If vast sections of the world public opinion regard India as democracy, it must be attributed to that country’s international public relations. Until not long ago during the Nehru dynasty’s rule the teeming millions were led to believe that India was moving towards a socially egalitarian society. The myth was meant for local consumption. But certain innocent people in the west believed that India was dangerously socialist. Only recently, India’s finance minister, Manmohan Singh, expressed the view that what the country ran for 45 years was not socialism, it was merely non-functional capitalism. That is a correct statement. The same is equally true of India’s so-called democracy. In the Indian style of democracy only one caste group Brahmans must rule the country. This caste group has ‘a miniscule share in the country’s population about one ‘percent. Yet, India cannot do without a Brahman prime minister, ‘a Brahman President, a Brahman chief justice, a Brahman army chief of staff, a Brahman chief election commissioner etc. This unique caste group dominated the bureaucracy even during the Mughal and British rule, Its most significant attribute is its dedication to the status quo. In the Indian context of today, what the Indian ruling class cannot do otherwise, it must have things done through the Indian Supreme Court, again dominated by Brahmans. It was the Supreme Court which some time ago had saved the establishment from the “forces of change” when they pressed the central government to earmark a certain percentage of jobs for socially backward communities. Again, it is the Supreme Court which is being used by the Indian government in relation to the Babri Masjid Ramjanam Bhoomi dispute. In respect of Sikhs also, the Supreme Court helps out the Indian government. Sikhs have been pressing for court’s verdict regarding Punjab’s rights to its own river water vis-a-vis other states’ claims. But the Supreme Court has chosen to keep the matter in permanent abeyance, all at the instance of the Indian government. The Sikhs have moved countless petitions challenging the constitutional vires of the anti-terrorism laws but the Indian Supreme Court has been sitting pretty over all these petitions because the government is afraid of any verdict as it will expose Indian pretensions as a parliamentary democracy. Again, where non-Sikhs prefer petitions to the Supreme Court, it ‘readily comes to their help even by going out of its way. Thus, ‘the great Indian supreme court has stayed the operation of disciplinary action against certain police officers who are accused by Sikhs of their involvement in the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere. Akali leader Simranjit Singh Mann recently moved a petition to spare the lives of Bhai Harjinder Singh and Bhai Sukhdev Singh now lodged in Poone jail on the ground that they only protested against the attack on the holiest of their holy places by killing the former Indian army chief General A.S. Vaidya. The Supreme Court held that Mann had no “locus standi” to move the petition, Not long ago, someone unconnected with a convict belonging to Jammu, a Hindu, was allowed to move the petition and his locus standi was not called into question. Mann has again moved the petition by citing that instance while full preparations are on at Poone to hang the two Sikh heroes. The Supreme Court is assuming authoritarian postures as is evident from a notice it has given to the elected Speaker of Manipur’s popularly elected Assembly, Borebabu Singh, to present himself to the court on October 20. The dispute between the Supreme Court and the Manipur Assembly Speaker centers round the disqualification of certain legislators under the anti-defection law. The Supreme Court gave certain order to be executed by the secretary of the Manipur Assembly directly which the Speaker resisted. It led to the Supreme Court issuing contempt of courts notice to the Speaker. What is interesting about the incident is the fact that the Indian government headed by Narasimha Rao is not on the side of the elected Speaker but is on the side of the supreme court and has been trying to put ‘pressure on the Speaker, So much so that the Indian government ‘has impounded the pass-port of the Speaker who was scheduled to leave for Bahmao for a meeting of Commonwealth Speakers. The entire episode, according to Borebabu Singh, will end the parliamentary system in India itself. The incident clearly shows that the Brahman-dominated Indian government is not much concemed about the rights of the elected representatives of the people. It is more concerned about the nominated Brahman judges of the Indian Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Manipur’s elected representatives are crying hoarse about the danger to the parliamentary system in India from the Supreme Court and it’s so called interpretation of law. The world will do well to closely examine the role of the Indian Supreme Court. It will realize before long that India’s top judiciary is nothing but a massive humbug. It is supreme in form and very low in content.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 16, 1992
