Rationalist Speaks

RRationalist
Speaks...
Justice R A Jahagirdar (Retd)

Rationalist
Speaks….
Justice R A Jahagirdar (Retd)
Rationalist Foundation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Rationalist Foundation is very much indebted to Justice R A

Jahagirdar (Retd) who consented to bring the second volume of
anthology of his articles. We are grateful to monthly magazine Radical
Humanist for the prepublication of almost all of these articles in the
past. The Foundation would like to thank Mr Janardhanan Nair, who
assists Justice R A Jahagirdar in typing, correcting and dispatching
the articles to various magazine editors. We are also grateful to Dr.
(Mrs.) Sharad Jahagirdar, who handed over the published materials
to us, which were painstakingly preserved by her in spite of her busy
professional schedules. We are very much obliged for shouldering
the editorial responsibility by Ms Suman Oak, a well known
Rationalist and Educationist and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar for the
Introduction. We also thank Shri Milind Joshi of Anupam Creations
and his team for design, typesetting and bringing the book in the final
form.
- Rationalist Foundation
CREDITS
Rationalist Speaks... Cover Design, Layout & Production

Author Milind Joshi,Anupam Creations,
Justice R A Jahagirdar (Retd) 2/14 Marwa, Anupam Park,
A-3 ASAVARI, Kothrud, PUNE 411029
Veer Savarkar Marg, Printed at
Near Hinduja Hospital, Pratima Offset
Mahim, MUMBAI, 400016 Devgiri Ind. Estate, Kothrud,
PUNE 411029
First Edition - March 2010
© Rationalist Foundation
Published and Printed by
Rationalist Foundation Articles may be reproduced freely by
acknowledging the Source and
C/o TB Khilare,
forwarding copy of the same to the
RH 4, Rajvimal Terrace, Ramnagar
Rationalist Foundation.
Colony, Bavdhan, PUNE 411021
Not for Sale
2 Rationalist Speaks….
About Rationalist Foundation
Rationalist Foundation is Public Charity Trust for the promotion of

rationalism and allied objects formed in Mumbai with a corpus of Rs
500,000 contributed by Justice RA Jahagirdar. The objectives of the
foundation are:
· Rationalism, viz. belief in the efficacy of Reason as the sole

source of knowledge and that attitude of the mind which does
not acknowledge the arbitrary authority of any individual or
book;
· Secularism viz. the belief in the irrelevance of religions for the

purpose of human lives in this world and in the separation of
religion from public affairs;
· Humanism viz. regard for human values and the dignity of the
individuals;
· Atheism viz. non-acceptance of the hypothesis of the existence of

God and the belief in the irrelevance of God in human affairs
The Foundation promotes its objectives by publication of articles,

pamphlets, books or magazines and by encouraging by way of grants
to the individuals or associations or institutions engaged in the
promotion of the objectives of the foundation. It also gives financial
assistance to sufferers on account of their having written or spoken
for the furtherance or promotion of rationalism, secularism,
humanism etc.
The address of the Trust is:

C/o T B Khilare, RH 4, Rajvimal Terrace, Ramnagar Colony,
Bavdhan, PUNE 411021
Rationalist Speaks…. 3
Content
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Rationalism and Social Progress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Buddha Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Life and death of Socrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4. The Inquisition of Galileo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5. Robert Ingersoll: Immortal infidel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6. Annie Besant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8. Mill “On Liberty” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
9. RD Karve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
10. “HN” I knew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
11. Vigil for Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
12. Polygamy under Good Faith! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
13. The Burkha: Not a Religious Mandate. . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
14. Talaq: Talaq: Talaq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
15. Minority Rights: Political Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
16. Uniform Civil Code: An Anti-View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
17. Article 370. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
18. Corruption, Crime and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
19. Right to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
20. Peter Benenson And Amnesty International . . . . . . . 172
21. Death Sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
22. Judging the Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
23. Judges and the Commission of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Alphabetical Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Introduction
Humanity these days is inundated by religiosity. In India, especially
for the Hindus, their 33 crores of deities do not seem to be enough.
New deities and god-men are, therefore, being added to the
unending roster. Every day new temples are built and demands are
made to rebuild old ones. Temple Trusts with huge incomes are
formed to encourage religiosity. Hindus and Muslims want to build
temples and Mosques in Western countries while Christians want to
build churches in Asia and Africa. The polity, Government and the
media all add to this madness, at times verging on fanaticism. Within
this maddening din and clamor, however, one can still hear sane
voices. One such voice is “Rationalist Speaks”, the collected articles
written by the eminent rationalist, Justice R.A. Jahagirdar.
Justice Jahagirdar explains in lucid terms what Rationalism means.

Rationalists do not swear by any set of principles or tenets like other
systems of philosophy that later degenerate into religion. He defines
Rationalism as “a mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the
supremacy of Reason and aims at establishing a system of
philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience independent of
arbitrary assumptions or authority.”
Reason plays an important role in the mental attitude that can be

called Rationalism. It is evident in all scientific investigations.
Darwin's theory of Evolution of Species gave a big jolt to the religious
outlook regarding man, the living and nonliving world, nature, the
Universe and God, the creator of all this. For all rationalists including
scientists, Reason is the indisputable and also the safest guide in the
investigation of truth. Thus rationalism and science are inseparably
connected.
Rationalism also aims at establishing a system of ethics verifiable by

experience that is independent of arbitrary assumptions or authority.
So a scientist, being a rationalist discovers truth for the benefit of
mankind. In all humility he says, “I know, therefore, that I am
ignorant.” The fanatic religionist, on the contrary, claims to possess a
treasure of revealed wisdom. All these aspects of the Rationalist-
Scientific Philosophy are revealed in this book.
Justice RA Jahagirdar has penned biographical sketches of ancient,

historical and cotemporary rationalists and scientists from all parts
of the world. These personalities range from Socrates and Buddha,
through Galileo, Mill, Ingersoll to Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar,
Annie Besant, to R.D. Karve, Hosur Narasimhaiah and Aung San Suu
Kyi. He is not interested in giving their biographical details: what he
is interested in, is their rationalist views, their courage to swim
against the current of inequity, orthodoxy, inhuman treatment of
women and the downtrodden, opposition to social reform and a
negative attitude towards search for truth.
Justice Jahagirdar tells us that Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, in great

mental agony cried, 'Oh, Hindu Woman, why were you born in this
wretched country?' On the wall of the office of Dr. Narasimhaiah, one
could see these words of Einstein, 'Great Spirits have always
encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.' Readers will
find many such pearls of wisdom in these biographical sketches.
In his articles on Burkha, Polygamy and Talaq, Justice Jahagirdar

says, 'Burkha is a coffin which kills the fundamental rights of
Women. ---Quran, Hadith, etc. do not mention it.' In the article on
polygamy he explains that Mohammed did not marry because of
carnal desire. On the contrary he was very faithful to his first wife,
Khadija who supported him when he was mentally disturbed and
was grieved immensely by her death. He gives a rational explanation
of all his ten later marriages, many with war widows, after the death
of Khadija.
'Human Rights' is a topic that is very dear to Justice Jahagirdar. His

articles on Minority Rights, Uniform Civil Code and Article 370 do
real justice to these topics. In Uniform Civil Code, while expressing
his anti-view, he says, 'we clearly desire both; justice between the
groups and equal justice for every one of us.' As a humanist, he says,
'the ultimate question is whether civilizations of earth have the moral
maturity to accept the human person as the unit and measure of all
things.' He is also concerned about current issues and problems and
has written many articles of which 'Corruption, Crime and
Democracy' and 'Right to Know' have been included here. He
expresses his politically incorrect views to explain how this ancient
land of Rishis and saints has become the most corrupt nation of the
world.
'Amnesty International' and 'Death Sentence' are two topics about

which the common man is not much informed. How Amnesty
International was born and spread to 150 countries and how it fights
against torture is all explained in the article. It also describes the life of
the indefatigable fighter, Peter Benenson, at whose instance the UN
issued guide lines for 'Freedom from Torture'. Benenson also worked
for abolition of death penalty. Readers will find Justice Jahagirdar's
views on both these subjects in these two articles.
The last two articles are 'Judging the Judges' and “The Judges and the
Commission of Inquiry'. Justice Jahagirdar says here, by 'contempt of
court', the law bestows such total immunity upon the judges, which
is not good for the health of the judiciary itself. In 'The Judges and the
Commission of Inquiry' he says, 'whether economically the sale of
gold by the Reserve Bank was a wise policy could not be a subject
matter of Judicial Inquiry. ……. What may be avoided is a political
issue and not a question which may affect the politicians. 'In the light
of this, should the politicians shrug the responsibility of resolving the
Separate Telangana issue and pass it on to a judicial commission to
resolve?
Every article in this collection is informative and readable and

reveals the mind of the true rationalist that the author is. His simple,
lucid language makes reading effortless and interesting, even to an
uninitiated youngster.
Dr. Narendra Dabholkar
Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti
Rationalism and
Social Progress
C
ontrary to popular belief, rationalism is not a unified
consolidated philosophy embracing within itself any set
principles or tenets by which the rationalists swear. If
rationalism were such a philosophy it would degenerate into a
religion as other systems based upon such tenets and beliefs have
done. The word 'rationalism' has different meanings and has also
meant different things to different people. To some it has sounded
sweat while to others it connotes an idea of horror. Some people pride
themselves being rationalists without in fact and basically being
rationalists; while several people look upon the rationalists as men of
devil who have no regard for morality. Unfortunately for some of the
misconceptions about rationalism, many of the people who call
themselves rationalists are responsible.
I must make it clear that rationalism is not any philosophy which

envisages fixed principles or ethics. Rationalism has been defined by
the Rationalist Press Association of England as “a mental attitude
which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of Reason and aims at
establishing a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by
experience independent of arbitrary assumptions or authority”.
Some people have defined rationalism in a different manner but, in
my opinion, the above definition of the Rationalist Press Association
is the most satisfactory one. That rationalism is not a philosophy but
an attitude of mind can be illustrated by a simple example. Many of
you have seen an ant which is going around the wall. If you had seen
that ant initially you would have noticed that it is going up to the wall
and returning. This it has done several times before it realises that it is
not possible for it to go through the wall. Then it reasons that another
way must be found for going to the other side of the wall. The ant is
one of the smallest animals in the animal kingdom. Still in its daily
life it uses some sort of animal reasoning though it has been said that
man alone has been endowed with the attribute of Reason and that is
why Aristotle defined man as a rational animal. Man is a rational
animal because he lives, questions, answers with the aid of Reason.
As I have mentioned above, there are different schools of rationalism.

Some insist that Reason alone is sufficient for acquiring knowledge
and no other aid is necessary. On the other extreme, there are people
who insist that experience alone is the way of acquiring knowledge
and Reason has a secondary role to play in the acquisition of
knowledge, though they undoubtedly recognise that Reason is
necessary for acquiring knowledge. Take the case of Pythagoras who
propounded the well-known theorem that the square on the
hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal in area to the squares
on the other two sides of the same triangle. Here was a case of Reason
in its almost crystal purity. I say almost because even while arriving at
this theorem, apart from using his power of reasoning Pythagoras
did have to visualise what a right-angled triangle was and what a
square was. This latter part of knowledge could have been acquired
by him only by observation, if not by experience or experiment. On
the other extreme, we have got the example of Charles Darwin, the
father of the theory of evolution, who set out to collect data for days,
months and years together. He painstakingly classified that data, re-
classified the same and arranged them in some order. Darwin had
traveled to different parts of the world, collected samples not only of
plants but also from the animal kingdom. He applied his mind to the
data and the samples which he had so painstakingly collected and
classified and after nearly five years of detailed and systematic
analyses aided by reasoning he arrived at the theory of evolution.
However, even thereafter he did not announce the same for nearly 19
years.
The example of Darwin apart from illustrating the inductive method
of science also illustrates the role Reason plays in all scientific
investigation. It also illustrates the humility which is present in a
genuine scientist as distinguished from the fanaticism which is
displayed by people who claim to possess within themselves a
treasure of revealed wisdom. Between these two extremes one may
cite any number of other illustrations in which Reason has played a
role of varying degrees of importance. But it cannot be denied that
Reason is indispensable and is indeed the chief guide in arriving at
the truth. One is tempted to give the example of Archimedes who
discovered the principle known after his name. As most of you are
aware, Archimedes was taking his bath when certain quantity of
water spilled out due to his body being immersed in the bath. Here
was a case where the scientist observed certain water spilling Out of
the bath; he also experienced that he became lighter in weight in the
water than when he was outside the water. Thereafter in the
comfortable position in the bath itself he started thinking about what
this displacement of the water and the lightness of his body meant.
Suddenly truth dawned upon him and straight from the bath he
dashed to the streets of his city shouting “Eureka, Eureka”. Probably
he was the first streaker in the history of mankind. The Archimedes
principle was thus discovered as a result of the combination of
induction, deduction, experience and reasoning. Without reasoning
the principle would not have been discovered at all. Without the
other three ingredients the principle might have been discovered but
not so quickly. So for all discovery and investigation of truth, Reason
is indispensable and crucial, though it may not be regarded as the
sole guide.
In ancient Greece, thought flourished and science, though in a small

way, had made beginning. It is after the decline of the Greek
civilisation that a dark age enveloped the mankind for a long period.
It was only in the 14th century and later that there vas awareness of
the intellectual activity that had taken place in ancient Rome and
Athens and that there was a revival of interest in learning - which
revival was known as the Great Renewal or as the Renaissance. One
of the greatest products of this renaissance was Francis Bacon.
Though like modern rationalists he did not dispense with the
existence of God, in his writings he pointed out the role Reason has to
play in the acquisition of knowledge. I have already mentioned
above that Aristotle had placed great stress upon deduction. Though
he had occasionally recognised and preached induction, it is now
recognised that the predominant framework of Aristotle's logic was
deduction and his ideal was syllogism. Man is a rational animal;
Aristotle is a man; therefore Aristotle is a rational animal. This was
the mode of reasoning which Aristotle had adopted. But even in this
type of reasoning the element of induction could not be totally
absent. That man is an animal could only be known by the process of
induction and not by pure process of deduction. One of the premises
in a syllogism, therefore, had to be gathered by a process of induction
or had to be a product of induction. It was Francis Bacon who thought
that the Aristotelian system of predominant deduction hampered the
progress of science. In his book called Novum Organum he proposed
a new organic system of thought namely the inductive study of
nature itself through experience and experiment. Will Durant has
called this book as “the first clear call for an Age of Reason,” though
the book itself remained incomplete. It is unnecessary for me to dwell
at length on the history of scientific investigation I have referred
briefly to these developments for the purpose of underlining that
Reason is the indispensable guide in the investigation of truth and it
is also the safest guide. To say this is to be rationalist. To deny the role
of Reason is to be irrationlist. If something cannot be understood by
Reason assisted or otherwise by experience or experiment, then that
thing cannot be understood or proved by any other method.
Since I am talking to you about rationalism and social progress, I

must also define what progress is. First let me begin by pointing out
what is progress. Any change is not necessarily progress. Every
movement does not necessarily lead to progress. That movement
may he backward or forward. Even if it is forward physically it may
be culturally, socially, intellectually a backward movement. Unless
there is significance in the change, that change cannot be called
progress. In the year of 1982, when women have enjoyed equal rights
- civil and political - a change which is being introduced in some of
the countries, not excluding India, by certain communities imposing
certain fresh restrictions upon the women forbidding them from
going about openly, from attending cinema, from participating in
other social and cultural activities, is a retrograde step and not a
forward step. The result of such an attitude which is finding
expression in several countries today will not be progress but a
movement backwards. Human affairs are mixed in nature. They
consist of not only physical needs but also mental attitudes and
cultural events. One has to look at this composite personality of
humankind and to see whether any change that takes place or is
brought about is beneficial for this personality of mankind. If it is
beneficial then that change is said to be progress; if it is not, it cannot
be progress. In my opinion, any change that is for the benefit of
mankind will be consistent with rationalism because ultimately it is
the aim of rationalist to discover truth for the purpose of the benefit of
the mankind.
At this stage I cannot refrain also from referring to the progress which
is envisaged under the concept of teleology. Teleology is that
philosophy which believes that all changes in the world and in the
human history are taking place in such a way that they must lead to a
particular end. In other words, there is an end towards which
mankind is moving. That end is pre-determined and every activity of
mankind, every acquisition of knowledge, all the efforts made by
man - whether they know it or not - are leading towards that end. You
will find this in the books of different religions. It may be called
“Doomsday” or it may be called Pralaya or by any other name. The
very basis of astrology is teleological because the movement of stars
and planets is supposed to affect the destiny of mankind and also of
the individuals constituting the mankind. If this is so, then it
necessarily implies that there is an end which is already
predetermined. That is how one comes to the concept of horoscope.
Such irrational approach is not unfortunately confined to religion or
other superstition such as astrology. There are certain political and
economic philosophies also which believe that the history of
mankind is a history of changes and every change that followed the
previous one is for the better and therefore must make progress. By
an analysis of the history of mankind and its social and economic
factors it is predicted that the present sum total of the relations will
lead to a particular future arrangement. Can you say that the new
arrangement that will come about will necessarily be progress? To
answer this question in the affirmative is to take a teleological view
and to deny the free will and free choice of mankind and this would
be irrational. Rationalism must be used not only to analyse and
understand the past and present but also to create a new world. True
rationalism will not accept or acquiesce in a social change based upon
a teleological approach. Mere change, therefore, should not be
accepted as progress unless that change is significant from the view
point of the welfare of the mankind.
The importance of rationalism can be understood better by its

comparison with what can be called superstition which is, for the lack
of better word, called the embodiment of irrationalism. Superstitions
are beliefs which are not provable at all and are based upon no known
facts or factors. In the dictionary, superstition has been defined as an
ignorant and irrational belief in supernatural agency, omens,
divination, sorcery or practice of such belief. It is the product of fear
of the unknown and is resorted to as a means of escaping from that
fear. Superstitions are of infinite verities. Broadly speaking you can
classify them into three categories.
There are in the first place religious superstitions which find place
among different religions. Different religions have different sets of
superstitions. If one religious scripture is the product of revealed
wisdom, revealed by God himself, how is it that another religious
scripture has got different sets of superstitions, though the latter one
is also said to have been revealed by God? The inconsistency and the
variety in the superstitions of different religions is a guarantee of the
utter futility of these superstitions and their great danger.
There is a second class of superstitions which may be called cultural

superstitions and they are unlimited in number and variety. The third
class of superstitions is peculiar to individuals and these
superstitions vary from individual to individual. As Will Durant has
mentioned: 'To the poor in body and mind superstition is a treasured
element in the poetry of life, gilding dull days with exciting marvels,
and redeeming misery with magic powers and mystic hopes”.
Superstitions have been handed down from generation to generation
and instead of being reduced in numbers with the march of science
and knowledge, the superstitions have multiplied many-fold. The
old superstitions never die and there is no control over the birth of
new superstitions. The result is unfortunately the unlimited
multiplication of superstition. Superstitions are worse than religions
because in religions there is some sort of systematic organisation of
superstitions and they normally tend to confine within the four-
corners of a particular religion. Religions are only few; superstitions
are many. A religion may die or at least may decline in its importance
but superstition is immortal and is always growing in strength. It is
interesting to find out and list the superstitions prevalent especially
the cultural and individual superstitions in India or at least in
Maharashtra. It would then be possible to test some of them at
random and convince at least some people about the baselessness of
the superstitions. Sir Thomas Browne had prepared a list of the
superstitions prevalent in the days of Queen Elizabeth and the early
Stuarts and that list occupied 652 pages. The superstitions must have,
therefore, run into thousands.
Though religion itself is an organised superstition, initially it was the

product of the reasoning resorted to by the primitive man. In other
words, religion itself was initially a rational activity because it sought
to understand and explain the phenomena which man observed
around him. Take the case of Aryans when arrived in this country.
They found a country full of green pastures, flowing waters, snow-
clad mountains, and the regular cycle of days and nights and of the
seasons. When they looked at this universe with awe, there was
naturally an eagerness in their mind to understand the phenomena of
the universe. Early contemplation necessarily led to the concept of
God without which concept the creation of universe could not be
understood.
An attempt to understand the origin of the universe is to be found in

the chapter of Genesis in the Old Testament. Concept of God was thus
inevitable even in the Bible. Once man created God for the purpose of
explaining and understanding the universe, the rest was easy for
him. Everything that happened in the universe was necessarily
related to God. This in itself was not totally irrational because within
the limited knowledge available at that time the concept of God was
inevitable, and the explanation of the natural phenomena in terms of
the will of God was also inevitable. Religion was thus initially a
rationalist approach. But there is a basic and fundamental difference
between rationalism and religion because rationalism tests every
phenomenon with the progress of knowledge on the basis of the
knowledge that is acquired and discards any rule, regulation or
concept which is inconsistent with the knowledge that becomes
available. In this sense religion is stagnant and rationalism is
progressive. Mankind in its earlier days undoubtedly knew the law
about the planetary movements. That is why we notice that even in
earlier days calendars and Panchangas had been prepared. But the
earlier man did not know the nature of those planets and in fact even
did not know about the solar system. That is why in the religions it
was insisted that earth was the centre of the universe and man was
made after the image of God. When these propositions were
originally propounded they might have looked quite plausible
because in the light of the then extant knowledge they sounded
rational. But with the unraveling of the solar system and the
subsequent progress in the knowledge of astronomy which has been
made possible by the adoption of rational approach to the acquisition
of knowledge, it is now clearly established that we are a part of the
solar system and the earth is no longer the center of the universe. This
revolution in knowledge started with Copernicus and was carried
forward by Kepler and Galileo. In the present state of knowledge,
therefore, one must accept the insignificant position occupied by a
man in the entire universe and also the subordinate position
occupied by the earth in the universe. Earth is only a planet not the
centre of the universe. This may sound repulsive to our sense of self-
respect. That is why despite this state of knowledge which is now
incontrovertible the religious leaders still insist upon the earth being
the centre of universe and man having been made in the image of
God. The difference between religion and rationalism is thus clear.
Though religion started as a rational activity, all its doctrines became
dogmas whereas the doctrines evolved by rationalism are theories.
The dogmas are unshakable and unchangeable whereas the theories
are testable and changeable. Indeed the very definition of a theory is
that it is always open to correction with the acquisition of additional
knowledge.
At this stage it would not be out of place to mention that rationalism

and science are inseparably connected. Indeed the words rationalism
and scientific method can be used synonymously. What is a scientific
method? I have earlier given some broad outline of the manner in
which acquisition of knowledge is made. It is acquired by the process
of reasoning. It is also by observation, experience and experiment.
The scientific method involves in the first place the formulation of a
hypothesis as a tentative solution to a problem which is to be solved
or as a tentative explanation of a phenomenon which is to be
explained. This hypothesis is formulated on the basis of the
knowledge which a scientist possesses before approaching that
problem or the phenomenon. On the basis of that knowledge that
hypothesis seems satisfactory or almost true solution or explanation;
but a true rationalist or scientist is not satisfied with hypothesis only
unless he is able to test it and to see whether the tentative solution or
the explanation is correct or not. In order to do this he proceeds to
collect additional facts. The amount of additional facts that is to be
collected will vary with the nature of the problem to be solved or the
phenomenon to be explained. After the additional facts are so
collected the scientist will then proceed to examine whether the
hypothesis can he developed into a theory. If these additional facts or
the additional knowledge supports the hypothesis, then he
formulates it in the form of a theory. Even the theory is not final
because it is to be tested. That testing may be either in the laboratory
in certain cases or on the anvil of actual events that may take place. It
is only after the tentative solution or the tentative explanation has
gone through these various tests that the scientist will come to what
he regards as a theory.
In the history of science no name shines as brightly as the name of

Galileo. This is so, in my opinion, because Galileo fought the
obscurantism of his days and was sometimes imprisoned for
confirming the theory of Copernicus that it was the earth that moved
around the sun and not vice-versa. He possessed the best of the
rational outlook. He also illustrated the use of the different methods
that can successfully be adopted by a scientist. He used the method of
observation to learn about the planetary movements. He made use of
the personal experience that he gained in his quest for knowledge; he
also conducted experiments to arrive at truth. Galileo no doubt had
the advantage of having Copernicus and Kepler as his predecessors,
but it is in him that the scientific method reached its perfect form.
Formerly science had got tied itself to what was then regarded as
philosophy but with Galileo “science now began to liberate itself
from the placenta of its mother, philosophy. It shrugged Aristotle
from its back, turned its face from metaphysics to Nature, developed
its own distinctive methods, and looked to improve the life of man on
the earth. This movement belonged to the heart of the Age of Reason,
but it did not put its faith in “pure reason”- Reason independent of
experience and experiment. Too often such reasoning had woven
mythical webs. Reason, as well as tradition and authority, was now to
be checked by the study and record of lowly facts; and whatever
“logic” might say, science would aspire to accept only what could be
quantitatively measured, mathematically expressed, and
experimentally proved”. (The Age of Reason Begins, by will Durant,
p.586). If Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo had accepted the
biblical belief which they were bound to as devoted Christians that it
was the sun that revolved round the earth, then no progress in
astronomy could have been made and the landing of the man on the
moon would never have been achieved.
One example might be given to illustrate the role played by Reason in

the progress of mankind. Today many of you are not aware of the
dreaded disease of small-pox which in my younger days used to
disfigure the face of many and take the lives of not a few. Vaccination
as a means of combating that disease was the product of a man
applying his reason to a fact which would have normally been
ignored by other persons and that man was Edward Jenner, a doctor
of Scotland. One day when his milkmaid came to him, he found that
though she belonged to a poor class where small- pox would have
normally affected her she had not acquired the same. When he asked
her as to how she was able to remain free from this disease, she
replied “Doctor, I will not get small pox because I have cow-pox “. In
one sense Sarah Nelmes, that was the name of the milkmaid; she
displayed an unusual rational frame of mind. It was believed in that
country, as in every other country, that the disease of small-pox was a
curse which was visited upon the mankind by the fury of Gods, but
Sarah Nelmes ruled out this possibility because she had observed
that those who had suffered from cow-pox would not get small-pox.
This set Dr. Jenner to think as to how she was so sure about her
immunity to small-pox. His mind started working and he took some
of the matter from her infected hand and inserted it in the arm of a
boy named James Fibs. Thereafter it was found that the boy James
Fibs also became immune to smallpox. By a process of intensive
reasoning based upon the observation of Sarah Nelmes and the
experiment conducted by him on James Fibs, Dr. Jenner came to the
conclusion that a person who has suffered from a milder disease
becomes immune to a more severe disease of similar type.
Conducting his experiment further he found that if a person is
exposed to milder degree of the same disease he may become
immune to the severe degree of the same disease. It is said thus that
Dr. Jenner discovered the principle of vaccination. It may be noted
that the word vaccination is derived from “Vacca”, which means cow
in Latin. Dr. Jenner thus demolished the superstition that smallpox
was the visitation of the curse of God upon mankind. If you make an
elementary study of medicine and other science, you will find that all
supernatural explanations will be found to be untrue. In this sense
rationalism leads to progress.
I cannot help at this stage from making a reference to the widespread

existence of astrology not only in this country but in many so-called
progressive countries. An elementary knowledge of astronomy
which you may acquire from any ordinary standard book will
convince you that this universe is made of several systems, each
system having its own sun and several planets. Of these systems,
solar system is one of which this earth is a part. Upon this earth which
is situated millions and millions of miles from its nearest planet there
are billions and billions of living being including human being and
animals. Of these billions of billions, you are one. Astrology claims
that the movement of the planets affects the destiny of a particular
person. Is it possible for you to believe that such an insignificant
person as yourself and myself is likely to be affected in any manner
by the movement of a planet which is several billions of miles away
from this earth which at least 600 crores of human beings are
inhabiting? If it is possible, the burden of proving the same is upon
the persons who claim a place for astrology. No empirical study has
been made of the validity of the astrological claims though on a priori
principles and on the basis of the knowledge of the universe the
claims of astrology are absurd. The burden of proving that its claims
are true is upon the protagonists of astrology and this burden has not
been discharged.
Apart from the futility of the astrology, there is a great danger in

accepting its claim. If the planetary movement inexorably affects the
destiny of a person then there is no escape from the fate which is thus
ordained. The planetary movements themselves are fixed and follow
a particular pattern due to the laws of gravitation which themselves
have been discovered by Kepler and Newton. If this is so, there is a
pattern already set for the life of a man. This postulates the futility of
human activity and disables a man from exercising any free choice. If,
therefore, a person has contracted some disease, it must be due to
some planetary influence. His ultimate end must also be
predetermined by the planetary movement. Then naturally a
question is asked as to why one should take medicine at all. No
sensible answer has been provided by the astrologers to this question
as indeed they will never be able to do so.
If people had accepted and followed unquestioningly and blindly the

ancient original beliefs, tenets and doctrines and had made no effort
to examine them in the light of further experience and without
conducting experiments, no progress of mankind could have taken
place. We would have been still reaching in the wild jungles; we
would not have known the civilisation of today at all. It is in this sense
that rationalism which, to repeat, is an attitude of mind and which
accepts Reason as the main source of knowledge that provides the
impulse towards progress.
Some misconceptions about rationalism may be at this stage

dispelled, in the first place, as it has already been mentioned that
rationalists themselves do believe in certain things and they
unnecessarily and irrationally object to the faith of others. Here the
confusion is between faith and belief. Rationalists object to faith and
not to belief. That all crows are black is believed by rationalist
because all the crows that rationalists are seeing are black. On a
preponderance of probability, therefore, a rationalist believes that all
crows are black.
If, however, he comes across a white crow he is prepared to discard

that belief. But if a person has faith in a particular thing, he will not
give up that faith despite proof coming to the contrary because faith
is by definition a belief in the absence of evidence. Faith is the
explanation of a fact for which there is no evidence. Indeed in the
words of Paul the Apostle: “Now faith is the substance hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen” (New Testament Hebrews 11 - 1).
It has been mentioned that everything cannot be known to Reason or

Reason cannot be the “open sesame” to the entire knowledge of the
world. I unreservedly accept this criticism. But I insist that without
Reason nothing can be known. The search for truth is eternal. “Great
as the advance of scientific knowledge has been, it has not been
greater than the growth of the material to be dealt with. The goal of
science is clear - it is nothing short of the complete interpretation of
the universe. But the goal is an ideal one - it marks the direction in
which we move and strive, but never a stage that we shall actually
reach. The universe grows ever larger as we learn to understand
more of our corner of it. (Grammar of Science by Karl Pearson, p18). In
this sense a scientist always says “I know, therefore, that I am
ignorant”. What I have stated now is also consistent with what I have
already mentioned above, namely the self-corrective character of a
theory which scientist adopts in the pursuit of knowledge.
Another serious charge which is leveled against rationalists is that

they lack totally imagination. In my opinion, this charge is wholly
unfounded. Rationalism only insists that your imagination should be
guided by Reason and should not be unbridled. I even proceed
further and say that it is only rationalists who have got proper
imagination because it is the rationalist in a scientist who makes the
discoveries and the inventions and this discovery and invention
would not have been possible but for the imaginative mind of a
rationalist. In fact the greater the rationalist, the greater imaginative
he is. At this stage it would not be inappropriate to quote the
following from the famous scientist namely Faraday:-
“The world little knows how many of the thoughts and theories
which have passed through the mind of a scientific investigator have
been crushed in silence and secrecy by his own severe criticism and
adverse examination; that in the most successful instances not a tenth
of the suggestions, the hopes, the wishes, the preliminary
conclusions have been realised.”
It is equally untrue to say that rationalists are unemotional,

unsentimental and incapable of such finer feelings such as love,
sympathy etc. Emotions are necessarily a function of the brain. They
are not the function of the heart, though one is always instinctively
referring to the heart. The emotions vary from man to man
depending upon the experience to which that man has been
subjected. Siddhartha, who had not been exposed to any suffering of
mankind, reacted in a particular manner when he saw the sick, the
aged and the dead for the first time in his life. A person who is
working in a Coroners office will not react in the same manner. In this
respect rationalists are not different from other human beings. They
experience emotions and feelings in the same manner as other
human beings. Rationalists like Bertrand Russell did fall in love as
other human beings. Feelings such as love are ultimately biological
functions and rationalists being human beings cannot be free from
the same.
A more serious charge against rationalism has been made, namely

that rationalists have no concept of morality. There cannot be a
greater ignorance on this count. In my opinion, it is the rationalists
alone who can provide lasting morality. What is morality? Morality is
a code of the rules of good conduct. Now the next question is what is
good conduct? If you look to the different religions you will find that
the concept of good conduct is different among different religions. As
far as the rationalist is concerned, it is only on the touchstone of what
is beneficial to mankind that the rules of good conduct can be
evolved. In this sense, the rules of good conduct by way of morality
evolved by rationalists are universal and hold good for all mankind
and for members of all religions unlike the rules of conduct
propounded by different religions. Therefore rationalism is a
unifying force unlike religions which have done nothing but divide
mankind into different tribes. Hundreds of wars have been fought in
the name of religion; not one has been fought on behalf of
rationalism. A rationalist accepts the possibility of his being in the
wrong; no Pope or Bhagwan will, however, accept this possibility.
The worst crimes have been committed in the name of religion. The
dacoits of Chambal valley not only believe in religion but believe in
certain Gods and Goddesses whom they worship before they go on
their depredations. The worst adulterators of food will be found
worshipping the portrait of some God or Sai Baba hung in their
shops. It is, therefore, hopelessly incorrect to say that religion based
upon the concept of god can give better morality than the rules of
conduct which are given by rationalism.
It is impossible to give within a short time the details of all those great
experiments of mankind where rationalism has played a crucial role
and contributed towards human progress. I have already mentioned
above that rationalism and science are inseparable. If this is so then
all the technological and other progress which has been made by
science must be attributed to the impulse which rationalism gave. A
question can pertinently be asked, namely whether rationalism
necessarily leads to progress. You may ask a further question as to
whether progress has been real in the sense as to whether all that has
occurred has contributed to the happiness and welfare of mankind.
Francis Bacon said knowledge is power. Ultimately for which
purpose knowledge is used as also for which purpose power is used
that is important. That knowledge which is made possible by the use
of Reason has contributed in several directions to the progress of
mankind cannot for a moment be denied. But I will not pretend that
everything that has taken place in the history of mankind is in the
direction of progress. But without rationalism progress is impossible.
With rationalism progress is always assured. This is the claim that
could be made on behalf of rationalism.
Since you are among the privileged few who have got the
opportunity of higher education in a country where even one person
in a thousand does not get the opportunity to go to the primary
school, let alone to the College, the importance of rationalism must be
fully understood by you. Do not consider education merely as a
faithful accumulation of facts and dates and reigns. Do not consider
education merely as a means to earn your livelihood in the world.
Ultimately education is the building up of your mental attitude of
your character, of your personality. It is the transmission of mental,
moral, technical and aesthetic heritage from one generation to
another generation to as many as possible. This is for the purpose of
enlarging man's understanding of life leading thereby to the better
enjoyment of life.
Buddha Revisited
S
ome of the prophets, like the Buddha, are timeless and
continuously provide source of information. They inspire
you to write about them regularly. Though Buddhism had
vanished from India around 5th century after the rise of Adi-
Shankaracharya, Buddhist thought has spread to other countries in
different forms. Nagarjun transformed it into Mahayana though
original Buddhism that was taught was Thervad.
It became Zen (Dhyan) Buddhism in Japan though it did not retain

its original form. Even in Japanese marriages, Shintoism,
Catholicism and Buddhism, have influence. It is not Buddhist
marriage in that sense. A Hindu marriage in India is conducted as
per Hindu law; a Muslim law, supposed to be a contract, is carried out
in the same way, in the presence of Maulavis; but not so in Buddha
marriage in Japan.
Buddhism was practically unknown in India after 5th century. By

that time Shankaracharya had unleashed his attack on Buddhism
and had in fact included Buddha in Dashavataras Stotra which made
Buddha a Hindu God. Hindus regard Buddha as one of themselves
though they rarely worship him. Theravad Buddhism travelled to
Cylon through the efforts of the sister of Ashok. It can reasonably be
assumed that Sri Lanka has retained Thervad Buddhism. Mahayana
Buddhism which later was developed brought god, goddess and
angels in the religion. They made a distinction between Buddha and
Buddhism. The latter eternally engaged in bringing people to
Buddhist principle.
After having seen the broad principles of Buddhism, it is inevitable to

know the romantic beginnings of Buddhism. Buddha's name was
originally Gautama, a prince of Shaka branch, prince class. That is
how he is called Shakya Muni. He married his cousin, Yashodhara
but for nearly 10 years they had no children. It was only when he was
29 years, he had a son. Gautam was disappointed and he named him
Rahu, (who along with Ketu brings bad luck.) In due course, Rahu
became Rahul.
It has been mentioned in the other literature that he had seen, when
on a tour of Kapilvastu, an old man, a sick man, a dead man.
Ambedkar rightly discounts this story, because according to
Ambedkar every person, even Gautam in early days, must have seen
old age, sickness and death. These could not have provoked him to
become a parivrajak as the opening part of Brihadharmaya
Upanishad, stresses that spirituality is essential to become a
parivrajak. It may be, Gautam might not have read Brihadharmaya
but the spirit of Upanishad must have gripped him. Like every one
born in those days, he thought as Bhagwad Gita taught, 'Jatasya Hi
Dhruvo Mrutyuh' i.e. who is ever born must die. But the converse in
Gita was not believed or accepted by him. It says that Mrutasya Hi
Dhruvo Janma i.e. he who dies must also be born. It contained a shade
of Karma theory. A deep internal cogitation must have been going on
in his mind and that must have led him to become Parivrajak.
After he decided to become a Parivraja, Gautam set out with his

famous horse called Kanthak and his horseman. After crossing the
outer limits of Kapilvastu, he got down from his horse. He was,
however, wearing costly garments and jewellery. Obviously, he
cannot stay with them in the forest as Parivrajak persons in similar
pursuit would ask him about his clothes and jewellery. A beggar was
going by and when Gautam asked him whether the beggar would
exchange his clothes, the beggar was filled joy! Clothes were thus
exchanged.
Gautam was ready to leave. Even Kanthak was in tears; the
horseman obviously. It was a great moment celebrated throughout
all Buddhist literature. It is a great pity that no proper film on
Buddha has been in Bollywood.
Buddha's austerities are in company of five ascetics. He learnt

several things but not the one which he wanted to know. Truth about
the world's suffering and individual suffering eluded him, though in
the process he became emaciated. Seeing the futility of extreme
starvation and emancipation, he decided to drive a new path. This
was the path of thought and meditation. In this Sujata, the young
daughter of the Chief of village, who was staying with him proved to
be a great help. How injured he was? Why he was starving? These
and umpteen other questions were agitating the mind of Sujata and
her sisters and the answers she did not get worried them immensely.
Though the first discourse Gautam gave was in Mrigavar- deer park-
in Saripatta near Varanasi, Sujata being a quick learner, learned from
experience. She was not among the five parivrajaks in Deer park. She
was soon to be a disciple of the Buddha along with her relative. This
was not an ordinary event. No author or film maker has exploited it
as yet.
By this time Buddha, 40 year old had started his ministrations. He led
a strict life of eating, sleeping, following a pettika- a set of rules; he
enjoyed a good and healthy life. There is no record of Buddha falling
ill any time. He along with his men withdrew from public life
because that was the period of heavy rains, especially in the North.
He retreated to many towns, but for some inexplicable reason, he
went to Vaishali on retreats.
Every one was welcome to Sangha. If invited to poor man's house, he

would willingly go. He had one reservation. Unlike the Jains he did
not believe in non-vegetarian but if a bhik offered was meat, not
specifically prepared for him, he was not averse to it. Buddha
himself ate meat. But the condition both for himself and his disciple
was that it must not have been prepared for them. When a Bhikkhu
was going from house to house in search of food, he accepts what is
given to him. Obviously no housewife is anticipating that a Bhikkhu
is coming and that meat is to be prepared for him. She gives him
whatever is in the house.
Ambedkar repudiated three noble Dukkhas. Birth, according to the

