Shri ram ji

The great legal Philosopher and Reformer of the 19th Century Jeremy Bentham produced his greatest work “ The Theory of Legislation” in the first half of the 19th Century. The book propounded the great Principle Of Utility a veritable working Manual for law makers all over the world.

“ THE PUBLIC GOOD ought to be the object of the Legislator, GENERAL UTILITY ought to be the foundation of his reasonings. To know the true good of the community is what constitutes the science of legislation; the art consists in finding the means to realize that good”.

The lesson was simple yet profound. Elaborating this principle he propounded that nature has placed man under the realm of pleasure and pain. To these man owes his ideas, judgments and determination of his life. Evil is pain or the cause of pain. Good is pleasure or productive of pleasure. The criminal law prescribes a series of punishments for different acts and omissions. Every punishment produces pain at least to him on whom it is inflicted. Punishment, therefore, is an evil. Its only justification is that it prevents a greater evil or produces in some other or others or the general public much more pleasure. From these two principles he had no difficulty in formulating the principles on which a rational Penal Code should be constructed.

The High Court of Delhi earlier this month produced a memorable judgment declaring a Section of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 as constitutionally invalid. Lord Macaulay and his fellow Commissioners who framed that Code had presumably not taken Bentham’s teachings seriously, at least when they introduced their notion of Victorian morality into this section and made it part of our criminal law.

Voluntarily having intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal is declared a serious crime for which the punishment may well extend to 10 years and fine or both. As judicially interpreted and noticed by the Delhi High Court sexual activities hit are the following:

1. Intercourse by a man with a woman other than vaginal; such as involving the anus, mouth or any other orifice in the human body;

2. Intercourse with any male involving the anus or any other orifice;

3. Act commonly known as practice of bestiality.

Section 377 by its marginal note classifies all three as ‘unnatural offences’ and the text of the Section stigmatizes the intercourse as carnal and against the order of nature. Macaulay did not know that the fish, iguana lizards, roosters, dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, lions and many other species mount others of the same sex. Even cows in heat are known to mount other cows. Homosexual behaviour is so rampant in non human species that it is difficult to justify the epithet unnatural for this behaviour.

Bentham rightly dismissed these acts as offending good taste. Neither he nor any other rational person would see in these actions any element of producing the evil of pain. Of course my assumption is that intercourse is by free consent and does not involve minors who are incapable of consenting to remain untouched by the Section.

The Delhi High Court judgment is full of learning and references to literature on psychiatry, genetics, religion and Court judgments delivered in other jurisdiction, particularly the United States and Canada. It refers to the report of the British Wolfenden Committee and the Sexual Offences Act, 1967, by which English law de-criminalized homosexuality. It fortifies its conclusions by the 172nd report of the Law Commission which also took the same view: ‘Section 377 in its present form has to go’.

Many years ago, when my friend Soli Sorabjee was the Attorney General he and I both attended a meeting of the faculty and students at Harvard. I distinctly remember both of us having told our audience that the Indian Government is seriously engaged in deliberations and in all probability the law will be substantially amended and brought into conformity with the new enlightened attitudes in which now pervade world of genetics, crimes and criminology.

The Delhi High Court judgment for which I have already paid my respectful compliments to its scholarly Chief Justice and his companion Judge is substantially based upon the citizen’s right to privacy and a life of dignity. The Court correctly concluded that these rights can only be subordinated to some overriding public interest. Counsel for the Union of India could not point out any and the Court rightly rejected his feeble argument that it is a law which in some remote way promotes public health. The submission was in the teeth of the view of the American Psychiatric Association presented to the United States Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Lawrence v. Texas :

“According to current scientific and professional understanding, however, the core feelings and attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. Moreover, these patterns of sexual attraction generally arise without any prior sexual experience.

Thus, homosexuality is not a disease or mental illness that needs to be, or can be, ‘cured’ or ‘altered’, it is just another expression of human sexuality”.

Now the view for which the Additional Solicitor General canvassed was the view of the Home Ministry with which the Ministry of Health did not agree. To the best of my knowledge it has never happened that in a public hearing before a High Court two departments of the same Government made conflicting and irreconcilable submissions. I hope before the Supreme Court the Government will put its house in order. I can trust the Attorney General to do so.

What further surprises me, is that the most effective 8th Respondent namely the National Aid Control Organization (NACO) did not seek the assistance of Bentham’s powerful argument which any Court should normally consider almost conclusive. Some one should have done it any way.

Unfortunately homosexuality in India as in many other countries attracts intense antipathy which may well be called Homophobia. In popular language it means fear and dislike of homosexuality and of those who practice it. The word, which may have been coined in the 1960s, was used by K. T. Smith in 1971 in an article entitled “Homophobia: A Tentative Personality Profile. In 1972, George Weinberg’s book ‘Society and the Healthy Homosexual’ defined it as “the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals.” Mark Freedman added to that definition a description of homophobia as an extreme rage and fear reaction to homosexuals.

It must be emphasized that the Delhi Judgment does not recommend homosexuality or even approve of it. I am revolted by it without denying that all males usually in early adolescence go through a phase of it particularly in societies where the free mingling of the two sexes is taboo. In most cases it is not a free preference but a forced choice when better alternatives are scarce. I am sure my revulsion is shared by the two Judges. But we are sensible enough not to compel others to experience the same feeling or at least put on a false mask. It is obnoxious arrogance to claim that my

conduct is natural and others violative of nature. It is pure tyranny to send others to prison because their tastes are not mine. The Constitution of India does not tolerate such tyranny.

No legislator or ruler can tell those who obey his laws “I am one of the elect, and God takes care to enlighten the elect as to what is good and what is evil. He reveals himself to me and speaks by my mouth. All you who are in doubt, come and receive the Oracle of God;” thus wrote Bentham.

A short reference to the history of homosexuality is called for. During the Greco Roman period, there is ample evidence to show that homosexual behavior between men as well as between women was common - and within clear conventional limits – approved. Literature dealing with the customs of Jews and earlier Christians however, does reflect a general aversion to homosexual behavior which was seen as an emblem of decadent paganism – godless, debauched, and heretical. For both Jews and early Christians, the Old Testament story of the destruction of Sodom became the foundation text of ‘homophobia’, even though neither Jews nor early Christians, including Christ himself, unanimously interpreted it as a text condemning homosexual behavior.

During the next thousand years between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Renaissance the Roman Catholic Church condemned any nonprocreative act between persons of either sex. Pope Gregory IX called sodomites ‘abominable persons- despised by the world and dreaded by the council of heaven’. In the late 13th

Century the first case of a homosexual being burnt at the stake came to be staged. Even Protestantism was as rigorous in its condemnation.

In the 19th Century homophobia turned into hysteria. Lord Macaulay imported it into India. Homophobia is thus a western product which was unknown to sexually free India. The Delhi High Court can take credit through its judgment that India is going back to its enlightened roots. Oscar Wilde and his boy friend Alfred Douglas had already shocked the Victorian Britishers. They initiated the end of Homophobia.

Our earth is a crowded planet and can not sustain more humans. Semitic religions condemn pederasty because it does not add to the population. Malthusian wisdom which I endorse fully is a credit item in the balance sheet of homosexuality.

( RAM JETHMALANI

Date : 17-5-2009
Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Congratulations on what you have achieved!! You were and are the best Prime Minister available to the nation. You may out of politeness attribute your success to others but I won’t be convinced even if you swear an affidavit.
What pleases me beyond measure is the well deserved emasculation of the antinational Left. No longer will I hear some Congressmen contemplating another bout of illicit intimacy with them.
I want India to become a more resolute and active partner with other secular democracies to exterminate the scourge of terrorism more lethal than ever by its invoking the aid of Islam which neither they nor a good part of the Moslem world understand. It is tragic the Moslem intellectuals have failed us so far.
Strengthening Pakistan’s fragile democracy and even a preemptive strike to prevent the Taliban from acquiring a nuclear weapon should be your immediate concerns.
Repatriation of enormous Indian wealth concealed by crooks in foreign Banks, identification and punishment of the culprits involved are imperatives. I hope there will be no ridiculing or obstructing the effort of good citizens. Did you call this a election stunt? I did not hear it and I cannot believe it either.
You and your Party have already anointed your successor. My scepticism is not a secret. I believe the young man needs ten years intensive education and experience to qualify. The job is too demanding and difficult. My assessment may be wrong or unfair but it is honest. My only defence is ‘Satyameva Jayate’.
Soniaji and her immediate family have not been cured of their allergy to me. I must confess that I have done nothing to redress it and have certainly accentuated it by my plain speaking.
I wish you a full and glorious tenure.
With best wishes,
Sincerely your,

RAM JETHMALANI
Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
Government of India,
7 Race Course Road,
New Delhi.

Ram Jethmalani

The heat and dust of a mind boggling election are mercifully behind us. Looking back one can not but admire the role of the Election Commission of India. It is doubtless the fulcrum of our democratic machinery. How millions holding their identity cards braved the inclement weather and the never ending lines at polling booths is a tribute to the democratic spirit of our citizens and the efficiency and impartiality of the Commission. Both do us proud.

I wish I could pay some tribute to the Press. Leaving aside some rare exceptions, it has only educated people to approach printed matter with absolute distrust. Perceptive readers are truly revolted by its corrupt sycophancy and venal partisanship. Take only one instance. No one could have failed to notice how much space and exposure were provided to Rahul Gandhi and only this morning it has gleefully reported that the ‘Baton has passed to Rahul’. ‘‘Manmohan is dead and long live Rahul’ is even exalted to the level of divine prophesy on the authority of a little known astrologer who claims to have glanced at the horoscopes of the two men but has not bothered to see the natal chart of the Congress Party. Why has the entire press not asked a few simple questions from the Prince Charming the answers to which would have helped the citizens to assess the qualifications of their future ruler? Let me do that inconvenient job for the enlightenment of our newspapers and television channels.

(1) Your late father was cruelly assassinated by the LTTE in a diabolical plot because your father had in the first instance befriended Prabhakaran and even financed him and later sent the Indian army into SriLanka to destroy his movement and comrades. Where do you stand? Was your father right on the earlier occasion or on the later or on both?

(2) Your party has been running a coalition government in partnership with the DMK. Have you ever discussed with them the Sri Lanka question and agreed on a common policy for the Government of India? Has this policy been recorded in any official or party papers or even in your private diary? Have you ever spoken or written about it and are you prepared to tell us about it now?

