Cong, intellectuals try to fool people

A new doctrine has emerged since Anna Hazare sat on indefinite fast: the institutions of parliamentary democracy should be respected. There is nothing wrong with the assertion, but the doctrine is being abused to delegitimize a movement which so many people sympathize with.
It is true that many of the demands made by Hazare and then Baba Ramdev are impractical, that the tone and tenor of their discourse is excessively sentimental, that some statements made by their followers are outlandish, but this does not mean that the issue that the social activists are raising is inconsequential. It has been argued—quite convincingly, one may add—that there is no need for a Lokpal in the first place and that the corrupt can be thrown behind bars by properly utilizing the existing rules and apparatus. But the point is: who is interested in such action? The Congress-led regime in New Delhi is certainly not. This very fact makes the movement relevant and popular.
Fearful of the electoral consequences of the popular movement, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and its spin doctors have tried to belittle its importance and impact. Earlier, we were told that only the urban, English-speaking, middle class people are supporting Hazare and going to Jantar Mantar (As if these people belong to another world and have nothing to do with the country they live in. This is one of those Leftist theories that pollute the climate of opinion). But when Ramdev began his fast at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi and his followers turned out to be mostly from villages and suburban areas, it became evident that all sections of people—urban as well as rural, educated as well as not-very-educated, middle class as well as the poor—were supporting the movement.
Efforts were made to malign the Bhushans, ad hominem charges were hurled at those opposing the government. Finally, Ramdev was accused of being the front of the Sangh Parivar. What our liberal commentators did not explain was why an RSS front should be banished. After all, there are a number of Left-leaning outfits—many of which are front organizations of communist parties—which espouse various causes. For this very association, these outfits are not denounced. So, why should Right-leaning bodies and individuals be castigated for their ideological proclivities?
Congress leaders, Central ministers, pro-Congress intellectuals, and many other commentators tenaciously assert that the institutions of parliamentary democracy should be respected. None of these worthies, however, have pondered over a simple question: do the politicians of the day, including those who cite this doctrine, really believe in it?
It is an open secret that politicians of all parties have undermined these institutions; and the Congress has done the most harm because it has ruled the country for the maximum period of time. At any rate, democracy and individual liberty cannot be left to politicians alone, even if they are democratically elected. It was, after all, a democratically elected government that imposed the infamous Emergency in 1975 and gave the country a taste of authoritarian rule. And it was the Attorney General of that government, Niren De, who said in December 1975 in the Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur versus Shiv Kant Shukla case, popularly known as the habeas corpus case, who said, “Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless.”
It was the darkest chapter of our Supreme Court’s history that its bench decided against habeas corpus in April 1976. The majority decision was: “In view of the Presidential Order [declaring emergency] no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.”
It is to the eternal credit of Justice H.R. Khanna that he wrote a note of dissent, saying, “The Constitution and the laws of India do not permit life and liberty to be at the mercy of the absolute power of the Executive… What is at stake is the rule of law. The question is whether the law speaking through the authority of the court shall be absolutely silenced and rendered mute… Detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty.”
A democratically elected government, under Indira Gandhi, had made Parliament a rubber stamp, subdued the press, repressed civil disobedience, trampled on democratic rights, and managed to convince the highest court of the land that the life of a citizen could be snuffed out by the state without any legal recourse. And it was an unelected man, Justice Khanna, who kept the flag of individual freedom flying!
Before Khanna, there was Mahatma Gandhi. He was also unelected. Obviously, electability is not and cannot be the necessary condition for being the voice of the people.
Our elected representatives have imposed many draconian laws and oppressive rules on us. Quite apart from such sinister moves, they weaken democratic institutions on a routine basis. They stall Parliament. Could there be anything more dangerous for democracy? Members of all parties regularly shout and try to silence their opponents on the floor of the House. They exceed the time limit the presiding officer of the House imposes on them; they frequently disobey the chair; Parliament is often reduced to a circus with members indulging in theatrics.
Besides, there is the issue of representativeness. How representative of us are our elected representatives? It is a well-known fact that factors like caste, community, monetary might, muscle power, and slavishness to party bosses often help people win elections. One has to ludicrously credulous to believe that all members of Parliament and state Assemblies represent us and Hazare, Ramdev, and their comrades don’t.
A ruling party genuinely concerned with the rise of graft would have engaged the activists as well as the Opposition in a meaningful manner, thus evolving a national consensus. It is unadulterated hubris on the part of the Congress which nudges it to the view that just by maligning social activists it would be able to fool all the people for all of the time.