Buddha, is the first dukkha. Ambedkar repudiated it for the simple
reason that you cannot determine that birth is itself unhappiness. It is
what you make it. It is basically anti-humanistic. Birth is not in your
hands. How you groom is in the hands of your parents and the
environment. It is here that D.D. Kosambi brings in Marxism.
According to him, the structure and superstructure of the society is
the determining fact of happiness or unhappiness; the author,
however, has regarded this as a mechanistic view. Everything is not
dialectical. If, in justice to his fair words, life is no logic, similarly
dialectics is not necessarily life. When Buddha said Dukkha could be
eliminated, he obviously did not mean that Dukkha of death could be
eliminated. No human could do it. Only one can attempt to
eliminate Dukkha born of other causes. Dukkha of birth/death can
never be avoided. Of course, during the course of one's life, many
occasions arise when man is unhappy. That unhappiness can be
avoided. Indeed it can be escaped.
It can be regarded that dukkha in that sense can be the cause of birth.
If one lives, one gets Dukkha. Birth, in that sense, could be said to be
cause of death. But to say that birth in itself is dukkha is, in a sense,
wrong; it is unhelpful. An improper understanding of this aspect has
compelled many authors to say that Buddhism is gloomy/
pessimistic. On the other hand, Buddhism can be seen as a way to be
happy; because it says in the 2nd and 3rd noble truths that Dukkha can
be eliminated by the 4th truth.
The many problems to which human flesh is heir - of which

Shakespeare spoke in his famous creation, Hamlet - cannot be
eradicated by ashtang marga (eight fold path) taught by Buddha. The
physical ailments are not within the reach of 8 paths of Buddha. The
other problems which are psychological can be handled by the
teachings of Buddha. Anger can be conquered; prejudice can be
eliminated. Similarly other psychological problems can be evaded or
avoided. This does not mean that problems are necessarily the result
of birth. Some are the result of living, which is the result of birth and
they can be cured by the methods suggested by Buddha. This is the
limit to his teachings. It is an enormous mistake to believe that the
world be bereft of all troubles and problems if Buddha's eight fold
path is followed. In this sense, Buddhism is as ineffective as any
other religion. The eight fold paths shown by Buddha will lead one to
peace of mind. It is not a medicine for physical problems.
There are many anti-humanist trends in Buddhism. The first of the

four noble truths is anti-humanistic. No humanist will ever accept a
proposition that birth is dukkha (sorrow). Every humanist will teach
you what a Marathi poet has said that one should love life, one
should love living. Further, life must be lived; not merely endured.
The three jewels of Buddhism are also of doubtful validity as far as
the humanists are concerned. The first jewel says Buddham Sharanam
Gachhami. A humanist will not generally agree to go in refuge to any
one. A humanist will not say Dhammam Sharanam Gachhami. Similarly
Buddhists' insistence that every one should be a member of Sangham
will be be acceptable to a Humanist only if this was for the sake of
humanity. Roy as a humanist denounced all types of organisations.
Membership of an organisation is anti-humanist. It was only for
convenience that Humanist Association was established (revived in
1970). Dhammam Sharanam Gachhami is to some extent acceptable
because one is taking refuge in principle. By and large Sharanam
Gachhami is anathema to humanists. There is almost no mythology in
Buddhism, no mysticism. But there is a sort of spiritualism in four
noble truths, eight fold path etc. Aldenberg has pointed out that
Buddha was not even a social reformer.
Buddhism in one sense is not a religion. Every religion in the world

has a god or gods. But Buddhism has none. He pretended that it
does not believe in soul which Jainism does. Basically or essentially
Buddhism is a guide to an individual though it encourages Sanghas.
The effect of Buddha's teaching was the decline in Brahmanism.
Buddha probably intended that Brahmanism should decline.
Buddha was born in 500 B.C. That is 2500 years ago when
Brahmanism was at its highest. Vedic rites had taken hold of the
society. Sacrifices were rampant and were taught that they were a
key to deliverance. People believed in Karma and craved for a
paradise. It was thought a yagna or sacrifice was a visa to paradise.
Buddha did not approve it. In innumerable words he denounced this
practice and demonstrated that one's salvation is in one's hand.
There were no middlemen like Brahmins or priests between men and
paradise. This was anti-Brahmanism. Yet peculiarly he praised
Brahmin qualities. On many occasions he lauded the Brahmin
qualities like learning, concern for others, and indifference to wealth.
He subscribed to the poem Vaishnava Jana to Tene Kahie Je Peed Paraee
Janere though the poem was not yet born.
Buddha was unknown to Indians even in 19th Century. Thanks to the

efforts of Ms. Rhis Davids, Buddha was born again. She studies large
literature of Buddha but she did not find anti-Brahmanism
anywhere. Although, no doubt, Brahmanism practices were, in no
uncertain terms, condemned. As Oldenberg observed, the
Brahmanism was not to Buddha an enemy whose conquest he would
have been unable to effect. But he often found the local influence of
respected Brahmins an obstacle to the Path.
Yet the modern books describe Buddha as if born to fight

Brahmanism as Oldenberg himself says. Buddha was Martin Luther
to Papacy. Yet, literature abounded in modern literature about the
denunciation of Brahmanism in the context or out of context of
Buddhism (God as political Philosopher; Buddha's challenge to
Brahmanism, 2003) that expected to contain a hatred of Brahmanism.
The author of the book, a political philosopher of Hyderabad, is a
Dalit. But 'Buddhism in India: Challenge to Brahmanism and caste'
(Saga Publication) by Gel Omvedt was expected to be a scholarly
book. She is a French lady, probably converted to Buddhism and was
a Lecturer in Bhubaneshwar. The book is a scholarly book containing
sociological contemporary study but there is hardly any criticism of
Buddhism.
During the course of his discourses, Buddha met all sorts of people,
Kings, Princes, common men, artisans, courtesans, lepers, cobblers,
etc. Yet he had no hesitation in converting them. Ultimately he died
of food prepared by Chandala. There is a controversy as to whether
what he ate was pork or some similar thing.
Different countries have different kinds of Buddhism. Why not one

for India based upon Ambedkar's book on Buddhism? Miss Omvedt
calls it navayana. The name is apt and attractive. It must have
libertarian approach. It will thus bring more men to Buddhism.
Scholars should work on those lines.
Life and Death of Socrates
T
he title of the article looks and indeed it is strange.
Normally, when one writes a biographical note about a
person, the emphasis is on the life of that person; the death is
incidentally mentioned. The details of the life of Socrates are not
easily available in the extant literature, but his unusual death is dealt
with in great details. In America, a society of voluntary euthanasia is
named Hemlock after the fact that Socrates voluntarily (?) took
Hemlock to die. His death is regarded as noble, befitting a
philosopher of principles.
Socrates did not leave behind an autography; we have no

authoritative biography. Whatever we know about him is from what
other people have written of him. He was a philosopher, but what he
said has to be gathered from what Plato, his student, has written. His
accuracy has often been doubted. Socrates himself bemoaned that
Plato was not accurate. It is said that he has set down many things as
having been said by Socrates, though Socrates has not said those
things. Nevertheless, a clear picture of Socrates emerges from the
writings of Plato.
Father of Socrates was a sculptor who had carved some prominent

statues in Athens. His mother was a midwife. Socrates himself joked
that he himself was a midwife, but in ideas. His father was a sculptor
but Socrates was not a sculptor of ideas. He did not write anything;
he did not propound any ideas or philosophy. He questioned, but
did not answer. Whatever we know that Socrates thought is derived
from Plato who has told what Socrates thought or taught. Socrates
never preached or discussed but put other's ideas to test. He taught
his listeners to think and think logically and clearly.
Often people consulted the oracle whose answer was accepted by

them. Oracle was a place at which advice or prophecy was sought
from the gods in Greece. The Greeks were intelligent people who left
behind an intellectual legacy, but were not free from superstitions.
They believed that events in life depended upon the will of demons
and gods. Usually a maiden used to sit in the hollow of the earth
below a temple and inhaled a gas generated by decomposed matter.
Often she consumed narcotics. She fell into deliriums and uttered
what the superstitious regarded as divinations or answers to
questions. Sometimes what was uttered was not even clear. So there
were specialists in the interpretations of these prophesies.
In our case, someone asked the oracle (at Delphi) as to who was the
wisest person. “Socrates” was the answer because he knew that he
did not know, but other people believed that they had knowledge. It
must be remembered that the oracle was often manipulated. J.D.
Burg in his “A History of Greece” says that the motive of the oracle
concerning the wisdom of Socrates is an unsolved problem.
Burg should not have been so skeptical because Athens was, in those
days, generally philosophical. Mass of the people admired the
learned men. Scholars were adulated. A philosopher of the time
said:
“Athens has distanced the rest of the world in power of thought and
speech that her disciples have become the teachers of all other men.
She has brought it pass the name of Greek should be thought no
longer a better of race but a matter of intelligence; and should be
given to the participators in our culture rather than to the shares of
our common origin.”
No diplomas or degrees were awarded, but learning, knowledge and

learned men were recognised. Sophists earned their living. But the
age of Sophism was coming to an end. People were getting
dissatisfied with sophistry. They longed for wisdom or knowledge.
The Sophists were the beneficiaries of this longing of Athenians
because they charged fees for their students. Socrates, not a Sophist,
was still a good teacher of philosophy. He had students of whom the
greatest was Plato who became the most famous.
Prof. J.D. Burg, in his “History of Greece”, suggests that Socrates was
a utilitarian. Utilitarianism did not raise its head till Bentham in 18th
Century. His peculiar method of teaching, especially the young
Socrates, did create some enemies. He was regarded as a dangerous
free thinker because he thought that he spent his life in diffusing
ideas which were of subversive order. Socrates was a democrat but
did not believe in democracy. Prince ought to be a philosopher and a
philosopher a king. According to his critics, Socrates spoiled the
morals of young men. Socrates described himself as a gadfly. Trial of
Socrates thus became inevitable. It should, however, be added that
he was physically a strong man and had bravely fought in two battles
on behalf of Athens a city which he loved.
The indictment was brought by a religious fanatic, Meletus,

supported by the politician Anytus and by the orator Lycon. For
some reasons, Meletus was the leading accuser. The indictment read
as follows:-
“Socrates is a public offender in that he does not recognise the gods

which the State recognises, but introduces new gods of his own.”
Socrates was tried as per law of the land and not by the fiat of a king or
despot or a dictator. Here was for the first time in history a
Government of laws, not of men. But the system of laws was
peculiar. Now in the U.S.A., Judges are elected; in India they are
appointed by the Governments but on the recommendations. In
Athens of Socrates' time, Courts were popular Courts. A man was
tried by jurors by majority not by Judges or Magistrates. That was
the concept of democratic jurisprudence. There were usually 300
jurors who were called. Important cases, like that of Socrates, may be
tried before jurors numbering upto twelve hundred.
It was 399 B.C. and Socrates was nearly 70 years. The trial was before
a popular Court (a people's Court as in former communist countries).
The jurors were mostly of the less educated class common people
who could be easily swayed. The charge against Socrates was not
that he was an atheist but that he did not believe in gods in which the
State believed.
The defense of Socrates had been made available to posterity by his

disciple, Plato, in “Apology”. Plato was present at the trial. Hence it
can be assumed that “Apology” is reasonably accurate. From
“Apology” and other available literature, it seems that Meletus was
the main accuser and he insisted that Socrates was an atheist.
Socrates points out that he does believe in godhead of the moon and
sun. Anaxagoras had said that was stone and the moon was earth.
Meletus was reminded of this historical fact. At one place in
“Apology” Socrates says: “For I believe that these are gods, and in a
sense higher than that in which many of my accusers believe in them.
And to you and to God I commit my cause, to be determined by you
as best for you and me.”
Socrates compared himself with gadfly given to the State by God. He

believed in the oracle of Delphi which told that Socrates was wiser
than anyone in Athens. Briefly referring to one person in Athens, he
says”… I am better off than he is, for he knows nothing and thinks he
knows; I neither know nor think I know. In this latter particular, then,
I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.”
Several methods were suggested to Socrates to escape conviction. He

could have bargained for approval. But Socrates was defiant. He
loved Athens and did not want to leave the city. “Men of Athens,” said
Socrates, “I honour and love you but I shall obey God rather than you,
and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice
and teaching philosophy.” In the same paragraph he challenges
Athenians … “Athenians, either acquit me or not; but whatever you
do, understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to
die many times”. He was seeking martyrdom. Farther he said, “The
difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid righteousness,
for that runs faster than death.” He took leave of his accusers by saying
“The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways; I to die and
you to live. Which is better God only knows.”
The language was throughout defiant, almost arrogant. Does this

explain he was found guilty by a majority of 280 to 220, but he was
sentenced to death by a larger majority of 360 to 140.
Cicero said of Socrates, “He called down philosophy from heaven,

settled it in cities, and introduced it into houses, made it necessary for
inquiries to be made on life and morals, good and evil.”
Not all persons were of praise for Socrates. There was at least one
dissenting voice. Lacey Baldwin Smith said:
“As a corpus of evidence the Socratic sources engender little

confidence, and the personality which emerges is so infuriatingly
improbable the reader begins to suspect that the father of
martyrdom was too noble by half and deserved the hemlock twice
over; for his insufferable arrogance as well as his caustic humour and
irritating logic.”
Socrates was, however, honest. He refused to escape from the prison.

His wife came to see him in the cell. He reminded the debts he owed
and asked her to settle them.
Socrates was 70 years old at the time of his trial. After his death, the
citizens of Athens regretted their action. They realized that a
Golden Age has ended. They ultimately put his accusers to death.
Meletus was stoned to death. Others were boycotted to such an
extent that they were forced to commit suicide.
To conclude, in the words of Will Durant:

“All in all he was fortunate; he lived without working, read without
writing; taught without routine; drank without dizziness, and died
before serenity almost without pain.”
(The Life of Greece, p.366)
The Inquisition of Galileo
F
our hundred years in the history of mankind is too small a
period to make any progress, but the last 400 years have seen
more progress than could have happened in four thousand
years. For nearly 1500 years the world, even the world of science,
lived with the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe and
the sun revolved around the earth. After all it was the God-ordained
geocentric world. The planet moved around the earth in circles. The
Aris to Teliam world was in circles. The circle was a perfect manner in
which things moved. Everything to be perfect must be in circles. The
egg was not perfect because it was not circular. But things otherwise
were perfect. The sun moved around the earth as circles. “Genesis”
tell us that God created the universe and God could not have created
anything less than perfect. What is more perfect than a circle? This
was the basis of Aristotelian logic.
The planets, which were the creation of a perfect God, moved in

circles around the earth. Man was after all the creature of God who
wanted him to be in the centre of the world. Man was an inhabitant of
the earth and, therefore, the earth had to be in the centre of the
universe and around it moved the planets. That is how the
geocentric world was visualized. Circle, round, was the basis of
everything that was perfect. That was Aristotle's logic which was
perfect deduction of the time. Evidence was not collected; it was
assumed. Given this major premise, minor premise was provided
and the conclusion was inevitable. Aristotelian logic ruled science as
it was then understood. It suited the Church which was happy with
that sort of logic because the earth was presumed to be round and at
the centre of the universe. No one dared to challenge this view.
It was even Ptolemy, the Egyptian who was one of the earliest sky
watchers, who insisted that the earth was round and the centre of
universe, consistent with the Aristotelian view. This, despite of, the
planets moved in a peculiar manner and could not render to a
reasonable calculation. It was still the insistence on the deductive
methods. Search for knowledge outside one's mind was not even
thought of. All knowledge, according to this method, was confined
to one's mind and the logical method dictated by the religious
scriptures. For nearly four hundred years, this method dominated
the world of knowledge as a result of which practically no progress
was made in knowledge. May be the conclusions drawn were
logically correct. Knowledge was the result of internal cogitation. It
gave rise to mysticism or metaphysics but not the substance of
knowledge. Thinkers rejoiced in their ability at hair-splitting. Did it
add to the stock of human knowledge?
For the first time, it was Roger Bacon (1213-1292), an English

Franciscan, who canvassed the view that experimentation not just
revelation or the classical wisdom of Thomas Aquinas is a path to
truth. It is not known whether he possessed the gadgets ascribed to
him. For his heretical views he was put in prison for fourteen years.
The clock was put back.
It was Bacon who gave a thrust to the progress of knowledge.

Frances Bacon, who had been earlier impeached for corruption,
devoted the latter period of life for explaining the steps necessary for
the advancement of learning. As Will Durant has put it, “Science
now began to liberate itself from the placenta of its mother
philosophy. It shrugged Aristotle from its back, turned its face from
metaphysics to Nature, developed its own distinctive methods and
looked to improve the life of man on the earth.” (Age of Reason
Begins, p.586).
Bacon's major contribution of inductive logic was the process from
the specific to the general to be used for academic and scientific
discovery, an approach embraced by modern science. Once this
approach was accepted, there were inquiries, there were
investigations, observations were resorted to, experiments were
conducted what one can call positivism was adopted these are the
things which made science possible and progress after nearly 1400
years the world had followed the deductive method of deduction.
In astronomy, data never changes. Stars and planets have been in the
same position since at least known history of mankind. Even from
the time of Ptolemy of Egypt, earth had a stationary place. The sun
went round the earth. For a true astronomer with an active mind this
gave several difficulties.
A Polish bishop though believed in God, through observation and

calculations came to the conclusion that the sun was stationary and
the earth and other planets moved round the sun which was not a
planet but a star. He was Nicolas Copernicus.
It was thought otherwise in those days. Jean Bodin, a sixteenth

century religious priest, said:
“No one in his senses will ever think that the earth, heavy and
unwieldy from its own weight and mass, staggers up and down
around its own centre and that of the sun.”
Copernicus was in his senses. His studies of the sky and ancient texts
forced him to finally reject the then existing theory. His theory
overthrew the fifteen hundred year old theory of Ptolomic system
and opened the crater of true astronomy. Arthur Koestler who has
made a deep study of astronomy and has written a book on the
subject has called Copernicus “a conservative cleric who started the
revolution against his will.” This is the Copernicus revolution which
changed the movement of sun, earth and other planets.
Before I comment on Galileo's contribution, I must mention some of

the contributions Galileo made to other branches of knowledge.
Galileo, no doubt, upheld Copernicus' theory. He spread it, in one
sense popularized it. The Church was not amused. Apart from the
Inquisition to which Galileo was subjected, the book in which
Copernicus has propounded his theory was put in the Index.
“Index” is a list of books which the Catholics were forbidden to read.
Lady Chatterley's Lover had been put in the Index.
Librorum Prohibitorum was the name when it was enacted by the

Church. It was drawn up in 1557 and from time to time revised.
Now the list is abolished.
th
Galileo was actually a physicist. He was born on 18 February, 1564
in which year Shakespeare was also born. Clear signs of science
could be seen in his knowledge and behaviour. His ambition was
originally to become an artist. Michelangelo died when Galileo was
born. However, his father in Florence who was reasonably a rich
man sent him to University to study medicine. But physics attracted
him like a magnet. He made his scientific discovery that the swings
of pendulum, regardless of width, take equal times. He also found
that lengthening or shortening the arm of a pendulum he could
retard or quicken his pulse. By adjustment of the length of the arm of
pendulum it could make the movement of the pendulum to
synchronize with his pulse. This 'pulsigola' he could measure even
the heart beats. A pupil of Galileo, Torricelli, constructed the first
barometer in 1643.
In the period in which Galileo lived, his name was great.

Governments valued his knowledge. In military matter he was
regularly consulted. He could give the distance of a ship in the sea.
His famous experiment in the tower of Pisa is doubted, but much
talked about. He threw two spears of unequal weight from the top of
the tower of Pisa and demonstrated that when two objects of unequal
weight are dropped from a height, they reach the ground at the same
time. This was contrary to the prevalent belief; it was also contrary to
imagination.
Galileo was not the one who invented telescope, but the principle and
use of a telescope was his. Lenses were invented in Holland.
Astronomers used lenses to magnify. Galileo found that when a
concave lens is used with a convex on top, magnification is
multiplied. With the help of such a telescope he would study the
movements and confirm the findings of Copernicus. Copernicus
revolution was, according to Galileo, confirmed. He also spotted
four moons of Jupiter. They are called Io, Europa, Ganymede and
Callisto. In astronomy they are called Galilean Satellites.
The discovery of four moons of Jupiter was a great blow to religion.

God had created the universe. Neither in the Bible nor in any
scripture a mention had been made of these planets. According to
the people, all heavenly bodies must go round the earth. For the first
time stellar objects were seen to go around another planet. This was
another blow to Ptolomic theory.
Nebula then was nebulous. Consisting of stars, though, the stars did
not show any features. Galileo showed that Nebula was a group
when viewed through a telescope. It was because of the immense
distance that the stars were nebulous to the naked eye.
In 1609, Galileo confirmed Copernicus revolution with the help of a

telescope, thus attracting the wrath of the Catholics. However, as
long as the Copernican proposition was viewed as a hypothesis, the
Church did not deem it necessary to persecute Galileo. Galileo,
however, could not be silenced. He wrote a slender book giving a
story of three persons. Of them, one was a simpleton who acted as
were asked by the then Pope. Galileo invited inquisition, but did not
abandon the earth's revolution. He proclaimed that he was not
obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
Reason and intellect; has intended us to forgo their use. He said that
philosophy (then natural philosophy):
“is written in this grand book of universe, which stands continually

open to our gaze cannot be understood unless we first tried to
comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is
composed. It is written in the language of mathematics.”
The ground is laid for Inquisition. After Martin Luther, the Church
was uneasy with heresies which might weaken the Church. It was
very important that heresies should be suppressed. The Bible was
important and was regarded as the repository of all knowledge.
How can a man upset divine knowledge, especially knowledge
guarded by an Institution like Roman Catholic Church? To say
anything contrary to what is said in the Bible is heresy and heresy
must be suppressed.
Abelief or practice contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Church is/

was heresy. An opinion contrary to what is accepted is heresy. How
can there be two opinions on what the Church regards as its doctrine?
It is clear from the Bible and from what has been officially followed
that earth is the centre of the universe, that it was inhabited by man
who was created in God's own image, that the sun and other planets
orbit the earth. Everything that followed from Copernicus was
heresy; everything which was held and supported by Galileo was
heresy.
Originally, Inquisition started a procedure for inquiry. The attempt

was to know the truth and possibility. Later it was realized that it was
necessary to put down heresy. Inquisition became an institution.
Holy office was established. It conducted Inquisition. Whether right
or wrong, “heresy” had to be crushed. A heretic was made to confess
to the contrary to what view he held. Sometimes, like Bruno, heretics
were adamant, obstinate and strong. Weapons were added to
Inquisition. Third degree methods made the heretics confess to their
errors. Some refused to admit that they were wrong and were burnt
at the stake.
Because of his pre-eminence in the society and also because of his

knowledge, Galileo was never tortured; though the instruments of
torture were shown to intimidate him. Galileo met many ecclesial
persons who could influence. He moved to and fro from Florence to
Rome. Once he had a long conversation with the Pope, but failed to
convince the latter. The Pope, though refusing to lift the Inquisition
which had been started in 1616, was sufficiently impressed by
Galileo's learning to say “For a long time we have extended our
fatherly love to this great man, whose fame shines in heaven and
marches on earth”.
A news Pope who was formerly a pupil of Galileo was appointed.

The latter's hope soared but hopes were soon belied. The Inquisition
continued.
It was the practice of the Inquisition to question the Accused

intensely to bring upon him the pressure of the Church. Torture was
not applied immediately. The Accused was allowed to think, to
mediate for years. That is how the Inquisition in the case of Galileo,
started in 1616, ended in 1633, with his retraction.
Actually the Inquisition started in 1632. One may recall the

Inquisition as an institution was created by Pope Paul III in 1542 to
stem the spread of Reformation doctrines. It was even given the
power to Judge competing doctrines. So it could hold Copernicus
wrong.
th
On 16 April, 1616 Galileo was brought into the room which is now
the Post Office of Rome. Rules of procedure were simple; though
they were not the rules of a Court. The questioning, in the case of
Galileo, was soft and not threatening. The Court did not meet again;
nd
the trial ended there. On 22 June, 1616, the Inquisition pronounced
him guilty. But it offered him absolution on the condition of full
abjuration; it sentenced him to the prison of the Holy Office for a
period which the Holy Office was to decide. He was made to
renounce the Copernicus Theory. A penance was also imposed upon
him. That was that he would recite penitential Psalms to 3 years. On
nd
22 June, 1633, Galileo, then 70 years old, retracted and gave a long
confession, part of which is as follows:-
“With a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest
the errors and heresies and generally every other error and heresy
contrary to … … Holy Church and I swear that I will never more in
future say or assert anything which may give rise to similar suspicion
of me and that if I know any heretic or anyone suspected of heresy, I
will denounce him to this Holy Office.”
When he came out of the hall, he is reported to have said “Yet he does
move”. This is doubtful as there is no reference to it in his biography.
He spent three years in the prison of the Inquisition. Later he was

moved to a couple of private houses. At last he was allowed to stay in
his own. He was alone and almost blind. He had an illegitimate
daughter who was a nun and she took care of him. Technically he
was still a prisoner. He was forbidden to travel outside the grounds
of his own house. In 1638, John Milton, the famous English poet,
came to see him.
On January 8, 1642, aged 78, he died. It was in 1835 the Church

realized that he was right and withdrew his works from the Index.
Will Durant says: “The broken and defeated man had triumphed
over the most powerful institution in history.”
Robert Ingersoll - Immortal Infidel
R
obert Green Ingersoll was born on 11th August 1833 in
Dresden, New York, State of U.S.A. The United States had
been free for over 50 years and Ingersoll grew up in an
atmosphere of political freedom. But he was born in an orthodox
religious family which was in those days respectfully referred to as
the “God-fearing” and 'pious” family. The orthodox, religious
atmosphere in which he lived under the tutelage of a conservative
father probably stirred his intellectual curiosity which led him to
make a deep study of the scriptures. It has been said that best cure for
the blind faith in a religion is a study of the scriptures in depth which
would inevitably lead you to the realization of the absurdities,
contradictions and superfluities of the religions. Hindus in India
know Ramayona from 'Kirtanakars' and worship Rama as a perfect
person (Maryada Purush). Ambedkar read (not heard) Ramayana and
found several riddles in it which were wholly inconsistent with the
divine character of Rama. And our self-appointed moral and
religious police in the Shiv-Sena called for a ban on Ambedkar's
book.
Ingersoll had very little formal education and the great scholarship
and knowledge you find in the 12 Volumes collection of his writings
(The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll - 1902: Ed. Clinton P Farrell) was the
fruit of a free, fearless search and study done on his own. Hs speeches
and writings disclose a mind that is liberated - a mind that is also
constantly seeking the expanding horizons of truth.
Though, as mentioned above, he had little formal education,
Ingersoll was, as an exception, admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1854
when he was barely 21 years old. His innate intelligence, mastery of
the English language and eloquence brought him quick and
continued success at the bar. He built up a lucrative practice at Pearia,
III, New York City and Washington D.C.
The love of liberty in him made him naturally a combatant on the side
of the Unionists in the Civil War 1861- 65; in the army he rose to the
rank of Colonel. After the war he became a staunch Republican and
championed the causes of the blacks. His oratory was always pressed
into service by the Republican Party in its election campaigns,
especially Presidential Campaigns. With so much intellectual and
moral equipment, those who do not have a proper understanding of
the minds of the Americans have wondered why Ingersoll did not
stay in politics and why he did not choose the path which would have
led him to the White House.
Obvious Reasons
The reasons were obvious then and are obvious now. The
Republicans used him for his brilliance and eloquence. But they did
not nominate him as a Presidential candidate for the reason that he
was an agnostic - a fact that would have been unacceptable to the
voters of the 19th Century and would be unacceptable even to the
voters of the 20th and 21st Centuries in U.S.A. It is true that in the
infancy of the Republic, a religious non-conformist like Thomas
Jefferson (a Unitarian) could obtain a nomination without difficulty.
But Jefferson was one of the founding fathers of the American
Constitution. He was the most learned man that ever occupied and
probably that would ever occupy the American Presidency.
President John Kennedy told a gathering of Nobel Laureates that
had come for a dinner at White House that it was the largest ever
assembly of learning in the White House except when Thomas
Jefferson dined alone.
Adlai Stevenson could not, for his lack of religious conviction, get
elected as a President in his two attempts and Eisenhower, not a
member of any Church or as a soldier, had to quickly embrace an
organised Church to procure nomination from his party. If this is to in
the 20th Century, one cannot, in retrospect, blame the Republican
Party of the 19th Century for not nominating Robert Ingersoll as its
candidate for Presidency.
The Choice
Ingersoll himself was aware of his handicap and never advanced his
claim. He knew that in order to successfully run for the Presidency he
would have to renounce his religious agnosticism and, as an
intellectually honest person, he could not do it. The choice between
the political plum and the integrity of mind was obvious.
American writers - scholars or otherwise - who have written millions

of words on the presidential candidates, elections and the Presidents
have not, to the knowledge of this writer, made any serious study of
the crippling effect the lack of religious conformism has on the
quality of American political standards. America boasts of religious
freedom. Doesn't religious freedom also mean freedom not to have a
religion?
The closure of political offices to Ingersoll was, in retrospect. a

blessing in disguise. He was free to write and to speak. He was
nationally known as a great orator. Though Americans did not give
him their votes, they lent him their ears. In fact, they paid to hear him.
Ingersoll received as much as $ 3,500 for a single evening's
performance. And what a performance it used to be! With brilliant
wit and oratory he exposed the orthodox superstitions of the times. It
has been estimated that if 100,000 people attended Ingersoll's
speeches during the last ten years of his career by paying per head
one dollar, Ingersoll earned $ 100,000 during that period - in the 19th
Century.
Some accounts of Ingersoll's speeches are available from

contemporary papers. In the Republican Convention held in
Cincinnati, Ohio, in June 1876, Robert Ingersoll had made an
impassioned appeal for the nomination of James G. Blame as the
Party's candidate for President. His speech did not carry the day and
the Convention nominated Rutherford B. Hayes. Despite this, what
could be regarded as a rebuff, Ingersoll tirelessly campaigned for the
official candidate. At an election meeting held on 20th October, 1876,
in a gigantic hall in New York, 50,000 people came to hear the great
orator - but did they all hear when there was no public address
system, no microphones, and no loud-speakers? The booming voice
emanating from the massive personality probably ensured that his
words were carried over to the large audience. The estimate of the
audience was made by the Chicago Tribune which said in its front
page story that there was an immense crowd of at least fifty thousand
in number”.
On 8th October 1896 Robert Ingersoll appeared again in Chicago

where, according to Chicago Tribune for the next day, Robert G.
Ingersoll preached a sermon last night to almost twenty thousand
people”.
Charles Bradlaugh
Robert Ingersoll was the contemporary of Charles Bradlaugh of
England. Ingersoll's posthumous fame has not been comparable to
that of Charles Bradlaugh. This is somewhat surprising because
during their lifetimes, both were equally well-known and equally
hated or admired, depending upon the viewers' outlook. Ingersoll
was heard by more people than Bradlaugh. Bradlaugh's struggles
were more fierce and more in number. However, the literary output
of Ingersoll was much larger than that of Bradlaugh. These
comparisons are in physical terms. It cannot, however, be said that
contribution to the cause of free thought of one was lesser than that of
the other.
Charles Bradlaugh was an atheist - he dwelt at length on the

humanity's gains from unbelief. Ingersoll regarded himself as an
agnostic. In his “Why I am Agnostic” (1896), he preaches practically
what would be regarded as atheism. However, his utterances clearly
marked him as ore who maintained that “God is unknown and
unknowable”, rather than one who declares absolutely 'there is no
God”. The believers did not see any distinction between the two.
According to them, the one who does not accept that God exists is an
atheist and an agnostic is no better than him.
God Exists?
The large mass of knowledge of the universe that has become
available during the 20th Century has made the position of a
believer's belief in a God untenable - so also the position of agnostics.
In my opinion, the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is
without a difference. One who believes in the existence of God is by
definition a theist - one who says God exists. To the question “Do you
believe in the existence of God?”, the atheist answers in the negative -
No. Does the agnostic answer in the positive? Even if he says he does
not know, it means he does not believe in the existence o God. A
rationalist - an atheist is a rationalist - cannot say that God does not
exist but he can legitimately say that there is nothing to show that
God exists - howsoever one defines God.
When one examines the writings of Ingersoll on agnosticism, one can

clearly see that he equates it with atheism and he equates both with
secularism.
See this: “The Agnostic ... occupies himself with this world, with
things that can be ascertained and understood. He turns his attention
to the sciences, to the solutions of questions that touch the well being
of man”.
What is this but secularism?
Proceeding further, Ingersoll says: “The Agnostic believes in

developing the brain, in cultivating the affections, the tastes, the
conscience, the judgment, to the end that man be happy in this
world”. This is secularism at its clearest.
Reacting to the then legal position that declared atheists could not
give testimony in legal proceedings (a position also in England then,
which brought financial ruin to Bradlaugh), Ingersoll said:
“In most of the States of the Union, I could not give testimony.
Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it
does not believe that a man tells the truth unless frightened by a belief
in God.”
Is this not atheism?
(These quotations have been taken from The Best of Robert Ingersoll,
Ed. Roger E. Greeley: Published by Prometheus Books).
In “The Gods”, Robert Ingersoll wrote an analytical essay in which he

showed his deep knowledge of the scriptures - a knowledge that
helped him to expose the absurdities and contradictions in the
scriptures. With intense anguish he recalls the commands of the Old
Testament God to his believers to conquer cities and smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword. Worse still, “of the cities of these
people which the Lord thy God does give thee for an inheritance,
thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth.” (From The Gods).
A Humanist
Ingersoll was a rationalist, in fact an atheist and a secularist. He was
also a humanist. His compassion for the suffering humanity, his
concern for the convicts in prison (he wrote on the crime against the
criminals), and his abhorrence of capital punishment anticipated
many of the components of human rights movement of the 20th
Century.
“I regard criminals as unfortunates. Most people regard those who

violate the law with hatred. Society has no right to take revenge; no
right to torture a convict; no right to do wrong because some
individual has done wrong.”
He repeatedly spoke and wrote against all corporal punishments in

prisons and said that he was against everything that degraded a
criminal. Implicit in this is the recognition that a man sentenced to
imprisonment does not cease to be a human being. This is what our
Supreme Court said in Sunil Batro's case in the year 1980.
“Capital punishment”, he said “does not prevent murder, but sets an
example - by the State - that is followed by its citizens. The State
murders its enemies and the citizen murders his'.
Death Penalty
He was aware that the Constitutions of U.S.A. and of the States did
not prohibit the death penalty and, therefore, he pleaded that if death
penalty is to be inflicted, it should be done in a humane way. The
criminal, he said, should be removed with the same care and with the
same mercy with which a surgical operation is performed. “Why
inflict pain? Who wants it inflicted? What good can it, by any
possibility, do?”
It is not known whether, while expressing these thoughts, Ingersoll

was aware of the prohibition contained in the US Constitution
against “cruel and unusual punishment”. Of this provision, even the
Supreme Court became aware only somewhat late - in the 20th
Century while debating the Constitutional validity of the death
penalty.
An incident relating to Theodore Roosevelt who was at the relevant

time the Governor of a State needs to be recalled. A petition had been
presented to him to commute the sentence of one Mrs. Place
(sentenced to death) and Roosevelt refused. Ingersoll was indignant
enough to say that this refusal “is a disgrace to the State. What a
spectacle of a man killing a woman - taking a poor, pallid and
frightened woman, strapping her to a chair and then arranging the
apparatus so she can be shocked to death”.
This was the same Theodore Roosevelt who called Thomas Paine
“filthy little atheist”. while it was Thomas Paine who ignited the
American Colonies' desire for independence which in turn made it
possible for Roosevelt to enjoy freedom of speech which he could
abuse. It was an ungrateful nation which did not accept the place of
Thomas Paine in American history till 1945. It was in that year that
Paine entered the Hall of Fame of Great Americans, 136 years after his
death. When will Ingersoll enter this Hall?
Robert Ingersoll wrote an excellent essay on “Thomas Paine” which

began with the words:
'With His Name Left Out, the History of Liberty cannot be written”
How true! He inspired the American Colonies for independence, he

accelerated the French Revolution, he made the Christians
uncomfortable with 'The Age of Reason” and disconcerted Edmund
Burke with “The Rights of Man”.
Moral Authority
Ingersoll was an advocate of human rights and a defender of
unpopular causes - including the rights of the poor, the blacks, the
women, and the dispossessed. Ingersoll was neither a trained
philosopher nor a scholar. But he was the greatest communicator and
thus educated a whole generation of Americans. Paul Kurtz has
mentioned that many nineteenth century intellectual leaders and
social activists looked to him for moral authority. Thomas Alva
Edison, Mark Twain and Andrew Carnegie were among them. So
were Margaret Sanger and Walt Whitman. (See preface to On the Gods
and Other Essays, Prometheus Books). Margaret Sanger was jailed
many times for merely seeking to extend the right to birth control
information to all who sought it.
Walt Whitman and Robert Ingersoll were not only admirers of each
other; they were sincere friends. When Whitman immortalized by
“Leaves of Grass” died, Ingersoll was far away and arrived at the
funeral travelling day and night to pay the following tribute to him:
“Long after we are dead the brave words he has spoken will sound
like trumpets to the dying.”
Walt Whitman's “Leaves of Grass” has instructed generations of

