I have many things to write unto you
but I will not write with pen and ink
--JOHN the theologian
Webmasters Make $$$
Buy at AllPosters.com
| POETRY requires a mature audience ENTER only if you are 18+ ||
On Civil Liberties and the Civil Society in India
[from poetryrepair 01.12:14]
India faces the prospect of renewed federal tension triggered off by the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) recently promulgated by the Government of India after the Black Tuesday attacks against the United States - the POTO is in fact the brainchild of Union Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani, a Bharatiya Janata Party hardliner. The Left Front (LF) Government of West Bengal, however, has protested against this "draconian" ordinance. According to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the LF coalition leader, the POTO would subvert the federal spirit of the Constitution of India.
However, the Government of West Bengal would itself propose an anti-kidnapping bill in the state legislative assembly that resembles the POTO in its repressive aspects: provisions like imprisonment up to six months without trial and the capital punishment are common to both. This has resulted in intra-party tension [the CPI(M) is against ordinances on principle] as well as inter-party tension between the CPI(M) and the BJP.
Part XVIII of India's Constitution allows the state to suspend civil liberties and the exercise of certain federal norms during the President's Proclamation of Emergency. The Constitution provides for the following emergencies: a threat by "war or external aggression" or by "internal disturbances", a "failure of constitutional machinery" in the country or in a component state and a threat to the financial security of the nation or a part of it. Under the first two emergencies, the Fundamental Rights - with the exception of protection of life and personal liberty - may be suspended along with other federal norms. Any Proclamation of Emergency, however, automatically lapses after a couple of months if not approved earlier by both Houses of the Union Parliament.
The President can even dismiss a state government if it can be ascertained, upon receipt of a report from the state Governor, that the constitutional machinery has broken down therein. This is also known as the President's Rule as the President of India can assume any or all functions of the state government, transfer the powers of the state Legislative Assembly to the Parliament or adopt other measures necessary like suspension, in whole or in part, of the Constitution and its federal norms. However, President's Rule cannot interfere with the exercise of authority by the state's High Court. Once approved, President's Rule ordinarily continues for six months, but it may be even extended up to one year if the Parliament ratifies. In exceptional cases like insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir during the early and mid-1990s, President's Rule had continued for more than five years.
President's Rule has been used ten times during the tenure of Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri, from 1947 to 1966. Under Indira Gandhi's (daughter of Nehru) two stints as Prime Minister (1966-77 and 1980-84), President's Rule was used forty-one times. Despite Indira Gandhi's frequent use of President's Rule, she was in power longer (187 months) than any other Indian Prime Minister apart from Nehru (201 months). Other Prime Ministers have also frequently taken recourse to this authoritarian and anti-federal measure: Morarji Desai (eleven times in twenty-eight months), Chaudhury Charan Singh (five times in less than six months), Rajiv Gandhi (eight times in sixty-one months), Vishwanath Pratap Singh (two times in eleven months), Chandra Shekhar (four times in seven months) and P.V. Narasimha Rao (nine times in his first forty-two months in office).
State of Emergency has been proclaimed three times since India's Independence (1947). The first was in 1962 during the Chinese Aggression. Another was declared in 1971 during the Bangladesh War. The next Emergency was imposed In 1975 to stem the political opposition to Indira Gandhi.
The Indian state has authoritarian powers underpinned by such constitutional provisions for Proclamation of Emergency and President's Rule. The Preventive Detention Act was passed in 1950 and remained in force until 1970. Shortly after the Proclamation of Emergency in 1962, the government passed the Defence of India Act. This law provided for the Defence of India Rules that allow for preventive detention of individuals who have acted or who are likely to act in a manner detrimental to public order and national security. The Defence of India Rules were again imposed during the Bangladesh War. They remained implemented after the end of the war and were invoked, among other instances, for arrests made during a nationwide railroad strike in 1974.
