The post independence civil liberties /human rights movement is more than forty five years old. Several voluntary organizations have been active since 1970s. Many activists have suffered including those who paid with their lives. In spite of the movement, the State remains undeterred in ruthless violation of human rights.
In fact, the influence of the human rights organizations instead of increasing has been waning in course of time. It is undisputed that but for their resistance, the human rights situation would have been much worse; but that is a poor consolation and offers no reason for satisfaction or complacency. The reason for the State to so blatantly violate human rights with impunity are many, but the one which is of paramount importance to us is the indifference of the masses.
The section of society which has some understanding of the value of human rights is indifferent because it does not (though mistakenly) feel threatened, and is also influenced by the government propaganda that the human rights organizations are concerned only about the human rights violation of the terrorists, Maoists, insurgents etc. but not the violation of human rights of their victims.
Though this disinformation is baseless, human rights organizations can never be a match for the formidable propaganda machine of the State to counter it. They have to find new ways of reaching out to the people to moblise public opinion against the bulldozing of their rights.
Why did the State succeed in its sinister design to malign the rights organizations? One of the major reasons has been our almost exclusive concentration on the cases of violation of extreme kind not encountered in the day to day life of the ordinary people. The victims of killing in fake encounters, in the police custody, disappearances and atrocities committed under the black laws are generally (not necessarily) persons engaged in political activities who are not committed to use only peaceful means. The common man does not identify with them and does not realize that a fight for their human rights is also a fight for their rights also. If the human rights movement had adopted a two pronged approach and simultaneously worked to protect the human rights of the citizens under the ordinary laws of the land, the isolation from the masses could have been avoided.
As far as the PUCL is concerned, its founders(which included members of the political parties also) were fully conscious that mighty Indira Gandhi was thrown out of power not by the combined strength of the opposition, but the formidable power of the angry masses which had been trampled upon and humiliated during her emergency rule. The constitution they framed envisaged an organization which would engage with the masses, take up their causes, address the issues which affect their day to day life and create the social consciousness without which civil liberties could not be protected. Upholding and promoting civil liberties and democratic way of life was given the pride of place in its constitution. The constitution duly recognizes that there can be no democracy or civil liberties without securing the principle of dignity of the individual, the rule of law, freedom of thought, independence of the judiciary and freedom and independence of the press and mass media. Side by side with the repeal of repressive laws, the constitution aims at ending or mending the ordinary laws of the land which oppresses and represses the masses in course of their day to day life. The object of the organization includes opposing police excesses, working for the reform of the ‘judicial system so as to remove inordinate delays, reduce heavy expenses and eliminate inequities.’ Its concern is not confined to the atrocities committed by the State but also includes those committed by the society. It specifically mentions combating social evils which encroach on civil liberties, such as untouchability, casteism and communalism.
Prima facie, it appears a tall order and may look somewhat utopian, but not if a close look at the constitution is taken. Aware that such a Herculean task is beyond the capacity of a civil liberties organization ,the PUCL was made an organization of all those (including the members of political parties in their personal capacity) who were committed to the protection and promotion of civil liberties in the country It was envisaged that since civil liberties were in the interest of all political parties and organisations barring the opponents of civil liberties, the cause would be espoused not only by the PUCL but all the organizations committed to civil liberties in their own interest. But since the PUCL does not have an agenda other than civil liberties, it was not envisaged that it would participate in the activities of other organizations whose agenda are not confined to civil liberties only and is not shared by all of PUCL’s members, whose commitment is confined only to PUCL’s aims and objects. During the early eighties of the last century when many influential members of political parties remained actively associated with the organization, its message had a wider reach. Later, when they themselves became part of the ruling parties, their association ended and so did the advantage of their presence in the organization. But it is to their credit that while they remained in the organization, they did not ask for a price.
The organization has been doing laudable work and has achievement to its credit to make us proud, but now it is imperative that while continuing to take up the issues it has been doing, it reaches out to the masses by taking up their causes which have been neglected so far.
The issue for a national campaign should be such as to find resonance in every heart throughout the country failing which an issue which finds resonance throughout the country even if it does not touch every heart. While urging the Executive Committee to apply its mind to the question, I would like to suggest that securing recognition of the principle of the dignity of the individual’ passes this test.
Nobody, from the rich to the poor, would oppose it in principle though the privileged may be averse to according due respect to those they do not consider their equal. It would find resonance not only throughout the country, but in the heart of every person, specially the masses who are subjected to unjustified indignity. The issue of the dignity of the individual is not only personal but is causally related to the weakening of our democracy and threat to its future and fate. And finally, no human rights organization worth its salt can bypass it in view of the following in the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’
India became independent on 15 August 1947 and a Republic on 26th January, 1950.The people of India ceased to be the subjects of the British empire and became citizens of a free democratic country with guaranteed right of equality and of the privilege of having one vote on an equal footing with the highest and the mightiest. They were declared masters of the public servants and which ,in fact, they are because they pay indirect taxes (like all the others who do not pay income tax because they earn less than Rupees Two Lac) which fills the coffer from which the public servants are paid for their livelihood. They are the masters who elect the government to serve them for a certain period. All this is true in law but not in fact. In fact, they are reduced to the status of inferior citizens or second class citizens whom everyone better placed than them considers it his right to treat with contempt. They have been made to believe that that is their real place and lot in the society, just as the persons lower in the hierarchy of caste were made to believe that that was their station in the society or just as the untouchables were made to believe that they really were untouchables.
Apart from the outrage involved in this phenomenon, it has made our democracy hollow by excluding the masses from the political process. They have been reduced to the status of indifferent spectators of the game of politics played by the politicians. Most of the issues debated in the legislatures are Greek and Latin to them. Barring a few issues which may appear of relevance to them, they are indifferent to all that is going on in the country. When the affairs of a democracy becomes a matter of indifference to a majority of its citizens, it foretells its doom.
We should launch a campaign to secure the due recognition of the dignity of every person which continues to be denied to them. The approach of the campaign should be two pronged: going to the masses to make them conscious of their dignity and the respect due to them and approaching the State to eliminate /remove practices followed in the government offices which is against the dignity of the individual. A beginning may be made with simple demands to which no principled objection may be made or which may involve huge expenses. The following demands may be made all over the country:
1. All forms of address or behaviour to a person visiting a government office which undermines equality and denotes inequality between him/her and the public servant should be banned and declared a punishable misconduct.
For example, ‘Tum’ in Hindi is used by a superior for someone whom he considers inferior. Any person who is poor receives a ‘Tum’ even from a class IV employee in a government office because a poor person is considered inferior’
2. Any form of greeting denoting inequality of status between a government functionary and a visitor should be replace by a form of greeting which denotes equality. For example, the use of Pranam is hierarchically determined. The person inferior in status folds his hands first and utters the word ‘Pranam’ first. Shaking hands should be declared the recognized form of greetings (Women may be excused if for cultural reasons if they feel averse to do it).
3. No visitor in an office should be kept standing while the government functionary is sitting down. Either the visitor should be offered a chair or the functionary should stand up.
These and the other such measures cost neither principles nor money, but they have great potentiality to revolutionise the mindset of the people. The campaign may appear very simple and mild, but has the potentiality of Gandhi’s ‘NamakSatyagrah’ which was laughed at the beginning even by his devoted followers, but which shook the foundation of the British empire.
Prabhakar Sinha
Prabhakar Sinha. Writer is the National president of People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL).