Americans to love nature and humanity. Whitman was a poet of life, a
poet of love, a poet of the nature. He was above all a poet of
democracy. The name of Walt Whitman may sound, at this moment,
familiar to Indian readers as the one whose book “Leaves of Grass”
was given as a present by President Clinton to Monica Lewnskey.
Ingersoll was of course not afraid of death. He knew, as the

Bhagawadgita says, the death must come to one who is born (Jatasya hi
dhruvo mrityuh). But he did not and could not rationally accept that
one who is dead will be born again. (Mritasya hi dhruvo janmah). When
he was once asked what was worse than death, he quickly replied
“Oh, a great many things; to be dishonored; to be worthless; to feel
you are a failure; to be insane; to be constantly afraid of the future”.
He understood the human desire, aspiration for life beyond the
grave, the life eternal. But he said “Life does not become eternal
simply because we wish it to be”.
Robert Ingersoll died on 21st July 1899 in Dobbs Ferry, New York. He
had not converted America or even a large part of it to free thought.
But he left a legacy which is the prized possession of later
generations. On the title page of Volume 8 of his writings, it is written:
“This is my creed;
Happiness is the only good;

Reason the only torch;
Justice the only worship,
humanity the only religion,
and love the only priest.”
The prestigious New York Times writing a long editorial on him on

22nd July 1899 summed up as follows:-
“The lack of respect in which he exalted was his bane, that by reason
of it and of his free exhibition of it he never took the place in the social,
the professional, or the public life of his country to which, by his
talents, he otherwise would have been eminently entitled.”
George Holyoake, the English secularist and a contemporary said:
“It is as though a light had gone out of the world or a guiding star had
fallen from the firmament to learn of Colonel Ingersoll's death.”
Annie Besant
N
ot exactly like the proverbial cat, but Annie Besant had
nine lives. Her biographer, Arther Nethercot, has written
two books on her life (or rather lives). They are “The First
Five Lives of Annie Besant” and “The Last Four Lives of Annie
Besant”.
The first five lives were 'The Christian Mother”, “The Atheist
Mother”, “The Martyr of Science”, “The Socialist Labour Agitator”,
and “The Chela of the Mahatmas”.
The next four were “Indian Educator, Propagandist and Mystic”,

“President of The Indian National Congress”, “Deserted Leader”
and “Life in Death”.
These diverse, and almost bizarre, lives are in one sense interwoven.
Annie Wood (that was her maiden name) was curious, sensitive and
eager to learn. Joseph Symes, a contemporary free thinker,
commented on her:
“Mrs. Besant is clever, earnest (too much in some respects),

emotional, but totally lacking in independence. We mean
independence of thought.”
Though the nine lives are interwoven by the common thread of

Annie's continuous endeavour to take part in social and political
activities, we can easily separate the first five which concern mainly
with her career as a free-thinker. The last four begin with her
conversion to Theosophy and her participation in the Indian political
life. We need not, for the present, dwell on the latter part of her career.
Annie was born on 1st October 1847. Her mother, Emily Morris, was
Irish and it is suggested that the fierce, volatile Irish blood was
inherited by Annie from her mother. Even her father, William Burton
Wood, was half-Irish in as much as his mother was Irish. Popularly,
this connection of Irish blood has been used by writers about Annie to
explain her interest in the then Irish problems and her admiration for
Irish personalities such as George Bernard Shaw.
But from her father, a poor relation of an otherwise well-to-do

English famiy, she inherited love for scholarship and capacity for
intensive study. Her father, William, died in 1852 when Annie was
just five years old. Yet in her Autobiography (1893), she speaks of him
admiringly as follows:
“Deeply read in philosophy, he had outgrown the orthodox beliefs of

his day, and his wife, who loved him too much to criticise, was wont
to reconcile her piety and his scepticism by holding that 'women
ought to be religious', while men had a right to read everything and
think as they would, provided that they were upright and honorable
in their lives”.
Annie was the middle of three children of the Woods. Henry was
slightly older than Annie who had another brother, three years
younger. Henry later became a lawyer and had some role to play in
support of his sister in her legal battles with her estranged husband.
Awakening
The mother, with her limited resources, brought up the children as
well as she could. Annie was given some informal education of which
she made good use. At home, she studied the early Christian Church
fathers and some contemporary philosophers. This led to a religious
awakening in her. But her following of the Catholic practices such as
fasting, using the sign of the Cross and going to weekly communion
were not appreciated by the members of the Anglican Church who
included, naturally, her family members. Intellectually Annie
thought that the Church of England was a Catholic Church, though
non-Roman.
It was at this time, when she was enveloped in religion, she came in
contact with or brought into contact with Frank Besant, a clergyman,
seven years older than Annie. Annie's mother was willing, though
not necessarily overanxious, that Annie should marry a man of
religion. Appropriate encouragement was given to both the young
persons. However, when Frank proposed to Annie, she was not
ready for responding, though she did not reject the proposal. So on
21st December 1867, at the age of 20 (not an early age for a Victorian
girl), she married Frank Besant.
From all external appearances, the marriage ought to have been

happy and successful. It was not. 'Temperamental incompatibility'
may well sum up the whole situation. Frank was not to be wholly
blamed, though he showed insensitiveness to Annie's reluctance to
have any more children after two. She explained in her
autobiography that her husband and she were ill-matched pair from
the very outset. He had his high ideas of husband's authority and
wife's submission. He was easily angered and was appeased with
great difficulty.
She was on the other hand, accustomed to freedom and respect. She
had not been trained to be a good wife. Her intellectual make-up was
probably repulsive to the clergyman. She confesses that “I must have
been inexpressibly tiring of Rev. Frank Besant”.
They had two children - Arthur Digby (born Jan.1869) and Mabel
(born Aug.1870). After the marriage had “irretrievably broken
down” (in modern juristic diction), there were legal proceedings for
the custody of the children. It is not necessary to follow any further
the course of those proceedings or the relationship between the
estranged couple, except to note one stage in those proceedings
where the atheism of Anne was powerfully held against her.
Jews in England
The question of custody of her daughter, Mabel, came up before Sir
George Jessel. Her husband had contended that Annie, lacking
religious views, was unfit to be the daughter's guardian. The case was
unique in one sense - Sir George was the first Jew judge of England.
This was a sort of landmark, because even in England, the land of
liberty and tolerance, Jews were not treated kindly. (See Lord
Denning's Landmarks in the Law Part 11). It was alleged that Annie was
under the influence of Bradlaugh, the 'bellowing blasphemer'.
When Annie appeared to conduct here defence in person, Sir George

said: “Appear in person? never heard of such a thing”. Sir George
warned her that she would not be allowed to go into irrelevant
matters as persons who argue their case usually do. More than
hundred years later, many judges would endorse that remark about
parties appearing in person. Ultimately, while giving a decision
against Annie, the Judge denounced her infidel opinion. She not only
ignored religion, not merely to believe in no religion, but to publish
that belief. Annie had written to the authorities of Mabel's school to
exempt Mabel from religious instruction. On this, the Judge said:
“Not only does Mrs. Besant entertain those opinions which are
reprobated by the great mass of mankind ... but she carries these
speculative opinions into practice as regards the education of the
child”.
Court of Appeal
These and other remarks of Sir George gave judicial sanction to the
view that Annie was an outcast from society. Annie was burning with
anger, and in that anger, condemned Sir George as an evil person.
The old brutal Jewish spirit regarding women as the mere slaves of
men breaks out in the coarse language that disgraces him rather than
the woman at whom it is aimed”, she wrote in National Reformer.
Annie may be right about that judge, but she was not fair to him as a
Jew. Christians treated their wives hardly better. She learned her
lesson when the Court of Appeal consisting of three Christian Judges
damned her for her infidel opinions. The Court of Appeal said that
Annie's conduct in propagating those opinions would be regarded
with disgust by English men and women. How could they allow such
a woman to bring up her daughter? The court said:
“The Court cannot allow (the girl) to be brought up in opposition to

the view of mankind generally as to what is moral, what is decent,
what is womanly, or proper, merely because her mother differs from
these views the child might even grow up to write such things
herself”
In Revolt
To return to her intellectual career, Annie continued to read books
and hear lectures of freethinkers of the day. In particular, she was
impressed by the eloquent sermons of Charles Voysey, a Vicar. But he
was a clergyman in revolt who questioned some of the fundamentals
of the Anglican Church. He disagreed with the guidelines issued by
the Church, and by publishing “The Sling and the Stone”, a collection
of his essays, made known his opposition to Thirty Nine Articles of
Doctrine to which every priest of the Anglican Church was obliged to
subscribe. He was deprived of his livelihood. He appealed to the
higher authorities. Offers of a compromise, with assurances of
regular income and some land, were unceremoniously rejected by
Voysey who thundered: “I shall be an explosive shell among the
Articles and Creeds if I have to burst and die in the attempt”. But
Charles Voysey was not an atheist. In fact, he later set up Theistic
Church.
Under the influence of Voysey, Annie developed the sceptical habit.

She resolved, as she tells us in her memoirs, “to take Christianity as it
had been taught in the Churches, and carefully and thoroughly
examine its dogmas one by one so that I should never again say “I
believe” where I had not proved ... It was the uprising of an outraged
conscience that made me a rebel against the Churches and finally an
unbeliever in God”.
In the meantime, she had become separated from her husband. She
soon faced a dilemma which confronts the non-believers in a
religious family. Her mother, Emily Wood, was on her deathbed and
wanted to receive the sacrament. But she insisted that she would
receive it only if her daughter Annie received it with her. “I would
rather be lost with her than saved without her”, said the dying but
adamant mother. But clergyman after clergyman refused Annie, the
infidel, the sacrament - as Charles Bradlaugh the atheist, was later to
be refused permission to take oath before taking his seat in the House
of Commons.
Honest Search
Annie decided to approach Dean Arthur Stanley of Westminster
who, she thought, would be sympathetic. Stanley accepted her
unbelief as her honest attitude of mind and convinced Annie's
mother that the honest search for truth would never be displeasing in
God's eyes. Thus he administered sacrament to both the mother and
the daughter - while fully recognising the latter's disbelief in it.
Stanley was known, even among his colleagues, as an ultra-liberal.
They did not always relish his views and actions. Even then, his
administering sacrament to an atheist woman would have shocked
his contemporaries - as indeed it did shock when the episode was
disclosed by Annie three years after Stanley's death. There is reason
to believe that Stanley wanted it remain private because there was no
trace of this incident among his letters and papers.
It was at this time that she came in contact with the Scotts couple - an
alliance which gave Annie great mental relief and intellectual help.
Thomas Scott, a man of considerable means, had wandered over
Europe and the American continent - and after settling down in
England, had started publishing pamphlets on diverse unorthodox
subjects. Some of these were written by scholars of the time including
Francis Newman, a rationalist and brother of Cardinal Newman.
Thomas Scott also helped financially Charles Voysey in the latter's
fight against the Church. It was but natural that Annie enjoyed Scott's
company where she found “the joy of freedom, the joy of speaking
out frankly and honestly each thought”. She gratefully
acknowledged Scott's help in the shaping of her personality.
“Mr. Scott's valuable library was at my service; his keen brain
challenged my opinions, probed my assertions, and suggested
phases of thought hitherto untouched. I studied harder than ever,
and the study now was unchecked by any fear of possible
consequences”.
The restless stirrings had begun in Annie's brain. She made herself
bold to ask Scott whether she could write a tract on the nature and the
existence of God. The encouragement was clear and swift. “Ah, little
lady, you are facing that problem at last? I thought it must come.
Write away”.
Turning Point
Before she did it, an event occurred that changed her life. That event
was meeting Charles Bradlaugh. Annie was persuaded by Mrs.
Conway to attend a lecture by Bradlaugh. Annie bought an issue of
National Reformer, edited by Bradlaugh and published weekly by the
National Secular Society, and read it. In a letter to its editor, Annie
asked whether “it was necessary for a person to profess atheism
before being admitted to the (National Secular) Society. Though
replying that it was not necessary to do so, Bradlaugh added:
“Candidly, we can see no logical resting- place between the entire
acceptance of authority, as in the Roman Catholic Church, and the
most extreme Rationalism”. This was, incidentally, an appropriate
reply to agnosticism which was becoming fashionable in those days.
Annie attended Bradlaugh's lecture for the first time on 2nd August
1874 in the Hall of Science and was completely swept off her feet by
Bradlaugh's oratory, supported by his depth of knowledge and
mastery of facts. There was eloquence, fire, sarcasm, pathos, passion -
all that constituted the power in spoken words. After the address was
over, Bradlaugh came down into the audience to hand over
certificate of membership of the society to the new members. He
picked her out at once and smiling at her asked: “Mrs. Besant?” It was
instant recognition.
Legends
The last part is probably by way of a legend built up to show that two
“kindered souls' were united at once. Bradlaugh might have
recognised her by her unusual presence in the crowd - especially
because he had some correspondence with her. A similar story is told
of her meeting with Madame Blavatsky in 1887. When Annie went to
see Blavatsky, “a figure in a large chair before a table, a voice, vibrant,
compelling, “My dear Mrs. Besant, I have so long wished to see you'
…met her. A still similar story is told about Ramkrishna Paramhans
telling Narendranath (later to become Vivekanand), when the latter
went to see him: “I have been waiting for you”. Lo and behold, the
conversion took place Legends must be built up; they do help in
investing heroes (or heroines) with charisma.
Thereafter, she constantly worked with Bradlaugh and was in her

own right a persuasive speaker and writer. Space does not permit a
detailed account of the course her life took till she became a convert to
Theosophy after her meeting with Madame Blavatsky. However, a
brief account of the famous trial in which Bradlaugh and Besant were
prosecuted for publishing an 'obscene' book viz. Fruits of Philosophy
written by one Charles Knowltan of America needs to be given. The
book was intended to educate married couples on how to limit their
families. Charles Watts, famous freethinker and close associate of
Bradlaugh, was the original publisher and had been successfully
prosecuted and convicted earlier on a plea of guilty.
Annie Besant was convinced that this was a challenge o ftee thought
movement and insisted that the book must be republished in order to
test the correctness of the earlier conviction. This was much against
the better judgment of Bradlaugh who, as a lawyer, was doubtful
whether the book was defensible in the light of law as it then stood.
He yielded to Annie's insistence and together they republished the
book. While doing so, they explained:
“The pamphlet has been withdrawn from circulation in consequence

of the prosecution instituted against Mr. Charles Watts, but the
question of its legality or illegality has not been tried; a plea of
'Guilty” was put in by the publisher, and the book, therefore, was not
examined nor was any judgement passed upon it, no jury registered a
verdict and the judge stated that he had not read the book”.
Obscenity
On an application made by Bradlaugh, the case came to be tried by
the Queen's Bench with a jury. Bradlaugh and Besant got a
sympathetic judge in Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Chief Justice, who
decided to try the case himself. There were some misapprehensions
because Sir Alexander had laid down the test of obscenity in 1868 - in
the following words:
“I think the test of obscenity is this. Whether the tendency of the

matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a
publication of this sort may fail”.
This legal definition was to hamstring the courts till the Obscene
Publications Act, 1959.
The Judge was more than fair in the trial and at one stage observed
that a more misconceived prosecution had never been brought in an
English court. Both Bradlaugh and Besant conducted their own
defences. Paying compliments to Annie, the Chief Justice said she
conducted her defence with great ability and tact, earning the respect
and sympathy of the court. Her presentation of the case challenged
one of the most formidable assumptions upholding Victorian society
that knowiedge was too dangerous a thing for women to possess The
Judge's summing up to the jury was, if any thing, favourable to the
defence Despite this, the jury returned an ambiguous verdict as
follows:
“We are unanimously of the opinion that the book in question is

calculated to deprave public morals but at the same time, we entirely
exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motive in publishing it”.
After some arguments and further questioning of the jury, the verdict
was taken to be one of guilty and the proceedings were adjourned by
a week.
Defect In Charge
As it often happens in the cases of banned books, the sale of Fruits of
Philosophy increased ten-fold in one week. Found guilty, both
Bradlaugh and Besant were each sentenced to six months'
imprisonment and a fine of £200 each. The Court of Appeal quashed
the conviction on the ground that the words relied upon by the
prosecution ought to have been expressly set out in the charge. (An
excellent study of the trial is to be found in The Trial of Annie Besant and
Charles Bradlaugh by Roger Manvell).
In 1889, Annie was asked to review Blavatsky's book Secret Doctrine

for a contemporary journal and on reading it, she was attracted to
Theosophy, and later meeting Madame Blavatsky, she embraced the
Secret Doctrine Then followed her remaining four lives spent mostly
in India They should form a subject for separate study. Bradlaugh did
not harbur any bitterness despite her desertion of the cause of
atheism and in fact praised the splendid work she did for the cause
while she was engaged in it. In her farewell address at the Hall of
Science, before leaving for India in 1893, she explained her change of
mind, “There are problems in the Universe which Materialism not
only does not solve but which it declares are insoluble”
She, therefore, set out on what she thought was a search for the
solutions of those problems.
Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar
T
he history of social reforms in India, particularly of the 19th
century, would be an empty shell without the narration of the
struggles and achievements of lshwar Chandra Vidyasagar.
Raja Rammohan Roy had, no doubt, in the early part of the 19th
century, successfully campaigned for the abolition of the pernicious
practice of Sati - a campaign that had culminated in the passing of the
Regulation XVIII on 4th December 1829. The achievement was
regarded as spectacular. The achievement was, however, made less
difficult because of several factors. The practice of Sati was
spectacularly obnoxious and had touched the sensitive chords in the
hearts of even the orthodox Hindus. Secondly, the cause of abolition
of Sati was taken up by men of influence and wealth, led by
Rammohan Roy. Thirdly, and this is equally important, Lord William
Bentinck came to India as the Governor-General with instructions
from the court of Directors of the East India Company to take definite
measures for the immediate or gradual abolition of Sati.
But there were other social abuses pestering the Hindu society
which, from a long term point of view, required immediate attention.
Rammohan Roy, if he had returned to India, from his visit to
England, would have lent his support to the movement for further
social reforms. In his absence, the causes were taken up by lshwar
Chandra Vidyasagar and others.
All the important social reforms of the 19th century centred around
women. This was as it should be because the intelligentsia that came
in contact with the English rulers realised the stark contrast between
the status reputedly enjoyed by women in English society and the
status of women in India. The status of English women in the 19th
century was, of course, not the ideal one. But the practices such as the
prohibition of widow remarriage and polygamy were unknown to
that society.
The rising middle-class of the 19th century India started looking at

wider horizons and deeper into the customs which specifically
affected the women. Many of the men who took part in the social
reforms movement did so, on account of the sufferings of their own
sisters and mothers which they witnessed.
To Calcutta
The contribution of lshwar Chandra to the social reforms in the 19th
century must be regarded as highly significant because he did not
enjoy wealth or influence associated with Rammohan Roy or
Debendranath Tagore. He was born in a poor Brahmin family on 26th
September l820. He would have probably continued to remain in the
village of his birth (Birsingha in Midnapore district) but for the
suggestion of the village teacher that lshwar Chandra, possessed of
high degree of intelligence, should be educated at Calcutta.
So, at the age of 8, in 1828, Ishwar Chandra and his father set on foot to
go to Calcutta - a distance of 60 miles which they covered in 3 days.
On the way, the numerals on the milestones were read out to him and
lshwar Chandra mastered the English numerals by the time he
reached Calcutta.
The academic career of Ishwar Chandra, both as a student and as a

teacher, is full of interesting events. In those days, education to
Indians was given mostly in Sanskrit language and in the mother
tongue. There were Sanskrit pathashalas in one of which lshwar
Chandra was enrolled. Ishwar Chandra joined in 1829 the
Government Sanskrit College where he remained for 12 years till
1841.
“Vidyasagar”
There was a body known as Hindu Law Committee which conducted
examinations success in which qualified a candidate for the post of a
Hindu Law Officer whose services were then utilised by European
judges in matters relating to Hindu Law. Ishwar Chandra passed
such an examination in 1839, but declined the offer of a post in order
to complete his studies in the Sanskrit college. It may be mentioned
here that the title “Vidyasagar” by which he came to be known later
in his life and to future generations was first mentioned in the
certificate given to him by the Hindu Law Committee; ”Vidyasagar”
was not his family name.
Vidyasagar started his career in 1841 as a Head Pandit of Bengali in

Fort William College which had been started by Marquis Wellesley.
Capt. Marshall, the Secretary of the college, was greatly impressed by
the scholarship and competence of Ishwar Chandra. During his
tenure in this college, Vidyasagar started studying English - earlier
he had no formal education in that language. In April 1846, he
accepted the post of Assistant Secretary to the Sanskrit College - a
post he relinquished when his plan for reforming Sanskrit education
was rejected by the authorities. This event showed that Ishwar
Chandra was not interested in merely occupying a post for earning
his livelihood. The opportunities given to him by every post that he
occupied later were utilised by him to study the subject related to the
institution and to suggest improvements.
After a brief spell again in Fort William College, Ishwar Clandra

returned to the Sanskrit College as a Professor in 1850 and in 1851, he
was appointed Principal of the College. In this capacity, he
introduced several changes in the syllabus, evolved a simpler
method of teaching Sanskrit grammar and made the study of English
compulsory. Above all, he introduced regular hours of work and
insisted upon punctuality and discipline on the part of teachers.
Some of them had been earlier teachers of Ishwar Chandra himself.
Though initially they resented being “put in their place” by their
former student, but later, realising the beneficial effects of
Vidyasagar's steps, they fully cooperated with him.
An incident which took place around this time and which showed the
erudition of Vidyasagar, his independence of mind and the strength
of his character needs to be recalled. The Council of Education which
controlled the Sanskrit College at Calcutta (of which Vidyasagar was
the Principal) invited Dr. J. R. Ballantyne, Principal of Benares
Sanskrit College, to study and report on the Calcutta Sanskrit
College. It was done with the good intention of securing an
independent opinion - a step which Vidyasagar does not seem to
have objected to.
Mill's Logic
Dr. Ballantyne's report submitted to the authorities was in no way
critical of Vidyasagar but contained certain suggestions regarding
the textbook and syllabus which were unacceptable to Vidyasagar.
Dr. Ballantyne had himself written a book - Abstract of Mill's Logic and
he recommended that this should be used as a textbook instead of the
original one because, said Dr. Ballantyne, the original was highly
priced. Vidyasagar retorted: “Our students are now in the habit of
purchasirg standard works at high prices, so we need not be deterred
from the adoption of this great work”.
Another suggestion of Dr. Ballantyne was that Bishop Berkeley's

Inquirer should be prescribed for the philosophy class. Unfortunately
for Dr. Ballantyne, Vidyasagar was fully acquainted with the
contents of Bishop Berkeley's book, he was also aware of the status it
enjoyed in European academics. This is remarkable because
Vidyasagar had started learning English in late 1841 (when he was
over 20) and by 1853, when the controversy consequent to Dr.
Ballantyne's report arose; Vidyasagar had apparently mastered at
least the major works of philosophy in English. That's how he was
bold enough to say, commenting on Dr. Ballantyne's suggestion, that
Bishop Berkeley's book would beget more mischief than advantage.
Bishop Berkeley's book was said to be useful because it contained
syllogisms and conclusions analogous to those in Vedanta and
Sankhya. Referring to this aspect, Vidyasagar said that Bishop
Berkeley's Inquirer was no more considered in Europe as a sound
philosophy. He was afraid that our students, thinking that the Indian
systems of philosophy have been corroborated by Western
scholarship, may come to have exaggerated reverence for Vedanta
and Sankhya which they did not deserve. They, he said, may be sacred
to the Hindus but were not sound philosophy.
28 Tatvas
Vidyasagar's basic education was in Sanskrit and Indian philosophy.
He acquired knowledge of western philosophy on his own in an
informal way but mastered the subjects. He did not have blind
reverence for the Indian system of philosophy. He recognised and
accepted the abiding truths in other systems of knowledge. It has
been mentioned earlier that Vidyasagar had in July 1847 resigned
from the post of the Assistant Secretary of the Sanskrit College
because his plan for reforming the Sanskrit syllabus had been
rejected. In that plan of reform, he had, among other things,
suggested that while teaching Smriti or Law Class the 28 Tatvas
should be discontinued as “though they are of use to the Brahmins as
a class of priests, they are not at all fitted for an academical course”.
This was a remarkable intellectual honesty for a Brahmin in the 19th

century. In the closing years of the 20th century, our scholars are
digging out Vedic mathematics and Islamic science. You may ever
find scholars who would not hesitate to say that there is nothing in
modern science which is not there in our sacred texts - we only have
to find them. Why, indeed, study the modern sciences?
Vidyasagar, very early in life, recognised the value of education in

vernacular, though he also insisted upon the study of English as one
of the subjects. It must be said to the credit of the then foreign rulers
that they not only recognised the wise counsel of Vidyasagar in
matters relating to education; going out of the way, they sought it. He
took leading part in spreading education by starting and inspecting
vernacular schools and schools for girls. In one of these ventures,
Vidyasagar suffered financially but, fortunately, he was bailed out by
the Government. Around this time, one Miss Mary Carpenter, an
enthusiast of female education, had arrived in Bengal with a scheme
for starting schools - for teaching female teachers. Despite his intense
concern for female education, Vidyasagar was cold in his reception to
Miss Carpenter's scheme. He said it might be going too far against the
tide of public opinion. The contemporary society was so blindly
tradition- bound that no body would agree to send his grown-up
daughter or sister to receive teacher's training. A noble cause should
not be lost through over-enthusiasm. This was idealism bowing to
realism. In fact, Miss Carpenter's scheme was, to use a modern
phrase, a 'flop show'.
Cause of Women
There were other causes also, alas, relating to women which were
calling for attention and solution. Why did they all centre round
women? “The reason is not far to seek. The most important
characteristic that marked the decadence of Hindu society was the
gradual but steady degradation in the position of women and the
lower castes, especially the untouchables. Both these features were
eating into the vitality of the society and contributed not a little to the
general degradation of the body politic. It was inevitable, therefore,
that the attention of the Indians should be drawn to these evils by the
impact of western civilisation, which held out a much higher ideal in
both these respects. Of the two great evils, those associated with
women claimed greater attention in the nineteenth century, while the
other was to figure equally prominently in the twentieth”. (See The
History and Culture of Indian People R.C.Mujumdar Vol.10, p.260).
Daunting Task
R. C. Mujumdar has also offered an explanation as to why the
attention of the English - educated Indians was first drawn to the
urgent necessity of reforms in the status of women. It is because “it
affected their own kith and kin, whose vivid, real and manifold
miseries profoundly stirred their emotions as soon as they had freed
their minds from the age-long shackles of superstition”. It was a long
string of indignities and sufferings of women from birth to death -
from the cradle to the cremation. Infanticide, child marriage, child
widows, ban on remarriage of widows, polygamy, illiteracy,
precarious dependence on male members of the family for food,
shelter and clothing - this was daunting for any social reformer with
even a brave heart.
A letter purportedly written by “Women of Chinsurah”, a place

about 30 miles from Calcutta was published in Samachardarpana in its
issue of 21st March 1835. It was an appeal by these women to their
fathers and brothers in the form of six questions which highlighted
the miseries of women in the nineteenth century. It was doubted
whether any ladies wrote that letter but it could not be doubted that
the problems posed were real. It is worthwhile to read those
questions because they sharply define the problems and their
constraints. The questions were:
1. Why are no arrangements made for our education as is done for

women of civilised countries?
2. Why are we not allowed to mix freely with other men and women
like the women of other countries?
3. Why are we transferred like cattle, at the tender age of 4, 5, 10 or 12

to unknown men, who have no education, wealth or beauty and
denied the right of choosing our own husbands?
4. Why in the name of marriage are you selling us to the highest

bidders so that our husbands, who purchase us by money, regard us
as mere chattels?
5. Why do you marry us to a person who has already many wives? Is

it possible for a husband to do his duty to a number of wives?
6. If a husband may marry after the death of his wife, why is a wife
debarred from marrying after her husband's death? Does not a
woman possess the same desire for a conjugal life as a man? Can you
prevent the evils arising from such unnatural laws?
Seeds of Reform
Broadly, these questions focus upon the lack of education, child
marriage, polygamy and ban; against widow remarriage as the main
problem of the women in the nineteenth century Bengal. They were
also the problems of women in other parts of India. The seeds of
social reforms were being sown in the minds of men in different parts
of India, but the reforms movement was most prominent in Bengal
and Maharashtra.
Before considering the contribution of Vidyasagar in the field of

social reforms, it would be interesting to note the attitude of the social
and political leaders in the 19th century. Some of these leaders not
unpredictably opposed the reforms on the ground that they were
against Hindu religion. The author of Vande Mataram and the apostle
of nationalism was one of them. Later in the 19th century, when the
Age of Consent Bill was on the anvil, a meeting was held in Calcutta
and handbills announcing the meeting screamed:
“Brethern! The danger is serious! Total destruction is imminent.

Government, without understanding the Hindu religion, are about
to interfere with, it! The honour of our mothers and wives is about to
be destroyed!”
Lokmanya Tilak
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, hero of Maharashtra and respected by the
people (Lokmanya), attacked the bonafides of Behramji Merwanji
Malabari a Parsi journalist, who had taken the initiative for the
reforms in the age of consent. Who was he, a Parsi, thundered Tilak,
to tell the Hindus what was good for them? He also disputed the
competence of a foreign government to legislate on social and
religious issues. The orthodox Hindu in him did not pause to ask
whether there was an evil at all and whether it had to be removed. If
you had a physical malady, would you not take medical remedy from
a non-Hindu or from a dispensary run by a foreign government?
But Reason is never the leading light of religious obscurantist. Tilak
did not hesitate to indulge in abuses and charged the Hindu
reformers with ignorance of the scriptures. Among these reformers
were RG Bhandarkar and MG Ranade. When Bhandarkar, the
orientalist, affirmed that marriages after puberty did not violate the
Hindu religious law, Tilak retorted: “If you don't know how to
interpret the Shastras correctly, then at least try to remain silent” (See
Gokhale by B. R. Nanda, p.76).
This was Bal Gangadhar Tilak whose voice was described by Gandhi
as that of a lion.
Ranade, the sage of Maharashtra, originally tried to support the

social reforms by relying upon Shastric authorities. In fact, even in
Bengal, those who espoused the cause of widow remarriage,
including Vidyasagar, pressed into service a forgotten quotation
from Parasar Samhita. Ranade had reverence for the scriptures and
regarded the evil customs such as the dependent status of women,
infant marriage, ban on remarriage of widows, as contrary to the
practices observed in old times. Did this not mean that the old
customs, if they could be properly discovered, should be revived?
Ranade, in later years, realised that this expediency would not carry
the social reforms movement far. Moreover, the sleeping giant of
revivalism, if woken up, would destroy all prospects of progress.
Therefore, Ranade returned to Reason. Revivalism was no good.

