 |
|
Justice
H.R. Khanna Profile |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Saving
the tiger Presidents
and power of words On Record
|
Justice H.R. Khanna I had my first contact with him in 1954-55. Justice Khanna was then the District Judge Ambala. He had been appointed an inquiry officer to look into the police firing at Kalka when railway employees demonstrated against the Chairman of the Railway Board. I was a lawyer for the workmen and, though a comparatively junior, Justice Khanna was all politeness and considerate. In 1960 he was appointed a judge of the Punjab High Court. In 1966 when the Delhi High Court was constituted he was transferred to the Delhi High Court. He become the Chief Justice in 1969. He selected me as a judge of the Delhi High Court in 1970. Justice Khanna was elevated to the Supreme Court in September, 1971. In the Keshwanand Bharti case (1973), it was Justice Khanna’s decisive vote which laid down the law that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to alter its basic features – the greatest assurance against the subversion of democracy in our country. However the real strength of moral character of Khanna J. was shown in the ADM, Jabalpur, case, during the Emergency (1975), in the wake of the J.P. movement. Thousands vere detained. The Fundamental Rights, including that under Articled 21, were suspended. At that time the seniormost five judges of the Supreme Court were: 1 Chief Justice Ray (whom the government had appointed by superceding Hegde J and two other senior judges 2 Justice H.R. Khanna 3 Justice Beg 4 Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and 5 Justice P.N. Bhagwati. Everyone was seriously concerned that this matter be heard in an impartial manner and that no effort should be made by Chief Justice Ray to constitute a convenient bench of his own choosing. Luckily, we had stalwarts at the bar like Mr. Daphtary, the ex-Attorney General. He and other senior lawyers took the unprecedented step of meeting the Chief Justice and requesting him that the Bench be constituted of five seniormost judges. It was, of course, an unusual request but stakes for the preservation of democracy were very grave. Understandably, Chief Justice A.N. Ray was annoyed at this unusual request but had to concede the request. Those in the profession know well the rationale for this request. Lawyers assumed that though the Chief Justice and M. H. Beg J. would be taking a pro-government view, they in their innocence assumed that Y.V. Chandrachud J., and P.N. Bhagwati J., who used to tub-thump their commitment to human rights and freedom of expression, would possibly vote against the curtailment of basic rights of citizens. They were, to put it frankly, not sure of Justice Khanna’s thinking (quiet and unassuming as he was) but were prepared to take a chance with him considering his impeccable honesty and commitment to moral values. But when the judgement came in April, 1976, it was only the quiet and unassuming Justice Khanna, who kept the flag of citizens’ right aloft – once again a reaffirmation of the truth that a judge with a conscience is far superior to a judge though more versed in law but weak on moral strength. Such occasions are rare in one’s life, but then it is at such times that a person’s commitment to real human rights values comes to the fore – when personal interests are thrown away at the alter of one’s conscience – and Justice Khanna alone came flying high, against his so-called much publicised judges swearing verbally by human rights. I know the mind process of this judgement and hearing, a little more intimately because of my close relations with Justice Khanna. I remember after a week or 10 days of the start of hearing, Justice Khanna told me “Rajindar, one judge (I guessed it was Bhagwati) is going on to the other side. Another week later Khanna said he was now alone (Chandrachud had also crossed to the other side). Some time in February or March 1976, I went to pay a courtsey call to Justice Khanna at his official residence. After some talk, he took me inside his office and, pointing to a closed bag, told me that he was deciding against the government, knowing fully well that it would cost him his Chief Justiceship but that he could not be false to his conscience. The judgement was given in April, 1976, with Justice Khanna being the sole dissent. I am highlighting this because some interested persons later on, when Khanna J was superceded and resigned, uncharitably suggested that Khanna would not have written a dissenting judgement if he knew that he would be superceded, indicating with tongue-in-cheek that he would have also wilted like some of them as they did for personal considerations. Such suggestions always shocked me, coming as they did from small men who did not have the grace to salute Justice Khanna’s courage. That is why I am emphasising that he was fully conscious of the consequences of his dissent. I also remember that I met him in Delhi in early January, 1977, hoping that the government would keep the grace of not denying his rightful claim to Chief Justiceship (Justice A.N. Ray was retiring on 28/1/1977) but Justice Khanna did not think so. I remember having telephoned him from Jaipur where I had been transferred after the parliamentary elections were announced and expressing the hope that the Central Government would not stoop so low, considering that his Chief Justiceship was only for a few months (Ray was retiring in January,1977 