The President delivered his speech with great vigour and gusto, and we must admire his performance. Unfortunately, he referred to everything under the sun excepting the most relevant and distressing features of our political situation at the moment. He referred to Andhra in passing without indicating as to what is the solution which Government intends to offer to this burning problem. It is unfortunate that he did not analyse or he did not even hint at the climate of violence which is generated in this country and for which one party alone, that is, the ruling party is responsible. The sheer logic of the way Government of India is behaving has created an impression that this Government which was brought to power by a massive mandate understands only one language, the language of violence. Violence does not erupt for nothing. It is not that people are seized of a mad instinct to destroy property. What happened in Andhra? Andhra was peaceful. Six months ago, an objective situation existed there. The Prime Minister and her colleagues with their prides and prejudices did not want to recognize and realities of the situation. That is what has given rise to such vast destruction of life and property in Andhra. It was a French student who said a few years after the disturbances: we have to burn a few buses and buildings so that they should take notice of us. This is exactly what the Government of India is telling the people: we will not listen to you howsoever reasonable and justified your demands unless you destroy railway coaches and buses and buildings. Every time there is an abatement of the movement in Andhra Pradesh, the Congress leaders come out with the statement that the movement has fizzled out because there is less violence. It is the Congress Government which has lent respectability and legitimacy to violence. It is unfortunate that the President has not referred to it.
In this context may I refer to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There is a conspiracy of silence in every corner as for as the state of Kashmir is concerned. Neither the Members nor the parties in opposition nor the ruling party mention Kashmir, the reason being in Kashmir there is no violence. There has been a very healthy, significant historical development about the situation in Kashmir. We thought of a final solution to the problem of Jammu and Kashmir when we were talking to Mr. Bhutto of Pakistan. The Jam Sangh made a hue and cry of the final solution the Jan Sangh did not understand. I did understand. The final solution, not vis-à-vis Pakistan but a final solution vis-à-vis the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The fact has been recognized that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are not as happy or satisfied as they should have been and it was understood that a dialogue would start with the accredited leaders of Kashmir and this problem would be finally solved. A dialogue did take place and Mrs. Gandhi after having met Sheikh Abdullah talked of opening a new chapter. But that new chapter is a blank and it has been a monologue that has been going on. Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Beg have made their position clear; they accept the reality of accession and the finality of accession. There cannot be happier news for the country than this. What has been the response from the Government? The response has been this. The Vice Chancellor of a University, for whom I have great respect, has been allotted a tutorial; he would take a tutorial period with Mirza Afzel Beg and Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. The Government of India does not even recognize the fact of dialogue why? The most popular, accredited leader of Kashmir says: I have to accept the reality of accession; I say that Kashmir should continue to be part of India. But there is no response because there is no violence in Kashmir. If tomorrow there is violence, the way we have in Andhra, Mrs. Gandhi and her colleagues would sit up..
Shri Piloo Mody: The movement in Andhra is not violent……..(Interruptions)
Shri S. A. Shamim: Whether it is the CRP people or the police people there, it is for Mr. Mody to judge.
Shri PilooMody: The only miscreants in Andhra are the CRP and the police.
Shri S. A. Shamim: …And a few who are not interrupting me. It was imperative; the Government understands only the logic of violence. Unfortunately for us who are in Kashmir, there is no railway property to destroy. Railway has been extended up to Jammu & the Jammu people are not interested in accommodating the leaders of Kashmir. It could have been very good news for the whole of the country. I do not think that the situation will remain as it is. The possibilities are that the people of Kashmir will get restive. The Govt. of India does not understand the language of peaceful dialogue and has more or less shown complete indifference to all our leaders have been saying. I should like Mrs Gandhi to show more of courage. It is all right, Mrs. Gandhi has prestige, pride, everything. But it is not greater than country’s prestige or honour. Should she not solve this problem for all times to come? This is the most auspicious occasion and it is time that Mrs. Gandhi starts a dialogue at her own level. Non-Political Vice-Chancellors, however well intentioned they may be, cannot solve a very knotty problem which has resulted in a war with Pakistan. The situation in Kashmir appears to be very peaceful actually. There has been talk of separation of Jammu from Kashmir. Separation of Andhra is not going to be the last. There are people who are deeply interested in upsetting the conditions in Kashmir. They have been talking of bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. The author of this theory was Dr. Karan Singh, who happens to be one of the important Ministers in Mrs. Gandhi’s cabinet.
