1 00:00:01,000 --> 00:00:04,640 From India's largest newsroom, I'm Arun George, and this is The 2 00:00:04,640 --> 00:00:15,320 Times of India. Podcast on the. 11th of 3 00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:17,840 September, Prime Minister Narendra Modi turned up at the 4 00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:20,720 Delhi residence of the Chief Justice of India DY 5 00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:23,400 Chandrachoor. The reason was to participate in 6 00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:26,280 the Ganesh Utsav celebrations taking place at the Chief 7 00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,040 Justice's home. Videos showed the Prime Minister 8 00:00:29,040 --> 00:00:32,240 and the Chief Justice and his wife participating in a ceremony 9 00:00:32,360 --> 00:00:35,440 in which the Prime Minister wore a Gandhi cap, most commonly 10 00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:38,280 associated with Ganesh devotees in Maharashtra. 11 00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:40,920 There was number audio to the video feed released in the 12 00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:43,960 public domain, and all that could be heard through the video 13 00:00:44,120 --> 00:00:46,360 is the tinkling of a bell during the puja. 14 00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:55,080 Criticism for the event came from various opposition parties 15 00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:57,240 as well as senior advocates of the Supreme Court. 16 00:00:58,000 --> 00:00:59,840 The. Issue is not individual. 17 00:00:59,840 --> 00:01:07,520 The issue is what impact such a clip has on the minds of people. 18 00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:11,640 Just a little over a week after this incident, the Supreme Court 19 00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:14,760 led by the Chief Justice had to come into the government's delay 20 00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:18,040 in appointing judges to the high courts of various states as well 21 00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:20,360 as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has also 22 00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:23,640 intervened and paused what has been called bulldozer justice in 23 00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:26,920 multiple states where a person accused of a crime has seen 24 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:29,200 their home demolished for alleged violations. 25 00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:32,120 In today's episode, we're in conversation with political 26 00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:35,080 scientist Suhas Pal Shekhar about various aspects of the 27 00:01:35,080 --> 00:01:37,600 courts dealing with the government and the message 28 00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,200 something like the Prime Minister turning up at the CJ's 29 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:43,120 house sends. Professor Palshikar, who is the 30 00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:47,000 Co director of electoral think tank Lokniti analyzes these 31 00:01:47,000 --> 00:01:49,320 issues and more. In conversation with my 32 00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:52,480 colleague Alka Dukar and me, we're talking about the Ganesh 33 00:01:52,480 --> 00:01:55,520 Utsav visit of the Prime Minister, the ties between the 34 00:01:55,520 --> 00:01:57,880 judiciary and the government and much more. 35 00:01:58,520 --> 00:02:02,640 The judiciary has been doing a balancing act with the executive 36 00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:07,040 for a while now, especially in terms of appointment of judges 37 00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:10,160 to higher judiciary. Could the PM's visit to the 38 00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:15,280 Chief Justice whom be viewed as just another such event to keep 39 00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:18,880 the peace? Let's first address the first 40 00:02:18,880 --> 00:02:21,280 part of your question about the balancing act. 41 00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:26,200 You know, the judiciary always has to do this balancing act 42 00:02:26,760 --> 00:02:30,920 because it is always positioned as an adversary of the 43 00:02:30,920 --> 00:02:34,480 executive, as a protector of the Constitution. 44 00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:38,840 The judiciary is a protector of citizens rights. 45 00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:41,640 The judiciary is protector of norms. 