and Justice Khanna on 3rd July, 1977), thus most of this period was the vacation period, but Justice Khanna did not think so and insisted that he had no regrets as he had acted at the dictate of his conscience. Justice Khanna was superceded and he resigned on 29/1/1977. The Bar and the public, it is a matter of supreme satisfaction, duly recognised his moral stand. Apart from the plaudits from the world over, including an editorial in The New York Times, the legal fraternity idolised him as an icon, an example, maybe not the most brilliant, but certainly the most conscientious judge that we have had in the Supreme Court. The Bar paid him the rare tribute by placing his portrait in Court No 2 as a mark of its deepest and permanent respect for him. Had two other judges in the Jabalpur case shown the moral stamina to have agreed with Khanna – it is accepted in legal circles that Justice Khanna’s view was the correct one – the Emergency would have ended as it would not have been possible to keep J.P. and thousands others in prison any longer with the obvious consequences - and we also would have been spared the taunting remark of President Reagan in 1976 that the USA was now the largest democracy (though his boast lasted a short time) Such was the shining character of Justice Khanna. His approach to life, law and democracy can be spelled out by some of the passages in the ADM Jabalpur judgement, where he said: “Cannot we also say with justifiable pride that this sacred land shall not suffer an eclipse of the rule of law and that the Constitution and the laws of India do not permit life and liberty to be at the mercy of absolute power of the Executive, a power against which there can be no redress in courts of law, even if it chooses to act contrary to law or in an arbitrary and capricious manner”. But the other two judges did not show the courage, and this case will continue to haunt the judicial fraternity; and we will never be able to live it down. We salute Justice Khanna for his courage and moral
fervour.
|
|
Profile He had told the policy-makers in New Delhi that he did not want to be in the US after his present term expired at the end of March. He even scheduled a final farewell reception at this residence. The decision-makers in Delhi, who had earlier decided not to give Sen an extension, suddenly realised that his continuance would be helpful in the successful conclusion of the nuclear deal with the US, which is now at a crucial stage. He has, after all, been a key figure in the prolonged nuclear negotiations with Washington. So he was given a year’s extension. Rare are the persons who become indispensible and Sen turned out to be one of them The 64-year-old diplomat, who has been India’s Ambassador in the US since 2004, is credited with the consolidation of Indo-US relations, besides being one of the architects of the nuclear deal. Though the deal is entering the final stage, it’s fate is still unknown. Washington is evidently very happy at the extension of Sen’s tenure and feels it would help bilateral ties to grow in a “positive manner”. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns have been quoted as saying “it means that the positive direction that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush have given (to bilateral relations) is going to continue”. Sen is known to be a media-friendly diplomat and has many close friends in the journalist fraternity. This correspondent, having known him quite intimately since the time when he was Joint Secretary in Rajiv Gandhi’s PMO, has seen his style of functioning. Besides briefing the Prime Minister on international issues, he used to prepare briefs for the PM’s talks with heads of governments of other countries. He was easily accessible to correspondents covering the PMO, would take them in-to his confidence and brief them on crucial issues. Of course, such interactions were a background briefing and very useful after bilateral meetings. During Rajiv Gandhi’s foreign visit, he would even share the brief he had prepared for the high-level talks with the correspondents he trusted. As a matter of fact, he feels relaxed in the company of scribes. Sen was never so let down as he was when the editor of Rediff India Abroad telephoned him. The conversation, as the Ambassador claims, was off-the-record and the comment –” running around like a headless chicken looking for a comment here or a comment there “ – was a tactless observation meant for the media. The comment indeed landed Sen in serious trouble as MPs inferred it was meant for them. He did not deserve the embarrassment that he had to face and that too being media-friendly. Apparently, howsoever big a journalist maybe, he never conducts an interview on a sensitive subject like the nuclear deal on the telephone. Rediff India Abroad claimed that the Ambassador was called at his residence to get his thoughts on the debate in New Delhi over the US-India nuclear agreement. One wonders if an Ambassador, howsoever brilliant he maybe, can express his thoughts explicitly and cogently on such a susceptible matter as the nuclear deal in an on-record telephonic interview. Sen’s career graph has been impressive indeed. Having joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1966, he was an Ambassador to Mexico in 1991-92; Ambassador to the Russian Federation from 1992 to 1998; Ambassador to Germany from 1998 to 1999; and High Commissioner to the United Kingdom from May, 2002, to April,
2004.