(3) Have you noticed the common elements of the predicament India is facing vis a vis Pakistan and its activities in Jammu & Kashmir on the one hand and what Sri Lanka has been facing with the LTTE terrorism on the other hand. Can the Government of India support the creation of independent Eelam by partition of Sri Lanka by war and violence? Are you supporting Madam Jaya Lalita, Mr. Vaiko and Mr. Karunanidhi? Are you willing to assure the Indian nation and the rest of the world that your party will prefer to sit in opposition rather than on the treasury benches along with supporters of terrorism in a friendly neighbouring state?

(4) You call yourself a Gandhi and many suppose that you have some blood relation with Mahatma Gandhi. I concede your right to use that surname. Are you prepared publicly to advise the LTTE to give up the path of violence and take to peaceful passive resistance Gandhiji used against the British? Any way is that the settled view of the Congress Party or the Government of India?

(5) I have great respect for Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh; Apart from his impeccable fiscal integrity, in 1991 he rescued India from the disastrous Nehruvian economics and in this century he united the two great world democracies in a partnership to eradicate terrorists and expand the area of freedom and human rights. He won the Nuclear Deal for us. The antinational Left do not agree or applaud. Your great grand father Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had said that they serve interests of foreign nations. Even Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has adverted to their anti Indian attitudes at all crucial times in Indian history. Throughout the election campaign Comrade Karat has insulted and humiliated your party. But your party has lost all sense of self respect. Like leeches you want to stick to the chairs of power. What is your personal position? Will you allow your party to form a Government with people who do not even admit that the Chinese committed aggression on India in 1962 and are in possession of vast chunks of Bharat? Incidentally why the much advertised youth in you did not denounce the Chinese for objecting to our President’s recent visit to Tawang? Why are you courting the votes of those who secretly support China’s claims to more territory in Arunachal Pradesh?

(6) I have no objection to your mother’s ambition to see you installed as India’s Prime Minister. Obviously she did not entertain this ambition either for herself or any of her children in 1991. Are you prepared to take the nation into confidence and disclose the qualifications you have acquired since then to take into your hands the destiny of this complex and most populous and poverty stricken democracy?

(7) Do you agree that the best available statesman in the country should fill that post? If yes, how have you convinced yourself that you are that one? I would not mind if your mother answers this question. I hope you will not turn to my dear friends Mani Shankar Aiyar or Abhishek Singhvi to ghostwrite the answers.

(8) I am highly appreciative of the Election Commission which compels candidates for public office to disclose their material assets. I wish they logically mandate the disclosure of intellectual assets as well. But if democracy is all about transparency, would you kindly let the nation know what academic qualifications you have acquired, when, how and from which institutions. It will help if you also tell the curious Indian nation what books you have read during the last five years; have you published any articles or any readable material on politics, economics, terrorism, war and peace. Is there any speech in Parliament, to the local Rotary Club or to a bunch of tiny toddlers with a single quotable quote that illumines or inspires and gives us some clue to your intellectual attainments. I know quite a few talented young men in the Congress Party and naturally people would like to be satisfied that you are better endowed than them all. That your mother is Soniaji or your father was Rajivji is just not enough evidence.

(9) This question is my last for the present, for ten questions bring back some unpleasant memories. Not belonging to any political party for years I wanted to campaign for some good candidates whatever their party affiliation. For example, I did want to campaign for my friend Kapil Sibal but I eventually did not. It was conveyed to me that your party does not want it because there is no assurance of what I am going to say. To that I plead guilty. My son Mahesh decided to fight from Bombay North Central on the BJP ticket. I did some canvassing for him but not from the BJP party platform; even BJP did not know what I am going to say. I now hear some muted insinuations in Congress quarters that I became anti congress after my son’s decision. I hope you will acknowledge publicly that I had unequivocally declared to the President and Prime Minister of your party my horror at your being projected as the Prime Minister in waiting on the morrow of the tragic happenings of 26th November last in the great city of Bombay. I wrote to your mother the letter reproduced hereinbelow with copy to the Prime Minister.

Date : 27-11-2008

My dear Soniaji,

For one year people around you have prevented me from seeing you. I do not know whether this is intentional or just negligence. I do not know whether it has been authorized by you.

The object of my meeting you is not to seek anything from you but to inform you that the country is in a bad shape and your party will face the consequences in the ensuing elections.

Today, I am writing this with great anguish because my conscience does not permit me to remain silent. I must at least record what I think.

For a long time it is obvious to the meanest intelligence that all your intelligence agencies are a complete failure and a fraud on the tax payers. Reliable sources tell me that the ISI has infiltrated even into the RAW. Bangladesh has become a hot bed of anti-Indian activities.

This requires the resignation and removal of some political heads but they are reported to enjoy your support.

Yesterday’s incidents in Bombay are proof of your government’s incompetence. The names of your corrupt Ministers are freely circulating. Don’t think that you are not yourself the target. The country is on fire and it needs consolation and security.

The terrorists are serving international goals too. I wonder if you know that the Nariman Point building under seige is occupied by Jewish families. Residents are being held as hostages.

Your Ministers in Maharashtra have lost public confidence. They could not even handle a nitwit like Raj Thakrey.

I can not write in greater detail but I am warning you that the Congress is on its way out. Neither you nor your son whom you are projecting as the future Prime Minister of India are the solution or even a ray of hope.

I know this will annoy you but frankly I do not care since you show no concern for the country.

I have respect for the Prime Minister and his integrity. But that is not enough. I know his limitations of which you are the main source and cause.

I hope and pray that this evokes the kind of response which the grim situation of the country urgently requires.

Thanking you and with regards.

Yours sincerely,

( RAM JETHMALANI )

Smt. Sonia Gandhi,

President, All India Congress Party (I),

New Delhi.

Copy to

Dr. Manmohan Singh,

Hon’ble Prime Minister of India

Government of India,

7-9 Race Course Road,

New Delhi.

I am sure you were shown this letter. I am clear in my mind that you need intensive education and training for another ten years before you even dream of being India’s Prime Minister. I may be wrong in my assessment of you but will you have the honesty to declare that my assessment has nothing to do with my son’s candidature?

By the time this gets published if at all, the last phase of the electoral process will be over. What will remain is the counting of votes and declaration of results on Saturday next. But that will summon into action the power of the President of India to install the new government. The President by binding constitutional conventions and practice is normally to act on the advice of her Cabinet but this limitation of Presidential power just does not operate after a general election. She is to invite the acknowledged or chosen leader of the Party which has won the highest number of seats. Where however it is a combination of two or more parties which fought the election jointly as a coalition, it is the votes of the combination that will decide the recipient of the President’s invitation.

Of course the President can and well may require the invitee to demonstrate his or her majority on the floor of the Lok Sabha within a stipulated dead line. This is the plain duty of the President and she is too high minded to act differently.

RAM JETHMALANI

THE COMING ELECTIONS

By: RAM JETHMALANI

The current elections are important. The country is facing international and domestic terrorism, economic depression, price inflation and worst of all; total collapse of the moral backbone of most politicians. If we don’t choose well, the nation will disintegrate. The folly of the next few days will invite severe punishment for many decades. We are being warned and now my humble advice.
Parliamentary system of government unfortunately means the party system. But parties are dangerous too. Parties are to be tolerated only if they live up to the twin dreams of Mahatma Gandhi,
‘ Wipe the tears of sorrow from the eyes of the poor, and
in the comity of nations act as the conscience of the world.’
It is tragic that most political parties are involved in an unseemly scramble for power, its perks and avenues of amassing illegitimate wealth. It is nearly three years ago that the Swiss Banks disclosed that Indians have concealed wealth in Swiss Banks of mind boggling enormity – Fifteen Hundred Trillions of dollars. It is thirteen times our total national debt. If this wealth is seized and repatriated to India, from where it has been stolen, India will be debt free and the interest on the balance can give us a tax free budget for the next quarter century. Distributed amongst the people, every family can get two to three lacs of Indian rupees What has the Government done. This is just one example of failure of governance.

Externally we do not have the courage to tick off government’s which foster and finance dangerous terrorists and China which is not only in occupation of Indian territory but has an evil eye on Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and other parts of Bharat Mata. The Ruling Coalition has cohabited with traitors who are in constant collaboration with our enemies and act as their agents inside the national borders.
Parties are not an end in themselves, they are only a means. We have first to decide the qualifications of a candidate. Ultimately it is the elected representatives who collectively make the face of the Party in action. A candidate for Parliament must have the highest educational and intellectual qualifications. He must be economically independent, so that he has no motive to make politics his source of livelihood or to steal the poor man’s property. He must be able to stand up in Parliament and speak to the nation about his party’s promises and personal pledges to the people. Above all he must be able to stand up to his own party if it deviates from the path of public rectitude or national good. He should be ready to give up political office rather than be a party to betrayal of the nation.
Then comes the selection of the Party. Every party must be able to declare who will lead it if and when it comes to power. Those who cannot do this, cannot be trusted. We cannot take the risk of a rich criminal or a dumb entertainer occupying the serious and responsible position of controlling the destiny of a billion fellow citizens. In addition the Party must have a consistent and conspicuous record of public probity and fulfillment of its pledges.

No political party has during the recent confabulations displayed attachment to any sensible ideology or a set of political principles. Nor has any one even formulated and published a minimum programme of action for the next five years which will be immune from any deviation or dilution just to conjure up a coalition. Every declared manifesto seems subordinated to the paramount need to create a parliamentary majority. No firm agreement on measures of rescuing the country from the current mess is thus in sight. The search for a staunch party is futile. The concentration must essentially be on selecting good candidates in the hope that they will not scatter to the winds the pledges made to the people. At the risk of repeating what I have said more than once, a common minimum programme should consist of the following agenda:-
1. We should make it clear to the whole world that India is committed to constitutional democracy, inalienable Human Rights and independent Judiciary, to uphold the country’s basic law.
2. Judges will be selected not according to the existing procedures but by a broad based national judicial commission. Their rights and obligations should be that of other judges and public servants. The process of selection must be transparent and a full and periodic disclosure of assets will be vigorously enforced. Adequate number of judges should be appointed to put an end to laws proverbial delays which have only created contempt for judges and justice.