46 00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:46,560 The judiciary is protector of its own independence and 47 00:02:46,560 --> 00:02:50,560 therefore it has to constantly do a balancing act in the sense 48 00:02:51,160 --> 00:02:53,880 that it has to give a space to the executive and the 49 00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:59,200 legislature and at the same time constantly watch whether they 50 00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:02,200 are overstepping in appointments. 51 00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:07,200 In India, at least currently, the Supreme Court and its 52 00:03:07,240 --> 00:03:13,480 collegium have vast powers in principle in India. 53 00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:18,720 Through historical processes and judicial decisions, the Supreme 54 00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:23,240 Court has finally in the last quarter of a century, taken over 55 00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:26,760 the powers of appointing judges to the High Courts and the 56 00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:31,160 Supreme Court itself. On the ground that consultation, 57 00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:35,600 which is the word used in the Constitution, means that the 58 00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:39,080 advice given by the judiciary shall be binding on the 59 00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:42,280 executive. Which then means that once the 60 00:03:42,280 --> 00:03:45,440 judiciary has given the list of judges to the government, the 61 00:03:45,440 --> 00:03:48,400 government has to appoint them there. 62 00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:53,360 The balancing act so far has been rather awkward because on a 63 00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:56,840 number of occasions the government has simply refused to 64 00:03:56,840 --> 00:04:01,920 appoint the judges recommended by the courts on some ground or 65 00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:05,160 the other and sometimes not giving any grounds and not 66 00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:08,720 taking any action at all. Supreme Court has again and 67 00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:13,240 again warned the government that it has to act on the lists that 68 00:04:13,240 --> 00:04:14,920 are recommended by the collegium. 69 00:04:15,720 --> 00:04:19,839 The latest as we speak has been a case where the Supreme Court 70 00:04:19,839 --> 00:04:26,040 has finally asked the government to give a specific presentation 71 00:04:26,360 --> 00:04:30,040 of what happened to each of the recommendation of the collegium. 72 00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:34,080 Quickly then the government started appointing a few judges 73 00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:36,640 to the high courts. So here I think the Supreme 74 00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:41,240 Court needed to be more assertive as far as the current 75 00:04:41,240 --> 00:04:44,800 position between the executive and the judiciary is concerned. 76 00:04:45,440 --> 00:04:50,080 The third part of your question is rather comical event of the 77 00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:55,600 Prime Minister of the country suddenly going to the residence 78 00:04:55,600 --> 00:05:01,080 of the Chief Justice of India to join him in the worshipping of 79 00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:06,520 Lord Ganesh on the occasion of Ganesh festival which is a most 80 00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:09,080 popular festival in Maharashtra. Particularly. 81 00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:13,680 We don't know what happened. There has been no official 82 00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:17,600 explanation either by the Office of the Chief Justice or the 83 00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:22,320 Prime Minister whether specifically the Chief Justice 84 00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:27,880 invited the Prime Minister to attend the puja during Ganesh 85 00:05:27,880 --> 00:05:32,560 festival at his residence. If that is the case, that would 86 00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:37,960 probably a very serious blow to judicial independence. 87 00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:42,600 If on the other hand, the Prime Minister had an evinced interest 88 00:05:42,960 --> 00:05:47,240 in joining the Chief Justice during the puja, as I said, it 89 00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:51,880 would be a comical situation because then one is imposing 90 00:05:52,840 --> 00:05:58,160 oneself on the Chief Justice and in that situation we don't know 91 00:05:58,400 --> 00:06:01,240 how the Chief Justice could have handled this situation. 92 00:06:01,840 --> 00:06:07,560 To make matters worse, the Prime Minister went, as always, with a 93 00:06:07,560 --> 00:06:10,800 camera crew and therefore a private event. 