|
|
I don’t have to account for it (Rs 60, 000 crore loan waiver) right now. This money was out of the banking system and they would have recovered some part of it over a few years. Now our job is to provide them a level of liquidity to deal with the amount they will not get. The details will be announced when they are ready. — Finance Minister P. Chidambaram The waiver announced can only be effective if the same farmers who get the waiver in the next two years do not fall into debt again. —Amit Mitra, General Secretary, FICCI The loan waiver move might send wrong signals to various sections of society. —Sunil Mittal, President, CII —Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi We are not looking at deadlines. It takes two hands to clap. We are hoping to wrap up the IAEA safeguards agreement. — Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon —CPM leader Sitaram Yechury The more the fathers take responsibility for things at home, the less divorces you have. There’s a direct correlation. It is, of course, also about respecting each other and trying to make life easier for each other. —Stefan Wallin, Finland’s Minister for Culture and Sports —Mahesh Bhupathi —Ishant Sharma The police globally needs a mindset change while handling rape cases. Since 88% of the rapes were done by people known to the victims, there usually arose a situation where there was no witnesses, no injuries, no evidence and the alleged offender always used the alibi that the act took place with consent. —Dave Gee, Adviser to the UK Home Office on rape and sexual offences and homicide
|
Saving the tiger Elaborating further on the interrogative “why” to our quest for preserving the Royal Bengal Tiger species in the wilderness in India, let us not forget that first and foremost the tiger is India’s national animal. And therefore it is one of the icons of our nationhood. Now that the Government of India has conceded that we are left with less than 1,200 tigers, the question which begs the answer is: how shall we save the species from imminent extinction? Perhaps we can draw strength by recalling experiences from the last century where certain mammal and bird species were successfully provided a second lease of life, and draw lessions therefrom to mitigate the current tiger crisis facing us. We have the case when in 1903 the eight Asiatic lions in the Gir forest constituted the only surviving pride of lions in the entire world. It was a common practice in colonial India for the rulers of the princely states to host the Viceray over the Christmas week. So the Nawab of Junagadh conceived the idea of tempting Lord Curzon with what would virtually be the last hunt in Asia for a lion trophy. Making departure with protocol, Lord Curzon replied in person to the Nawab. He declined his gracious invitation, inveigled with him to ban lion hunting altogether and protect the Gir forests so that the Asiatic lion may survive to perpetuity. This provides us the finest example where the astute vision of the head of a Government coupled with an unwavering political will saved a mammal species from the very jaws of extinction. Lord Curzon’s successors and the Nawabs of Junagadh kept up that resolve so that on India’s Independence in 1947 there were about 62 Asiatic lions in the Gir. Today they number more than 300! Moving on to 1972 we arrive at the fateful year when the Arabian Oryx was declared extinct from the wild. And with that we come to the story where philanthropy of a handful petro-dollar rich princes of the UAE has aided the reintroduction of this speices. Starting in the 1980s, in zealously guarded and regularly patrolled selected areas on the Arabian peninsula, where about 800 captively bred Arabian Oryx were released in trickle now and then, a new lease of life was provided to this species. This is a beginning of what may be the only initiative in the reintroduction of a species after total extinction. One crucial factor of success was that in Saudi Arabia alone a mind-boggling 2200 sq miles area for reintroduction was totally fenced-in which, without philanthropy, is simply unthinkable. At this stage, it is essential for me to state emphatically that as of now, unfortunately, there has been very little success with reintroducing hand-reared or captively bred carnivore to the wild. George and Joy Adamson, who left India in the 1940s to settle in S. Africa, tried to release in the wild their hand-reared, orphaned lion cubs. These animals were either not canny enough or were wanting in physical vitality to stand up to their free-ranging members. The attempts failed to establish a precedence. In India, “Billy” Arjun Singh, now an octogenerian, attempted to hand-rear a female tiger cub born in and purchased from the London zoo, with the idea of ultimately releasing it in the Dudhwa tiger reserve. He fared better than the Adamsons in as much that Harriet did made with a free-ranging tiger, littered in the wild but brought the week-old cubs back, one by one to a room in Tiger Haven, Billy’s home on the fringes of Dudhwa! The story beyond is marred in controversy whether Harriet and her progency perished through deliberately poisoned baits by the Forest Department or at the hands of poachers? A similar attempt by Billy with a leopard cub (Prince) also remained an inconclusive venture. Antagonists of the tiger conservation idea will be quick to point out that in Texas there as nearly 3,000 tigers (Royal Bengal and Sumatran species) living in captivity inside large enclosures on the ranches of the rich Americans. But this in no way can be a living gene pool for us to reintroduce them in our wilds for two basic imponderables. First, there are no reports yet of their having littered in capivity in Texas. If they do and by the time we hand-rear them in India, they may meet the same fate as Harriet’s progeny. Worse, by then their natural prey base in India’s wilds would have diminished forcing them to become cattle or man eaters. And the same disadvantage will be faced even if we were to purchase adults from this lot in Texas and reintroduce them after the extirpation of the species from its habitat. We must save en block the last 1,000-odd surviving tigers and their habitat and create conditions for the numbers to multiply to about 5,000 animals or else India and the world would lose the tiger species from the wild — for ever. The only option left with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is to simply fall in the footsteps of Lord Curzon. Let us remind him of his pledge to the nation, not long ago, that he will not allow another Sariska to befall the tiger. Now he must stand up and match his words with deeds before it is too
late.
