Recently, a group of retired civil servants, under the banner of an organisation called the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), released a statement in the public domain, expressing “deep concern at the assault on the Rule of Law in India and on its citizens’ rights to free speech and dissent”. The statement was purportedly signed by 99 of them, or at least their consent was presumably obtained to affix their name to this document. By itself, this was a non-event, as the nation is used to such shenanigans by groups who make a visible pretence of speaking for the poor and the dispossessed, but in actual fact advance an agenda which is far removed from such noble motives. However, as all of the signatories have served in government, and some among them have held positions of great power and authority within the country, the intent and motive of putting out such a statement needs to be deliberated upon.
The signatories to the statement wrote and I quote, “The rights to Freedom of Speech & Expression, Freedom of Assembly and the like, guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, are a corrective to the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged across the axes of income, gender, religion, caste and community. To uphold the rule of law and enforce the rights to freedoms, the judiciary must be the vigilant sentinel guarding the values of constitutional propriety”. That was simply stating the obvious. But after uttering such pious sentiments, the authors seem to have gone astray and focussed their energy, not in alleviating the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged, but in promoting the cause of those forces which are hell-bent on destroying the very soul—the very fabric and integrity of India.
A curious omission that these authors made while referring to Article 19 (1) and its sub clauses was in ignoring Article 19 (2), which places restrictions on Article 19 (1). The said restrictions came about as a result of an amendment to the Constitution in 1951—The First Amendment—done under the aegis of India’s first prime minister, Mr JL Nehru. Article 19 (2) places limits on the exercise of Article 19 (1) by explicitly stating that nothing in the sub clauses of Article 19 (1), shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clauses, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Why did the group of 99 indulge in such sleight of hand? As we go through the contents of the statement, it becomes increasingly evident that the group was speaking, not on behalf of the poor and marginalised sections of society, but for a specific constituency within India, which, while professing and eulogising the democratic structure of India, uses those very tools of freedom to undermine the nation and seek its disintegration. The authors apparently had little desire to use their statement as “a corrective to the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged across the axes of income, gender, religion, caste and community” as noted in their statement. It was to promote the interests of a small vocal minority at the expense of the nation.
So we see this group coming out in support of all those who caused death, destruction and mayhem during the anti-CAA protests in Delhi. Even the seditious speech given by Sharjeel Imam at AMU, calling for cutting off India’s northeastern region from the rest of the country was considered by them as righteous. They defended the rights of the rioters who held Delhi to ransom in January 2020, but had not a word in support of the hapless citizens who had to undergo great suffering due to this unruly mob. The group was upset that some individuals with Maoist links were arrested for the Bhima-Koregaon violence in 2018, calling people like Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen, Gautam Navlakha and Anand Teltumbde as India’s finest social and human rights activists! And all this in the name of the poor!
They came out in support of Siddharth Varadarajan, founding Editor of The Wire, who is facing criminal charges. But not a word was written of the attempt to muzzle the press by a certain political party, simply because Arnab Goswami of Republic TV Network dared to call Sonia Gandhi by her maiden name. Evidently, it was not freedom of expression that this group is concerned about, but in promoting a specific agenda. And this comes out more clearly in the stance taken by this group on efforts to restore normalcy in J&K. They bemoan the curtailment of certain liberties of the citizens of the Union Territory but are silent on the fact that three decades of violence and terror caused by radical islamists and their foreign backers is finally being tackled, which necessitated certain strict measures being taken to restore normalcy. And again, while ostensibly speaking on behalf of the common citizens of J&K, their focus is not in return of normalcy to the Union Territory, but on the preservation of the status quo, which had been the causative factor for the growth of violence. More importantly, there was not one word in their statement for the real victims of terror in the Valley—the hapless Hindu minority, who suffered genocide at the hands of a radicalised majority and who are still living as refugees in a free India. Could there be a greater shame.
Part III of India’s Constitution dealing with Fundamental Rights needs to be zealously guarded, but we need to guard against hidden agendas too. As Shakespeare said in The Merchant of Venice, “The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!” These words need serious contemplation. As peter Drucker stated, “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said”. What has not been said by the group of 99, exposes their agenda. And that is really sad, as these people held important constitutional positions while in service.
The Constitution of course, grants them that freedom, as it grants me the right to rebut them. My only request to them is to not hide behind the facade of promoting the interests of India’s hapless poor, but to speak upfront about their agenda. They would still be wrong, but at least they would not incur the sin of hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment