Many politicians with a shallow understanding of the human psyche believe that every evil in society can be cured by legal measures intended to curb such tendencies. Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily is among them. Some time ago, while addressing a conference of Central Bureau of Investigation officials, he had the brilliant idea of using stringent legal provisions to punish corrupt public servants. He even proposed 71 fast-track special courts for CBI cases.
His outburst came in response to CBI complaints that it faced difficulty in proceeding against senior officials steeped in corruption as they enjoyed Constitutional protection. Even as Law Minister, he was seemingly oblivious to the fact that legal provisions are punitive and not preventive. Only a few get caught redhanded but even they manage to escape penal action because of the weakness inherent in the system.
BJP leader LK Advani has several times blamed the absence of Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA)-like provisions for the failure to prevent terrorist strikes. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi often rants against the Centre for not approving his legislation for detaining suspected criminals for long durations. Apparently, both believe that legal provisions are the deterrents that can control crime and terrorism. They conveniently overlook the fact that since time immemorial, even mortal fear of God and dread of burning in hell have not deterred people from crime.
How can a man determined to sacrifice his life for the cause he has been led to believe is his ordained duty to uphold, ever be deterred by provisions in the statute book? He has no fear of either the law or death. Every sane person would disapprove of and even condemn his action but he has already been brainwashed.
The root of corruption lies not merely in human greed but also in the state’s provision of freedom and opportunity to interpret the law and rules that are generally structured as prohibitive. The basic assumption behind the framing of legislation is that every citizen is dishonest. So he must be deterred from certain actions by the state and be threatened with punitive measures. The economic model that India followed for the first four decades of independence was restrictive, with draconian powers invested in bureaucrats to control every aspect of economic enterprise with use of human creativity. If 80 per cent of higher income is taken away by way of taxes, no incentive is left for generating wealth by honest means.
In 40 years, violation of law was made a cheaper and easier way out than compliance with it. Private individuals readily offered a small percentage of potential profits if the official who commanded authority to grant permission was willing to interpret rules in a way that would make the permit easily available. When the bureaucrat allows himself to be used to mobilize resources for the party or persons in power, his conscience is killed. Moily has been a Chief Minister. He would surely know how resources are mobilized for the party and whose services are exploited. His outcry against corrupt officials and his threat of legal provisions will have little impact in curing the system plagued by corruption. It amounts to rhetoric for public consumption.
In 1986, Finance Minister VP Singh wanted to empower tax officials with draconian authority to visit any home or office at any time to verify tax law compliance by the owners of such premises. His Minister of State, Bhairavdan Garhavi, protested vehementsly. Garhavi told Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that no government could assume that every citizen was suspect and dishonest. Nor could government invest such draconian power in the hands of an enforcement agency with a reputation for rampant corruption. Apparently, VP Singh had more faith in the honesty of his officials than of the citizens. Rajiv Gandhi saw the weight of Garhavi’s argument and ruled out the proposal.
Advani and Modi also have this faith in officials, as evidenced by their demand for investing law enforcement agencies with draconian powers for detention of suspects without trial or their own accountability in case injustice to the detained person is proved. Such a stance is in total disregard of human rights and individual liberty. It is all the more surprising as Advani and hundreds of his partymen were victims of the misuse of the infamous Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) during the Emergency. All parties have been led to believe by the law enforcement agencies that such a legal provision is essential to curb crime and terrorism. It makes their task much easier because they do not have to produce tangible prima facie evidence to get the court order for detention.
Advani had the advantage of availability of the detention law (TADA) as Home Minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. Yet he, or the fear of TADA, could not prevent terrorist attacks on strategic locations that were under high security. There were attacks on the Kashmir Assembly and Parliament. Even religious places, including a site considered holy by the Muslim community in Kashmir, were targeted by terrorists. It ought to have become clear to Advani and his supporters that the mere existence of a draconian law is not enough to tackle the problem of terrorism. It requires political acumen and vision to understand the problem and its roots.
The fake encounters in Gujarat as well as suspected cases of hundreds of innocent lives sacrificed in the name of encounters with terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir reflect an eerie aspect – that no authority in the government, either politician or senior bureaucrat, had sought to verify that the policemen had not played the triple role of accuser, judge and executioner by seeking evidence for the action. Men were killed without trial, files were closed and shelved without anyone asking awkward questions. The middle class was unperturbed because the policeman had said the killed person was a terrorist.
If the policeman can get away with such draconian power, he will naturally use the power of his uniform for other purposes as well. How is that crime any less serious than murder? Can any legal provision end the misuse? Many of our politicians believe so.
