Hi, I'm Karan Thapar. Over the last few years, I hope you've been watching my program, The Interview on the Wire. During that period, I've interviewed doctors, politicians, businessmen, scientists, authors, and even the occasional Nobel laureate. For me, it's been exciting. I hope it's been enjoyable for you.
But these, as you know, are tough times, and if this program is going to be a success, to remain bold, independent, and sometimes even defiant, then I think we need your support. At the end of the day, it's a truism, but editorial independence is best defended by the viewers. So, if you would like this program to remain the way it is, please do so. it is forthright, outspoken and interesting, then would you consider supporting us?
All you have to do is to click on the description at the bottom. But more than anything else, I hope you will continue to watch the interview. Your viewership means an awful lot to me.
Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. My guest today is arguably India's greatest living expert on the constitution. And a book that he's published earlier this month on the constitution, and here it is, it's called You Must Know Your Constitution, is a profound exegesis on every single article in the constitution. So if you want to know how the constitution should be understood, this is a book that is compulsory reading for you. Joining me now to talk about aspects of the constitution as well as politics and politicians is the one and only Faleen Aariman.
Mr. Aariman, let's start with the constitution. I'll come to politics and politicians after that. Now in chapter three you write the preamble is the most important part of the constitution. Given that most people tend to ignore it and Indira Gandhi some people say controversially amended it, why do you believe the preamble is the most important part?
Well, for one thing, the preamble of a statute and the Constitution is ultimately compared to a statute except that it's on a loftier footing, that's all. A preamble gives you an idea of what is sought to be achieved by the document, whether it's a statute or it's a constitution. And generally there are preambles to the Constitution and this preamble has been It has been called by our Supreme Court as the conscience of the Constitution. It preambles part 3, fundamental rights, part 4, directive principles of state policy, which are not enforceable by the court but are nonetheless binding.
They are all part of this conscience of the Constitution. So you believe that the preamble is the conscience because it expresses the intent of the framers of the Constitution. That's right.
Now the interesting thing, and this is a controversy at the moment, is the preamble uses the word India, not Bharat. It says, we the people of India, Bharat appears in Article 1. Does that suggest that in the minds of the framers of the Constitution? India was the prior name. No, no, I don't think so.
You see, the constitution, you remember that there was a grave controversy about should there be a national language for the new independent country after the British were left. And the question always was, what should be, what should it be? There were protagonists of Hindi in the, such a Devnagari script. In some other scripts, then there was English and then there were regional languages.
And it almost was that the constitution would never have been framed. It was almost at the end, in August or July of 1949, when this was again taken up, this question of what should be the language, one of the chapters in the constitution. And they said we won't have a national language.
but then we'd have two official languages Hindi in the Devanagari script and English. So, actually the mere fact that the preamble says India doesn't mean anything except that when it's in English, but if you read it in Hindi it will be Bharat. Okay, so the fact that the word Bharat doesn't appear in the English version of the preamble is not an important thing.
Not at all. Now, you also believe And I'm quoting you, that it's the way judges have interpreted and helped sustain a constitution that had been framed for only 350 million people, most of whom are not even alive today, that is one of the ways in which a written constitution is made to grow into a dynamic living document. In other words, the breath of life comes from judicial interpretation.
Absolutely correct. That is why we the people. It is of course borrowed from the American Constitution. We the people. Now if you think of the people as those who were born before the Constitution like I was, today you would find very few left.
Because most of them are subsequent to the Constitution. After 75 years you hardly find many people. So this we the people. doesn't mean anything except that as I have mentioned one congresswoman in America said I was wondering why I was left out by the framers of the constitution and she then came to the conclusion that ah I I wasn't left out but it is because our Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as applying to every living person that I am included.
Now that is exactly what has happened here. What you are saying is interpretation of the phrase we the people incorporates people born long after the Constitution was promulgated. Otherwise, we the people would refer to those who were alive at the time and now dead.
And who are not even alive today. And this also means that you don't subscribe, I imagine, to the literalist interpretation of the Constitution, which is the present fashion in the United States. You believe that there is a duty to interpret the Constitution in the context of the time. and in the context of the issues of the day. Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
There has to, it has to be, because it is a living instrument, a living thing. Although, there are doubts about how long a constitution should last, etc. And it was expected the American Constitution wouldn't last for more than 19 or 20 years, but it has now lasted for 200 years.
