What and whom the Bar should stand up for?

(As published in The Pioneer on 14th October 2014 available at- http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhubaneswar/what-and-whom-the-bar-should-stand-up-for.html)

Whom should the Bar stand up for? This question has once again come to the fore after former MP Kharabela Swain recently wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India questioning the bona fides of the Odisha High Court Bar Association, the Odisha State Bar Council and other Bar associations across the State who went on a cease-work protest condemning the arrest of ex-Advocate General Asok Mohanty due to his alleged involvement in the chit fund scam.

Every lawyer in India is mandatorily taught in his law school about the importance about the ‘rule of law’ being treated as the ground norm, without which no democracy can thrive. But after witnessing the recent state-wide protest of lawyers that started on September 24 by boycotting court work, it appears to be ‘rule of lawyers’ instead! Or in better words, it can be termed as ‘rule of lawyers over law.’

It is an open secret that the surge in the desire of lawyers to abstain from court work for some reason or the other, often gets doubled when any vacation is nearing, as hardly any lawyer is in a mood to work that time. Such days of abstinence are very common in various courts of Odisha, and often serve as Sajabaja (a preparatory day) for the actual Raja, an Odia festival of rejoice and merrymaking. The reason for such Sajabaja (read abstinence from court work just before vacation) is mostly immaterial for such lawyers.

 This time, the Bar leaders took fullest advantage of the perfectly-timed arrest of ex-AG by citing as the reason of such Sajabaja that began on September 24 and lasted only till the ex-AG was granted bail by a District Court on September 26.

It was not for the lawyers but for the court to decide whether the grounds stated by the CBI are adequate to justify the manner of arrest or not. Nothing stopped the Bar from expressing its solidarity for the ex-AG by organising protests. However, protest by abstaining from court work was far from acceptable.

Several leaders of the Bar issued statements to the media condemning the arrest, terming it as illegal. But even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the arrest was illegal, protesting against it by abstaining from court work was nothing but an illegality resorted-to protest against another illegality. There can probably be no greater illegality than such abstinence, that can be perpetrated by the members of the Bar damaging public interest at large when crores of cases are pending in courts all over the country.

Further, even if it is assumed that the arrest was illegal then several judicial remedies are available in courts of law. However, it is rather unfortunate that the leaders of the Bar additionally chose to avail an extra-judicial and illegal remedy like cease-work. The ex-AG’s bail plea was vigorously taken up by the Bar when no lawyer was available for rest of the litigants.

Bar leaders must introspect about what message they are sending to the lawyers of the future generations by resorting to such protests. The obvious message is that lawyers have lost faith in the legal system and are hence, preferring illegal methods of redressing their grievance. Wonder what they will do to redress their clients’ grievance!

It is disheartening but true that many lawyers who get elected as Bar office-bearers do it by various means to woo lawyer-voters. Lakhs are spent only in advertising by huge banners, lobbying, networking, etc. A poor lawyer coming from a lower-middleclass background can’t even dream of contesting for the post of president of any reputed Bar association, regardless of how deserving he is for the post. The performance of the products of such kind of elections is now here for us to see. The Bar election is nothing different from other elections in the country. The Bar leaders condemning the arrest of the ex-AG was obvious because how else would they garner more votes? Any such Bar leader daring to act contrarily by appearing in court instead of joining the protest would do so only if he is prepared to forsake his prized post in the association!

However innocent or guilty the ex-AG may be, the present system leaves the State Bar Council with no other option but to stand up him because the AG is an ex-officio member of the Bar Council of that State. And if the members of the Bar Council and Bar associations do not defend their own fellow member then the lawyer-voters who have elected them would treat them as inefficient. So after being in a catch-22 situation, the Bar leaders resorted to mass appeals to ensure more and more participation in the protests.

