SHILLONG, Aug 12: “Secularism and our rights are in grave danger. The basic structures are under serious assault and we, the people, will have to retrieve it,” was a stark observation that underlined the perils that democracy in India is facing today. This statement was in reference to the recent inauguration of the new parliament complex by Prime Minister Narendra Modi with traditional Hindu rituals that was in sharp contrast to the very essence of secularism that the parliament represents.
Supreme Court lawyer, researcher, and human rights and women’s rights activist, Vrinda Grover was scathing in her remarks on the powers that be for making brazen attempts to subvert the rights of citizens and manipulate laws through brute political majority.
Her remarks came during an interface on “Citizens, Constitution and Law” organised by The Shillong Times as part of its 78th Foundation Day celebration on Saturday. The lively programme was attended by the crème de la crème of Shillong, consisting of political and social thinkers, activists, writers, educationists, politicians, and columnists.
Known for her fiery but articulated arguments in the courts and news channels, Vrinda displayed some of her prowess when she asserted that “the courts are not going to save us or this country. It is not their job.”
She was clear in expressing that “those in power” want to subvert the rights of the citizens. “The opposition will do when it wants to do and only if it helps in elections,” she said.
Responding to a query from a member of the audience on the attack on temple of democracy, Vrinda said, “For me a protest by citizens asserting their rights is the temple of democracy and not people getting elected. Elections are a game played every five years and the game has diabolical rules.”
She pointed out that if the tenets of democracy and the Constitution are to be saved, it is the citizens who have to take the onus. “We don’t have a choice. It’s the only way. We cannot go back to being subjects.”
Earlier, while addressing the gathering, Vrinda admitted her lack of knowledge, or rather ignorance, about Meghalaya and the Northeast and the issues these states grapple with. “I feel the government and policymakers also do not know about them and this ignorance leads to prejudice.”
She spoke about the traditional Khasi attire Jainsem and referred to the petition filed by Kong Tailin Lyngdoh, an invited guest at the Delhi Golf Club, after she was asked to leave the dining room as her Jainsem looked like a “maid’s uniform”. The incident occurred on June 25, 2017. The PIL was filed by Vrinda on behalf of Lyngdoh.
She also spoke about the Supreme Court order quashing the FIR filed against Editor of The Shillong Times, Patricia Mukhim for allegedly creating communal disharmony through a Facebook post.
Mukhim, in a Facebook post in July 2020, had demanded legal action against a group of youths who had allegedly assaulted six non-tribal youths in Lawsohtun area.
Quashing the FIR, the division bench of L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat, had observed that: “Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases…” The Constitution recognises that citizens are not equally placed and that they are at a disadvantage on grounds of class, caste, place of birth, gender, religion and ethnicity, she said.
“That is why the Constitution is a sword for the citizens to assert their rights and not a shield of the state as it is being increasingly used,” she continued.
“The relationship between the citizens and the state is the state’s accountability. Rights and duties are not joined at the hips. Rights of the citizens and duties of the state is the equation that the Constitution envisages,” Vrinda observed.
She also spoke about the hotly-discussed and debated Sedition Law and mentioned it being a reflection of the Colonial era.
She questioned why the Indian Penal Code was not revisited when India got its freedom and the Constitution was framed.
She particularly mentioned about Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states: “When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence…”
She said the section is derived from a colonial rule where the words “servants of the crown” were substituted by “public servants”.
She supported the central government’s move to introduce the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, that seeks to repeal the British-era Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. These colonial laws must go, she stated.
The gathering was unanimous in asserting that the Northeast has always been treated as a place for “punishment postings”.
As was natural, any talk about the citizens, the Constitution or law could not have been summed up without a discussion on the ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur and the general talk about aligning the Northeast with “mainstream India”.
True to its cause, the interface witnessed a lively engagement on the subject of Manipur with Prof Glenn C Kharkongor, who was one of the anchors, mentioning about the brutal use of the state’s machinery against its own citizens.
In her response, Vrinda said the conflict in Manipur has diametrically divided people on the basis of ethnicity and the “breach is severe”.
Vrinda, it may be added here, is the counsel for Women in Governance which has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on crimes against women in Manipur.
A query from a retired public servant on the continued stand of people from the mainland, especially from North India, to citizens of the Northeast to “join the mainstream” evoked a funny response from the Supreme Court lawyer.
The member of the audience questioned if people from the Northeast should join the mainstream to be a part of dowry deaths, bride burning, or female infanticide?
Vrinda was quick to respond saying, “Please don’t join the national mainstream.”