Well over. Well over, over 200 years. And, well, we are in the 75th year or 76th year of the Constitution, hopefully. we should continue.
The only problem of course is that we will never be able to to devise a constitution like this for all of any type at all. I come to that issue about whether we can devise a new constitution or whether we should devise in a moment's time. But what you're saying is that judges have a duty to read richer, fresh meanings into the articles so that they remain relevant to the period of our time. Yes, absolutely. And this means judicial interpretation is critical to understanding the Constitution.
It's not given in stone and frozen forever. Apart from it being critical, in fact, the only interpreters, final interpreters of the Constitution is the judiciary. And in India, the highest judiciary, which is India's Supreme Court, it started off with only eight judges. the Supreme Court and now it is above 34 or 35. So criticism that is sometimes made that judicial interpretation is going too far is actually mistaken. The object of a judge, the duty of a judge is to interpret in the context, you can't say he's going too far.
That's right and not on the fact of how it would behave right at the start of 1950. We have long passed 1950. We are now in 2023, a different, entirely different century. We are now in 2023, a different century. And therefore everything is different and the judges are also different.
They were probably most of them were not even born in 1950. So the interpretation that they give is that's what makes it a living constitution which is it's meant to be. And in fact interpretations keep changing people keep adding to interpretations and devising new meanings. Absolutely and courts as you know go by precedent.
So what five judges say today seven judges. Can say tomorrow the contrary and nine judges that contrary to that two years later. This is what makes the constitution a living dynamic. Object. Absolutely.
Now, this brings me to an issue that is of tremendous political salience at the moment because the retired Chief Justice has questioned in public whether there is a basic structure to our constitution. In your book, not only do you cite the Kesavanan Bharti judgment, which first propounded the basic structure theory, but you also cite other instances such as Bhim Singh, Kuldeep Nair, Indira Gandhi versus Raj Narayan, and of course the National Judicial Commission case. In each of which the Supreme Court reiterated there is a basic structure. So then my question is a simple one.
What do you say to the doubts Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has raised when clearly the Supreme Court judges and cases and precedents contradict him? May I just first put it this way? You are absolutely right that in Keshav Ananda, which was 1973, where this question, this phrase first came in.
The basic structure of the Constitution, it was by a very narrow majority, seven to six in a bench of 13 judges, the largest bench that then sat. But there is one thing which is missed by most people, that there was a post-mortem on this judgment. This post-mortem took place And at the instance of the then Chief Justice, Chief Justice A.N. Ray, and he constituted once again a bench of 13 judges, who were entirely different because after 1973, 8 out of the 13 had retired, the existing ones.
So the new, fresh 8 had come in. And the question then that he framed was, that should we now continue with this decision? which was a very troublesome decision and the answer given there is very peculiar.
There was no answer for this reason. The bench of 13 judges sat for the first time with these 8 new judges on the 10th of November 1975. Arguments were carried on and on and on. On the 11th of November, they once again assembled and sat the whole day.
On the morning of the 12th of November of 1975, when the court marked in, unknown to all the other colleagues of Mr. Ray, he just announced, this bench is dissolved. Now therefore, You won't find what happened, because there was no tape recording in those days. Nobody knows who argued what, because it was the great Mr. Palkiwala who argued for the petitioners. And there was Mr. Nirende who argued for the other side.
But the question only was, what did this mean? What did this say? And hats off to our constitutional historian, H.M. Sirvay.
He was a great man. He gives the answer in his book and that's the only answer we have ever. And that answer is that all 12 out of the 13 judges, except the Chief Justice perhaps, were of the considered view that the basic structure, doctrine that had been propounded was not erroneous and ought to be followed.
That's what he has said and that's always missed by everybody including Chief Justice Gogoi. And the interesting point is that if 12 out of 13 judges in that bench believe that the basic structure theory is not erroneous, it is correct, it must be followed, it would have meant that the Chief Justice would have been a minority of one. That's why he said when he came on the 13th of November that the bench is dissolved because he didn't want a judgment.
