Advocacy of human rights
THE WAGES OF IMPUNITY — Power, Justice and Human Rights: K.G. Kannabiran; Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd., 3-6-752, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad-500029. Rs. 550.
IN THE human rights movement in post-Independence India, Kannabiran, the lawyer and social activist, has a special place. In his native State of Andhra Pradesh people identify him as a champion of revolutionary groups. Over the years he has projected himself as a political thinker seeking to find a constitutional balance between power, politics, dissent and violence. "If violence in society is perceived as a breach of the law, the law itself is equally violent... " writes the author.
To him abuse of power is synonymous with violence. Arbitrary exercise of power by state is violence with impunity. He finds even rule of law as an instrument that facilitates the deployment of violence for governance! Human rights protection is fundamental to rule of law if the interplay of violence and power has to be kept within limits. In the very first chapter he expounds this philosophy in relation to Indian political developments and the use or abuse of law in response to them.
Citing instances from the Emergency period he argues the case of revolutionary movements and condemns repressive force by the state which according to him, is treating "politics as crime". The anti-establishment slant of the author reveals itself in every subsequent chapter of the book.
The author finds the colonial tradition of governance being practised by the rulers in India even today. Draconian laws, indiscriminate exercise of contempt power, interpreting constitutional provisions in terms of colonial practices under the pre-Independence Government of India Acts are all indicative of a "colonial baggage being carried by the representatives of the people and even by the judges. And we blame the Constitution for our own sins and inadequacies."
In a series of articles attacking the tendency of the state to suppress dissent, the author laments the progressive decay of democratic institutions and projects the "state as terrorist". He finds the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act more repressive than the infamous Rowlatt Act and cites instances to support his conclusion. He wants issues giving rise to political turbulence to be addressed instead of crushing it by what he calls "law-and-order methods". The author ridicules the setting up of the Human Rights Commission as a cover-up operation of the government.
Kannabiran writes strongly against "anti-secular" parties' right to govern. According to him these parties should not be allowed even to participate in the politics of the country after the Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Bommai's case (AIR 1994 SC 1918) declaring secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. While arguing for tolerance vis-a-vis militant outfits in politics the author himself tends to be intolerant towards political parties.
He speaks not as a lawyer but as a political activist when he characterises the democratically elected Government of Gujarat as "Narendra Modi's Hindutva laboratory". He finds fault with the Supreme Court for the rise of "theocratic politics" by its decision of "equating Hinduism to Hindutva and giving legitimacy to the bigotry of Bal Thackeray."
In half a dozen articles on lawyers and judges, he presents his perspectives on the functioning of the judiciary. In a serious indictment of the leaders of the bar he writes; "Professional leaders did not lift their gaze beyond the business values of the day. The aggressive competition within the profession never permitted practitioners to pay attention to the larger values propounded by the Constitution, which, to the practitioners, is merely a money-spinning document. This attitude has led to total indifference to the quality of justice. Neither professional bodies nor the high courts have seemed alive to the fact that the courts are public institutions which are socially accountable."
He sees a crisis within the system. He distinguishes between legitimate judicial activism and judicial "aggrandisement" and attributes the appropriation of power in the matter of appointing judges as an illustration of the latter. Finding fault with the manner in which the Supreme Court dealt with the Justice V. Ramaswamy impeachment matter, the author argues that "the rule of law is incompatible with absolutism in the judiciary... The power of judicial review of the stage before impeachment, and potentially to annul the impeachment, subverts the constitutional scheme itself," according to the author.
In two incisive, well-researched pieces on liberty and freedom, the author gives expression to his appreciation of the liberal interpretation of two of the most cherished democratic rights enshrined in the Constitution. He would have liked the courts to be more liberal and responsive to the lessons of the freedom struggle. While in the beginning courts employed colonial interpretative techniques to define the scope of personal liberty and property, it changed in the post-Emergency period to the advantage of civil liberties. Analysing the way law and courts dealt with workers' struggles, the author historically traces the evolution of associational freedom and freedom of speech and suggests the path ahead if democracy were to take roots.
In a concluding piece titled "In the First person", the author narrates a series of experiences he has had in defending unpopular causes in the civil liberties movement in Andhra Pradesh. He admits that doing political cases made a big difference in his life and he adopted the strategy of "participate politically and operate insurgently." His advice to human rights lawyers and activists; " the first struggle is to establish credibility; not to become a pawn of radical or militant groups and be in a position to maintain your independence always. This is not possible if you are linked to a party."
The book is interesting reading on the professional life of a well-known human rights lawyer who identified himself with many Leftist, militant and revolutionary struggles and tried to use legal instruments to defend them. In the process he discovers the limits of law and the constraints of democratic institutions in directing change according to predetermined norms and standards. However, on his own admission he is not for compromise when it comes to human rights. This is where the book leaves the reader confused.
There are no rights without restrictions and, in a democratic society, the law will set the restrictions the reasonableness of which the courts will decide. It is only within these rules that the balance between power and violence can be achieved. In the process, compromise is inevitable and one's understanding of human rights therefore has to be dynamic. The reviewer hopes that Kannabiran's next book will take the debate forward to give politics a moral base which law can develop incrementally. All students of political science, history, law and social work and those in public life will find the book rewarding reading.
N. R. MADHAVA MENON
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Book Review
