A Tribute to Justice Rajinder Sachar

Justice Rajinder Sachar : A life dedicated to people’s movement, socialist vision and human rights

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

One does not remember Justice Rajinder Sachar when he was the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court in 1985 but it is a fact that a forthright person like him was never to the liking of those in power.  As a judge in Delhi High Court, he was deeply disturbed and upset with the lack of seriousness and justification of brutal massacres of the Sikhs in the aftermath of the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi.  He spoke against it, passed orders  but an interference from the then prime minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, who had a massive mandate in Parliament, Justice Sachar was denied hearing the cases related to 1984 pogrom in Delhi. He had been openly critical of the emergency in 1975 and was transferred from Delhi high court. That a chief justice of Delhi high court could not make it to the Supreme Court then we should understand that the loss was of judiciary and not the other way round. The rest is history. His ‘punishment’ became a boon for the civil liberty movement in India. Perhaps the period post retirement were more fruitful for him and for all those who got associated with him and engaged with him on issues of public concern. It is a reality that anyone who challenged those in power became victim of the power politics.

The fact is that Justice Sachar’s name would come among the top three jurists of India for their remarkable contribution for the rule of law and standing upright to the power as well as defending civil liberties and human rights after they got retired from their ‘official’ work. In fact, they never got retired because all these legends did extraordinary work of service to public life after they demitted their office. They are Justice V R Krishna Iyer, Justice V M Tarkunde and Justice Rajinder Sachar. Interestingly, all the three might not be called the best in the legal profession yet their concern for human rights, human values and social inclusion put them at very high pedestal than those who might be called ‘constitutional experts’. All the three were actually political personalities and participated in political movements and hence the pro-people thoughts were part of their basic DNA. Justice Krishna Iyer was a Minister in the first left government in Kerala while Justice Tarkunde played a very important role during the emergency and was close associate of Jai Prakash Narain, though prior to that Tarkunde was part of the Radical Humanist party formed by M N Roy and Justice Rajinder Sachar came from a very illustrious family background as his father was Bhim Sen Sachar was the chief minister of Punjab and an important leader of the Congress Party yet in thoughts and practice Justice Sachar was deeply influenced by Ram Manohar Lohia and his socialist thoughts in his very young age. In fact, he associated with various socialist political thoughts and talked about an alternative to both the Congress and the BJP.

One of the pioneers of civil liberties movements in India, Justice Rajinder Sachar was a very humble person and easy to access. Unlike many other luminaries, Justice Sachar was more comfortable in sitting and talking with activists of the grassroots. He would stand in solidarity with all the secular liberal forces seeking justice and fair implementation of law. When the human rights organisations were putting pressure for a National Human Rights Commission, he was among very few involved in supporting initiative for it. He was well versed with International affairs and was appointed the UN rapporteur for the Housing Rights but his main concern was the issues of minorities in India and the growing hatred being spread by the Hindu right in India.

Justice Sachar became a household name after the famous Sachar Commission Report that he submitted to the Union government in the year 2006 on the Social, Economic and Educational status of Muslim community in India. Nobody was expecting a miracle from this report. Many were skeptical about the ‘Lahore’ club as upper caste upper elite ‘seculars because Sachar Saheb and others who migrated from Pakistan actually never really bothered too much about the caste discrimination. They were thoroughly secular and would go to any extent to defend the rights of minorities but would rarely speak about the caste discrimination as an issue but the Sachar report surprised many because it did admit unambiguously that Muslims are not a monolith group as being made out and caste system exists among the Muslims in India. Though the issue of the Pasmanda Muslims were already gaining momentum but after the open admittance by the Sachar Committee that there are backward Muslims and they need to be identified and provided protection, the movement gained ground. Till date, a large number of Muslim elite institutions too avoided speaking about the caste discrimination among the Muslims terming it a lie and suggesting that Islam does not permit it but now they have realized that conversion to other religion does not actually remove our caste identity and prejudices remain the same.