3. All vestiges of political non alignment, which in any event has never been sincere or full blooded, must disappear from the conduct of our foreign policy. Democracies and governments based on the rule of law must pool their material and moral resources in the interest of the under privileged and unhappy sections of humanity. Only democratic nations can unitedly face the menance of terrorists. A bold and forthright effort should and will be made to destroy their doctrinal base. Jihad which involves murder of innocent men, women and children to achieve any political or social objective is opposed to the Holy Quran and every other scripture and its practitioners ought to be told in plain terms that God is not maintaining a whore-house for their benefit. The reward of a Jihadi is not paradise but eternal damnation. Since most Jihadis profess Islam, it is the duty of Muslim intellectuals to speak up and cleanse the brains of the Jihadis of the gibberish which has been filled into them by scheming politicians and clerics. Harsh laws are just not the solution. Legislators thereby themselves become terrorists against our constitutional values.

4. Corruption must be treated on par with terrorism. Much of terrorism flourishes because of corruption. Corruption also leads to poverty and unemployment which in turn become a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists and suicide bombers.

5. Urgent attention must be devoted to the purity of our environment. We must stop pumping excessive dozes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and switch over to cleaner and safer techniques for production of electricity. Every years we are destroying 44 million acres of forest, we lose 100 million acres of farm land and 24 billion tons of top soil. Similarly we are creating 15 million acres of desert around the world. We are using about 160 billion tons more water each year than is being replenished by rain. Global warming will bring hurricanes, lower crop yields in the worlds poorest countries and in all probability the misery caused will generate religious belligerence and suicidal terrorism. The most frightful scenario is that a nuclear bomb may get into the hands of a terrorist gang. In short, we must speedily institute actions recommended by the Earth Charter Commission (ECC) and observe its principles of sustainable development.
6. Every political party must unhesitatingly and honestly dedicate itself to the creation of a truly secular society. Our secularism has been as counterfeit and insincere as political non-alignment. The true secularism of the Indian Constitution means the subordination of all religious faith and practice to the rule of reason. The freedom of religion has been expressly subordinated by our Constitution to the needs of public order, health and morality. Secularism, without intense secular education is limitless deception. Imparting of any education, inconsistent with true secularism should be prohibited and punished by law.

7. Public pressure must be built up to compel the government to take immediate steps to freeze the stolen wealth lying in foreign Banks and to take every diplomatic and legal action to repatriate the money to India along with the names of the criminals so that Indian legal processes can begin to operate and inflict on them the maximum punishment which they justly deserve.

RAM JETHMALANI

एक अजन्मी पार्टी का घोषणा पत्र
या
एक अस्तित्वहीन पार्टी का घोषणा पत्र
या
एक आदर्श घोषणा पत्र

(1) देश में जल्द ही चुनाव होने वाले हैं जिनमें हम नई संसद चुनेंगे. वर्तमान सांसद - चाहे वे पक्ष में बैठे हों या विपक्ष में- कोई भी उनसे खुश नहीं है. इक्का-दुक्का सांसदों को इसका अपवाद माना जा सकता है. संभावना है कि इनमें से अधिकांश सांसद अगला चुनाव हार जाएंगे और यह तय है कि संसद का एक नया स्वरूप उभर कर आएगा. नई संसद वर्तमान से बेहतर होगी या उससे बुरी यह आने वाला वक्त ही बताएगा. फिलहाल इस मुद्दे पर कोई भी भविष्यवाणी करना उचित नहीं है.
(2) देश के ताजा राजनीतिक परिदृश्य को देखते हुए मुझे पार्टियों के बीच किसी भी सैद्धांतिक या चुनावी गठबंधन की संभावना नहीं दिखती. जितने गठबंधन अभी तक बनाए गए न तो कभी उनका कोई वैचारिक आधार था, न ही इनका जनता के हितों से कोई सरोकार. इनका सिर्फ एक ही उद्देश्य था कि किसी भी तरह से सत्ता हथिया ली जाए. कल तक जो दुश्मन थे वो आज हाथ मिला रहे हैं और जो गठबंधन बना के चल रहे थे, आज वे एक दूसरे को बर्बाद करने पर तुले हैं.
(3) यह एक ऐसी पार्टी के घोषणा पत्र की रूप रेखा है जो सिर्फ लोगों के विचारों में है. ऐसे लोगों के जो कई मसलों पर एक जैसा सोचते हैं. और ये लोग सत्ता के खेल का हिस्सा तो नहीं हैं लेकिन एक बेहतर भारत में रहना चाहते हैं. ऐसे भारत में जिसकी कमान भरोसेमंद और कुशल हाथों में हो. हो सकता है कि इस घोषणा पत्र की बातों को आधार बनाने वाला गठबंधन या पार्टी कभी अस्तित्व में ही न आ पाए. लेकिन आम मतदाता के लिए यह इस तरह से उपयोगी है कि वे इसके आधार पर तय कर सकते हैं कि चुनावों में किसे वोट दें.

