Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 22, 2015
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/usual-suspects/modi-phobic-intelligentsia.html

Sometime in 2011, in an interview to a lesser-known publication, a former Chief Justice of India apologised for a judgment he had delivered some 35 years earlier. Reflecting on the infamous majority judgment in the Habeas Corpus case of 1976 that legitimised the suspension of Fundamental Rights under the Emergency, Justice PN Bhagwati — a man with a reputation for a sharp intellect and sharper political antennae — confessed to “an act of weakness” and acting “against my conscience”. In a gesture of belated melodrama he proclaimed: “That judgment is not Justice Bhagwati’s.”

 It is not often that the exalted members of the judiciary confess to spouting satanic verses in a judgment —casual and even intemperate off-the-cuff remarks during hearings not counted. So, I guess we should be grateful to Justice Bhagwati for admitting to one of the world’s most ill-kept secrets: that judges are not infallible and are subject to most human failings, including pressures, both divine and otherwise. Pressure, needless to say, is not always politically inspired. Clever lawyers have recognised the colossal importance of using the media to create an environment whereby the letter of the law takes a backseat and influences the umpire who, after all, are only human.

 Last week, for example, the number of indignant articles and round-robin petitions signed by notables (including all the usual suspects) on Teesta Setalvad’s bail petition struck me as adroitly timed. Whether these contributed to her eventual success in averting arrest is a matter of conjecture. However, what can be said with certainty is that the fate of a less famous individual wouldn’t have evoked the same degree of interest in the judicial administration. The orchestrated clamour to stand firmly against so-called state harassment of a secular crusader may even have contributed to the existing bench being recused and a new one constituted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was even claimed by Setalvad supporters that the recused bench wasn’t fit for purpose because Narendra Modi had attended weddings at their homes.

 While this apparent objection could perhaps serve to drive home the importance of judges leading a monastic existence while in office, the connection between the Prime Minister and charges of dodgy fiscal management of a ‘secular’ trust isn’t easily obvious. By changing the umpires mid-game, was a signal sent out that the case wasn’t centred on financial irregularities but on lofty issues of personal freedom. Once the issue was redefined, the conclusion was predictable.

 In political terms, the Setalvad case is significant. Ever since the resounding AAP victory in the Delhi poll, an impression has been doing the rounds that the Modi government’s honeymoon is over. This has been compounded by an emerging belief among those who had been lying low for the past eight months that the regime isn’t as strong as was initially imagined and is, in fact, vulnerable to sustained pressure from both within and without.

 In the past fortnight, I have encountered jubilant members of the hate-Modi brigade (invariably linked to the ancien regime) who believe that it is only a matter of time before the BJP is electorally outflanked by a Grand Alliance of ‘secular’ parties. In the catchment area of the beleaguered NGOs, there is also a determination to puncture the government’s economic thrust through street violence over the amendments to the Land Acquisition Act.

 The extra bounce in the step of all those who are still unreconciled to the May 2014 verdict should be clearly evident to all those with their eyes open. If nothing, the increasingly acerbic tone of the English-language media towards the government is a clear hint that the extra-Constitutional opposition is awaiting their own comeback. When an individual with as sharp a political antennae as HDFC chairman Deepak Parekh chooses to enlarge a personal disappointment into a policy critique, you can be rest assured that some people have concluded that the Modi government can be pushed around after the Delhi poll.

 Take the case of Amartya Sen who saw the present as an opportune time to kill two birds with one stone: to extricate himself from the expensive mess he had helped create in Nalanda University and, at the same time, re-establish his prima donna status among India’s Modi-haters. A man who had kept his peace when the UPA-2 had ridden roughshod over the ‘autonomy’ of higher education, Sen too believed that the tide had turned against Modi. It is revealing that his interview in Times of India — a jugalbandhi between two individuals allergic to the Prime Minister — is less about why he has chosen to opt out of Nalanda, and more about the political opportunities presented by the AAP victory. Most academics have a rich experience in politicking and Sen has timed his spring visit to India to draw the maximum political mileage.

 Modi isn’t unfamiliar with either premature political obituaries or with the unflinching opposition of the Left-liberal elite. However, in Gujarat he had coped with the onslaught by banking on the intellectual ecosystem of a society that was opposed to every political assumption of his challengers. This becomes more difficult on the national stage and more so because the levers of intellectual power (including academia, media and the NGO sector) are controlled by those who are driven by a passionate hatred of him. If Modi tries to placate them, it will be construed as weakness; and if he challenges them it will be interpreted as intolerance.