Justice Sachar was one of the most active members of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and was very pragmatic person. People would go to him to seek advice whenever there was a crisis and his words were like final for many.  While human rights were his primary concern yet he was an active political activist whose concerns about growing isolation of minorities particularly Muslims in India was shared by many. Not many among his profession were that forthright as Justice Sachar when he spoke about the politics of intimidation and marginalization of Muslims. It takes a lot of courage of conviction when a man of his stature spoke as why did not government act against those Hindu dealers who are owners of the slaughter houses and export beef. At the time when beef and Muslims were made synonymous, Justice Sachar openly spoke how a majority of the beef exporters in India are Hindus which infuriated many in the Hindutva camp.

 Very few people know that Justice Rajinder Sachar had actually suggested a change in our electoral system and switch to proportionate electorate system. He submitted this to Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission suggesting that vote percentage and seat one must be the same. He was worried about the low voting percentage. When Campaign for Electoral Reforms in India actually organized a National Conference in Delhi in 2012, I had gone to invite Justice Rajinder Sachar for the meeting as I had found out that he had given a written submission to Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission. To my surprise, Justice Sachar said that he does not hold the same view now because now the Dalits and OBCs are coming in fair number in our parliament and no one party has the monopoly in our polity. Justice Sachar came to the programme and so did Justice D.S.Tewatia, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, who he recommended. Ofcourse, that day, both of them disappointed.

I was disappointed with the turn of event on part of Justice Sachar for not supporting the cause of proportionate electorate system. Like many others, he too felt it was a bit complicated. He wanted to focus on the other issues of electoral reforms such as corruption, criminalization of the polity and the most important part was that voting percentage must be above 50% if any candidate has to win. I feared that most of the ‘libertarians’ were afraid that the proportionate Electorate System would open a Pandora box and divide the already divided society and hence they wanted to keep it in cold storage.

One thing remarkable about him was his enthusiasm and friendly approach to people. He was much in demand in the conferences, Dharanas and seminars and gave his subjects utter importance. I have observed him on many occasions where he would have spoken extempore but he came with notes and full presentation. He was very comfortable speaking on the issues of Muslims and minorities in India and was fairly popular among them.  Hailing from Punjab, he knew the Islamic culture and was well versed with Urdu language. This was the reason he felt at-home with the Muslim intellectuals and youths.

Partition created psychological scars in both the Hindus and Muslims. Punjab and Bengal were the most affected regions. The world saw the biggest migration of people, unthinkable hitherto from one place to other. Millions were killed. People saw brutalities of worst kind. The Hindu Right worked among these communities in India and the Muslim rights in Pakistan feeding them with all kind of rumours about Muslims and Hindus relatively. That resulted in the large number of refugees in both the countries developed virtual hatred against each other. Their narrative would give worst kind of picture of their ‘enemy’. The ruling elite also encouraged such and got strengthened on the fear psychosis of the people. As a young person he Rajinder Sachar must have seen and felt this and yet he did not succumb to all these narratives and stories that was being regularly fed to people. It needs strong conviction and courage to stand up and challenge these popular narratives when the atmosphere was thoroughly polarized. Perhaps, this was his biggest strength to stand up with the people suffering because of their identity. He has seen Pakistan and the failure of it because of the religious right dictated political system and therefore failed it. In India, thankfully, the first generation of the political leaders despite their differences, were secular and liberal democrats and hence we survived as a democracy and gave minorities equal rights unlike Pakistan. Therefore, it need big courage to stand up against the popular narrative and speak for the rights of all which he did all his life. Right from the issue of Kashmir to those dying in communal violence whether against Sikhs in 1984 or Gujarat in 2002 or Mumbai in 1993, he was always there standing with the communities marginalized by the bureaucratic and administrative structure because of pure communal polarization. He had seen it in pre-partition days, the division and hatred it created and that is why he knew the repercussion of it which made him a person championing the cause of minorities and their rights.

Justice Rajinder Sachar lived every moment of his life. There was never a dull moment for him. In fact he was very serious about socialist party and has been speaking to various people about its vision. At the age of 94 when most of his contemporaries avoided going to political protests, seminars and conferences, Justice Sachar was exception. The last time, we were at one platform was the huge public programme at the Talkatora Stadium organized by All India Milli Council where he spoke and defended the rights of the Muslims a citizen of India. His was the voice of sanity and for much authenticity too. At the moment when our judiciary is facing slumber and conspiracy theories are roaming around as the highest court of the land is under scrutiny, Justice Sachar’s voice would have been very sane and useful for all of us who believe in constitutionalism and rule of law. His death is a big blow to the civil liberties movement in India as well as to all the secular forces who looked upon him as a guardian. The country’s secular liberal democratic space will definitely miss him in these moments of national crisis when his solidarity and presence encouraged activists to fight their battle more vigorously.