ताजा हालात के मद्देनजर हम पहले विदेशी मामलों की बात करेंगे.
(4) भारत इस समय बिल्कुल नई विश्व व्यवस्था से रूबरू है. यह उस दौर से बिल्कुल अलग है जब नेहरू भारत के प्रधानमंत्री थे. आज साम्यवाद पूरी तरह से असफल साबित हो चुका है और रूस तथा चीन भी नाममात्र के साम्यवादी देश रह गए हैं. दोनों देश मुक्त अर्थव्यवस्था की राह पकड़ चुके हैं. रूस कुछ हद तक राजनीतिक लोकतंत्र जैसा बर्ताव भी कर रहा है. अमेरिका इस समय विश्व की सबसे मजबूत सैन्य शक्ति के तौर उभर चुका है. वैश्वीकरण की प्रक्रिया ने अर्थशास्त्र के कई सिद्धांतों और व्यापार की परंपरागत कर पद्धतियों को किनारे कर दिया है.
राजनीतिक नेताओं की वर्तमान पीढ़ी के बारे में आमतौर पर माना जा सकता है कि वे वर्तमान विश्व से तालमेल बिठाने में सक्षम नहीं हैं. लेकिन हमारे संविधान निर्माताओं ने संविधान में कुछ ऐसी व्यवस्थाएं दी हैं जिनसे आगे की पीढ़ी तय कर सके कि भारत की विदेश नीति का संचालन कैसे हो. इससे संबंधित संविधान के 51 वें अनुच्छेद के मुताबिक
भारत
(अ) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय शांति और सुरक्षा को बढ़ावा देगा
(ब) दूसरे देशों से न्यायपूर्ण और बराबरी के संबंध रखेगा
(स) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानूनों और संधियों के प्रति सम्मान को प्रोत्साहन देगा, और
(स) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विवादों के समाधान के लिए मध्यस्थता को प्रोत्साहित करेगा.
(5) विश्व शांति और सुरक्षा हमारी संवैधानिक जिम्मेदारी है. इसके अलावा दूसरे देशों से बराबरी के और न्यायपूर्ण संबंध रखते हुए अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानूनों और संधियों का सम्मान या अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विवादों में मध्यस्थता को प्रोत्साहन देना इस सबसे बड़ी जिम्मेदारी के छोटे-छोटे हिस्से हैं.
(6) तीस सालों का अनुसंधान बताता है कि जनतांत्रिक राष्ट्र आसानी से युद्ध में नहीं उलझते क्योंकि युद्ध के भयावह नतीजे इन देशों के सैनिकों के साथ-साथ कर चुकाने वाले नागरिकों को भी भुगतने पड़ते हैं.
(7) आधुनिक अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानूनों ने मानवाधिकारों के एक व्यापक तंत्र के निर्माण की नींव रखी है. संयुक्त राष्ट्र में इनकी घोषणा तो 1948 में हो चुकी थी लेकिन इन पर व्यापक सहमति 1966 में ही बन पाई. जिन देशों में पूर्ण लोकतंत्र नहीं है वे अपने यहां मानवाधिकारों का सम्मान करने को दावा भी नहीं कर सकते. कई खामियां होने के बावजूद भारतीय लोकतंत्र एक जीवंत लोकतंत्र है. हमें दुनिया के हर हिस्से में लोकतंत्र को बढ़ावा देने की कोशिश करनी होगी. इस संदर्भ में भारत के लिए वह गौरव के क्षण थे जब भारतीय प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह और अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति जॉर्ज बुश ने लोकतंत्र को बढ़ावा देने के लिए सहयोग पर सहमति व्यक्त की थी. नई सरकार की विदेश नीति का प्रमुख एजेंडा भी यही होगा. और भारत सरकार उन देशों को किसी भी तरह सहयोग और सहायता नहीं करेगी जो लोकतंत्र खिलाफ हैं और मानवाधिकारों का पालन जिनके लिए सिर्फ ढोंग है.
(8) 11 सितंबर 2001 और 26 नवंबर 2008 की आतंकी घटनाओं ने पहले से चल रहे अच्छाई और बुराई, तर्क और कुतर्क, आधुनिक सभ्यता और आदिम युगीन बर्बरता के संघर्ष को और तेज कर दिया है. अब समय आ गया है कि हम 100 साल पहले अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति थियोडोर रूजवेल्ट की उस बात को याद करें जिसमें उन्होंने कहा था कि, ‘हम युद्ध के बीच में हैं और ईश्वर की तरफ से लड़ रहे हैं.’
(9) पाकिस्तान से हमारे संबंधों को बेहतर करने की जरूरत है. दुर्भाग्य से पाकिस्तान के प्रति हमारा नजरिया देश विभाजन के बुरे अनुभव से पैदा हुआ है. हम कभी भी ये दावा नहीं कर सकते कि हमने पाकिस्तान के नागरिकों का दिल-दिमाग जीतने के लिए कभी कोई कोशिश की हो.
भारत ने हमेशा दो-राष्ट्र सिद्धांत का विरोध किया है लेकिन हम भूल जाते हैं कि पाकिस्तान के संस्थापक कायदे आजम जिन्ना ने पाकिस्तान के स्वतंत्र देश बनने के तुरंत बाद ही इस सिद्धांत को नकार दिया था. उन्होंने घोषणा की थी कि पाकिस्तान न्यायपूर्ण और उदारवादी जनतांत्रिक प्रणाली का देश होगा जो अल्पसंख्यक हिंदू समुदाय और भारत के साथ दोस्ताना और सहयोगी रवैया रखेगा.
(10) यह पाकिस्तान का दुर्भाग्य ही कहा जाएगा कि जिन्ना स्वतंत्र पाकिस्तान में लंबे समय तक जीवित नहीं रह पाए. पाकिस्तान के पहले प्रधानमंत्री लियाकत अली की हत्या कर दी गई. और 1956 में इसका पहला और सबसे अच्छा संविधान निरस्त कर दिया गया. इसके बाद पाकिस्तान को कई बार सैनिक तानाशाही झेलनी पड़ी. पाकिस्तान के लिए वर्तमान समय अपनी अतीत की सारी गलतियां सुधारने का समय है. वहां इस समय फिर से लोकतंत्र है. पाकिस्तान के युद्ध समर्थक भी इस समय खामोश हो चुके हैं और पाकिस्तान के सत्ता प्रतिष्ठान युद्ध के परिणामों को अच्छी तरह से समझ रहे हैं. पाकिस्तान ने आतंकवाद का जो दानव दूसरों के लिए खड़ा किया था वह अब खुद उनके खिलाफ हो चुका है. इन हालात में प्रणव मुखर्जी को ये बेहूदा बातें रटना बंद कर देना चाहिए कि, ‘सभी विकल्प खुले हैं.’ युद्ध कोई विकल्प नहीं है. पाकिस्तान के साथ युद्ध न होने देने की संधि (नो वॉर पैक्ट) किया जाना चाहिए. और यह संधि इस तरह से बनाई जाए जिसमें कोई खामी न हो, जिससे कोई भी पक्ष बहाना बना कर पीछे न हटे. भारत और पाकिस्तान के पास मानने के लिए सिर्फ यही सबसे बेहतर विकल्प है. इस विकल्प को अपनाने की हालत में बाकी चीजें अपने आप सुधरने लगेंगी.
(11) जिन लोगों के पास लोकतंत्र है, संवैधानिक अधिकार और कर्तव्य हैं साथ ही इन अधिकारों की रक्षा के स्वतंत्र न्याय व्यवस्था है. इसका मतलब है कि उनके पास आजादी है. कोई भी गतिविधि जो इन चीजों से परे और कुछ पाने के लिए की जा रही है वो सब आतंकवाद है या राष्ट्रद्रोह है या फिर दोनों है. कश्मीर की जनता से जुड़े मसलों पर भारत और पाकिस्तान दोनों को पारदर्शी रवैया अपनाने की जरूरत है. अतंर्राष्ट्रीय समुदाय को ये सुनिश्चित करने की जरूरत है कि इस क्षेत्र के प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का दोहन इस तरह से न हो जैसे कि साम्राज्यवादी देश अपने उपनिवेशों में करते थे. कश्मीर समस्या का समाधान तो बहुत पहले हो गया होता लेकिन राजनीतिक इच्छाशक्ति के अभाव में ये संभव नहीं हो पाया. इस समय राष्ट्रपति जरदारी मसला सुलझने को तैयार है, मनमोहन सिंह को मसला सुलझने की इच्छा दिखानी होगी. भाजपा चाहती है कि पाकिस्तान से सभी तरह के संबंध तुरंत खत्म किए जाएं. जनता को भाजपा के इस राजनीतिक दिवालिएपन और चुनावी उन्माद को नकारना चाहिए और जनता ऐसा करेगी भी. पकिस्तान के साथ सहज संबंध, वहां लोकतंत्र की स्थापना और सकारात्मक बदलाव की दिशा में महत्वपूर्ण साबित होंगे. भारत की तरफ से युद्ध की आशंका वहां पर न सिर्फ अस्थिरता लाएगी बल्कि इस नाजुक वक्त में पाकिस्तान के पुराने दुश्मनों को और भी मजबूत करेगी. भारत को ये सुनिश्चित करना होगा कि पाकिस्तान एक असफल राष्ट्र में तब्दील न हो पाए.
(12) भारत और अमेरिका ने मिलकर आतंकवाद के खिलाफ मिलकर लड़ने का संकल्प लिया है. लेकिन हमारे नेता लड़ाकों की बजाय पुलिस वालों की तरह बर्ताव कर रहे हैं. उनका जोर इस बात पर होना चाहिए कि आतंकवाद का खात्मा किया जाए. लेकिन वे चंद आतंकवादियों को गिरफ्तार कर उन्हें न्यायालयों से सजा दिलाना चाहते हैं. हम लगातार ये कोशिश करते रहे हैं कि पाकिस्तान स्वीकार कर ले कि मुंबई हमले में शामिल आतंकवादी पाकिस्तानी थे. इसके बाद हम लगातार पाकिस्तान और अन्य देशों को इस आतंकी घटना से संबंधित सबूत सौंपते रहे. ये सब हमारी व्यर्थ की कोशिशें थीं.
भारत और अमेरिका को मिलकर पाकिस्तान को समझाना होगा कि उनके नव-लोकतंत्र के लिए आतंकवाद सबसे बड़ा खतरा है. इस बीमारी के रोगाणुओं को खत्म करने के लिए उसे हमसे सहयोग करना चाहिए. इससे पहले कि आतंकवादियों के हाथ में परमाणु हथियार पड़ें इन तीनों देशों को मिलकर आतंकवादियों के ठिकाने खोजकर उन्हें पूरी तरह से खत्म करना होगा. आतंकवाद के चलते दुनिया भर में खतरनाक हालात बन चुके हैं. आतंकवाद के खिलाफ लड़ाई तब तक नहीं जीती जा सकती तब तक इस तरह के संगठनों को वित्तीय और अन्य तरह से मदद करने वाले देशों को ऐसा करने से रोका नहीं जाता.
(13) हमें पता है कि शिया और सुन्नी आतंवादी संगठनों की जन्मस्थली कहां है. हमें सुरक्षा परिषद को निर्णायक कार्रवाई करने के लिए समझना चाहिए. और यदि सुरक्षा परिषद की कार्रवाई को कोई देश वीटो अधिकार का प्रयोग कर रोकने की कोशिश करे तो हमें इस बात के लिए तैयार रहना होगा कि हम आत्मरक्षा के लिए कार्रवाई कर सकें. संयुक्त राष्ट्र के चार्टर में भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि कोई भी देश आत्मरक्षा की कार्रवाई करने लिए स्वतंत्र है.
(14) पिछले दिनों हजारों मुस्लिम उलेमाओं सहित दारूम उलूम ने ये घोषणा की है कि इस्लाम में आतंकवाद की कोई जगह नहीं है. और पवित्र कुरान कहीं भी नहीं कहा गया कि महिलाओं, बच्चों और अन्य निर्दोष लोगों की हत्या नेक काम हैं. वर्तमान दौर में इस तरह की घोषणाएं बेहद उत्साह बढ़ाने वाली हैं. ये अलग बात है कि न तो इस घोषणा पर ज्यादा ध्यान दिया गया न ही इसका प्रचार किया गया.
आतंकवादी इतने कायर हैं कि वे सीधे सेना से लड़ने के बारे में सोच भी नहीं सकते. आतंकवाद से लड़ने के लिए ईमानदारी और नैतिक रूप से बिल्कुल पाक-साफ होने की जरूरत है. जो देश किसी भी तरह से इनके मददगार साबित हो रहे हैं उनकी पहचान और जवाबदेही तय की जानी चाहिए.
(15) मध्यपूर्व के देश इस समय खतरनाक परिस्थतियों में फंसे हुए हैं. इन देशों के लिए नीति बनाते वक्त हमें नए तरीके से और दृढ़ होकर फैसले लेने की जरूरत है. हमें इस मुद्दे पर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानूनों और न्यायपूर्ण तरीके से काम करने की जरूरत है. पिछले सालों में हमने कई निर्णय अपनी तात्कालिक चुनावी लाभ को ध्यान को रखकर लिए हैं, आगे ऐसा करने से बचा जाना चाहिए. जो देश आतंकवाद का समर्थन करते हैं या अपनी सेना को हत्या जसी आपराधिक गतिविधियों में लगाते हैं या संयुक्त राष्ट्र के किसी सदस्य देश को नुकसान पहुचाने वाली गतिविधियों को अंजाम देते हैं, भारत ऐसे देशों का समर्थन और सहयोग नहीं करेगा. भारत धर्मनिरपेक्ष देश है और विश्व के बद्मिजाज देशों की नजर में हम काफिर हैं जिन्हें जिंदा रहने तक का हक नहीं है. हमारी कोशिश होनी चाहिए कि किसी भी हालत इन देशों के हाथ परमाणु हथियार न पड़ पाएं. विश्व शांति के लिए सभी देशों को त्याग करना पड़ेगा लेकिन हम उन देशों की तरफ मदद का हाथ नहीं बढ़ा सकते जो अपने अस्तित्व बनाए रखने और खुद की सुरक्षा करने में नाकाम हो रहे हैं. हम युद्ध चाहने वालों को दरकिनार कर शांति और प्रेम का पाठ पढ़ाने वाली कोशिशों को बढ़ावा देंगे.

