Defining Right as Wrong
By K.G. Kannabiran
The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
-- Milan Kundera
Dr. Kancha Illaiah's "Spiritual Fascism and Civil Society" published
in Deccan Chronicle dated 15 February 2000 invited censure from the Registrar
of the Osmania University though couched in the form of advice. The copies are
marked to the Secretary, Vice Chancellor and to the Principal, University College
of Arts and Science which manifest a clear intention that the letter is official
and the copy of the letter will be lodged in the personal file of Dr. Illaiah.
The second paragraph of his letter dated May 6 reads: "Basically being
teachers, we are bound to contribute towards upliftment of society of every
segment of society, promote social harmony and emotional integration. We have
to positively ensure that either our writings or any other action do not in
any way lend a slant to accentuating existing prejudices and inflame hatred
among different sections of the people. You are requested to keep these in mind
and discharge your role as a teacher with greater vigour and vitality to the
betterment of the society as a whole" (The emphasis is mine).
It is a finding and a censure rolled into one. The paragraph sets parameters
for academic writing not only to Dr. Illaiah but to others as well. This raises
questions of the right to free speech and academic freedom as well. The Supreme
Court in 1994 in Gajanan Vishweshwar Birjur pointed out that thought control
is alien to the Constitutional scheme and values and went on to say that ideas
can never be suppresses and that suppression drives them underground. As a policy
it can never be successful. Any surface serenity it creates will be a false
one. Our Constitution permits free trade in ideas says the Court. Free trade
in ideas is the expression used by the American Supreme Court. The Holmes-Brandeis
tradition, which has been commended by the Court, is a complete vindication
of Dr. Illaiah right to free speech.
In Abrams vs. US Justice Holmes talks about free trade in ideas. The issue was
the language used into two leaflets published by Russian immigrants who claimed
that they were socialists and anarchists, supporting the Russian Revolution.
This was immediately after seizure of power by Bolsheviks. In that context delivering
the dissenting judgement Justice Holmes said: "But men have realized that
time has upset many fighting faiths they may come to believe even more than
the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good is better reached
by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought
to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and truth is the only
ground upon which their wishes can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory
of our Constitution. It is an experiment as all life is an experiment. Every
year if not every day we have to wager our salvation on some prophecy based
upon imperfect knowledge."
Continuing the trend set by Holmes Justice Brandeis pointed out that men feared
witches and burnt women and that the function of free speech is to free men
from bondage of such irrational fears and proceeded to set down the ambit and
scope of free speech: "If there be time to expose through discussion the
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the
remedy to be applied is more free speech, not enforced silence… Such must
be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such in my opinion
is the command of the constitution." This should be the perspective excepting
the periods of grave emergency. This ratio formed the basis of late Justice
Madhava Reddy in his dissenting opinion when a collection of poems entitled
"March" upheld by the Supreme Court when our High Court judgement
upholding the proscribing order was relied upon. Justice Iyer recommended to
the Government the dictum of Mao - "let a thousand blossoms bloom"
The Holmes - Brandeis tradition informed out approach to free speech. The period
between 1969 and 1975 and brought a repressive state into existence for the
first time after independence. There was resistance against these trends and
when these issues went before the Courts they endorsed the liberal values as
law until ADM Jabalpur informed us that the last bastion of democracy went under
but not without a powerful dissent by Justice Khanna. The State initiated an
authoritarian tradition, which is continuing even today., of using law not to
promote democracy but to negate it. This tradition led to the arresting writers
and thinkers as also proscribing their writings.
Among poets and writers who were arrested only to restrain their right to freedom
of expression are Cherabandaraju, Nikhileshwar, Jwalamukhi, K.V. Ramana Reddy,
Bojja Thrakam, Varavara Rao, Rajalochan, M.T. Khan, and Keshava Rao Jadhav.
Almost all of them are teachers. There was also in existence a defying liberal
tradition. Despite the fact that all suffered long periods of detention they
were not shown the door by reason of such incarceration by the institutions
in which they worked. Apart from this a tradition of proscribing writings also
grew. The collection of poems entitled 'Jhanjha', March 'Ley', brought out by
the Revolutionary Writers, issues of Srujana and Pilupu a periodical and a news
magazine, Bhavishyat Chitrpatam, a collection of poems by Varavara Rao and Marichika
by Vasireddi Sitha Devi were proscribed by the state and these were banned as
seditious literature. None of these orders were allowed to stand excepting March
and Jhanjha. The Court trying of these orders were allowed to stand accepting
writings were neither seditious nor conspiratorial. The present debate is to
prevent appropriation of that tradition by the University.