“Shall we”, he asked in one of his later speeches, “revive the twelve
forms of sons or eight forms of marriage?” Revivalism would bring
“Niyoga” system of marriage, infanticide, and even Sati. Ranade was
compelled to come to the view that the only basis of social reforms
was the real need of the country as rationally conceived. (The
standard book of reference for M. G. Ranade's views is: Religious and
Social Reforms -A Collection of Essays and Speeches by M. G Ranade”
compiled by A. B. Kolaskar.)
Sudharak kar Agarkar

Rationalism and not mere erudition is an unfailing guide on the path
of social reforms. A person of shining intellect like Gopal Ganesh
Agarkar could never visualise the dilemmas faced by Ranade. And
then there was the challenge by Tilak to the foreign interference.
Ranade overcame this by pointing out that the initiative for reforms
was from the Indians and all that was sought at the hands of the
foreign government was that the reform should be embodied in law.
Agarkar would not have to explain this need.
Vidyasagar's interest in the reform relating to women in general was

the result of the anguish his heart went through witnessing the
constant trials and tribulations of women- married women, child
brides and widows. None of them had any life that could be called
decent. Once Vidyasagar cried in great mental pain “Oh, Hindu
woman, why were you born in this wretched country?” We have
already seen briefly Vidyasagar's contribution to the cause of
education of both men and women. By the time Vidyasagar grew up,
Sati had been abolished.
There were two areas in which Vidyasagar could play a crucial role.
They were: widow remarriage and polygamy. Vidyasagar, more than
any one else, grasped the fundamental truth that there was a close
connection between these problems - the large number of widows in
the society the child marriages and polygamy. Vidyasagar took keen
interest in all these problems and attacked them with un-abating
zeal.
Plight of Widows
The problem of marriage of widows engaged the immediate
attention of Vidyasagar. Some of his biographers have attributed
Vidyasagar's interest in this subject to his personal experiences.
When Vidyasagar came to Calcutta with his father for the first time in
1828, both father and son were given shelter in the house of a family
friend - one Jagatdurlara, son of Bhagbat Charan Singha at
Burrabazar. Jagatdurlara lived with his widowed mother and a
widowed younger sister, Raimani. Ishwar Chandra retained
permanent memories of this young widow whose image, he said in
his autobiography, had been indelibly impressed upon his mind.
Some years older than Ishwar Chandra, she cared for him as a mother
would care.
One story tells of a girl playmate of his who became a widow at an

early age with the inevitable subjection to all the indignities of Hindu
widow. Then there was an instance of a woman, who, unable to stand
the socially ostracised life, committed suicide. This incident took
place to the knowledge of Vidyasagar, when he was in his teens.
All these incidents must have deeply affected him. But it would be
simplifying things to say that they provided the only motive to
Vidyasagar's efforts in the direction of getting legalised the
marriages of widows. Vidyasagar was not the pioneer in this field.
The social attitude for these reforms had been in formation for some
years. It had probably orignated even in Rammohan Roy's times. One
notable effort to introduce remarriage of Hindu widows has been
mentioned by R C. Mujumdar in his contribution to The History and
Culture of India Vol.10 (p.277). Raja Rajaballabh of Dacca, a
distinguished political figure at the time of Siraj-ud-daula had
sought the opinion of the Pandits for getting his widowed young
daughter remarried. The Pandits gave a favourable opinion relying
upon some rules in Dharmasutras which permitted remarriage of a
woman whose husband is dead, has become an ascetic, or has gone
abroad after a period of waiting which varied according to
circumstances. But Manu and Yajnavalkya had superseded these
rules and hardened customs forbade such marriages.
There was also the instance of the young widowed daughter of the
famous Maratha General, Parashuram-bhau Patwardhan, who was
advised favourably even by the Pandits of Kashi, but who was
defeated by his own wife's obscurantism and probably by the
opposition of Nana Phadnis. (See Nineteenth Century History of
Moharashtra, by B. R. Sunthankar, Vol.1, p.514).
Pledged Faith
Though Vidyasagar was not the originator of the idea, the credit of
carrying through the movement to a successful conclusion against all
odds must be given to him. Unlike in the case of Sati, when there was
a sympathetic Governor General, on the question of widow
remarriage, the Government was totally averse to interfering in what
is considered a Hindu religious custom. The then Registrar of
Calcutta Suddar Court intimated that “the Court with a perfect
understanding of the evils resulting from the prohibition now
existing against remarriage of Hindu widows, have no hesitation in
stating that it is their unqualified opinion that a law of the nature
contemplated could not be passed without a direct and open
violation of the pledged faith of the Government” (Ishwar Chandra
Vidyasagar by Benoy Ghose, p.78).
All this did not deter Vidyasagar. He launched a no-bar-attached

attack on the evil system for the removal of which legislation was the
only remedy. Fortunately, the educated middle class of Bengal was
with him. There was, in those days, a remarkable group called Young
Bengal (anticipating Young Turks?) consisting of young Bengalees
referred to as Derozians. They were co-workers and followers of one
Derozio who was a teacher in the Hindu College, at the young age of
19 years. He died, when twenty two in 1831, but in his short life, he
had taught a large group of young Bengalees to reason, to question, to
doubt and not to acquiesce in any authority, however hoary. They
read Bacon, Locke and Tom Paine. Their ideas had a strong influence
upon the minds of the younger generation of even later years. The
members of this generation were behind the social reforms that were
to come.
Rationalist
A favourable social atmosphere was also created by the efforts of
Tatwabodhini Sabha and the Tatwabodhini Patrika both founded by
Maharishi Debendranath Tagore. Akshaya Kumar, described as an
invincible rationalist and materialist of his time, was the editor of
Tatwabodhini Patrika which opened its columns to Viidyasagar and
which even lent editorial support to him in the cause of widow
remarriage.
Vidyasagar published his first pamphlet in defense of widow
remarriage in January 1855. Public debates took place on the subject.
The opponents of the reform in whom was included Radhakanta
Deb, a great Sanskrit scholar and a rich man, stepped up their own
campaign against the reform. In his second pamphlet in October
1855, Vidyasagar cogently replied to the arguments of no-changers
which had been bombarded through pamphlets and speeches. If
Vidyasagar sent a petition signed by 987 persons, the opponents of
the reform led by Radhakant Deb sent a petition with 36,763
signatures.
Fortunately for the cause, support was building up in other parts of

the country. The Sardar of Vinchoor wrote to the Legislative Council
supporting the proposed reform. Learning that there is a movement
in Bengal for legalising the widow remarriage, 46 citizens of Poona
sent a petition in November 1855 in support of the movement. Even
some Brahmin Pandits from Secunderabad sent a memorandum in
March 1856 supporting the Hindu inhabitants of Bengal. The leading
role played by Vidyasagar was acknowledged by J. P Grant while
moving the Widow Remarriage Bill in the Legislative Council. He
referred to Vidyasagar, the learned and eminent Principal of Sanskrit
College, as “the chief mover of the agitation out of which the bill had
arisen”. The Bill having received the assent of the Governor General
became law on 26th July 1856.
For Vidyasagar, the battle was not yet over. He strove to bring about
the marriages under the new law. The first marriage under the new
law took place on 7th December 1856. Vidyasagar attended this
marriage and, unlike Lokahitwadi Deshmukh of Poona, attended all
widow remarriages in his lifetime. He suffered substantial financial
drain by providing money for many of these marriages. He refused
to dissuade, as some well-wishers suggested, his son Narayan from
marrying a widow. On the other hand, he has gone on record saying
that “Narayan has given me a spiritual uplift by willingly agreeing to
marry a widow and has proved himself the worthy son of his father”.
Mill “on Liberty”
I
f all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no
more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power in
silencing mankind.
This is the central theme of “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill, the
nineteenth century philosopher of England. The book was published
in February 1859 thus 2009 marking its 150th anniversary. It saw six
editions in the life time of Mill and has been issued in several editions
later; it may have not have formed a subject in college or university
curriculum those days. But it has been almost a compulsory reading
and study for political philosophers.
Mill never went to school or college but was educated entirely at

home by his father, an eminent Utilitarian of his time. The experiment
of domestic education has been characteristically described by Mill
in his Autobiography which was unfortunately published after his
death. The sheer precocity of Mill can be gathered from this
autobiography. He read Greek by the age of three, had assimilated
considerable body of classical literature before he was eight. By the
time he was twelve years old he had mastered philosophy, political
economy and mathematics. He was not only educated; he also
educated his younger siblings. Though he modestly said that what he
did could have been done by any boy or girl of average capacity and
healthy physical constitution” (p.7 of Autobiography), it gave him a
quarter of century advantage over most of his contemporaries. By the
time he was twenty he was a recognized philosopher of his time.
“On Liberty” was, as Mill has maintained in his 'Autobiography' a
joint product of his wife and himself. No discussion of “On Liberty”
is possible or at any rate will be incomplete without describing Mill's
relationship with Harriet Taylor.
Harriet Taylor was happily married to John Taylor, a prosperous

businessman. He had no intellectual pretentions and as a result could
not give intellectual companionship to Harriet. Harriet wrote for
Westminster Review articles of philosophical import,
She confided in a friend that she was worried about some

philosophical problems which she wanted to discuss with some one.
She was advised to meet Mill who by this time had already an
established reputation.
They met in 1830. The introduction developed into companionship

which in turn blossomed into friendship. When they first met, Mill
was 24 years old, while Harriet was 23 and mother of two children, an
year later she gave birth to one more child. But the intimate
friendship with Mill continued. She went out with him; she travelled
with him alone, some times with her daughter. Taylor acquiesced in
all this, though cautioning her about a possible scandal. In those days
divorce was not permissible.
Taylor died in 1849. Two years later John Mill and Harriet married-
twenty-one years after he had met and several years after he had
fallen in love with her. Their marriage lasted only 7 years though it
was a very happy marriage. They interacted intellectually. On
Liberty' was one of the twenty essays to be brought out in a book.
That did not materialize. Mill has mentioned that the subject
occurred to him when he was climbing the steps of the Capitol at
Rome. Edward Gibbon also got the inspiration to write Decline and
Fail of Roman Empire when he was at “Capitol”.
Harriet approved of the manuscript of “On Liberty” which was

readied by Mill. As mentioned earlier, it was a joint product. Mill and
Harriet left for France where she was taken ill and she died on 3rd
November 1858. “On Liberty” was published in February 1859. The
cover page of the book mentions only John Stuart Mill's name. The
book was dedicated to Harriet in superlative terms. Even in his
Autobiography which appeared after his death, there are glowing
tributes to her which were deemed extravagant by some. That she
must have contributed to the thought though not to the writing, of
“On Liberty” is a possibility because she herself had written an essay
earlier on varieties of conformity - religious, political, moral and
social - which are imposed by the society.
Mill argued that liberty must be absolute except where it caused

harm to others. On any other ground except harm to others no
individual or society could presume to interfere with an individual.
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a
sufficient warrant”. (Introductory note to 'On Liberty') Over himself,
over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. This
thought has become very familiar to us. But in Mill's time, it was a
bold assertion.
A couple of things ought to be remembered. “On Liberty” is a

philosophical dissertation, not a topical treatise. The book does not
deal with violation of liberty of the individual. It does not give any
instances.
Secondly, though Mill was a Utilitarian and to some extent echoes

libertarian views, it is not an essay on Utilitarianism. It is of much
wider amplitude. Both in Mill's time and later, “On Liberty” has been
commented upon analysed, criticized, admired. Because it is
philosophical, it is of relevance today. 'That Liberty is likely to survive
longer than anything I have written - because of the conjunction of
her (Harriet's) mind with mine has rendered it a kind of philosophic
text book of a single truth ---'. Thus Mill writes in his Autobiography.
Whatever the reason, “On Liberty” has survived longer than
anything Mill wrote.
Mill divides his book into five parts
(I) Introductory,
(2) Liberty of discussion,
(3) Individuality,
(4) Of the limits of Authority of Society
(5) Applications
One hundred and fifty years after “On Liberty” and more than
hundred years after Mill's death in 1873, society and the world has
changed a great deal. Mill was a moral laisse-fairist. Today liberalism
has become different. While the liberals of an early stage wanted the
State to interfere in lesser and lesser areas of society, those of a later
vintage saw the inevitablity of the State legislating on a number of
social areas and they did not think that it curtailed individual liberty
significantly. Even if it did, it was regarded as worthwhile. Dickens's
novels cannot be left here. In “On Liberty” Mill asserts to its own
good, the society cannot exercise authority - called coercion - on an
individual. Addiction to drugs, hours of work for women and
children etc. will have to be tackled by the State. We may however
remember that Mill dealt with social coercion and interference rather
than those of the State. In his days the State had not become the
leviathan that it is today.
“On Liberty” has been criticized by lawyers and judges. James

Fitzjames Stephens - then a judge of the High Court, though critical -
later was first attracted by the book. He praised Mill for recalling
Englishmen to the principle of Liberty which they had thought
“established beyond the reach of controversy” Later in his book
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity he attacks Mill for confusing
individuality with eccentricity. Stephen urges that there is nothing
wrong with punishing immorality as such through law or by public
opinion even if it involves no breach of assignable duties to others.
Professor H.L.A. Hart has criticized Stephen's approach though he is
quite 'willing to grant that Mill erred in making self-protection the
only ground of interference. Mill abhorred the idea of interference
even for a person's own good.
Whatever may be the criticism of “On Liberty” in the light of present

conditions, one must concede that Mill has rendered great service to
mankind by pointing out the value of liberty. One sentence from “On
Liberty” has been reproduced in the beginning of this article. There
are similar gems scattered throughout the book which the present
generation of students, professors, and politicians will do well to
read and remember in daily personal and public life.
R. D. Karve
A Pioneer in Sex Education in India
T
oday, when propaganda for birth control is officially carried
and sex education is available on the tap, it is difficult to
imagine the hardships, humiliations and persecution
through which pioneers of sex education and proponents of birth
control went through in the nineteenth century and in India, even in
the twentieth century. Those who championed the cause and the
necessity of birth control did so with the conviction that it was good
for the society, and for women in particular, not in one generation,
but for all generations to come. In India, even in the first half of this
century, even talk of sex was a taboo with the result that the brides
went to the marital bed in ignorance, and returned with physical and
mental shock. Who could even think of educating the men and
women on the facts of life? Any talk, at least publicly, of sex was
indecent, and pictorial presentation of sex was obscene, inviting
prosecution in India, under Section292 of the Indian Penal Code; as
also the sale of birth control devices.
Reformer
It was during such an era that Raghunath Dhondo Karve was born
and grew up. It could be legitimately said that R. D. Karve satisfied
the felt necessity of that time. He was the first social relormer (one
could call him even a revolutionary), who realised the importance of
birth control even in the early years of this century. In his campaign
for sex education and birth control, he suffered social censure and
boycott, financial difficulties and even prosecutions at the hands of
the bigoted.
Raghunath was born on 14th January 1882. It is thought fit and
proper that we should remember him in January, in which month his
birthday falls. (It is planned to publish the life and achievements of an
eminent person, in the Radical Humanist, in that month in which that
person's birthday falls).
Raghunath was the first son of the legendary Dhondo Keshav Karve,
the pioneer of women's education in India. The Karve family was not
a reformist or a revolutionary family. In several respects, however,
some members of the family were unorthodox. Dhondo Karve (aka
Anna), though belonging to a generation of religious, superstitious
and orthodox people, did certain things which in those days were
regarded as heretic, if not worse.
The thread ceremony in a Brahmin family is of great importance and

significance. Even in modern times, we find thread ceremonies being
celebrated with pomp and publicity. Invitation cards are printed and
sent to attend the function. Thread ceremony, traditionally and
theoretically, is the initiation of a boy into scholastic career. From that
day on, the boy was supposed to go under the tutelage of a guru for
the acquisition of knowledge. On the day of the initiation, he is
invested with the thread, regarded as sacred, and taught certain holy
recitations (mantras).
In modern times, education being institutionalized, the thread

ceremony (upanayan sanskara) has wholly lost its significance. But it
proclaims the superiority of one's caste. Hence, even today, the
practice of this sacrament is prevailent in the Brahmin families. In
Raghunath's time, however, it was a family and social necessity. The
family members wanted the event to be celebrated on a large scale.
Anna overruled the family members' desire and got the thread
ceremony performed on a very small scale on fifteen rupees, and
gave away to charity the amount that would have been otherwise
spent on the thread ceremony.
Similarly, Anna did not ostentatiously indulge in meaningless

expenses while performing the last rites on the death of his first wife,
i.e. Raghunath's mother.
No Early Marriage
Raghunath was not forced into an early marriage by his father. Early
marriages were the rule in those days. Raghunath and Gangoo Gode
had fallen in love when they came into contact, which contact was
continued, on a social trip. Gangoo, whose name was changed to
Malati after the marriage, was 21 years old, shockingly late in that
age. But happily, the path of true love ran smooth and they were
married in 1911, when R. D. Karve was 29 years old.
An anecdote connected with this marriage, which shows the liberal

culture of this family must be told. In the feast organised at the
marriage, one guest recited some holy stanzas (shlokas) in a
melodious voice. When the other guests turned in the direction.of the
singer, they found him to be Abdul Karim Khan. The guests were
shocked that a non-Brahmin, and a Muslim, should be in their midst
while taking a meal. The singing guest was, however, not thrown out,
but Annasaheb made appropriate amends later.
These incidents demonstrate the attitude of the family, which was

reasonably cosmopolitan, considering that age and that society. After
the death of Anna's first wife, Anna decided to marry a widow - a
marriage legally permissible, but socially unacceptable. The
marriage with the widow, Godubai, took place in March 1893- much
against the wishes of her parents. No opposition from the Karve
family.
Raghunath Dhondo Karve (RD, hereafter) came from such a family.

He stood first in the Matriculation examination, but his subsequent
academic career was not impressive. In New English School at Pune,
his contemporaries included Pandurang Mahadeo Bapat (later, the
famous Senapati Bapat) and L. H. Bhopatkar (later Hindu
Mahasabha leader). An attempt was made, after graduation, to
obtain some financial assistance from the government to go to
London for higher studies. Just around this time, two persons who
had gone to England had become revolutionaries. They were
Senapati Bapat and V. D. Savarkar. The Government did not desire to
have a trio on hand.
After graduation, RD entered into government service, where he

stayed for some years. He was teaching mainly mathematics. He also
taught as assistant professor in a college for some time. In order to
improve his prospects, he went to Paris on his own, and obtained a
diploma in mathematics, which diploma, however, did not advance
his career much.
No Child - Decision
His married life was happy. RD and Malati, however, had taken a
decision not to have children. They must have practised the birth
control methods then available. RD was thoughtful enough to realise
that it was unfair to require a woman to always take preventive
measures. He, therefore, sought some doctor, who could perform
vasectomy operation on him. None in India came forth to help him.
Later, when on a suggestion from a relative, RD had gone to Nairobi
for a job, he got the operation done at the hands of a Parsee doctor.
The job, however, was not secured.
The stage is now set for RD to start on a career he pursued till the end.
In 1921, RD opened a centre for propagating birth control and for sale
of birth control devices. This was the first centre of its kind in India. In
the same year, Mary Stopes who had authored “Married Love”
started a similar centre in England. Margaret Sanger, who had coined
the phrase 'birth rate control', had preceded both RD and Mary
Stopes in the establishment of a centre for the advice on birth control.
A remarkable fact is that Gopalrao Agarkar, the rationalist par

excellence, had as early as in 1882, advocated limited families.
Writing in 'Kesari' an essay under the title of Liberation of Women
from Slavery, Agarkar suggested that instead of having a dozen or so
children, a couple should aim at two children. Agarkar must have
been inspired to take such a stand by the example of Charles
Bradlaugh, the great English infidel, who had been prosecuted, along
with Annie Besant, for selling “Fruits of Philosophy”, written by
Charles Knowlton of the U.S.A. Both Bradlaugh and Besant had been
convicted by the trial court; they were, however, acquitted in appeal,
on technical grounds. (For a detailed account of this trial, see The Trial
of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh by Roger Manvell; Horizon
Press, New York).
In the advanced and comparatively more enlightened societies of

England and America, the advocates of a rationalistic approach to sex
education and birth control, faced untold hardships and prosecution.
Leaders in this field were Bradlaugh, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes
and Havelock Ellis. Misrepresenting these people as “abortionists”,
their opponents tried to ridicule and defame them. Birth control
literature was not allowed to be sent through post. In America and
England, there were groups of people to help these reforms. It is to
the great credit of RD that in India, he carried on this project almost
single-handedly.
Wilson College
One of the earlier ordeals faced by RD needs to be told. In 1922, RD
was appointed as a part-time Professor of Mathematics in the Wilson
College, on a salary of Rs.200 per month. Wilson College was an
institution run by a Christian Society. That RD was an advocate of
birth control and sex education was a notorious fact, and it is highly
unlikely that the college authorities were unaware of it. In 1924, RD
was appointed a professor on full time basis.
It is at this time that a Marathi periodical published an article on birth

control written by RD. Some one ill-disposed towards RD brought
this to the pointed attention of the authorities of the Wilson College,
who sought an explanation. RD told them that there were many
persons available for teaching mathematics, and in India, at least,
apart from him, there was none who could carry on the work he was
doing. He told them he would willingly quit his post; he would not at
any cost give up the social work he was doing. After some cooling
period, Wilson College and RD parted company with willingness on
both sides.
The fruits of unemployment were not sweet. A year earlier in 1923,

RD had published his book on birth control in Marathi, with the title
of “Santati-niyaman”, which, it is needless to say, did not bring him
much money. However later, many editions of this book were
published. Wife Malati was employed in a school run by the Bombay
Municipal Corporation. The sum of Rs.80 earned by her, as salary per
month, was naturally insufficient. This income was not adequately
supplemented. Private tuitions were also not forthcoming. An
interesting interlude in the life of RD took place at this juncture.
French Interpreter
RD got employed in an export company on a not inconsiderable sum
of Rs.200 per month. Te owner of the firm was a French man and his
wife who was abroad, was English. The correspondence between
them took place in their respective languages, which was not
intelligible to each other. The task of translating the letter of one into
the language of the other and vice versa was performed by RD,
apparently with satisfaction to both sides.
It is about this time that RD started in July 1927 his Marathi monthly,
Samaj Swasthya. The immediate provocation for RD to start this
journal was the refusal of even a progressive journal of Kirloskars to
publish an article by RD on women's modesty.
Samaj Swasthya was brought into existence by RD and was nurtured

and nourished literally by blood and sweat of RD. It was a path-
breaking journal - for this it was welcomed by some and opposed by
many. Any discussion of sex and hygiene was unthinkable in those
days. Naturally, there were not many subscribers, though loose
copies were sold, Many people wanted to read the journal, but did
not want to be on the list of the subscribers. Those who bought this
journal with the expectation of finding prurient stuff in it were
disappointed. In the very first issue of the magazine, RD explained
that the object of the publication was to examine and study sex and
love from a scientific angle. A rational approach to the subject of love,
sex and marriage would be adopted. The title of the publication itself
indicated that the subject of the publication would be public health.
The subsequent issues discussed such subjects as the problems of

prostitution, sexual hygiene, the need to avoid conception, avoiding
the necessity of abortion. The publication also analysed the
phenomenon of superstitions such as planchet and astrology. Some
astrologers had forecast that the world would come to an end on 13th
August 1927. RD also ran a column in which he answered questions
from readers. Some ostensible readers would ask questions in such a
manner as to tempt RD to give answers in a manner that would
expose him to prosecution under Section 292 of the IPC. RD was
aware of this trap and was cautious in replies. He did not wish to
contravene law.
Prosecution
Despite this, he was prosecuted and convicted twice for publishing

obscene literature. In the first case, the magistrate imposed a fine of a
hundred rupees. There was no appeal for a fine of Rs.200 or below.
RD, therefore, preferred a revision application to the High Court,
which was dismissed by a bench of Justice Barley and Justice Wadia.
In fact, it is reported that Justice Barley threw down the papers saying
that free love advocated by the accused was nothing but obscene. In
the second case, Dr, Ambedkar, who was RD's lawyer, pleaded with
the Magistrate to impose a fine of at least Rs.201 so that an appeal
could be preferred. The Magistrate, Mr. Indravadan Mehta, who had
also tried the first case, imposed a fine of Rs.200 only. No appeal.
Revision application summarily dismissed.
In 1930, some leading intellectuals of Bombay who included Dr.

Gopalrao Deshmukh, Dr. George Coehlo (the first pediatrician of
India), Ranchhoddas Lotwala, Syed Abdulla Brelvi (the Editor of
“Bombay Chronicle”) and Minoo Masani established what was
initially called “Anti-priestcraft Association, but later turned into
Rationalist Association of India. The Association ran a magazine
called “Reason”, which was edited by Dr. Charles Lionel D'Avoine,
who was unsuccessfully prosecuted for outraging the religious
feelings of a community, in an article he wrote in the September 1933
issue of “Reason”. (For details, readers may refer to “The Reason
Case” edited by Prof. V. K. Sinha, published by Indian Secular
Society, Pune). RD regularly contributed to “Reason” on several
subjects.
In 1937, RD took over the editorship of “Reason”, which had ceased

publication for some time. Through the columns of “Reason” also,
RD carried on education on sex and health. In one article, he
suggested that not merely children, but their parents too needed
lessons on sex and hygiene. All this time, he was also taking active
part in social activities and was addressing gatherings, small or large.
RD was extremely well informed about social, national and
international developments - which show he was also well-read.
Third Prosecution Acquittal
RD was prosecuted for the third time for a similar offence in 1939. He
conducted his own defence while Mr. Gambhir, the publisher, who
was co-accused, was defended by Mr. V. B. Karnik. The main witness
for the prosecution was the Oriental translator of the office Mr.
(Raghunath) Jahagirdar. Mr. Basrekar, the trial Magistrate, acquitted
RD by his order passed on 24th June 1940.
In January 1941, Mr. Abraham Solomon became the editor of

“Reason”, for reasons about which there is some controversy. Mr.
Solomon however, was aware of the merits of RD. whom he
persuaded to contribute regularly to “Reason” which however came
under the editorship of RD again in July 1941. With the uncertain
situation created by the Second World War, and rising costs,
“Reason” ceased publication towards the end of 1942.
But Samaj Swasthya continued against great odds. RD had set certain
principles before himself in accepting advertisements. As a result, he
declined to accept certain advertisements. This was naturally not
helpful in improving the financial health of the magazine.
Shakuntala Paranjpe, daughter of Shri R. P. Paranjape, a near relative
of RD was conducting a family planning clinic in Pune. She was also
regularly writing for Samaj Swasthya, and this enhanced the utility
and prestige of the publication. In his stormy career, RD was
involved in several controversies, some of which were of his own
making. It is not possible to assert that he was always right. But it can
be safely said that his approach was always rational, unbiased and
intellectually honest.
In October 1944, his wife Malati Tai passed away. It was a great blow
to RD, by whom Malati Tai had stood in thick and thin without
making any demand on him. RD had still some battles to be fought -
now alone.
Though he regretted that rationalism had not found acceptance

among a large number of people, he was to some extent happy that
increasing number of people were recognising the importance of
family planning and limiting the population. Unfortunately,
successive governments failed to evolve and implement an effective
population policy. On 14th January 1952, RD completed his biblical
span of three score and ten years. His health was giving way and in
the early hours of 14th October 1953, he passed away.
It is unfortunate that no serious and in-depth study of RD's writings

has been made. RD has left behind a wealth of writings which display
a keen rationalism in the handling of innumerable subjects dealt with
by him. Maharashtra's eminent scholar and R. D. Karve's biographer,
Dr. Y. D. Phadke has said that anyone dispassionately studying RD's
writings, will readily admit that Raghunath Dhondo Karve is the
only true heir to Agarkar.
“H.N.” I Knew
D
r. Hosur Narasimhaiah - scientist, educationist and
rationalist passed away on 31 January 2005. Born 6th June
1920 in Hosur in Kolar District in the erstwhile Mysore
State, his life is a saga of struggle - for his own education and living
and for the education of his countrymen. He gave the title of
“Horatada Hadi” (The Road of Struggle) to his biography published
on his 75th birthday. We should be happy that he wrote his
autobiography for it chronicles not only the events of his life but also
several events and episodes in social and cultural life of Karnataka.
One only regrets that Dr. Narasimhaiah (I will call him as H.N. - a
name by which he was known) confined his activities to Karnataka. If
he had moved on the national scene, it would have benefited the
cause of rationalism and scientific attitude throughout the country.
I first came in contact with H.N. in December 1980 at the Golden

Jubilee Conference of Indian Rationalist Association in the then
Bombay. The Conference was inaugurated by Dr. P.M. Bhargav, the
eminent cellular scientist and presided over by Justice Chinna Reddy,
Judge of the Supreme Court of India. Though he was by that time
known as a rationalist by virtue of his investigation into Satya Sai
Baba's 'miracles', for reasons not known to me he had not been given
a pride of place in that conference.
H.N. came to the Golden Jubilee Celebration of I.R.A. as a humble

delegate and was accommodated along with one or two delegates in
one room in the Bal Mohan Vidya Mandir at Dadar in Central
Bombay. It was there I met him for the first time though we
rationalists in Maharashtra were fully aware of his campaign in the
exposure of superstitions. He was happy to meet a person from
Karnataka who was, at that time, a Judge of the High Court of
Bombay. We had a friendly, informal chat during which I could easily
discern flashes of a brilliant mind.
He spoke effortlessly in Kannada in simple language but the points

he made were profound. He was not making a capital of the
campaign he had conducted earlier in 1975 into the activities of Satya
Sai Baba, more particularly in Satya Sai Baba's attempt to nominate a
boy dubbed as Sai Krishna, from Pandavpur (a small town near
Mysore) as his successor. If some one has to succeed Satya Sai, that
person must perform miracles. The Committee consisting of Dr.
Narasimhaiah, then Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, found
out that the promoters of Sai Krishna were perpetrating a hoax.
He asked me whether I was related to :"Shriranga” the famous

playwright of Karnataka. He asked that question, as he knew that
Shriranga's real name was Prof. R.V. Jahagirdar. When I answered in
the affirmative, he spoke of the plays of Shriranga and made certain
observations about one play called 'Shoka Chakra' a scathing
criticism of the politicians of the day who were carrying on their trade
under the national emblem of Ashoka Chakra. I have thought it
relevant to mention this fact only to show that though literature was
not the forte of H.N. who was a scientist by education and career, he
was well-read in Kannada literature.
He was gracious to allow me to keep in touch with him. He had

founded Bangalore Science Forum under whose auspices lectures on
science and scientific attitude and rationalism were regularly held.
He invited me to give a talk in the Bangalore Science Forum in 1984 -
an invitation which I grabbed because it gave me an opportunity to
meet H.N. I gave the talk on 'Scientific Attitude and Indian
Citizenship' which has been subsequently published as a paper by
Scientific Temper Promotion Trust of Bombay. The talk was followed
by question and answer session. Questions on Constitution and
scientific attitude were easy to answer but as it happens often, in such
meetings there were questions with the sole object of causing
discomfiture to the speaker - in this case myself. Some questions were
meant to test my knowledge of astronomy and astrology. At this
stage H.N. asked me politely to allow him to deal with those
questions. During the next 20 minutes or so, he gave a small talk
which not only answered those questions and demonstrated how in
the light of astronomy, astrology could not be called a science. In
particular, he pointed out, the data on which astronomy is based
never changes obviously because the planets, moons and stars and
astronomical distances never change. There are four schools of
astrology in India. How can there be different interpretations and
inferences from such unchanging facts? In a discrete way he made a
reference to B.V. Raman of Bangalore, the famous peddler of
astrological forecasts.
Whenever I went to Bangalore I called upon him. As is well-known,

he was a bachelor and though he was the Head of the National
Educational Society, he was staying in a room of the hostel of a college
conducted by that society. The only concession he was having was
that he was occupying the corner room which had an attached
bathroom. A picture of that room is printed in Horatad Hadi'. The
room had no furniture such as tables and chairs. However, he had
arranged for a chair brought for me when I visited him. 1 was not
foolish enough to sit on the chair when the great man was sitting on
the floor. The simplicity of this man was in one sense notorious.
When he was the Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University (1972 to
1978), he would use the official car when he was discharging the
official work. On other occasions he went in a rickshaw and some
times in a bus.
Though he was an atheist, as the head of the society which was

running, among other institutions, National College, he had not
caused the removal of Ganapati idol which had been installed in the
college premises. When we were passing by I noticed a small girl
standing with folded hands in front of the idol obviously engaged in
prayers. I stood watching her for a few minutes when HN thought
that I was uncomfortable. He told me: “Sir, do not worry. When this
girl grows up, she will be an atheist.” His approach was: Do not
indoctrinate any one with atheism.
All this is an account of my personal contract with H.N. The facts of

his life are sometimes chilling, sometimes exhilarating. He was born
to his parents - Hanumantappa and Venkatamma - when they were
considerably old. The family was very poor even by the low
standards of the village. H.N. says he was not sure about the level of
his father's education but he had mastery over Kannada language and
he could give discourses on Ramayana and Mahabharata. This
bought him some income. Mother earned by doing menial work such
as sweeping and washing utensils. Some times if she had been given
rice and curry by her employer she would bring it home.
It is not necessary to trace the course of Narasinhaih's education, it is

sufficient to mention that it was through great hardships. He had to
discontinue his studies after eighth standard as there was no high
school in the village. Fortunately for him, the head master of his
school found a place for Narasinhaiah in the Poor Boys' Home in
Bangalore where he joined the National High School in 1935. In 1936
Mahatma Gandhi visited this school when the Mahatma happened
to notice this boy. There is a photograph in his autobiography in
which the Mahatma has placed his left hand on Narasinhaiah's left
shoulder and is apparently listening attentively to what the boy was
saying. The photograph shows Narasinhaiah was wearing a khadi
half-shirt and an uncouth Gandhi cap on his head. H.N. places this
incident as on 11th June 1936.
In 1942 he faced a big dilemma. H.N. mentions that he had been

always a nationalist. In 1942 he was six months away from the B.Sc.
degree. He felt the urge to jump in the Quit India Movement. But at
the same time he had come up to that stage of his education after
great travails. Would it be wise to do anything that would jeopardize
his career forever? He decided to join the freedom struggle and in
due course was arrested and jailed. Incidentally he was in Yerawada
Jail in Pune where large number of satyagrahis from Mysore had been
lodged.
After his release and after completing his education, he joined

National College as a Lecturer. This association continued for over 50
years. He became, as mentioned earlier, the President of National
Education Society which conducts several institutions. For two terms
he was the Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University. As the Vice-
Chancellor he set up “The Committee to Investigate Miracles and
Verifiable Superstitions” in 1976. Satya Sai Baba, predictably refused
to co-operate with this Committee.
He was a rationalist since his childhood. He had refused, despite his

mother's insistence, to tonsure his head while performing his father's
last rites - he said he did not get convincing answer regarding the
connection between the two. On the wall in his office one could notice
the following quote of Albert Einstein: “Great spirits have always
encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds”.
Vigil for Democracy
W
hen Suu Kyi daughter of General Aung San, the hero of
Burma's freedom struggle and Michael Aris fell in love
and married in 1972, they must have dreamt of
pursuing their studies in philosophy together, Michael in particular,
of Tibetan studies. Aung Suu Kyi was, however, not an ordinary
person. Her father was the leader of Burma's fight for freedom - first
from the British, then from the Japanese, and then again from the
British. Aung San was, right from school and college days a political
animal, driven by a spirited nationalism and with a mission of
freeing his country from foreign rule. Like many of his
contemporaries, in his younger days, he was attracted by Marx and
thought theoretically at least, that communists' way led to national
freedom.
There are some, though only some, similarities in the lives of

Subhash Chandra Bose and Aung San. Soon after the outbreak of the
war, he thought, like Bose thought, Colonialism's difficulty was
Freedom's opportunity and founded the “Freedom Bloc”, as Bose
founded Forward Block in India. The Freedom Bloc's stand was that
the people should support the British war effort if there was an
assurance of freedom; if there was no assurance, the people should
strenuously oppose the war effort. This stand was not unlike that of
the nationalist leaders of India, who did not, as Aung San did not,
see the question in the world's perspective.
In August 1940, Aung San travelled to Tokyo, via China, to meet

Japanese leaders to enlist their support for Burma's freedom
struggle. During the war years, Aung San collaborated with the
Japanese army by forming his own Burma Independence Army (i.e.
Indian National Army of Bose). Aung San was made a Major-
General and hence thereafter the reference is to General Aung San.
In course of time, the Japanese army occupied Burma. Aung San
made an attempt, doomed to failure, to organise the masses to
prevent the Japanese from consolidating their position.
'The story of Japanese occupation is one of disillusionment,

uncertainty and suffering. Those who had believed that they were
about to gain freedom from the British were shattered to find
themselves ground under the heels of their fellow Asians instead
The soldiers of Nippon, whom many had welcomed as liberators,
turned out to be worse oppressors than the unpopular British. Ugly
incidents multiplied daily …. Disappearances, torture and forced
labour conscription were part of everyday existence”
(Suu Kyi in My Father)
Fortunately, the war did not last long enough and Subhash Chandra
Bose did not live to see a similar experience for India. In Burma,
disillusionment with liberators inevitably led to the split between
the occupation forces and the freedom fighters who organised
themselves into resistance groups. First, as Anti-Fascist organisation
(AFO) and later as Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL).
Aung San's Army negotiated with and helped the British, under the
command of Lord Mountbatten, to get rid of the Japanese. It is not
necessary to trace the subsequent developments leading to Burma's
independence. Only the tragic assassination of Aung San and his
th
close associates on 19 July 1947 by an army clique jealous of Aung
San's popularity needs to be mentioned. (Similar was the case of
th
Mujibur Rehman's assassination by Army members). Hence 19 July
is observed as Martyrs' Day in Burma. Suu Kyi was barely two years
old when her father was assassinated - her mother being Ma Khin
Kyi, a senior staff nurse in a hospital where General Aung San was
being treated. They were married in September 1942.
Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in Rangoon, in Delhi (when her
mother was Burmese Ambassador) and later in Oxford University.
In 1969, she went to New York where she was employed in the
United Nations Secretariat.
In another development of history is the life of Michael Aris whose

th
death on 27 March 1999 has prompted me to select this topic for this
editorial. He was a student of philosophy and after graduation; he
took up an appointment as a tutor to the royal children of Bhutan.
His range of subjects covered Oriental studies and in particular
Tibetan Buddhism. On his occasional visits to Oxford he met Aung
San Suu Kyi - meetings facilitated by Sir Paul Gore- Booth, former
British Ambassador to Burma. Married in 1972. Suu Kyi and
Michael lived at different places and have two sons. The story, does
not end with: They lived happily thereafter.
Michael Aris knew that Suu Kyi was a woman of destiny: she was the
daughter of the national hero of Burma She herself was acutely
aware that she was the daughter of Burma's national hero and that
some day, she may be called by her people to the country of her birth.
In his introduction to Freedom From Fear by Aung San Suu Kyi
(Penguin, New Delhi; 1995 Edition pp.xxxi + 374: Rs.200), Michael
Aris mentions that she constantly reminded him that one day she
would have to return to Burma and that she counted on his support
at that time:
“I ask only one thing, that should my people need me, you would
help me to do my duty by them.”
That day came in 1988 when she returned to Rangoon to attend to

her mother who was on deathbed. The mother died on 27th
December 1988 and any normal daughter would have, thereafter,
returned to her husband and children. In the meantime, Gen. Win
had resigned from the Presidentship in July 1987 but had, however,
continued to be the real authority behind the military junta which
he himself had installed in power. Aung San Suu Kyi had by then
realised that her continued presence in Burma was necessary for the
country's return to democracy.
She met people in different walks of life, addressed large gatherings

of the young and the grown-up alike and floated ideas of how to
reintroduce democracy in Burma. There were demonstrations,
clashes, police firings, resulting in many deaths. The second
struggle for the national Independence had begun.
What is remarkable about Aung San Sui Kyi's movement is her

insistence not merely on the removal of a government but also on the
establishment of democracy with positive content Earlier in a
publication she had written:
'A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and

institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions
has little chance of genuine success. Without a resolution of the
spirit, the forces which produced the iniquities of the old order
would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the
process of reform and regeneration”. (Quoted Freedom From Fear
p330).
Aung San Suu Kyi's role and activities increased as the military
junta's vicious grip steadily increased. In order to give a fig leaf of
respectability to its image, the government announced multi-party
elections to the Burmese parliament in 1990. Political analysts have
commented that the army expected that elections in which many
parties contested would result in a fractured parliament which
would give the government an excuse not to have democratic
government till the country is ripe for the same.
When the elections were announced, Suu Kyi was in detention. The
government solicitously asked her whether she being in detention,
would like to contest the election. She said yes and the government
said no - by invalidating her nomination paper. Elections held in
May 1990 returned to the National Assembly, 392 candidates of Suu
Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). There were 485 seats
at stake. NLD won 72 per cent of the 13 million votes cast. The
military government's own party scrambled to get ten seats. The
military refused to hand over power by saying that it could transfer
power only when a new constitution is written which would meet
with its approval.
In this context, it is necessary to remember that Sui Kyi does not

profess animosity to the army. She envisages a positive constructive
role for the army as the protector of the Burmese people. In the
meantime, Sui Kyi's saga had attracted the attention of the world.
Amnesty International has been agitating for her release. The military
government, under the pompose name of State Law and Order
Restoration Council, continues its vicious grip on the country, Suu
Kyi, in detention, has been awarded 1990 Sakharov Prize for
Freedom of Thought. In 1991. She was awarded the Nobel Prize for
Peace. In the speech delivered by her son Alexander accepting the
Nobel Prize on behalf of her mother, said:
'I know that she would begin by saying that she accepts the Nobel
Prize for Peace not in her. own name, but in the name of all people of
Burma. She would say that this prize belongs not to her but to all
those men, women and children who, even as I speak, continue to
sacrifice their well-being, their freedom and their lives in pursuit of a
democratic Burma'.
It is for these people that she continues to remain in Burma. The

military regime deprived her two Sons of their Burmese passports -
so that they cannot visit her. Her husband suffering from terminal
prostate cancer was not allowed to come to Burma to visit his wife.
The Burmese government suggested that it would be more
appropriate for a dutiful wife (aren't Burmese wives dutyful) to rush
to her ailing husband. Moreover, his visit to Burma would put strain
on the country's slender medical resources.
Despite these devastating personal tragedies, why is Suu Kyi

persisting in remaining in Burma?
Her presence in Burma is the vigil for democracy.

