Dalit-Bahujans should refuse to become life jackets of power

 

Dalit-Bahujans should refuse to become life jackets of power

- Ramayan  Ram

(English translation fron Hindi by SR Darapuri)

A strange situation has arisen in present-day India. Whenever any part of political or social power gets caught in contradiction, whenever a public opinion starts in the country against the system, then at the same time some well-known intellectual representatives from among the Dalit and backward society , have some such issues and objections. With this, the public opinion that is being organized at first sight and the atmosphere being created against the power proves to be anti-Dalit and its final result is that a large section of Dalit-Bahujans distance themselves from this public opinion. And the result is that in this way the power gets legitimacy and the movement also weakens.

Be it the Nirbhaya movement in the last years, the anti-corruption movement or the JNU movement in 'New India', the case of mob violence or the return of awards by litterateurs or the CAA-anti-NRC campaign, some of the Dalits and the Backward intellectual contractors ask these sections to stay away from these movements and every time they try to prove that all these are gimmicks of upper caste liberals, but it does not benefit Dalits. Some examples are always put forward in which it is said that when something wrong happens with Dalits, these upper caste Liberals do not come forward. But even when the Left and Liberal organizations joined Rohit Vemula's institutional killing and in the Bharat Bandh of April 2 and started chanting 'Jai Bhim - Lal Salaam', these so-called intellectual contractors of Dalit-Backward society started feeling  pain because this unity put their contracting at risk.

A recent case of this phenomenon and trend is related to Prashant Bhushan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and a prominent leader of the human rights and civil society movement. He has been convicted of contempt of court on the basis of two cases of commenting through tweets on the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Prashant Bhushan has consistently raised his voice against the weakening of democratic institutions and especially the judiciary under the patronage of the present government. In the same sequence, he had questioned the public conduct of the judges on the basis of a picture of Chief Justice Sharad Bobde's riding an expensive motor bike of a BJP leader's son, which was much debated. The contempt case against Bhushan clearly stems from the sentiment of animosity stemming from the debate over this tweet and teaching him a lesson.

On August 14, a three-judges bench of the Supreme Court convicted Bhushan and is to be sentenced on August 20. Thousands of jurists and democratic personalities have raised their voice against this decision; there is dissatisfaction and resentment on this issue among the common people within the country.

Meanwhile, the middlemen of the Dalit-Backward society again came forward and by putting forward the case of Justice Karnan of 2017 before  Prashant Bhushan's case began to advise the Dalits to stay away from it. For this, a tweet from Bhushan was put forward in which he expressed his happiness over the contempt proceedings against the then Calcutta High Court's Dalit Judge Justice Karnan in 2017 and a six-month sentence under it.

Now it is being said that Dalits should not have any sympathy with Bhushan as he expressed happiness in Justice Karnan's case. Self-proclaimed leaders of the Dalits- Backwards say that since Bhushan comes from the upper caste and a powerful community close to the corridors of power, they should be left on their own. According to them, this is an internal contradiction between the upper castes, with which we should have no relation.

The first thing in this regard is that here the question of Prashant Bhushan's personal values ​​is not an insult, but it is a question of protecting the soul of the Constitution and protecting the independence of the judiciary. In the democracy, the common people are in the role of the sentinel and if the fairness of the judiciary ends completely, then it will have a direct impact on the Dalits, the poor and the deprived because despite everything, these sections expect a lot of justice from here only. .

A mature democratic and impartial judiciary is not a made-up concept, but it has to be achieved, saved and strengthened through everyday struggle. In this struggle, the deprived sections and the Dalit Backward should be in the front line, not trying to keep away from them on one pretext, and give walk-over to the power and benefit them through the back door.

Now let us also try to understand the case of Karnan. Karnan was appointed a judge in the Madras High Court in 2009. G. Balakrishnan was the Chief Justice of India at that time. He was regularised in 2011 after being a temporary judge from 2009 to 2011. He then started raising the question of caste discrimination in the judiciary. Calling a press conference, he accused one of his fellow judges of caste discrimination but in this case he did not exercise the powers available in the judiciary.

While being a judge in the Madras High Court, he raised the question of caste discrimination with him many times, but each time he continued to act in a blatant manner, keeping the principles of the judiciary and the dignity of being his judge.  During the hearing on a petition related to appointment of judges in 2015, he entered the court room and despite being a judge started demanding he to be a party in this matter.

21 judges of Madras High Court wrote a complaint letter against him to the Supreme Court. Due to these controversies, he was transferred to the Calcutta High Court in 2016. He himself sat as a judge on his own  transfer order and stayed it. When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sent a notice, he apologized for his behaviour and admitted that his mental state was not right. After taking charge in the Calcutta High Court, he levelled charges of corruption against 20 judges, on which contempt proceedings were taken against him.

Instead of sentencing and impeachment of Karnan, there has been a debate about sending him directly to judicial custody. It may be that his privilege has been violated in this case. But in this case, more than his being a Dalit, his behaviour under which he levelled allegations through his unilateral decisions, absconding and contempt of judicial procedures was also worth noting. No voice of Justice Karnan was heard against casteism or on Dalit issues after completion of his tenure as a judge or after completion of six months sentence; meanwhile, he has not taken part in any movement or debate.

Anyone reading this description may feel that the author of these lines has shared the information unilaterally and there is no attempt to understand Justice Karnan's side. It is quite possible that the questions raised by Justice Karnan were correct. Even before Karnan, the question of casteism and corruption has been raised in the judiciary, but in the way Karnan adopted this question, all the debate got focused on Karnan's behavior and his inconsistent decisions and procedures.

With his behavior, Karnan overturned the issue and as an individual he came to the center of the debate, thus he only harmed the issue of caste discrimination in the judiciary. If he were being discriminated, he should have resigned and come out from there and raise the question among the public and make mass mobilization on this issue, instead he remained honorable and by his conduct made a serious issue as a non serious issue.

The question is who has the right to represent Dalit issues? Should Ramdas Athawale or Chirag Paswan say that they are being discriminated against on the basis of caste, and often the Dalits within them wakes up just before the elections and they expect that Dalits should go after them? The problem of casteism in India is not a minor problem. This is the fundamental contradiction of our society; the solution has to be found by all. The people like Karnan work to weaken the struggle against casteism in their own ways. The tendency among the deprived sections to support every wrong person in the name of caste and blindly oppose every heterogeneous person is also very deadly which weakens the fight against caste.

Contempt on Prashant Bhushan is a matter of curbing freedom of expression but at its core it raises questions about the fairness of the judiciary, every person who believes in democracy of the country stands with Prashant Bhushan today.  Dalit Bahujans should refuse to become the life jackets of power in the name of caste.

(Ramayan  Ram is an independent commentator.)