The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1971) also provides for preventive detention. This was revamped during the 1975-77 Emergency to allow the government to arrest individuals without mentioning charges. Tens of thousands of opposition politicians were arrested under the Defence of India Rules and the MISA, including the leaders of the future Janata Party government. Soon after the Janata government came to power in 1977, the Parliament passed the Forty-fourth Amendment that revised the domestic circumstances cited in Article 352 from "internal disturbance" to "armed rebellion." The Parliament also repealed the Defence of India Rules and the MISA. However, after the Congress (Indira) returned to power in 1980, the Parliament passed the National Security Act authorizing security forces to arrest individuals without warrant for suspicion of action that subverts national security, public order and essential economic services. The Essential Services Maintenance Act of 1981 allows the government to ban strikes and lockouts in sixteen economic sectors that provide critical goods and services. The Fifty-ninth Amendment (1988), restored "internal disturbance" in place of "armed rebellion" as the just cause for any proclamation of Emergency.
The Khalistan Movement of Punjab during the 1980s provoked additional authoritarian laws. In 1984 the Parliament passed the National Security Amendment Act that allows security forces to detain prisoners for up to one year. The 1984 Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance arranged for security forces in Punjab with unprecedented powers of detention, and also permitted secret tribunals to try suspected terrorists. The 1985 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act provided for capital punishment and empowered authorities to tap telephones, censor mail and conduct raids when individuals are alleged to pose a threat to the unity and sovereignty of the nation. The law renewing the TADA in 1987 provided for in-camera trials, and reversed the legal presumption of innocence if the government produces specific evidence linking a suspect to any terrorist act. In March 1988, the Fifty-ninth Amendment raised the period that an emergency can be in effect without legislative approval from six months to three years, and did away with the assurance of due process of law and protection of life and liberty with regard to Punjab (Articles 20 and 21). These rights were subsequently restored in 1989 by the Sixty-third Amendment.
Political participation in India has been transformed in many ways since the 1960s. New social groups have entered the political arena and begun to use their political resources to shape the political process. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, earlier excluded from politics because of their position at the bottom of India's social hierarchy, have begun to take advantage of the opportunities presented by India's democracy. Women and environmentalists constitute new political categories while the spread of social movements and voluntary organizations has shown that despite the difficulties of India's political parties and state institutions, the country's federal democracy continues to prosper.
An important aspect of this rise of civil society is the expansion of nongovernmental organizations. To an extent, this has been sponsored by the Indian state. For instance, the central government's Seventh Five-Year Plan (1985-89) recognized the contribution of NGOs in facilitating development and substantially raised their funding. The 1987 survey of 1273 NGOs found that 47 percent received funding from the central government. NGOs have also received overseas donations. Certain NGOs even cooperate with the central government to implement public policies like poverty alleviation in a decentralized manner. Other NGOs like the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights or the People's Union for Civil Liberties act as watchdogs of India's civil society. NGOs also try to enhance the political awareness of different social groups, encouraging them to demand their rights and resist social injustice.
Beginning in the 1970s, activists began to form broad-based social movements that championed social interests so long neglected by the state and political parties. A case in point is the farmers' movement that has organized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the National Capital Territory of New Delhi, demanding for higher prices on agricultural commodities and more investment in rural areas. Members of Scheduled Castes led by the Dalit Panthers have reasserted the identity of former Untouchables. Women from now interact and exchange ideas in order to define and promote women's issues. Environmental activism like the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the River Narmada Movement) has also emerged, compelling the government to be more responsive to environmental issues and redefining problematics of development, displacemnet and democracy by accommodation of indigenous cultures and sustainable development.
With its competitive elections, relatively independent judiciary, media watch and civil society, India continues as a democratic federal system. Still, India's democracy is under stress. Political power within the Indian state has become centralized at a time when India's civil society has become mobilized along the country's multicultural axes. India's political parties are also in crisis. The Indian National Congress has been in a state of decline. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, although it has a stronger party organization, is yet to transcend the limits of its Hindu nationalist agenda and formulate a program that would appeal to India's plural society. The Janata Dal continues to suffer from lack of leadership and factional warfare.
So the expansion of India's civil society has made Indians less certain of the transformative power of the federal state and more confident of the power of the individual and local community. This development has shifed a larger share of the initiative for resolving India's social problems from the state to the civil society. Fashioning party and state institutions that would accommodate the multiple interests that are now being mobilized in Indian society is the major challenge confronting Indian federal polity in the new millennium.
POETRYREPAIRS 11.01: 003|