A nation that was born out of Gandhian struggle is now in the throes of its own perpetuated class of nouveau-colonists
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s acute and welcome observation on the fine difference between ‘protocol’ and ‘privilege’ is significant in its import, beyond the recent questioning of a fellow judge’s haughtiness. The curse of Laal-Neeli Bathi (Red/Blue Light) culture as a metaphor amongst the governing class, be it politicians, judiciary, babus (bureaucrats) or those in ‘Uniforms’, is a lamentable phenomenon of presumed entitlement. This slippery slope has led to the prefixation of many V’s before the denomination of vips. Partly rooted in the colonial hangover of the superior governing class, part in feudal mindset, and partly even in the inherent thrill of a misplaced sense of achievement in the have versus have-nots power equation, the malaise persists.
The Judge in question had imperiously sought an ‘explanation’ on a matter that the Chief Justice clarified that the High Court, “does not possess disciplinary jurisdiction”. While the Judge may have been empowered to question the ostensible ‘protocol’ lacunae, the spirit of measure and restraint was completely missing when he insisted on the Court Registrar seeking an explanation owing to, “great inconvenience and displeasure of His Lordship”. Just to keep things in context, the missing ‘protocol’ was in terms of refreshments!
Chief Justice Chandrachud’s wise counsel that, “Protocol ‘facilities' which are made available to judges should not be utilized to assert a claim to privilege which sets them apart from society or as a manifestation of power or authority. A wise exercise of judicial authority, both on and off the bench, is what sustains the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary and the confidence which society has in its judges”, would have resonated with the citizenry at having their own experiences with such hubris. Beyond the legalese of ‘protocol’, no reasonable individual can remain oblivious to the harsh realities and tribulation of an average Indian who coexist with the VIPs with many more denials of rights and privileges, to their existence. What a citizen frowns upon is not so much on ‘protocol’ itself (if followed with due sobriety) but more so on the clear excesses (which can be well beyond the mandated levels of ‘protocol’) and its extrapolated interpretations. While certainly not a case of judicial restraint or activism – it was perhaps one of simple overreach.
The security cover is yet another realm of VIP vanity in India. Beyond the genuine security threat assessments that ought to define the categorization of security afforded to a VIP i.e., Z+, Z, Y+, Y or X, it is often a matter of ‘privilege’ and status symbolism that is not necessarily based on threat perception, only. Sensing its significance, the denial or the affording of security cover to an individual can also be a political/partisan move, to ostensibly reward or diminish an individual’s stature in the public eye. In doing so, the dispensation can be seen to be encouraging the misuse of what ought to be a functional imperative, stripped of any other considerations. It is not uncommon to see politicians ‘reward’ or ‘punish’ the universe beyond officialese e.g., businessmen, godmen, film stars etc., who either toe or oppose the party line.
In more mature democracies, sticking to rules as opposed to demanding privileges is the norm – the people simply wouldn’t tolerate those in power (governmental or non-governmental), who flaunt the same. A well-functioning society insists on parity and equity of rule application and not on privileges or leniencies. Law enforcement does not take too well name-dropping, arguments or bending the rules towards any authority of power, as they slam the rulebook at anyone caught doing a misdemeanour. On the contrary, there is increasing pressure from the citizenry on the people in power to demonstrate compliance, humility and sensitivity, even if they were to be officially afforded any special ‘protocol’. This is not to suggest that there are no cases of corruption or ‘fixing’ in such democracies, but at least the civic and law-and-order imperatives for the common citizenry are by and large, efficient and equitable, comparatively. In India, inequities and privileges are all pervasive and especially hard for the average Indian on the street who has come to ‘normalise’ their inferior existence in comparison to the superior existence, of the entitled.
For a nation that was born out of Gandhian struggle for non-discrimination, dignity and equality for all, without any fear or favour, is now in the throes of its own perpetuated class of nouveau-colonists. The simplicity, austerity and inclusivity that was the hallmark of our founding fathers is an ironical loss, with many routinely mouthing condescending platitudes of simplicity, whilst still ensuring that the traps of pomp and show (that could even shame the erstwhile colonisers) are never surrendered. It comes alive in the types of designations posted boldly on vehicles, the size and placement of rank stars, the glitz of beacons, the shrill of hooters and the size of a cavalcade to announce the ‘arrival’ of an individual to an event. The timely reminder by the Chief Justice on, “self-reflection and introspection”, really cuts across the landscape of the entitled. Sadly, it is the citizenry that readily justifies, contextualises or resorts to convenient whataboutery whenever an excess of privilege is pointed out, unlike in the other mature democracies are in a persistent ‘questioning’ mode, as that is the only way forward, towards positive governance.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal)
