsed when Parliament was dissolve before the 2014 general elections. It has not been resurrected. Much the same (for other reasons of perception and prejudice) holds for Minority representation. Muslims constitute 14.23 percent of the population of India. The total strength of the two Houses of Parliament is 790; the number of Muslim MPs stood at 49 in 1980, ranged between 30 and 35 in the 1999 to 2009 period, but declined to 23 in 2014.
  An Expert Committee report to the government some years back had urged the need for a Diversity Index to indentify ‘inequality traps’ which prevent the marginalized and work in favour of the dominant groups in society and result in unequal access to political power that in turn determines the nature and functioning of institutions and policies.
• Secularism in actual practice: Experience shows that secularism has become a site for political and legal contestation. The difficulty lies in delineating, for purposes of public policy and practice, the line that separates them from religion. For this, religion per se, and each individual religion figuring in the discourse, has to be defined in terms of its stated tenets. The ‘way of life’ argument, used in philosophical texts and some judicial pronouncements, does not help the process of identifying common principles of equity in a multi-religious society in which religious majority is not synonymous with totality of the citizen body. Since a wall of separation is not possible under Indian conditions, the challenge is to develop and implement a formula for equidistance and minimum involvement. For this purpose, principles of faith need to be segregated from contours of culture since a conflation of the two obfuscates the boundaries of both and creates space to equivocalness. Furthermore, such an argument could be availed of by other faiths in the land since all claim a cultural sphere and a historical justification for it.

In life as in law, terminological inexactitude has its implications. In electoral terms, ‘majority’ is numerical majority as reflected in a particular exercise (eg: election), does not have permanence and is generally time-specific; the same holds for ‘minority’. Both find reflection in value judgments. In socio-political terminology (eg: demographic data) ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are terms indicative of settled situations. These too bring forth value judgments. The question then is whether in regard to ‘citizenship’ under our Constitution with its explicit injunctions on rights and duties, any value judgments should emerge from expressions like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ and the associated adjectives like ‘majoritarian’ and ‘majorityism’ and ‘minoritarian’ and ‘minorityism’? Record shows that these have divisive implications and detract from the Preamble’s quest for ‘fraternity’.

Within the same ambit, but distinct from it, is the constitutional principle of equality of status and opportunity, amplified through Articles 14, 15, and 16. This equality has to be substantive rather than merely formal and has to be given shape through requisite measures of affirmative action needed in each case so that the journey on the path to development has a common starting point. This would be an effective way of giving shape to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy of Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas.

It is here that the role of the judicial arm of the state comes into play and, as an acknowledged authority on the constitution put it, ‘unless the Court strives in every possible way to assure that the Constitution, the law, applies fairly to all citizens, the Court cannot be said to have fulfilled its custodial responsibility.’

How then do we go about creating conditions and space for a more comprehensive realisation of the twin objectives of pluralism and secularism and in weaving it into the fabric of a comprehensive actualisation of the democratic objectives set forth in the constitution?

The answer would seem to lie, firstly, in the negation of impediments to the accommodation of diversity institutionally and amongst citizens and, secondly, in the rejuvenation of the institutions and practices through which pluralism and secularism cease to be sites for politico-legal contestation in the functioning of Indian democracy. The two approaches are to be parallel, not sequential. Both necessitate avoidance of sophistry in discourse or induction of personal inclinations in State practice. A more diligent promotion of fraternity, and of our composite culture, in terms of Article 51A (e) and (f) is clearly required. It needs to be done in practice by leaders and followers.

A commonplace suggestion is advocacy of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue. It is freedom from bigotry. It is also a pragmatic formula for the functioning of society without conflict between different religions, political ideologies, nationalities, ethnic groups, or other us-versus-them divisions.
Yet tolerance alone is not a strong enough foundation for building an inclusive and pluralistic society. It must be coupled with understanding and acceptance. We must, said Swami Vivekananda, ‘not only tolerate other religions, but positively embrace them, as truth is the basis of all religions.’

Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. Moving from tolerance to acceptance is a journey that starts within ourselves, within our own understanding and compassion for people who are different to us and from our recognition and acceptance of the ‘other’ that is the raison d’etre of democracy. The challenge is to look beyond the stereotypes and preconceptions that prevent us from accepting others. This makes continuous dialogue unavoidable. It has to become an essential national virtue to promote harmony transcending sectional diversities. The urgency of giving this a practical shape at national, state and local levels through various suggestions in the public domain is highlighted by enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians.

The alternative, however unpalatable, also has to be visualised. There is evidence to suggest that we are a polity at war with itself in which the process of emotional integration has faltered and is in dire need of reinvigoration. On one plane is the question of our commitment to Rule of Law that seems to be under serious threat arising out of the noticeable decline in the efficacy of the institutions of the State, lapses into arbitrary decision-making and even ‘ochlocracy’ or mob rule, and the resultant public disillusionment; on another are questions of fragility and cohesion emanating from impulses that have shifted the political discourse from mere growth centric to vociferous demands for affirmative action and militant protest politics. ‘A culture of silence has yielded to protests’ The vocal distress in the farm sector in different States, the persistence of Naxalite insurgencies, the re-emergence of language related identity questions, seeming indifference to excesses pertaining to weaker sections of society, and the as yet unsettled claims of local nationalisms can no longer be ignored or brushed under the carpet. The political immobility in relation to Jammu and Kashmir is disconcerting. Alongside are questions about the functioning of what has been called our ‘asymmetrical federation’ and ‘the felt need for a wider, reinvigorated, perspective on the shape of the Union of India’ to overcome the crisis of ‘moral legitimacy’ in its different manifestations.

I have in the foregoing dwelt on two ‘isms’, two value systems, and the imperative need to invest them with greater commitment in word and deed so that the principles of the Constitution and the structure emanating from it are energised. Allow me now to refer to a third ‘ism’ that is foundational for the modern state, is not of recent origin, but much in vogue in an exaggerated manifestation. I refer here to nationalism.

Scholars have dwelt on the evolution of the idea. The historical precondition of Indian identity was one element of it; so was regional and anti-colonial patriotism. By 1920s a form of pluralistic nationalism had answered the question of how to integrate within it the divergent aspirations of identities based on regional vernacular cultures and religious communities. A few years earlier, Rabindranath Tagore had expressed his views on the ‘idolatry of Nation’.