The handful of lawyers who personally dissent to the decision of the Bar to lodge protest have no option other than shutting their mouth as they belong to a segregated minority, howsoever right or justified they might be. The Bar leaders actually represent only 40-50% of the lawyers. A meek poor junior lawyer starting his new practice can never dare to even go against the Bar associations. Further, real issues of suffering by poor lawyers in nondescript parts of the State are hardly given attention to. Even if a handful of lawyers choose to take up the issue, they usually fail to enjoy the support of the Bar. It usually has to be a big man or a big post for the Bar to stand up for it, regardless of howsoever right or wrong the big man and his actions might be! A real issue can become a nonissue and a nonissue can become a big issue overnight by these Bar leaders, and anything and everything done by them under the sun is justified and claimed to be legal!

Some media house owners had also been summoned and appeared before the CBI and were subsequently arrested by the CBI, just like the ex-AG. But why did the Bar leaders choose to support the ex-AG alone? No one, howsoever high post he might have held, is above the rule of law. Besides, mediapersons never chose to abstain from their work even for a day.

Recent incidents like some handful of members of the Bhubaneswar Bar Association setting afire a police jeep parked near the court premises and blocking traffic on the adjacent road for hours together can be said by no means to be justified and legitimate. On the contrary, it speaks ill of the judiciary as an institution at large, that includes both the Bar and the Bench. And much worse than that, acts like these most definitely shake public confidence on the judiciary which is fatal to the working of a healthy democracy.

The ex-AG might have been released on bail and lawyers might have decided to resume work thereafter. But it must be remembered that if protests such as these continue to occur time and again, the Bar will soon lose the credibility, respect and faith of the public that it enjoys. Hence, it is high time that the Bar chose what and whom to stand up for, to save its failing image.

(The writer is an advocate in the Orissa High Court)

How Satya Vihar people suffer in day-to-day life

(As published in The Pioneer on 26 Aug 2014- http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhubaneswar/how-satya-vihar-people-suffer-in-day-to-day-life.html)

Satya Vihar is one of the suburban localities of Bhubaneswar where there is no drinking water supply or drainage facility available. Thousands of residents suffer many problems in their day-to-day life, waterlogging being the most serious one.

Residents here have no shame in dumping waste of their own houses in lands where no building has been constructed. Some even unabashedly let the sewage water of their houses into such lands adjacent to their houses giving out to unbearable stench.

Adding to this is the problem of contractors who illegally procure several truckloads/trips of sand from the banks of river Kuakhai to sell to people who are constructing new houses. These wealthy contractors never hesitate to cause harm and inconvenience to nearby residents by their profit-making activities.

Here is an example of how a contractor is procuring and storing sand for sale, thereby causing huge potholes by 10-20 trucks and tractors resulting in severe waterlogging, due to which many women, children, and senior citizens walk or commute with great difficulty. The conditions worsen during the heavy monsoons. This is what the trucks and tractors have done to the earthen road in front the grand newly-opened St Xavier’s International School of Satya Vihar. Commoners, including senior citizens, travel in precarious condition, sometimes stepping on some bricks.

This is how mothers carry their children back from school. An autorickshaw got stuck in sand as well and had to be rescued out of thigh-deep water.

A gas-cylinder delivery vehicle had come last week. It got stuck in the sand and 30-50 cylinders had to be unloaded; the vehicle had to be pushed out and the cylinders had to be loaded back then. One day, scared of getting stuck again, the gas-cylinder supplier refused to get into it, and stopped on the nearby road instead. The gas-cylinder supplier then called up its customers and at least 30 of them took their cylinders in a miserably way.

I just took these photographs, among many others, through my phone, from the rooftop of my house. I had a verbal duel with the contractor, who is responsible for such a mishap. I hardly had anyone to support me that time. All suffered, but shockingly no one raised a voice before that wealthy contractor and his men. He abused and flatly refused to fill up such huge pools of muddy water he has created. Forget insects; small and big snakes are also found in the muddy water at times. And things worsen much more than this after a heavy rain shower.

These are just a few instances of hardships faced by commoners. It is to be noted here that the Housing and Urban Development Minister along with some MLAs and Ward Members had just paid a visit and hosted an Iftaar party here at Satya Vihar a few weeks back, and such is the development you see in these pictures! I am sure water is clogged in hundreds of such areas in capital city Bhubaneswar. So what is left to say about rural Odisha!

