The
Irony of Infinite Justice
By
Amit Phansalkar.
It is
ironic that Arundhati Roy has been given a token punishment for her
alleged scandalizing of the Supreme Court. Ironic, because her affidavit was
precisely against one such frivolous contempt petition – a petition, which made
a mockery of the highest court of the land. Ironic, because the court has
acknowledged that fact, and yet the token punishment is directed, not at those
who registered the petition, but at Ms. Roy. Irony doesn't end there.
It's claimed
that the courts have been lenient on Ms. Roy, because she is a woman! Could it
really get more absurd? If what she said really scandalized the Apex court, how
does her being a woman become relevant? After all, she's more independent and
empowered than most men in this country. And what is a token punishment
anyways? Is it, a concerned parent asking a rebellious daughter to sit in the
corner for a few minutes, just to let her know who's the boss? Well, doesn't
she already know it?
The
irony is, through this touchy conviction, the court has made a mockery of
itself, and tarnished its own reputation the way Ms. Roy could never have, had
she had the intent. The question that comes to the mind of an ordinary citizen
like me is, why is the supreme authority of the land so defensive? After all,
isn't it kind of obvious, what Ms. Roy has said in that affidavit – which is
still online on the NBA website! In this land, where a few slogans become a
reasonable provocation to burn a train coach, and where a blind backlash
becomes a natural reaction, why are the courts so touchy about the
choice of language? It just baffles me, because I had a deep-rooted respect for
the Apex body, like most ordinary citizens of India. More so, because amongst
the ruins of power corrupt politics, criminal-police nexus, and the civic
apathy, only the Supreme Court has stood like a beacon. But yesterday, it has
tarnished its own reputation; an arbitrary use of an arbitrary power isn't
exactly what justifies the respect.
In
India, ironies never end, though. So when, a quasi-religious organization's
leaders openly say that they don't give a damn about the judgment of the
Supreme Court, it doesn't constitute contempt. In fact, the government calls
those leaders for negotiations. When a minority community does not
accept the law of the land on some issue, it doesn't constitute contempt. In
fact, it gives rise to a constitutional amendment. When an ex-Chief Minister
complains that her conviction is politically motivated – which directly implies
that the judges were partial due to political pressures, and questions their
integrity – it doesn't constitute contempt. In fact, the person is cleared of
all the charges in record time, to be a Chief Minister again. And then, the
language in response to a frivolous, and indeed mocking, petition is picked up
on for bringing in contempt! Surely, it's not just I, who is seeing all these
Ironies.
A lot
of people, I believe, are happy at this moment, that "that woman" is
shown her place. That the epitome of leftist intelligentsia – according to them
– is finally taught a lesson. And, to end a talk about ironies, here is the
icing on the cake – I can find no better source than Ayn Rand, from the extreme
right, to express what I'm feeling right now. She said once, (albeit, to
counter minoritism as one would expect) that they're ignoring the smallest
minority of all – the individual! So if the Arundhati episode is anything to go
by, beware, if you don't have religious/political cause, don't mess up with the
big guys out there. The god of small things, it seems, will never be able to
laugh.
Amit
Phansalkar is a Computer Engineer by profession, and an independent candidate
as far as intellectual politics goes.