Civil Liberties Under the threat

Is India fast turning into a police state?

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

As India grows to become global power, the penetration of civil society, media and other instruments of state become stronger and visible. While it might not be to the likings of those in power when they see protest against forcible acquisition of land in the name of ‘development’. Portraying India as a democracy is easier as we have everything which makes us a successful democracy in the world. We have the ‘best’ constitution. We have president who ‘epitomizes’ ideal Indian woman, chief justice of India from the most marginalized community. The chief minister of India’s most populous and perhaps most criminal state of Uttar-Pradesh is a ‘Dalit woman’. We have so many from the marginalized communities that it looks as if we are a mature democracy.

But the brutal fact is that we are still a democracy which works on symbols. So when symbols are questioned, our maturity as a democracy comes to an end. Therefore, each of these symbols whether they belong to the most marginalized communities or women, feel irritated once they are questioned. The governments of the day feel that these babus in their secretariat provide them the true information. Every act of the state which is questioned is considered as blasphemy.

Over 30 years ago, Indira Gandhi became larger than life. Any criticism of Indira became a challenge to the nation and the critiques were put behind the bar. But that was very small thing. Today, the states are becoming highly inflammable and intolerant to any criticism of their functioning. They want a media which could report on their press releases. They want civil society to do the work designed and defined for the construction contractors hence you find more NGOs in the domain of contractors. Very few have got the guts to speak up against this tyranny.

One need not to go into political ideologies or international connections of civil society groups here but the basic of why the state and its authorities are getting tizzy over criticism need serious analysis. When Binayak Sen was arrested in Chhatisgarh, the same argument was given that he had linked with Naxalites. A state which has surrendered and can not protect its citizens is blaming a human rights activist who has been sincerely doing his work, is termed as a ‘sympathizers’ as if sympathy with a group become anti national. One does not know what does it mean but definitely all those who once upon of a time wrote that Maoists were terrorists in Nepal, will have to shut their mouth and sit with them as people’s power have brought them. Binayak Sen is still languishing in Jail despite appeal for his release by international community. His continuous confinement shows how mature are we as a democracy.

Just a few days back, about 18 farmers contested election as mark of protest in Polepally, Mehboob Nagar, Andhra Pradesh where Andhra Pradesh government is developing an SEZ. The land acquired made a majority of the people of the area completely landless and penniless. The state’s forced acquisition did not give people time to think. Political parties play blame game and yet when they come to power, behave in a very similar way. Hence when the farmers contested in the polls as independent candidates, they all calculated and yet were not allowed to protest. If the chief minister comes to the town, all the contestants were illegally detained and let off in far away places.

Illegal detention is part of our police culture. It is to stop you speaking in open. It is state’s intimidation with out killing you. It is basically killing us all the time. Movements are divided, rifts are created among them, laws are interpreted in such a way that no one would believe in democracy. Why should any one believe in it if after 20-30 years of struggle and faith in the highest law of the land, people do not get justice? The case point is Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, where over 150 Dalit landless workers were involved in their struggle for livelihood. About 1167 acres of land was illegally possessed by a company named as M/s Escorts Farms Ltd. Despite Allahabad High Court verdict which was later upheld by Supreme Court, the state government refused to implement the order. Even the Lokayukta of Uttarakhand found that the officials of the government have violated the law and done contempt of the court, but nothing moves. A fresh petition was filed by Social Development Foundation in the Supreme Court of India with Justice K.G.Balakrishanan and Justice Ravindran issued notices to Uttarakhand government against the same. Not every one can go to the court. By the time, people reach Supreme Court, their patience is gone, and a number of them do not even remain alive to see the dooms day. Hence in democracy people are using other techniques for their redressal like social audits, public hearing, people’s tribunals and many innovative ideas. Unfortunately, the government officials have become too intolerant to these ideas as they have become instruments for public shows and media relation exercise. The officials, habitual of hiding facts know that under tremendous pressure of civil society, they won the issues like Right to Information which is being used by people to redress their issues. In fact, it has become an obstacle in the freedom of the officials. Now, issues like Social Audits of the government programmes have also made people aware of their rights. Those who enjoy ignorance of people at the cost of their livelihood are now feeling challenged and confronted and therefore various acts of intimidations.