For many decades after independence, a pluralist view of nationalism and Indianness reflective of the widest possible circle of inclusiveness and a ‘salad bowl’ approach, characterised our thinking. More recently an alternate viewpoint of ‘purifying exclusivism’ has tended to intrude into and take over the political and cultural landscape. One manifestation of it is ‘an increasingly fragile national ego’ that threatens to rule out any dissent however innocent. Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’

While ensuring external and domestic security is an essential duty of the state, there seems to be a trend towards sanctification of military might overlooking George Washington’s caution to his countrymen over two centuries earlier about ‘overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.’

Citizenship does imply national obligations. It necessitates adherence to and affection for the nation in all its rich diversity. This is what nationalism means, and should mean, in a global community of nations. The Israeli scholar Yael Tamir has dwelt on this at some length. Liberal nationalism, she opines, ‘requires a state of mind characterised by tolerance and respect of diversity for members of one’s own group and for others;’ hence it is ‘polycentric by definition’ and ‘celebrates the particularity of culture with the universality of human rights, the social and cultural embeddedness of individuals together with their personal autonomy.’ On the other hand, ‘the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism’.

What are, or could be, the implications of the latter for pluralism and secularism? It is evident that both would be abridged since both require for their sustenance a climate of opinion and a state practice that eschews intolerance, distances itself from extremist and illiberal nationalism, subscribes in word and deed to the constitution and its Preamble, and ensures that citizenship irrespective of caste, creed or ideological affiliation is the sole determinant of Indianness.

In our plural secular democracy, therefore, the ‘other’ is to be none other than the ‘self’. Any derogation from it would be detrimental to its core values.

Jai Hind.
 
 

The post Two obligatory Isms: Why Pluralism and Secularism are essential for our Democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Hamid Ansari on the uncomfortable questions India must ask about rising inequality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Where do we stand on the ladder of equity? This is a question that citizens of the Republic can ask the state after 70 years of legislating welfare laws and adjudicating measures to deliver social justice.”

“The ground reality is dismal,” he said during the inaugural address at the 9th National Conference of the Indian Association of Lawyers here.

Quoting from a report by wealth research firm New World Wealth, the Vice President said India is the 12th most inequitable economy in the world, with 45 per cent of wealth controlled by millionaires.

Citing another report, published by financial agency Credit Suisse, he said almost half of India’s total wealth was in the hands of the richest one per cent, while the top 10 per cent controlled about 74 per cent of it.

“The poorest 30 per cent, meanwhile, had just 1.4 per cent of the total wealth,” he added.

Ansari said despite significant social and economic transformation, caste hierarchies continue to remain deeply entrenched and caste relations often result in violent outcomes.

He also said that according to a 2010 report by the National Human Rights Commission on the Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes, a crime is committed against a Dalit every 18 minutes.

“Data culled from National Human Rights Commission indicates that in 2012 37 per cent Dalits lived below the poverty line, 54 per cent were undernourished, 83 per cent 1,000 children born in a Dalit household died before their first birthday and 45 per cent remained illiterate,” he said.

The data also shows that Dalits are prevented from entering the police station in 28 per cent of Indian villages, their children have been made to sit separately while eating in 39 per cent government schools, and Dalits do not get mail delivered to their homes in 24 per cent of villages.

India is placed 130th in the Human Development Index among 188 countries, Ansari said.

Courtesy:  Janta Ka Reporter
 

The post Ground reality of delivering social justice in India dismal: VP Ansari appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: NDTV

I am happy to be here to inaugurate the JSS Science and Technology University. This university is the most recent example of the philanthropic and educational services being rendered by Shri Suttur Math. Since 1954, following the vision of his Holiness Dr. Sri Shivarathi Rajendra Mahaswamiji, the Math has played an important role, through its educational arm, in furthering ‘quality education for all’.

With over 350 institutions, covering all aspects of education- from primary to professional and technical- the Mahavidyapeetha has an iconic position in the field of education. The launch of the JSS Science and Technology University, renews the commitment of the Mahavidyapeetha to the making of a modern and developed India.

This University, by its very name, professes to teach both Science and Technology. Science is a deepening of the human understanding of the universe, while Technology is anything that enhances human capacity. The two share a benevolent cycle- a better understanding of the universe allows us to improve technology; and as our technology improves, so does our ability to understand the universe.

Science and technology have, today, become the most powerful drivers of growth and development. No aspect of human life remains untouched. The answers to humanity’s greatest challenges- be it disease, hunger, environmental degradation or energy requirements- all rest in our better understanding of sciences, and finding better technologies to address those challenges. In a competitive economy, there will be much greater demands on the scientific and technological capabilities of the country. We will need more, and better, innovations in order to remain competitive as we aspire for faster, sustainable and inclusive growth.

II
The building of a science based, innovative and developed society, however, requires certain essential prerequisites. These include;

• Development of a scientific temper in the general public;
• A focus on the study of the basic sciences for meeting our domestic requirements; and
• A conducive environment where enquiry and evidence form the basis of rational choices.

Allow me to dilate on each of these:
Scientific temper was perhaps best defined by Jawarharlal Nehru in his book, ‘The Discovery of India’:
‘the scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind — all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems.’¹
Scientific Temper is not the content or extent of the scientific knowledge corpus, but rather the pursuit of rational enquiry. It is a world-view characterized by traits like healthy skepticism, universalism, freedom from prejudice, objectivity and rationality. It is an attitude which involves the application of logic. Discussion, argument and analysis are vital parts of this approach. Elements of fairness, equality and democracy are built into it. The value of Scientific Temper as the basis of all social interaction was well understood in India and it was enshrined in our Constitution under Article 51A (h).

Despite this, and notwithstanding significant achievements in many fields, there is little evidence of scientific temper in noticeable segments of our society, including the elite. Irrational beliefs and practices persist.

It is not without significance that today we have a large number of faith-oriented television channels but not a single Indian science channel. It seem paradoxical, that after much efforts to inculcate a rational outlook and scientific thinking among citizens for many years, we find that even scientists who practice science do not necessarily possess a scientific temper.