I am glad Mrs. Gandhi is in the house and I want to repeat what I said earlier. The dialogue going on between Sheikh Abdullah and Mrs Gandhi’s emissary should be taken up at the level of the Prime Minister and Sheikh Abdullah himself. This is very happy news that Sheikh Abdullah has recognized the realities of the situation. I have a vested interest in this because I have contributed my bit in making the Sheikh realize the realities of the situation. After all what is he asking for? He is asking for nothing more, nothing less than what has been given to him by the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, namely, internal autonomy within the framework of India, within the Indian Union. India is a vast country and the people of Kashmir acceded to India in spite of the fact that Pakistan was coaxing the people of Kashmir with Quran in their hands and trying to persuade them through religious bigotry and sentiments. We should be given credit for it our act of faith should be recognized and we should not be treated with contempt. Mrs. Gandhi has shown courage. But courage has no boundaries. Every time there is a new challenge, it has to be met with courage. Mrs. Gandhi must realize that this opportunity may never come. You can today ignore Sheikh Abdullah but once his is not more on the scene, the new generation will not understand the language of secularism and the language of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. It is high time you made use of the man who has fought shoulder to shoulder with you in the freedom struggle. You are today sending an SOS to Mr. Subba Reddy, you are inviting him, pocketing your pride because he is threatening to create havoc if Andhra is not separated. You only listen to the language of threat. May I remind you that the stage has come when we should understand the language of peace and understanding. I will be grateful to all the leaders of the opposition also if they break this conspiracy of silence and speak out the way they are speaking, about Andhra and Tamil Nadu and other States. Simply because Kashmir has been given a special status, there is this conspiracy of silence. It is time the people of Kashmir are taken into confidence and they are given a representative Government. I must take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude and sincere thanks to Syed Mir Qasim, the Chief Minister. He has really broken new ground and tried to normalize the atmosphere. For the first time the history of Jammu and Kashmir there were fair and free municipal elections. What has been done in the case of municipal elections, I am sure, will be done in the case of Assembly elections. And, let us hope there is going to be fair and free election for Parliament also in Jammu and Kashmir.
With these words, I would like to conclude by saying that the people of Kashmir are looking forward to a fruitful dialogue between Sheikh Abdullah and Mrs. Gandhi.
(This is the text of the speech made by late Shamim Ahmad Shamim on the floor of Lok Sabha on, Feb. 1973, advocating a credible dialogue with Kashmiris for a honourable solution of the problem)
Some baffling decisions of the SC
By Manini Chatterjee
Of the three pillars of the state, the judiciary has always evoked much greater respect from ordinary citizens than either the legislature or the executive. Since the legislature comprises elected representatives of the people, we — the people who elect them — feel justly entitled to criticize them at will. The executive, similarly, is more often pilloried than praised when it fails to deliver on its many promises.
The judiciary, on the other hand, has usually been treated as a hallowed institution. Judges, unlike politicians, are seen not only as wise but also possessed of thinner skins. The fear of being hauled up for contempt of court (what construes contempt remains a mystery to most of us) acts as a deterrent to commenting on the judiciary.
But that silence was broken last year. And not by an irreverent media or crusading activists or outspoken lawmakers. It was members of the highest judiciary who dealt the blow, coming out with home truths whose reverberations have yet to subside.
On January 12, 2018, the then four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court — J. Chelameswar, RanjanGogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an unprecedented press conference in the capital. In the course of the press conference, they revealed the letters they had written to the then Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, questioning his style of administration and the manner in which he allocated cases to difference benches of the court. Expressing dismay at the CJI’s refusal to address their grievances, they said, “Unless the institution of Supreme Court is preserved, democracy won’t survive in the country.”
That press conference, which alluded to government interference in the workings of the court, was not a one-off affair. Soon after, in separate letters to the CJI, J. Chelameswar and Kurian Joseph expressed concerns about the judiciary’s independence in face of the executive’s encroachment.
But what made waves in circles well beyond the judiciary was RanjanGogoi’s speech on July 12 to a packed auditorium in Delhi.Delivering the RamnathGoenka memorial lecture, Gogoi spoke at length on the “Vision of Justice” and the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional ideals.