94 00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:13,400 It could have been a private event and we could have 95 00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:16,840 discussed it separately whether for even a private event, Prime 96 00:06:16,840 --> 00:06:19,360 Minister should go to the residence of the Chief Justice. 97 00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:22,720 But at least it could have been a private, quiet event. 98 00:06:23,080 --> 00:06:27,520 Instead of that, it became a national spectacle and that's 99 00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:32,160 why it is extremely awkward but at the same time objectionable 100 00:06:32,640 --> 00:06:38,680 that the two should be seen as joining in a prayer at the 101 00:06:38,680 --> 00:06:43,600 residence of the Chief Justice. Then the previous examples were 102 00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:48,520 cited where previously Prime Minister had met the Chief 103 00:06:48,520 --> 00:06:51,480 Justice of India in one of such events. 104 00:06:53,080 --> 00:06:56,240 Our public sphere is full of What about tree these days. 105 00:07:10,320 --> 00:07:14,080 So let us say that if that time we were discussing it, we could 106 00:07:14,080 --> 00:07:16,120 have discussed the merits of those issues. 107 00:07:16,920 --> 00:07:22,280 But as far as I know, the events that were dugout of past 108 00:07:22,280 --> 00:07:28,280 meetings of such dignitaries during festivities where public 109 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:33,480 meetings, public festivals, a party is thrown by the dignitary 110 00:07:33,800 --> 00:07:38,040 and then other dignitaries join where it is not a tete, It is 111 00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:41,320 not a face to face meeting just between the Prime Minister and 112 00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:45,360 the Chief Justice nor at the residence. 113 00:07:46,320 --> 00:07:49,880 So there is a difference. But I would say yes, in public 114 00:07:49,880 --> 00:07:53,560 life, such dignitaries, president, Prime Minister, 115 00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:59,040 chiefs of army staff, do mingle with each other formally, which 116 00:07:59,040 --> 00:08:04,360 is way different from a Prime Minister individually going to a 117 00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:08,240 chief Justice's residence. And when there are no other 118 00:08:08,480 --> 00:08:13,960 dignitaries present, that makes poor show of our institutions. 119 00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:18,400 And the Prime Minister also presented an obvious nod to 120 00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:22,320 Maharashtra elections with his dressing for the occasion. 121 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:26,880 How much does such iconography, the visit to the CJI and the 122 00:08:26,880 --> 00:08:32,679 outfit really help politically? The Prime Minister has a very 123 00:08:32,679 --> 00:08:38,880 smart sense of dress, so obviously he would go to a 124 00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:44,280 Marathi Chief Justice for a so-called Marathi festival, 125 00:08:45,200 --> 00:08:51,440 giving an indication that he understands the Marathi ways of 126 00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:55,680 how to present oneself before the deity at the time of the 127 00:08:55,680 --> 00:08:58,800 festival. The Prime Minister always does 128 00:08:58,800 --> 00:09:02,920 it and whatever benefit he accrues from it, he always does 129 00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:05,200 it. This time around I don't think 130 00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:09,560 it would matter much for the simple reason that this is a 131 00:09:09,560 --> 00:09:14,120 routine, in a sense spectacle that the Prime Minister, in his 132 00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:19,200 dress or headgear or language, would try to address a 133 00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:22,320 particular constituency which is going to elections. 134 00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:27,080 The trouble, however, is that this happened in September. 135 00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:32,680 Elections in Maharashtra are yet to be declared and therefore by 136 00:09:32,680 --> 00:09:37,240 that time this particular presentation by the Prime 137 00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:40,400 Minister would probably have been forgotten. 138 00:09:41,280 --> 00:09:45,400 So I don't see any great political conspiracy behind it. 139 00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:48,760 I don't see that this is something where the Chief 140 00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:52,640 Justice has compromised his independence completely. 141 00:09:53,040 --> 00:09:56,400 What I am saying is that it is poor show as far as 142 00:09:56,920 --> 00:10:00,720 institutional pride and boundary lines are concerned. 