Secondly, we need a strong emphasis on teaching and research in basic science. When it comes to science, ‘no national scientific enterprise can be sustainable in the long term if it does not contain generous room for curiosity-driven research’. While the technological outcomes and social benefits of basic science are ‘almost always long-term and rarely predictable, such science creates and consolidates overall competence and intellectual diversity.’²
A regressive trend has been observed in the past few years in universities, as science seems to be losing out to other disciplines, particularly the professional courses. Universities are becoming mere teaching centers, with the research function being neglected.³

We are proud that India is recognized as an Information Technology hub. But it is equally important for India to be a science innovation hub to achieve technological self-sufficiency, and devise local solutions to our numerous problems like poverty, agricultural productivity, water conservation and climate change. Our failure to develop manufacturing capacity in critical segments of the defence industry is a case in point. Even the Light Combat Aircraft ‘Tejas' is equipped with an engine manufactured by the General Electric Company in the United States. We cannot hope to be a great power without a qualitatively superior scientific and technological prowess. Basic science education needs to be given due respect to foster a scientific temper and culture. We need an atmosphere where bright and independent minds can create great ideas in garages as well as in laboratories⁴.

Thirdly, an environment conducive to dissent and critical thinking –challenging established knowledge and dogmas- is required to pursue bigger questions in science and encourage innovation. Institutions must develop the ability and courage to critically evaluate traditional knowledge, inculcate concepts of scientific and mathematical inquiry in their research and teaching and promote critical thinking and reasoning amongst their students. This is what the Governor of Reserve Bank of India, in a talk last year at IIT Delhi, alluded to, when he suggested that “to keep the idea factory open”, it is essential to “foster competition in the market place for ideas” by “encouraging challenge to all authority and tradition, even while acknowledging that the only way of dismissing any view is through empirical tests.”

III
The search for truth is a tireless striving towards perfection. The authority of teacher and text is always provisional⁵. Gandhiji said that “Persistent questioning and healthy inquisitiveness are the first requisite for acquiring learning of any kind⁶.” Criticism is the basis of all advancement in sciences. Every iota of knowledge, traditional or new, must be put through a critical testing process in order to assess its validity. This approach precludes imposition of any ideology. There can be no ‘cherry picking’ of scientific concepts in the interests of particular social, cultural, political or religious belief system.

I wish the management, the faculty and the students of this university all the very best for the future. I am confident that this university will become a true wisdom workshop; nurturing both curiosity and creativity amongst its students and equip them with the necessary skills to play a productive role in the progress and development of our nation.

Jai Hind.
 

¹Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, Delhi, 1982, p.512.
²http://insaindia.org/pdf/INSA_Vision_2010.pdf" target="_BLANK" title="The External PDF File that opens in a new window" target="_BLANK" title="External site that opens in a new window "/a>
³George Varghese, Declining Trend in Science Education and Research in Indian Universities, Department of Physics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, India, 2006
⁴V. N. Mukundarajan, Is IT enough, what about basic sciences? The Hindu, March 5, 2011
⁵Gangan Prathap, India’s Many Trysts With Skeptical Humanism, Science Communicator, Volume 03, Issue 01, January 2012
⁶The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 6: The Voice of Truth, Navajivan Publishing House, 1997

The post Criticism & Questioning Essential to Real Growth: Vice President Hamid Ansari appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Two Years of the Modi Regime: Admonitions from Top Constitutional Posts

Image: PTI

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. And, in that sense, the past 24 months of the Modi regime have been special, in that they have seen, possibly for the first time in independent India’s history, public and premonitory observations from the country’s two top constitutional posts, the President and the Vice President (VP). Several times.

Eminent jurist, Fali Nariman, not so far back, on April 5 and 8 this year publicly endorsed what VP Hamid Ansari had stated days before at his convocation address in Jammu (‘VP calls on Supreme Court to help clarify and strengthen secularism’, Indian Express, April 3 ) and in fact three days later, went several steps further.  Nariman endorsed Hamid Ansari’s views stating that “A head of state (a vice head as well) must speak, extra-constitutionally, and more often, about basic constitutional values, especially since neither of these distinguished personages has any role to play in adjudicating upon them.”

Nariman, a widely respected jurist, did not stop at that. Three days later, speaking at a book release function at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in the presence of both President Pranab Mukherjee and Chief Justice TS Thakur, Nariman addressed himself directly to the Constitutional head of the Indian republic as he sought to underscore the importance of dissent and the republican form of democracy in India. “Mr President, I have been deeply worried and concerned over the past several months with an impression fast-gaining ground amongst large number of thinking persons in this country that it is only with executive powers concentrated in one person that this country can be more effectively governed. I beg to differ,” he said

Days before, on April 3 delivering his Convocation address at the university of Jammu, Vice-President Hamid Ansari had urged the court to clarify contours within which secularism and composite culture should operate so as to remove ambiguities. Addressing the 16th convocation of Jammu University here, Ansari also wondered whether a more complete separation of religion and politics might not better serve Indian democracy.  He said that a few years ago, in a volume published on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of the Supreme Court, lawyers Rajeev Dhavan and Fali S Nariman had observed that “as we transit into the next millennium, the Supreme Court has a lot to reflect upon, and not least on how to protect the minorities and their ilk from the onslaught of majoritarianism…..

"Unless the court strives to assure that the Constitution applies fairly to all citizens, Ansari said, the court cannot be said to have fulfilled its responsibility. “Is it therefore bold to expect that the Supreme Court may consider, in its wisdom, to clarify the contours within which the principles of secularism and composite culture should operate with a view to strengthen their functional modality and remove ambiguities?”

That was in April. Before that in February 2016, when Hamid Ansari delivered the address on Scientific Temper and the Media while address after launching of new look Rajya Sabha TV and inaugurating a panel discussion on “Scientific Temper: A pre-requisite for Knowledge based Society,”  on January 10, 2016 he had observed that the media, given its privileged position, has a responsibility to challenge the rampant obscurantism and superstition that afflict our society..” Further, he said, “ It is here that education has to play a critical role. Unfortunately, our education system is insufficiently equipped to inculcate Scientific Temper in young minds. Over the years, the quantum of scientific information in the country has increased but has not brought about science-mindedness in sufficient measure…. The use of mass media as a means of transmitting science related information is perhaps the most important bulwark in our fight against ignorance and irrationality. The media, given its privileged position, has a responsibility to challenge the rampant obscurantism and superstition that afflict our society.

In November 21, 2014, delivering the 8^th Tarkunde Memorial Lecture at New Delhi, Hamid Ansari had stressed on the responsibility of the state in the protection of human rights In thus lecture he had stressed, “Despite the constitutional and legal guarantees, religious minorities continue to be target of violence and discrimination from time to time. Patterns of systematic mobilisation of hate and divisive politics are discernable; in many cases these have been pursued with impunity. The same holds for other weaker sections of society including SCs and STs, women, children and persons with disabilities. Credible data on these is available in government, academic and civil society reports. These cut at the root of the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity and equal access to justice and highlight the failure of the State to act appropriately. As we embark on the path of rapid economic growth and development, the issue of finding a balance between traditional rights of citizens, with environmental imperatives and economic objectives will have to be addressed by State; else, social tensions will undermine the development agenda.”

