For a country's progress, these institutions are meant to be corruption and controversy free. Even if the rest aren't quite so, the judiciary has no options for, if not, the country turns into a banana republic. In fact, being the final arbitrar of the meaning of the sections of the constitution and the ethos of the country, and also the wielder of enormous power that transcends the parliament, SC judges are scrutinized heavily like it is happening in the US. 'Spotless' is the keyword and that is what US was looking for in Kavanaugh.
Prestige of the judiciary: Not earning respect as an elected representative and not commanding it through arm's fear like following a coup, SC's respect and people's faith in it are earned by its judges being descent (not impelled to hiding things), wise (having a holistic view), impartial and being a knower of country's constitution, laws and ethos. Yes Indian courts are busy and less funded, and the delayed verdict that follows, often shifts to the grandson/daughter's time. The #metoo movement hasn't helped it either. But, from the arguments narrated below, it will be clear that neither the Indian SC judges have earned respect to enhance people's faith in the judiciary, nor their judgements (amazingly quick by comparison) have been according to what India is all about. In fact their decisions are destroying the very core of what India is.
a. The dirty linen wash:
In the day to day activities, like justice needs to be seen to be done, judiciary needs to be seen to be worthy of respect too. SC judges are descent but still fallible none the less, and since they must be seen to be worthy of respect, Indian judiciary has its internal problem solving mechanisms to maintain that dignity. In addition, revolutions never follow laws, so SC, the protector of the law, should be the last entity to revolt.
Sadly, that was not the case with the SC. In fact, in the freedom of expression used by the four dismayed SC judges while airing their grievances' to the reporters, there were four blunders. They were, the disregard of that internal mechanism, the washing up of their dirty linen in the outside world, using the fourth pillar of the state to almost make both the message delivery and the grievances political/sensational and the cause of their vexation was not quite worthy of all that fuss. The issue was simple; when the BJP disrelished judge Loya, who was scheduled to judge BJP chief Amit Shah on a murder case, allegedly died of heart attack, the assignment of another judge by the Chief Justice Mr Misra wasn't palatable to the four. After airing 'BJP killed Loya', adding some uncomfortable past assignments and seeing Saha's acquittal unpalatable revolution brew. Almost unknowingly the 'CJ is BJP inclined' by default made them 'Congress inclined'. With all that, as never before, SC judges were seen as a bickering lot, who were only diminishing the prestige of the courts.
b. The impeachment:
For them, not SC but democracy itself was in danger - till of course the almost retiring Mr Misra stepped down as CJ and one of the four ascended up. It was easy because, unlike the killing spree in the previous revolutions the new revolution like that of the technical gadgets or votes simply needed a process called impeachment to eject the powerful supremo.
Though the attempt lacked guns, since Mr Mishra was retiring shortly anyway, the impeachment almost looked like a prestige struggle and a coup. Even if not, it displayed impatience, myopia and an acute need that was worthy of a power hungry mind alone. With all the above, India's prestige was showing a bear graph and India as a whole almost became a banana republic.
The impeachment did not happen as the CJ, as expected, retired before it. What the SC judges did not only made them unfit for the CJ post but worthy of punishment too. However, far from it, one of them Mr Gogoi got elevated to that coveted post. Obviously, people aren't happy and it has been challenged in the court.
Indian Supreme Court's bad decisions:
Almost parallel to the disarray mentioned above, SC's decisions have not been good for India either.
1. On the Karnataka state government:
Having a federal structure, the governor of each state has certain rights and privileges that he/she is entitled to use. As argued here, the SC not only interfered in that privilege but almost acted as a government. Apart from making the government just a spectator, it opened the floodgates of future complaints to the already tired courts.
2. On the Urban Naxals issue:
While the Congress PM Mr Singh's 'Moist terrorism is the biggest threat to India' should sound scary, the threat to the life of the much loved PM of India, Mr Modi, should have given shivers in the judges' spines. With the constitution guaranteeing rights of all, while denying rights to the tribals become illegal and hence a police issue, denying local progress by the Urban Naxals to keep the tribals agitated denies the villagers those rights.
With opposition even freely calling Modi a thief & seized ones being only five - that too previously punished - and issue being as grave as a threat to the life of previously bombed PM of India, SC should have disregarded the, 'emergency like', 'absence of free speech' and 'threat to democracy' associated appeal. In fact, giving credence to this but not to the rest can easily air, 'some are more equal', 'victim of media talks', 'insensitive to the gravity' or even 'biased'.
3. On gay sex and the family:
Though, seeing family disunion the West delayed women's franchise for 10 years, used to women deities, India honoured women and gave them rights earlier. Family is important for humanity because in addition to sex, we desire to have progeny too, and that ideally needs a family. Also, unlike the animals, our babies take a much longer time to mature and need protection during that period. Family, therefore, becomes necessary for a society, and civilization asks for it.
In tune with that India even boasts an extended family, with all members doing their duties to make it work. Though it offers a no to sexual desires to God seekers (except for tantrics) and a no to student sex, it uneasily accepts prostitution in society. However, as if seeing women's sexual power to destabilise family and society, it chooses to see purity in the fairer sex. Thus, while it deifies virgins, and offers powers and even salvation to married women who do not think of other men, it enlists 7 respected women, who actually did so. No wonder, British men dancing with other men's wives made 'immoral British' to the eyes of the Indians - during the Raj.
Possibly being less heard of (no gay right movements then), while holy books are rather silent on them and some smrities ask for small punishments, the gay sex in sculptures could be a product of poetic imagination - like the depicted bestiality. Or just an ancient porn in the wrong place!