143 00:10:01,560 --> 00:10:05,120 You say that it doesn't impact politically, it shows the 144 00:10:05,120 --> 00:10:09,520 institutions in a bad light. Then what is the purpose of such 145 00:10:09,520 --> 00:10:14,240 an event at all then? If you ask me why the Prime 146 00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:20,480 Minister might have gone there and we don't know the purposes 147 00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:24,040 and intentions, and therefore rather than why he might have 148 00:10:24,040 --> 00:10:27,240 gone, I would say what would be the effect? 149 00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:33,560 And the effect I think is that it generally shows judiciary in 150 00:10:33,560 --> 00:10:37,880 bad light and thus in the long run delegitimizes the 151 00:10:37,880 --> 00:10:40,480 institution. That is the effect. 152 00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,640 The Prime Minister might have gone just casually. 153 00:10:44,000 --> 00:10:46,960 The Prime Minister might have gone because the deity at the 154 00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:50,920 Chief Justice's house must be particularly kind hearted and 155 00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:53,680 therefore the Prime Minister wanted that deity's blazing. 156 00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:58,320 You know, in Pune, where I stay, there are Ganesh deities which 157 00:10:58,320 --> 00:11:00,760 are seen particularly very benevolent. 158 00:11:01,000 --> 00:11:04,480 So you go and pray them. So that may be the story, I 159 00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:06,720 don't know. I have no personal knowledge 160 00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:11,840 about the kind heartedness of the Ganesh deity at the Chief 161 00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:14,600 Justice's house. So I wouldn't go into 162 00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:16,920 intentions. But I would definitely say this, 163 00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:21,320 that this is bad, not because the Prime Minister would have 164 00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:25,560 asked the Chief Justice to do something, not because the Chief 165 00:11:25,560 --> 00:11:31,080 Justice would really buckle in, but simply because it shows that 166 00:11:31,080 --> 00:11:33,560 the judiciary can be taken for a ride. 167 00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:38,600 Judges are not above sort of a pedestal. 168 00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:42,720 That is the signal that this particular event gives. 169 00:11:43,920 --> 00:11:48,280 And after this visit when Prime Minister visited Maharashtra 170 00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:53,200 there he attacked Congress saying Congress is against 171 00:11:53,200 --> 00:12:04,800 Ganesh pooja. Usamaibi Ganesh aajbi samaj ko 172 00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:14,480 baatne satta ke bhuke logo ko Ganesh. 173 00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:20,880 That is how public discourse is shaping these days, that you say 174 00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:27,240 one thing and then you impute something else to others so that 175 00:12:27,240 --> 00:12:30,600 the entire public discussion discourse is vitiated. 176 00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:35,760 So that's bound to happen. And that's why I thought that if 177 00:12:35,800 --> 00:12:39,120 this could have been avoided by the Chief Justice of India, 178 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:42,520 perhaps that could have been great because you don't know the 179 00:12:42,520 --> 00:12:46,760 consequences of this rather than that is best avoided. 180 00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:51,640 Aloofness is much better than judges being too vocal and 181 00:12:51,640 --> 00:12:54,400 public celebrities. Judges shouldn't be public 182 00:12:54,400 --> 00:12:58,040 celebrities. Judges shouldn't be giving paid 183 00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:02,320 talks, for example, while they are sitting on the bench. 184 00:13:02,680 --> 00:13:04,920 Judges should be simply giving rulings. 185 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:11,000 What does all of this say about the judiciary at this time when 186 00:13:11,240 --> 00:13:15,200 you also have things like the government easing the entry of 187 00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:17,320 government employees into the RSS? 188 00:13:17,720 --> 00:13:20,400 How do you view all these events at the same time? 189 00:13:21,280 --> 00:13:24,800 Let's say, first, political inclinations, that is to say, 190 00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:29,040 not necessarily partisan, but political ideological 191 00:13:29,040 --> 00:13:32,600 inclinations among judges are bound to be there. 