Then there was the First Ram Manohar Lohia Memorial National Lecture organized by a university in Gwalior on September 23, 2015. The moment was critical. There has been a series of sharp and aggressive efforts by the central agencies against dissenting voices, rights activists and organisations fighting for rights.“Dissent as a right has been recognised by the Supreme Court of India as one aspect of the Right of Freedom of Speech guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution," VP Hamid Ansari had said. “Despite the unambiguously stated position in law, civil society concerns about constraints on the right of dissent in actual practice have been articulated powerfully." Referring to the new reporting requirements for NGOs, he said, "Nothing is more fatal for disagreements and dissent than the idea that all of it can be reduced to hidden sub-texts or external agendas. The idea that anyone who disagrees with my views must be the carrier of someone else's subversive agenda is, in some ways, deeply anti-democratic. "It does away with the possibility of genuinely good faith disagreement. It denies equal respect to citizens because it absolves you of taking their ideas seriously. Once we have impugned the source, we don't have to pay attention to the contents of the claim.. This has serious consequences for dissent," he said."Every citizen of the Republic has the right and the duty to judge. Herein lies the indispensability of dissent," he said.

The Vice President has always made studied speeches. He hands out a written text as is protocol. He one delivered on August 31, 2015 at the 50^th jubilee celebrations of the All India Majlis-e-Mushawarat and I this he posed both the problems of affirmative action –and absence of serious implementation of measures by the state as also the attitude of  sections of the community themselves.  Yet the rabble rousers among the Sangh Parivar launched an all out attack.
 

In this speech, Affirmative action for Muslims is key, says Vice President Hamid Ansari Vice President Hamid Ansari had said, “the official objective of sab ka sath sab ke vikas is commendable; a pre-requisite for this is affirmative action (where necessary) to ensure a common starting point and an ability in all to walk at the required pace. This ability has to be developed through individual, social and governmental initiatives that fructify on the ground. Programmes have been made in abundance; the need of the hour is their implementation.” The Vice President also called upon the Muslim community to respond to the times.

Apart from sections of the VHP and RSS asking him to ‘apologise’ senior scribes were also unapologetically peeved by the Vice President’s words of caution, especially those uttered in April 2016. The same voices were not heard admonishing the sectarian and rabid trolls who attacked the Vice President on Republic Day of 2015 on the issue of saluting the national flag, however. Or commenting on the deafening silence from the Executive.

[VHP Joint General Secretary Surendra Jain described this as a “political” and “communal”statement. He insisted that the demand was designed to “push Muslims into the dark alleys of dissatisfaction whose consequences will be dangerous.” He said that the statement did not befit the office of the Vice President. Worse still, Ram Madhav of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who is now a senior BJP functionary lashed out at the Vice President for ‘not attending the Yoga Day Celebrations’, much publicized and held by Narendra Modi. ]

At the time of the unseemly controversy around the saluting of the national flag, this author had written, “Or the vitriol unleashed on the anti-social media against our vice President Hamid Ansari because he observed protocol and did not salute the national flag? It seems that no matter how many times a Muslim swears his allegiance to India, doubts will always be cast. The disgusting levels of discourse on twitter and facebook, using labels like ‘Jehadi sympathiser’, ‘anti-India’ and ‘traitor’ for Mr Ansari will most certainly not be acted upon. The otherwise over-zealous IB and police machinery will cynically allow this abuse of our Vice President to simply happen, and pass…

What is the actual protocol? According to section VI of the Flag Code of India, , "During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag, or when the flag is passing in a parade or in a review, all persons present should face the Flag and stand at attention. Those present in uniform should render the appropriate salute". Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Pranab Mukherjee, vice president Ansari, US President Barack Obama, defence minister Manohar Parrikar were not in uniform and were therefore not required to salute the flag. Yet Ansari, by observing protocol has become the target of bitter and violent hate-letting.’ There was a studied and indecorous silence from the PMO.

The Vice President of India is the second highest constitutional office in the country. If the President Pranab Mukherjee has spoken out somewhat less, VP Hamid Ansari has been sharp and succinct in raising issues of serious concern in the past 24 months. This is the second term of this Vice President and Mr Ansari occupies the post until 2017.

Along with the post of President, the position of Vice President is crucial for upholding the dignity and core constitutional values of the state. It is under Articles 63-73 of the Constitution that the VP of India holds office for a term of five years. The Vice President is also the Chairman of the Council of States that is the Rajya Sabha and in this position he is part of Parliament. He thus has two distinct and dual roles; in the constitutional set up, the holder of the office of VP he is part of the executive and in the second he is part of Parliament. He steps in for President in the former’s absence and is also consulted on policies though not in the day-to-day affairs of the State.

During the Indepedence Day speech last year, August 2015, President Pranab Mukherjee had said, "Our democracy is creative because it is plural, but diversity must be nourished with tolerance and patience. Vested interests chip away at social harmony, in an attempt to erode many centuries of secularism." In th wake of the ghastly and shameful lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq at Dadri last September, the President had again spoken saying that ‘Tolerance core to India’s survival’. Again on the occasion of the Holi festival in March 2016 he urged Indians to recall their basic composite culture.

History will recall and remember the studied words of both the Vice President Hamid Ansari as also the words of the President Pranab Mukherjee,  well.

The post Constitutional Cautions: Vice President and President Speak appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With the failure of the executive to apply correctives especially on the deepening of the rights of citizesns, the burden of delivery of Rule of Law falls on the judges, said Vice President Hamid Ansari; He was addressing the Sesquicentennial Celebrations of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Lucknow

The Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Ram Naik, the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud were among those present on the occasion.  The Vice President said that the traditional public esteem for the judiciary has been reinforced by its activism in contrast to the failure of the executive to apply correctives on matters of concern and this is particularly true of its good work in expanding the ambit of rights.
 
The Vice President, however, also cautioned that lack of access to justice, the high cost of it, delays in the delivery of justice, lack of a mechanism for accountability and allegations of corruption have, together, given rise to doubts and added to the pervasive pessimism about the efficacy of institutions.  He further added that another area of concern is the excessive zeal reflected at times in pronouncements of members of the judiciary.
 