घरेलू मुद्दे

(16) घरेलू मोर्चे पर भी हमें कुछ क्रांतिकारी कदम उठाने की जरूरत है. हमारी न्यायिक प्रणाली ब्रिटिश राज की अमूल्य देन है. इस व्यवस्था में कानून के एकीकृत स्वरूप, तकनीकि रूप से कानून प्रयोग की दक्षता, तथ्यों को अलग करने और सबूतों के सटीक विश्लेषण की क्षमता पर जोर दिया गया था. जोर इस बात पर भी था कि लोगों को सस्ता और शीघ्रता से न्याय सुलभ हो. लेकिन आज हर नागरिक जानता है कि हमारी न्याय व्यवस्था बिखर चुकी है. इन हालात में सरकार और संसद का पहला काम यह होना चाहिए कि न्याय व्यवस्था का पुराना गौरव फिर से बहाल किया जाए.
लॉर्ड ब्रॉगम ने कानून सुधारों पर अपने भाषण में कहा था, ‘अगस्टस खुद की तारीफ में कहता था कि उसे ईंटों का रोम मिला था और उसे संगमरमर का बना कर छोड़ रहा है. लेकिन क्या ये बेहतर नहीं होता कि वो ये कहता कि उसे महंगी न्याय व्यवस्था मिली लेकिन उसने इसे सर्वसुलभ बना दिया, इसे बंद किताब के रूप में पाया और खुले पत्र के रूप में छोड़ा, कानून को अमीरों की निजी विरासत पाया और गरीबों का अधिकार बना दिया और इसे दमन की दोधारी तलवार जैसा पाया और ईमानदारी का सेवक और निर्दोषों का रक्षक बना दिया.’
(17) भर्ती की वर्तमान पद्धति और न्याय व्यवस्था कि खामियों से निपटने के तौर-तरीके न सिर्फ अव्यावहारिक हैं बल्कि पुराने भी पड़ चुके हैं. भारत इसका अनुभव 1993 में कर चुका है जब पूरी तरह से पुख्ता मामले में महाभियोग सिर्फ इसलिए नहीं चलाया जा सका क्योंकि जिस पार्टी की सरकार थी उसी ने इस मामले में मतदान नहीं किया. इस तरह से महाभियोग साबित करने के लिए दो-तिहाई बहुमत नहीं जुटाया जा सका. यह ऐसा मामला था जिसमें संसदीय भ्रष्टाचार ने अपने हमजोली न्यायिक भ्रष्टाचार को बचाने में सहायता की थी.
(18) आज के हालात में न्यायधीशों के सामने सभी तरह के मामले आते हैं. और कई बार यह होता है कि जिस कानून के दायरे में मामले की सुनवाई हो रही है उसके बारे खण्डपीठ के कुछ या कभी-कभी सारे न्यायधीश ही अनभिज्ञ होते हैं. यदि किसी गंभीर आपराधिक मामले की सुनवाई ऐसी खण्डपीठ के सामने हो रही है जिसका एक भी न्यायधीश इस तरह के मामलों का जानकार होने का दावा न कर सके तो इसे वादी का दुर्भाग्य ही कहा जाएगा. इस तरह की स्थितियां वकीलों के लिए भी मुश्किल खड़ी करती हैं क्योंकि उन्हें हर बार ये सोचना पड़ता है कि वे संबंधित कानून पर कितना बोलें और क्या बोलें ताकि न्यायधीश को बात समझई जा सके.
जो न्यायधीश ज्यादा बातचीत करते हैं उन्हें तो अपना पक्ष समझना कुछ हद तक आसान होता है लेकिन कम बोलने वाले न्यायधीशों के सामने अपना पक्ष रखने में कई समस्याओं का सामना करना पड़ता है.
इस बारे में कई बार सुझव दिए गए हैं कि कानून के संबंधित क्षेत्र की जानकारी रखने वाले न्यायधीशों की खण्डपीठ के सामने ही उस कानून के मामले रखे जाएं. लेकिन इन सुझावों पर कभी ध्यान नहीं दिया गया. इन स्थितियों में सुविज्ञ वकील अदालत में बैठे-बठे न्याय का मखौल उड़ते हुए देखने को मजबूर हैं. इन परिस्थितियों की उपेक्षा हो रही है और व्यवस्था विरोध के स्वर भी नदारद हैं.
न्याय व्यवस्था की इन खामियों को दूर करने के लिए अलग से कानून बनाने की जरूरत नहीं है बल्कि अदालत के मुख्य न्यायधीश के लिए कुछ परंपराएं विकसित करके ही इन खामियों को दूर किया जा सकता है.
(19) विदेशी निवेश और भारत का अंतर्राष्ट्रीय व्यापार इस बात पर निर्भर करता है कि अदालतें मामले निपटाने में कितनी दक्ष हैं और कितनी तेजी से मामले निपटाती हैं. भारत के संदर्भ में इसे घपला ही माना जाएगा कि अधीनस्थ अदालतों में 3 करोड़ और और उच्च न्यायालयों में दसियों हजार मामले अभी निपटाए नहीं जा सके हैं.
इस बात को विधि आयोगों ने भी बार-बार कहा है कि हमें अपने अदालतों की संख्या पांच गुना तक बढ़ाने की जरूरत है. नई सरकार को इस दिशा में तेजी से काम करना होगा.
(20) आपराधिक मामलों में बिना वजह देरी से कानून की सजा देने की क्षमता कम हुई है. इसके चलते अपराध और अपराधी बढ़ते जा रहे हैं ये समाज की सुरक्षा और स्थिरता के लिहाज से चुनौती बन गए हैं.
(21) आज से चार साल पहले ‘ट्रांसपरेंसी इंटरनेशनल’ और दिल्ली की रिसर्च संगठन ‘सेंटर फॉर मीडिया स्टडीज’ ने भारत में भ्रष्टाचार से संबंधित अध्ययन किया था. इन दोनों संगठनों के नतीजों में कहा गया था कि भारतीय हर साल 20 हजार करोड़ की रिश्वत देते हैं और ये रिश्वत सरकारी तंत्र के सभी स्तरों पर दी जाती है.
(22) भ्रष्टाचार हमारी अदालतों के सामने सबसे बड़ा मसला है. और ये दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है कि हमारे कानून निर्माता कैंसर की तरह बढ़ते भ्रष्टाचार से मुकाबला करने की बजाय हाथ पर हाथ धरे बैठे हैं. लेकिन जनता को पता है कि भ्रष्टाचार हमारे सरकारी तंत्र के हर हिस्से में घुस चुका है. और इसका सबसे बुरा पक्ष यह है कि अब यह बीमारी हमारी शीर्ष अदालतों में भी पहुंच चुकी है. पिछले दिनों सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के न्यायधीशों की अपनी संपत्ति उजागर करने में हिचकिचाहट से जनता की नजर में न्याय व्यवस्था को लेकर संदेह और गहराया है. एक बार जब जनता का भरोसा न्याय व्यवस्था से उठ जाता है तो समाज में अपराधियों और हत्यारों की पूछ-परख बढ़ जाती है. वैसे भी हमारे समाज में इन तत्वों की कोई कमी नहीं है.
(23) हमारे यहां कानून इन समस्याओं से निपटने में असफल हो चुका है. कहावत है कि कानून से चरित्र को नहीं संवारा जा सकता है इसलिए हमारे स्कूलों और कॉलेजों के पाठच्यक्रमों में नैतिक और सामाजिक मूल्यों की शिक्षा अनिवार्य रूप से शामिल की जानी चाहिए. हमारे यहां तो ज्ञान-मंदिर कहे जाने वाले इन स्कूलों में भी बच्चों का दाखिला भ्रष्टाचार से दो-चार हुए बिना नहीं होता.
(24) वर्तमान लोकसभा में आम जनता ने नेताओं को नोट के बंडल लहराते हुए भी देखा है. इसलिए पहला कदम तो ये हो कि जनता विधानसभा और लोकसभा चुनावों में बेहद ईमानदार लोगों को वोट दे.
(25) इस समय वैश्विक आर्थिक मंदी की मार सारी दुनिया को ङोलनी पड़ रही है और भारत भी इससे अछूता नहीं है. इसलिए भारत के संदर्भ में बहुत सोचसमझ कर आर्थिक नीतियां बनाने की जरूरत है. लेकिन इन नीतियों में बढ़ते भ्रष्टाचार को रोकने के लिए स्पष्ट रणनीतियां भी बनाई जाएं.
(26) जब हम आर्थिक मोर्चे पर सुधार की जरूरत पर जोर दे रहे हैं तो इसका मतलब ये नहीं है कि दोबारा सरकारी नियंत्रण, लायसेंस और परमिट राज की नीतियां बना दी जाएं. क्योंकि ये समस्या का समाधान करने की बजाए खुद बड़ी समस्या हैं.
(27) इस समय हमारे वित्त मंत्रालय को कींस का अर्थशाष्त्र पढ़ने की जरूरत है. अमेरिका 1930 की आर्थिक महामंदी से इसी राह पर चल कर उबर पाया था. इसी तरह द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध के बाद तबाह हुए यूरोप का पुननिर्माण भी कींस की आर्थिक नीतियों से निकले उपायों से हुआ था. भारत सरकार को भी इस समय आधारभूत संरचनाओं के निर्माण और रोजगार के अन्य अवसर पैदा करने के लिए भारी निवेश करना चाहिए. इससे जो लोग अपनी नौकरी खो चुके हैं उन्हें तो नई नौकरी मिलेगी ही साथ ही और बेरोजगारों को भी रोजगार मिलेगा. निवेश के लिए निजी क्षेत्र की सरकारी फंड तक पहुंच आसान बनाए जाने की जरूरत है लेकिन इस बात का ध्यान रखा जाए कि इसके लिए तगड़ी निगरानी व्यवस्था हो ताकि पैसे का दुरुपयोग रोका जा सके.
(28) हमारा बहुधर्मी और बहुभाषी समाज आगे बढ़ता रहे इसके लिए जरूरी है कि सभी विभाजनकारी दीवारों को गिराकर सिर्फ एक पहचान - भारतीयता - को मजबूत करने की दिशा में काम हो. कम से कम ‘पहचान’ होने की शर्त बेहतर तालमेल का विकास करेगी. और यह तभी सुनिश्चित होगा जब हमारा समाज धर्मनिरपेक्ष हो और इसके लिए जरूरी है कि गणतंत्र की शक्ति धार्मिक विश्वासों और रीति-रिवाजों से ऊपर हो. धर्मनिरपेक्षता से संबंधित संविधान के 25 वें अनुच्छेद को यदि सही तरीके से समझ जाए तो यह कहता है कि राज्य लोगों के आर्थिक, राजनैतिक, और सामाजिक अधिकारों के बंटवारे के मामले में निरपेक्ष रहेगा और धर्म के आधार पर भेदभाव नहीं बरतेगा. नई सरकार चुनावी लाभों को एक तरफ रखकर धर्मनिरपेक्षता नीति पर चलते हुए इसका विकास करेगी.
आगे बताए गए दो उदाहरण से ये बात और स्पष्ट होगी - यदि कोई धार्मिक समूह यह कहता है जनसंख्या बढ़ाओ और अपना प्रभाव बढ़ाओ तो ऐसी हालत में जब कि देश की जनसंख्या पहले से अधिक है और संसाधन कम हैं तब सरकार कानून के माध्यम से जनसंख्या बढ़ोतरी पर अंकुश लगा सकती है.
दूसरा उदाहरण ये है कि यदि कोई व्यक्ति गलत राय के चलते यह कहे कि मैं अपनी धार्मिक मान्यताओं के कारण वंदे मातरम् नहीं गा सकता तो सरकार उसके मत का सम्मान तो करेगी लेकिन साथ ही सरकार के पास व्यक्ति को सरकारी स्कूल में दाखिला न देने का अधिकार भी होगा.
(29) बरसों तक दबाए और शोषित किए गए वर्ग को भारतीय संविधान विधायिका और सरकारी नौकरियों में आरक्षण की वकालत करता है. हमारे समाज में महिलाएं भी इसी तबके का हिस्सा हैं. लोकतांत्रिक सिद्धांत कहते हैं कि संसद की आधी सीटे महिलाओं के लिए आरक्षित होती चाहिए लेकिन तोलमोल के बाद ये तय किया गया कि कुल सीटों की एक-तिहाई सीटें महिलाओं के लिए आरक्षित होंगी. लेकिन यह दुर्भाग्य ही कहा जाएगा कि इस प्रस्ताव का विरोध होता रहा और इसे आज तक कानून नहीं बनाया जा सका. अगली सरकार और संसद को कोशिश करनी चाहिए कि अपने पहले छह महीनों के भीतर ही इसे कानून बना दिया जाए. इससे हमारी संसद न सिर्फ ज्यादा महत्वपूर्ण और व्यवस्थित होगी बल्कि इसमें विविधता भी आएगी.
(30) इस पत्र के माध्यम से हम जनता को सलाह देना चाहते हैं कि वे ईमानदार और उच्च व उदारवादी शिक्षा प्राप्त उम्मीदवारों की पहचान करें और उन्हें चुनें. जिनका अतीत इस बात को सुनिश्चित करता हो कि ये सत्ता में आने के बाद अपने सिद्धांतों को न छोड़ते हुए अंतर्राष्ट्रीय शांति और राष्ट्रीय एकता के लिए प्रतिबद्धता से काम करेंगे.

