Former Supreme Court judge loves to shock
Former Supreme Court judge and former Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju cannot remain content without stirring controversies. True, it fetches him valuable space in the print and the electronic media, but it often does little to contribute to a meaningful discussion on the issue that he raises. The primary reason for this failure is the offensive manner which Mr Katju employs to make his point. Take for instance his recent remarks on Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. By calling the Mahatma an “agent” of the British and Netaji Bose that of the Japanese, he has lost the goodwill of lawmakers across the political spectrum.
Members in both the lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha spoke in unison against those comments, with Union Minister and leader of the House in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley going to the extent of observing that the faulty procedure of judicial selection was responsible for judges with certain kinds of “mindset” to occupy senior positions in the country's highest court. He added that it was this flawed process the Government was seeking to address. Mr Jaitley was taking the discussion in a different direction. But, sticking to Mr Katju's observations, he could have expressed his opinions in a more palatable form. He has the right to be critical of Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Bose.
But there is no need for him to resort to offensive language to make the point. Various scholars and commentators have raised questions on the modus operandi of the Father of the Nation and the Netaji in their quest to secure for India, freedom from British rule, but without hurting sensibilities.
They have, for instance, raised the issue of Netaji seeking the support of Fascist forces, and of the Mahatma playing into the Muslim league's hands by launching the Quit India Movement. The movement led to virtually every senior Congress leader being rounded up and put behind bars, and thus leaving the field open to MA Jinnah's Muslim league to propagate its divisive politics among the people. It must be added here that not all of the Mahatma’s colleagues had backed the movement; BR Ambedkar, for one, had expressed serious reservations.
Similarly, Netaji Bose too has come under attack for his — some say misplaced — outreach to the Germans and the Japanese in the early 40s to assist in his fight for independence through the Indian National Army. But derogatory language which Mr Katju has used is not to be equated with scholarly criticism. Given the former Supreme Court judge's known belligerence, it's not surprising that he is in no mood to repent. On the contrary, he has challenged the lawmakers to arrest him, try him and hang him! Truth needs to be spoken, and harshly, he has reiterated. But what is the point in speaking the ‘truth' in a way that it loses credibilityIJ The ‘crusader for harsh truth' that Mr Katju has moulded himself as, must pause and reflect. One-liners that pander to sensationalism cannot replace informative discourse.