NOT REALLY A CRACKER OF AN ORDER, MY LORDS.

   The first thing I did on reading about the Supreme Court order last week on firecrackers was to get on to Amazon and buy some face masks. Because Delhi can now expect an Auschwitz kind of experience this Diwali- thousands of kilos of firecrackers stored from last year ( unsold because of the interim ban last year) will now be dumped on its hapless citizens under the garb of " green" crackers. For the Court's order is meaningless and unimplementable( at least in the short term); it is an exercise in idealistic ivory-towerism.

   The order states that only " green" fireworks-i.e. those that do not contain aresenic, barium nitrate or aluminium, are of low decibels, and do not emit smoke, will be allowed. But the country does not manufacture any " green" fire crackers at all; the cops have no way of distinguishing between the green and the dirty, they also possess no sound meters. So we shall be exposed to the same Sivakasi and Chinese stuff, no doubt labelled " green" or "eco-friendly". Take the time limits imposed by the court: between 8.00 and 10.00 PM for Diwali and 11.55 PM and 12.15 AM for Christmas and New Year. How in God's name can this ever be enforced by 30000 cops on 2 million Delhi households, each of them a potential arsonist or pyromaniac when it comes to Diwali? And then we have the suggestion that city administrations should organise " community" fireworks displays at some central point. Really? What about the poor sods who live near these points?- will they not be exposed to excessive levels of toxic fumes and gases in these concentrated fireworks displays?

   The Court also does not appear to have factored in the seasonality aspect, at least for north India: Diwali falls in November when all the meteorological conditions are tailor made for atmospheric pollution: falling temperatures, low wind speeds, winds from the north-west, wide spread stubble burning in the northern plains. These all collate to ensure that any smoke/smog that is generated during this period does not disperse and hangs like a toxic shroud over the cities and plains. This year the pollution levels have ALREADY reached levels that are seven times the safe limit, the number of patients reporting respiratory distress have already started rising- and Diwali has not arrived as yet! Surely the court could not have been unaware of this alarming context? Why then did it attempt to strike this unsustainable and inequitable balance between Article 21 of the Constitution( the right to  environmental protection) and Article 25 ( the right to profess one's religion)? Why did it not ban the manufacture and sale of crackers altogether, instead of adopting the proverbial middle path to appease the religious hardliners? I find this timidity quite inexplicable. If it can assert the right of a few vociferous women to enter a temple ( there was no ground swell of demand for this), how can it deny the rights of tens of millions to  clean air to breathe? Is the former right more important than the latter? Pertinent questions, but the answers are more difficult.

   Methinks the court really had no choice, given certain developments over the last couple of years, and perhaps therefore decided to adopt a realistic, rather than an idealistic, approach. I don't know how to put this except to say that, having burnt its fingers more than once, it has decided that discretion may be the better part of valour.

   It all began with the Jallikattu judgment last year: the ban on the bull runs aroused widespread protests all over Tamil Nadu, the order was defied everywhere till some kind of peace was brokered with a review petition. Then came the partial prohibition on sale ( not bursting, mind you) of crackers in NCR region last year, mostly observed in the breach, and criticised roundly by all good Hindus. Recently we have had the Sabarimala imbroglio, the fuse being lit by the Supreme Court's order allowing entry of women of all ages into the temple. This was surely the nadir of constitutional/ judicial collapse- the state government, inspite of deploying thousands of policemen, could not implement this judgment even partially- not one woman was able to enter the temple, thanks to endemic resistance by the "true" devotees and the priests. In between these high points of our Constitution in action,of course, we also had the protests over the film PADMAVATI . Of late another phenomenon has emerged: various BJP and RSS leaders delivering their own obiter dicta which sound almost like ultimatums to the judiciary- the Ram temple at Ayodhya must be built regardless of the judicial verdict; in fact let us not even wait for the SC pronouncement on the matter, let the govt. issue an ordinance. No one in either the govt. or the ruling party has condemned these statements.

   There were/are a few common threads running through all the above instances, and no concerned observer of the great Indian circus could have failed to observe them: open and voluble defiance of the court's orders, inability and unwillingness of various state governments to implement them, just about every political party coming out in opposition to the judicial orders on the grounds that they interfere with the practice of religion and culture, the demand for an ordinance to nullify the court orders. In fact of late it appears that the only common platform the political parties of the country, ruling and opposition, share is opposition to judicial pronouncements. This constant push back and friction is, in my opinion, beginning to take its toll. They are slowly eroding the writ and authority of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, and perhaps beginning to have an influence on their decision making. The failure to completely ban crackers, at least during the winter months when pollution levels are at their maximum, may be the result of this constant psychological pressure. Which, if true, will be a pity- and extremely dangerous. The "middle path" may be okay for the likes of the Buddha or Confucius but it is not what an independent judiciary needs to follow in a country slowly being dragged to the brink by an aggressive majoritarianism and a pampered minoritarianism. We expect the higher judiciary to be consistent in its pronouncements. Sabarimala was an elitist infringement on religion, the firecrackers order is an abject capitulation to religion. Neither builds trust in the courts.