(The writer is a resident of Satya Vihar)

It's a move to subjugate autonomy of judiciary

(As published in The Pioneer on 21 Aug 2014- www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhubaneswar/its-a-move-to-subjugate-autonomy-of-judiciary.html)

As evident from Chief Justice RM Lodha’s Independence Day speech, the judiciary is struggling for its own “independence”, after the Parliament hastily passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill, 2014 coupled with the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which is now just a step short of becoming law.

Clearly intending to subjugate the autonomy of the judiciary by bringing such Bills, Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to surpass ex-PM Indira Gandhi when it comes to usurping as much power as possible treating judges as puppets. The new Government had just recently given a glimpse of such an intention when it unilaterally segregated Gopal Subramanium’s candidature for Supreme Court judgeship despite the collegiums recommending his name. And then came this Bill, which would legitimise such actions in future. Needless to say, India lost a prospective judge par excellence in Subramanium, and no clear reasons were cited for his segregation by the Government, which is now preaching sermons on transparency through this Bill!

Justice HR Khanna had told his sister before delivering his judgment in the Habeas Corpus case, “I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justiceship of India.” He resigned the day he was superseded for the post of CJI by Indira Gandhi. What Gandhi did to Khanna then, Modi through this commission can easily do to any judge, if this disastrous Bill is enacted.

Not just Subramanium and Khanna, many such instances can be cited where the chances of judgeship of some brilliant people have been guillotined by the executive. After tolerating several such instances of abuse of power by the executive, the judiciary was compelled to introduce the collegium system in the Second and Third Judges cases to secure to itself the authority to appoint judges.

Article 50 of the Constitution makes it obligatory for the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services. This implies that an element of insulation of the judiciary from the mighty clutches of the executive is absolutely indispensable to ensure its independent functioning.

Let us now examines how such Bills undermine the independence of the judiciary.

First, a Law Minister introduced the Bill which provides for he himself (a Law Minster) to be one of the judges to choose a judge. So, if he appoints three-four judges today and loses his Ministership tomorrow, when another party assumes power, he might resume practice and appear before one of those very judges he chose to appoint. Further, he himself and his brethren are in no way immune to the jurisdiction of the SC and can be tried like any other citizen. ‘No one can be a judge in his own cause’ is a basic principle of natural justice which would be violated in both the above instances, if this Bill is enacted.

Secondly, the provision for appointing two ‘eminent persons’ as Members of the Commission, one of whom would belong to SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities or Women, is totally repugnant to the spirit of judicial independence. Talking of persons of eminence, let us not forget the recent episode of ‘eminent persons’ like Sachin Tendulkar and Rekha who have shown their ‘eminence’ by their prolonged absence in the Rajya Sabha. Imagine if such persons show such kind of ‘eminence’ in judging and appointing judges, which requires responsibility of the highest order, far more than that of a nominated Rajya Sabha member!

Thirdly, how will such ‘eminent persons’ judge the ‘ability’ and ‘merit’ of a judge if they aren’t lawyers or jurists? Merit of a judge can be judged from the judgments he delivers. Suppose a judge convicts an accused on the basis of a plea which the victim is stopped from pleading and on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Imagine if an eminent social activist appointed as a member considers the case of that judge, he will be bound to be well-versed with the intricacies of the Evidence Act to be able to adjudge the ‘merit’ of that judge. Unless he does that, technically speaking, it will be like a matriculate judging and evaluating PhD candidates!

Fourthly, if any two among the Law Minister and the eminent persons choose to exercise their veto, the other three judicial members will be unable to select a deserving candidate. Such unfettered power of veto to non-judicial members is certainly prone to be misused.

Usually, in most cases, like writs, etc., the relief sought is all against the government. But if such Bills become law, a judge would think twice before deciding against the government or any social activist or any other eminent person because if he does so, the ruling or opposition party or the head of an NGO can settle scores against that judge by exercising veto against him. So, a judge has to please all of above by his judgments, unless he’s prepared to sacrifice his judgeship like Khanna or Subramanium.