(राम जेठमलानी)

(1) The Nation is getting ready to elect a new Parliament. It is by no means amused by the antics of the current occupants whether on the Government benches or belonging to the opposition or even known independents. Except for a few honourable exceptions, politicians are held in contempt. The chances are that most of the current herd will face ignominious defeat. Parliament will doubtless have a new look. Will it be pleasing or even uglier than before remains a troublesome question. No one should venture a prediction.
(2) Surveying the political scene I do not see any possibility of any principled coalitions or electoral alliances. All the ones being negotiated or planned have no discernible ideological rationale nor any public weal in view. Naked and sordid pursuit of power appears the sole motivation. Mortal enemies seem to be shaking hands and allies till yesterday are ready to stab and destroy one another.
(3) This is a draft manifesto of a party that exists only in the imagination of a few likeminded citizens. Their only qualification is that they are not in the power game but want to live in a better India whose management is in credible and competent hands. A party or coalition that swears by this manifesto may never be born but at least the voter will find in it some useful advice who to vote for. Naturally we first turn to foreign affairs.
(4) India is now facing a totally new world order which hardly bears any resemblance to that which our First Prime Minister encountered. Communism has proved to be a total failure and both Russia and China are Communist only in name. Both have switched over to the free market and Russia even pretends to some kind of political democracy. The United States has emerged as the only military super power. Globalization has
made obsolete many economic Shibboleths and conventional trade tariffs have fallen by the wayside. The current rulers by and large have no expertise for surviving in this totally unfamiliar milieu. But the Constitution makers have left for all succeeding generations a compulsory lesson about how our foreign policy should be conducted.
The lesson is written in the fifty first Article which reads as under:- India shall :
(a) promote international peace and security;
(b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another; and
(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
(5) Our commitment to World peace and security is the constitutional obligation. Maintaining just and honourable relations between nations and fostering respect for International Law or encouraging settlement of disputes by peaceful arbitration are just corollaries from this grand theorem.
(6) Thirty years research has shown that democracies do not easily go to war. The horrendous consequences of war fall heavy upon the citizens in their character of solders as well as tax payers.
(7) Modern International Law has created an elaborate system of human rights. Starting with the Declaration of 1948 the effort has culminated in the too elaborate Covenants of 1966. The Governments which do not practice rigorous democracy cannot pretend to be upholding human rights. With all its faults and failures India has a vibrant democracy and we have to promote the spread of democracy in all parts of the globe. It was a proud moment for India when Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and President George Bush entered into a partnership for furthering democracy and conferring its benefits on all those willing to imbibe or absorb them. In its Conduct of foreign relations this shall be the basic agenda of the new Indian government. It also follows that India will do nothing to encourage or enrich those States which are well known enemies of democracy and whose acceptance of human rights is only a pretence or a fraud.
(8) September 11, 2001 and now 26th November, 2008 have precipitated a climactic confrontation between the irresistible forces of good and evil, reason and unreason modern civilization and primitive barbarity. Time has come when we have to recall what President Theodore Roosevelt said almost hundred years ago “we stand at Armageddon and we battle for the Lord”.
(9) Relations with Pakistan require the highest statesmanship. Partition and its horrible aftermath have unfortunately coloured our response to Pakistan. We cannot honestly claim that we have ever gone out of our way to win the hearts and minds of the people of that country.
India had always been opposed to the two nation theory but we forget that Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah , the founder of Pakistan had himself repudiated it as soon as he won independence for his State. He had declared that Pakistan would be a democratic liberal and just State. It would live peaceably with its minority Hindu population and relations with India would be of friendship and cooperation.
(10) Unfortunately Jinnah died soon of tuberculosis and the first Prime Minister Leaqat Ali Khan was cruelly assassinated. Its excellent first Constitution of March, 1956 was superseded and luckless Pakistanis have had to suffer long and repeated spells of autocratic military rule. The present is the chance to undo the past. Pakistan has got back its democracy; its war mongers are lying low; the establishment understands the futility of
war and the Pak created Frankenstein of Terrorism has now turned on its creator. Foreign Minister Pranab must shut up and stop his silly claptrap of ‘All options open’ . War is not the option. A No War Pact with no loopholes and escape routs is the only option to pursue. Every thing else will take care of itself.
(11) People blessed with a genuine democracy, constitutionally protected rights and duties of individuals and an independent judiciary to enforce them have attained Azadi. Any violent action to secure more of it or of a different kind or content is the crime of terrorism or treason or both. Pakistan and India must be transparent in their dealing with the local populations on both sides of the LOC and the international community must be able to certify that there is no colonial type exploitation of their material resources. The Kashmir problem found its solution long ago but the political will has been lacking. President Zardari is ready; Manmohan Singh has to be willing. BJP wants immediate cessation of diplomatic relations. People of India should and will dismiss it as political bankruptcy and electoral insanity.
A genuine settlement with the Government of Pakistan will make the Army retire to its barracks and make Pakistan’s revolving door democracy stable for a change. Threats of war from India only make our neighbours democracy wobbly and vulnerable to its old enemies. India must guarantee that Pakistan does not turn out to be a failed State.
(12) India and the United States are pledged to fight a war against terrorism. Our Ministers however, are not acting like warriors but policemen. Their emphasis does not seem to be elimination of terrorists but on catching a few and punishing them through our judicial process. All our attempts to make Pakistan admit that the Mumbai terrorists are Pakistanis and prepare elaborate dossiers for the consumption of Pakistan and other world States are futile and wasted effort. India and the United States must persuade Pakistan to believe that terrorists are also a threat to its fledging democracy. It is in its own interest to cooperate with us in exterminating this lethal virus. The three governments must together hunt them out in their habitations and destroy them. This action is urgently called for and must be undertaken before any terrorist organization can lay its hands on nuclear weapons. It is frightful scenario of consternation throughout the world. The war against terrorism cannot be fought without neutralizing the States which foster, finance and harbour terrorism.
(13) We know the birth place of both Sunni and Shia terrorist organizations. We must persuade the Security Council to take decisive action. If the Security Council’s action is paralysed by the Veto of one or the other member we must be prepared to act alone in exercise of our right of self-defence expressly recognized by the Charter of the United Nations.
(14) The heart warming development which we have failed to notice or publicize is the declaration made by thousands of Muslim clerics who under the inspiration of Darul-Ulloon declared that terrorism is condemned by Islam. There is not one word in the Holy Quran to sanctity the killing of innocent, unarmed, children, women and old men. The terrorists are too cowardly to engage the military forces and regular combatants. Tackling terrorism will require unapologetic honesty and total moral clarity. The rogue States must be identified, named and tamed. To hobnob with them for whatever reasons is treason against the Indian nation.
(15) The Middle East is a dangerously troubled area. In formulating our policy we have to do some fresh thinking owning our part mistakes and striking a bold path guided by international law and impartial justice. We shall not subordinate these, as shamefully we have done in the lost past,
to short term electoral gains. We will give no quarter or hospitality to nations that breed terrorists and sustain armies of criminal murderers nor to those who can not exist without destruction of another member state of the United Nations. India is a secular nation and in the evil dictionary of some nations we are classed as infidels who have forfeited their right to live. We can not and shall not allow nuclear weapons to fall in the hands of those who are sworn to destroy us. Crocodile tears shed by experts in self inflicted wounds shall not move us. World Peace requires sacrifices from all concerned but we will not call for any from those whose survival and security are not fully secured. In sum we will shun War mongers overt and covert but build monuments to those who died of love making even if some what excessive like our beloved Mahatma.
Domestic Issues
(16) Something equally revolutionary has to be accomplished on the domestic front. One of the priceless legacies of British Rule is the judicial system with its emphasis on absolute integrity of character and a high degree of technical competence in the shape of deep knowledge of law and tremendous facility in sifting facts and analyzing evidence. At the same time justice was prompt and cheap. Every citizen today knows that our judicial machinery has totally crumbled. It should be the primary duty of Government and Parliament to restore the system to its pristine glory.
Lord Brougham in his peroration of the speech on Law Reform said,
“It was the boast of Augustus that he found Rome of brick and left it of marble. But how much nobler will be the sovereign’s boast when he shall have it to say, that he found law dear and left it cheap; found it a sealed book, left it a living letter; found it the patrimony of the rich, left it the inheritance of the poor; found it the two-edged sword of craft and oppression, left it the staff of honesty and the shield of innocence.”
(17) The present method of recruitment and dealing with judicial delinquents is totally outdated and impracticable. India has the experience of 1993 when a credible and fool proof impeachment motion failed, because the ruling party did not vote and the required 2/3rd majority could not be collected. It was a case in which Parliament’s corruption cooperated to sustain its companion the judicial corruption.
(18) Moreover Judges are made to sit on benches before which all sorts of matters turn up. Some of them arise out of areas of law of which one, more or all the Judges on the Bench have not the faintest idea.Litigants have had the misfortunate of appearing before Benches in serious criminal cases where not one of the Judges could claim any familiarity with criminal law. Counsel even find it difficult to decide, how much enunciation of the relevant law they must attempt or when to stop in the belief that their argument has at last been understood. It is easy to deal with a loquacious Judge, but it is difficulty to fathom a non-speaking one and the ignorant usually adopt a sphinx-like posture. Repeated suggestions that matters relating to specific branches of law should be put before Judges who are experts in those branches of law have fallen on deaf ears. Perceptive practitioners only, while sitting in Court, observe the frequent miscarriages of justice happening before their eyes. These go unnoticed by others and do not even evoke a protest.
Dealing with this deficiency does not require any legislation. It can be done by setting up traditions binding on the Chief Justice of the Court.
(19) Foreign investors in India and India’s lucrative international trade depend upon the swiftness and competence with which cases are decided. It is a scandal that thirty million cases are pending in the Subordinate Courts and thousands in the higher Courts. Prestigious Law Commissions have time and again reported that we need to multiply our courts five times. This shall be speedily done by the new Government.
(20) By reason of its unpardonable dilatoriness criminal justice has by and large lost its deterrent punch. Crime and criminals continue to grow and threaten the stability and security of society.
(21) About four years ago, ‘Transparency International’ and a Delhi-based ‘Centre for Media Studies’, a research firm, undertook study of corruption in India. The result published the same year said that Indians pay out more than Rs. 20,000 crores as bribes every year and scores of public servants at all levels are involved.
(22) Connected with the question of more and competent courts is the issue of corruption. It is unfortunate that the political system and our legislators in particular have become totally insensitive to this galloping cancer. But the people know that corruption has permeated into every part of our body politic and unfortunately, it has ascended to the level of the Apex Court. The public suspicion is heightened by the reluctance of the Supreme Court Judges to declare their wealth. Once the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial process are gone the vacuum will be filled by musclemen and murderers who unfortunately abound in our society.
(23) Legislation has failed to deal with this menace proving the old adage that we cannot legislate character. Our schools and colleges curriculi need to be reformed to include ethics and moral science as compulsory subjects. Parents who have to get their children admitted to educational institutions more often encounter corruption even in the temples of knowledge.
(24) The current tenure of Parliament even saw large wads of currency notes being bandied about on the floor of the Lok Sabha. The first step to be taken by voters is to ensure that only persons of the highest integrity are voted into our legislatures, Cabinets at the Center and the State level.
(25) For the last six months practically the whole world is reeling under the blow of the economic meltdown. India too has not escaped the catastrophe. Wise economic policies will have to be put in place but dealing with growing corruption should be a urgent and conspicuous strategy.
(26) On the economic front the solution is not to revert to the old system of Government controls, licenses and permits. That will be a remedy worse than the disease.
(27) Our Finance Ministry must now study the principles of Keynesian economics which worked for the United States during the nineteen thirtys and for almost all European countries during the Second World War. Massive investments in infrastructure and creation of new jobs for employing those who have lost their earlier ones for the new ones who are entering afresh the employment work force are called for. Private entities which promise to take this course must have easy access to public funds with strict supervision to prevent misuse and malversation.
(28) Our pluralist multi religions and multi lingual society can march forward only by demolishing dividing walls and cultivating a dominating Indian identity. Lesser identities will coexist. This is best secured by a rational secularism which makes the needs of the Republic paramount with power to trump all religions beliefs and practices. The twenty fifth Article of our Constitution the Charter of Indian secularism correctly understood requires every Indian life to be guided by reason and logic and inspired by lone and charity. In the distribution of economic, political and social rights, the State shall remain neutral and treat all as equals; religion of a citizen shall never justify any hostile discrimination. The new Government shall expound and enforce this secularism without deviating from it to get some electoral advantage. Two examples with clearly illustrate this principle. If the sculpture group “ Go forth and Multiply’. An over crowded nation with insufficient goods of the world can legitimately enforce control of births and numbers. If a young man under wrong parental influence refuses to recite Vandemataram as being opposed to his religion, the State may respect his choice but can well deny him admission to a public school.
(29) The Constitution of India recognizes the need for reservation in Legislatures and in public employment for those sections of our society, who historically have been unjustly treated and suppressed. The women of India doubtless belong to this category. On democratic principles half the members of every legislature must be women but as a compromise it has been proposed that one third of the seats in Parliament must be reserved for them. It is unfortunate that a male dominated society is still resisting this proposal becoming law. The next Government and the Parliament must secure this justice for women at the earliest possible opportunity which cannot be beyond the first six months of its tenure. This makes our Parliament more orderly, more purposeful and certainly more colourful.
(30) This missive is our advice to voters to identify honest candidates with high liberal education committed to international peace and domestic unity with a past record which guarantees that they will not abandon principles when seeking public office.