FOLLOWING ONE'S CONSCIENCE ? OR THE GRAVY TRAIN ?

   Please call me out if I'm wrong, but I firmly believe that the average Indian is no longer shocked at anything that happens in this continent of Circe. Violence, child rape, lynchings, corruption, road rage, sewer deaths, exam fraud, police atrocities, political venality, bureaucratic apathy- no one bats an eyelid at these happenings, for our society and governments are so diseased that we expect nothing else. As Arun Shourie says: this is the new normal. But shocked I was last fortnight by an eight centimeter piece of news tucked away quietly on page thirteen of my paper: MECCA MASJID BLAST CASE JUDGE KEEN TO JOIN BJP. Incidentally, I have not seen this report anywhere else, not even on our breathless news channels ( the new normal?): it has sunk like a stone into the stygian depths of forgetfulness. And yet it should have made headlines for it marks an important inflection point in the decay and degradation of our institutions, which have become crumbling ruins, of interest only to some future political archeologist.

   Do you remember this judge, Mr. K Ravinder Reddy? He was the judge of the special anti-terror court who, on April 16 this year, had acquitted Hindutva preacher Aseemanand and four others in the famous Mecca Masjid blast case. This was one of the infamous "saffron terror" cases which the BJP was accused of back-pedaling. Just hours after delivering this verdict the judge had resigned from service! And, according to the report in the Hindustan Times, he has now expressed a desire to join the BJP because it is " a patriotic party" and does not have " family rule." The alarm bells, which should have started ringing when he precipitously resigned in April, have now become deafening but all we hear is the silence of the damned. Last I heard the local BJP workers had prepared a gala reception for the hon' judge to welcome him into the party, perhaps a candidate for the ticket in the forthcoming elections.

   We have become accustomed to bureaucrats joining political parties, and frankly I see nothing wrong in it: if they can bring their experience of public service and insights into public administration to bear on their political careers that would be good for the nation. But I view with deep suspicion a civil servant who precipitately resigns from service a few months before an election and decides to plight his troth to any political party. Just in the last few months two such shameful instances have been reported. The Collector of Raipur in Chhatisgarh resigned to join the BJP, and since he belongs to a dominant caste he appears to be more or less assured of a ticket. A  senior police officer did the same in UP, but he went a step further: in a letter to the Chief Minister he confessed his undying devotion to the party, expressed a wish to campaign for the BJP in the elections, and helpfully suggested that he if he was made Chairman of some state PSU he could use its resources to strengthen the campaign! There are good reasons why I consider such people as mercenaries, and why their actions should be discouraged. 

   Their actions could not have been sudden epiphanies: most likely they had to be well considered over a period of time. And since there are no free lunches in politics, these officers would have thoroughly compromised themselves during this period in order to curry favour with the party of their choice. They would have used all the considerable clout of their offices in our colonial system of administration to bend rules, misuse discretion and exercise their authority in a partisan manner to please their future bosses. After all, why would the party accept them if there was nothing in it for them? Conversely, and equally true, why would the officers resign their powerful and lucrative jobs if there was nothing in it for THEM? A fine dog's breakfast of motives, if you ask me.

   To return to the hon'ble judge, however. If such mercenary and self-seeking behaviour is bad for our democratic system, it is positively dangerous if practiced by a member of the judiciary. This is so because there is much more finality in a judge's decisions, because he is the arbiter of what is wrong and what is right, because he has the power to convict or to acquit, because he is the last court of appeal for a citizen, because any judicial system is founded on a presumption of fairness, objectivity and lack of bias. And any action by a judge which casts any doubt on these values has to be viewed with suspicion. Bureaucratic misdemeanours can be corrected by the judiciary, similar malpractices by the latter are much more difficult to remedy. And therefore, the action of Mr. Reddy to resign just hours after delivering the acquittals in a very sensitive case with communal and terrorism overtones, and thereafter announcing his intention to join a party with open sympathies for the main accused in the case, is bound to raise some disturbing questions: Given his prediliction for this party ( and his intention to shortly join it) should he not have recused himself from this case? How objective could his assessment of the evidence have been given his ideological leanings? Could the acquittal have been a quid pro quo for a future political career? Was there a mis-trial, and can the judgement be appealed against on these grounds? Frankly, I am not a little surprised that the High Court or the Supreme Court has not taken cognizance of Mr. Reddy's sudden, suspect decision and decided to look into it, particularly his past judgments to see if there is a discernable pattern in them.

   In this MAD MAX world I find it easier to raise questions than to provide answers, and so it is in this case too. For all I know judge Reddy could have had a genuine change of heart like the great king Ashoka, or he could have seen the light like the Buddha after years of meditation on the IPC and CrPC, and decided that the BJP was the Middle Path between dynasty and disaster. In that case, of course, his departure would be a loss to the world of laws. Somehow, however, I doubt it.