The fire that broke out in a High Court judge’s residence in Delhi has reduced much more than bundles of currency notes to ashes. The embers will smoulder for a long time to come. Much has been said on the sorry state of the nation, and multiple failure of organs of state is glaring and it’s impossible to turn the nose away from the gangrenous stench. Where does all this leave the people? We the people have long lived in the world of make belief that we have given ourselves the Constitution that has defined the nature of the state, enshrined in it the fundamental rights of the citizen and put in place a system of checks and balances—separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary.
Many unfortunate and extremely disturbing decisions by coercive arms of the executive signal the breakdown of constitutional arrangements and erosion of rule of law. High-ranking police officers in uniform have suddenly been infected with the authoritarian bug. In several districts of Uttar Pradesh—the state that has become notorious for dispensing bulldozer justice—they have warned, nay, threatened those planning to offer namaz in public places with dire consequences like losing their passport, cancellation of driving licenses and arrest.
Now no one can deny that it’s the duty of the police to maintain law and order, nip conspiracies in the bud and prevent violent communal flare-ups. However, the cops can’t be the Jury, Judge and Executioner at the same time. An accused can only be punished after due process of law by the courts.
Alas, the courts have repeatedly failed to protect the citizen from police atrocities. Much has been said about the process itself becoming punishment and there is no need to expatiate on that topic. If there are no effective judicial checks the rule of law can’t survive. What on surface appears to be a democracy is a virtual police state. It is shocking that so many young officers who have taken oath to protect the Constitution seem to have weak knees and spines of rubber. But why blame only the ambitious young who have sensed which way the wind is blowing?
Learned judges who routinely thunder from the bench most intriguingly follow a different logic while deciding cases. The draconian laws of contempt of court keeps critics petrified. Where specific cases need to be highlighted as hypocrisy, bigotry and partisan conduct, the public discourse is directed to the Constitution, the state envisaged by our founding fathers and how we have strayed from the course.
Before we proceed further let’s face some unpalatable facts. Members of the constituent assembly didn’t represent the people of India. They were chosen to speak for the inarticulate, disenfranchised—ruled by the British—or were subjects of Indian princes. Nor did the wise men have the luxury of starting with a clean slate. Constitutional development in India was the result of reforms imposed from above by the colonial masters. Exigencies of war and the tumult unleashed by the Quit India Movement as the nationwide unrest triggered by the military campaign of the INA had upset all plans of mice and men. In brief there was no consensus regarding the path the newborn nation should follow. To look back with advantage of hindsight it’s easy to wax eloquent about foresight of Dr Ambedkar and Pt Nehru. However, this would be glossing over major differences about the nature of the Indian state. Not everyone agreed on Secularism or Socialism.
Much water has flown down the Ganga, Yamuna, Kaveri and Periyar. Neither India nor the world remain the same. Ever since 2014 the debate has rekindled about relics of colonialism and unfinished work of freedom struggle. One can’t bury one’s head in scorching sand hoping that the storm will pass without maiming us.
The state is an abstraction, one that manifests itself mostly in malignant incarnations to take away the life and liberty of its citizens. It is sovereign that recognises no superior and claims inviolability of territories under its control. The nation state is the creation of European imagination after the Treaty of Westphalia that has evolved with imperial-colonial experience and concepts of international law. However, states and nations have existed in the ancient non-European world for millennia.
‘Rajya’ and ‘Rashtra’ were recognised as distinct entities. ‘Rajya’ was state that could also be translated as a kingdom—domain of a sovereign ruler. Its territorial expanse encompassed many rashtras—sub nationalities. ‘Rashtra’ was what defined the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural identity.
Sectarian or religious beliefs weren’t of primary significance. The King personifying the state wasn’t above law. This law was dharma—cosmic law—above any manmade laws, that sustained universal order. The people could overthrow a ruler who flouted the dictates of dharma. It is important to remember the entwined relationship between the state, the nation and the people.
We can’t let vigilantes usurp the right to define dharma and continue to be on a rampage.
pushpeshpant@gmail.com