He didn't want to save his face. It would be embarrassing. Possibly because he was embarrassed. And that's not... And no, and one other thing.
Please remember that H.M. Sirvay at that time had argued this case on behalf of government. This is most important.
Most people don't know this. H.M. Sirvay had been specially asked to lead the Attorney General Niranjee and argued this case.
of Keshav Ananda in 1973. So the finding of his book is the opposite of what he was actually supposed to do. Exactly, because he was an honest, decent individual. And this actually underlines the point that he made, that the vast, vast majority of judges were not in favor of overturning basic structure. That's right. The Chief Justice acted to avoid embarrassment, but that was only the first instance.
There have been several instances when the Supreme Court has stood by this. Right up to 2007 when unanimously a bench of nine judges, when it was again contested, lastly contested, they unanimously affirmed the decision on the basic structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the National Judicial Commission case happen when Justice Gogoi was at least on the bench? No, he wasn't. He wasn't on the bench.
But he was in the court. No, he wasn't on the bench. But he was in the court, I mean.
Yes, yes, he was a judge of the court. At the time? Yes. So when he now says or questions whether the basic structure theory holds, he's going against not just one precedent, but...
50 years of precedence set by the court. Yes, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. But that makes no, quite frankly, I mean, people have their own views, they want to stick to them, one can't say anything about it.
It may well be that he has a genuinely believes this view. You see, all this arises, Karan, out of the fact that in India, people don't realize, no... one organ of the state is sovereign.
Parliament in India is not sovereign. Judiciary also is not sovereign. Executive is, of course, not sovereign at all. In England, apart from the Commonwealth countries, in England, Parliament is sovereign. And because it is called the High Court of Parliament, that's the other name for the English Parliament.
So when we equate our Parliament with that, in fact there was a very interesting case years ago in 1965, where the Allahabad High Court, two judges were hauled up for contempt of the House Legislative Assembly of Allahabad. And on a presidential reference specially made, ultimately the Supreme Court decided, Chief Justice Garnit Garkar sitting on the bench unanimously that India's parliament is not sovereign unlike England's parliament. Is the constitution sovereign? Beg your pardon?
Is the constitution sovereign? Yes, absolutely. The constitution is supreme.
We don't say sovereign because it doesn't govern anything. But supreme. It's supreme.
So in your opinion, has Justice Gogoi made a bad mistake claiming there's no basic structure? I'm afraid so, but it's all right. Different people may hold different views. I think so.
People have a right to hold different views. Different views, yes. But his view, in your opinion, is wrong.
Yes, it's totally wrong. In this context, let me ask you, would one nation, one election, which is again something that's being talked about in Canvass at the moment, breach the basic structure of the constitution because we assume state assemblies are autonomous and sovereign in their own right. Autonomous.
One nation, one election would require them to hold their elections synchronized with the Lok Sabha, which they may not want to do, which may mean that they have to curtail their terms or expand their terms. Would this affect the federal or quasi-federal structure of our country. I haven't examined it, but perhaps it might or it might not. I mean, that would depend upon how the Supreme Court looks at it. But I would like to only put this, this one election business.
You see, it is going to be an extraordinarily difficult task for any government to hold. Namely, for this reason, for this reason, that there has to be security. during every election.
And we don't have all that personnel to have a security for each and every constituency in the country, whether it is a state constituency or a Lok Sabha constituency. So in a practical sense, this would be close to impossible. Yes, and there is an article only in this morning's one of the newspapers, which mentions all this.
What about in terms of... the constitution. I know you haven't examined the matter, but what's your hunch?
Would one nation, one election breach the basic structure because of the impact on state assemblies and their autonomy? I can't say this offhand. I can't say this offhand, whether it would breach or not breach.
It is because of this federal structure. That there is a problem about breach. Because the federal structure is definitely part of the basic structure.
Yes, absolutely. That's been held. There's no doubt about it. And central to the federal structure is presumably the autonomy of state assemblies.
Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. And if that autonomy is impinged upon, because you require them to curtail their term or expand their term.