Referring to Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the Vice President said that judges shall discharge their duties objectively and impartially and added that rectitude is thus a prime requirement in judiciary as in all other walks of life and must be observed at all times and at all levels.
 
Following is the text of the Vice President’s address:
 
“Men and women who wear judicial robes are not known to deviate into the unknown and yet they seem to have embarked on a risky venture in inviting someone unlettered in law to this landmark function today marking the sesquicentennial of the High Court of Allahabad.
 
I thank Chief Justice Chandrachud and Mr. Justice Husnain for this and I fervently pray that I would justify their gamble.
 
The Allahabad High Court of Judicature is one of the oldest high courts in the country. Today, it is the biggest in terms of work load, the number of judges and, regrettably, in terms of vacancies on the bench.
 
The Lucknow Bench of High Court itself has had a long and distinguished history. On my part, I candidly admit that the infrequent opportunity of coming to one’s own state in the Union of India was temptation enough, more so because I have vague memories of a few years of childhood spent in this historic centre of culture and etiquette in the early 1940s.
 
I therefore take solace in the couplet:
 
Go wan nahin pa wan ke nikale huai to hain
Kaabe se in butoen ko bhai nisbat hai door ki
 
I have a subjective reason too for succumbing to the temptation.  A distant relation of mine on my mother’s side was the first Indian Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.  I refer to Sir Shah Mohammad Sulaiman who presided over this Court from 1932 to 1937 before becoming a judge of the Federal Court of India established under the Government of India Act, 1935.
 
The eloquent tribute paid to him in Justice R.S. Pathak’s essay in the centenary volume is testimony enough to his work. It has been said often enough that fundamentals of faith must be revisited in order to reinforce faith. One of our articles of faith as citizens of the Republic of India is the Rule of Law.
 
The term is a part of our daily vocabulary. Its basic purpose is, as Montesquieu said a long time back, is avoidance of tyrannical laws or their execution in a tyrannical manner. Its classic enunciation is to be found in Albert Dicey, who needs no introduction to this audience.  To him, the essential ingredients of rule of law were (a) the absolute supremacy of regular law (b) equality before the law (c) access to justice and development of law by the judges on a case by case basis.
 
As the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Bingham put it, ‘it makes the difference between Good and Bad Government.’ Over time and in different societies, these principles have been challenged, amplified and modified.  Professor Upendra Baxi has sought to read the rule of law as going beyond a mere division of functions in modes of governance; to him, it is the rule of good law and is as such reflective of the struggle of a people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical’.

(The) Rule of Good Law and is as such reflective of the struggle of a people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical’: Upendra Baxi
 
Professor Baxi opines that the Indian constitutional conception of the rule of law links its four core notions: rights, development, governance and justice. An interesting early example of this approach is to be found in the Declaration of Delhi of January 1959 by the International Congress of Jurists. It recognized the Rule of Law as:

‘a dynamic concept for the expansion and fulfillment of which jurists are primarily responsible and which should be employed not only to safeguard and advance civil and political rights of individuals in a free society, but also to establish social, economic, educational and cultural conditions under which his legitimate aspirations and dignity may be realised’.
 
This approach has been upheld in judicial pronouncements. Rule of Law, said the Supreme Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v Union of India (1996) ‘is a potent instrument of social justice to bring about equality in result’.  In 2005, the International Bar Association deplored in a Resolution the ‘increasing erosion around the world of the Rule of Law and spelt out its ingredients:

‘An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law.  Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials; indefinite detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation or corruption in the electoral process; are all unacceptable.’

It is here that the burden of delivery falls on the judges. 

An eminent New Zealand judge, Lord Cooke of Thorndon observed some years back, in relation to the Constitution of India, that ‘an elaborate and high-sounding Constitution is at worst a camouflage and at best a paper tiger without the judicial will and strength to enforce it.’

The traditional public esteem for the judiciary has been reinforced by its activism in contrast to the failure of the executive to apply correctives on matters of concern. This is particularly true of its good work in expanding the ambit of rights. On the other hand, lack of access to justice, the high cost of it, delays in the delivery of justice, lack of a mechanism for accountability and allegations of corruption have, together, given rise to doubts and added to the pervasive pessimism about the efficacy of institutions. One law officer has also expressed concern over the ‘increasing disregard of the salutary doctrine of precedents’.
 
Another area of concern is the excessive zeal reflected at times in pronouncements of members of the judiciary. Some observers have asserted that ‘the Supreme Court has given up any formal pretence to the doctrine of the separation of powers’. This is perceived to upset, as a former Speaker of the Lok Sabha observed some years back, ‘the fine constitutional balance and the democratic functioning of the state as a whole’. The caution administered by Chief Justice Stone of the U.S. Supreme Court, therefore, has relevance: ‘While unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative members of the Government is subject to judicial restraint, the only checks on our own exercise of power is our sense of self-restraint.’
 
What then is the score on this count? Some years back the longest serving Chief Justice of India dwelt on a few aspects of the matter on the eve of his retirement. In response to a question about delay, he identified long judgments, frequent adjournments, and lengthy oral arguments. Each of these, let me add, is remediable and can be remedied given the will and the commitment on the part of the judiciary and the fraternity of lawyers.
 
Judgments in an earlier generation were concise and cryptic and adjournments were allowed only for good reason. As for long oral arguments, it is an Indian malaise; in the Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, each side is allowed only 30 minutes for oral presentation. There is no reason why verbosity cannot be restrained. The ‘desire for immortality through the pages of law reports’ can be achieved better through sharp and succinct pronouncements, as was done in an earlier period and has been done by great judges the world over.
 
Kautilya’s Arthashastra said that judges shall discharge their duties objectively and impartially. This has been the dictum down the ages in all lands and legal systems. Rectitude is thus a prime requirement in judiciary as in all other walks of life and must be observed at all times and at all levels. The judicial mind should be so trained as to eliminate subconscious loyalties and, in the execution of justice he or she should, in the words of the 17th century English judge Sir Mathew Hale ‘lay aside (his) own passions and not to give way to them however provoked.
 
’ This brings us to the question of social awareness particularly in a society like ours with all its complexities and imperatives. The answer here would lie in the letter and spirit of the Constitution and in the expectations and aspirations of the citizens and their quest for justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. An unavoidable consequence of this is what has been termed ‘judicial activism.’ Even here, however, the requirement of balance cannot be forsaken.
 