192 00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:37,600 And it's a very complex task for any appointing authority to 193 00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:41,200 determine whether a person should be appointed as a judge 194 00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:45,520 or not simply on the basis of his or her ideological 195 00:13:45,520 --> 00:13:50,920 inclination. The assumption is that even if 196 00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:54,920 you have a certain ideological viewpoints, you operate within 197 00:13:54,920 --> 00:14:00,120 the constitutional framework and #2 that the Constitution does 198 00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:06,000 not preclude various ideologies. It doesn't sort of throw away 199 00:14:06,000 --> 00:14:09,200 various ideologies. And therefore it's alright if 200 00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:12,800 you have a communist ideology as in the case of Justice VK 201 00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:17,040 Krishna here earlier. But at the same time, the 202 00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:22,400 trouble is that when there are very sensitive political cases 203 00:14:23,280 --> 00:14:27,200 in terms of like the cases that were allegedly discussed at the 204 00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:33,200 VHP event about mosques which are contested, whether they are 205 00:14:33,200 --> 00:14:36,600 temples or mosques. Given the history of the Ram 206 00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:41,640 Janmabhoomi and the Ayodhya controversy, you will find that 207 00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:47,280 again it is very difficult for judges to get involved or not 208 00:14:47,280 --> 00:14:50,160 get involved in such ideological events. 209 00:14:50,560 --> 00:14:53,840 At an extreme, one could therefore say that the best 210 00:14:53,840 --> 00:14:58,320 thing for judges would be not get involved in politics after 211 00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:01,160 retirement. And politics here means in 212 00:15:01,160 --> 00:15:06,840 public affairs at all, at all. And that doesn't happen. 213 00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:11,000 I think we have come to a stage where rather than leaving things 214 00:15:11,000 --> 00:15:16,000 to the discretion and good wishes of the office holders, we 215 00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:21,320 need to search clearly have a norm that after retirement, no 216 00:15:21,320 --> 00:15:26,520 public engagement full stop. Once that happens, this 217 00:15:26,520 --> 00:15:29,880 possibility might get reduced to some extent. 218 00:15:30,160 --> 00:15:34,560 But even then, if I have a certain ideological inclination, 219 00:15:35,120 --> 00:15:39,120 I get entrance into the judiciary and then sit on 220 00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:42,640 certain benches that are discussing politically sensitive 221 00:15:42,640 --> 00:15:45,440 cases. It becomes a very difficult 222 00:15:45,440 --> 00:15:49,280 moral issue, both for the public as well As for the judge. 223 00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:54,240 How to keep aside his or her ideological inclinations and 224 00:15:54,240 --> 00:15:58,880 consider what the Constitution expects in this particular case? 225 00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:04,000 This argument that the executive and judiciary must be separated 226 00:16:04,000 --> 00:16:07,560 has been violated multiple times, most recently with a 227 00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:11,800 serving Calcutta judge retiring to contest on a BJP ticket. 228 00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:16,080 What are the political benefits of keeping one's party doors 229 00:16:16,080 --> 00:16:19,840 open to judges? You know, for any political 230 00:16:19,840 --> 00:16:24,320 party, for any political dispensation, if dignitaries 231 00:16:24,320 --> 00:16:27,640 join it, it sort of adds to its legitimacy. 232 00:16:28,400 --> 00:16:33,000 And particularly in the instance you cite in West Bengal where 233 00:16:33,000 --> 00:16:38,720 the BJP is an opposition, when a High Court judge quits and joins 234 00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:45,320 or retires and joins, it means a lot as far as messages to the 235 00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:49,400 public are concerned that here is a High Court judge who joins 236 00:16:49,400 --> 00:16:52,080 an opposition party in that particular state. 