No wonder, both the Bills of such national importance were passed in a hush-hush affair by MPs of all parties in no time with absolute majority. The Congress could not protest because the idea of establishing such a commission was mooted by itself, and the rest of the Opposition was weaker still. Politicians regardless of their parties have scores to settle against the judiciary, for it is the judiciary alone which can convict them for all the black money they launder during elections and in various criminal cases pending against many of them. Forget the general public, the fact that even members of the Bar and Bench were not adequately consulted by the government or the Standing Committee of MPs, barring a few, was no surprise either.

Establishing such kind of a commission for remedying the defects of the collegium system is like using outside dirt to clean the dirt already existing inside one’s house, which will end up dirtying the house even further!

Many are supporters of creation of the NJAC because of the popular argument that nowhere else do judges appoint judges, and it is usually the executive which appoints judges, like in the US and the UK. Well, are we Indians just a bunch of copycats? Should we have an NJAC just because other countries have it? Don’t we have a collective wisdom of our own to act upon and set up a system on our own? Such commissions have barely been a success in other countries.

It can be suggested out of common prudence that for judging a judge, one has to be either a judge or someone better than a judge. Hence, if such a commission has to be established, barring the three sitting judges as ex-officio members, it must contain persons of equal stature like retired judges and legal luminaries (who may or may not be from the Bar) who in the opinion of the President are eminent or ‘distinguished’ jurists and otherwise eligible for SC judgeship as provided under Article 124 (3) (c) of the Constitution, and no one else as members, to ensure judicial independence.

Even if both the Bills are ratified by the State legislatures, the outcome of the PILs challenging their Constitutional validity may put the legislature and judiciary at loggerheads in continuance to their already existing age-old tussle.

(The writer is an advocate in the Orissa High Court, Cuttack)

Forced to be a Man

Here is a woman,
Left out in the open,
To live on her own,
In storm and thunder,
In summer, as well as winter.

She cries,
She shrieks,
But alas, no one hears.

Shedding all her fears,
She then roars, 
And growls.

Then comes a day,
When the world bows,
As she acts upon her vows,
Revering her, thinking
That she's (still) a woman.

But by then she knows
She's no more a woman,
She's now instead, a man, 
In the body of a woman.

- Navneeta Dash

Yet Another Act of ‘Emasculation of Judiciary’

As published in The Pioneer- www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhubaneswar/yet-another-act-of-emasculation-of-judiciary.html

Monday, 07 July 2014 | NAVNEETA DASH | in Bhubaneswar

There was nothing that barred the Modi Government from seeking reports of the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau that questioned the professional conduct and suitability of Gopal Subramanium’s candidature for judgeship in the Supreme Court. But in view of the manner in which it was handled by the Government, mala fide is writ large.

If there were adverse reports received against him, the Government should have forwarded them to a collegium along with the file containing Subramanium’s candidature requesting it to reconsider its decision. The fact is that files clearing recommendations of all the other candidates were returned except that of Subramanium. It was only after coming to know about such non-return of his file, Subramanium chose to withdraw his consent for his candidature as an SC judge.

Let us not forget that it was the same Subramanium who had resigned as India’s Solicitor General on moral grounds during the UPA Government’s tenure. This should speak volumes about the paramount importance he attaches to his principles and dignity as a professional, when he chose to step down. However, it is a matter of shame that no one from the Bar or the Bench backed him at such an hour of peril.

Independence or autonomy is the heart and soul of judiciary, lack of which would render the judiciary as good as a toothless tiger. Encroaching into the realm of affairs of the judiciary, especially into its independence in particular, is certainly not something expected out of the executive.

The attack of the executive on the autonomy of the judiciary probably started in 1973 when it was none other than former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who was heavily criticised for appointing Justice AN Ray as the Chief Justice of India, deriding the long-standing convention of seniority, by superseding three other SC judges, who were senior to Justice Ray.

Mistakes should be learnt from, and not repeated. Modi cannot be allowed to replicate the mistake that Indira Gandhi did, what was aptly described by MC Chagla as ‘emasculation’ of the Indian judiciary in his autobiography ‘Roses in December’.