The ambit of this was set many years back by the most activist of Indian judges, Krishna Iyer, when he cited with approval an American votary of civil liberties, the journalist Alan Barth:

A court which yields to popular will thereby licenses itself to practice despotism for there can be no assurance that it will not on another occasion indulge its own will. Courts can fulfill their responsibility in a democratic society only to the extent they succeed in shaping their judgment by rational standards, and rational standards are both impersonal and communicable.
 
Here too, a judicious mix can bring forth reasonably satisfactory results. Mr. Fali Nariman, with over six and a half decades of experience at the bar, has suggested such a mix:

‘It has been said that judges without a social agenda are not crusaders but only problem solvers, but they too have their uses. I believe the ideal mix for a progressive higher judiciary – which includes the high courts as well as the Supreme Court – is three-quarter problem-solvers and one-quarter crusaders.’

This should throw up an enticing or agonizing challenge to each judge: of locating himself or herself as the upholder or transformer of established norms of interpretation or enforcement of law.
 
I have one last point. A changing world has made globalization an unavoidable necessity. This, in the ultimate analysis, cannot be restricted to economics and trade policy only and extends to global standards in all fields including in the area of dispensation of justice; by implication, the space for local peculiarities is shrinking. The sooner we adjust to it, the better for all – litigants, lawyers, judges. The eventual beneficiary would be public.
 
Thank you for giving me the opportunity of sharing some thoughts with you today. I wish you all success in the years to come. Jai Hind.”
 
 
 

The post The Burden of Delivery of Rule of Law falls on the Judiciary : Vice President appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Vice President of India Hamid Ansari delivered the first Ram Manohar Lohia Memorial National Lecture at ITM University, Gwalior on 23 September 2015.

Here is the text of his speech:

I deem it a privilege to be invited to deliver the First Ram Manohar Lohia Lecture. I am also happy for this opportunity to visit the campus of the ITM University, Gwalior and to interact in some measure with the academic community present here.

No single adjective, or set of adjectives, can adequately describe Ram Manohar Lohia. For over two decades he was the 'stormy petrel' of Indian politics. He was erudite and had a passionate interest in all matters relating to human freedom, justice and dignity. He earned recognition of his knowledge of law from none other than the British magistrate trying him for preaching against the war effort in 1939. Earlier, in November 1936, he joined Jawaharlal Nehru when the latter founded the Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) with Rabindranath Tagore as its president. The concept of civil liberties, Lohia said on that occasion, "defines state authority within clear limits. The task of the State is to protect these liberties. But States usually do not like the task and act contrarily. Armed with the concept of civil liberties, the people develop an agitation to force the State to keep within clear and well defined limits".

Dr. Lohia was an idealist and had his icons in the early period; Mahatma Gandhi represented his "dream", Nehru his 'desire" and Subhash Bose his "deed". This idealism led him to request Gandhi ji to propose to world leaders a four point program: (1) cancellation of all past investments by one country in another (2) unobstructed passage and the right of settlement to everybody all over the world (3) political freedom of all peoples and nations of the world and constituent assemblies and (4) some kind of world citizenship.
Gandhi ji was indulgent but did not act on the suggestion.

Lohia was a socialist and an avowed anti-communist. He was amongst the few who struggled with the difficulty of transferring the ideology of socialism from Europe to non-European cultural locations. He differed with the Congress leadership on a whole range of issues. These included the acceptance of the decision on Partition in 1947 and he wrote a detailed monograph entitled The Guilty Men of India's Partition. He had pronounced views on the caste system and the damage it has done to Indian psyche. These were candidly, albeit brutally, expressed in another monograph,
The Caste System. At the same time, he was realistic about ways of modulating it, as is evident from the following passage:

"To stop talking of caste is to shut ones eyes to the most important single reality of the Indian situation. One does not end caste merely by wishing it away. A 5000 year long selection of abilities has been taking place. Certain castes have become especially gifted. Thus for instance the Marwari Bania is on top with regard to industry and finance and the Saraswat Brahmin in respect of intellectual pursuits. It is absurd to talk about competing with these castes unless others are given preferential opportunities and privileges. The narrowing selection of abilities must now be broadened over the whole and that can only be done if for two or three or four decades backward castes and groups are given preferential opportunities. I must here make distinction between opportunities for employment and those for education. No one should be turned away from the portals of an educational institution because of his caste. Society on the other hand would be perfectly justified in turning those away from its employment whom it has so far privileged. Let them earn their living elsewhere. Society is required alone to equip them with the necessary educational ability."

Despite the adulation of earlier years, Lohia's criticism of Nehru and his policies after early 1940s was trenchant. His articulation of the principles of the Congress Socialist Party transmuted itself in the fifties into the Praja Socialist Party which, as he put it, "is as distant from the Congress party as it is from the communist and the communalist parties." He had a nuanced view of the parliamentary form of government and advocated alongside the option of direct mass action. He told his party colleagues in 1955 that instead of an insurrectionary path they ought to choose a balanced mix of constitutional action and civil resistance where necessary.

Lohia's advocacy of issues relating to farmers took a practical shape in 1954 when the UP Government increased irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators. In his speeches in the area, he incited cultivators not to pay "the enhanced irrigation rates" to Government. He was severely critical of the state Government. He was arrested and charged under Section 3 of the U. P. Special Powers Act, 14 of 1932. In a habeas corpus petition in the High Court, he contended that the Act, and particularly Section 3 of it, stood repealed under Article 13 of the Constitution on account of its being inconsistent with the provisions of Article 19. The Court, in its judgment, addressed two questions: firstly, that Section 3 of the Act, making it penal for a person by spoken words to instigate a class of persons not to pay dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue, was inconsistent with Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and secondly, that the restrictions imposed by this section were not in the interests of public order. The Court ordered that he be released, and costs paid.

Throughout the fifties and early part of the 1960s, Lohia's critique of government policies was unrelenting. He was elected to the Lok Sabha in August 1963 and a few days later delivered a sharply focused speech in an adjournment motion expressing dissatisfaction with the government's policies and postures. He even used some archaic expressions: "Parliament," he said, "is the master whereas the Prime Minister is its servant. The servant has to behave modestly and politely with his master." He utilized the parliamentary platform to express powerfully his views on what he considered were shortfalls in domestic and foreign policy issues. At the time of the Presidential election in 1969 in which he was an ardent supporter of the former Chief Justice of India Subba Rao, he called upon the youth to think about politics focused on five principles: socialist unity, unity of all opposition parties, joint demonstrations, single purpose platforms, and hard work.
Rammanohar Lohia's political legacy, and the impulses generated by it are very much in evidence today and has been so for over two decades. "In the world of politics," as one of his ardent scholar-activist followers has put it, "Lohia is remembered today as the originator of OBC reservations; the champion of backward castes in the politics of north India; the father of non-Congressism; the uncompromising critic of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty; and the man responsible for the politics of anti-English."
Commentary on this graphic summing up is unnecessary. Time and experience will tell if Lohia would have urged a greater measure of flexibility in the strategies of affirmative action currently underway. My purpose this afternoon is to focus on the principle of dissent in democracy that Dr. Lohia personified and its relevance for the continuing success of functioning democracies anywhere in the world.