Polygamy under Good Faith!
T here are several misconceptions about the many marriages of

Prophet Muhammad. After Christ, monogamy became the
rule in Christian world. More than six hundred years after
Jesus, Muhammad preached the teachings of Quran. Prior to this, in
Arabia, there was no limit to the number of wives a man could take.
Even in India and among the Hindus polygamy was prevalent.
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had seven wives. Yet nobody suggests

it was as a result of sexual appetite. They were all, except probably
the first one, mostly political alliances. Till 1937 in the erstwhile
Bombay Presidency, polygamy was permissible. At the instance of
Smt. Leelavati Munshi, Bombay Prohibition of Bigamous Act was
passed. At that time, Vidarbha was a part of Central Provinces. It is
not necessary to mention names, but it is well known that some men
in Bombay went to Vidarbha or Central Provinces and took a second
wife. In 1956, Hindu Marriage Act was passed and bigamy among
the Hindus all over India was abolished. Yet, in Rajasthan,
polygamous marriages are taking place. The fact that Muhammad
took eleven wives need not cause merriment. One should not forget
that in Arabia, a man could take any number of wives during the time
of Muhammad. Muhammad put a ceiling on the number of wives a
Musalman can take at one time. It should also be remembered that a
Musalman could take four wives at one time as permission and not a
mandate. The following is the relevant verse of Quran:
“If ye fear that ye shall not

be able to deal justly
With the orphans,

Marry women of your choice,
Two, Three or Four;
But if you fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly (with them),
Then only one or (a captive),
That your right hands possess,
That will be more suitable,
To prevent you from doing injustice.”
(Yusuf Ali's translation)
Properly interpreted, the verse is pro-monogamy.
Muhammad was famous for honesty and fairness. He belonged to

Qureshi tribe which was initially hostile to him. So Muhammad had
to leave Mecca for Medina where in a short while he became
practically ruler. Before that, however, in Mecca he was appointed as
a trade agent of a rich widow. This is rather surprising as we are told
Arab women were backward.
Impressed by the shining character of Muhammad, Khadija, the

widow, married him. It was a happy marriage. Khadija herself was a
noble woman. Some children were born, but only Fatima, who
married Ali later, survived. When Muhammad started receiving
messages from God through Gabriel, he was mentally disturbed. It
was at this time that Khadija assured he was really the recipient of
God's messages. In fact Khadija was the first convert to Islam. As
long as Khadija lived, Muhammad did not take a second wife. It was
a happy marriage. This was Rangeela Rasul? When later the third
wife of Muhammad, Aisha, teased Muhammad about his attachment
to the memory of Khadija, he said:
“I cherish her memory because she was so loyal to me. When people
belied me, she believed in me; when people were afraid to help me,
she stood by me like a rock; she was my best companion and bore my
children.” From the above it is easily seen that he must have grieved
immensely by the death of Khadija. After Khadija's death,
Muhammad's life was in disorder. There was none to support him in
his mission. Children were small and there was none to look after
them. A wife has become a necessity. Friends' suggestion to him to

marry again was accepted. It was at this time he took a second wife.
One Sauda and her husband were among the earliest converts to
Islam. Her husband died as a result of which Sauda was helpless.
She had a son to look after. It was then Muhammad took pity on her
and also to meet his needs he married her.
Aisha, the daughter of Abu Baker, the first Caliph, was too young.
But Abu Baker was too eager to cement his relationship with
Muhammad. There is some dispute as to how old Aisha was. In any
case she was not a child. Muhammad was persuaded to marry her,
though the marriage was consummated long after. Aisha was
intelligent, beautiful and sprightly. As a wife she accompanied her
husband on many of his expeditions.
Here I feel tempted to narrate one incident in her life. On one

occasion, Aisha left the caravan in order to answer call of nature.
While returning she noticed that she had lost her necklace. She
returned to search for it but the caravan left her, thinking that she was
in the caravan. A young Arab, Safwan, noticing her alone and
recognizing her gave his camel to her.
Because of this incident, Muhammad decreed that allegations of

adultery should not be easily made. The marriage of Muhammad
was not the result of love or carnal desire or conquest in war. Abu
Baker was the closest companion of Muhammad and it was he who
persuaded Muhammad to marry her. After the passing away of
Muhammad, Aisha has contributed the largest number of Hadiths.
Hafsa, the widowed daughter of Umar, a close companion of

Muhammad, was the fourth wife. Umar, it should be remembered,
later became a caliph. Hafsa's husband had been fatally wounded in
the Battle of Badr. In order to relieve the distress of Hafsa,
Muhammad took her as his wife. Hafsa was not particularly
pleasant. Accounts of her tell that she was temperamental. She was
given to jealousy and anger. Muhammad could not have found her
attractive to marry her. Even after marriage, she boasted that she
argued and quarreled with the Prophet.
But kind hearted and of sweet disposition was Muhammad's fifth

wife. Zainaba was the widow of a man who had died in the Battle of

Uhud in which Muslims were defeated by the Quraish. She took care
of the poor and the destitute. She was so much devoted to the welfare
of the poor that she came to be known as “Umm al-Masakin” (mother
of the downtrodden). After marriage, she lived only for three
months.
Salama's husband had died in the Battle of Uhud and thus became a
widow. Salama came from an illustrious family of her time,
belonging to Banu Uhud. Though one of the earliest converts to
Islam, she was not allowed to go to Medina by the Quraish. It was a
form of persecution for having converted to Islam. However, she
escaped. She had a son from the marriage but found herself pregnant
at this time. Naturally Salama was despondent. It was at this time
the Prophet offered his hand in marriage. She was now with two
children. The Prophet assured her that he would take care of them as
his own. What a thoughtfulness! Salama was deeply touched and
married him. A widow, with two children initially reluctant to
marry, Muhammad married her. Can you say sex was a factor?
Salama was the sixth wife.
Salama was no doubt attractive. She was very pious, fasting three
times a month. She often prayed. Once, the Prophet disapproved of
her wearing a golden necklace. She immediately broke into pieces
and distributed them among the poor. She was the last wife of the
Prophet to die.
A lot of criticism and controversy surrounds the marriage of Zainab

with the Prophet. She was the seventh wife. She was 38 years old
when she became the wife of Muhammad. She had been earlier
married to Zain bin Haroth who had been adopted by the Prophet.
Muhammad desired that Zainab should marry Zain. It must be
remembered that Zainab was a cousin of Muhammad who could
have married her if he was sexually minded. In fact he had given a
handsome present to Zainab on her marriage. Initially she was
reluctant to marry Zain but the Quran (33-36) disapproved any one
disregarding any decision of the Prophet. The marriage which was
actually celebrated for eight years Hijrat turned out unhappy. Both
Zainab and Zain were good persons in their own ways, but there was
temperamental incompatibility. Zainab was unhappy that she was

the wife of a man who was once a slave. Zain ultimately divorced her.
Zainab could not be tossed about. Muhammad took her as his wife as
a duty.
Some commentators have criticized that Muhammad by this

marriage indulged in incestual relationship as Zain was his adopted
son and Zainab was thus his daughter-in-law. But the Quran says:
“We joined her in marriage to thee:
In order that (in future)
There may be no difficulty
To the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their
adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary
(formality) (their marriage) with them.” (33-37)
It was revealed that an adopted son cannot be son; filial affiliation has
to be natural. Islam regarded adoption as pagan which is to be
destroyed.
Juwairriya was the daughter of Harith Bin Abi Darbar, the chief of a
powerful tribe of Banu Mustaliq. She was married to a scion of the
same tribe. Both she and her father were inveterate enemies of
Muhammad. Her father had taken part in the Battle of Trenches.
Juwairriya was taken as a prisoner in this war. Sometime later her
father approached Muhammad and begged her to be released on
payment of ransom money. Juwairriya herself suggested that the
best course would be for her to marry the Prophet. Everyone was
happy and the marriage took place. She was the eighth wife of
Muhammad. She became a great friend of Aisha.
The ninth wife was Ramallah, also known as Umm Habiba. She was
the daughter of Abu Sufiyan and his wife of Hind. They both hated
Muhammad. But Ramallah and her husband had embraced Islam
much against the wishes of her parents. They were harassed at
Mecca and hence quietly escaped to Medina. Unfortunately,
Ramallah's husband took to drinking which ultimately resulted in
his death, thus making Ramallah a widow. Ramallah was a helpless
woman inciting sympathy in Muhammad's heart. Feeling sorry for

her the Prophet took her as his wife. She being one of the earliest
converts to Islam and having steadfastly stood by the Prophet's
religion, she was of great strength to Islam. Muhammad was thus
tempted to wed her hoping that the marriage would help the cause of
Islam. She was a widow and for the fact that she was a devout
Muslim, Muhammad was attracted by her.
There was strength in her convictions. At the time of her marriage,

Ramallah was 38 years old and her life she dedicated to Muhammad
and the cause. She had two children from her first marriage but none
from Muhammad whom she survived by nearly two decades. Her
brother, Muawiya, had become the caliph.
Safiya came from a Jewish family. She was taken as a prisoner of war
in the Battle of Khyber. She was married to a well known Jewish poet,
Salm bin Mishkan. But the marriage was not successful and her
husband divorced her. A Jewish warrior married her but
unfortunately he was killed in the Battle of Khyber. It was thus that
she was taken a prisoner of war and became a maid to one of the
Prophet's companions. The other companions pointed out that she,
being the daughter of a tribal chief, ought to be given due honour.
She divorced once, widowed once, yet the Prophet decided to give
her due honour by marrying her. Safiya was also known as Zainab.
She became a Muslim and willingly married the Prophet. She bore
the Prophet no children. Though converted to Islam, she continued
to have faith for her Jewish kith and kin.
Maimunah bin Harith was the eleventh wife of the Prophet. She was
divorced by her first husband and the second husband died in tragic
circumstances. She was then 51 years of age and not a young damsel.
Her condition was pitiable, though she was the sister-in-law of
Abbas, Muhammad's uncle. Abbas was a devout Muslim whose
canvassing led to the marriage of Muhammad and Maimunah.
Incidentally, Khaled-bin-Waled, the Sword of Islam, was her nephew.
The marriage was between the members of two leading tribes. The
citizens of Mecca resented this marriage and they did not allow it to
take place in Mecca. So it was solemnized in another town.
Maimunah was of a kind and charitable disposition. She liberated
many slaves.

The story of Mary or Maria Qibitia needs to be told in some details.
Mary and Shirin were sisters. They were slaves of Archbishop of
Alexandria. They were not Arabs; they were not Muslims. The
Archbishop gave them to Muhammad as slaves. Muhammad
himself did not believe in slavery. He freed both of them. There is
some difference of opinion between the Western writers and the
Islamic ones. Though the Archbishop sent these two maidens to the
Prophet but requested the latter to treat them with honour and
dignity. It is not explained why a request was made to treat them
with honour when they were presented to Muhammad. Anyway he
gave Shirin to one of his companions.
As already mentioned, Mary was not an Arab, but she was treated on
par with other wives. The Quran says:
“O Prophet, why dost thou forbid (thyself) that which Allah has
made lawful for thee? Seekest thou to please thy wives? And Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful.”
Mary abided with Muhammad. She was beautiful being white with
good features. She had black hair. Muhammad was pleased with
her. There is some controversy as to whether she became married to
Muhammad.
Dr. Rafiq Zakaria says:
“Maria's case is different; she gave birth to Muhammad's son,

Ibrahim, and has, therefore, been regarded by majority of jurists as
his wife”.
(Muhammad and the Quran, p.44)
After Khadija, Maria was the only one who gave a son to
Muhammad. There is nothing in history to show that Muhammad
ever married. Even Zakaria, a devout Muslim, says it is regarded
that she was the wife of the Prophet. Be that as it may, it is clearly
established that she was treated with equality with the wives of
Muhammad.
I have already extracted above the verse which enjoins Muslims to

have only one wife; in exceptional circumstances and subject to

certain conditions, he can marry two or three and not more than four.
Marrying more than one wife is not the pillar of Islam; it is not a
mandate but a conditional permission.
Yusuf Ali, authoritative translator of the Quran says:
“The unquestioned number of wives of the Times of Ignorance was

now strictly limited to a maximum of four, provided you could treat
them with perfect equality; in material things as well as in affection
and immaterial things. As this condition is most difficult to fulfill,
understand the recommendation to be towards monogamy.”
At this stage I must make a brief reference to “Rangila Rasul” case. In

that case, one Rajpal was convicted in the lower Court of an offence
under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the
author had made several derogatory remarks about the Prophet of
Islam. He had made some unsavoury remarks about the many
marriages of Muhammad who was, in consequence, called “Rangila
Rasul”. In appeal the Lahore High Court set aside the conviction
holding that Section 153A “was intended to persons from attack on a
particular community as it exists at the present time and was not
meant to stop polemics against religious leaders however scurrilous
and in bad taste such attacks may be”. Actually, Section 153A made
punishable an act which would cause enmity between two
communities. “Rangila Rasool” case is of 1927. Subsequently, a new
Section has been introduced.
We are dealing with the situation as it existed in the 17th Century

when a man could take any number of wives. The restriction by
Muhammad was in fact revolutionary. It was with the advent of
Christianity that monogamy became the rule in the West.
For the sake of record I am mentioning the five pillars of Islam which
are as follows:-
1. Shahada the declaration that there is no God but the God (Allah
Shahada);
2. Salat requires Muslims to pray five times a day;
3. Zakat gift of a fixed portion of your money to the poor Necessity

not merely desirability;
4. Sawm is to fast for thirty days during Ramadan; and
5. One must make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca during one's life
Haj.
The merriment about Muhammad having many marriages started in

the West which amused that a man can have two wives. Even George
Bernard Shaw commented that the celibacy of Jesus was nobler than
the wallowing of Muhammad in harem. Muhammad did not have a
harem. Raj Pal of “Rangila Rasul” fame echoed the feelings of the
West clean forgetting that many of our Kings had many wives.
Shivaji had seven; Bhupinder Singh of Patiala is said to have more
than 100. The detestable system of 'Kulin” marriages allowed a man
to take many wives, though some of them he never saw. Till Bombay
Prevention of Bigamous Act was passed in 1937, at the instance of
Lilavati Munshi, Hindus were in theory at least polygamous. In
practice, however, Hindus were monogamous. It was emotionally
and monetarily expensive to maintain two households.
It was only after December 1956, after the Hindu Marriages Act was
passed, that bigamy became illegal among the Hindus. If you study
census figures carefully, you will notice that there are marginally
more bigamous marriages among Hindus than among Muslims.
This is so in Rajasthan. Maybe, among poorer people, for economic
reasons an additional hand is needed. The upshot of this article is
that polygamy, though allowed under conditions among the
Muslims, you will not find such marriages. Even in Muslim
countries, such as Tunisia and Morocco, polygamy is legally
prohibited. With progress in time and progress in society and with
the gradual liberation of women everywhere, bigamy and polygamy
will disappear.

The Burkha:
Not a religious mandate
T
his article is appearing late, but it needs to be written and
nd
must be made known to all rational minds. On 22 June,
2009, the President of France, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy,
addressing the French Parliament, damned the Burkha
characterizing it a symbol of feminine servitude. He also declared
that it was not welcome in France. A law passed in 2004, in fact, bars
Muslim girls from wearing the hijab in Government schools. By and
large, students from other religious backgrounds are also barred
from wearing any conspicuous display of religions symbols. It must
be remembered that there are today, according to one estimate, five
million Muslims in France. They are mostly from Algeria. Algeria
today is a secular country, which was formerly a colony or
Department of France. Recently laws have been passed in some
European countries putting restrictions on Muslim woman's
garments. Incidentally, in the year 1905, France has adapted a total
secular Constitution delinking the State from the Church which had
formerly an all pervasive presence in the State.
If Nicolas Sarkozy had not spoken on the subject and the French
Parliament had quietly passed a law barring the wearing of Burkha,
the world would not have bothered about it. Because of Sarkozy's
public pronouncement, there were loud verbal protests from some
Muslims, especially clerics who are thoroughly ignorant of theory or
practice of Burkha. The practice of wearing Burkha is prohibited
even in some Muslim countries as Tunisia. Muslim women all over
the world dress just like other women without feeling the necessity of

wearing any special dress to distinguish their Muslim identity. No
doubt, Muslims in some countries do wear a niqab (a total covering,
except the eyes) or a Burkha, out of habit or compulsion. Nobody has
shown any authority in support of Burkha.
One Bombay Magazine has quoted Professor Zeenat Shaukat Ali as

having said that Burkha is more about culture than religion. She did
not pose, let alone answer, the question that why is it that Burkha, to
the extent it is prevalent, is only among the Muslims than in any other
community. No community in the world, cultural or otherwise,
sanctioned Burkha for woman. It is essentially a Muslim habit,
probably born out of ignorance, or of wrong interpretation of Quran
or of compulsion by men. Prof. Zeenat Ali has to explain why it is
confined to Muslims.
Worse still is the statement of Muslim Cleric. Maulana Abu Hassan

Nadvi Azhari that “Islamic scholars across the world have
unanimously held that Burkha is a religious symbol” (quoted in the
same journal). Where is it mentioned in any scripture that Burkha
must be worn by Muslim women? Has any religious authority
issued any fatwa?
Let us see the practices around the world. Indonesia is the largest
Muslim State. Women there also do not don Burkha. Only in some
part of Indonesia, there are few non-Muslims. The country is
predominantly Islamic. If Burkha were culturally or religiously
associated with Islam or Muslims, you would be noticing women
wearing Burkhas. Meghavati Sukarno, who became the President of
Indonesia, could be seen without Burkha.
India has the next largest Muslim population of the world. Though
here and there you see Burkha-clad women, Burkha is not the normal
wear of Indian Muslim women who have, in fact, protested against
any compulsion for wearing Burkha. Women work in offices,
hospitals, etc., wearing normal clothes which are worn by non-
Muslims. You cannot work in an office or as a doctor wearing a
Burkha. There is Sania Mirza who travels al over the world for

playing tennis. She wears scanty dress as required by the game. So
do other Muslims who are sports persons. It is not necessary to
mention Shabana Azmi or Taslima Nasreen of Bangladesh who are
well known non-believers. They will not cover.
Have you ever been to Kashmir? Not a single woman dons Burkha.
Kashmiri women work outdoors and share work with men. You
stand in front of a college and see the girls coming out. You will see
them wearing Salwar-Khameez; you will not see Burkha. For some
time because of the fear of fundamentalist bodies like Lashkar-e-
Jabbar, Burkhas and hijabs were seen. In no time, however, they
went out. Tourist traffic is often attended to by women.
Kashmiri culture does not allow Burkha. In the rural areas, most
women work in the open fields. They can be seen in knee-deep
paddy fields. How can they work in these conditions? They are now
st
living in 21 Century not in the seventh. Women do not need
th
protection now as they did in the unsettled conditions of 7 Century.
In the rest of India one can see Muslim women going about in saris.
Zia-ul-Haq, the dictator of Pakistan who died in 1988, called it un-
Islamic to wear a sari and had banned it in Pakistan. After his death it
has returned.
Pakistan is an Islamic country. If Burkha were closely connected

with the culture of Islam, women there would be going about in
Burkha. You see the news readers on T.V., doctors who work in the
hospitals, politicians addressing public meetings and the Parliament.
Where is the Burkha? Benazir Bhutto became the Prime Minister
without going anywhere near Burkha. When you watch Pakistan
T.V., you do not see any woman wearing Burkhas. Of course, Taliban
may change all that. It is reported that a senior Judge in Pakistan has
ordered women lawyers not to wear veils in Court rooms. The Chief
Justice of Peshawar High Court, the bastion of orthodoxy, told a
woman lawyer “You are professionals and should be dressed as
required of lawyers.” Muslim women are no longer orthodox. It is
woman's instinct to be attractive, to be seen attractive not necessarily

to attract. Even Burkha clad women are not free from this instinct. If
you pass by a woman wearing Burkha, you will be immediately
overwhelmed by some perfume. Beneath her Burkha, while going
out, the woman has smeared herself with perfume of some kind.
If you are next to a Persian lady going to Iran, the same is your
experience. She is wearing jeans. When the plane is nearing
Teheran, she immediately puts on Chador a dress prescribed by the
moral police of Iran, after the 1979 Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini
dictated Chador, not Burkha.
It is only in Saudi Arabia that women wear or are forced to wear

Burkhas. It is probably due to the influence of Wahhabis. Wahhabi
influence envelopes Saudi Arabia.
All over the world, women are getting liberated; Muslims no less.
They do not want to wear cumbersome clothes Burkhas least of
them. Maybe, some small Section of Muslim women cover
themselves with Burkha. Pratibha Patil, when she was the Governor
of Rajasthan, said famously: “The purdah was introduced during
Mughal rule to save women from Mogul invaders”. After Moguls,
the English have ruled over India for 200 years. The English were
progressive people and were not definitely after Rajasthani women.
Purdah did not vanish. The truth of the matter is that even today
women pull “ghungat” over their faces in front of elders and
strangers which they were wearing even during Mogul rule.
Rajasthani women never wore purdahs.
Other parts of India show different ways. Women wear saris. In

north India women wear Salwar-Khamiz. In South India they wear
saris Maharashtrians in one way, Gujaratis in another way, in
Tamilnadu still another way. Till when Rabindranath was a boy,
Bhadra Lok women in Bengal did not put on blouses. Covering
bosoms either by dupatta or by the end of saris is the minimum one
expects of modesty on the part of women. Different parts of India
have different traditions. If Burkha is not a mandate of religion, it is
also not anti-secular. Fadela Amara, a Muslim woman of Algerian

descent, now in France, calls Burkha a coffin which kills the
fundamental rights of women. A woman going about in Burkha is
st
immediately recognized as a woken in a multi-lateral society. In 21
Century, a woman does not need a bulletproof vest or a fabric
fortress. Women, even Muslim women, are following different
vocations which are inimical to Burkha unless it is mandated by
religion.
Quran does not mandate Burkha.
“O Children of Adam, we have provided with garments to cover your bodies

as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness.
These are some of God's signs; that they may take heed.”
(7.26)
And in a later Sura (24-31), Quran says:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and
guard their modesty; they should not display their beauty and modesty…”
Quran prohibits women from attracting men by tinkling their

ornaments. Sura 33, verse 59, says:
“O Prophet, Tell
Thy wives and daughters
And believing women,
That they should cast
Their garments over
Their persons (when abroad)
That is most convenient,
That they should be known
(As such) and not molested
And God is oft-forgiving,
Most merciful.”
Yusuf Ali says that this rule was not absolute. Elsewhere mention is
made that women should not indulge in practices which would

th
attract attention. That was 7 Century when such guidance was
given. We are in the 21st Century. Even in Hadith there is not a single
instance in support of Burkhas. So we cannot take support of
obedience to religious scriptures in the case of Burkha. A ban on
burkha will not be an infringement upon religious freedom. At most,
it will be interference with tradition rightly of wrongly followed in
some countries for some time.
Some arguments in support of Burkha may be noted. The security

argument is misplaced. A woman is attracting the attraction of a
rapist if one is roaming about. A woman is treated as a sex object.
Burkha is not a fortress.
Is it convenient? It hampers your movements. Male colleagues are

often repelled by a woman who is thus secluding herself.
It is a women's choice! Yes, she makes a conscious, reasoned choice.

The choice we are talking of is the choice of compulsion of her
husband or of society. It is not a free choice. It deprives a woman of
light and air. It is unhygienic.
“Religion' argument is hypocritical. Neither Quran nor Hadith

supports such a practice. In fact, one might say that in a country the
mandate to wear Burkha interferes with her right and even religion.
No one is more knowledgeable than the Al Azar University about

Quran. It is the oldest Muslim University. From all over the world,
Muslim students flock to it. The teachers are all great Islamic
scholars. Egypt's highest Muslim authority has said that he will issue
a religious edict against the growing (?) trend for full women's veils
or the naqab. Sheikh Mohemad Tantawy, dean of the University,
called full face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with Islamic
faith. Seeing a girl in a school wearing a naqab, the Grand Imam
ordered her to remove the veil from her face. The Minister for Higher
Education has decided to ban women wearing naqab from entering
University residences.
It was not necessary to become touchy about Burkha. Already

Muslims are realizing that it has no religious mandate. Women are
st
realizing that if they have to play liberated role in society in 21
Century, they cannot afford to don Burkha. Today overwhelming
Muslim women do not observe it. It will fade away.

Talaq :Talaq: Talaq
T
alaq uttered even in one sitting acts as an irrevocable divorce.
It may be uttered in the presence of the wife; or it may be
uttered in the presence a person who knows the wife. Talaq
may be said on the telephone; may be on the computer. As soon as it is
made known to the wife, the divorce act is complete, irrevocable. The
erstwhile husband and wife are free to marry again- not each other.
In Islam, marriage is a civil contract, though it is regarded as sacred.

Islam generally, and Muslim Societies, in particular, look upon
marriage very seriously, almost in a sacrosanct manner. That is why
despite the fact that divorce, more or less easily available, is very rare
in Muslim societies. Till 1956, divorce was unavailable among the
Hindus, except the Shudras among whom it was known at least in
Maharashtra as “Kadimod”. This was available to both wives and
husbands. The word Talaq need not have been said three times-in one
sitting or three sittings.
Till the passing of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, divofce was not
legally or otherwise permissible among the caste Hindus or savarnas.
That is why it used to be said that Hindu marriage was indissoluble.
With this exception, the necessity of divorce has been recognised by
all people. Before I proceed further let me dispose of the meaning of
Talaq. It is an Arabic word meaning freeing or undoing of knot. In
legal terminology, it means khula (free) when resorted to by wife. In
case of a wife it was not available in pre-Islamic society. Before Islam a
man could divorce “at the drop of a hat”. The prophet legitimised

divorce by husbands, though as we will see presently the Prophet
frowned upon divorce.
It has been mentioned that in Islam marriage is a civil contract. There

is no religiosity in it. In other religions, it is religious, sacred. It is
made in Heaven. God has ordained it. “Till death do us apart”, the
couple are held together. With all inconveniences, tribulation, the
wife must continue to live with her unwanted husband and the
husband must continue to cohabit with the unwanted wife. In the
olden days, a bedridden wife or husband lived with her or his
spouse. Of' course the husband could take another wife or wives. The
disabled wife could not marry again, at least because she was not
single, not having been divorced.
This led to several hypocritic practices. I will give only one instance.
King Henry VIII (Tudor) married Anne Boleyn, who later became the
mother of Queen Elizabeth I. Since she was not able to “give” him a
son, Henry VIII wanted to get rid of her. He could not divorce her
because divorce was not permissible by the Church. The Pope had at
that time regarded King of England as the Defender of the Faith, a
title the Monarch carries to this date.
What did Henry VIII do? He took recourse to what lawyers call
Henry VIII rule. He executed Anne Boleyn; imprisoned Elizabeth
who was very popular among the populace. She later became the
Queen Elizabeth I who reigned a long time. She remained
unmarried. Henry VIII did not know, as we all know, that the sex of
the child is determined by the husband, not the wife (XY
chromosomes).
The church resorted to a subterfuge to avoid a divorce. It started

'annulling' a marriage on the ground that it had not taken place at all
or has been illegally done. That is how even today Catholics get rid of
their spouses. It is not necessary to get into details as to how
Americans get divorce - just fly into Las Vegas, go before a Magistrate
and get divorced probably in two minutes.

That is not so in Islam which has permitted but made it difficult. Let
us have a look at the situation in India. But before we do that, let us
note some features of marriage and divorce in Islam. It has been
already noted earlier that in Islam, marriage is a civil contract.
Secondly, before entering into marriage there is a documentary
agreement that marriage will be conducted in a particular manner
and divorce will take effect in the manner agreed upon by the parties.
In case marriage is dissolved, there is a stipulation that a certain
amount will be paid by the husband to the wife. This is Meher or
dowry. This is a pre-nupital agreement. Pre-nupital agreements are
illegal in non-Islamic countries. One does not marry to get divorce.
But Islam does it by way of Nikahnarna (Nikah means marriage and
nama means a contract).
One, somewhat strange feature of Islam is marriages ought to be

noted; see the following mandate in Quran.
Sura II, Verse 30-“so if a husband divorces his wife irrevocably he

cannot, after that, remarry her, until after she has married another
husband and he has divorced her.” (References are from the 'Quran'
edited by Yusuf Ali.)
Some commentators have regarded this as a punishment for the

woman. Thus, there are many peculiarities in Islamic marriage.
Nikahnama is the agreement before marriage. It is like betrothal before

marriage. This Nikahnama details the conditions of would - be
marriage. This document records the promise of the parties
regarding wedded life.
What does the Qurán say about pure marriage and divorce? On
divorce, the Quran is clear that tripple Talaq in the same sitting is not
permissible. “If you fear a breach between them, appoint two
arbiters. One from his famiily, and the other from her's; if they wish
for peace, God will cause their reconciliation.” (Sura IV, Verse 35).
There are several verses in Quran which show that Talaq is not
irrevocable. Talaq given in one sitting by uttering Talaq three times is

contrary to Quran because it is irrevocable. That is why in many
Islamic countries like Pakistan and Tunisia resort to Board of
Conciliation (Arbiters) is compulsory and permission of the Board is
necessary before divorce becomes effective.
In the Nikahnama now proposed by the All India Muslim Women's

Personal Law Board it is specifically and explicitly stipulated that
tripple Talaq in the same sitting is prohibited. The Board also says
that Talaq given in anger, in intoxication, on phone etc. is invalid. The
All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board Chairperson Shaista
Ambar has said that the new Nikahnama explicitly bars men from
pronouncing triple Talaq in one sitting - or in anger, intoxication, and
sleep or on phone.
Dr. Asgar Ali Engineer, an eminent Islamic scholar, has pointed out
that in many Islamic countries arbitration is compulsory. “This is
completely in line with Quranic injunctions”, says Dr. Asgar Ali
Engineer. It will also prevent oppression of Muslim women by men.
Quran tells the parties to take the route of reconciliation before Talaq
is given. Dr. Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Professor of Islamic Law in St.
Xaviers' College in Bombay has similar views. Her book, Marriage
and Divorce in Islam deals with the subject in great details. She points
out that the practice in India of triple Talaq is based upon practice or
custom and not on Quran.
“What Muslims practice in India are customary laws and Anglo

Mohmedan laws created by the British. Islam gives equal rights to the
women and men and cannot deny those rights”, says Dr. Ali. Before
1937, Muslims in Kutch practiced Hindu Law of succession. Is all this
in accordance with Quran? Quran is ultimately the source of all
Muslim law. Ms. Ali says, “There should be a debate within the
Muslim community on whether they want laws based on Quran or
laws created on the basis of certain customs and rituals.”
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is entirely a men's affair.
All its 30 members are men, self appointed. They pretend to
represent the entire Muslim community. The Board includes

followers of Bohra Guru, who is regarded by some at least as a tyrant.
This Board has rejected the new Nikahnama proposed by the Women's
Personal Law Board. The Board has rubbished the new Nikahnama as
'publicity stunt', 'irrelevant', and 'impractical', though it agrees that
the triple Talaq in one sitting is contrary to the injunctions of Quran.
Who is to decide whether the divorce on the basis of the triple Talaq is
the correct Muslim law? Obviously the Civil Courts under Section 9
of Code of Civil Procedure. Under the said section all and every civil
question including the status of an individual -whether in marriage
or divorce has to he decided. During the two hundred years of British
rule, all civil questions were decided by the Courts, Federal Court
and Privy Council.
All civil suits inter-se the Muslims were and are to he decided by the
Civil Courts under the Civil Procedure Code. The law administered
is Muslim law unless superseded by the law enacted by the
Parliament. A parallel judiciary cannot be set up by any community;
it will be illegal. Supreme Court of India is about to decide this
question.
“The triple Talaq is banned under the Shias and the Ahle Haidars but
it is practiced among the Hanifas,” says Maulana Athar Ali, a senior
member of the men's Board. Dr. Asgar Ali Engineer says, “I have seen
the Nikalinamas of several Muslim countries including Pakistan.
They all disallow triple Talaq and prefer arbitration as mandated by
Quran. It is high time the Supreme Court of India decided this
question of law which has strangely remained undecided so far.”