237 00:16:52,760 --> 00:16:55,680 That is why in fact, there has always been a discussion about 238 00:16:55,920 --> 00:17:00,240 what is technically known as the cooling of period, that if you 239 00:17:00,240 --> 00:17:06,119 are holding an important office, then there should be a gap, an 240 00:17:06,119 --> 00:17:10,599 interval before you join any political party or join active 241 00:17:10,599 --> 00:17:15,440 politics. Unfortunately, in India, there 242 00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:20,640 is no strict norm about it nor is there any rule or legislation 243 00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:24,599 prohibiting it. It again makes a very poor show 244 00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:29,800 of our institution when judges overnight join a political party 245 00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:34,760 except political offices offered by a ruling party like an 246 00:17:34,760 --> 00:17:38,280 earlier Chief Justice of India becoming a Rajya Sabha member. 247 00:17:38,560 --> 00:17:41,640 These are all bad practices in any case. 248 00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:46,120 The Supreme Court has struck down, temporarily, the bulldozer 249 00:17:46,120 --> 00:17:49,200 justice model that multiple chief ministers have been 250 00:17:49,200 --> 00:17:52,480 touting as a success. How do you view this verdict, 251 00:17:52,480 --> 00:17:56,160 which now seeks to put in place guidelines for such actions? 252 00:17:57,080 --> 00:17:58,320 Generally, yes. Good. 253 00:17:58,320 --> 00:18:01,640 After all that the judiciary stepped in, yes. 254 00:18:01,640 --> 00:18:06,560 But a the judiciary need not have to be called into stepping 255 00:18:06,560 --> 00:18:10,360 in the 1st place because this is blatantly illegal. 256 00:18:11,480 --> 00:18:16,880 That if I am an accused, I am innocent till proven guilty in 257 00:18:16,880 --> 00:18:20,120 the 1st place. But even if I am proven guilty, 258 00:18:20,560 --> 00:18:24,840 my family need not be penalized for that and therefore this 259 00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:30,240 barbaric idea of using bulldozers against families of 260 00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:35,800 so-called accused, mafia culprits, terrorists, whoever is 261 00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:39,080 anti democratic. It shouldn't have happened and 262 00:18:39,080 --> 00:18:42,320 if it happened, the governments themselves should have 263 00:18:42,640 --> 00:18:46,520 controlled and self regulated. Now the Supreme Court has 264 00:18:46,520 --> 00:18:49,760 stepped in. But look, the Supreme Court, and 265 00:18:49,760 --> 00:18:52,520 that goes to your first question of balancing act. 266 00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:55,760 The Supreme Court sort of trades very carefully. 267 00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:02,880 It criticizes the bulldozer kind of practices, but it says that 268 00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:07,200 temporarily don't do it till we draw guidelines. 269 00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:10,080 Now you know what will happen to guidelines. 270 00:19:10,520 --> 00:19:14,480 It is not the job of the judiciary to give guidelines to 271 00:19:14,480 --> 00:19:17,520 the executive. So obviously in those guidelines 272 00:19:17,680 --> 00:19:21,360 it would be implied that the government should finally 273 00:19:21,360 --> 00:19:24,480 prepare guidelines. And you know, what happened to 274 00:19:24,480 --> 00:19:28,520 the instructions of appointment of election commissioners, how 275 00:19:28,520 --> 00:19:32,120 the government overcame that and had its own way. 276 00:19:32,600 --> 00:19:40,000 So this entire thing may be good in bad times, but basically too 277 00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:43,520 little, too late, or we don't know whether even there is 278 00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:46,120 anything little because we don't know the guidelines yet. 279 00:19:46,560 --> 00:19:48,640 So it's only a temporary respite. 280 00:19:49,520 --> 00:19:53,680 The Supreme Court, if it wanted to really establish rule of law, 281 00:19:53,680 --> 00:20:00,360 should have simply said that in any condition, this kind of use 282 00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:06,160 of bulldozers against persons unrelated to the crime or 283 00:20:06,160 --> 00:20:09,760 perpetrated crime is illegal. Don't do it. 284 00:20:09,960 --> 00:20:12,880 Blanket No. That has not been done. 285 00:20:13,520 --> 00:20:16,680 The RSS has been in the news since the election results due 286 00:20:16,680 --> 00:20:19,320 to statements made by the leaders, which is seen as 287 00:20:19,320 --> 00:20:22,680 directed at the Prime Minister. We ask Professor Palshekar how 288 00:20:22,680 --> 00:20:26,600 he viewed these statements. Given the consecutive statements 289 00:20:26,800 --> 00:20:31,480 made by the RSS chief and senior RSS leaders in recent past, do 290 00:20:31,480 --> 00:20:34,000 you believe that the rift between the Bharatiya Janata 291 00:20:34,000 --> 00:20:38,720 Party and the RSS is widening or is it merely a show for the 292 00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:41,520 public? No, I don't think it is a show 293 00:20:41,520 --> 00:20:43,720 for the public. I think there is a serious 294 00:20:43,720 --> 00:20:47,480 difference between the two, and that is bound to be there for a 295 00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:52,000 variety of reasons. Historically, when the current 296 00:20:52,000 --> 00:20:55,120 Prime Minister was chief minister of Gujarat and even 297 00:20:55,120 --> 00:20:59,080 earlier when he was not chief minister of Gujarat, he had a 298 00:20:59,080 --> 00:21:03,720 very tenuous relationship with the RSS organization. 