Large Republics With Diverse Interests Can Be Safer Haven Against Tyranny Than Homogeneous And Exclusive Ones : Justice G S Patel

Large republics with diverse and conflicting interests can be better home for liberty, a safer haven against tyranny than homogenous and exclusive ones, said Justice G S Patel, while delivering a lecture on the topic "Mephisto in Mantralaya : Whose Government Is it Anyway" on Monday."Large republics with diverse and conflicting interests can be better home for liberty, a safer haven against tyranny than homogenous and exclusive ones. Within them factions and differences can check one another moderating ideological fervour and softening power. Not understanding this is perilous", Justice Patel said, emphasizing the relevance of democracy governed by rule of law.He was talking at the event held in remembrance of famous civil servant and social activist Joseph Bain D'Souza on his 98th birth anniversary. Joseph Bain D'Souza had a long and illustrious career as a bureaucrat. He was the Chief Secretary of the State and also the civic chief at one point. He remained active even after retirement and campaigned for issues he believed in. He consistently demanded action on the Srikrishna Commission's report on the 1992-93 communal riots.Commenting on the view harboured by many in society that an authoritarian regime will help build an orderly society, Justice Patel said :"The thinking is symptomatic of a more fundamental discontent. Democracies are noisy, messy, chaotic but that is precisely what they are meant to be, because that is precisely what vox populi actually means. Systems in republics work more slowly than in authoritarian regimes precisely because of the over-arching principle of the rule of law. Our impatience is with the form that processes of rule of law take. We find them glacial, confusing, illogical, out of step with technology and social needs"But law acts as a "great social leveller", he added.Justice Patel also lamented the fact that despite so many laws, India has remained anarchic. "If we have so many laws and regulations, how is it that so much is so utterly anarchic?", he wondered. He also criticized the tendency to describe the lack of regard for law as an "Indian mentality"."We find ourselves admiring other countries to our west and east, for being so very law abiding. Why are we so impatient with our laws? When we say we are like this only, we say attributing to this thing we call the 'Indian mentality' by immediate favouring of individual convenience over collective responsibility. This is superficial and depressingly fatalistic suggesting that you were born this way, that it is somehow our karma and that we are doomed forever to be a nation of exceptions and exemptions and provisos to whom the law does not apply, especially if you have a motorcycle or a scooter", he said.Without rule of law, society will be a mere rule by mob majority, and not a democracy governed as per Constitution. Rule of law means that "sheer majority will not determine the outcome at any level, it is the law, the body of rules, structures, regulations and norms that are determinative"."In a country as apparently chaotic as ours where individual liberty seems to have become some sort of an elitist side salad, the broader overarching principle of accountability requires a closer look. There is first the accountability of the individual to the law and second the accountability of the enforcers in the implementation of the law. The individual must be answerable to the law for his daily conduct, the state must be answerable in its enforcement of the law", he added. Justice Patel started his speech reminiscing about Bain, as his friends called him- "Thank you for inviting me, good evening. My task this evening is not easy and that befits the man we are honouring today. Joseph Bain D'Souza, Bain to his family and friends could himself be somewhat intimidating specially to those who did not have a measure of his ethical and moral centredness. My own association with him spanned decades, my memories from my childhood are of a tall, lean, quiet and apparently stern man somewhat forbidding with the watchful look of a bird of prey. It is perhaps ironic that I am here today, for decades ago my sense was that in his presence it was better not to speak at all. He was not actually like this but that knowledge came much later. When I began my practice in law, I got to know him differently as one who lent his name to many causes in which he believed such as riots, urban issues, intolerance. If asked to describe him in one word of the many that spring to mind, I would choose unflinching. The word embraces many things: dedication, commitment, courage and fortitude, unwavering fidelity to one's principles, clarity of thought, and above all a vision of justice in its broadest and most elemental self." Thereafter, Justice Patel shared his thoughts on the rule of law and the differences between a democracy and a republic.Excerpts from his speech :"From law and constitutional law in particular, we know of the very old concept of...

Large Republics With Diverse Interests Can Be Safer Haven Against Tyranny Than Homogeneous And Exclusive Ones : Justice G S Patel

Nitish Kashyap

Tags