Minority Rights: Political Aspect
T
his Seminar is being held just a year after the Godhra
massacre of 27th February, 2002 and the communal riots that
followed in Gujarat in March, 2002. The working paper that
is circulated makes large-scale references to Gujarat riots and the
recent activities of what can be called Sangh Pariwar. The paper, not
without justification, reflects the anxiety of the Muslims about the
present and their future. This Seminar is being held in the year 2003,
yet I wish to take you to the years 1947 to 1950 the years of the
Constituent Assembly debates. Most of you may not have been born
that time. Even for those who like me, who were old enough to
understand the happenings of those days, it is advantageous to
recollect broadly the events of those days and how our Constitution-
makers responded to them.
India gained independence in August, 1947 and Pakistan was also

born simultaneously the same day. This dawn of freedom for both
countries was accompanied by blood bath on an unprecedented
scale. Migrations of populations in both directions - from Pakistan to
India and vice versa took place. Those non-Muslims coming from
Pakistan brought accounts of murders, rape and kidnappings which
inflamed, not unnaturally, the feelings of hatred among the Hindus
for the Muslims. The reverse phenomenon must have taken place in
Pakistan. Adding to the hatred for Muslims were two important
factors - one the Muslims got their Pakistan without fighting for it
against the British whereas the nationalists of India had waged a
freedom struggle for over two decades. Second, despite the fact that a

State for Muslims for the sub-continent had been established, a large
number of Muslims continued to stay in India.
In this atmosphere of hatred and unsettled conditions, if our

Constitution-makers had totally ignored the questions concerning
the 'leftover' Muslims, it would not have been unnatural. It must be
said to the credit of the Constituent Assembly members that they felt
that they owed a duty to the Muslims who, instead of going to
Pakistan, threw their lot with the rest of India when they chose to do
so. Not very charitable persons might have said these Muslims made
virtue of necessity. Forget the motive - whether for love for India or
for any other reasons - these Muslims elected to continue to stay in
India. In addition, Jammu and Kashmir also acceded to India. In all
earnestness the Constituent Assembly addressed itself to the
problems of minorities. An Advisory Committee on Minorities was
appointed and on this Committee were representatives of all
minorities - Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Anglo-Indians. It is not
necessary to follow the deliberations of this Committee. Suffice it to
say, the views of the minority communities were fully ascertained
and examined. While going through the debates of the Constituent
Assembly I was impressed by the sincerity and concern which was
shown by the majority community members for the interests of the
minorities. At random I will give one example. Speaking in the
debate on 27th August, 1947 and responding to a suggestion made by
Chaudhari Khaliquzzaman (U.P. Muslim) for separate electorate for
Muslims “in the light of changed circumstances”, Govind Ballabh
Pant (U.P. General) said:
“I may assure him and those associated with him that I am trying to
look at the question exclusively from the point of minorities. I am one
of those who feel that the success of democracy is to be measured by
the amount of confidence it generates in different sections of the
community.
I am also believer that the majority community should, while

considering these questions, not only try to do justice, but
throughout it should be informed and inspired by genuine feelings of

regard for the minorities and all its decisions should be actuated by a
real sense of understanding and sympathy.”
(CAD Vol 5, p. 222)
We should also not forget that while debating the provisions which
ultimately went into Part III of the Constitution - Fundamental Rights
- the members of the Constituent Assembly were fully aware of
giving certain additional facilities to the minorities. Right to Freedom
of Religion (Article 25) is available to all including the minorities.
Under Article 26 of the Constitution every religious denomination
has a right to establish religious and charitable institutions and
maintain the same. While these two Articles protect the rights of all
communities, one particular Article, namely, Article 30, makes
special provisions for minorities as follows:
“All minorities whether based on religion or language, shall have the

right to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice.”
The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,

discriminate against a minority institution. The importance of this
provision which is heavily loaded in favour of minorities in India has
not been properly appreciated by the minorities.
Besides, there are laws which make outraging religious feelings an

offence. Indian religions are allowed to maintain communications
with co-religionists abroad. Financial contributions from abroad are
not banned but are subjected to scrutiny by the Ministry of Home
Affairs of the Central Government. There have not been complaints
that any legitimate contribution has been prevented.
Few countries in the world are without minorities within their

territories and none is entirely free of conflict involving them. But
probably the Republic of India is the only State in the world which
has, in its laws and Constitution, made specific provision of non-
discrimination and of positive protection in respect of minorities.
The various international declaration and covenants have failed to

define, or avoided defining minorities. The Tithes which are
recognized and which are sought to be protected are not minority
rights but Tithes of the minorities. This was partly because of the
displacement of large groups of people in drawing the maps of
European countries both in the inter-war period and after the Second
World War. In Europe, minorities' questions arose because of the
peculiar way minorities came into existence. Sometimes a minority
may have constituted an independent nation within the present.
Because of this and similar situations, it was said that in order to
qualify for protection, a minority must owe undivided allegiance to
the Government of the State in which it lives. It should also be noted
that in Europe minorities were of language or race and not of religion.
Such is not the problem in India. The minorities in India are not
immigrants; they are the sons of the soil. They are not the result of
redrawing the boundaries of States. The communities, which are
minorities today, would have been minorities even in Akhand Bharat.
Moreover, every Muslim in India today is hundred per cent Indian in
every sense. In his Bharatiya Musalman Shodh Aani Bodh - Indian
Muslims: Inquiry and Understanding, Setumadhaavrao Pagdi, the
historian par excellence of Maharashtra, has canvassed a view which
ought to be understood by both Hindus and Muslims. In the first
place, it is said that the British took India from the Muslim rulers. This
is historically not true. By the time the British started occupying
India; Muslim rule had been wound up. India was wrested by the
British from Marathas and Sikhs. Therefore the Muslims should not
look upon the past with nostalgia. Secondly, Muslims never had any
effective share in power in the Kingdoms that dotted the Indian
continent. All the kingdoms in India were of foreigners with the
exception of two. In the Muslim Kingdoms, large and small, the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army was always a foreigner - never an
Indian Muslim. The two exceptions were Umedshahi of Bidar and
Nizamshahi of Ahmednagar which were founded by two Brahmins
who had converted to Islam. Setumadhavrao Pagdi has criticized the
conception prevalent in some circles that the present day Muslims

are Babarki Aulad. These are Indian Muslims: there is no Moslem
India as there is no Hindu India.
The politics of Muslims in India has to be worked in the context of this

basic political, social and sociological fact. The problem of minorities
in India is different from the problem of minorities, say, in Britain
where the members of the minority communities are mostly
immigrants whom Lord Denning called invaders (The Due Process of
Law (1980), Butterwortlh p.155). The Indian minority problem is also
different from the Tamilians' problem in Sri Lanka where the
problem burst out with the denial of equality to Tamilians by the 1972
Constitution.
We are considering the problem of religious minorities though there

are ethnic and linguistic minorities. In this context it is useful to note
the religious component of India's population. In 1961, Hindus
(excluding Buddhists and Sikhs) constituted 83.5% of the population;
by 1991, there was a marginal decline in the figure to 82.0%. The
Muslims constituted 10.7% in 1961; in 1991, they constituted 12.1%.
These are so minor variations that they could be due to statistical
errors or human errors on the part of the enumerators. Sikhs who
form a visible community constituted 1.8% in 1961 and 1.9% in 1991.
Christians' population as a percentage of the total population
actually decreased from 2.4% in 1961 to 2.3% in 1991. The population
of Buddhists has remained constant at 0.7%.
The problem of minorities especially in the form of Hindu-Muslim

conflict has become acute since the early 1980s. In 1984 Vishwa
Hindu Parishad was founded and soon thereafter, the
Ramjanmabhoomi movement was started. The foundation of this
movement ws the belief that what is known as Babri Masjid in
Ayodhya was built at a place where existed a Ram Temple which was
demolished during the reign of Babar and in its place the Masjid was
erected. L K Advani during the campaign days that led to the
demolition of Babri Masjid mentioned mentioned that, 'that there
was a Ram Temple at that place' was a matter of faith and this faith
could not be a matter of discussion or debate. He compared this faith

with the Christians' belief in the Immaculate Conception and the
Muslims' belief in the Quran as a divine revelation. I will not consider
the question whether the Ramjanmabhoomi is in fact a matter of faith
for Hindus. In a society governed by the rule of law, a matter of faith,
however well-placed, cannot be allowed to destroy the rights and
properties of other citizens. India became independent in 1947 and
Constitution was also adopted in 1950. How is it relevant whether a
temple existed at the disputed site 500 years ago? This is a
preliminary issue which has to be answered in the litigation that is
going on. Moreover, in 1991 the Parliament has passed The Places of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, which has frozen the question of
location of places of worship. Excavation of history is not permissible
in the country committed to rule of law.
I will not attempt an analysis in detail of the concept of Hindutva. If it

is an attempt at homogenization of different sects and cults within
Hindu Dharma, one may not object to it. Nor can one legitimately
object to the thesis that Hindutva is the principle that seeks to cultivate
unity among the Hindus and pride in their great traditions. It is a
sense of belonging. If you cannot object to Jewishness, you cannot
take exception to Hindutva.
Adherence to one's religion is not communalism. Religiosity per se is

not communalism. Even for a non-believer like me, attachment to
ritualism, superstition, obscurantism, occult practices, astrology - all
these do not constitute communalism. In fact, communalism in the
sense of feeling to a community for the purpose of enriching that
community is not undesirable. There are scores of communal bodies
engaged in the spread of education and culture which are doing
social and national service.
However, in India, communalism having acquired political

connotation has become a dangerous phenomenon. Communalism
has come to mean using one religious community against the
members of another religious community, and this has resulted in the
great divide in India. The perversion of the ostensible moral order of
a religion to temporal political purposes is causing problems.

Communalism is the negation of nationalism which is an
aggregation of multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual
communities. Communalism, whether of majority or of minority
deserves condemnation. Nehru once said: “There could be no
compromise on the issue of communalism, Hindu communalism or
Muslim. Communalism, as it is a challenge to Indian nationhood and
Indian nationalism.” (Quoted by Professor Rashiduddin Khan in his
contribution to Religion and Politics Today, published by Rajiv Gandhi
Institute for Contemporary Studies).
I am dwelling on this because we must know the paradigm in which

we have to work. In this connection I wish to recall that originally
Shiv Sena was born as an anti-South Indian organization - Madrasis -
as all the Bombaywalas call all South Indians. In fact, Shiv Sena was
abusing South Indians and blaming them for the unemployment of
Maharashtrians in Mumbai. The first major rioting that was indulged
in by Shiv Sena in Mumbai was over the South-Indian issue. That was
way back when Vasantrao Naik was the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra and Modak, a Christian, was the Commissioner of
Police of Bombay. Somewhere along the way the South-Indian issue
fell by roadside. Hindutva became the programme of Shiv Sena. Even
after this, Muslim leaders, film stars, continue to pay courtesy visits
to Bal Thackeray.
There are minorities other than religious minorities - Marathi

speaking minority in North Karnataka, especially in Belgaum
District. There are Tamilians in the erstwhile Mysore State. There
have been riots between Kannadigas and Maharashtrians; there have
been riots between Tamilians and Kannadigas. Mercifully they have
not been very fierce; they are not, happily, repetitive.
Then there are minorities within minorities. On a recent visit to

Lucknow I was grimly reminded of this. Shias there are not allowed
to take out Tazia procession because of the threat of Shia-Sunni riots.
Fortunately, Shia-Sunni riots do not take place in India unlike in
Pakistan where Shias face the prospect of being dubbed as non-
Muslim minority, though the father of Pakistan was a Shia.

The Babri Masjid demolition has the most devastating effect upon the
fabric of the rule of law and the regime of fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution. I do not shed tears over the destruction
of a place of worship - to whatever religion it may belong. But it
causes me intimate anguish to see the destruction of secular structure
of India.
What are the possible solutions - short-term and long-term? In

“Indian Muslims - The Need for A Positive Outlook”, written in the
wake of Babri Masjid demolition but long before the Gujarat riots,
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan advocates a compromise formula - that
Muslims should forget Babri Masjid and Hindus should give an
assurance that Mosques in Mathura and Varanasi will be spared. I am
not trying to be more royal than the King - more Islamic than the
Muslims - when I ask the question who are the Muslims to forget and
who are the Hindus who should give the assurance?
It is recognized that Babri Masjid was built as an act of piety but as a

symbol of emergent Mughal power. The motives in construction
were political rather than religious. Till the advent of British rule, the
Mosque enjoyed political protection. During the British regime it was
protected by the rule of law - which rule of law has been incorporated
in the Constitution of India. In The Wonder That Was India - Part II
(Rupa & Co.) Prof S.A.A. Rizvi has given details of the hundreds of
temples that were razed to the ground and of the mosques which
were constructed on the sites of those temples. He has also
mentioned that the materials of the demolished temples were
utilized in the construction of several mosques. Is it not worth the
Muslims' while to renounce this part of Islamic legacy in India?
This apart, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has expressed several

valuable thoughts and made precious suggestions in the book I have
referred to. I am not comfortable with several things mentioned in the
book but they need serious consideration at this conference.
Late Prof. Rashiduddin Khan, whom I regard as a very perspicacious

analyst of Indian situation and in particular of the phenomenon of

religious communalism and fundamentalism, has advocated
national integration as the long-term solution of divisive politics in
India. Integration is a movement away from a taditionaiist allegiance
towards modernist, rational allegiance. While advocating such a
course, Prof. Rashiduddin Khan has noted three important factors
1. Need for integration arises, not in a homogenous society, but in a

heterogeneous.
2. The necessity of national integration is accentuated by the

existence of real or imaginary fear of disintegration due to the
presence of mutually hostile and conflicting segments of population.
3. Need for integration becomes all the more urgent in plural societies
which are democratic and which have in-built propensity for
permitting, if not also promoting, dissent.
I am continuing to recall some more observations of Prof.

Rashiduddin Khan. Integration is not a process of conversion of
diversities into uniformity, but a congruence of diversities leading to
a unity. in which both varieties and similarities are maintained. All
diversities are not divine in origin and should not be regarded so in
operation. The cause of integration is not impaired by being
conscious of one's individuality. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, whom
Jinnah called the playboy of the Congress, expressed his testament of
his faith in the following words in 1940 (when the demand for
Pakistan was gaining ground):
“I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have

inherited Islam's glorious traditions of the last thirteen hundred
years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. I am
equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the
indivisible unity of Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total
makeup without which this noble edifice will not remain intact. I can
never give up this claim.”
But the cause of national integration is not helped by taking a

separatist stand on secular issues. The opposition to family planning
and to an optional law of adoption is one instance. Regarding the

alleged neglect of development of Urdu as discrimination against
Muslims is wholly unjustifiable. Majority Muslims do not have Urdu
their mother tongue. Last week I read in the papers that a Muslim
witness in Tamil Nadu Court refused to take oath in the name of God
as required under the Oath Act and said that he would take oath only
in the name of 'Allah'. Boycotting of Republic Day celebrations and
threatening to establish a separate judiciary are not acts which are
conducive to national integration.
Recently there was a highly provocative move on the part of Muslims

of Pratapgad (District Satara, Maharashtra) to celebrate the Urs of
Afzal Khan. Afzal Khan is a hated name in Maharashtra. He was a
mere soldier who had been sent by Adil Shah of Bijapur to capture
Shivaji who, however, managed to kill him. Do the Muslims adore a
Soldier? Do the Muslims celebrate the Urs of any King?
In the aftermath of Babri Masjid demolition, meetings were held on

the minority rights and problems. In due course things were
forgotten. Now a serious jolt has been given by Gujarat riots. We are
holding meetings and conferences. Is this adequate! I am not a
politician and I am not qualified to prescribe political solutions. I
must, however, caution against the demand for separate electorates
or reservation of seats for minorities. I condemn the suggestion that
the safety of minorities depends upon the goodwill of the majority. It
is a vicious doctrine. Apart from this, the post-Babri Masjid
demolition elections demonstrated that the majority - overwhelming
majority - of the Hindus rejected the BJP in the four States in the
Hindu belt. There is only a minority in the majority community
which can be said to be communal. I can say this despite the Gujarat
riots and the results of the elections in Gujarat. The failure of the
secular parties to come together in Gujarat was a significant factor in
the success of BJP. In about 18 months the General Elections are due
for the Parliament. The secular parties must make a clear choice. Will
they come together or fall apart on the question of who should
become the Prime Minister? One practical suggestion can be made.
Right from now those interested in the secular character of the

country should start working for a united platform of non-
communal parties. Minority Rights Group consisting of activists
from different communities can be set up not only to facilitate the
unification of non-communal parties for the coming election but also
to keep a watch on the developments that may give rise to conflicts.
The minorities' problem is not the problem of the minorities alone.
There are enough sane elements in our country and in the majority
community who want to address themselves to this problem.
It is incorrect to say, as some say, that there is a systematic

appeasement of Muslims. It is equally incorrect to say that there is a
systematic persecution of Muslims. The richest Indian is a Muslim.
The top film stars in India are Khans so much so that Indian film
industry can be called Khandesh. The way the Muslims, especially in
Mumbai, have bounced back after the 1993 riots shows that there is
not in Indian polity any built-in bias against the minorities. However
do not be-little
· Godhra Attack
· Atack on the Parliament
· Attack on the J.K. Assembly
· Raghunath temple
· Attack on Akshardham
Before I sit down I wish to say something about some points

mentioned in the note circulated. It has been mentioned that
Hindutuavadis talk of Manuvad. I have not beard of such talk. Let me
tell you, Manuvad had been buried hundred fathoms deep and no
power in India, in the world or in the heavens, can bring it to life.
It has been mentioned that the Constitution Review Commission was

set up with a “clandestine agenda to import Manu's laws back into
Indian mainstream”. This is an astounding statement. The author of
this note does not know what Manu's laws were. The composition of
the Commission headed by a former Chief Justice of India should
have removed any misgivings in this regard. Such a statement was
not necessary at this time.

Moreover, even Lal Krishna Advani has realized that India could not
have been and cannot be a Hindu Rashtra. He has so stated on the
floor of the Lok Sabha - this is something which is always clear to any
student of Indian Constitution. The basic structure of the
Constitution, which cannot be changed, includes the non-theocratic,
democratic character of the Indian polity.

Uniform Civil Code: An Anti View
F
rom time to time, the debate on Uniform Civil Code erupts.
By 'Civil' here is meant mainly personal laws or family laws
like marriage, divorce, succession, minority and
guardianship. Even academics and judges have not remained aloof
from the debate. Even if the point has not arisen from the facts before
it, the Supreme Court has ventured to pass remarks on the subject.
Sometime it is mentioned that uniform Civil Code will help national
integration. Before touching the pros and cons of the subject, it is
necessary to point out that no one has prepared a draft of the
intended Code. The one prepared by the Indian Secular Society is
nothing but a repetition of Hindu laws.
This apart, most people, including those who oppose the Uniform
Code, have not read the relevant provisions. Hindus, including the
politicians and the legislators, have not read Article 44 of the
Constitution, which speaks of Uniform Civil Code. The Constitution
being a legal document must be interpreted properly. Every word in
the relevant Article must be read, interpreted and understood. The
relevant Article in the Constitution reads as follows:-
“Article 44: Uniform Civil Code for the citizens.
The State shall endeavour to secure the citizens a uniform civil code
throughout the territory of India.”
No properly constituted debate anywhere outside the Constituent

Assembly has taken place and that was 50 years ago. There was a long
debate in the Assembly on the question and after hearings all the

parties agreed that the provision should be inserted in the part
dealing with the Directive Principles of State Policy and not the
Fundamental Rights.
As it is by this time well known that the part dealing with the
Directive Principles, unlike the part dealing with Fundamental
Rights, cannot be enforced in a Court of law and as the name itself
suggests, the principles are directive. So the State should, as far as
possible, try to implement the same. The Courts also must be guided
by them. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Pannalal Bansilal v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, uniform law for all persons may be desirable.
But its enactment, in one go, may be counter-productive to the unity
of the country.
India is a liberal and free country. No uniformity can be imposed.

Laws are territorial, not necessarily community-wise. Even
territorial laws are not always uniform. The evolution of laws, the
background of the communities must be taken into consideration.
Equality clause in the Constitution is not available here. Equality tells
you to treat similarly situated persons similarly; not to treat
dissimilarly situated persons similarly.
Once it is recognised that the Supreme Court or any Court, cannot

legislate, uniformity cannot be imposed. Unless the point arises
directly or indirectly before it, no Court should decide that point. It is
a well-recognised principle that no Court should adjudicate or
express its opinion on a point not arising before it. In that sense the
obiter of Justice Kuldeep Singh in Sarda Mudal v. Union of India must
he held to be irrelevant. The ruling that a Hindu cannot become
Muslim only for the purpose of taking a second wife was correctly
given, from the viewpoint of law as well as equity and good
conscience. Similar observation in other cases must also be held to be
irrelevant. Where the point has directly arisen, the Supreme Court
has refused to implement the Uniform Civil Code. See, for example,
commentary by P.M. Bakshi on the Constitution of India. Please also
see:

(A) Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 573;
(b) Pannalal Bansilal v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 S.C.W. 507;
(c) Maharshi Avadesh v. Union of India, (1994) 1 Supp. SCC 713;
(d) Raymond Rajmani v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1261.
It can be safely said that though the Supreme Court on occasions has
piously expressed the hope that there should be Uniform Civil Code,
it has consistently refused to issue any writ to the State.
It is submitted that in The State of Bombay v. Narsu Appa Mali (AIR 1932
Born., 84), it was correctly held that it was not the function of the
Court to legislate. The demand was for the extension of Bombay
Prohibition of Bigamy Act to Muslims. The Court held that the
subject being one of reform, the State could, if it so liked, decide one
section of the society for the reform. The purpose of law in plural
societies is not the progressive association of minorities in the
majoritarian milieu. As Lord Scarman has said
“...the purpose of law must not be to extinguish the groups which

make the society but to device political, social and legal means of
preventing them from falling apart and destroying the plural society
of which they are members.”
As the retired Chief Justice of India, Mr. Venkatachaliah, in a lecture

in Delhi said, the function of law and the choice of legal policies in
pluralistic societies are by far the most fascinating challenges to our
civilization. Proceeding further he said that the challenges are
staggering by their sheer scale and veracity. Moreover, the challenges
are pervasive and assist the basic assumptions of justice, democracy,
rule of Law, morality, political authority, systems of Government, the
role of judiciary, etc. There is one common thread running through
our society and the Constitution and that is the thread of pluralism.
For thousands of years, we have more or less peacefully lived
together. Unlike in the Balkans we have never attempted genocides.
The ultimate question is, as a humanist would put it, whether

civilizations on earth have the moral maturity to accept the human
person as the unit and measure of all things. To return to Lord

Scarman, it may be noted that he said:
It is a platitude that a society must be just. But what in the Context of

plural society do we mean by justice? Are we seeking justice between
groups?”
Lord Scamian reminds of the inscription over the portico of the U.S.
Supreme Court building. It says that “We clearly desire both; justice
as between the groups and equal justice for every one of us.”
Ambedkar's effort to get a law of the Hindu got a stiff opposition that
Nehru had ultimately to drop it. In that atmosphere, it was foolhardy
to expect and pass a Code for Muslims. Nehru had adapted a good
strategy. After laying the example of Hindu, probably he thought of
going after the Muslims. Having sat through the Constituent debates
knowing Muslims well, he knew it was a Herculean task.
Before going into the Constituent Assembly debates, it will be

advisable to see the Muslims and the British administering the laws.
The Muslims administered the Shariat law; the Hindus were
administered their law. When both the parties were before them, the
law was administered according to judgment, equity and good sense.
When the British came into power they broadly classified law into
two parts - those which affected the community member only, i.e. we
call personal or family law. Then the laws, which the different law
into contact with one another, theft, assaults, etc. would be judged
only by one law. How many witnesses were necessary to prove a fact?
Under Islam law, four women were necessary to a contractual fact. In
India, a wrtten contract was not necessary. In a given circumstance,
the evidence of a prosecution alone is sufficient to prove rape. In
Islam, at least six witnesses were necessary to prove adultery. This is
in consonance with Ayesha affair. In such a situation it would be
difficult to prove anything. The British made the following laws
applicable to all communities:
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Criminal Procedure Code

3. Indian Evidence Act
Many of the provisions of these laws were inconsistent with Shariat,

Nobody protested. Setu Madhavrao Pagdi has given the example of
Maulavis objecting Ayed Mohammed wearing trouser because
according to them it was un-Islamic. How would you bring in
uniformity? These questions cannot be easily decided.
After Godhra incident, riots took place on a large scale in

Ahmedabad and in Gujarat. Two Honourable Judges are engaged in
finding out the truth. The Gujarat riots took place in the first half of
2002. We are now in the year 2007. The hope that truth will be about
soon is dwindling. Anyway, I would like to think that what happened
is an aberration both in Godhra and Gujarat. In the long run the
plurality of India will hold. The Ages old pluralism of the country
will not and should not be broken. When Amartya Kumar Sen wrote
Argumentative India it was basically to show that Indians differ and go
on arguing. At no time in the history of India a Hindu King has gone
to war on the ground that he was a Hindu. The Hindus fought for
land or for women - never for Dharma. In fact no Muslims fought for
Dharma but for territory.
Now, if you turn to the Constituent Assembly and its Committee

deliberations, you will find there inter se opposition to Uniform Civil
Code. One thing you must remember - Muslims believe, rightly or
wrongly, that Quran is given to them through Paigambar. What is
given by God cannot he changed by man. Muslims do not stop to
consider whether what is given is good. Under Muslim law there are
only 5 compulsory things:
1. Acknowledgment that Allah is the God and Mohammad is his

messenger
2. At least one pilgrimage to Mecca
3. Five times Namaz per day
4. Fasting during Ramadan
5. Zakat
These are must. They are compulsory. It is better to keep away from

the number of people who actually perform the five functions.
Others are permissive. Quran says, under certain circumstances you

can have four wives. Having more than one wife is so expensive, so
that few, if at all, people attempt it. Even today when bigamy is
prohibited among the Hindus, more Hindus have second or third
wives (especially in Rajasthan). Prior to 1956, a Hindu could have any
number of wives. Bhupendm Singh of Patiala had more than 300
wives. The Kuhn system in Bengal allowed a man to marry 30 wives,
without seeing. Shivaji had elcven wives. It has been estimated that to
equal Hindus, Muslims will need no less than 365 years.
Now these things are of the past. If Muslims are convinced that
marrying four wives is only a permission and not injunction, they
themselves may give it up. In Pakistan if you have to take divorce,
you have to go before a board of conciliation in the spirit of Islam. See
Sura 4; poem 3:
If you think that you shall not

Be able to deal justly,
With the orphans,
Marry women of your choice,
Two or three or four.
This is not a command and Parliament can, with the consent of

Muslims, easily bring about monogamy.
There has been no unanimity among the Sunnis and Shias on

nikahnama and talaq. The All-India Shia Muslim Personal Law Board
has raiscd another voice. Let us take the case of triple talaq - talaq given
three times in one sitting. The All - India Shia Muslim Personal Law
Board has approved it, though specifically they have said it is
contrary to Quran. Yusuf Ali has pointed out that Talaq is the most
heinous act among the Muslims. Quran says (Sura 3 to 5):
If you fear that you shall not

Be able to deal justly with the orphans
Marry women of your choice.
Two or three or four.

But if you fear that you shall not
Be able to deal justly with them
Then one only as a captive
That your right hands possess
That will be more suitable
To prevent you
From doing injustice.
The Quran specifically says that he must go to a senior. Talaq may he

unjustified and may be revoked. This means talaq is revocable. Allah
knows better. If triple talaq is given in one sitting, it becomes
irrevocable and one must regard it as an insult to Allah. That is why
Mohammedans regard talaq as a very offensive act. This is a
permissible action where Legislature can step in and bring about
uniformity. Iqbal, as long as in 1928, has stressed the importance of
evolution even in Islamic law and recommended jihad. Zakaria had
emphatically asked as to why Muslims are not following it. Muslims
may be different but should not he separate.
It will be worthwhile to make a brief reference to Constituent

Assembly debates. Granville Austin is categorical that the
Constitutions' spirit came from third of three sources which were
based upon the documents of the Congress itself. Nehru moved the
objective resolution, paragraphs 4 and 5 of which are as follows:
(4) Wherein shall be guaranteed and secured to all the people of India
justice, social, economic and political; which were based on status, of
opportunity, and before the law freedom of thought, expression,
belief, faith, worships, vocation, association, and action, subject to
law and public morality;
(5)Wherein adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities,

backward and tribal areas, depressed and other areas.[Constituent
Assembly Debates(C.A.D.),Vo1, p.9].
Pluralism is writ large in the Objective Resolution. Remember, this

was despite the fact that both countries were surcharged with
communalism and violence. There was the Advisory Committee and

the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights. An overwhelming
majority of people, including Hindus, agreed with separate Code for
Muslims, The members of the Minority Sub-Committee reiterated
that all personal laws of India should not be interfered with.
Mohamed Ismail Sahib pointed out that for creating and augmenting
harmony in the land, it is not necessary to compel people to give up
their personal laws. A warning came from Maulana Hazarat Mahani
(U.P.):
“I say from the floor of this House, that they will come to grief.
Mussalmans will not submit to any interference in their personal law,
and if anybody has got 'ie courage to say so, then I declare ...“(C.A.D.
Vol VII, p.780).
He continued to say that Mussalmans will never ubmit to any

interference in their personal laws and they will have to face an iron
wall of Muslim determination to oppose them in every way (C.A.D.
Vol. VII, p.780). This is the national integration talked of by the
Supreme Court. Speaking of the present Article 44, Dr. Ambedkar
said that there was no obligation upon the State to do away with the
personal laws.
Language of any person can be changed without harming him. A

person like the author speaks different languages in the house. My
brother's daughter-in-law is a Bengali while son-in-law is a Saxena,
speaking Hindi. All these have not disturbed our relation. India has
not yet found a national language. Many - most - people think that
Hindi is the national language - it is not. It is the official language of
the Centre. South Indian States (barring Kerala) will never allow
Hindi to become a national language. Language cannot bring about
India's unity and integrity - Let the wise Supreme Court Judges
remember this.
It is better to know the nature and source of Muslim Law. Quran is

dictated by God through Gabriel to Mohammad. That is their faith.
All Muslims believe so. Muslim Law subject to Hadith, as contained
in Quran cannot be altered by human beings. The Legislature of any

country cannot change it. It can by way of evolution, as Iqbal says,
take it forward. This is a major impediment in the way of Personal
Law of Muslims conforming to any other law. For many centuries
converted Muslims spoke their original language. It is only recently
that Muslims have identified with Urdu.
When announced in Bangla Desh, it was heard that Jinnah said that
Bengalis are proud of their language. Rabindranath's poems were
broadcast over the radios every day in Bangla Desh. Urdu could
become the language of Punjabis only. Baloochis spoke Baloochi:
Sindhis spoke Sindhi; Pakhtoon spoke Pustu. Yet there was national
integrity.
Proud Hindus should not forget that the Hindu Kings fought on the
issue of Hindu territory. Mussalmans, when they originally came,
came not for converting people but for grabbing a piece of territory.
There had been no Hindu-Muslim wars as such in India. No doubt,
Akbar married Jodhabai, but not as a result of war. There is so much
currency and cross currency in Hindustan, it is difficult to see who
fought whom.
Though India was not a strictly liberal State to begin with, after the
advent of the British, because of English education, Indians became
liberal. During their 700 years of rule, Muslims left hardly any impact
on the life and literature of Hindus. Hindus being influenced by the
British, though in only half-hearted measures, were ready to learn
liberal ideas. In Islam, nothing was of the kind.
Apart from all this, Mr. Venkatachalaya points out the different kinds
of marriages in Hindus. In the South the preferred form of marriage
of a man is with his sister's daughter. Rig-Veda has sanctioned the
marriage of a man to his mama's daughter. The most unusual
marriage in Punjab is between a brother and his brother's widow.
Uniformity in these conditions meant chaos.
The upshot of the discussion is that as there are so many varieties it is

difficult to reconcile them. In fact the richness of practices gives
multi-dimensional colour to the society which one would not like to

get rid of.
Let there first be uniformity among the Muslims - talaq, polygamy,

etc. So slowly let there be uniformity in Muslim law - so also in Hindu
Law. Cosmopolitanism will dawn in the country in due course.

Article 370
T
his Article in the Constitution of India deals with certain
special features of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (J & K).
There are certain Constitutional obligations on the President
of India. These obligations and compulsions do not detract from the
fact that State of J & K is an integral part of India. The First Schedule of
the Constitution of India says that J & K is a part of the territory of
India. However, it is provided that any amendment affecting the
boundaries or area of the State of J & K cannot be made except on the
resolution of the Government of that State. Moreover, the very
Preamble to the Constitution of J & K says the people of the State have
resolved 'to further define the existing relationships of the State to
Union of India as an integral part thereof.. .“ Further, Section 3 of J &
K Constitution avers that “The State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall
be an integral part of the Union of India”. It is thus clear that
constitutionally and legally J & K is an integral and inseparable part
of India. This is so despite the fact of certain developments that have
taken place in that State. Incidentally, J & K includes that part of the
State illegally occupied by Pakistan. Why is it that, that State is
having a separate Constitution? Reasons will be given shortly.
The demand of BJP and other like-minded groups for the abrogation
of Article 370 stems from overlooking or ignoring the circumstances
or compulsions under which it was inserted. It was introduced in the
Constitution of India after mature consideration of all facts and
circumstances prevailing at the time of accession of that State and at

that time the Constitution of India was framed. Those who demand
the abolition of Article 370 have never tried to remember those facts
and circumstances and also they do not seem to have read Article 370
properly.
Article 370 assured the State all benefits of independent Kashmir

without sacrificing the advantages of being an integral part of India.
This was the basis on which the State acceded to India. This was the
basis also on which Constitution-makers accepted that accession. It
is, at this stage, not necessary to go back into the history of the
accession in details.
Briefly stated, J & K State originally did not want to accede to India or
Pakistan. It had entered into a standstill agreement with Pakistan. A
similar agreement was to be arrived at with India but, before that
happened, Pakistan-sponsored tribal forces raided Kashmir
plundering, looting and even raping. The Maharaja of J & K wanted
to accede to India but India said it would not defend the State unless it
became part of India. Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession
and mostly protected Kashmir.
The Instrument of Accession is generally on the same lines on which

several other States had acceded to India. Accession placed on India
the duty to govern the State in the matters of defense, external affairs
and communication. The accession was not in respect of other
subjects. It is true that other States signed the instruments of
accession in respect of above-mentioned three matters, but later
practically on all matters with India. Not so J & K. Hence, the special
provisions.
Though in the marginal note of Article 370 it is described as

Temporary Provisions, it is, in effect, a Special Provision. It is
described as a Temporary Provision, but if one looks and examines
the provisions of Article 370, one can easily see that it governs the
State permanently. It must be noted that in the Constitution of India,
special provisions have been made in respect of Sikkim, Nagaland,
Mizoram, etc. Therefore, one should not raise one's eyebrows if

special provisions are made for a State which has acceded.
Confusion regarding the States of J & K has arisen because of several

reasons. One is the language of the marginal note. Secondly, it is often
asked why one State should be given a special status. This objection is
easily met by the fact of the State acceding to India in a peculiar
manner. Thirdly, those demanding abrogation of Article 370,
including politicians, have not carefully read the provisions of
Article 370. In this writer's opinion, that Article cannot be abrogated.
Reasons for this opinion will be given shortly.
The Instrument of Accession itself mentions the conditions subject to

which accession has been made. It reserved for the then ruler the
right to legislate over matters not expressly entrusted to the Union of
India. It further stipulated that the terms of the Instrument by any
amendment of the Government of India Act, 1955 (which was then in
force) or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, would not apply unless
such an amendment was effected by the then Ruler by a
supplementary Instrument. By a provision contained in Article 370,
the President of India has passed several orders extending the
jurisdiction of Union of India to the State of J & K. (I have relied upon
The Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir by Justice A.S. Anand for the
documents relevant on the subject).
An examination of Article 370 is in order. I have already mentioned

that marginal note of the Article has created confusion. Normally the
marginal note does not control the meaning of the main provision.
But the Supreme Court has held that in the Constitution it is good as a
provision. However, when one sees the language of Article 370, one
can easily see that the marginal note in the instant case is subordinate
to the Article. There is nothing temporary about the Article.
One need not be jealous about J & K having a special status. Junagarh,
Hindu population, Muslim ruler, acceded to India. Hyderabad, a
Muslim ruler and Hindu population acceded to India after a police
action by India to subdue the Razakars and to protect the passengers
of the trains passing through the State. India stuck to its position of

secularism and in order to retain that reputation encouraged
Kashmir, with large Muslim population, to accede to India.
Fortunately, Shcikh Abdullah, the undisputed leader of the State, was
a secularist and it helped.
For restraint of space, I am not reproducing Article 370 while I am

analyzing that Article. The Article specifically states that the
Parliament can make laws regarding matters specified in the
Instrument of Accession. It may make laws in respect of other States
but with the concurrence of the State. These other matters have to be
specified by an order. By an order, issued in consultation with the
State Government, other provisions of the Constitution of India may
apply. It must be made clear that the Constitution of India means, the
Constitution of India in its relation to J & K. What is important for the
purpose of this article is clause (3) of Article 370, which must be
reproduced: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this
article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such
exceptions and modifications from such date as he specifies.
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly ...
shall be necessary before the President issues such notification.”
The Constituent Assembly of the State dissolved itself after framing

the Constitution, consisting of 158 Sections. Section 147 of the State
Constitution forbids any amendment of the Constitution which
makes any change in the provisions of the Constitution of India as
applicable in relation to the State.
The Constituent Assembly is no longer in existence. So there is no

question of the President taking the recommendation of the
Constituent Assembly, as per Clause (3) which conceivably may be
pressed for abrogating Article 370. Can the Indian Parliament, under
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, amend Article 370 by deleting
it? If the Indian Parliament passes an amendment to that effect, the
President has to issue an order under Article 370(3) which he cannot
do today. The politicians are not realizing that in the light of this
situation, Article 370 has become permanent; it is no longer

temporary as mentioned in the marginal note. One need not be sorry
about this as it has been pointed out earlier; the integration of the
State into Union of India has become final as per the Constitution of
the State as well as the Constitution of India.
It may be pointed out that since 1954; the President has passed over
80 orders as per law and Constitution which have extended major
provisions of the Indian Constitution to the State. The state of affairs
today is quite satisfactory except the emotional problem. That is a
political issue which needs to be solved by consensus by the
politicians.
In view of the legal and constitutional impossibility of deleting

Article 370, we must find out feasibility of integrating emotionally
the people of Kashmir with the Union of India. One should not
grudge the retention of those provisions which forbid outsiders
acquiring immovable property in the State. After all, such a provision
has been in existence for centuries. This has prevented people in
India (especially builders) from colonizing that State. Instead of
crying hoarse, as the BJP and like-minded people are doing, for
abrogation of Article 370, the people of India should work towards
assimilating the people of that State in the mainstream of India. India
has, next to Indonesia, the highest Muslim population. India should
be an ideal secular State.
It has not been possible to mention several provisions of the

Constitutions and law because of limitations of space in an article in a
monthly magazine.
Readers are invited to refer to or read: The Constitution of Jammu and

Kashmir” by Justice A.S. Anand for the detailed provisions of the
Constitutions and the laws.