And you see, apart from that, what happens when a no confidence motion is moved and passed in one state assembly? An election has to be held within a stated time. And how does that coordinate with every other state? Because this is going to be a big problem.
People say that the way around the Fall of a government prior to five years is a German style, what's it called, a constructive vote of confidence. The problem is, in theory that works. That is to say that who else will take its place. Absolutely, you can't vote out a government unless you can vote one in. In theory it works.
But what happens if the ruling party splits and the breakaway does not join the opposition? And we have too many splits today. Absolutely. And remember, in that situation...
You have a minority government which doesn't have a majority but the opposition can't create one either because the breakaway refuses to join. You're left with an absurdity. And there's no governance.
That's the problem. That's the problem. Therefore, you see, I don't know.
This is some newfangled idea. I don't know whether it will work, whether it's practical, whether it's legal, whether it's basic structure. You have serious qualms about what... But I have serious doubts whether it would work.
Serious doubts. That's all I can say. at this stage.
Now you also make one other important point and you hinted at it a moment ago. It's to do with this question of do we need a new constitution. I'm going to quote what you say in your book. We will never be able to piece together a new constitution in the present day and age simply because innovative ideas, however brilliant and howsoever encouragingly expressed in consultation papers and reports of commissions, can never give us an ideal constitution. In constitution making, there are hidden forces that must not be ignored.
And these are, you say, the spirit of persuasion, of accommodation and of tolerance in India. As in the rest of the world, this is at a very low ebb today. Can you explain that further?
Yes, I will. See, I'll take the last first, the spirit of tolerance. Although we have the word fraternity in our constitution, The spirit of tolerance amongst us is getting worse and worse over the years. What is the reason, why it should be, is at the moment not relevant.
The fact is that there is very little tolerance for any view which is contrary to an unofficial view. Call it a governmental view, call it a particular... group of individual view, etc.
But anything that is contrary to that, I would say no, you would say yes, and so on. Now therefore, there is that spirit of accommodation, that accommodating your view, you may also be right, I may also be right, etc. is not there. And that is why constitutionalists People like Sir Ivor Jennings who have written a brilliant book on cabinet government, they have said that it is deliberate why in England you have the leader of the opposition called the leader of his Majesty's opposition or her Majesty's opposition.
Why? Her Majesty has nothing to do with the opposition, it is only the government. Why? Because it is essential to her. It is essential to have in a democracy, if true democracy on the Westminster model that we have, that you must have an opposition which opposes whatever the government does in order that all the rest of the public may make their own decision.
And for this to be possible, tolerance is essential. And you're saying that spirit of tolerance is missing today. We've become polarized. We see opponents as...
enemies and therefore in this atmosphere it is close to impossible to devise and create a new constitution i regret to say this but you see over the years ever since 1960 65 onwards whether under the congress party government or under the present bjp party government makes no difference this lack of tolerance has been showing and has been visible has been visible And even majoritarian governments, therefore, have not worked in India. They have not worked. And you're saying that because this spirit of tolerance is missing, because the desire to accommodate other views is missing, we cannot write a new constitution.
The environment to do that is... Yes, absolutely correct. The environment to do that is just not there. The problem is that you've written this at a time when actually there are increasing calls For a new constitution? Oh, absolutely.
For a presidential form of government. In fact, none other than the chairman of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council, a gentleman called Vivek Debroi, has written an article suggesting that we need a new constitution. What do you say to Mr. Debroi?
I say that this is a kite flying exercise, that's all, with great respect to him. He is a very brilliant person, I read all his articles. But the problem is that when you say we want a new constitution, I would ask how should we frame it? Who would be the persons who would frame it? In India today, amongst a large number of people, everybody amongst...
Amongst two people there are four opinions. There are not two opinions. The whole thing breaks down at the very start. And it is our... Please remember that it is this written constitution that we have worked through or half worked through that keeps the country together.
Don't jettison it because you could put yourself in peril. Yes, because you won't be able to ensure that India won't be split up. And that's a disaster. Unity is the most essential element in our constitutional working also.