II.
In 1950 the People of India gave themselves a Constitution that promised to secure to all citizens, inter alia, "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship." This was given a concrete shape by the specific rights guaranteed by Articles 19 and 25 and the associated framework ensuring their implementation. The past six and a half decades have witnessed the manner, and the extent, of their actualization.

The Constitution was not crafted in a vacuum. It was preceded by the Freedom Movement and the values enunciated in it. These were formally encapsulated in the Objectives Resolution of January 22, 1947. At the same time the Constitution-makers, or some amongst them, were not unaware of the pitfalls. In his speech at the end of the drafting process in the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar had warned about the impending "life of contradictions."

Ambedkar spoke of the danger posed to political democracy by disconnect between political equality and socio-economic inequality. A few decades later two eminent sociologists commented on some of its underlying aspects. The noted the backdrop of two competing narratives: "the civilisational history of co-survival of communities and the political history of ethnic competition and conflicts." They said "the use of the coercive power of the State for effecting homogenization in the society and the counter-violence by the political-cultural entities resisting such incursions by the state constitute the problem of the political system in India today." They enquired "whether the institutional imperiousness of the liberal state can be effectively countered by the popular movements" and felt the challenge in India "is to discover and press on the softer edges of the space within which the transformative, democratic movements find themselves enclosed. In this sense, the challenge for these movements is as much intellectual as political."

The quest for correctives often found expression through assertions relating to freedom of expression and its concomitant, the concept of dissent. It is concept that contains within it the democratic right to object, oppose, protest and even resist. Cumulatively it can be defined as the unwillingness in an individual or group to cooperate with an established authority – social, cultural or governmental. In that sense, it is associated with critical thinking since, as Albert Einstein put it, "blind faith in authority is the greatest enemy of truth".
It has been observed with much justice that the history of progress of mankind is a history of informed dissent. This can take many forms ranging from conscientious objection to civil or revolutionary disobedience. In a democratic society, including ours, the need to accept difference of opinion is an essential ingredient of plurality. In that sense, the right of dissent also becomes the duty of dissent since tactics to suppress dissent tend to diminish the democratic essence. In a wider sense, the expression of dissent can and does play a role in preventing serious mistakes arising out of what has been called "social cascades" and "group polarization" which act as deterrent on free expression of views or sharing of information.

Dissent is important in a democracy; but the freedom to dissent isn't improving much

Dissent as a right has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India as one aspect of the right of the freedom of speech guaranteed as a Fundamental Right by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court has observed that "the restrictions on the freedom of speech must be couched in the narrowest possible terms" and that the proviso of Article 19(2) is justiciable in the sense that the restrictions on it have to be 'reasonable' and cannot be arbitrary, excessive or disproportionate.

In the globalizing world of today and in most countries having a democratic fabric, the role of civil society in the articulation of dissent has been and continues to be comprehensively discussed; so does the question of its marginalization or suppression.

III
Despite the unambiguously stated position in law, civil society concerns about constraints on the right of dissent in actual practice have been articulated powerfully. "On the surface," wrote one of our eminent academics some time back, "Indian democracy has a cacophony of voices. But if you scratch the surface, dissent in India labours under an immense maze of threats and interdictions." Referring to the then new reporting requirements for NGOs, he said:"nothing is more fatal for disagreements and dissent than the idea that all of it can be reduced to hidden sub-texts or external agendas…The idea that anyone who disagrees with my views must be the carrier of someone else's subversive agenda is, in some ways, deeply anti -democratic. It does away with the possibility of genuinely good faith disagreement. It denies equal respect to citizens because it absolves you of taking their ideas seriously. Once we have impugned the source, we don't have to pay attention to the contents of the claim…This has serious consequences for dissent."

This was written in 2012. It is a moot point if, given the Pavlovian reflexes of the Leviathan, things would have changed for the better since then. Informed commentaries suggest the contrary.
Every citizen of the Republic has the right and the duty to judge. Herein lies the indispensability of dissent.

Jai Hind.
 
 

The post Indispensability of Dissent: A citizen’s right and duty to judge democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: Press Information Bureau

State must correct the state of deprivation, exclusion and discrimination faced by India's largest minority community, Ansari says.

It is a privilege to be invited to address the 50th anniversary session of the All India Majlis-e-Mushawarat. Needless to say, and like many other compatriots, I have over the years followed in some measure the work of this consultative body.

The Mushawarat was formed in response to a perceived need to defend and protect the identity and dignity of the Muslim community in India in terms of the rights bestowed by the Constitution of India on the citizens of this land. This objective remains relevant though some of its ingredients may stand amplified or modified today.

The Muslims of India constitute a community of 180 million, amounting to a little over 14% of the population of the country. They are, after Indonesia, the second-largest national grouping of followers of Islam in the world. Their contribution to the civilisation and culture of Islam is in no need of commentary. They were an integral part of the freedom struggle against the British rule. They are dispersed all over the country, are not homogenous in linguistic and socio-economic terms and reflect in good measure the diversities that characterise the people of India as a whole.

The Independence of India in August 1947, and the events preceding and following it, cast a shadow of physical and psychological insecurity on Indian Muslims. They were made to carry, unfairly, the burden of political events and compromises that resulted in the Partition. The process of recovery from that trauma has been gradual and uneven, and at times painful. They have hesitatingly sought to tend to their wounds, face the challenges and seek to develop response patterns. Success has been achieved in some measure; much more, however, needs to be done.

In the past decade, work has also been done to delineate the contours of the problem.
The Sachar Committee Report of 2006 did this officially. It laid to rest the political untruth in some quarters about the Muslim condition and demonstrated that on most socio-economic indicators, they were on the margins of structures of political, economic and social relevance and their average condition was comparable to or even worse than the country's acknowledged historically most backward communities, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It specified the development deficits of the majority of Muslims in regard to education, livelihood and access to public services and the employment market across the states.