|
|
Presidents and power of words Must
a president be eloquent to be successful? That question has sparked a heated quarrel between the campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The senator from New York stresses "results, not rhetoric," while her rival contends that a leader has to inspire Americans in order to produce "a new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness." In politics as in poker, each candidate plays his or her strongest cards and suspects the opponent of bluffing. Yet the importance of this question shouldn't be lost amid the clamor of a hard-fought campaign. Political oratory is an ancient craft. As the federal government grew in size and complexity through the 20th century, Americans increasingly expected presidents to make the enterprise of governing seem personal, comprehensible and uplifting. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were the first chief executives who understood this desire and worked hard to satisfy it. Both frequently left Washington to deliver speeches around the nation, and nearly every successor has followed their lead. Yet only a few presidents have done so in a way that launched a new political era. The difference between merely competent presidential rhetoric and rhetoric that has helped transform the nation brings to mind Mark Twain's famous line about the "difference between the almost-right word and the right word is ... the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." Particularly at a time of national crisis, the quality of oratory can make or break a president. Take the contrast between Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Before he ascended to the White House, Hoover was a national hero: a self-made millionaire who organized food deliveries to millions of refugees during World War I and won the 1928 election in a landslide. Unfortunately, he viewed speechmaking as more a duty to inform than an art that persuades; one associate quipped that listening to him was like taking a bath in a tub of ink. This proved to be a severe handicap at the onset of the Great Depression. Hoover took quick and vigorous action to reverse the economic slide, including instituting a big tax cut and boosting spending on public works and relief for the unemployed. But his dour style gave Americans the false impression that he neither understood nor cared about their plight. FDR defeated Hoover in 1932 without advocating a real break from his predecessor's policies. In fact, the Democratic platform that year actually called for "an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures" by 25 percent. But Roosevelt was a master at conveying hope and confidence. Although the millions of Americans who were jobless, homeless and hungry had a good deal more to fear than fear itself, his first inaugural address began to knit a close bond between the public and its president. FDR's warm, avuncular tone in subsequent performances - both formal speeches and his "fireside chats" - convinced Americans that such programs as the WPA and Social Security were acts of common decency instead of steps toward socialism, as his critics on the right described them. Three decades later, a new generation of conservatives came to view Reagan as their own FDR. Reagan launched his political career in 1964 with a bravura defense of Barry Goldwater's doomed presidential campaign. This stand on principle helped him win the governorship of California and, in 1980, the presidency. Upon taking office, Reagan began to gain the public's confidence by speaking in forthright, colorful ways about the burning issues of a stagnant economy and the Soviet Union's apparent gains in the Cold War. By contrast, Jimmy Carter's hand-wringing pathos had made him seem impotent. Much like FDR, Reagan used his eloquence quite self-consciously to unite a new majority coalition around his political vision. In this sense, Obama was correct when he said in January that the 40th president "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Reagan, a onetime New Dealer, could switch deftly between a spiritual and a secular mode as he ridiculed haughty liberals and expressed his faith in what Americans could do if freed from the shackles of "big government." With partisan loyalties weakening, Reagan usually depicted himself as less a conservative Republican than an insurgent outsider who fit none of the traditional political categories. Of course, FDR and Reagan didn't transform American politics simply by giving enthralling speeches. Each man was fortunate to win the White House at a time when his opponents were discredited and dispirited. Major demographic groups were also turning their way - black and white ethnic workers for FDR, the white South and insecure middle-class Northerners for Reagan.n By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
On Record