That is why we are not quite federal but quasi-federal. You're saying two very important things. First, you're saying we do not have...
people like the founding fathers who created the 1950 constitution who we respect and look up to who can create a new constitution and secondly you're saying if you jettison this constitution the silken threads that bind us together as a nation will snap we'll split don't take that risk yes please don't yes quite right You see because this idea of persuasion also has left us, all parties, all parties. We bully today. Yes, exactly. Everybody wants to put, make his work count. That can't be, that can't be in any group that we are talking about.
You look at the world today. The world is in that situation. Let's at this point Mr. Nariman come to how the constitution.
and perhaps more importantly the rights that it confers on the citizens of India is defended by our judges. You quote in your book Chief Justice Chandra Truth, he wasn't Chief Justice at the time in 2017 in the Puttaswamy judgment. He said and I'm quoting him a constitutional democracy can survive when citizens have an undiluted assurance that the rule of law will protect their rights and liberties against any invasion by the state and that judicial remedies would be available to ask searching questions and expect answers when a citizen has been deprived of these most precious rights.
But does the Supreme Court leave lower courts? Does even the Supreme Court live up to this? In 2019, when there were a spate of habeas corpus cases from Kashmir, it virtually ignored them. In 2020, when tens of millions of people were walking on the roads during the lockdown trying to get home, Their plight was ignored by the Supreme Court. Critical issues like the Citizenship Amendment Act or electoral bonds are not being heard.
They took about five years to hear the Kashmir case. And not just the Supreme Court, all the courts down the hierarchy have made it increasingly difficult to get bail. It should be bail, not jail, but people stay in jail for years. And hence my question, are these glorious, resonant words from Justice Chandra Chur just rhetoric?
You see, I know that in a constitution that works for so many years, in America it's the same thing. You look at one 10-year period, you look at another 10-year period, you look at a third 10-year period, different judges say different things at different times. All over the world it's the same situation.
But we are today talking about a constitution which has been framed which is in existence and which works in a way at least. So whether we can now speak of some other constitution ideally that will suit everybody, it can only be an autocratic constitution. I'm not using Justice Chandrasekhar's words to say we need a new constitution.
I'm using them to ask do judges defend the rights of the constitution? Are they dilatory? I mean...
Habeas corpus they ignore. Sometimes yes, sometimes yes, but hopefully no. I mean there are people like Omar Khalid whose bail case is not going to be heard by the Supreme Court four weeks hence.
The poor man has been in jail for two years. He's not convicted. He should have been out on bail. But there's no urgency. Justice Krishna's famous dictum was bail not jail.
And that was supposed to be. Fortunately I find one or two judges today do follow this. And they have on that assumption granted bail for various people. Looking at the number of persons who are under detention or in jail and Before trial, they have not even been convicted, which is most unfair.
And languishing for 15-20 years. And languishing, yes. And this is brought out by Mr. Vivek Debra himself. Absolutely. Which is why I ask, do our judges do enough to defend the rights the Constitution confers on us?
It seems to me, occasionally they do, but there are probably worrying instances when they don't. Yeah, hopefully it should be better. Hopefully.
Is this to do with the fact that we have an uneven quality of judges? Some good judges, but quite a few who are not good judges. You see, the question is again of appointments. Appointments, how are judges appointed?
That's another big controversy. Is the collegium system work? Did the original system work? Why did it break down? All that is a different question on which I have written something.
As you will see in the book itself. But... But these are questions to be solved, I say.
And they can only be solved by a person who assumes, when he assumes office of Chief Justice, he or her assumes office as Chief Justice, decides that I will continue to do something that will help the progress of the country. But the problem is, in the recent past, two, three years ago, I'm not talking about history. We've had judges even at the Supreme Court level who whilst being judges have been praising the Prime Minister.
That is extremely unfortunate. They should completely stay away. This is something which creates an absolutely wrong impression. That you are buddy-buddy with somebody high up in political office.
And then you had the Chedameshwaram case who organized a press conference because they were so concerned about the way rostering was happening. Yes. And they organized a press conference which is unprecedented. Which is totally unprecedented.
Doesn't it suggest that there is a deep rot in the system that must be removed? Must be removed. And who can remove it is, well, I don't know who can remove it. Not parliament. It is the judges themselves.
But the judges. You see, we have to have, and I don't say this only because of one Chief Justice. There was a person who we had many years ago in my time, Chief Justice Venkateshwara.
