In a comment on the state of governance in India, Sherna Gandhy, a senior journalist based in Pune, writes:
Complacent public
After the terror attacks in Mumbai, mass opinion was against politicians. The slogan "enough is enough" resonated the city. But barely a month later Sanjay Dutt who was arrested for having connections to the bomb blasts in Mumbai 15 years ago is being considered for nomination as an MP from Lucknow.
The Congress Party too has selected Baba Bodke who has a criminal record as a candidate. Both Dutt and Bodke are out on bail. But Dr Binayak Sen, a social worker, has been languishing in jail without bail for last 19 months. He was booked for 'aiding' Naxalites - a crime that he apparently did not commit.
So, what politics and what justice are we talking about? When is 'enough' really 'enough' for India's complacent and ineffective public and media?
Kuldip Nayar makes a similar point in an extended commentary on governance in India:
Criminals constitute one fifth of the total strength in both parliament and state assemblies. One criminal was brought to the House last year to vote for the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) which was facing a no-confidence motion. The rules are such that a candidate or an elected member is not disqualified until he or she is convicted. That may be the reason why a horde of criminals is getting ready to contest the Lok Sabha elections, scheduled to be held in the next three months. Corruption knows no bounds and the nexus between politicians and the dishonest is firmer than before.
The latest Rs70,000 million scandal in IT firm Satyam is partly the fallout of land contracts and other deals which the Andhra Pradesh government has given it. Two sugar mills in Uttar Pradesh also benefitted and have been transferred to a company close to the apprehended owner B. Ramalinga Raju.
One state chief minister who has been repeatedly accused of corruption is Uttar Pradesh's Mayawati, a dalit leader. She is already facing the charge of accumulating disproportionate assets. Only a week ago her MLA killed an engineer for refusing to fudge figures to give him money for Bahujan Samaj Party that she heads. She is reportedly converting black money into white through donations during her birthday celebrations.
Justice, figuring at the top of the preamble of the Constitution, is distant from people. When there are millions of cases pending in law courts - many for more than a decade - justice is almost denied. The judges are not even above board. A former Chief Justice of India has said 15 per cent of the judiciary is corrupt. Serving Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan has disclosed that he is getting more and more complaints of judges taking bribes. Investigation agencies are already processing a few cases in which a Supreme Court judge is involved.
A retired Chief Justice of India, when asked by his colleagues to face an inquiry, has kept quiet. His sons used the official residence for their property business. The government has expressed its helplessness in the case. He should personally volunteer a probe to save the judiciary from ignominy. The process of impeachment is so cumbersome that the government is considering an amendment to the Constitution. The earlier proposal to set up a National Judicial Commission would have laid down a concrete procedure to deal with dishonest judges. But the Supreme Court does not favour such a body.
Justice also means "social justice". The Supreme Court has spelled it out to mean elimination of inequality of income and status and standards of life, and to provide a decent standard of life to the working people (Nakara Vs Union of India). Yet the fact remains that two-thirds of India's one billion population lives in poverty and one fourth goes without food at night. The fin-ancial meltdown has pulled the lower half still further downwards. Even the verdict on social justice has not in any way decreased the distance between the rich, cited in Forbes as the wealthiest in the world, and the poor who wallow in denial and drudgery of nothingness.
Referring directly to Dr. Binayak Sen, he adds:
The ruling UPA government has brought back the Prevention Of Terrorism Act (POTA) through the backdoor. The Vajpayee government had framed the law to detain the critics without trial. Home Minister P. Chidambaram promised a 'fair balance' between human rights and tough laws. He should prove it by precedent. Dr Binayak Sen, a member of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, has been under detention for 19 months. He should be released immediately. He is a practising doctor, detained on the ground that he was carrying messages of Naxalites to their sympathisers. Even if this is true, the crime is that of ideological difference.[Emphasis added]
[It is with the last statement that I have a problem. This is the kind of defence Dr. Sen can do without. Firstly, because it is not true, since the evidence and witnesses have not substantiated such a charge. Secondly, if true, the act would have been a crime under the existing laws, especially as long as the naxalites refuse to acknowledge the Constitution and operate within the laws of the country.]
Antara Dev Sen asks how the increased co-ordination between the state and the centre required to deal with external and internal terrorism can be achieved when states are allowed to get away with judicial abuse of the kind that Dr. Binayak Sen's case exemplifies. The answer may lie in the newly created National Investigation Agency, but will it be capable of investigating how Dr. Binayak Sen's case has remained unresolved for 19 months despite none of the evidence supporting the charges so far?
In a strange and rare case, two men who were arrested on charges of being Al Badr terrorists appealed to the CBI for an investigation. The CBI concluded that the men were innocent and has asked for action against police officers of the Delhi Anti-Terrorist Squad responsible for their arrest and harrassment. The CBI also revealed that the men were in fact intelligence operatives.
How far are we from becoming a banana republic? The fact is that strengthening the four PARTs of democratic governance - Participation of ordinary people in public life; Accountability of elected officials, Responsiveness of government executives and departments to the citizens they serve (as opposed to rule), and Transparency of government processes - is among the most effective ways that people can develop a stake in the system. And as Sen argues in her article, only by ensuring better governance can terrorism be beaten in the long term.
Comments