In the course of the lecture, he quoted an article from the Economist which said, “…independent judges and noisy journalists are democracy’s first line of defence.” Gogoi went on to say, “I agree but will only suggest a slight modification in today’s context — not only independent judges and noisy journalists, but even independent journalists and sometimes noisy judges.” Those words made headlines then and have been quoted frequently since.
Pointing out that the judiciary had been endowed with great societal trust, he said, “This very fact gives it its credibility and this very credibility gives it its legitimacy… I will only say that if it wishes to preserve its moral and institutional leverage, it must remain uncontaminated. And, independent. And, fierce. And, at all times. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So is an institution.”
Gogoi’s speech was remarkable because he was in line to be the next Chief Justice. In fact, many feared that he had risked his career with that speech and the government might not elevate him to the post of the CJI after Dipak Misra retired.
Those fears were belied. Gogoi became the Chief Justice of India in early October. But, truth be told, hopes that a feisty judiciary would force more transparency on opaque and questionable executive decisions have also remained unfulfilled.
Some of the Supreme Court’s decisions, such as in the case relating to the removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation chief, has left even retired judges puzzled.
On October 23, the government conducted a midnight raid on the headquarters of the CBI and seized a whole lot of material related to pending investigations. It then summarily removed the CBI chief, AlokVerma, from his post. Since Verma had been appointed by a three-member selection committee (comprising the prime minister, the leader of the largest Opposition party and the CJI), he contended that only that committee could remove him — and not the central vigilance commissioner. Verma moved the Supreme Court with alacrity against his arbitrary removal.
The apex court chose not to adjudicate on the removal. Instead, it appointed a retired Supreme Court judge, A.K. Patnaik, to supervise a CVC probe into the allegations of corruption levelled against Verma by his bête noire, the then CBI special director, Rakesh Asthana. It directed the probe be completed within two weeks. The three-judge bench of Gogoi, Sanjay KishanKaul, and K.M. Joseph passed no strictures against the manner in which the raids were conducted by the government nor asked why and what materials had been seized.
Although the probe was completed in two weeks and the report presented to the court, it was not till January 8 that the judges delivered their verdict. On the face of it, the verdict was a victory for Verma. It said that only the three-member selection committee could transfer or divest Verma of his powers, and not the CVC or the Centre.
Again, puzzlingly, it passed no strictures against the government for removing him in the manner it did. Instead, it asked the selection committee to go through the contents of the CVC probe report and decide in a week whether Verma should be exonerated or indicted.
The government convened a meeting the very next day and less than 48 hours after he was reinstated as CBI chief, Verma was once again given marching orders. The CJI had recused himself from the panel, and appointed the judge, A.K. Sikri in his stead. Sikri and the prime minister, Narendra Modi, voted to remove Verma while MallikarjunKharge dissented.
What followed has been extremely unflattering for the apex court. A.K. Patnaik, the judge who had supervised the CVC probe, told The Indian Express that “[t]here was no evidence against Verma regarding corruption”, that the decision to remove him was “very very hasty”, and that the committee “should have applied their mind thoroughly, especially as a Supreme Court judge was there.”
Speaking to The Telegraph, two highly respected former Chief Justices of India also expressed misgivings on the way the committee took the decision without giving Verma a chance to present his side of the case. Former CJI, T.S. Thakur, underlined that if a decision was being taken on the basis of an adverse report against an individual, that individual must be given an opportunity to present his point of view. “If that process has not been followed… then any decision based on such adverse findings will be contrary to the principles of natural justice.”
Another former CJI, R.M. Lodha, said much the same thing: “He (Verma) needs to be heard. Ordinarily, he should be heard. Principles of natural justice deserved to be followed.”
In other words, the Supreme Court’s failure to explicitly state that Verma should be given a hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
Similarly, a CJI-headed bench’s verdict on the Rafale deal has also raised eyebrows. While the government, understandably, has hailed the verdict as a “clean chit”, the detailed review petition filed by ArunShourie, Yashwant Sinha and Prashant Bhushan points out how the “the government has blatantly misled the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court has grossly erred in placing reliance on false averments in the note not even supported by an affidavit.” In layman’s language, it questions the touching faith the apex court placed in the assertions of the government in spite of evidence to the contrary.
The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to appoint two judges to the apex court after retracting an earlier selection of two other judges is the latest controversy to hit the judiciary.