Now, the judges themselves looked up to him as a person of great learning and of great integrity. The bar looked up to him as a person of learning and of great integrity. And that sort of thing helps a great deal because he can then, he or she, whoever that person is, who heads the judiciary, only he or she can deliver the goods.
There is no doubt that... Not any collegium system or commission system. Mr. Nariman, there is an impression that Justice Chandra Truth is acquiring some sort of position similar he's looked up to for his learning. The problem is, there are many instances, even when he's been head of the collegium, when recommendations made have been ignored by the government or delayed, transfers have happened without permission, and there was that dreadful case of Justice Muralidhar, who was removed from Delhi overnight, sent to Haryana, and then retired pretty quickly thereafter. I wrote about it.
But why does not our judge system, our collegium, fight back? Why don't they hold the government guilty of contempt of court when the government deliberately refuses to give authority and approval for a name that's been reiterated not once, twice, three times? No, worse still, why do they withdraw what they said before?
Absolutely. Which is even worse, which was that gentleman was transferred as Chief Justice of Madras, one of the premier courts in the country, and yet government didn't approve. So, the bigolism withdrew that recommendation this is what i say which meant it was self-destruction absolutely this is what i mean judges do not stand up for their own rights yeah right Leave aside the fact they don't stand up for my right or your right. We are secondary. They're not standing up for their own right.
Is there an element of pusillanimity or intimidation or fear? Why can't they stand up? Nothing can be done to them. Nothing can be done. Nothing can be done.
So do they lack spine? I don't know. You see, we had the emergency and we had, if you remember, when I lived through it, the bandwagon judges.
We had what I used to call the bandwagon judges who'd jump on the bandwagon and say, we must observe. the 20-point program and things like that. And ADM Jabhatpur was an embarrassment for the Supreme Court.
Absolute embarrassment. But the point I'm making is today, why are judges not standing up? I mean, after all, they believe the collegian system is the right system.
They overturned the National Judicial Commission. Now, the very rules of the collegian system are being flouted by this government and they're doing nothing. They're accepting it.
Why? Does this not worry you? Despite the fact...
That the major judgment of Chief Justice Verma in the judge's case was really that if government in a given case refuses, the assumption is that that refusal is malafide. All the more reason to stand up, isn't it? All the more reason to stand up. At least then say something. This is why I come back to this question a second time.
Are our judges becoming pusillanimous? Do they lack spine? Are they intimidated?
In England, they used to have a theory that judges are judges under the throne. You see, unfortunately, there have been occasions when we've had these judges under the throne, especially when I lived through the emergency. This was definitely the position.
And relatively, this situation continues from decade to decade. It's particularly sad, isn't it, when judges can't stand up for their own rights. Yes.
Isn't it? I quite agree. So this is a sad situation. It is sad. It is sad.
But who can remediate is a very difficult thing except the judges themselves. Absolutely. And you need a couple of judges with spine.
They need to be able to stand up because there's nothing the government can do to them. No. There's no way they can be punished. No, no, absolutely not. Where's the question?
There's no question about it. So this is particularly sad. Yes, absolutely.
I entirely concur with that. Let's come to how our governments respect and adhere the constitution. In your book, with great approval, you quote Ambedkar.
Ambedkar said, however good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happened to be a good lot. In your opinion, have our governments been a good lot or a bad lot? You must put it on both counts. Have the judges been a good lot or a bad lot?
And has the government been a good lot or bad lot? Tell me answers to both. Yes, quite right. Well... At times yes, at times no.
One can honestly say that. This is like the wretched curate's egg. This is like the curate's egg.
Quite right. But you do believe... It's good in parts. But at the end of the day, judges don't do as much damage, I imagine, as governments can do to the Constitution. Tremendous.
Majority of cases, have we had good governments or bad? Majority? In the majority of cases, have we had good or bad governments? The assessment I think varies from decade to decade and it has possibly we have had at least one very important bad time which we have never ultimately remembered and that was during the emergency. You see very few people today, probably many of them were not even born.
