Passing important legislations by suspending Opposition mps is authoritarianism
By Arun Srivastava
Passing legislation by resorting to suspensions is a kind of authoritarianism’. Knocking down the March 2 directive of the Supreme Court that said that the panel which picks election commissioners and their chief “shall” include the Chief Justice of India was clear manifestation of the autocratic mindset of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who wanted to send the message that the judiciary, one of the pillars of democracy, was subservient to “him” and the Chief Justice was to take directives from the executive.
Ever since D Y Chandrachud became CJI, Modi and his ministers, especially Kiren Rijiju, had been making attempts to coerce the judiciary and compel the CJI to listen to his diktats. After trampling the three other pillars of democracy – Legislature, Executive and Media – it was the turn of Judiciary. But Modi could not succeed fully.
The petitioners will challenge the new law but how far this will serve the judicial cause is not sure considering the prevailing mood and approach of the court. Undoubtedly, the Modi government’s move to nullify the radical judgment of the Supreme Court is deplorable. It points to a major political catastrophe to come.
Modi’s move to suspend nearly 150 members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha ought to be viewed in this context. He wants to be “guaranteed” that none of his moves face deterrence on the floor of the House. With most of the MPs thrown out, the government rushed through not only the Election Commission bill but also the three critical criminal law bills, without any meaningful debates. After their passage in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, the three bills were passed by the Rajya Sabha through voice vote.
In politics all actions have well-defined motives as well as meanings. Suspension of nearly 150 opposition MPs from the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha, is the central component of the well-planned plot to destroy the legal structure of the country. That, too, inside the Parliament, the temple of democracy. Modi, especially his mentor, the RSS, was not cozy with the present legal system and its judicial structure.
The Sangh has been contemplating for long to bring about basic structural changes in the judicial system and reshape it along the lines of the Hindu legal system. The RSS model was based on the politics of Hindutva. The larger design is to segregate Muslims, make them fall in line and follow the Hindu judicial system. Apparently the three redrafted bills — Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill — were to do away with the vestiges of colonial era rules, but in reality this is an ingenious strategy to “Hinduise” jurisprudence. The hurry to push through the bills and get it passed in one go on Wednesday underlined the religio-political importance.
While honouring the suggestion of the Modi government, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Chairman Rajya Sabha Jagdeep Dhankar were busy suspending MPs, Modi’s Home Minister Amit Shah was using the opportunity to accomplish Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s mission to deprive Indians of their basic human rights and moving closer to turning India into “Hindu Rashtra”.
Shah said the old laws were reflective of the colonial mindset with the intention to punish and not impart justice. “The three new bills seek to establish a justice system based on Indian thinking… The three proposed criminal laws will free people from colonial mindset and its symbols. New criminal laws will ensure speedy justice, no more ‘tarikh-pe-tarikh’”, the phrase borrowed from a popular Hindi film.
Shah’s words “bills seek to establish a justice system based on Indian thinking” ought to be analysed in proper perspective. What does he mean? He did not elaborate the content and nature of Indian thinking. He did not clarify what he actually intended to convey by using the words “Indian thinking”. Did he intend to convey to the people of India that till December 21-23 an alien, a non-Indian, law will continue dictating their lives?
It is a known fact that this change is the brainchild of the RSS – alter the modern legal system into a Hindu legal system to suit its politics of Hindutva. Through this change, the RSS intends to introduce a Hindu system of judiciary for India.
In comparison with modern law, the classical Hindu legal system followed a unique arrangement of law and polity with its own set of values. The main aim of the law in the Vedic period was to preserve “dharma” which consists of both legal duties and religious duties. Dharma provided the principal guidance by which one endeavored to lead his life. The sources of law during this period were Sruti, Smriti and acharas (customs).
Sruti consists of the four Vedas, namely Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda. These Vedas chiefly dealt with religious duties, practices and customs. The jurist Manu, who endorsed the division of society on caste lines and did not believe that women and shudra (Dalit) deserved respect. Later, commentators like Vachaspati Misra, described the judicial system and legal procedure which prevailed in India from ancient times till the close of the Middle Ages.
Shah’s explanation that financial challenges have been a big barrier to securing justice in the country –”…justice is not delivered timely….tarikh pe tarikh milti hain (prolonged trial), police blame courts and government, courts blame police, the government holds the police and judiciary responsible…everyone keeps shifting the blame on each other” – was merely a ploy to conceal the real intention.
If the intentions were honourable, Shah and Modi would have allowed a debate. But the intentions were not honourable. The government alibi was that members were not allowing the house to function. Instead of calming down the members, the government threw them out.
It was not such a big demand. Modi and Shah could have conceded. The Congress was right when it said that the suspensions were to ensure the passage of the three criminal law bills. “Has the government really dumped the British ‘colonial’ criminal laws? Consider the fact that 90-95% of IPC, 95% of CrPC and 99% of Evidence Act have been cut, copied and pasted in the three Bills: can anyone deny or debate that fact? In fact, the government has immortalised Macaulay and Fitz Stephen who drafted the original IPC and Evidence Act”.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge was absolutely right in saying;“Passing important legislation by suspending Opposition MPs is not Democracy. It is the worst kind of authoritarianism”. Modi through his actions made it clear that his government was for the RSS and would implement its plans. If at all Modi and Shah had any respect for democracy and democratic functioning they should have listened to the small demand of opposition and Shah must have made a statement in the house on the security breach. But instead of coming to the house he made a statement outside. This was nothing but manifestation of disrespect and contempt to the house.
December 21, the INDIA bloc took out a march from the old Parliament building to Vijay Chowk, about a kilometre apart, carrying a large “Save Democracy” banner and placards saying “Opposition MPs Suspended! Is This The End of Democracy?” and “Parliament Caged, Democracy Expelled!”. Kharge and other Congress leaders came out with the suggestion that Rahul Gandhi should lead another yatra that could become the pivot on which a powerful campaign could be built for the 2024 battle. But they must realise that these actions would not be enough to counter the designs of the RSS.
The INDIA leadership must set a counter narrative in the backdrop of the latest moves of Modi/Shah and especially RSS. It is sure that RSS and Modi will use the new laws to help them gain superiority over INDIA. The new EC will not dither in facilitating them to win the election. It is for the INDIA leaders to evolve a mechanism to fight any such attempt. Suspicions are making rounds of the political circle that some senior INDIA leaders would be arrested and put in jail just ahead of the election. Expulsion of MPs is the biggest example of arbitrary exercise of power in democracy. The possibility of Modi turning more aggressive and resorting to high order of autocratic discipline cannot be ruled out. With democracy already in tatters, the question of accountability and preserving the “spirit of Constitution” does not arise.
Former Vice President Hamid Ansari cited reports of the rise of authoritarianism across the world. India is certainly not an exception. He warned that nearly half of 173 countries assessed were experiencing decline in at least one metric of democracy. In this backdrop Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar bringing casteism to Parliament does not augur well.
Mimicking is not a crime. But projecting it as a criminal act and using it to arouse communal feelings certainly falls within the ambit of a wrong act. Dhankhar had given vent to his anguish in the Rajya Sabha, saying he was personally hurt as his farmer and Jat backgrounds were targeted. Strange. How could he relate mimicry to caste? Did he extend even moral support to the Jat farmers who were agitating for MSP? (IPA Service)