A former president of the Youth Congress and the NSUI, Manish Tiwari (42) was recently appointed a spokesperson of the Congress and is the youngest member of the panel. As an AICC secretary, he has worked in several states and articulated the party's viewpoint at various fora. Hailing from Punjab, he enjoys a good rapport with all senior leaders
from the state. Excerpts: Q. How do you look at the string of reverses the Congress suffered in the assembly polls last year? A. Some states were lost by default. For example, in Punjab the Congress is still the largest party in the legislature. Our vote share actually went up by almost 4 per cent compared to the 2004 Lok Sabha polls. Had we paid a little more attention to the urban areas, we would have gone through. The Congress has been out of power in the state for 17 years which has weakened its organisational structure. We were not able to rejuvenate it to the extent required. In Himachal Pradesh the pattern for the past two decades has been a change of government in every assembly poll. So while collectively it may look that the Congress has suffered a string of reverses, if we go to the states individually, there is no reasons for disillusionment. Electoral reverses should be taken in the stride and the party has done that. It steels our resolve not only to do better in these states but others also. Q. At the last AICC session, the Congress talked about regaining its pre-eminent position in terms of its strength in various states. What is the party's stand on coalitions? A. Any political party will obviously like a situation where it is able to run the government on its own. While regaining our pre-eminent position may be a long-term objective, in the short and medium term adjustments have to be made so that the idea of India, which is at the heart of Congress ideology, is not assaulted by the forces of fascism. Q. How do you look at the allegations that the government is succumbing to pressure from the allies? A.
In any coalition you have to be sensitive to the concerns of allies. While some of these concerns are part of the National Common Minimum Programme, others find reflection as you go along with the process of governance. The need is to reconcile conflicting viewpoints and try to move ahead. The question is not of succumbing to pressure from the allies but to see how best you can understand their concerns and respond to them in a manner that does not compromise the larger direction which you have set for yourself. Q. The NDA has announced its prime ministerial candidate for the next Lok Sabha elections. Who will be the Congress candidate? A.
The problem with the BJP is that it has candidates for posts that are not even vacant. The term of the Lok Sabha ends only in next May, so it is really a hypothetical question. We will cross the bridge when
we come to it. Q. Will you go to the Lok Sabha polls with a prime ministerial candidate? A.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi had led us in the last polls. It was she who was chosen by consensus to lead the UPA. She decided that rather than her, it would be Dr Manmohan Singh who would lead the government. The next polls too will be fought under the leadership of Mrs Sonia Gandhi. Q. Does it also mean she will be the prime ministerial candidate? A.
The party in 2004 had wanted that she should lead the government but she decided otherwise. It is of course the feeling of rank and file but eventually the party's aspirations in this regard would be circumscribed by her wisdom. Q. How is the Congress preparing for assembly elections this year? A.
The election process is already under way in Meghalaya, Tripura and Nagaland. Among the remaining states, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh are ruled by the BJP. Delhi is the only state ruled by the Congress. The strategy in the Opposition-ruled states is to expose the track record of the state government as well as present an alternative vision of development. In Delhi a substantive amount of work has been done in the last 10 years. I do not see any reason why the Congress would not be able to defeat the BJP in the states ruled by the Opposition party and hold its own in others. Q. How do you see the party's prospects in
Karnataka? A. The party is well placed in the state. We have a vibrant state unit. The JD(S)-BJP government has run amuck in the state and people are fed up with these
parties.
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
O
W
I belong to the land of (king) Manu Chola, who refused to pardon his son because he (the prince) accidentally killed a calf.
The entire thrust of the economic survey is to encourage FDI or pursue the public-private partnership route. This sort of economic process, which brought about discrepancies between the rich and the poor will lead the Indian economy to a greater disaster.
Leander has been unfortunately pushed into captaincy when he’s still playing singles and doubles. All over the world, it’s a non-playing captain.
It’s important to be aggressive on the field at all times. That’s very important in modern-day cricket. I wouldn’t advocate a total ban on sledging because you can’t be playing with your mouth sealed.
B