The CJI, reportedly, is “very upset” over the “media leaks” on the collegium’s functioning. Last week, he also advised the advocate, Prashant Bhushan — who wanted the government to disclose the names shortlisted by the search committee for the post of Lokpal — not to “look at things from a negative point of view” and to “be positive” instead.
That is fine advice from a spiritual guru. But advocating such a course in today’s India can also be construed as unquestioning faith in a majoritarian government’s intents and actions. The apex court has baffled us on many counts in the last few months. But that someone who spoke in praise of noisy judges and independent journalists should now worry about adverse media reports and negative attitudes to the government is, perhaps, the most bewildering of them all…
Growing menace of corruption
By Tawfeeq Irshad Mir
“One who listens to truth is not less than one who utters the truth”
With glued memories of my infantile period, hardly I could retrieve the surroundings and the events happening around, Brought up in a very small village “Goripora” in Sopore town of Kashmir, a village with meticulous presence, conscious, a mixture of intellect and a think tank of its own, whenever I revert my memory lane through times, I find myself in the nap of my grandfather, an image of an old man enveloped in “chadar” yet young by mind, he was the then head of village, people of all ages enjoyed his presence, igniting the debate pertaining to different issues, being the head of the village, so mostly revenue matters were discussed and the consistent content of all debates used to be “corruption” the word that recurrently vibrated my neurons and propelled me as to what is this corruption all about, initial understanding was like this, “to get your work down, have a chicken to please” and sometimes “the person inflated the pocket to get the work down” in common Kashmiri language, you might have encountered the word most frequently “channel, like the person has channel,designated to corruption. As being in rural area, the incentives for corruption used to be” chicken “an apple box” sometimes red beans “probably due to lack of money as people used to exchange their daily needs rather than money. As I grew up, exposed myself to the environment, what I found was interesting, now an updated version of corruption :every now, people discussing the scourge of corruption, as like a curse, preferably in revenue department, to have an income certificate, an amount of 2 to 3 hundred rupees was a prerequisite, with the time I found people paying huge amounts to get their land acquisitions settled, even to get a driving licence, driving skill hardly mattered, as the time passed by, now the word “corruption” was a constant encrypted into the minds of people, a peculiar picture of engulfing in corruption was most obvious from electricity department, then it was not digitalized, the new house holder enjoyed the bless even without registration by simply paying a meagre amount to officials in the department. “Not a single institution is prone to corruption” but it’s deleterious effects on education and recruitment system “has perturb and monstrous consequences. As I observed during the years, it was evident during the board exams, every one among us might have witnessed the special privilege being offered to some students in the examination Hall, a corruption of intimate level, eventually with the enlightenment of newspapers, social media, the youth Began to lay their repercussions on corruption pertaining to selection process whether it be for further education or selection of job process, like the ‘x’ person got selected because the said person had paid a huge amount for it, it swept the general consensus of youth, dredging them to denial resorting to premature statements that “now this education is futile as you won’t get any things unless you don’t have enough money, there is no place for poor fellows, we can’t continue with this” and the consequence was such that many talented ones dredged in drug dependency, heralding their further education.
Here I am talking about corruption on the local level, attached to the ground where I am the self-observant of this scourge, many a times I have been a part of discussions locally regarding this remorse, but in an alienated elite.
Social networking sites are filled with tons of data regarding corruption, gallons of ink have been spent on news papers to reflect this horror, while everyone apparently and seemingly attacking the subsequent political discourse and the concerned administrative systems,
“I have a virtual opinion, I believe, “every human being has encoded traits, and has a natural tendency to express these traits, both positive and negative as like in all other animals, but the best thing about humans is to differentiate between right and wrong and the ability to direct their energies toward humanity, that’s why called humans, but one’s the person is exacerbated by materialistic influence, the person tends to express the negative trait to fulfil the Ill designed desires, and simply the person who endorses or resorts to such mischievous act of corruption, the person is engulfed my this wild trait “
Now what astonishes me the most,” while everyone seemingly denigrates this scourge, then who supports it, I mean everyone is raising in objection to it, then who constitutes to the corruption.
