Tilting at each other using extreme expletives seems to be the rule of the day. When accusations fly sharp, logic is the first casualty

The current social environment in India has some distinguishing characteristics. It is a high decibel environment. Whether it is the television chat show or the public opinion leaders in action, the pitch is high, the language is sharp and moderation is conspicuous by its absence.Tilting at each other using extreme expletives and incoherent logic seems to be the rule of the day. This cannot be a sensible way of either individual of social discourse. When accusations fly sharp, logic is the first casualty. So the subject or the topic becomes irrelevant and aggression becomes paramount. It is becoming commonplace with some to say that our institutions are under attack. The question automatically arises: From which quarter?

Consider the case of the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate custodian of collective morality. Not so long ago the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was being threatened with impeachment. This is a grave matter on more than one score. Since 1947, there has never been a case where there was a threat held out of impeaching any constitutional authority. Then came the judgement over the number of days that would be granted for voting in the Karnataka Assembly to prove one’s majority. The Supreme Court judge, under the chairmanship of the then CJI, decided to close the matter by reducing the number of days given by the Governor of Karnataka to prove majority to 48 hours. The rest is history.

The purpose of these remarks is not to comment on the judgement of the Governor or the wisdom of the Supreme Court bench. The focus of this narrative is merely to highlight the strangely quiet way in which, after this judgement, the proponents of the impeachment of the Supreme Court Chief Justice in the Rajya Sabha allowed the matter to lapse. To the layman, there are only two options in drawing a conclusion. One is that the proponents of the impeachment had a sudden change of heart and the overlap of the timing with the vote of confidence in the Karnataka Vidhan Sabha was a coincidence. The second option is that the movement for impeachment was essentially a political act aimed at warning the Chief Justice to ‘behave himself’ as seen by some. Once the key player read the message that was delivered, the select Opposition did not find it necessary to push through their demands. It stretches the imagination to talk of the first option at face value. The protagonists of the impeachment move are sharp people with good legal mind and great ability at marshalling a given argument. They acted deliberately and buried the hatchet, when the Chief Justice was interpreted as serving their purpose. If the latter was the case, as seems likely, the damage done to the institution of justice is something to ponder about. If this was an isolated case, not too much need be made of it beyond a point.

However, the story goes on. The statutes have it that the Director of CBI will be appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, Chief justice of India and the leader of the biggest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha. Nearly two years ago, Alok Verma was appointed as the Director. The leader of the biggest Opposition party at that point of time put in a note of dissent. Around 23 months later when circumstances led to the consideration of removing him, the matter came up for discussion to the same committee. The committee deemed it desirable that the serving director should quit. The same person in the committee, who had given a note of dissent at the time of the appointment, said Verma should not be sent away. In this case, too, two possibilities are there. First, the similarity in two notes of dissent is coincidental. Second, the notes of dissents were dissent for the sake of dissent. It is for anyone to judge what this kind of behaviour indicates.

Several other examples can be cited but this collective indication of damage to institutions can’t do anyone any good. Never the less juggernaut rolls on. The Prime Minister of the country has been called a ‘chor’ more than once by the president of a major national party. It has been repeated over and over again. If indeed the Prime Minister is a chor, then he should have been proceeded against in Parliament. Name-calling may be yet another novel way of strengthening the institution devised by this particular person but that is not how public institutions are normally built. In this case, the options of interpretation-coincidence or otherwise, raised in other two instances above, are not available. Alas, the apparent observation seems to be: There is more to map on how institutions get destroyed.

(The writer is a well-known management consultant)