Forgive and forget

A few days back, I happened to see a public service advert/ message/ whatever on the 60th anniversary of the Indian constitution (1950-2010) wherein Gulzar talked about the document having protected his “hakk” of freedom of expression. I guess he no longer remembers Aandhi.

On benevolent dictators and virgin prostitutes

All those in India who have lost their heads after the Mumbai terror attacks and who are writing in to newspapers and websites demanding some kind of military raaj, a dictatorship or other fascist solutions – be careful what you wish for; for your wish might just come true.

Vir Sanghvi writes in Mint Lounge-

Those of you old enough to remember the early 1970s—and I hasten to add that even I was at school then!—may recall that as India reeled from the 1973 oil price hike, from global inflation and the civil disobedience of the JP movement, it became common for the educated middle class to say things like, “What India needs is a dictator.”

Then, of course, we got one.

In June 1975, Indira Gandhi suspended civil liberties, locked up the Opposition, censored the press and imposed her Neanderthal son, the thug-like Sanjay, on the nation. It was clear that if young Sanjay had his way, the institutions of democracy would never be reassembled again.

We’ve air-brushed the middle-class response to the declaration of Emergency out of the history books. But the truth is that people were delighted. There were no more strikes. Petty crime went down. Beggars were removed from the streets. And yes, the trains ran on time.

India’s “educated” middle class is one of its problems. That said, if authority, conformity and discipline is all that is needed, a Pol Pot-like mad man is a great choice for dictatorship. Lets have “Year Zero”, again.

Presiding over the murder of freedom

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Y.V. Chandrachud passed away yesterday, and as is the case with any larger than life personality, eulogies flowed. While some newspapers did mention his indirect link to India’s darkest hour – the Emergency of 1975, others have cleanly swept it under the carpet. Perhaps they don’t want to relive those hours of their own history which saw them capitulate to Indira Gandhi. The Emergency gave her the power to rule by decree and she and her government used it to target her political opponents. Politicians in India, however, are hardly subject to shabby treatment even if they are enemies. As always, it was the common man who bore the brunt of the brutes in uniform – illegal detentions and all.

If there is one thing that can save people from a rabid government, it is a functioning judiciary and its unswerving belief in the most important guardian of individual freedom – the writ of habeas corpus. On 28th April, 1976, however, the Supreme Court of India abdicated its responsibility and threw the citizens of the country to the wolves, all in the name of upholding the constitution. It struck down the habeas corpus by declaring that no court could entertain any writ of habeas corpus as long as the Emergency was in effect. Y.V. Chandrachud was one of the five judges on the bench which passed this judgment. As is probably known, there was only one dissenter and that person was Justice H.R.Khanna who passed away a few months back.

Jos. Peter D ‘Souza had this to say in the PUCL Bulletin of June 2001-

28th April, 2001, we complete twenty-five years of this horrific day when four of the five senior most Judges of the Supreme Court of the world’s largest democracy could unabashedly declare that under those circumstances no one could seek the assistance of any court in India to try and save his liberty, life or limb threatened to be taken away by the State. A day, which produced a judgment so shameful that even Hitler would have blushed, had he the opportunity to peruse it!
- A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla – When the Supreme Court struck down the Habeas Corpus

Chandrachud was not the Chief Justice at that time and he might have done a lot of good work before and after this judgment. Regardless of these facts, the judgment that killed freedom will always be attached to his name and will forever remain a black mark on the history of India’s Supreme Court.

Democracy and a subservient military

The elections in Pakistan are done and it looks like it will soon have a civilian Prime Minister. I am not too sure how the development will affect Musharaff (there are some stories floating around which say he might have to flee Pakistan), but that is not what this is about.

Pakistan is one of the many countries in this part of the world which has had an off-and-on relationship with democracy. There has been a continuous stream of military dictators who have lead coups in the ‘wider public interest’ or for the ‘greater good’, knowing fully well, that they are interested in neither. Most reasonably read Indians (I for sure) have never been comfortable with this. The reasoning is very simple – how can you trust any person who has taken over the reins of the country by stabbing its elected leader in the back? Our governments are more pragmatic, though (they have shown this by dealing with many military governments, Pakistan’s being just one of them. Morality, after all, has no place in diplomacy). Other examples of countries in the immediate vicinity with a military hand in government include Burma (which definitely tops the scale), Bangladesh and Thailand.

These countries can learn an important lesson from India in how to keep the military firmly under civilian control. This is not to say that India is some kind of utopian society where all things are hunky dory. After all we had our very own short-lived ‘emergency’ imposed by Indira Gandhi in the 1970s which was an absolute mockery of the constitution. The Congress Party has never really been forgiven for this in spite of all the apologies it has tendered over the years. It will remain a black chapter in the history of India, as it should, and act as a guide to future generations as to what should not be done in a democracy.

A military interference in government usually occurs as an attempt to control what is seen as a situation (security, economic…) gone ‘out of control’, or to ‘fix’ rampant corruption by politicians in power. The funny thing is, gullible people swallow it at face value, sometimes rationalizing the coup by comparing pre and post coup situations. Whatever be the reasons offered, be it national security, or anything else, such an interference is unacceptable. The duties of a military are very precise. Its mandate is the protection of the country from external aggression. It can be used to deal with natural disasters or internal aggression, but special forces designed specifically for that purpose might be more suitable.

What a military is not supposed to do is run the government. That is the function of elected leaders, regardless of how corrupt they are. Things become a little murky in what-if scenarios like what if politicians sellout to foreign interests, or what if they run their own draconian regime, and I admit my views are ambivalent in such cases. But history is proof that people have more reasons to worry about errant military regimes than about scenarios where the military are the good guys protecting the country from their own elected leaders.

A military regime is not healthy for a country, its people or its politicians. You have politicians assassinated, hanged, jailed or exiled by military governments for a multitude of reasons, including corruption. All you have to do is look at Pakistan, Bangladesh and Thailand to figure out what that means. Freedom of expression is a big casualty of military rule. People showing dissent against the government are liable to be targeted and tortured as traitors. What is cleanly forgotten in this is the fact that a nation and its government (even a military one) are two separate entities. A government represents the nation. That does not mean that it is some sacred entity that cannot be questioned or criticized. But that is how it works. Along with suspension of human rights, even logic is given the go by.

In spite of so many pitfalls, why is it that countries still tolerate such regimes is beyond me. One reason might be the policies of the ‘champion of democracy as long as its national interest is not affected’ – the United States’ tacit support to such regimes (but you cannot blame the US for every thing that goes wrong, can you?). Or maybe people have simply lost hope in their ability to change things. If that is the case, then, India with all its blemishes and stupidities still offers some valuable lessons.

The Indian military has always been under civilian control (in spite of Indira Gandhi’s fears during the emergency). And its politicians have always had to answer to the people to such a degree that their very careers depends on people’s perception of their work. It has to be said that it is to the credit of the military that unlike forces of some neighboring countries it has always respected the will of the people and its generals and officers have more or less towed the government line on issues pertaining to national security. When they do comment out of turn, governments do not have a problem correcting them.

What needs to understood by aspiring democracies is that militaries exist to serve the nation. It is not the other way round. The military should respect its limits and should not leave the barracks unless ordered to do so by the representatives of the people. Even the great political theorist Kautilya ranks the military third in the list of constituents of a state – behind the state machinery and people, and the state treasury. Why after the treasury? – The army is dependent on finance; in the absence of resources, a (disaffected) army goes over to the enemy or even kills the king. (The Arthashastra).