Remember the bad times during the emergency. If you reflect on those bad times and think of how to improve things and which should never happen again, then perhaps there may be some way in which things could improve. Some people say. that in the emergency you had outright censorship, outright intimidation of the courts, arrest of politicians, arrest of students, it was done outright.
Because it was done outright, in a sense it was done up front. Today you have virtually the same thing happening but by subterfuge. In a veiled manner. Absolutely. Which is worse?
Today when it's happening in a veiled manner? They're as bad. As bad.
So in other words, in your opinion, The situation today is like another emergency. Yes, yes, yes, you can say that, you can say that, because, because, you see, internally, we have, we have a, we have a government which, unfortunately, despite everything, despite its great success outside the country, the unfortunate thing is that there is no tolerance within the state. And there's something today which didn't exist. And then this is reflected in the governors also, in the states, in the states. Let me put one difference to you.
Just as in the emergency we have intolerance, we don't like dissent, we have a government battling against institutions and weakening them, parliament itself is disregarded, all of that happened in the emergency too. But there's one thing that's happening now that didn't happen in the emergency, we have a mood of intolerance of minorities. There's an anti-Muslim atmosphere that did not exist in the emergency, it is prevalent and it's increasing today.
Doesn't that make a significant difference? Yes, it does. It does. You see, I don't know why this has, this somehow doesn't gel with India's increasing prominence in world affairs. This doesn't somehow gel, but it has to gel.
Someone has to take, bell the cat. We don't talk about it in our country because by and large our media and our channels are intimidated by the government. They don't want the wrath of Mr. Modi to descend on them.
However, the Western media is only too aware. And the Western media is frequently telling, whether it's Biden or Sunak or Macron, these are issues you should point out in India. The Western media chides their leaders for turning a Nelson's eye to the way Modi treats Muslims in India.
The world is aware. We don't want to make ourselves knowledgeable of it. Yeah, that's true. Absolutely true.
I quite agree with you. In your book, you make a very interesting distinction between two types of government India has had. Majoritarian, as you call them, when the ruling party had an outright majority, and coalition governments, when they didn't have a majority unless they coalesced.
Do I think that you believe coalition governments were better respecters of the constitution than majoritarian ones? Under present circumstances in India, yes. Definitely, definitely.
And that's been our experience throughout. It has been our experience. You just have to look at it.
So would you say, given the way we've developed, and given the character perhaps of our politicians, particularly when they have outright power, that India's constitution and the rights that constitution confers are in better hands when we have a coalition than when we have a majority government? Yes, absolutely. There's no doubt about it.
which is an unfortunate thing but it is true. Because autocracy, you see, it is a trend in the world today, Karan. We all speak dribly of a democracy but the autocratic trend is very distinct and that wind is blowing. And it's very alarming, quite frankly.
I mean, I've lived my whole life, but for the younger people, it's going to be quite alarming. Which is why a coalition government, which is necessarily a weaker government, is perhaps the best government. Perhaps, in the state of affairs that we have.
There's no doubt about it. I want to touch on one last issue, because you have, and you've hinted at it a moment ago, but you have in your book some very interesting things to say about the role of the opposition in a democracy. You're quoting Sir Ivor Jennings, he went on to be Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and you quote him with great approval.
He says, it is not untrue to say that the most important part of Parliament is the opposition. The opposition is at once the alternative to the government and a focus for the discontent of the people. Its function is almost as important as that of the government.
If there be no opposition, There is no democracy. Absolutely correct. How would you persuade Mr. Modi to accept this view?
I don't know, I'm too old to persuade anybody, quite frankly. And I'm certainly not in a position to persuade the Prime Minister. But this is on the cards. That's why I said that this move towards an autocratic state of affairs is not confined to this country. It is a trend all over the world.
But in our country, with the exception of the Nehru years, mercifully there were 17 of them. And perhaps with the exception of the Vajpayee's, the opposition has been looked upon as an enemy. Mrs. Gandhi didn't tolerate them, she didn't like them, she hardly consulted them. And certainly our present Prime Minister Seems to look upon them with disdain.
He mocks them, crudely at times. Even essential politeness is missing. How do we teach our politicians, and this is a critical sentence, that it is not untrue to say that the most important part of parliament is the opposition? How do you convince the Prime Minister, you and the ruling party are not the most important part, the most important part are your opponents? I can't answer, perhaps you can answer that question.
