Frontline
July 1999
Update

Crusader for Human Rights

Few men could have led so full a life, a life devoted without a break for what is right, fair and just as V.M. Tarkunde who turned 90 on July 3

Tarkunde celebrated his 90th birthday on July 3, 1999. Few men could have led so full a life, a life so rich in achievement, a life devoted without a break for what is right, what is fair and just.

Having become a barrister, he started practising law, first in Pune, then in Bombay. From the very beginning, he devoted a large part of his life to social work. Social work for Tarkunde meant hard and uncomfortable work in the villages which he was fully qualified to do as he had a degree in agricultural economics. He did not do such work for publicity and self–advancement, but because he thought it right to do it. After he shifted to Bombay, social work meant assisting the trade union movement. He was also involved in the freedom movement.

He was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court and proved to be an outstanding judge with a passion for justice. For Tarkunde, the very object of law was to bring about justice. He analysed the underlying principle behind the law and to the extent possible decided in a manner that was fair and just. He was a judge for 12 years during which he delivered a number of judgements of distinction in the field of administrative and other branches of law.

On retiring, he started practising in the Supreme Court. He soon had a flourishing practice. He was always, however, available to appear for an impecunious client or a worthy cause. Many lawyers have done such work but few have done it so extensively. And, unlike most lawyers, Tarkunde did such work whenever required, not only when convenient so as not to disturb the flow of flourishing and paying work. Tarkunde in fact gave priority to such work and there were weeks when he did nothing else.

He was always in great demand for such work as he devoted all his energy and formidable legal ability to such work. But that was not all. He did not merely appear in court for good causes. That is easy. He also attended conferences and conventions all over the country, participated in demonstrations and protests. He travelled to small towns, staying in inconvenient and uncomfortable places. He was not afraid, and on at least one occasion, he was in a silent procession which was ruthlessly dispersed by the police, with Tarkunde himself being beaten up.

It is not even possible to list his many activities. He was at the fore–front of the campaign to end police atrocities against the Naxalites. After the vicious anti–Sikh pogrom in Delhi which followed the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, he took the lead in exposing the involvement of the Congress leadership and the higher police authorities in the pogrom. He supported the Bohra reformists in exposing the policies of the Bohra priesthood in suppressing all kinds of dissent. When the Khalistan movement was at its height, he had the courage to condemn the way in which the police and the para–military authorities had functioned. He did the same when Kashmir was racked by militancy later.

Unlike some activists, he condemned all acts of violence and atrocities, whether committed by the police or by the militants. He had the courage to do so in Srinagar when he was attending a militant rally!

Tarkunde is not a Gandhian in the formal sense; he does not wear khadi, and he enjoyed his game of golf. But if being Gandhian means a devotion to truth and principle, he is a great Gandhian.

He is a person who puts the human being first, above all "isms"; what he is devoted to is the freedom and welfare of the man. He abhors dogma and fundamentalism of all kinds.

At the function held to felicitate him on his 90th birthday in Mumbai, he spoke and made a few points which sum up the man, and which deserve to be widely known.

He stressed that he believed in morality which he explained meant doing what was good and right, not to oblige others, not to be thanked or praised, but because doing good should satisfy and please the person who does it. He called this enlightened self–interest. He said that he was a nationalist, but also a democrat; nationalism to him meant not believing in an abstraction called the nation, but working for the welfare, freedom and happiness of the people who constitute the nation. And speaking at the height of the Kargil crisis, he said that he unhesitatingly condemned the action of the militants in torturing and killing some Indian jawans, but reminded the audience not to forget that thousands of Kashmiris who had disappeared without a trace after being arrested by the police. Saying this required courage and this reveals the real Tarkunde, a man of great courage with the highest principles.

Atul M. Setalvad
(The writer is a senior lawyer)

 ‘Beware, the enemy within!’

(We reproduce below excerpts from the J.P. Memorial lecture delivered by Justice Tarkunde at a function organised by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, on March 23, 1993 in New Delhi. The principal focus of the lecture remains relevant even today)

THE 23rd of March is observed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties every year as the J.P. Memorial Day. It was on this day in 1977 that the emergency which had been
declared by Mrs. Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975, was lifted by the Janata government which came to power by defeating the Congress of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the 1977 election. Jayaprakash Narayan played a pivotal role in forging unity of the opposition parties and fashioning the electoral defeat of the Indira Congress. March 23, 1977 is rightly regarded as the day of India’s liberation from authoritarianism, and it is very appropriate that the day should be observed to express our regard and gratitude for Jayaprakash Narayan.

The danger of Indian democracy being replaced by personal dictatorship did not altogether disappear with the lifting of the emergency on 23rd March 1977. The danger of authoritarianism re–appeared with the success of Mrs. Gandhi the post–emergency election of 1979–80 and it continued even under the unprincipled regime of Rajiv Gandhi. After Rajiv Gandhi’s tragic death, however, the Gandhi–Nehru family has ceased to be in possession of political power and, the danger of personal dictatorship has receded into the background.

In the meantime, however, a graver and more serious danger to Indian democracy has appeared on the horizon. It is represented by the growing strength of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the power behind it – the R.S.S and the Sangh Parivar consisting of such organisations like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal. They are giving to the Indian people a heady mixture of aggressive Hindu communalism and an equally aggressive Hindu nationalism. In that process they are promoting animosity between Hindus and Muslims. The events which led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 show that the forces involved in this communal – nationalist movement have no regard for the rule of law and the institutions of judicial administration.

As I will show later, the movement which is being fostered by these forces contains all the essential characteristics of fascism. By promoting communal animosity the BJP has during a short time of about two years increased its strength in Parliament from

two to 119 members. During this process, more than 2,000 persons have died as a result of communal riots prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and more destructive communal riots have taken place thereafter all over the country. As the Congress (I) is now much weaker than before and the opposition parties are unable to unite to form an anti–communal secular platform, the BJP expects to come to power in the next election. If this happens, secular democracy in India is liable to be replaced by a potentially fascist theocratic State.

I am of the view that the communalist nationalism which is being propagated by the BJP and the sangh parivar represent a far greater danger to Indian democracy than the personal authoritarian rule which Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the Gandhi–Nehru family were likely to impose on the country. A personal authoritarian rule is a lesser danger because it is largely external to the people. Most of the people do not approve of it, although they are usually too afraid to stick out their necks and openly oppose it. It is true that those who are in favour of the status quo are positively in favour of such an authoritarian rule, but they do not form the majority of our people. In the course of time, an increasing number of bold spirits come forward to openly oppose the imposition of individual authoritarianism. That is what happened during the emergency between June 1975 and February 1977.

Communalism, however, particularly when it is the communalism of the majority and can therefore take the form of ardent nationalism as well, can find a positive response in the minds of the people who are still prone to religious blind faith and among whom the humanist values of democracy — the values of liberty, equality, fraternity – are yet to be fully developed. Communalism in such cases is an internal enemy residing in the human mind and it is far more difficult to eradicate than an external enemy like an autocratic ruler.


[ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Khoj | Aman ]
[ Letter to editor  ]
Copyrights © 2001, Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.