In the same vein, Expert Group reports were prepared in 2008 on the need to develop a Diversity Index and establish an Equal Opportunity Commission.

Taken together, these and other studies bring forth sufficient evidence to substantiate the view that "inequality traps prevent the marginalised and work in favour of the dominant groups in society".

More recently the Kundu Report of September 2014, commissioned to evaluate the implementation of decisions taken pursuant to Sachar recommendations, has concluded that though "a start has been made, yet serious bottlenecks remain." It makes specific recommendations to remedy these. It asserts that "development for the Muslim minority must be built on a bed-rock of a sense of security."

It is evident from this compendium of official reports that the principal problems confronting India's Muslims relate to:

identity and security;

education and empowerment;

equitable share in the largesse of the state; and

fair share in decision making.

Each of these is a right of the citizen. The shortcomings in regard to each have been analysed threadbare. The challenge before us today is to develop strategies and methodologies to address them.

The default by the State or its agents in terms of deprivation, exclusion and discrimination (including failure to provide security) is to be corrected by the State; this needs to be done at the earliest and appropriate instruments developed for it. Political sagacity, the imperative of social peace, and public opinion play an important role in it. Experience shows that the corrective has to be both at the policy and the implementation levels; the latter, in particular, necessitates mechanisms to ensure active cooperation of the State governments.

They (Muslims) were an integral part of the freedom struggle against the British rule. They are dispersed all over the country, are not homogenous in linguistic and socio-economic terms and reflect in good measure the diversities that characterise the people of India as a whole.

The official objective of sab ka sath sab ke vikas is commendable; a pre-requisite for this is affirmative action (where necessary) to ensure a common starting point and an ability in all to walk at the required pace. This ability has to be developed through individual, social and governmental initiatives that fructify on the ground. Programmes have been made in abundance; the need of the hour is their implementation.

II

The foregoing pertains principally to governmental action or lack thereof. Equally relevant is the autonomous effort by the community itself in regard to its identified short comings. What has it done to redress the backwardness and poverty arising out of socio-economic and educational under-development? How adequate is the response in relation to the challenge?

A century back the lament was emotive:

Firqa-bandi hai kahein aur kahein zaatain hain
Kya zamaane main panaph-ne ki yahi baatain hain?

Today, we have to admit that both "firqa bandi" and "zaat" identity is a ground reality. The imagery of Mahmood and Ayaz standing shoulder to shoulder in the same line is confined to the mosque; so are the injunctions on punctuality, cleanliness and discipline. Each of these is violated beyond the confines of the congregational prayer. Corrective strategies therefore have to be sought on category-differentiation admissible in Indian state practice and hitherto denied to Muslims (scheduled caste status) or inadequately admitted (segments of OBC status). Available data makes it clear that a high percentage of Muslims falls into these two broad categories.

It is evident that significant sections of the community remain trapped in a vicious circle and in a culturally defensive posture that hinders self advancement. Tradition is made sacrosanct but the rationale of tradition is all but forgotten. Jadeediyat or modernity has become a tainted expression. Such a mindset constrains critical thinking necessary both for the affirmation of faith and for the wellbeing of the community. The instrumentality of adaptation to change – Ijtihad – is frowned upon or glossed over. Forgotten is its purpose, defined by the late Sheikh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi as 'the ability to cope with the ever-changing pattern of life's requirements'. Equally relevant is Imam Al-Ghazali's delineation of the ambit of Maslaha – protection of religion, life, intellect, lineage and property. Both provide ample theoretical space for focused thinking on social change without impinging on the fundamentals of faith.

It is here that the role of Mushawarat becomes critical. As a grouping of leading and most respected minds of the community, it should go beyond looking at questions of identity and dignity in a defensive mode and explore how both can be furthered in a changing India and a changing world. It should widen its ambit to hitherto unexplored or inadequately explored requirements of all segments of the community particularly women, youth, and non-elite sections who together constitute the overwhelming majority.

The default by the State or its agents in terms of deprivation, exclusion and discrimination (including failure to provide security) is to be corrected by the State; this needs to be done at the earliest and appropriate instruments developed for it.

This effort has to be made in the context of Indian conditions and the uniqueness of its three dimensions: plural, secular and democratic. Some years back a close observer had posed the problem:
"To deny discrimination and pretend all is well is to fly in the face of facts. But agitation against discrimination can arouse the very emotions that foster discrimination. The solution of the Muslim problem lies in a resolution of this dilemma by devising a form and content of agitation which heals old wounds and inflicts no new ones. This resolution can be achieved by regarding discrimination as what it is; a problem of Indian democracy to be resolved within the framework of national integration."

This would necessitate sustained and candid interaction with fellow citizens without a syndrome of superiority or inferiority and can be fruitful only in the actual implementation of the principles of justice, equality and fraternity inscribed in the Preamble of the Constitution and the totality of Fundamental Rights. The failure to communicate with the wider community in sufficient measure has tended to freeze the boundaries of diversities that characterise Indian society. Efforts may be made to isolate the community; such an approach should be resisted.

The Indian experience of a large Muslim minority living in secular polity, however imperfect, could even be a model for others to emulate.

One last word. The world of Islam extends beyond the borders of India and Muslims here, as in other lands, can benefit from the best that may be available in the realm of thought and practice. Some years back I had occasion to read the Algerian-French philosopher Mohammed Arkoun and was impressed by his view that our times compel us to rethink modernity so that, as he put it, "critical thought, anchored in modernity but criticising modernity itself and contributing to its enrichment through recourse to the Islamic example" could open up a new era in social movements.

Would future generations forgive us for failing to explore these options?

"Verily never will God change the condition of a people until they change it themselves with their own souls."

And so the task before Mushawarat in the foreseeable future should remain a threefold one: to sustain the struggle for the actualisation in full measure of legal and constitutional rights, to do so without being isolated from the wider community, and to endeavour at the same time to adapt thinking and practices to a fast changing world.

I thank Dr. Zafarul Islam Khan sahib for inviting me today. Khuda hafiz.

Jai Hind.
(Key Note Address of Indian Vice President Hamid Ansari delivered at the 50th anniversary Celebrations of the All India Majlis-e-Mushawarat at the Indian Islamic Centre, New Delhi on August 31, 2015)    

The post Affirmative action for Muslims is key, says Vice President Hamid Ansari appeared first on SabrangIndia.