Despite the accelerating Naxalbari movements of the sixties of the last century and the rumblings of the 1975 Emergency courts were upholding liberal values. When Jwalamukhi Nikhileswar and Cherabandaraju were detained under the AP Preventive Detention Act 1970 the Act was struck by a Bench presided over by Justice Chinnappa Reddy. It was the judges who were known to be conservative who realized quite a few persons arrested under the Maintenance of the Internal Security Act. Cherabandaraju Rajalochan were restored to their jobs by the judgment of a Bench presided over by late Justices Madhavareddy and Mukthadar.
While the Government persecuted them for their writings the institutions where
they worked had a very liberal democratic attitude. All these writers were committed
to bringing about a social change and were actively involved in the process.
When compared to that Ilaiah's article on the caste system is within the Constitutional
framework.
While Dr. Illaiah cannot be accused of sedition can he be accused of bringing
about hatred between castes and communities? Does a citizen who works for the
abolition of the caste system be accused of promoting hatred between castes?
Mistaken and misconceived approach to these issues may bring about the results,
which we want to prevent. In Calcutta High Court a citizen moved a petition
to ban the Quran and wanted the Court to direct that all the copies of the Holy
Book be forfeited to the state almost for similar reasons. The petition was
dismissed but not before the Court pointed that that the petitioner by filing
this petition acted in a manner, which will promote hatred between the communities,
which he wanted to avoid by asking for a ban on Quran. This was in 1986. In
1988 the film, Tamas based on Bhishma Sahani's fiction reached the Supreme Court.
It is about partition and the travails of people caught in these areas. The
film portrayed carnage and violence that happened during partition. The petitioner
wanted the license to screen this film withdrawn. The Supreme Court refused
to grant this request. As with the article with the Deccan Chronicle the petitioner
was of the view that depicting the violence in the manner the film did would
incite people to communal violence. Depicting history they felt was not an offence.
They pointed out those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. The Court
pointed out, "It is out of the tragic experience of the past that we can
fashion our present in a rational and reasonable manner and view our future
with wisdom and care. Awareness in proper light is a first step towards realization."
The Court was also quick to point out that people will also come to know the
machinations of the fundamentalists and the extremists who have an interest
in such conflicts.
The Constitution was brought into force on 26 January 1950: and it declared;
1. that caste, race, religion and sex are irrelevant considerations in the social
and economic life of the people; 2. it specifically declared that every person
has a right of access to public tanks, places of public resort hotels etc. 3.
every person despite his creed, caste or sex has a right to enter places of
public worship; 4. Scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes and backward classes on
account of social deprivation for centuries are entitled to protection and their
right to reservation of seats and jobs in government services are a part of
equality assured in Article 15 & 16 of the Constitution. 5. In recognition
of the minority status their institutions have been granted freedom to administer
them. 6. In view of the plurality of religions and sects freedom of conscience
has been guaranteed. 7. Bonded labour and child labour were abolished. 8. Directive
principles and the Preamble clearly set out the duties and the objectives to
be achieved by the STATE AND ITS INSTITUTIONS.
After fifty years no institution in this Country ever tried to enforce the Constitution.
A Party whose members swore to uphold the Constitution when they entered the
parliament brought down a Government for upholding the principles of Secularism
and reservation and are now pleading for an uninterrupted five year period for
themselves. Bonded labour and child labour abound despite subsequent legislation
to regulate and eliminate these practices. Violence against women and discrimination
against them continue; violence against Dalits and tribes are on the increase,
and a special penal legislation had to be passed to check this violence two
and a half decades after the Constitution. Social and economic deprivation and
immiseration is on the increase. All of these is borne by the Dalits and backward
classes. Attacks on two minorities, for the present, are on the increase. In
rural areas in several parts of the country untouchability, including barring
of temple entry, is still practiced.
A sensitive person is bound to be righteously indignant by this state of affairs.
And Dr. Ilaiah is one such person. He is campaigning for enforcing the promises
made by the Constitution. The University is angry with Dr. Illaiah for taking
Dr. Ambedkar and the Constitution seriously. Persons in authority never felt
any need for free speech. Free speech is an obstacle to career ambitions and
social climbing. The articles touch upon RSS Godse and the like without being
vitriolic. The self-imposed burden of a civil or public servant is to protect
the men in power, ostensible and real, because genuine criticism more than defamatory
or vitriolic unsettles power welders. But then the University is granted autonomy
not to run a private tyranny but to keep it away. Fascism resides in a democracy
and believes in friendly persuasion by getting you used to be as innocuous as
possible. If you can not be reined in, pilliwinks will be applied to set you
right
(PUCL Bulletin, Aug 2000)