I wish I was the person who was asking the question. You go one critical step further. And once again, you're quoting with great approval Sir Ivor Jennings.
He says, and I'm quoting him, attacks upon the government and individual ministers are the functions of the opposition. That's so important, I want to repeat it for the audience. Attacks upon the government and individual ministers are the functions of the opposition.
And then he adds, the duty of the opposition to his oppose. So, when for example Rahul Gandhi... May I just add here that this exactly all this has been quoted in a book published by the Rajya Sabha itself. All these quotes of my Viber Jennings are not from England only. They have been adopted by our Parliament.
The Rajya Sabha itself has quoted this in a booklet. Which expressly says all this. The question is, do we live up to it? That's the problem.
And when you say the Rajya Sabha has quoted this in a booklet, this is therefore part of our custom and practice and belief. That's how I've quoted it. I've quoted it from our book, from the Rajya Sabha.
It may be Sir Ivor Jennings'words, but these are not British positions, these are the Indian positions. Yes, and in a Westminster border constitution, which is common to... all the commonwealth country this is the only only the only safeguard for a democratic setup something very interesting follows from this when rahul gandhi vehemently and fiercely criticizes the prime minister and he does it with frequency and regularity people turn around and say this is a personal attack this is vendetta it's not that is what an opposition leader is meant to do Therefore we don't know, we all are not quite educated in what a true democracy is. That's the problem. We have to be better educated.
But you also have an important caution or warning for the opposition. And once again, it may be from a British document, but I believe it's also part of our system. You say, and I'm quoting you, the opposition has no right to obstruct in the sense of making parliament barren or unproductive.
And that means, does it not, that the viewpoint originally propounded by Arun Jaitley and Sushma Suraj, that obstructing Parliament is a legitimate parliamentary tactic, that is a completely mistaken view. Mistaken view, that's a mistaken view. That's a mistaken view, absolutely correct. So opposition can oppose, opposition can criticize, they can be vitriolic if they want to, but obstructing the functioning of Parliament... is not parliamentary.
Yes, and carrying all those placards in Parliament are totally wrong. It never happened when I was there a member, but this has all been subsequent to that. But it's getting worse and worse.
The interesting message you're sending the opposition is I uphold, as does Sir Ivor Jennings, your right to oppose. You are perhaps the most important part of Parliament. I uphold your right to criticize fiercely, rudely, however, but I do not believe you have a right. to obstruct.
You have to let parliament function. You can't shout it to silence. You are absolutely correct.
Because otherwise the parliamentary system of government breaks down. And that is, these are things which ultimately lead to autocracy. Call it a dictatorship, call it what you like, but it leads to autocracy. A type of autocracy, which is very unfortunate. This is very interesting.
You are saying the opposition doesn't realize that if they carry on ceaselessly obstructing parliament, They are paving the path to autocracy. Yes, absolutely. And this is being mentioned time out of number by those in charge of governments, state governments or central governments. If you make parliament futile and unproductive, the government will be given an excuse on a platter to take parliament non-seriously.
And this is the sort of thing that happened in England when Cromwell came to power. Absolutely. Yeah, if you recall. I do indeed. You sat here for longer and you knew, good, go.
Yeah, that's right. In the name of God, go. In the name of God, go.
Mr. Nariman, thank you very much for this interview. Thank you, Karan. Hi, I'm Karan Thapar.
Over the last few years, I hope you've been watching my program, The Interview on the Wire. During that period, I've interviewed doctors, politicians, businessmen, scientists, authors, and even the occasional Nobel laureate. For me, it's been exciting.
I hope it's been enjoyable for you. But these, as you know, are tough times. And if this program is going to remain bold, independent, and sometimes even defiant, then I think we need your support.
At the end of the day, it's a truism, but editorial independence is best defended by the viewers. So if you would like this program to remain the way it is, forthright, outspoken, and interesting, then would you consider supporting us? All you have to do is to click on the description at the bottom.
But more than anything else, I hope you will continue to watch the interview. Your viewership means an awful lot to me.