The Modi Government ruining Subramanium’s candidature for judgeship was nothing but a tight slap on the autonomy of the Indian judiciary. Such an act deserves outright and indignant condemnation not just from members of the Bar and the Bench, but from people belonging to all strata of the society as Modi seems to be determined to outshine Gandhi, when it comes to running a dictatorial Government under the guise of a democratic one. 

The ‘collegium system’ of appointment of judges was a ‘judicial invention’ that evolved in 1993 through the Second Judges case (Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association v. Union of India) in which it was held that such a system was to be a “participatory consultative process in which the executive has the power to act as a mere check on the exercise of power by the Chief Justice of India, to achieve the constitutional purpose. Thus, the executive element in the appointment process is reduced to the minimum and any political influence is eliminated.” In such a backdrop, wasn’t it bounden duty of the judiciary to protect its own ‘invention’ from any kind of executive interference?

The incumbent Chief Justice of India took so much time to break his silence and condemn such an act. He says he would quit as the CJI if the independence of the judiciary is compromised. But the question here is that would his quitting make things any better, when the damage has already been done?

Besides the CJI, where were the rest of the judges and lawyers all over the country? Why did the judiciary as a whole not rise to protest against such an act of highhandedness of the executive? Where are the Chaglas and Palkhivalas of today to prevent the judiciary from yet another ‘emasculation’ since emergency?

The time has arrived for India to see its own Chief Justice battling as an advocate for the independence and the autonomy of that very judiciary which he heads. What justice will the judiciary impart when the highest kind of injustice has been done to the judiciary itself, leaving it lamenting helplessly, the loss of a prospective judge like Subramanium. Needless to say, Subramanium’s withdrawal of consent for judgeship is definitely a loss not just for the judiciary alone, but for the entire country.

Under the barely-a-month old Modi regime, non-NDA Governors have been asked to resign, and incumbent heads and members of top statutory bodies like the National Disaster Management Authority, National Commission for Women, National Commission for SCs and STs weren’t an exception either. The Modi Government has made it amply clear through such acts that it is not going to tolerate any person who does not toe its line in any topnotch Constitutional post. After making such audacious moves, it isn’t surprising that it did not spare a judicial appointment either!

No matter how many guesses we make about the actual reason for the non-returning of the file containing Subramanium’s candidature, now there is no use lamenting. Instead, every possible move should be taken that no such lawyer whose name has been recommended for judgeship should be subject to such malicious humiliation by the executive ever again, after such an episode.

The battle between the executive and judiciary goes on, and the executive continues to make all possible attempts to trammel and subvert the autonomy of the judiciary. However, the judiciary must rise and exalt its own independent existence, under all circumstances. If this continues, achhe din (good days) are surely not coming for the Modi Government; instead, he would face virulent criticism from all quarters.

(The writer is an advocate in the Orissa High Court)

God, give us men!

Josiah Gilbert Holland penned these lines in one of his poems in 1872:-

“God, give us men! A time like this demands

Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office can not buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie;

Men who can stand before a demagogue

And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!

Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog

In public duty, and in private thinking….”

Such are the men we need today. Such are the men we need to be judges today. Was Gopal Subramanium such a man? Asking such a question has now been rendered futile by the Narendra Modi Government, after it scuttled Mr. Subramanium’s chances of elevation as a Supreme Court judge.

Of course, when an individual is being considered for appointment to such a top-notch constitutional post, scrutiny of every possible kind should be mandatorily done. There was nothing that barred the Modi Government from seeking reports of the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau that questioned the professional conduct and suitability of Mr. Subramanium’s candidature for judgeship. But in view of the manner in which it was handled by the Modi Government, mala fide is writ large.

If such were the kind of reports received, the Government should have forwarded them to the collegium along with the file containing Mr. Subramanium’s candidature requesting it to reconsider its decision. The fact that files clearing recommendations of all the other candidates were returned, except that of Mr. Subramanium, speaks loud about the ‘fairness’ of the Modi Government. It was only after coming to know about such non-return of his file, Mr. Subramanium chose to withdraw his consent for his candidature as a SC judge.