Indian ethos frowns both pre and extra marital sex, and preservation of family as a unit is paramount for the country. The sudden surge in extramarital sex in the last few decades has even made a frequently proposed Australian married to an Indian write 'Indians are immoral'. Yes, this has been a feast for guys and for some girls but it has brought sadness to many women through the ongoing rape epidemic, unwanted proposals and loneliness. Wise Indians fear the trend of destruction of family unit.
In this instance, while legalisation favouring gay sex but not their marriage would make it an extra marital sex by default, the myopic and unfocused abolition of penalty for women's adultery would enhance extramarital sex- by men!! Almost parallel to the 'have sex but with condom' of sex education, this symbolically aids couples to be immoral. It enhances the 'proposal harassment' of married women as the Australian was tired of and mentioned in her blog. Saner women even ask 'If for equality, why not penalise both and save family?
Almost like doing a copy and paste in the making of the constitution, Indian Supreme Court is acting like SC of the US. And in doing so, it is destroying the family structure of India and trying to make it like that of the West. It's amazing that while the government said no to 'bhabi' porn to save family, its SC is saying adultery isn't illegal if bhabi wants it! With prince Charles eloping with his girlfriend, Camilla, while marrying Diana, testosterone in men crying out for a female and his instinct seeking a gene spread it is foolish to think that men seek adultery, when marriage is already at its ebb.
Civilizations, like nations aren't formed out of rights that aids instincts fulfilment but out of duties. For social progress man's instincts have to be restrained by the fears of the family, society, law and God. Enhancing men's desire to make love with other people's wives, the SC's decision, sadly, also enhances the available pool of females. With this, while family will increasingly be meaningless and unstable, immorality and rapes will rise. Although designed to offer equality, like in the US it will bring sadness to women. The SC, cannot escape responsibility in making their lives measurable.
While centuries ago Chinese travellers have said Indians didn't even lock doors at home, now in the new free and modern India, parents worry if their daughters will arrive home unmolested!
4. On the Sabarimala Temple issue:
Striking a blow against the mosaic pattern's beauty, Hinduism and the ways of civilization itself Indian SC allowed women to enter the Sabrimala temple. Seeing most mosques not allowing women although Hindus ask, 'Why us?', this judgment by SC was in response to a plea by a Muslim man!! Hindu man's plea on Muslim's issue is a different matter to the courts. In any case, the judgement was clearly an addition to the factors that caused a Hindu Revolution in 2014.
Actually, the practice in Sabarimala was not a gender injustice but a part of a beautiful mosaic pattern that is admired in the modern world like boys and girl schools or colleges, sports etc. For a start, deity isn't God but an expect of God that has its own peculiarity.
If Hindu temples had only this peculiarity and restricted women (due to any reason) then that would be discriminatory and the SC would be right. But, the pluralistic faith offers other temples with their own peculiarities that deny men too. Thus, like boy's school, lady's hostel etc. that are a part of the Modern Civilization, in totality Hinduism offers a similar mosaic pattern, which is beautiful and multicultural.
Disregarding that pattern, the SC has expressed its paucity of thought similar to going to a boys school and screaming gender discrimination - oblivious to the girls school nearby.
Secondly, it is a civilized act to respect other people's ways like not making noise when one is praying, not exposing food on a fasting month etc. The deity here isn't male alone but a brahmachari (celibate) too. Civilization, therefore demands that like a male respecting the ways of a female brahmacharini, females should respect the celibate aspect of the male deity, and avoid going close to it. It is simply a part of being sensitive.
Thirdly, the idea of visiting a temple isn't about sightseeing but pleasing the deity by offering things that the deity prefers e.g. special flowers, plants, fruits, vermilion etc and seeking its blessings. Obviously not displeasing it. If the deity is real and is displeased, almost reminding the 'have sex but with condom' advice bringing pain to girls, will the SC take responsibility for the pain caused to women by the wrong advice? Even if the deity isn't real, while imprudence wise it is like the SC going to a boys school and screaming discrimination oblivious to the presence of girls school nearby as stated above, power wise it is destroying the beautiful mosaic culture and converting it to a boring monoculture. Not only Hindu men but women's resentment is clear.
The paucity of thought does not end there. Though Hindus helped build the first mosque outside Arabia, mosques don't become holy places like temples for the Hindus. A mosque is only a preferred place and not essential for prayers (namaz). It can be demolished for the benefit of Islam. However, since ummah is sacrosanct mosques are an essential part of Islam as it helps ummah. It's, therefore, clear that the SC's judgment (1994) lacks understanding of the ways of the 2nd largest religion in the world!!
It is quite clear from the above discussions that by ignorance or by design the decisions by the Supreme Court of India have been detrimental to India as a country and as a civilization. If Indian ethos are not but western ethos are the prime movers of the country, that too inadequately, then why not hire western SC judges like the hired economists? If that is not OK, why do a revolution for Swarajya against the British? Why not just ask for equality laws (the precursor of the independence movement) and remain under the British? Stretching it to the extreme, why not even beat the West in their own game of being liberal by giving thumbs up to consensual paedophilia and even bestiality for women, if not for men?
India is India because it has got some shared peculiarities, for that matter every country has. India wants its citizens to be happy and to spread that peculiarity to the world as a global leader in the future. India can beat the West in pluralism from society to God but it cannot beat the West in being liberal. It's respected history is full of sacrifices (duties) not enjoying instinctual rights.
--------------------------
For more interesting articles on India and Pakistan please click here
No comments:
Post a Comment