299 00:21:04,320 --> 00:21:07,600 It is only for mutual convenience and particularly the 300 00:21:07,640 --> 00:21:12,400 RSS convenience that the RSS piggybacked on Prime Minister 301 00:21:12,400 --> 00:21:14,960 Narendra Modi when he rose to prominence. 302 00:21:15,560 --> 00:21:18,440 Because the RSS must have thought that here is a golden 303 00:21:18,440 --> 00:21:23,800 opportunity for them to extend their cultural reach across the 304 00:21:23,800 --> 00:21:27,960 country with the popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 305 00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:31,080 So they did it. The second reason why there is a 306 00:21:31,080 --> 00:21:36,440 kind of tension between the two is the personality of the Prime 307 00:21:36,440 --> 00:21:40,600 Minister himself. The RSS, whether you like it or 308 00:21:40,600 --> 00:21:45,720 not, doesn't believe in competition from other leaders. 309 00:21:46,360 --> 00:21:51,160 Its faith is that its own leadership is autonomous and 310 00:21:51,160 --> 00:21:56,600 self-sufficient and therefore a leader of the party which they 311 00:21:56,600 --> 00:22:01,920 see as their extension cannot be above the RSS and RSS 312 00:22:01,920 --> 00:22:04,800 leadership. Whereas the personality of the 313 00:22:04,800 --> 00:22:08,280 Prime Minister Narendra Modi is such that he cannot be 314 00:22:08,280 --> 00:22:12,560 subservient or second to any other leader within their 315 00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:17,240 organization now, particularly when he has a certified 316 00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:19,840 popularity through 3 elections so far. 317 00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:23,880 And that is where I think these clashes are occurring. 318 00:22:24,360 --> 00:22:28,160 I don't think these clashes are necessarily ideological though, 319 00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:35,440 because the RSS doesn't bother much about economic policies. 320 00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:38,040 Though they have their own take on economic policies. 321 00:22:38,400 --> 00:22:42,320 They are always willing to compromise on that so long as 322 00:22:42,600 --> 00:22:45,960 their cultural policies are acceptable to the existing 323 00:22:45,960 --> 00:22:50,120 government, which they are as far as the current existing 324 00:22:50,160 --> 00:22:52,600 national or All India government is concerned. 325 00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:55,760 So I don't think it has more too much to do with ideological 326 00:22:55,760 --> 00:22:59,160 differences, but personality clashes, clashes of 327 00:22:59,160 --> 00:23:04,160 organizational style and historical clash between Mr. 328 00:23:04,160 --> 00:23:08,600 Modi and the RSS. When the government lifted the 329 00:23:08,600 --> 00:23:13,640 ban for its employee to join the Rashiya Swamsakhsanga, you have 330 00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:17,800 said that with this decision, formalization of the idea of the 331 00:23:17,800 --> 00:23:21,720 Hindu state has been taken one step further. 332 00:23:22,040 --> 00:23:27,720 Would you please describe it and the risk or like effects of it? 333 00:23:28,760 --> 00:23:33,800 See, there had been a ban on membership of RSS if you are a 334 00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:36,920 civil servant. Whether that ban was effective 335 00:23:36,920 --> 00:23:41,000 or not, whether it made any difference or not, can always be 336 00:23:41,000 --> 00:23:46,480 debated. But that ban meant that RSS is 337 00:23:46,840 --> 00:23:51,640 having a certain ideological position which is in 338 00:23:51,640 --> 00:23:56,960 contravention to the ethics of a public servant, namely that she 339 00:23:56,960 --> 00:24:01,400 should be serving the entire public body of citizens 340 00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:06,400 irrespective of their religions. A religious organization which 341 00:24:06,400 --> 00:24:10,280 clearly says that it is a religious organization, how can 342 00:24:10,280 --> 00:24:13,080 you be a member of that organization and then serve the 343 00:24:13,080 --> 00:24:17,320 entire public? That contradiction is there now 344 00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:21,320 that ban has been lifted. With the lifting of that ban, we 345 00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:26,080 now accept that even if you are a member of a Hindutva 346 00:24:26,080 --> 00:24:30,440 organization, you can still continue to be a civil servant. 