Let us not forget that it was the same Mr. Subramanium who had resigned as India’s Solicitor General on moral grounds, during the UPA government’s tenure. This should speak volumes about the paramount importance he attaches to his principles and dignity as a professional, when he chose to step down. However, it is a matter of shame that no one from the Bar or the Bench backed him at such an hour of peril.

Independence or autonomy is the heart and soul of judiciary, lack of which would render the judiciary as good as a toothless tiger. Encroaching into the realm of affairs of the judiciary, especially into its independence in particular is certainly not something expected out of the executive and must be execrated by all possible means.

The attack of executive on the autonomy of the judiciary probably started in 1973 when it was none other than ex-PM Indira Gandhi who was heavily criticized for appointing Justice A N Ray as the Chief Justice of India, deriding the long-standing convention of seniority, by superceding three other SC judges, who were senior to Justice Ray.

Mistakes should be learnt from, and not repeated. Narendra Modi cannot be allowed to replicate the mistake that Indira Gandhi did, what was aptly described by M.C. Chagla as ‘emasculation’ of the Indian judiciary in his autobiography ‘Roses in December’.

The Modi Government ruining Subramanium's candidature for judgeship of the Supreme Court was nothing but a tight slap on the autonomy of the Indian judiciary. Such an act deserves outright and indignant condemnation not just from members of the Bar and the Bench, but from people belonging to all strata of the society as Mr. Modi seems to be determined to outshine Mrs. Gandhi, when it comes to running a dictatorial government under the guise of a democratic one.

The ‘collegium system’ of appointment of judges was a ‘judicial invention’ that evolved in 1993 through the Second Judges case (Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association v. Union of India) in which it was held that such a system was to be a “participatory consultative process in which the executive has the power to act as a mere check on the exercise of power by the Chief Justice of India, to achieve the constitutional purpose. Thus, the executive element in the appointment process is reduced to the minimum and any political influence is eliminated.” In such a backdrop, wasn’t it the bounden duty of the judiciary to protect its own ‘invention’ from any kind of executive interference?

The incumbent Chief Justice of India took so much time to break his silence and condemn such an act. He says he would quit as the CJI if the independence of the judiciary is compromised. But the question here is that would his quitting make things any better, when the damage has already been done? 

Besides the CJI, where were the rest of the judges and lawyers all over the country? Why did the judiciary as a whole not rise to protest against such an act of dictatorship of the executive? Where are the Chaglas and Palkhivalas of today, to prevent the judiciary from yet another ‘emasculation’ since Emergency?

The time has arrived for India see its own Chief Justice battling as an Advocate for the independence and the autonomy of that very judiciary which he heads. What justice will the judiciary impart when the highest kind of injustice has been done to the judiciary itself, leaving it lamenting helplessly, the loss of a prospective judge like Mr. Subramanium. Needless to say, Mr. Subramanium’s withdrawal of consent for judgeship is definitely a loss not just for the judiciary alone, but for the entire country.

Under the barely-a-month old Modi regime, non-NDA Governors have been asked to resign, and incumbent heads and members of top statutory bodies like the National Disaster Management Authority, National Commission for Women, National Commission for SCs and STs weren’t an exception either. The Modi Government has made it amply clear through such acts that it is not going to tolerate any person who does not toe its line in any top-notch constitutional post. After making such audacious moves, it isn’t surprising that it did not spare a judicial appointment either!

As Mr. Modi is all set to crown his own close aide Amit Shah as the BJP’s new President, it is an open secret that Mr. Subramanium was the amicus curie in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in which Shah faces charges of murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife. This probably was the primary reason why Mr. Subramanium’s candidature invited the ire of Mr. Modi and company.

No matter how many guesses we make about the actual reason for the non-returning of the file containing Mr. Subramanium’s candidature, now there is no use lamenting. Instead, every possible move should be taken that no such lawyer whose name has been recommended for judgeship should be subject to such malicious humiliation by the executive ever again, after such an episode.

The battle between the executive and judiciary goes on, and the executive continues to make all possible attempts to trammel and subvert the autonomy of the judiciary. However, the judiciary must rise and exalt its own independent existence, under all circumstances.

