Activists, Arrests and Aftermath!

Share

Tweet

Share

Share

Email

Comments

It is a surprise to very few that the Supreme Court has upheld the house arrest of the activists claiming to be fighting for certain rights. They were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for their unlawful activities. Can one have a right to carry on something unlawful and can have the approval of the Law? How can it be? The Supreme Court has very rightly refused to interfere.

A voice of dissent is never scuttled in a democracy unless it arouses suspicion of a hidden agenda of desecration; an untold intention of division and disharmony. Questioning becomes questionable when the answer sought goes far beyond the solemn boundaries of a sovereign State.

Rights enshrined in the Constitution are indeed fundamental and can not be denied to anyone by any authority. They are universal, unconditional and absolute. At the same time, the right of another citizen to have a peaceful life is again fundamental too and so when the rights of a few are at loggerheads with the rights of the other, the detrimental ones have to take the drubbing. This is what has emerged now from the majority opinion of the honourable Supreme Court.

A handful of miscreants taking the law into their hands and keeping a vast majority at check by means of violent repressive reactions can never pass the test of a democratic protest. Securing rights should mean i) a forfeiture or denial of rights and ii) releasing the clutches to bring about liberation. Is it the case in the present entanglement?

To assemble, to speak, to preach or to propagate is never an act unlawful or unconstitutional. But to instigate the youth in the name of caste, religion, race or language to rebel against the rule of law does call for a probe; does have to be investigated. It necessitates an unbiased, non-partisan inquiry – free of any prejudice or predetermination. This is good for either party to clear the air of suspicion.

It may be a pre-requisite that certain arrests are made to keep certain ‘forces of disturbance’ at bay; to help the law enforcing authorities keep the atmosphere normal. Again, it is not a conclusion that the perpetrators are miscreants or ‘disturbing’ forces. Since they are the ones challenging the ‘Status Quo’, the onus falls on them to substantially prove their points for a change. It is not to be construed as an attempt to cast aspersions on them. The activists do have a special role to play in effective functioning of a democracy.

History has never been conciliatory in any part of the world. So, past events are meant only to be buried. Any adventurous attempt at reviving the past glory or removing the ignominy of yesteryears could only accelerate the spread of hatred and distrust. None in the present generation has anything to do with the misdeeds of the past.

What we need today is an honest approach that would erase disrespect of all forms; eliminate inhuman discrimination of all designs and wipe out the bitter memories from the wounded minds. The past has never been too sweet to any segment of our society. It rekindles the spirit of pride as much as it resonates the feel of belonging. But it also wedges a clear divide.
When the society is overloaded with polarized views and pampered lot frenzy of unmanageable proportions, everyone with a selfish plan would love to do everything to capitalize the charged atmosphere. True, there might be a few who are too honest to their ideology and so take part in the fight for their legitimate powers and rights. Likewise, there might be a few trying to exploit the situation for petty gains.

We need to appreciate the fact that a protest is not rebellion; a procession is not a riot by itself. Fiery speeches are all right so long as they do not inflame the young minds to burn what are all they see and beat who are all they ‘meet’.
Let us not go deep into the specifics of the case being discussed here. As we get to know more about it, whole issue gets murkier too. That would end up nobody coming forward to grab a viable, lasting solution.

In a thickly populated democratic country like ours, anyone with a good following has to be too cautious lest he would fall an easy prey to the elements trying to hijack his agenda to suit theirs. Since independence, owing to various external forces actively engaged in promoting their own interests in India, everyone with a ‘leader’ tag, is prone to be lured and dragged into vulnerable areas of threat to national security, unity and integrity.

The position of the ‘followers’ is no better either. We have seen quite a number of leaders happily pledging the strength of their followers at the altar of a political party or the other in exchange of one or two seats of power. Add to this – fast approaching general election that gives rise to numerous ‘spontaneous’ protests. This is just unavoidable.

We do not say that the program of the activists is all about capturing a few seats. But they need to be alert. The so called seasoned politicians are waiting to pounce upon the possible prey and swallow the good work done by a few committed workers and activists.
In the case of the rights activists now under house arrest, they may get acquitted by the trial court and all the charges against them might be dropped in toto. We would only be happy about it. But that would not take away the share of their misdeeds in fomenting trouble through their loquacious attitude.

The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights but with certain conditions attached to it. Article 19 does not end with sub section (1). It does have sub section (2) as well. While Art 19(1) says “all citizens shall have the right…, Art 19(2) stipulates that “nothing shall affect the operation of any existing law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

Let us not forget that the phrase ‘the sovereignty and integrity of India’ was inserted in 1963 and the rest have been there right from 1950. It is nothing new. The torch bearers of the Constitution magnify the rights under 19(1) and completely ignore the conditions under 19(2) keeping the ‘uneasy’ portion in dark!
It is high time we start learning the art of settling our disputes through the process of dialogues and deliberations instead of resorting to protests and processions. They are, no doubt, very much a part of our vibrant democracy. But it is always batter to tread a path that would spell growth to all and fall to none. This is all the more important because in matters of dispute in India today, nobody is too bad as nobody is too good too.

Author: Baskaran Krishnamurthy, Income tax officer in chennai. He is a columinist and a trainer for competitive [email protected]