Corruption, Crime and Democracy
“
Corruption impedes economic growth, weakens democratic
institutions, disrupts social order, destroys public confidence and
undermines the rule of law. It fosters organised crime and help
terrorist groups to finance their brutal attack. No country - rich or poor - is
immune to this phenomenon. Both public and private sectors are involved.
And no matter when, where or how corruption happens, what always suffers
is the public good.” (From U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's
message to the Fourth Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and
Safeguarding Integrity, Brasilia. 7th June. 2005.)
Corruption has become universal. It is no longer “Made in India”

though India is among the ten most corrupt nations in the world.
That is the finding of Transparency International, a non-
governmental organization established in 1993 which monitors the
levels of corruption by using the best reliable indices. Transparency
International focuses on corruption in “international business
transactions and points out that the givers of bribe are those who
used to be called first world countries and the receivers the third
world countries.
Corruption inside the countries is of course the 'gangotri' of pollution

of public life. Recently, in 2000 AD. 189 countries have signed the
historic Millennium Declaration setting ten goals beginning with
eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. For the realization of this
and other goals, another goal, the eighth goal, of developing a global
partnership has been envisaged. Corruption has been recognized as

one of the factors that obstructs the realization of this goal of global
partnership. A study team that has examined the efforts in the
direction of the realization of millennium development goals
reported in February, 2005 that considerable part of the aid given to
poor countries does not reach the intended beneficiaries. This is an
illustration of the phenomenon of the vicious circle of poverty and
corruption. The Global Summit meeting in September. 2005 was to
review the situation. The outcome of the discussions of the Summit is
awaited.
Let us concentrate on India. What is corruption? How is it that India,

the ancient land of Rishis and saints, has become one of the most
corrupt nations of the world? “Corruption” has many ugly faces hut
basically it means the abuse of public power for private profit or gain.
The extent of corruption is in direct proportion to the power vested in
a public servant - whether it is a minister or a civil servant. The very
nature of governance gives rise to corrupt practices. Corruption is
not a post-independence phenomenon. Even in ancient India,
corruption was rampant, especially where officials of the State had
access to the public funds and had power to favour or harm the
citizens.
In a passage of remarkable precision, Kautilya, in his celebrated

Arthashastra, states:
“Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey (or the poison) that
finds itself at the tip of the tongue so it is impossible for a government
servant not to eat up, at least a bit of the King's revenue. Just as a fish
moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking
or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the
government work cannot be found out (while) taking money (for
themsalves).” (The Kautilya Arthashastra”, Ed. by R.P. Kangle, Part II,
p.91.)
The present day public servants may not have made a deep study of
Kautilya who has enumerated forty ways of embezzlement, but
learning is not difficult when one is, like a fish, in a sea of governance.

In Kautilya's time, there were forty ways - limited as it was the role of
the government. Let it not be understood that in later years there was
no corruption, let it also not be understood that under the British rule
the public servants were all of clean hands. The trial of Warren
Hastings exposed the corruption under the rule of East India
Company in the 18th Century. There were scandals in later periods
also. The phenomenon of corruption in recent years, especially after
Independence, has pervaded every walk of life, every level of public
life and every branch of administration. The causes of this
phenomenon are:
The immense political and economic power vested in politicians and

public servants in a regime of permits and licenses;
The intensity and ferocity with which elections are being fought,
especially after the rise of Indira Gandhi to power (though corruption
is not confined to her party); Criminalization of politics which itself
in turn is the result of corruption.
The regime of permits and licenses which was envisaged as a means

of planning -avoiding wastes of competition and efficient utilization
of scarce resources - degenerated into a corrupt regime. The public
servants and their masters like Kautilya's character could not help
tasting the honey. Our businessmen and industrialists are, of course,
not angels. They competed for the loaves and fishes of economic
development and in the process provided the fertilizers for the
growth of corruption. Sometimes they justified the practice of
bribery by rationalizing that it was for lubrication. The Santhanam
Committee, appointed by the Government of India (1964) pointed
out that the corrupt official may, instead of speeding up, actually
cause administrative delays in order to attract more bribes (cited in
Asian Drama by Gunnar Myrdal. Vol. II: 1968 - Pub: Random House).
The cunningness of Indian administrators is illustrated by an
instance of a high official in Delhi who is reported to have told an
applicant: “If you want me to move a file faster, I am not sure if I can
help you; but if you want me to stop a file, and I can do it
immediately.” (Cited by Pranab Bardhan in Corruption and

Development: A Review of Issues” - Journal of Economic Literature:
September 1997, p.1324). This case also demonstrates the versatility
of the official.
It is needless to give more instances. But the role of electioneering in

generating and nourishing corruption in India is ably summarized
by Sunil Khilnani:
“The centrality of elections, and the desperate value staked on

winning them, made for engrained political corruption in the public
arena; the scandals that tumbled over one another in the 1980s and
1990s were evidences of this. In previous decades, the Congress
leadership could safely leave fund raising to local 'briefcase' grafters;
the routines were dispersed throughout the many branches of the
party. ... But with the concentration of power, the procedures of
moneymaking were also centralized, they became more invisible,
and they also attracted more attention: their inflated scale had
produced 'suitcase politicians'.
(The Idea of India, Penguin Books. 2003 edition, p.54).
You could not have failed to notice the advance from “briefcase” to
“suitcase”.
Sometimes in the discourse on corruption a view has been expressed

on the “beneficial effects” of corruption. This view is too absurd and
has not been, happily, repeated. At this stage, let me state clearly why
corruption is bad politically, economically and socially.
It is bad politically because it distorts the entire democratic system.
The government is required to meet the requirements of the citizens
under a particular paradigm. Peoples' representatives are elected on
certain assumptions. The bureaucracy is, under democracy, obliged
to give disinterested, expert advice to the ministers who are naturally
expected to take decision in the light of such advice. Throw a spanner
of corruption in this well-balanced scheme; the result is distortion. A
corrupt bureaucrat will not give proper advice; proper advice, if
given, will be ignored by a corrupt minister. Decisions are taken or
not taken on improper irrelevant considerations. Often such

decisions are challenged in courts of law which arc constrained to
invalidate such decisions - resulting in loss of people's faith in the
government. Today a politician has become synonymous with a
corrupt person. It is now generally accepted that politicians,
including ministers, take money for winning the 'next' election.
Democracy is meant for the welfare of the citizens - for the

improvement of the quality of their life. Such improvement can take
place by economic development, among other things. Evidence,
from around the world, shows that corruption has a significant,
negative impact on economic development. James Wolfensohn, the
previous President of the World Bank, has opined that corruption
was the biggest inhibitor to economic development and to the inflow
of funds for domestic development. The World Bank will not
naturally give aid to countries having corrupt regimes. The World
Bank suspended, in the 1990s, loans worth $300 million to Kenya on
the ground that, that country had failed to tackle high level of
corruption.
Corruption has impact on economy in several ways. It raises the cost

of capital and therefore limits the level of investment - domestic and
foreign - in the economy. It reduces the return on investment, thus
acting as a disincentive to honest investors. A study of Harvard
University has estimated that the level of corruption in India has the
effect of additional taxation of 20 per cent. Corruption by its very
nature generates black money, establishing a parallel economy. This
has the effect of discouraging savings. In fact, it encourages wasteful,
unproductive expenditure.
Socially corruption distorts the value system. Honest persons suffer;

they develop cynicism, with the risk of them themselves being
corrupt. The undeserving ones live in luxury. The young persons are
tempted to imitate them. These are the persons who take to petty
crimes to begin with, graduating later into higher more serious
crimes.
The Supreme Court of India has compared corruption to cancer,

plague and HIV leading to AIDS. “It has also been termed as Royal
thievery. ... Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order,
being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It
affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage.” (State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Ram Singh, AIR 2000 SC 870 @ 873).
People do not realize that a nation, an economy, a society in which

corruption is rampant alienates the country's people, who do not feel
that they have a stake in the country. A country outwardly
prosperous, but inwardly corroded by the cancerous growth of
corruption, will have its defenses weakened. In case of external
aggression, such a country cannot ready itself quickly. In times of
war, our people will not become suddenly honest and patriotic.
Indian traders are notorious for their black-marketing in times of war
and scarcity.
We have been talking and debating corruption too long and have
become reconciled to its existence. Can corruption be controlled, if
not be eliminated? I think it can be, provided we go about in the right
way without being discouraged by some setbacks. The common man
in the country will be ready to help and join the efforts to fight against
corruption, if the fight is led by credible people.
In all the atmosphere of despair and cynicism, there are two

institutions in this country which enjoy the confidence of the people -
the judiciary and the armed forces. Former members of these
institutions who have not been or are not members of any political
party or members of any organization associated with any political
party can contribute significantly to the anti-corruption campaign. In
each region or State of India former members of the armed forces and
judiciary with a reputation for integrity can form small committees
which will act as watchdogs who will raise a hue and cry when
credible information is available regarding corrupt acts. They will
fight against corruption; they will also fight for the protection of the
honest who are penalized for their honesty. In this, the help of the
judiciary can be availed of.

One instance of Maharashtra serves as a good example.
Appointments for jobs, including jobs in the police department, had
been cleared by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission by its
Chairman and some members taking hefty bribes. The police officer
who was investigating the case with pronounced success and who
arrested the high-ups in the establishment was transferred by the
Government. I must point out that the corruption racket had taken
place during the regime of one political hue; investigation started
during the time of another political regime. Yet the latter thought it fit
to shunt off the honest police officer. On a public interest petition
filed by a former Chief Secretary of Maharashtra with a record of
outstanding ability and reputation, the High Court of Bombay set
aside the transfer of the police officer concerned who was left free to
pursue the investigation. In the ongoing investigation, a former
Director General of Police, who was a member of the Public Service
Commission, has been identified as a participant in the scandal.
We should agitate for the appointment of Lok Ayuktas in all the States.
At present in only 14 States the institution of Lok Ayukta is
functioning. There is, apart from institutional help, enough room for
action by the citizens. Ordinary citizen is fully aware or should be
aware of corruption zones, as a motorist, for his own safety, should be
aware of accident-prone zones. Registration of a document is
impossible without bribing the official concerned. Institutionally the
Government can computerize the whole process, as it has been done
in Maharashtra, eliminating almost entirely the scope for corruption.
When such administrative or institutional facility is not available, a
group of citizens or citizens committee should take up the case of an
individual - whether it is a matter of registration of a document or
obtaining of a license or permit. It has been suggested by a former
Chief of anti-corruption department of Maharashtra that Chambers
of Commerce and Industry should take up the cases of individual
industries or businessmen. Collective approach, it is found, acts as a
deterrent to a prospective bribe taker.
Maximum use of the Right to Information Act should be made. Such

use is easier when citizens' committees get involved. An individual
cannot fight effectively against a system. To fight an evil system, you
must have a systematic approach. Immunity and protection should
be given to whistle-blowers. Despite the cynicism and the feeling of
helplessness prevailing in the country, I am sure that a movement for
fighting corruption can be successful if sufficient number of people is
persuaded that fighting corruption is a moral and patriotic duty. I
wish to stress again that former members of the judiciary and armed
forces can lead such a movement. The India Chapter of Transparency
International is headed by a former admiral of the Indian Navy. His
hands need to be strengthened.
To a great extent, corruption and criminalisation of politics are inter-

connected. There is not enough space in this article to dilate on this at
length. Criminalisation consists of two types. Pursuing political
activity by criminal methods is one. Bribing the voters, booth
capturing are the obvious examples of this type. The second type is of
criminals entering politics and of their being endorsed by political
parties of all hues. An attempt at controlling the second type was
made by the Election Commission by asking the candidates to
disclose their criminal record while filing the nomination papers.
This was done by a notification dated 2nd June 2002.
Immediately all the political parties came together and persuaded

the Government of India to nullify the effect of the notification of the
Election Commission - which the Government did by issuing an
ordinance on 16th August 2002. The ordinance provided that the
candidate shall not be required to give any information not necessary
to be given under the Representation of the Peoples Act. The
ordinance was returned for reconsideration by the President on 23rd
August 2002. The Government sent hack the ordinance, without any
change, to the President on the very next day i.e. 24th August 2002.
The Government of India was the NDA Government but it was
actively supported by other political parties. No political party wants
to shut its door against candidates with criminal record. The
President was obliged to sign in view of Article 74(1) of the

Constitution. It is a different story that the Supreme Court of India
invalidated the ordinance by its judgment dated 13th March, 2003 on
the ground, tenuous though, that the Parliament cannot abridge the
right of the citizens to know.
It hardly matters. A person with criminal antecedents is not debarred

from contesting elections. Such a bar can only be imposed by an Act
of the Parliament which the Parliament will not pass because all the
political parties do not want such a bar. The effect is that 'criminals'
are contesting the elections on party tickets and getting elected with
the support of political parties. It is estimated that 26 per cent of the
legislators in India have criminal record. Only massive education of
the electorate can remedy this situation. If this is not done, the
consequence has been described by Will Durant as long ago as in 1929
in “The Pleasures of Philosophy” (Simon and Schuster, New York,
p.208). Forgive me for this longish quotation:
“Democracy without education means hypocrisy without limitation;

it means degradation of statesmanship into politics; it means the
expensive maintenance, in addition to the real ruling class, of a large
parasitic class of politicians whose function it is to serve the rulers
and deceive the ruled.”
This was Durant's analysis. Proceeding further, he prophesied as

follows:-
“The last stage of the matter is the gang men rule. Criminals flourish
happily in our large cities, because they are guaranteed the full
protection and cooperation of the law. If they belong to the
Organization or have friends in it, they have every assurance that if
they commit a crime they will not be arrested, that if they are arrested
they will not be convicted, that if convicted they will not be sent to
jail, that if jailed they will be pardoned, that if unpardoned they will
be permitted to escape.”
Durant then admonishes that if we cannot take steps to cleanse

democracy of this villainy, we may as well forget democracy and
invite a King to take over. Our generation has to make the choice.

Right to Know
R
ight to know is sometimes regarded as being wider in scope
than the right to information. In practice, however, in my
opinion, the distinction is not crucial. As far as journalists
are concerned, right to know can be treated as being equivalent to
right to information.
Right to know in the broader sense is the right to acquire knowledge

and no impediments should be placed in the way of that right.
Impediments may be placed by the State by banning books and
journals; or by censorship. Censorship played havoc during 18
months from June, 1975 to February, 1977 when the Government of
India had imposed censorship of the extent not seen even during the
War period. A film star was alleged to have been involved in
shoplifting in America. The newspapers in India were prohibited
from publishing that news. Even if it had been published, nobody
would have probably believed it - considering the status and
affluence of that lady. Rabindra Nath Tagore's “When the Mind is
Without Fear” was not allowed to be quoted. You could not quote
John Stuart Mill in any article. This censorship was only one degree
better than the censorship imposed by General MacArthur in Japan
when he was administering that country after the Second World War.
Under General MacArthur's order of censorship, there was
prohibition against mentioning that there was censorship.
Incidentally, the indiscriminate censorship that was implemented
during the emergency of 1975-77 gave rise to rumours and rumour-
mongering attributing worst actions to Indira Gandhi Government

and people believed those rumours - a fact which is said to be partly
responsible for Indira Gandhi's defeat in the elections of 1977.
There was the censorship of the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican
had a list of publications - Librorum Prohibitorum - commonly known
as Index - which the Catholics were prohibited from reading. Among
them were books, which dealt with such subjects as evolution and
astronomy. Of course, it listed D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's
Lover. The Index, which was established in 1557, was ultimately
abolished in 1964 - it was in existence for more than 400 years.
In these instances, the right to know is being denied by those who are
not necessarily in possession of that knowledge. The knowledge is
available at some place but you are being prevented from having
access.
The right to information is denied when the person of that

information refuses to part with that information. He may be
refusing for no reason; he may be refusing it on the ground that it is
not customarily shared with others; he may be refusing it because
law prohibits him from giving that information.
It is sometimes suggested that right to information is essential for the

exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression and
therefore the right to information should be treated as an integral
part of the right to freedom of speech and expression which is
guaranteed as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution of
India. Article 19 (1) postulates that all citizens shall have freedom of
speech and expression (subject of course to the restrictions
mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19). Howsoever elastically this
expression is stretched, it cannot be said to include the right to
information. It is not the function of the State or any authority to
enable you to exercise the right to free speech more effectively. The
only obligation on the authority is not to deny that right.
Some commentators have tried, in support of the right to

information, to draw help from what has been said by the Supreme

Court in what is known as the Judges' case. (S. I. Gupta v. Union of
India, AIR 1982 SC 149). Among the questions involved in that case,
one was whether there was effective and real consultation between
the Government of India and the Chief Justice of India before
transferring a judge from one High Court to another. Such
consultation is necessary under Article 222 (1) of the Constitution.
The Union Government refused to disclose the correspondence
between it and the Chief Justice of India on the grounds that (a) the
correspondence formed part of the advice tendered by the Council of
Ministers to the President and the Court was precluded from looking
into it by virtue of Article 74(2) of the Constitution and (b) that the
correspondence was protected against disclosure under Section 123
of the Indian Evidence Act. Arguments were advanced and
judgments were given only on these questions. No one invoked the
right to information. The ultimate decision had nothing to do with
the right to information as a part of the right to free speech and
expression, though at one place Bhagwati, J, as he then was, observed
“The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the
right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech
and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a)”. The language of
the judgment of Bhagwati, J. emphasized that in a democracy there
should be transparency in the governance and citizens ought to
know what their government is doing and how. These observations
justified the demand for a law for the right to information; they did
not lay down that there was such a right. Even international
declarations and covenants do not recognise the right to information.
What they speak of is the freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas.
With the passing of The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 by the Indian
Parliament and of The Freedom of Information Act, 2000 by the British
Parliament, much of the discussion on the need to enact such laws
has become academic. But I wish to explain the tortuous course
through which the agitation for enacting laws for the freedom of
information went.

Let us begin with England which has been notorious in conducting
governmental functions in utmost secrecy. It has been characterised
as the traditional culture of secrecy. In 1899, James Bryce, an M.P., had
the following to say in the House of Commons
“But on the general question of keeping documents secret there is no

country in Europe which is so scrupulous and old-fashioned in
imposing secrecy as is this country.”
He was giving an example of an American scholar who wanted to see

some papers relating to the American War of Independence of 1776.
He was told that the papers were considered secret. (See, Sir David
William's contribution “Freedom of Information: The British
Experience” on page 244 to 'Constitutional Perspectives' Ed. Venkat
Iyer: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi: 2001).
The greatest obstacle in the way of obtaining and spreading

information is the law relating to official secrets. The first Official
Secrets Act was of 1889. But even before that secrecy of information
was protected by governmental instructions and Treason Act of 1814.
In 1878, one Marvin, who was working in Foreign Office, gave the
details of a secret treaty between England and Russia to a newspaper.
He was prosecuted but it was found that there was no law under
which he could be convicted. He had not stolen any document; he
had memorised the contents of the Treaty. The Official Secrets Act,
1889 which was passed was to plug this loophole. The Act made it an
offence to communicate to unauthorised persons information
obtained by a government servant in his employ-ment. This Act,
however, placed the burden of proving that the disclosure was not in
the interests of the State or the Government.
Therefore, a stronger law - The Official Secrets Act, 1911 which

served as the model for India's Official Secrets Act, 1923 was passed.
This Act imposed a complete prohibition on the unauthorised
dissemination of official information - whether connected to defense
or security or not. It did not make provision for the substance of the
information so that, as one writer on law has put it, technically it

criminalised disclosure of the colour of the carpet in a Minister's
office. The eventual demise of the Act came about due to its abuses as
well as failures. I must mention three cases which were tried under
this Act.
The U.K. Government was giving aid to the Government of Nigeria

in its war against the breakaway province of Biafra in 1971. A
journalist, Aitken by name, found out that the U.K. Government was
supplying 70% of Nigerian arms instead of 15% as mentioned in the
official figures. Aitken had collected his information from an official
document called the Scot Report and passed it on to the press.
Actually the figure worked out by Aitken could be arrived at from
other sources which were not official.
In the trial by jury, Justice Caulfield practically gave a direction for

acquittal with the suggestion that freedom of the press should
prevail. It should also be noted that the information given by Aitken
did not in the remotest way affect the defense or security of U.K.
In the next case which was decided in 1984, the Government's
immorality was exposed, though the person concerned, Miss Sarah
Tisdall, the accused, was convicted on a plea of guilty. She found that
the Government was intending to make the announcement of the
delivery of cruise missiles in the Parliament after the question hour so
that no questions or supplementary could be asked. She took the
view that this political subterfuge was morally wrong and leaked the
information to the Guardian. In the trial she pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
The next case, which showed the deviousness of the Ministers in the
Government, was decided in 1985. The Opposition MPs were
pressing for information on the sinking of a ship in the Falklands
War. Clive Ponting, a senior officer in the Ministry of Defense,
prepared a detailed answer in the course of his duty but the Minister
for Defense did not use this note but used a briefer note which did not
contain the whole truth. This prevented the Parliamentary
Committee from effectively scrutinising the working of the defense

Department. Ponting anonymously sent the material prepared by
him to an MP who in turn leaked it to the press.
Ponting was convicted. His plea that Section 2 of 1911 Act permitted
him to communicate to a person in the interests of the State - which
meant the nation as a whole - was rejected. Justice McGown held that
the interests of the State were synonymous with the interests of the
Government of the day - a dubious proposition. (These cases have
been taken from Civil Liberties by Helen Fenwick - 1995 edition. A
later edition of this book, published by Cavendish Publishing
Limited and distributed in India by Lawman (India) Private Limited,
New Delhi, is now available).
Later, the British Parliament enacted the Official Secrets Act, 1989,
which de-criminalised to a great extent the unauthorised disclosures
of official information. Moreover, specific defenses were made
available. I have not come across any case decided under this Act and,
therefore, I leave it there. Soon, moves to enact a law for the freedom
of information were set in motion. I must now refer to the well-
known case of Spycatcher.
Spycatcher was the name of the book written by one Peter Wright. The
book made allegations of illegal activities engaged by MI5, the
intelligence service of UK. It was disclosed that MI5 indulged in
bugging foreign embassies and illegally entering private premises.
There was the suggestion that MI5 attempted to destabilise Mr.
Harold Wilson's administration. The book was first published in
USA in July, 1987. Excerpts from it were being published in England,
especially by Guardian. The paper could not be prosecuted because
on its part there was no breach of official secrecy. The Government
started civil proceedings in which injunction was obtained
restraining Guardian from publishing any more from the book. This is
what is known as prior restraint which can be used for killing any
story. The litigation went on for nearly three years and ultimately in
1990 the House of Lords held that no injunction should be granted
because

(a) The interest in maintaining confidentiality was outweighed by the
public interest in knowing of the allegations made in Spycatcher;
(b) Injunction to restrain in future publication in relation to secret

service matters would amount to a comprehensive ban which would
prevent the determination of public interest.
I will make a slight digression to USA. One of the most morally

abhorrent, politically unwise and militarily disastrous wars, ever
conducted by any nation, is the Vietnam War in which USA was the
participant. Intervention in the conflict between North and South
Vietnams was begun by John Kennedy and was accelerated by
Lyndon Johnson - all with the object of preventing North Vietnam, a
Communist country, from overrunning South Vietnam, a bogus
democratic country propped up by the Americans. Thousands of
documents came into existence in relation to this war. The Pentagon
Generals were not always on the same wavelength as the civil
authorities including the President and sometimes the Secretary of
State. It must be said to the credit of American student world that
when the immorality and futility of the war began emerging, the
Universities rose in revolt. Anti-war demonstrations took place in the
campuses. Ultimately it was President Richard Nixon, otherwise
notorious for the Watergate Scandal, who ended the war.
Before that happened, however, one Daniel Ellsberg managed to

“obtain” seven thousand pages of documents covering nearly 20
years of American policy relating to Vietnam and gave them to New
York Times. They were all classified papers - that is they were secret.
President Nixon was in office and he was considering the withdrawal
from Vietnam on grounds which were also secret. There was initially
a Court order blocking the publication but ultimately the U.S.
Supreme Court held in favour of New York Times. And the papers
were published. These are the famous Pentagon Papers. You can find
the history and contents of these papers in People's History of the
United States by Howard Zinn (Harper Perennial, New York, 1995).
Later, in 1989, Erwin Griswold, who as Solicitor-General had

represented the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court, confessed
that he had not seen any trace of a threat to the national security from
the publication of Pentagon Papers. However, the credibility of the
Administration came under a cloud.
Nixon faced another challenge to his own credibility in what is

known as Watergate Scandal. The Secret Service agents had entered
into the Watergate Building to plant bugs during the Democratic
Party's Convention. In trials connected with this break-in it started
becoming clear that White House was involved and certain tapes,
which were in the custody of the White House, could throw light on
this. The President unsuccessfully resisted the summons to get them
produced before the Court. Ultimately Nixon resigned halfway
during the impeachment proceedings. It may also be mentioned that
the Watergate Scandal was exposed by two correspondents of the
Washington Post who obtained information from an unidentified
person - referred to as Deep Throat.
We are dealing with matters of public importance or connected with

public authorities.
Why should there be right to information? Why is it necessary that

the government and government servants be compelled to part with
information which they think should not be known and should not
be debated? How is it in the public interest that the papers which
form the basis of governmental decision and action should be
exposed to the public gaze?
There are theoretical as well as practical considerations requiring the

disclosure of information in democracies. In a democracy the
government elected by the people is accountable to the people for the
actions it has taken. If the people have to decide, as they are entitled to
decide, whether the government has .taken the right decision, they
are entitled to know the basis of that decision. The basis of the
decision is contained in the information with the public authorities.
When this information is disclosed, it will be possible to judge
whether the public authorities have acted reasonably or not.

Not unoften the public authorities refuse to disclose the information
because there is no information. Actions are regarded as
discretionary. But the discretion cannot be unfettered. The discretion
has to be judged with reference to the purpose for which it was
exercised. Unfettered discretion is entirely alien to a system of
democracy.
Abuse of power is inevitable if unfettered discretion and

uncontrolled power are vested in the public authorities. Such
discretion and such power are in the nature of a blank cheque which
the public authorities will overdraw.
I would advance another, perhaps stronger, ground in support of the

argument for open government. Power is given to the government
and to the public servants so that they will exercise it for the public
good. The government is not only by the people but also for the
people. Power conferred upon a public authority is conferred upon
the condition that it will be used for good and sufficient reasons in the
public interest. The people are entitled to ask whether the power is
exercised for the right reasons. This can be decided only when the
information relating to reasons are disclosed. When reasons are
disclosed one can find out whether the reasons are relevant. If they
are not, corrective action can be taken.
The doctrine of discretion is invoked by the authorities when they in

fact act arbitrarily. Discretion, as has been observed by one English
authority
“Is a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth,

between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between
equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according
to their wills and private affections.” (Quoted by Sir William Wade in
“Public Law in Britain and India”, Tripathi, Bombay, 1992, p.39).
In practical terms, the duty to disclose information and reasons

results in better government. Even an honest bureaucrat realises that
if he has to disclose the information and the reasons on the basis of

which he has taken the decision and action, he will record the
reasons. The duty to disclose the information and the reasons will
dissuade the authority from acting dishonestly.
I would give additional reasons for a law of freedom of information

in India.
First, the extent of corruption: This has been made possible at least
partly by the absence of the law relating to the right to information.
Secondly, the multiplicity of activities of the State and public

authorities: All the activities and the projects may not affect all the
people. Nevertheless, the people who are affected have the right to
know why certain decisions were taken and why other decisions
were not taken.
Thirdly, in the absence of good quality debates in the Parliament,

there must be some means by which information becomes available
to the citizens.
Fourthly, in the absence of good, well-informed Parliamentarians like

Madhu Limaye, who could rattle the Government during the
question hour, information on vital questions is not coming to light.
At this stage I must come to Aruna Roy whose intrepid campaign for
the right to information woke up the nation. Aruna is a Tamilian
Brahmin lady who joined the Indian Administrative Service and was
allotted to Rajasthan cadre. She joined the IAS in a mood of public
service. She thought she would be able to serve the people by
properly and honestly implementing the laws and the policies of the
government. She wanted to participate in the building up of a just
India. Within seven days she realised that the lAS was not
implementing the letter, let alone the spirit, of law. But she strove for
seven years after which she resigned and joined her husband Sanjit
Bunker Roy who had founded a social service organisation in a
Rajasthan village.
It is not possible to give the details of the activities of this intelligent

and brave lady within a short space. Her experience in the

administration helped but she modestly states that the campaign to
secure the right to information about the government transactions
was launched and carried on by the villagers themselves who had
now formed Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan. In meetings after
meetings, the sham figures of governmental spending on welfare
projects were exposed. The villagers went on bombarding the
government officials with questions which directly concerned them.
There were no satisfactory answers. The ghost projects were laid bare
- veterinary hospitals, health centres, roads, dams which stored no
water, and so on. The movement for information was led by women
of the rural area. The town people cynically called them 'the skirt
platoon”. During the course of this movement it was realised that
babus at the district level and the State level were not the only
persons who were the obstructionists. The campaign revealed that
there is no one more cunning than a lowly village official, no one
more knowledgeable in the ways of stonewalling - the patwari, the
talathi, now called gram sevak. The officials, it is said, guarded the
information as zealously as gold in Fort Knox. Ultimately, Rajasthan
passed the Right to Information Act. Aruna Roy was the recipient of
Magsaysay Award. A good amount of information about Aruna Roy
is available on the Internet. You may also read with interest Mark
Tully's account of her life in his “India in Slow Motion” (Viking 2002 -
p.82)
A similar campaign by Parivartan, an NGO of Delhi, compelled Delhi

Government to get a law of freedom of information passed in 2002.
Maharashtra has also passed similar law.
By now, (i.e. Sept 2003) about six States have the right to information
on the statute books. Observers say that in none of the States, except
Goa, this right has been used adequately. Even journalists have been
slow in utilising this opportunity of obtaining the information. Why?
Because of two reasons:
They do not know what information they should go after, Secondly,

even when they know what they need, they have no patience or they

cannot wait to follow the course prescribed under the law. They find
it easier and more productive to go in for investigative journalism.
The Indian Express has been in recent months publishing massive
material which it would have taken months to obtain through the
official channel. Many a time the information which is significant is
squatting on your doorstep but you overlook it. Many a time, with a
little patience and alertness, you can get the topmost secret
information without breaking the law. It may be remembered that in
1999 Admiral Bhagwat was dismissed as the Chief of the Navy Staff-
an unprecedented event in the history of Navy of any country. There
were too many unpleasant facts surrounding that event which did no
credit to successive defense ministers and the Ministry of Defense
over the years. Mr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao, a former officer of the
Indian Navy and now a practicing lawyer, obtained copies of the
petitions filed by the contenders for the top post in High Courts.
Petitions were not secret though they contained a mine of secret
information. In addition there were affidavits and counter-affidavits.
Utilising this information Mr. Subbarao wrote an article which
exposed the working of the Defense Ministry, more specifically
under George Fernandes. The article published in The Hindu of 11th
May, 1999 can be used as a masterly guide by the journalists. When a
matter of some interest or importance is pending in Court, it is easy
for the journalists to get all the information they need on the subject.
Nowadays the lawyers and litigants are too eager to talk to the media.
They will give copies of the petitions, affidavits and affidavits-in-
reply for the asking.
Right to information is not that important for the journalists. The

journalists are in a hurry to file their story and therefore the legal
route even if it is open is not useful. The alternative of obtaining that
information in other ways is better suited to the journalist's
profession.
The right to information as a statutory right is, however, important

for the general public. The Indian Parliament has now enacted The
Freedom of Information Act, 2002 (Act 5 of 2003). It is yet to come into

force. The Act is quite liberal in scope. Exemptions are not too many;
grounds for rejection of requests for information are precisely
worded and reasonable. Duty is cast upon the authorities to give
reasons for rejecting requests for information. Duty to give reasons is
now regarded as an important rule of natural justice. Provision for
appeal against an order rejecting the request has been made. Section
16 of the Act provides that the Act will not apply to the intelligence
and security organisations specified in the Schedule to the Act. The
Official Secrets act has not been repealed but the provisions of this
Act would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with
the provisions of that Act.
Ultimately, the usefulness of this law will be judged by the way it is

worked by the public authorities. The security of the State is a ground
on which information can be refused. 'Security of State' can be
stretched by the authorities to cover inconvenient facts.
When it comes to the question of citizen's right to know about the

candidates in the elections, all political parties get united in denying
this right. In public interest litigation, history of which is not being
given here, the Supreme Court of India, in a judgment on 2nd May,
2002, held that voters have a right to know the criminal and financial
antecedents of the candidates and therefore the Election Commission
should ask for such details in the nomination papers of the
candidates. In compliance with this directive, the Election
Commission issued a notification on 2nd June, 2002.
Immediately all the political parties came together and permitted -

and practically asked - the Government to nullify the effect of the
Supreme Court decision. On 16th August, 2002 the Government of
India issued an Ordinance amending the Representation of Peoples
act by providing that the candidates in the elections shall not be
required to give information not necessary to be given under the
Representation of Peoples Act. On 23rd August, 2002, the President,
to whom the Ordinance was sent for signing, returned the Ordinance
to the Government for reconsideration. On the very next day i.e. on

24th August, 2002, the Cabinet again sent it to the President without
making any changes. The President was obliged to sign the
Ordinance so returned in view of the provision in Article 74(1) of the
Constitution.
This amendment, namely insertion of Section 33B in the

Representation of Peoples Act, was successfully challenged before
the Supreme Court which invalidated that Section by its judgment on
13th March, 2003. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament
cannot abridge the citizen's right to know. It must be stated that the
information provided would not affect the eligibility of the
candidate, but failure to provide the information would result in the
rejection of the nomination paper. It is not as if today the bulk of the
voters are not aware of the criminal record of the candidates. But with
the disclosure of such information “the little man (voter) may think
over before making his choice of electing lawbreakers as
lawmakers”. The Supreme Court has also directed that educational
background should also be disclosed.
Among the items of information to be disclosed, the charge pending

against a candidate involving an offence punishable with
imprisonment of one year or more is one. That is how you see the
activity of deleting some charges against the ministers who are
among the accused in Babri Masjid demolition case.
In giving their judgment, the Supreme Court read into Article 324 of
the Constitution the power of the Election Commission to insist upon
information for the conduct of free and fair elections.