( RAM JETHMALANI )

Judges and Disclosure of Assets
Ram Jethmalani
Some four years ago Transparency International and Delhi-based Centre for Media Studies, a research firm, undertook study of corruption in India. The result published the same year said that Indians pay out more than 20 thousand crores as bribes every year and scores of public servants at all levels are involved. The Report had some scathing observations about corruption in the judiciary and a number of very wise suggestions. Speaking of the system being highly dilatory and expensive making it difficult for ordinary citizen to seek redress, provides a strong temptation to use some money to oil its creaking wheels. Lawyers, court officials and even judges were found to be recipients.
The people have not forgotten the notorious case of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami. The Parliament appointed Enquiry Committee of three judges found him guilty on various counts of corruption. The ruling party prevented his removal ensuring defeat of the impeachment motion by the simple device of not voting. The Motion did not secure the required number of affirmative votes in favour of the Resolution. A simple issue of probity in the apex court was converted into a north-south rivalry by unscrupulous politicians. Parliamentary corruption cooperated with its Judicial companion.
A Rajasthan High Court Judge and his Registrar sought sexual favours from a female doctor. A committee appointed by the Supreme Court found them guilty and the judge only resigned. No further action was taken. Some Judges in Mysore were involved in a sex scandal. Nothing serious happened. A judge of Delhi High Court has been formally charged for corrupt dealings with property developers and the trial has not commenced for more than a decade. The case raises an interesting question: “In receiving sexual favours does a Judge receive illegal gratification?” The Supreme Court has not found it serious enough to expedite the trial. No wonder a distinguished Chief Justice Mr. Justice Barucha publicly declared that about 20% of the judges are corrupt. What have the remaining eighty percent done to rein in the corrupt one fifth? People want to know.
The report has drawn attention to the fact that the Supreme Court by judicial decisions has immunised itself against criminal investigations by the police to which every other public servant is subject. It has rightly emphasized that Bar Associations must weed out corrupt judges by bravely exposing them and a National Judicial Commission should be created with powers to hire and fire judges. The suggestion has also been made that judges should declare their assets and those of their family members as candidates for political office have been required by Judges themselves by a somewhat unusual exercise of judicial power.
The United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention has been actively involved in deliberations with various non-governmental organizations such as Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity about elimination of judicial corruption from national societies. At its meeting held in Vienna in April 2000 it decided to formulate a Code of proper Judicial Conduct. A large number of such Codes were unearthed from all over the world and at its second meeting held in Bangalore in February, 2001, The Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct was agreed upon. This Draft, however, had been prepared mainly by judges drawn from common law countries. It was decided that judges of other legal traditions should also authenticate the Bangalore Draft. With some minor revisions it was adopted in November 2002 at the Hague.
The Code recognises that though the primary responsibility for promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the judiciary in each country. Every society recognises as a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. All recognize the validity and binding nature of national laws which require the public disclosure of every judge’s pecuniary assets.
The issue of corruption including judicial corruption is going to be the most prominent issue in the next parliamentary election. People are aware that judges are not happy at the invasion of privacy that disclosure of their private finances entails. Unfortunately Judges do not appreciate that the people rightly and firmly believe that such disclosure is one of the most effective means of discouraging corruption, conflicts of interest and misuse of public funds. The individual citizen, larger social groups and the media are almost unanimous that laws must compel disclosure, accurate, timely and comprehensive. They want these laws to be vigorously enforced.
A number of countries in Latin America, such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Argentina, have passed specific assets disclosure laws and rules that pertain to public officials. Some of them expressly mention that judges too are subject to this obligation.
In my opinion this obligation arises from the 14th Article of the Constitution. It is not necessary that there should be parliamentary legislation creating or affirming the constitutional duty. There is no dispute that judge is a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Up to 1988 Members of Parliament and State Legislatures did not fall in this category. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, however, changed the position and all Legislators are now public servants. Judges are and have always been public servants, therefore, they must stand on the same footing. No rational distinction justifying different treatment can reasonably be discovered.
If a candidate for election to any legislature, only a would be public servant, is publicly to declare all his assets and the assets of his family members because people must know whether he is fit to hold that office, is it not much more essential that judges must do the same when seeking judicial office and during the continuance of that office?. People’s confidence in their integrity is the pillar of strength of the Judicial edifice. The whole law of contempt is not a safeguard for judges as persons but for the functions which they exercise.
Look at the awesome powers which our Constitution confers upon our Judges particularly those in the highest court. Apart from their complete control over the life, liberty and property of all citizens high and low they have the power to declare illegal and void the public acts of all bureaucrats, every minister, every government on the ground that they violate the constitution, the law or principles of natural justice, what is more they can declare a law passed unanimously by the President and both Houses of Parliament if they find it to be in conflict with the Basic Law. Now a Parliament reflects the will of the people and some have criticised this Judicial power as an affront to the people’s sovereignty. Legislators have to face elections at fixed intervals and they have to win the approval of the people but Judges carry on till they become old without any such check, scrutiny or control. Yet they can turn to the Government and Parliament and nullify their solemnly promulgated laws telling them “we understand better than you do the Constitution you enacted sixty years ago”. The founding fathers reposed this power in the Judges knowing the calibre and character of the Judges of those days. It is tragic the standards have fallen. People no longer revere them as gods as once upon a time they did. It is imperative that Judges should do nothing to further erode the people’s confidence in them. The refusal to declare assets is calculated to destroy it altogether. Even the time of public disclosure has not yet arrived. A high officer enforcing the peoples Right to ‘know’ has only inquired whether Judges are actually disclosing their assets to their Chief Justice!!
The Election Commission in its order of March, 2003 spelt out reasons why disclosure of assets is necessary for candidates. The disclosure it said is a condition of the candidate’s transparency. The humble voter has the basic right to have full particulars about the candidate who is seeking his vote. The right to get such information in a democracy flows from the very democratic nature of the polity. Referring to the constitutional right of freedom of expression it said that it included the freedom to seek and receive information. It quoted the Supreme Court’s order of 2nd May, 2002 where it mandated the Election Commission to compel this disclosure from every candidate. I am afraid the Supreme Court will appear to be totally hypocritical if on some fancy distinction it does not accept this duty. The Freedom of Information Act of Poland which compels such disclosure expressly names the judges as bound by it. Even El Salvador and Uganda maintain this express statutory obligation. The Judicial Code of Conduct in the United States enjoins it.
It is credit to the judiciary as a whole that many judges have voluntarily declared that they are prepared to disclose their assets and will disclose them even without any express law to that effect.
The Chief Justice of India has rightly responded that if any judge wants to do so he is welcome to do it. In the interest of the dignity of
the Supreme Court I hope the Hon’ble Chief Justice will soon change and say that all judges must do so. It is not enough that the disclosure is made to the Chief Justice in private; it is a disclosure to which every citizen is entitled. It will make the litigation instituted in the Delhi High Court by the Hon’ble Supreme Court infructuous and redundant. There are many people in this country who rightly think that this step of the Supreme Court of becoming a litigant in the High Court is destructive of its dignity. The action of the Amicus Fali Nariman should carry its own compelling lesson.