Mr. Subramanium was a man, whose chances of becoming a judge now stand marred due to the Modi government. If this continues, achhe din (good days) are surely not coming for the Modi government, instead, criticism most definitely is. But if not Mr. Subramanium, then God, give us men! Men to rule us, to serve us and to judge us!

Let's Have A National Language

C O M M E N T
By Navneeta Dash*

(As published in Odisha Sun Times- www.odishasuntimes.com/66261/lets-national-language)

A language has the power both to unite and divide masses, depending on what we allow it to do. This was aptly understood and implemented in India at the time of her Independence, when her states were reorganised on linguistic basis.

Enmeshed in hundreds of languages causing unity and division within her, even after 67 years of Independence, India still struggles hard to christen one of her languages as her ‘National Language’ – to represent the unique identity of her people at a global platform.

At this juncture of the 21st century, this seems to be the imperative need of the hour. The recent circular issued by the Narendra Modi Government asking for the usage of Hindi by government officials in social media accounts has further sparked off this debate.

Now arises the million-dollar question as to which language deserves to be crowned as India’s National Language. To begin with, Sanskrit, the lingua franca of ancient India, was used and revered all over the country centuries ago.

However, it is a matter of utter shame that such a great language had to be ‘discovered’ in the 1780s by Sir William Jones (as Westerners describe it) to the occidental world and expounded its virtues and perfections. Assuming that now not much can be done to restore Sanskrit to its pristine glory, the least we can do is to save the extant lingua franca that is Hindi from meeting a similar fate.

Then coming to see the overwhelming use of English in India since British rule, should we keep on revering and using a Western language like English, when it were those very Westerners who dubbed India as a Third World country? Many celebrated Indians including Amitabh Bachchan have openly voiced their discontent against India being called as a Third World country.

So should we still adopt and increasingly use a foreign language like English which is native to Westerners, just because we cannot arrive at a consensus to choose one of our own indigenous languages as our ‘National Language’ and bow down before it with respect, just as we are expected to do, to the National Flag and the National Anthem, as our fundamental duty under Article 51A of our Constitution?

In this modern era where everything under the sun is anglicized, hope we Indians do not lose our own distinct identity while pursuing our craziness for English, in order to go global. Of course, the love for change in we Indians isn’t going to die, especially when it comes to emulating the West. But can we forget our own roots for the sake of change?

The Constituent Assembly while arriving at the crisis-saving Munshi-Iyengar Formula agreed to treat Hindi as the ‘official language’ of the Union. However, in the Constitution, Hindi remains an ‘official language’ (Rajabhasha) and is yet to be accorded the status of India’s ‘National Language’ (Rashtrabhasha), fearing divisive tendencies even before Independence.

Looking at the constitutional provisions, Article 343 mandates that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi. The Constituent Assembly clearly intended for the steady increase of Hindi instead of English as can clearly be deciphered from Article 120 (2). So the circular issued by the Modi government did nothing new, but was following an already existing constitutional directive under Article 351.

In a democracy, it all ultimately boils down to majority. A party rules if it gets majority. A Bill is passed only by majority. So language isn’t an exception. Going by that logic, since it is Hindi which is spoken by the majority, it should grab the cake as the National Language. Saying so, I do not mean that Hindi is the best and most superior among all Indian languages. In fact, I myself come from a non-Hindi speaking state, and neither is Hindi my mother tongue.

It is usually seen, that when it comes to choosing Hindi, the ones who revolt taking the plea that it would amount to imposing a language just for the sake of unity of the nation, are usually politicians with vested interests who know saying this will fetch them more votes. But when such remarks come from politicians, and the media hypes thIn fact, it is needless to spark off a debate as to which would be the best Indian language to represent us worldwide. That is because every such language is the mother tongue of a certain class of Indians. And for every Indian, his mother tongue is the best one for him and with due respect to all other women, howsoever beautiful they may be, he shall bow down only before his own mother. So did J. Jayalalitha, M. Karunanidhi and so will many other Indians, as expected.