347 00:24:31,200 --> 00:24:34,720 In a sense, this connects to the discussion of judges having 348 00:24:34,720 --> 00:24:39,920 Hindutva inclination as well, and both questions come together 349 00:24:40,120 --> 00:24:45,160 as a major challenge. I think that over the last few 350 00:24:45,160 --> 00:24:49,480 years we are gradually moving to a de facto Hindu state. 351 00:24:50,360 --> 00:24:54,440 It is not a legal Hindu state yet and probably that's the only 352 00:24:54,440 --> 00:24:59,280 difference so far between a formerly religion based state 353 00:24:59,560 --> 00:25:02,200 and India. It's still not there. 354 00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:07,640 But otherwise, the entire symbolism from the consecration 355 00:25:07,920 --> 00:25:13,240 of the Ayodhya temple by the Prime Minister himself to this 356 00:25:13,240 --> 00:25:17,080 small thing of lifting the ban on RSS membership as far as 357 00:25:17,080 --> 00:25:21,480 civil servants are concerned, are all steps, small steps, 358 00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:27,280 sometimes big steps that allow Hindutva elements to capture the 359 00:25:27,280 --> 00:25:33,560 Indian state and Hindutva also to become the main ideological 360 00:25:33,560 --> 00:25:36,680 identity of the country. That has now been allowed. 361 00:25:37,120 --> 00:25:41,400 And that is what I meant when I said that a small step further 362 00:25:41,680 --> 00:25:44,920 in making India a de facto Hindutva state. 363 00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:48,680 Then the argument is what's wrong in it. 364 00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:53,800 If this is the de facto Don Hindutva ideology and 365 00:25:53,800 --> 00:25:58,840 constitutional values, how it is clashing this identity to the 366 00:25:58,840 --> 00:26:04,000 constitutional values of India? It clashes fundamentally because 367 00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:09,840 the Constitution in in the sense presupposes equality of all 368 00:26:09,840 --> 00:26:14,080 citizens, equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of their 369 00:26:14,080 --> 00:26:17,560 religions. Whereas Hindutva as an ideology 370 00:26:18,160 --> 00:26:21,880 in many of their writings but more in their practice believe 371 00:26:22,320 --> 00:26:27,800 in Hindus having a preeminent position in a Hindu majority 372 00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:30,800 Indian society. And that is the difference 373 00:26:31,120 --> 00:26:33,960 between the Constitution and the idea of Hindutva. 374 00:26:34,840 --> 00:26:39,120 Citizenship is irrespective of Oregon without regard to 375 00:26:39,120 --> 00:26:43,960 religion in the Constitution. The Hindutva ideology may say 376 00:26:43,960 --> 00:26:48,160 that we have no objection to that but there should also be a 377 00:26:48,160 --> 00:26:53,480 preeminence of Hindus and Hindutva ideas in this Indian 378 00:26:53,480 --> 00:26:57,960 society generally. What I then distinguish is the 379 00:26:57,960 --> 00:27:04,760 constitutional framework is broadly pluralist, secular, 380 00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:10,880 based on diversity, whereas Hindutu idea has a narrow 381 00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:15,040 understanding of pluralism. They would say yes, pluralism is 382 00:27:15,040 --> 00:27:17,960 there in Hindu religion but that's not the point. 383 00:27:18,280 --> 00:27:22,480 It has a limited idea of citizenship also and therefore 384 00:27:22,480 --> 00:27:26,800 the clash is at the fundamental or foundational values of the 385 00:27:26,800 --> 00:27:31,160 constitution. To be blunt and provocative, I 386 00:27:31,160 --> 00:27:36,560 would therefore say that to be a proponent of Hindutva is in 387 00:27:36,560 --> 00:27:43,000 direct contrast or in direct negation of upholding the 388 00:27:43,000 --> 00:27:46,080 Constitution. If you uphold the Constitution, 389 00:27:46,280 --> 00:27:49,440 you can't uphold Hindutva. If you uphold Hindutva, you 390 00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:51,840 can't be upholding the Constitution. 391 00:27:52,360 --> 00:27:56,560 When there is a political ideology that cuts at the roots 392 00:27:56,560 --> 00:28:01,040 of the Constitution, you have to then clearly say that this is 393 00:28:01,360 --> 00:28:05,600 outside of the Constitution, and something that is outside of the 394 00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:09,520 Constitution is very difficult to reconcile with the 395 00:28:09,520 --> 00:28:14,360 Constitution. Today's episode was produced by 396 00:28:14,360 --> 00:28:18,920 Jayraj Singh and Sahil Gupta. For a daily spotlight on people, 397 00:28:18,920 --> 00:28:22,920 ideas and stories that matter, subscribe to us where available 398 00:28:22,920 --> 00:28:27,120 on the Times of India website, Spotify, Apple, Amazon or 399 00:28:27,120 --> 00:28:29,160 wherever else you get your podcast. 400 00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:33,520 For any new steps of feedback, mail me at Arun George at 401 00:28:33,520 --> 00:28:35,040 timesgroup com.