While making the unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegation of how the
judiciary is scared of "five-star" activists belonging to NGOs, Prime
Minister Narendra Modi appears to have forgotten the intimidatory
presence in the background of outfits such as the RSS which can be
called non-state actors where his own government is concerned.
How
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh interacts with the ruling Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) can be seen from the regular meetings between its top
leaders with BJP president Amit Shah and other office-bearers. The
seconding of Ram Madhav, who was earlier a spokesman of the RSS, to the
government is only one example of the close ties between the pro-Hindu
organization and the government.
However, if the RSS influences
the government, the latter returns the compliment. This two-way
interaction can be surmised from the decision of the RSS to put the Ram
temple issue on hold, apparently in response to Modi's call for a
moratorium on sectarian tension in his Independence Day speech.
It
is also possible that the reason why the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, no
longer argues that all Indians are essentially Hindus is an internal
communication between him and the government.
Arguably, there is
nothing unusual about such interactions between different wings of what
the Hindutva camp claims to be one big "parivar" or family.
But
the point is that such exchanges between the RSS and the government take
place behind the scenes while there is nothing secret about the pleas
of the "five-star" activists, as the prime minister derisively calls the
various NGOs, before the judiciary.
Besides, not only are the
NGOs open to judicial and media scrutiny, but their emphasis is almost
always on public welfare irrespective of religious denominations.
It
is possible, of course, that there is a hidden political motive behind
some of their initiatives or that some of the activists push an agenda
which has the support of what Indira Gandhi used to call the "foreign
hand". Even then, what stands in favour of the activists is that their
intentions are liable to be revealed sooner or later as the lawyers for
and against them present their cases in open courts.
Unfortunately,
this isn't true of saffron organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP), for instance, which have always been associated with an
anti-minority outlook. What the general public will be grateful to the
government, therefore, is if it can keep outfits like these in check.
On
the other hand, the average citizen will expect the NGOs to continue to
function without fear or favour because they are known to comprise
people who, to a very large extent, have no axes to grind. The very fact
they occasionally run afoul of governments is testimony to their
impartiality. Moreover, in such cases, the government's charges, as
against Greenpeace, usually carry less conviction than the latter's
defences.
It will be a pity if India is to begin to resemble the
totalitarian and theocratic countries where NGOs are unwelcome. It has
to be remembered these are very much unlike the RSS or the VHP which are
opaque organizations which admit the followers of only one religion as
members.
It goes without saying that the three institutions which
enjoy considerable public trust are the judiciary, the media and the
NGOs. Of the three, the last two may have their faults, but they operate
in an open, competitive field where the slightest slip can be
disastrous for their future.
In contrast, the general reputation of politicians is hardly lily-white.
One
must be thankful that Indian democracy is far more vigorous today than,
say, four decades ago when large sections of the media were accused of
crawling before a draconian government. Such an eventuality is extremely
unlikely at present because of the huge proliferation of television
channels, newspapers and magazines, not to mention the social network
sites.
The judiciary, too, has recognized that the 1975-77
Emergency period was not its finest hour, as is evident from the
comments of P.N. Bhagwati, one of the judges who delivered the verdict
in the so-called habeas corpus case. According to him, his judgment was
"an act of weakness", adding that "it was against my conscience".
Although
the media is seemingly not under any overt official pressure, there is
little doubt that the NGOs have become somewhat more vulnerable, as the
recent deplaning of an environmentalist, who was on her way to Britain,
showed. As may be expected, it was the judiciary which came to her
rescue.
But the episode underlined the government's ire, which is
probably due to the fact that several NGOs had joined the National
Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for Minorities and the
Supreme Court to pillory the Gujarat government under Modi during the
2002 riots.
The apex court had then described the state's rulers
as "modern-day Neros" who fiddled while Gujarat burnt. Modi's charge
that the judges fear the NGOs is apparently a riposte to that accusation
12 years later.
(11.04.2015 - Amulya Ganguli is a political
analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at
[email protected])