( RAM JETHMALANI )

DUTT IN PARLIAMENT
Ram Jethmalani
My friend and Member of Parliament Shri Amar Singh declared a few days ago that the Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt would be their candidate from the Lucknow Constituency in the coming elections to the Parliament of India. The news produced a serious conflict in my mind.
Many years ago when Sanjay Dutt was arrested in the Bombay bomb blast case of March, 1993 I was his lawyer and I had been able to persuade the Court to release him on bail. I had also represented him for a while in the Supreme Court when in August 1994 a Bench composed of two Judges referred the matter to a larger Bench. The matter was then heard by the Constitution Bench consisting of five judges but Sanjay Dutt was then represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal.
The lawyer - client relationship creates a bond and a strong reluctance to say or do anything, which might hurt the client in any sphere of his life including politics. This inhibition was strengthened by the fact that he is the son of a dear friend. His father Sunil Dutt apart from being a distinguished actor had many other achievements to his credit and though he had defeated me in election to Parliament in 1984 I considered him a dear friend. When he approached me for the defence of his son I did not hesitate for a moment whatever was my abhorrence for those who perpetrated that horrible crime in which so many innocent lives were lost and extremely valuable properties destroyed. The father and the son were appreciative of my professional services and I regarded and still regard Sanjay Dutt with affection due to the son of a friend.
I, therefore asked myself a rather difficult question. If my blood born son were exactly in the same position in which Sanjay Dutt is with his antecedents and conviction outstanding as of today, would I approve of my son wanting to make himself a Member of Parliament. It is only when my conscience answered that question with a firm ‘No’ I reluctantly issued the following press statement:-
“I am dismayed by the news that the Samajwadi Party is toying with the idea of setting up actor Sanjay Dutt as their candidate for Parliament from some constituency in Uttar Pradesh. I hope there is no truth in this report. I have been Sanjay Dutt’s lawyer and for that reason only I can not freely speak about him but imperatives of national interest compel me to say at least this much: ‘He does not deserve to be a Member of Parliament and any political party that sets him up as its candidate is totally impervious to the security of this nation’. I am a loner in national politics and I do not claim to have much influence over the voters. Even so I will fight all the way against him and any party that supports him, the ruling Congress included. I will at least have the satisfaction of having warned the nation”.
I am writing this to explain my action.
At the conclusion of the investigation the findings of the police were that on 16th January, 1993 Sanjay Dutt “knowingly and intentionally procured from accused Anees Ibrahim Kaskar through Sameer Ahmad Hingora, Hanif Kadawala, Baba @ Ibrahim Musa Chouhan, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari and Manzoor Ahmed Sayed Ahmed 3 AK-56 rifles, 25 hand grenades and one 9 mm pistol and cartridges for the purpose of committing terrorist acts. By keeping the AK-56 rifles, hand grenades, pistol and cartridges in his possession willingly, accused Sanjay Dutt facilitated these objectives. Some parts of the rifle, the 9 mm pistol and 53 rounds of live cartridges were recovered during the course of investigation. Accused Yusuf Mohsin Nullwala, Kersi Bapuji Adenia, Rusi Framrose Mulla, Ajay Yashprakash Marwah caused willful destruction of evidence namely one AK-56 rifle, one 9 mm pistol and cartridges by deliberately removing them from the house of accused Sanjay Dutt, at his instance, with the intention to protect the offender i.e. Sanjay Dutt from legal consequences and therefore, they are also guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC”.
Thus the charge against him was a very serious one including of an offence u/s 5 of the TADA Act.
Apart from some other evidence the prosecution relied upon his own confession which at least had remained un-retracted for a long time in which Sanjay Dutt admitted receiving 3 AK-56 rifles on 16th January, 1993 along with ammunition from the conspirators mentioned above. Two days later he returned two of them but retained only one for the purpose of self-defence. He stated that after the Babari Masjid incident he, his father and his sister received serious threats of injury. The rifle and the ammunition he claimed were required for the protection of his family.
The Constitution Bench had placed a certain construction on Section 5 of the TADA. I have always felt that the Constitution Bench was wrong and I have written about it in great detail. But the view taken by the Constitution Bench is binding law. The Bench in my opinion wrongly overlooked the view taken by the High Court of Bombay and other High Courts that, that Section can be upheld only on the construction that the possession of arms has some nexus with terrorism. However, in view of the Supreme Court judgment, it is difficult to accept the Trial Court’s finding that Sanjay Dutt is not guilty of the offence u/s 5 of the TADA but only of Section 25(1-A) (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act. However I am prepared to proceed on the assumption that Section 5 offence was not proved against Sanjay Dutt.
I am now looking at the facts of this case as a voter and as a citizen of India concerned with the imminent and continuing threat of terrorism when the magnitude of its destruction is mind boggling. Merely because the Court found no evidence of his being involved in actual terrorism, it only means that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond doubt. As a voter and concerned with India’s security I require something much more that that legal finding. I would not like to see in Parliament as people’s representative, a man about whom I am not absolutely sure that he is not a terrorist or involved with terrorist or their activities. The persons with whom he dealt in the matter of acquiring these dangerous arms and ammunition were doubtless terrorists. How did he get in touch with them? And Why did he use them to supply these dangerous weapons of mass destruction? Why were three rifles acquired and retained for a while and why did he return two and continued to retain one? Why were these arms acquired only a couple of months before the horrendous bomb blasts and why this acquisition had been kept secret from the other members of Dutt family? What is more disturbing is that after bomb blasts it was his duty as the son of a Congress Member of Parliament to help the police and become witness for the prosecution against his suppliers. The one rifle and ammunition left with him should have been produced as evidence of the guilt of the suppliers. He is a renowned actor and does not feel nervous either before the Camera or before large audiences. He should have at least stepped into the witness box and sworn to the contents of his confession. He should have stuck to that confession, which is the only piece of evidence of his claim of self-defence. Even in the Trial Court when he was asked about his confession he said he never wanted to make one and had not made any. He wholly denied the acquisition of these weapons from the co-accused. He denied the possession of the weapons and denied that he had anything to do with the melting of the rifle which had been for long lying in his garage.
Six of his co-accused had made confessions implicating Sanjay Dutt in the conspiracy. I know that in Courts we do not attach much importance to these confessions. Technically they are not even evidence yet as a citizen deciding according to my conscience whether Sanjay Dutt is going to be a useful addition to India’s Parliamentary life, I regret that I can arrive at no such conclusion. In moments of crisis which India is facing I would not take any risk and it is my duty boldly to advise my fellow citizens. It is my constitutional right to share my views with fellow citizens. My judgment is confined to his proposed entry into Parliament and I have no comment to make on his new role as a devout visitor to temples or his ventures in the field of matrimony.
New Delhi
Dated : 28-1-2009

There is something wrong with the conduct of our foreign affairs. The language of diplomacy is both difficult and delicate. Those in charge seem to be totally innocent of it. I understand the need for some rhetoric with elections in the offing. But what is being said day in and day out does not even advance any legitimate electoral interest. At least intelligent people are revolted by it.
Another depressing feature is the frequency of retractions and flip flop. With a little thought a statement can be so worded that it does not have to be amended after every slight change in circumstances. It is better to think before you speak rather than fumble after every thoughtless fulmination.
Is the act of Pakistan or its agencies in dispatching murderous terrorists and suicide bombers, any different from Hamas lobbying rockets into Israel, habitations and killing innocent men, women and children. If the threats to pursue the terrorists inside Pakistan territory and raging war to prevent terrorism are legitimate why is it not legitimate to dispatch ground forces into Gaza to capture or sanitize the rocket launching sites.
India must pick up the courage of speaking truth to friend, foe and neutral alike. That is the way to honour Gandhiji who had promised that after independence India will be the conscience of the world.

I am dismayed by the news that the Samajwadi Party is toying with the idea of setting up actor Sanjay Dutt as their candidate for Parliament from some constituency in Uttar Pradesh. I hope there is no truth in this report.
I have been Sanjay Dutt’s lawyer and for that reason only I can not freely speak about him but imperatives of national interest compel me to say at least this much: “He does not deserve to be a Member of Parliament and any political party that sets him up as its candidate is totally impervious to the security of this nation”.
I am a loner in national politics and I do not claim to have much influence over the voters. Even so I will fight all the way against him and any party that supports him, the ruling Congress included. I will at least have the satisfaction of having warned the nation.

RAM JETHMALANI