I would like to prove my content with objective analysis, suppose I am the person, and I am asked to give some amount to secure a place in any govt. department, despite irrelevant educational qualifications and out of any fearful selection procedure, now it’s all about me, would I agree or not, so surely the moment I am in such a position, I will surely opt for it, likewise I believe every single person on the planet not only in the valley, will opt the same, I jus made an analogy and it almost pertains to every aspect. So literally, I mean to say that corruption is from within, not a system is corrupted, in fact the people with this thinking make the system corrupt and that’s how it seems that the whole system is overwhelmed with corruption, it is engrained in the minds of people, “the humans have rbcs, wbcs, and platelets in blood, but I suspect we have one more” corruption cell “in our blood and we have genes encoded with it dominantly.
” We have to deter this menace from within, the moment we object to this greed, it needs to be abolished from within, sanitising the systems won’t yield any results, because it’s already ingrained in the minds of people, so we have to interpret and analyse and suppress this wild trait only then we will get rid of this wild menace infesting our spirituality, ethos”
(The writer is pursuing graduation in Nursing at G M C, Srinagar and can be reached at: [email protected])
Why the JNU story won’t die
By Rakesh Batabyal
Not too long ago in the history of the Republic — 1974 to be precise — a large body of students entered the lobby, and later the room of Vice-Chancellor G Parthasarathy, the founding head of Jawaharlal Nehru University, a man charged with the setting up of a world-class university, and announced that they were gheraoing him. They wanted the barriers of gender separating the girls’ and boys’ hostels to be done away with, as it smacked of a feudal society based on patriarchy. They were expressing the most progressive ideas agitating the young mind — the gendered barricades encompassing society. Parthasarathy, who had interacted with the most powerful people in the world, found this group of students, many of whom did not even speak English (the language of the diplomatic elite that he was familiar with), more powerful than all who had come before — they were students, yet their demands were not for their own interests, nor even for something euphemistically called national interest. They were protesting for something which in their minds they thought would make society better all-in-all. He did not ask for the police, did not chide them, neither was he demurred — he talked to them about social, bureaucratic and other miscellaneous issues that would not permit such a great idea to be immediately pursued in a traditional society; it would in fact be harmed through the vicious constrictions of traditional society. Its time would come, though, one fine day, and then the society would remember the pioneers — those JNU students. Such was the spirit embodied in the foundation of the university that is JNU. There are many other instances that reinforced these values and established the spirit of dissent and dialogue that became the signature of this great institution.
In the mid-1980s, a Dean of Students introduced a register for women students/ guests entering the men’s hostel, where the purpose of visit was to be recorded. Many uncharitable remarks made the administration understand its own lack of practical wisdom, and this rule was never strictly enforced.
Then, in the late 1980s, an ever-watchful body of students discovered that a senior official was drawing salary from two sources. In the pre-RTI age, they made efforts to get at the source. The Vice-Chancellor, a stickler for rules, had to disown the officer; at no point was a student either issued a show-cause notice or shown the door.
In the early 1990s, students wanted to strike against the administration and they were sitting on a hunger strike when the Vice-Chancellor himself joined them in the strike, saying this was his cause too. Professor Yoginder K Alagh, the Vice-Chancellor, was no mean scholar and knew that the students were not demanding something out of the world.
Thus, through such acts, the young were indicating the new and emerging mores, which led to the university not being ossified. Teachers had their individual political and intellectual predilections and students too had their own, but one saw the campus, like the nation, carry on with the variety and colour of these differences.
There were shouts and slogans to drown the other, but they were more a demonstration of intellectual prowess than threats to physically eliminate the other. When the State imposed Emergency in 1975, JNU students became part of street agitations. Their refusal to allow then prime minister Indira Gandhi into the campus is the stuff of legends.
The story of an institution is a story of shared memories and shared ideals. JNU, as it has grown in the last 50 years, is one such great story. Within this story lay millions of small lives and their careers as they have woven the narrative of this country in the last half century.
A university reflects the character of a nation: its moral self, its confidence and its resolve to face the world. When we sat at the table in our hostel mess, when we all talked about our larger vision and smaller plans — about fighting the capital and its sway, our resolve to finish off shades of Apartheid or the discriminating caste hierarchies — we were speaking of the society and for a future society. The shared memories of those talks, of the politics that gave us the language to express those visions and plans, are small stories in the big world.
As the University celebrates its 50th anniversary, it is these shared memories of the collective self that will keep the beauty of the institution intact. All that is beautiful needs to be cherished and the memories are those beautiful things that direct us towards a great future. It is unfortunate that those who do not cherish the memory and what JNU stands for, are at the helm of affairs today. But memories fortunately cannot be killed, only repressed in some circles.