|
VIEWPOINT: POLITICALLY CORRECT
Ravaging The Law
An apathetic nation looks on while grievous wrongs
are regarded as right
By P. Chidambaram
 Insanity,
said Lord McNaghten, is the incapacity to distinguish between right and
wrong. That statement of principle underlines the defence of insanity
in criminal proceedings. It is now part of our criminal jurisprudence.
Pardon me for being blunt. I suspect the same
principle has found its way into our political system and even our everyday
lives. But with a horrible twist. Even sane people are unable to distinguish
between right and wrong. A kind of insanity seems to have descended upon
us, as individuals and collectively as citizens of a nation.
How else does one explain the utter collective
apathy to events of great moment? So much is wrong, so much wrong is being
done every day, yet there is not even a feeble protest against these calamitous
events. An individual may feel helpless and can do no more than shoot
off a letter to the editor of a newspaper, but why is the editor of a
major newspaper like The Times of India or The Hindu helpless?
One reads about the slow and deliberate perversion
of a criminal trial and swears at the system because one is helpless,
but why is the chief justice of the high court of that state unmoved by
the subversion of the legal process? Why is the Union law minister or
the Union home minister or the prime minister unmoved by-or immune to-an
event where a right is being buried or a wrong is being done?
Let us keep aside those issues where there could
be a philosophical difference on what is right and what is wrong. Take
the case of the death penalty. Is the death sentence right or wrong? It
is possible to take either position in the debate, and yet be perfectly
justified. No one will call you insane if you supported the death penalty
or opposed it. Both are equally "sane" views.
But if you were present-as over a hundred people
were-in a restaurant in south Delhi called Tamarind Court when a young,
pretty girl named Jessica Lall was shot dead by one of the guests, surely
you know that that act was wrong and, unless the accused pleaded insanity
or self-defence, it was an act of murder. Three eyewitnesses told the
police that they could identify the murderer. Several others, I am sure,
could also do so. At any rate, the others could testify to the presence
of the eyewitnesses.
Yet what do we see happening in the trial? None
of those present seems to think that a grave wrong has been done to Jessica
Lall, and to society as well. And they stand by as the tragedy turns into
a farce.
So is the case of the six persons, including
a policeman, who were mowed down by a BMW. The car was traced, the bloody
trail established. The ownership of the BMW is not in dispute. Magically,
however, the BMW turns into a truck-thanks to the lone survivor. No one's
conscience is troubled, including that of the commissioner of police,
Delhi.
As we lose the capacity to distinguish between
right and wrong, more wrongs will become right. As a collective insanity
overpowers reason, what is wrong may well be regarded as right. When a
convicted person is sworn in as chief minister, the question that is asked
is not whether it is right or wrong to do so, but whether there is anything
in the Constitution of India which prohibits the governor from doing so.
Immediately, I looked up the articles of the
Constitution which deal with appointment of judges and found no words
to the effect that a convicted person, pending an appeal, shall not be
appointed a judge. Likewise, I am pretty certain that there are no words
prohibiting the appointment of a convicted person, pending appeal, as
a vice-chancellor or a member, Public Services Commission, or an ambassador
or even the chief of army staff.
There are some things which are wrong. It is
wrong to drive through a red light, yet hundreds do so without batting
an eyelid. It is wrong for a political leader to take money (and that
too cash) from a person who seeks a favour, yet the Samata Party's Jaya
Jaitly and the BJP's Bangaru Laxman have no qualms justifying their conduct.
It is wrong to swear to a false affidavit or give false testimony, yet
it is the rare case where a witness deposes the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth.
The hallmark of a civilised society is adherence
to law. And law is founded upon universally accepted notions of right
and wrong. Some notions will indeed change, but then the law too would
have to be changed. Public life and public discourse must respect law
and be able to distinguish between right and wrong. When collective insanity
takes over, remember Lord McNaghten, and bemoan the decline of an ancient
civilisation.
(The author is a former Indian finance minister.)
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