Therefore, questioning government and authorities may cost you life as happened in the case of Lalit Mehta, a social activist of the right to food campaign in Jharkhand, who was shot dead when as he unearthed massive scandal in the NREGS. Shockingly rather than arresting the culprit, the government reports implicate noted economist Jean Dreze, the inspiration behind right to food campaign. It shows how the governments of the day function and how ignorant its officials are about the persons leading such movements. It is not their fault but the culture we have developed in the government which they are the law unto themselves.

The point is that these cases will go on and on. We will highlight them and ultimately put the erring officials to scrutiny but what happens to the people. Many of the people in these cases are old and by the time justice comes they are no more. In the Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar case many lost their children. Cases were filed against them for ‘disturbing’ peace. Similar thing happened in Polepally as just a day back, a young woman drank poison as her family was in a difficult situation after the land was forcibly taken over by the government. Now, over the years apart from mobilization as form of protest, organizing alternative strategies such as blogs, silent protests, fast and public hearing are fast becoming instruments of civil society. As corporatised media is controlled and give news according to their own interest, we have to find, who will be interested in our stories. But if you are not politically correct and are not into any fixation into ‘this’ or ‘that’ political formation, then even the best known ‘secular’ paper like ‘the Hindu’ can ditch you. And we know how faithfully it reported the events of Nandigram.

The ‘democratic’ Marxists are most undemocratic. Apart from fudging the data, playing with numbers to prove them with ‘impeccable’ credentials, they have been romanticized by aid agencies, people working for land rights and those working on secularism in India. Yes, outside Bengal, they fight for people’s right over resources, they are organising public hearing and being part of it. They are role models even for their ‘worst’ critiques like ‘world bank’. ‘Frontline’ gave them hundred percent marks for ‘elimination’ of manual scavenging and wonderfully handling the Nandigram crisis. When public hearings are considered as part of people’s protests and their faith in democratic values, in Bengal, the police order have put question mark over such things. That human rights organization, MASUM, which is working against torture and custodial deaths, organized a Public Hearing against the victims of police atrocities in Kolkata on June 9th and June 10th. It is strange that the state government felt offended with the activities of a civil society organization where a former Chief Justice of a state high court and a former chairperson of National Commission for Women, participated as observers. Have public hearing or people’s tribunal become parallel government? Perhaps the governments of the day want to believe that. Unfortunately, they do not understand that people’s tribunal helps the victims to understand the legal dynamics of their cases. People’s tribunals are like watch dogs of the government action so that they can be improved. Like any civil society these are lawful activities with legal luminaries and government authorities participating in it.

In a civilized society, governments of the day need to be on the toes. No government, however, old or big might be is above the rule of the law. Government’s authorities are responsible to people. Their activities need to be questioned. The state human rights commissions are becoming redundant. Even the activities of NHRC are limited. And even with in those parameters, the governments are not interested in forming these commissions. The case point is Haryana where a woman who was raped by the constables of Haryana police committed suicide in front of the DGP office after failing to get FIR against the erring policemen who instead of surrendering tried to implicate her husband. Haryana which is notorious for honored killing and caste based crimes, does not feel it necessary to have its own State Human Rights Commission.

The assaults on human rights defenders will grow in the coming days. They would be asked to toe the government line. Like the embedded press, perhaps, the government is looking for embedded human rights activism. They find it difficult since their own institutions which they constituted are not functioning according to their fancies. It is time, Indian officials and police adhere to international norms and practices. Any act of intimidations to human rights activists will only damage the forces of rule of law in the country. As long as there will be assault on people’s right whether they are fundamental rights or rights over resources, people will fight for justice and for that they will not only need strong national laws but support and collaboration from international laws and civil society. Human Rights movement world over are supporting people’s cause and need full support. We must decry and oppose to any attempt to intimidate people to express their opinion and exercise their right to organize a public hearing which is part of any civilized democratic system to highlight the plight of the victims. If that is taken away from us, there will be no difference between a democracy and a military junta or a martial law regime anywhere in the world. Wake up India, otherwise, it would be too late.