The wise have long recognized that justice must not only be done, but should also be perceived to be done. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in this country, especially regarding the legitimate interests and sensitivities of the majority community. In fact, majority baiting has assumed such alarming proportions that there is growing concern among analysts that the proverbial Hindu patience may be reaching breaking point. Serious commentators are of the view that political parties and the media should understand the Godhra-Gujarat conflagration from this point of view, and resist the cheap temptation to fish in troubled waters.
It would also help cool temperatures nationwide if the courts are able to convey that they are not being unduly influenced by media-induced hysteria, and are dispensing justice with detachment. I say this with a sense of urgency, because for more than two decades the judiciary has been an institution people have trusted when various organs of government have failed them. Of late, however, there is growing despair among Hindus that the courts are immune to their fears and concerns, and that they have nowhere to go for succour and redressal.
Earlier this month, the apex court passed an order that has caused much disquiet even among normally easy-going citizens. According to press reports, a Varanasi resident had filed a petition seeking to restrain namaz at public places (i.e. roads, pavements) as this caused inconvenience to other persons (Hindustan Times, 8 April 2002). A three-judge bench rejected the petition as “mischievous,” and fined the petitioner ten thousand rupees on the ground that ‘persons like him were causing bloodshed in the country.’ The petitioner’s counsel was warned that if he tried to argue the matter further, the fine would be doubled.
Regardless of the merits of the petition, it seems bizarre that the court should fine a petitioner after it has decided to reject his petition, or to make him withdraw it. If the petition is not legal, the petitioner should be accused of an infringement of law and normal legal proceedings instituted against him. This is the procedure even with regard to contempt of court, where an accused is allowed the privilege of defending himself. Prima facie, this is an odd case and merits the attention of those concerned with judicial reforms, else there may be erosion of public respect for the judiciary.
Even if the namaz petition is considered a purely civic matter, the Supreme Court’s decision last Monday to entertain a public interest litigation seeking appointment of a special investigating team to inquire into the Gujarat riots with a view to fix responsibility of the state government and police officials, cannot but have a political tinge. When PIL was introduced about two decades ago, it was to provide a last remedy to desperate and resourceless individuals. Unfortunately, this has degenerated into a “busy-body” provision and is increasingly being misused to build personal profiles or make ideological statements.
I fear a serious miscarriage of justice someday if courts do not insist on a petitioner’s locus standi, especially in sensitive cases. In the present instance, the apex court has sent notices to the Centre and the Gujarat government on a petition seeking quashing of the state government’s notification appointing a retired High Court judge to inquire into the recent riots. The petitioners want the enquiry to be conducted by the National Human Rights Commission.
Ironically, the one area truly deserving of court attention is the press coverage of court proceedings, as it is sometimes felt that this does not reflect the full substance of what occurred in the courtroom. For instance, when the Supreme Court met on April 12 and refused to vacate the stay on implementation of NCERT’s new school curriculum, the news reports almost uniformly projected the event as a setback to the government’s attempt to “saffronise” education.
It was widely reported that NCERT had deleted portions of existing textbooks without permission from the concerned authors wherever these offended the so-called religious sentiments of some groups. The manner of reporting gave the impression that what was objected to was historically correct, even if it was offensive to some groups, and that History was being rewritten to conform to a particular ideological convenience.
Now, regardless of the merits of the NCERT position vis-à-vis the old and new textbooks, there are a few points that deserve to be known by the general public. One is that the authors of the old textbooks would not be able to defend their statements about groups like the Sikhs, Jats, Jains and others in an open forum where they are asked to present their sources and explain their interpretations. In the case of the Jain community, for instance, it has been said that it split into the Swetambara and Digambara sects because Parsvanath asked his followers to cover their bodies, whereas Mahavira asked them to shed their clothes. The manner of writing implies that the injunction to shed clothes applied to the entire lay community. Actually, this was applicable only to the ascetic order. Also, the sectarian divide in Jainism was a much later development.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Supreme Court has received several petitions demanding that these impugned textbooks are not reinstated by court order or by default. I understand that even the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, a statutory body, has complained against the old textbooks, which reflects the intensity of feelings they have evoked in various sections. The Sikhs and Jains have also filed petitions. Yet none of these find mention in the news reports, though the Court will be hearing them from July.
It seems to me that while the majority community feels justly aggrieved at the hostility of the media and political parties, the Left-secular camp does not have much ammunition left in its arsenal. As such, the sterile and corrosive campaigns against “Hindu” issues may be difficult to sustain in the long run. Indeed, it is time to ask the Left to explain its reluctance to accept the overwhelming archaeological evidence that there was no Aryan invasion of India, and that there are amazing similarities between the Harappan civilization and the land described in the Rig Veda.
Similarly, they should be asked why they are resisting an honest appraisal of the medieval period of Indian history when Islam was politically ascendant and faced fierce resistance from native groups. In America, the white majority has conceded the need to face past atrocities against Native Americans and Blacks. The secularists must recognize that the evasion of historical truths only leads to the festering of old wounds, because it encourages Indian Muslims to identify themselves with the foreign invaders and their atrocities on native Indians, which inhibits communal reconciliation.
I find it somewhat amusing that while the Left-secular camp does not accept that the Vedas are a product of native genius, they nonetheless exhort Hindus to abide by the value system of the “invader-Aryans” and practice the tolerance built into the Vedic ethos! They would benefit vastly from an honest study of Hindu tradition. A reading of the Mahabharat, for instance, would help them realize that while Hindus are bound by dharma to preserve peace at all costs, they are equally bound by dharma to resist injustice to the bitter end. Surely Marxists should understand dialectics!
The Pioneer, 23 April 2002