Peter Benenson and
Amnesty International
A
rchana Guha, a young Bengali lady teacher, was arrested in
1974 and was subjected to third degree torture by the
Calcutta Police on the suspicion that she and her relatives
were Naxalites. This resulted in her suffering paralysis. In 1976, she
was released after nearly three years of detention without trial. In
1979, when an Amnesty International team visiting India came to
know about Archana's case, and the details of her illegal detention
and misfortune, were published, later in 1980. Amnesty's Danish
Medical team took her to Denmark. After intensive treatment in
Denmark, Archana was able to move and return to India.
This was only one of the thousands of cases handled by Amnesty

International. But what is this organisation with the unusual name?
After all, amnesty means a sovereign act of a government by which
prisoners are pardoned for their past acts resulting in their release
and obliteration of their criminal record. Normally, amnesty is given
for political offences. Amnesty International is not a government. It is
a non-government organisation and behind its birth and
development, lies a long and interesting story of one individual who
made it possible.
That individual is Peter Benenson. The Benenson family was of

Russian-Jewish background. Benensons migrated from Russia to
England in 1917 after the Revolution. It was a well-to-do family.
Peter's grandfather, Girgori Benenson, was a banker and oil tycoon
and inevitably a multimillionaire in Tsarist Russia.
Peter was born on 31st July 1921 in London of Harold and Flora. The

parental influence on Peter came mostly from his mother, Harold
having died when Peter was only nine years old. Flora was a dynamic
personality, a warm hearted lady with a good measure of idealism -
these qualities Peter also cultivated. Peter had good education. Before
going to Eton, W. H. Auden, the poet of liberty, was his private tutor.
He later studied history at the Oxford University.
Spanish civil war started in July 1936 and lasted till 1939 when Franco
established his domination over the whole country. Several
volunteers from different countries went to Spain to fight on the side
of the Republican forces, Peter, still in school, organised a school
committee to help the Spanish Relief Committee. He read and was
greatly influenced by Arthur Koestler's Spanish Testament, which
described the trials and tribulations of the Republicans.
Around this time, Hitler's persecution of Jews was gaining

momentum. Peter started a campaign of raising funds for helping
German Jews to escape from Germany and to come to England.
Government was allowing only those Jews to come who had, in
modern diction, sponsorship that is a guarantee that the immigrants
would be taken care of by British nationals.
In September 1939, the Second World War started. Peter's offer to join
the Royal Navy was turned down because his mother was of Russian
origin. At that time, Russia was not on the side of the Allies; it was in
fact tied down by the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. Later, in
1940, Peter joined the Army but worked only in non-combatant posts.
After his discharge from the Military, he qualified himself for a career
in law and later he joined the British Labour Party. Spain came into
his life again. Franco's regime had become firmly established and
prosecutions of trade unionists were going on in farcical trials. Peter
Benenson went to Spain, at the instance of the British Trade Union
Congress, but had not much success in helping the prosecuted.
Trip to Spain
Peter made another trip to Spain to help political prisoners. He

witnessed one farcical trial and made note of irregularities and

illegalities. Later that night, he went to the trial judge and
enumerated his complaints. Surprisingly, the judge was convinced
and the next day, he acquitted the accused - a phenomenon unheard
of in Franco's Spain. Political prisoners were acquitted!
The year 1956 witnessed two events which tested the fact and
resourcefulness of Peter. Lawyer members of the Labour Party had
formed Society of Labour Lawyers. Similar groups from
Conservative and Liberal Parties had been formed. In 1956, several
opponents of the racist regime in South Africa were accused of
treason and were put on trial. In Hungary, an uprising against the
Communist regime had been brutally suppressed by Russian
soldiers. The Leftists wanted to help the South Africans while right
wingers wanted to extend support to the Hungarian patriots Peter
Benenson was able to persuade the three groups to sink their
differences and to send observers to both the countries. He went to
South Africa. A new independence group called Justice' with Sir
Hartley Showcross as the Chairman was formed. Later “Justice”
became the British branch of the International Commission of Jurists
which is still active.
In November 1960, a news item in the Daily Telegraph, triggered the

idea that ultimately gave birth to “Amnesty International”. That
news was that two students in a Lisbon Café stood up and proposed a
toast to Liberty. In another country, it would be regarded as an
innocuous affair but not in Salazaar's Portugal. The two students
were arrested and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. This
news motivated Peter to work for the release of political prisoners.
Peter Benenson gathered his friends and decided to work for the
release of political prisoners. A campaign was to be launched and it
was titled: “Appeal for Amnesty, 1961” Under Benenson's
persuasion, The Observer of London carried a lead article “Forgotten
Prisoners” on Sunday, the 28th May 1961. That article was written by
Benenson himself and drew the attention of the public to the fact that
on both sides of the Iron Curtain, there were hundreds who were
imprisoned only because their views on religion or politics did not
coincide with those of their governments.

Light a Candle
These prisoners were called “Prisoners of Conscience”, a phrase
coined by Eric Baker, a non-lawyer colleague of Benenson, who later
took over the leadership of Amnesty International. There is a Chinese
proverb: “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness”.
From this, the logo of the campaign took shape - a picture of a face or a
pair of hands behind a barbed wire. The Amnesty's campaign laid
down two important principles which have guided it and which have
been adhered to later by Amnesty International. One, Amnesty
would not help those who preach or practice violence in pursuit of
their goals. It was for this reason Amnesty refused to take up the case
of Nelson Mandela who had refused to renounce the use of violence.
Secondly, Amnesty would be strictly neutral in political matters.
Amnesty International Born

The campaign was found to be not enough. A permanent
organisation was needed. Groups had been formed in different
countries to further the case of Amnesty. At a conference of these
groups in 1962, a decision was taken to establish a permanent
organisation. Thus was born Amnesty International.
In course of time, Amnesty spread its branches in 150 countries with

an estimated membership of over 700,000. Though the Amnesty
International groups were all voluntary, the work was done by them
with professional efficiency. In order to help them in this wcrk,
Amnesty International set up an information centre in London and
also organised a research department. Every case that is taken up by
Amnesty International is thoroughly researched and examined.
What false crimes was the prisoner accused of? Why he is in prison?
How long? In what conditions? How can Amnesty help? These and
other relevant questions were studied in depth.
Accurate information was basic to the success of Amnesty's work.

This was necessary for the credibility of the organisation. The mode
of operation of Amnesty ensures that the bias element is eliminated.
In every country, two or three groups are formed. Each group is
assigned the cases of other countries. Indian groups will not handle
cases of prisoners in India, though they may collect information and

transmit it to London.
Various methods are adopted by the Amnesty in its campaign -

bombarding the authorities with letters, demonstrations, telegrams,
and meetings with the authorities, wide and constant publicity.
Amnesty has succeeded in creating an awareness of the need for
protecting civic rights. It has built up a strong case against torture so
much so that the United Nations itself has issued guidelines for
freedom from torture.
In 1977, Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 1978, it was awarded the UN Human Rights Prize. In Stockholm
itself, Amnesty had, in 1977, a conference on the abolition of death
penalty which was called by Albert Camus as 'the most premeditated
of murders”. Amnesty called it “the ultimate cruel, inhuman and
degrading punishment”. It has campaigned incessantly for its
abolition throughout the world. In individual cases, appeals for
clemency have met with some success.
Tread of the Torturer

The work of the organisation never ceases. Jonathan Power, a
historian of the movement, has described the task before the
movement in the following words:
”For every carnival, there are a hundred nights in the desert; for
every release another batch of prisoners; for every family reunited,
another torn asunder; for every shout of exultation, a cry of suffering;
as the heavy door shuts out the daylight for one more prisoner
leaving him to nurse his own wounds and wait, when the morning
arrives, for the tread of the official torturer or the executioner”.

Death Sentence
T
he debate on the utility or the futility will go on for some
time. The UN General Assembly in December 2007 took a
significant step towards the abolition of death sentence. Of
course this was only a resolution which is not binding on the
members of the United Nations. However the resolution has the
effect of enhancing the human right and inviolability of person.
The resolution cast a serious doubt over the deterrent effect of death
sentence. It highlighted the danger of errors on the application of
capital sentence and the obvious irreparability of the sentence. It took
into consideration mistakes which occur as seen by the application of
modern Science of the DNA.
Amnesty International has estimated that 135 countries have

abolished death sentence. Mr. Justice Dorab Patel was the Chief
Justice of Pakistan who resigned when general Zia-ul-Haq was the
Martial Law Administrator. He said that if he was to be judge again
he would not award death sentence. Why? Because of the fallibility of
the person awarding it and the faulty legal systems.
After his retirement he, along with others, founded the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) - a purely private
organisation. Ms. Asma Jahangir, UN Reporter of Human Rights, is a
leading member of the Commission and has done excellent work. At
its 1986 conference the HRCP passed a resolution demanding the
abolition of death sentence. This is in accordance with the principled
stand which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have

taken.
Unfortunately, Pakistan remains one of the 62 countries which have

retained death penalty. HRCP in its report “Slow March to Gallows”
has mentioned that 7400 men and 36 women were awaiting their
execution (in 2007). In 2006, 1591 executions took place; 40% of these
executions were in Pakistan. Unfortunately, Islamic countries have
retained Death Sentence.
It may be noted that all European Countries have abolished death

sentence. Plus, no country can become a member of European Union
(EU) if death sentence is prevalent in that country. Mr. Ocalan, a Kurd
leader, was sentenced by Turkish courts. Turkey has been eager to
become a member of the EU. The Turkish Parliament passed a law
abolishing dcath sentence as a result of which Mr. Ocalan continues
to be alive. With death sentence prevalent, Turkey can not apply for
EU membership. At the time of writing this article Manjit Singh is
alive in Pakistan and Afzal Guru's mercy petition is pending with the
government of India.
The deterrent effect of death sentence is said to be doubtful. Amnesty

International has studied this subject in great details and has come to
the conclusion that deterrent effect of death sentence is doubtful. The
homicide rate has fallen by 40% in Canada since 1975 when death
sentence was abolished. Canada's big brother, however, namely USA
continues to use death sentence. In fact, the maximum number of
death sentences has and are being taken place in USA.
In Texas, the largest number of homicides and death sentences take
place. It is somewhat curious that another state, say California, has
judges from the same society and yet the proportion of death
sentence is lower. Recently, New Jersey has abolished death sentence.
It means that New Jersey is the first US state to abolish death sentence
in 40 years. In USA, the Supreme Court has barred the execution of
minors and pregnant women.
It is again examining the means of execution.
Japan which was awarding death sentence and executing the same

freely has now abolished it. Internationally the opinion against death
sentence is building up. The International Criminal Tribunals for the
former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, both established by the Security
Council do not provide for capital punishment. Similarly the
International Criminal Court and the UN-supported mixed tribunals
have taken a similar line. On 18th December 2007, Mr. Ban ki-moon
the Secretary General of UN welcomed the Resolution of UN General
Assembly hoping that capital punishment will eventually be
abolished. He noted that 104 states voted in favour of the Resolution
and 54 against. Twenty-nine states abstained. The anti-vote and
absentees together are far less in number than those in favour which
is a good sign. The Resolution of the General Assembly is likely to be
re-examined in September 2008.
Fortunately the advances in science have reduced the number of

death sentences. This is partly because of effective investigations. In
USA researches have been conducted which show that death
sentences have been wrongly given. Even in the past, persons, who
are no more alive, had been erroneously convicted and sentenced to
death. The HRCP noted in a recent press release: “The relations
between India and Pakistan have long affected the population of
South Asia. One of the factors contributing to the tensions between
the two countries is the horrible treatment they mete out to one
another's prisoners.” See the cases of Sarabjit and Afzal Guru. It is
heartening, however, to see that there are human rights activists like
Asma Jahangir and Ansar Barney in Pakistan.
The debate, however, continues. International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights has, in Article 6(2), mentioned that in countries which
have not abolished death penalty “sentence of death may be imposed
for the most serious crimes “ It has also, in Article 6(4) provided that
“Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be
granted in all cases.” In 1972, the US Supreme Court stayed execution
on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment but in 1976 the
sentence was revived. Several persons who were in the death row for
several years were given death sentence. Mr. R.K. Raghavan, former

director of CBI, says, “Scholars are, however, sharply divided over
the wisdom of preserving with what is on the face of it a barbaric
practice.”
In America, if stay is obtained regarding death penalty, several years

will have elapsed before a case is decided. This, it is said, is expensive.
That is why some of American economists have supported death
penalty. This means “no appeal or no stay”. The cost of human life is
ignored even by economists. Gary Becker, Nobel Prize winner for
economics in 1992, has supported death penalty on the ground that it
acts as deterrence. Does it? So far no proper scientific study has been
made regarding its deterrent effect. In any case, empirical evidence is
not decisive. The problem has to be addressed on sociological and
moral grounds. Morality suggests that the state should not give to
another person cruel and inhuman treatment though that person has
given such a treatment.
In September 2007 Supreme Court of the United States imposed a

moratorium on death penalty. One Ralph Baze killed a Sheriff and his
deputy when they went to execute a warrant. In another case Thomas
Bowling murdered a husband and wife outside their shop. Both were
double murder cases. In both cases the Constitutional validity of
death penalty has been challenged on the ground that it amounts to
“cruel and unusual punishment” which is prohibited by the
Constitution. Probably because of this moratorium Earl Berry was
saved temporarily at least, just 19 minutes before he was to be
executed. He was in death row for nearly 20 years. The last
mentioned case was widely reported in India.
Mr. Raghavan says that the moral of the whole story is that we need
not be conscious all the time how we treat our convicts.
Fortunately, the Indian picture is not too bad. Death penalty is

prevalent in Indian jurisprudence, it has been held to be
constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court of India though the test
of “cruel and inhuman treatment” was not applied. Later, while
upholding the Constitutional validity the test has been applied. In

the Indian Connotation, unlike the American Constitution cruel and
inhuman treatment has not been mentioned.
The Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that Capital

Punishment is valid and legal. It does not, according to the Supreme
Court, violate Articles 14, 19 and even 21 of the Constitution (Bachan
Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898).
The Indian Penal Code prescribes death sentence or life

imprisonment for murder as defined in S. 300 of the Code.
Technically, depending upon the severity of the crime, a Court can
give one or the other of the sentences, though death penalty is by its
very nature irrevocable. But under Section 354(3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code a new provision has been introduced to say that
when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment, the judgment shall state the reason for the sentence.
More relevantly, the judgment shall state the special reasons for
awarding death sentence. Death penalty does not follow
automatically. it would thus seem that normal sentence for murder is
no longer a death sentence.
There are, in addition, certain in-built safety measures in the system.

Death sentence awarded by the trial judge is subject to revision in the
High Court, irrespective of whether the convict prefers an appeal or
not. There is thus always a second look. Even in the absence of
consideration of rarest of rare cases the Supreme Court had held that
death sentence was not the rule. Later in an unusual judgment the
Supreme Court laid down that death could be given on “rarest of rare
cases”. This was a sort of caution to the trial judge to be careful. The
Law Commission had already turned down the challenge to the
Constitutional validity of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It had
also turned down the plea of undesirability of retaining that section
of the Statute book. The Law Commission was of the opinion in 1967
that the country should not take the risk of abolishing death penalty.
Somewhat curiously, without any evidence in this regard, the Law
Commission thought that capital punishment had a deterrent effect.

Be that as it may, it can be safely said that though in India death
penalty is prevalent, it is in a diluted form; there are several
safeguards. No proper, detailed study has been made of the extent
and effect of death penalty. It is hoped that after the Resolution of the
General Assembly of the United Nations, our legislators and the Law
Commission will take a second look at the penalty.

Judging the Judges
The resignation of Justice S K Desai of the Bombay High Court from

the office of judgeship of the high court does not settle the issues
which have been thrown up by the controversy and the debate which
preceded the resignation. The resignation itself may not have opened
a Pandora's Box but it has certainly not answered several questions
agitating the mind of the public who are genuinely and earnestly
concerned with the health of the Indian judiciary. The recent events,
not excluding the conduct of Justice Ramaswamy of the Supreme
Court, have confirmed the suspicion, not expressed openly because
of various factors, that something is rotten in the state of the Indian
judiciary.
The facts leading to the resignation of Justice S. K. Desai themselves

are simple and would have been probably ignored, but for the fact
that the members of the Bar in an organised way decided to force the
hands of Justice Desai. Justice M. P. Kenia, who was hearing with
Justice Desai one heavy case involving a claim of nearly a crore of
rupees, made a grievance that he was being coerced or threatened
into agreeing with a judgment proposed to be given by Justice Desai
in favour of one party. It was not alleged by Justice Kenia, or for that
matter by anybody, that Justice Desai was a party to any arrangement
in favour of one of the parties. Inferentially, however, the members of
the Bar thought so and it is a measure of the reputation enjoyed by
Justice Desai that a large number of people came to believe that there
was such an arrangement. The press reports suggested that there was
the influence of one lady which often guided the hands of Justice

Desai in several cases. This was also believed by members of the Bar.
Justice Desai tendered his resignation only when he received the

order from the president of India transferring him to another high
court. Presumably, this order of transfer was preceded by a letter
from the Chief Justice of India to Justice Desai to showcause why he
should not be so transferred.
The issues involved are the judicial conduct and the reputation of the
judges. In Justice Desai's case, judicial conduct was not directly
involved. Since there is total absence of allegation of a specific
misconduct against Justice Desai, it is reasonable to infer that the
proposed transfer was on the basis of reputation - a reputation built
up, naturally, over a period of time. In any case, a large number of the
members of the Bar, both on the Original Side and the Appellate Side
of the Bombay High Court, accepted that Justice Desai's reputation
was such as to warrant his removal from the Bombay High Court, if
not from the judiciary itself. The advocate-general of Maharashtra
also believed so - going by press reports regarding a letter which he is
said to have written to the governor of Maharashtra. The reputation
of a judge, like that of any other person, is built up over a period of
time. How is it that members of the Bombay Bar did not agitate
against Justice Desai till his reputation, like Pradarbha reached a
particular level in the case of Mehta v Mehta? Probably this case
triggered off a general reaction which took note of the conduct of
Justice Desai over a period of time. Justice Ramaswamy of the
Supreme Court is said to have indulged in several financial
irregularities in his administrative capacity as Chief Justice of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Bar is naturally agitated about
the same. But the members of the public have unfortunately
forgotten the case of Chief Justice Veeraswamy in whose house a sum
of Rs 32 lakh was found while he was in office. The Central Bureau of
Investigation registered a case against him under the Prevention of
Corruption Act for being in possession of assets disproportionate to
his known sources of income. This prosecution has been challenged
by Veeraswamy in the Supreme Court which, however, has not

decided the case for over a decade. It is most unfortunate that a case
involving the rectitude of the conduct of a chief justice of a high court
should remain undecided for such a long time.
The procedure for taking action against a judge of the high court or of
the Supreme Court is too cumbersome and tardy. The procedure for
the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a
judge of the Supreme Court or of a high court and for the
presentation of an address by Parliament to the president is
embodied in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This Act has been passed
pursuant to the provisions contained in Article 124 (5) and Article 217
(1) of the Constitution of India. The framers of the Constitution
recognised the fact that the judiciary or at any rate the higher
judiciary should not only be not corrupt but should also not be
corrupted. It is in this context that the status of irremovability was
conferred upon the judges of the high court and the Supreme Court.
Though for a long time after the coming into force of the Constitution
the conditions of service of the judges of the high court remained
stagnant, recently they have been considerably improved and next to
the governors of the states the high court judges are the highest paid
officers of the state.
The apparently attractive terms and conditions of service of the high

court judges, however, cannot be a match for the earnings of a middle
order member of the Bar. The earnings at the Bar are said to be at an
obscene level. A lawyer is said to charge anything between Rs 2,000
and Rs 5,000 for an application for interim relief. If ten such
applications are handled by a lawyer in a month, his earnings on this
account alone would be between Rs 20,000 and .Rs 50,000, not all of
which may find its place in the income- tax return.
Yet the judiciary has attracted several men of talent and character.
This is because of the high status enjoyed by the judges of the high
court. The high status has been enjoyed not merely because of the
provisions in the Constitution but the actions and conduct of the
predecessors of the present occupants of the posts. Over a century the

judges of the high court by their conduct, independence and
fearlessness have carved a special place for themselves in the state
and the society. To belong to a judiciary of this type was itself
regarded as a privilege and a matter of honour. This has been
undoubtedly a factor which attracted men of talent and character to
the judiciary. The opportunities which the office of a high court judge
offers to a person to do work which is satisfying in the best sense of
the word are also attractive. \
If this image has now been tarnished by the recent events, naturally
the judiciary may cease to attract men of calibre and integrity, thus
setting in motion a process of further deterioration of the judiciary.
The independence of the judiciary may suffer at the hands of the
outside agency. It may also be threatened by actions of an excessively
zealous executive, as it did happen during the internal emergency
seen 1975 and 1977, But it is also possible that the independence of the
judiciary may be compromised by the members of the judiciary
themselves. In any case, the image of the judiciary is more likely to be
destroyed by members of the judiciary from within than by
propaganda from outside, though the role by the latter cannot be
underestimated.
It is high time some thought was given to the question of restoring the
judiciary to a position of independence, integrity and credibility by
adopting certain measures. The government is now seized with a
proposal for constituting a high-powered committee for the
appointment of judges of the high court and the Supreme Court. One
is not sure as to whether the credibility of the judiciary has been
impaired by the method so far followed while appointing judges of
the high court. The apple when it is picked from the garden is good;
the worm surfaces later. What is required is a proper system of
monitoring the working of the judiciary. The judiciary has, with some
justification, enjoyed a certain measure of immunity from criticism.
Even the criticism of a judge of the high court in his administrative
capacity has been held to constitute contempt of court by the
Supreme Court in Baradkant Mishra v Registrar of Orissa High

Court (1974-1 Supreme Court Cases, 374), though by a narrow
majority of 3 to 2. In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has
held that truth cannot be pleaded as a defense to a charge of contempt
of court when such charge is that the contempter has attributed
motives of dishonesty to a judge while deciding the cases before him.
(See V M Kanade v Madhav Gadkari, 1989 Mh L J 1078.) It is not the
purpose of this article to examine the correctness or otherwise of
these judgments which are at the moment the law of the land. If the
law bestows such total immunity upon the judiciary, it is not good for
the health of the judiciary itself. The phenomenon of 'Reigning
Favourite' has been immortalised by Henry Cecil in his book Tipping
the Scales. That phenomenon is not peculiar to England; it is prevalent
in this country also. If a system of monitoring existed in this country,
probably the Desai episode might not have occurred.
Successive chief justices' conferences have resisted the suggestion of

a code of conduct for the judges of the high court on the ground that
formulation of such a code is inconsistent with the dignity of the high
office of the judges of the high court. In view of the recent
developments it is no longer possible to pretend that the high dignity
or the status of the high court judges will be diminished if certain
measures are devised to restore the confidence of the public in the
judiciary. The measures may be devised by the executive or by the
legislature by enacting a law or by providing exceptions to a charge
of criminal contempt of court. If the members of the judiciary
represented by the chief justices of the high courts in the conference
of the chief justices themselves evolve a code of conduct by reference
of which they will be judged, the purpose of upholding and
protecting the representation of the judiciary would he served to a
large extent. Some of the suggestions made herein are worth being
incorporated in such a code of conduct. Judges must be extremely
punctual in their attendance or court work. At one time, at least in the
Bombay High Court, no judge ever sat late in the court, whether in
the morning session or in the afternoon session. It is doubtful
whether the same can be said of the present day judges. In other high

courts conditions are probably worse. it is not inconceivable that
some contribution may be made towards the solution of arrears in the
high courts by the judges exerting a little more and by working full
five hours and all the 210 days in a year. Members of an institution
who are supposed to discipline the administrative branches of the
government surely can at least impose such discipline upon
themselves.
The case of 'Reigning Favourite' has been referred to above. As the

Bombay High Court pointed out in the case of Madhav Gadkari, it is
impossible to determine as to whether a particular person enjoyed a
position of favoritism in a court because in order to prove it, it is
necessary to prove in the first place that all judgments given in cases
where a particular advocate appeared were wrong. Such a thing
cannot be done except in appeals or revisions. But if a general
reputation grows to the effect that a particular advocate is enjoying a
favoured position before a particular judge, that might easily be
corrected by the senior advocates approaching the learned judge and
cautioning him about the same. One may also suggest in this 'regard
that a monitoring committee consisting of the senior most judges of
the Supreme Court may be established and to that committee
instances of this kind may be referred. All this may be done in
confidence so that the dignity of the concerned judge is not
compromised. Such a high-powered body as a committee of senior
Supreme Court judges will naturally exercise a healthy check over
the wayward behaviour of the judges without harming the
reputation of the upright judges.
Possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of

income of a high court judge cannot but be regarded as a greatest blot
upon a judge and the judiciary as a whole. If in 10 years a judge of the
high court acquires assets worth Rs 10 lakh that must surely be
regarded as a case for inquiry by the monitoring committee referred
to above and indeed even for an appropriate action under the law of
the land.

The image of judges being tarnished by judges hobnobbing with the
members of the public in public places has been the subject of
comment and criticism at more than one place. (See To the Best of My
Memory by Chief Justice Gajendragadkar.) The free acceptance of
invitations from all quarters and being seen in parties which have no
sanction or any, proper reason has been commented upon with
sadness by H M Seervai. The code of conduct suggested above should
include a prohibition against acceptance of such invitations. For a
judge to be seen drunk in a public place is not setting an edifying
example.
The independence of the judiciary is affected not merely by the

blandishments of the private parties appearing before the judges. It
may also be affected by the offer of post-retirement offices by the
executive. Many of the high court judges after retirement are offered,
and they accept, the post of members of different tribunals and other
posts under the government. Convention has established that when
high court judges are appointed to such posts they are entitled to
draw the same salary which they were drawing at the time of
retirement. Nowadays there are several advisory boards under the
detention laws. Sitting or retired judges of the high court are
appointed as members of such advisory boards and it is estimated
that the earnings of such members of the advisory boards are not
negligible. The manner of regulating the appointment of retired high
court judges will have to be provided either by law or by a convention
accepted by all the state governments and the central government.
Such convention must make it impossible for any sitting judge of the
high court to entertain a temptation of deciding cases in favour of the
executive. Judges should not aspire for post-retirement offices.
Fortunately there is enough work available for retired competent
judges in the form of arbitration, but not all judges have the same
reputation for competence and in such cases the need for - curbing
the temptation by establishing proper conventions or by formulating
a law become necessary.
All these suggestions will not necessarily remove all the possibilities

of the judiciary being contaminated, but the measures will certainly
provide certain norms with reference to which judges can be judged.
The possibility and the prospect of being judged with reference to
particular norms of conduct will definitely act as a check on the
conduct of the judges. It must however, be emphasised that this
article has been written with the full knowledge that an
overwhelming majority of judges in this country possess moral
character of a high degree and the corrective measures are required
to be taken only in respect of some whose conduct is likely to tarnish
the image of the entire judiciary.

The Judges and the
Commissions of Inquiry
I
n the year 1952, when the Commissions of Inquiry Act was
passed by the Parliament, nobody imagined that it would give
rise to innumerable Commissions of Inquiry in the future. What
was intended as an exceptional measure of finding out the truth of a
matter of public importance has over a period of years become the
rule. At the slightest provocation, subjects ranging from the suicide of
a college girl to the outright murder in broad daylight in the bazaar,
have been referred to the Commissions of Inquiry set up by the
Government. The year 1977 marked the Silver Jubilee Year of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act and as if befitting that auspicious”
occasion the largest number of Commissions of Inquiry for any single
year came into being in that year. Commissions continued to be
appointed to investigate into diverse questions of apparently public
importance. Milap Chand Jain Commission to inquire into the
conspiracy angle of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination - a matter requiring a
penetrating and secret investigation - and Srikrishna Commission to
inquire into the Bombay Riots have recently submitted their reports.
Reactions to the findings in these two reports have been of different
kinds.
In the opinion of the author, a time has come to examine not only the
desirability of appointing Commissions to investigate into the
variety of subjects which have so far formed the terms of reference of
Commissions of Inquiry, but also the desirability of Judges and in
particular the Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court
associating with such Commissions of Inquiry.

The need for such an examination has arisen because experience has
shown that the end results of the labours of most of the Commissions
of Inquiry have been negative. Either because there was a public
demand for such Commissions or because the authorities anticipated
that there would be such a demand or sometimes even to prevent any
large-scale, public discussion on a particular subject, Commissions of
Inquiry have been appointed. A Commission of Inquiry may be set
up to avoid an embarrassing discussion in the Legislature. However,
after the Commissions of Inquiry have submitted their reports
labouring over several years, no action is seen to have been taken or
has not been taken at all. If at the time of appointment of a
Commission of Inquiry there was some urgency about the problem
to be investigated, that urgency is in no time dissipated and both the
appointing authority and the members of the public have almost
invariably forgotten the purpose for which commission was set up.
Universal Futility
In view of this fate and the almost universal futility of the efforts of
the appointment of the Commissions of Inquiry, the Judges have to
examine for themselves as to whether they must end the assistance of
their names reputation and the weight of their office to such
Commission of Inquiry. This is especially so because rightly the
Judges enjoy a high degree of reputation and public confidence in
relation to their impartiality and integrity. Whenever there is a
problem agitating the minds of the public, invariably there is a
demand for a judicial inquiry. It is no doubt flattering to the members
of the judiciary, but if the trend of the futility of the results of the
labours of the Commissions of Inquiry continues. It will greatly affect
the reputation of the Judges. It is not merely the inaction that is
shown following the submission of the reports by the Commissions
that is disturbing, it is also the nature of the assignments that are
being given to the Commissions which is likely to affect the
credibility of the Judges who would be handling such assignments.
Recent experience suggests a very cautious if not a wholly negative
approach.

The apprehensions about the efficacy and utility of the Commissions
of Inquiry into such a large number of subjects are justified not only
by the experience but also by the provisions of the Act itself under
which such Commissions are appointed. A careful study of the
provisions of the Act and the nature of the powers of the
Commissions of Inquiry indicates that the Commission is not suited
to investigate into several types of subjects irrespective of the fact that
those subjects may be of public importance.
No Binding Force
It is too well known to be mentioned that the recommendations of the

Commission are purely recommendations and have no binding force
either upon the authorities appointing the Commissions or upon the
persons who appear before such Commissions As has been pointed
out by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice S. F.
Tendolkar (AIR 1958 Supreme Court, 538), the Commission is merely
to investigate and record its findings and recommendations without
having any power to enforce them. The inquiry cannot be looked
upon as a judicial inquiry in the sense of it being an exercise of judicial
function properly so-called. The Commission has no power of
adjudication in the sense passing an order which be enforced proprio
vigore. This view of the Supreme Court about the nature and scope of
work and the recommendations of the Commissions of Inquiry has
been consistently followed and is universally recognised as the
correct position in law.
England's Example
In England, a Tribunal had been convened under the Tribunals of

Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 to investigate a complaint of assault
against two police officers in Scotland There was criticism both in and
outside the Parliament of the usefulness of the Act as well as the
Tribunal The then Lord Chancellor in reply to the debate in the House
of Lords defended the English Act in the following words
…….The sanction of the public inquiry is necessary on occasions for

the purpose of maintaining a high standard of public administration
and, indeed, of public life. The modern system has developed in
consequence of the inadequacies of the machinery of inquiry by
Select Committee on the one hand and the limitations of the ordinary
processes of law on the other.
……The ordinary processes of law are geared to a charge or claim

brought by one person against another They do not fit when it is
necessary to discover what has actually happened before the
responsibility of or between individuals can arise, and as has been
discussed earlier in this debate, there are other fields, such as
inquiries into accidents, courts of inquiry in the Services and the
Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons, where the
inquisitorial procedure is necessary concomitant of their work. In all
those cases the question of discovering what has actually happened
is of prime importance. ... After the true facts have been found and
stated, it maybe necessary to stigmatise conduct which, although not
a criminal offence or a civil wrong, falls short of requisite standards
of our public life. It may be necessary to kill harmful rumours which
are found to be unjustified....
Public Importance
The above extract from the speech of Lord Kilmuir fairly sums up the
nature and the functions of the Tribunals of Inqjiry appointed in the
United Kingdom and also of the Commissions appointed in India.
Such Commissions must naturally be occasionally appointed and
should not become substitutes for the ordinary processes of law.
They must again deal with the questions of national or of great public
importance and should not be pressed into service to inquire into
actions or offences which can be more specifically investigated into
by permanent machinery established under the law of the land The
Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry (1966), United Kingdom,
expressed its opinion in the following terms:
“We are strongly of the opinion that the inquisitorial machinery set
up under the Act of 1921 should never be used for matters of local or

minor public importance and should also be confined to matters of
vital public importance concerning which there is something in the
nature of nation-wide crisis of confidence.”
The best illustration of a proper Commission of Inquiry was the

Chagla Commission appointed to inquire into the investments of Life
Insurance Corporation in the companies controlled by Haridas
Mundhra. After a heated debate in the Lok Saha resulting from a
painstaking investigation made by Feroze Gandhi, the Government
had to concede the demand for the appointment of a Commission of
Inquiry. It was headed by the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High
Court and its inquiry covered the conduct of not only the Chairman
of the Life Insurance Corporation but also the Secretary of the
Finance Ministry and of the Finance Minister himself. When such
high dignitaries are involved and the allegations themselves do not
disclose the commission of any cognizable offence but are directed at
the impropriety of the action taken by the Government, a
Commission of Inquiry could be a proper forum.
The status that the Chagla Commission enjoyed could be seen from the
fact that no less a person that then then Attorney General, Mr. Motilal
Setalvad, himself came to assist the Commission in its work. As is
ncw well known, the findings of the Chagla Commission led to the
resignation of a powerful Minister like Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari. This
shows that if a proper subject is handed over to a Commission
headed by a respected and senior Judge and if the job is done quickly
and efficiently, the findings of the Commission may lead to far-
reaching results.
Mischievous
It is always desirable that a senior permanent judge should be associated

with an inquiry. A Judge who is not even confirmed is less likely to inspire
the necessary confidence. The selection of the Judge to head the Commission
must be done by the Chief Justice uninfluenced by the suggestions by or the
preferences of the Governments. The Governments sometimes send a panel
of three or more Judges, one of whom be selected by the Chief Justice. This is

mischievous.
The fact that the Commission has got only powers of

recommendations and of recording findings has already been
referred to above. The respect with which normally the public treat
the orders and the judgments of Courts is missing in the case of the
recommendations of the Commission. There is also a general apathy
to the findings and the recommendations of the Commission because
they are not even binding upon the authorities who may either reject
all or any of the recommendations and decide not to act on any of the
recommendations The speed with which the report is examined and
action taken will, to some extent, invest the report of the Commission
with some sanctity and credibility. If, therefore, the Commission has
to depend for its own credibility upon the action of another authority,
then it is inevitable that the work of the Commission will fail to
inspire confidence. It is true, as has been pointed out by the Supreme
Court in P.V. Jagannath Rao vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1969 SC 215) that
the fact that ultimately the Government might not take any action on
the report of the Commission is irrelevant to the validity of the
appointment of a Commission. But it is not irrelevant to the question
as to whether the Judges should lend assistance of their office and
prestige to a work which would in all probability end in nothingness.
Pros and Cons
Lord Kilmuir has pointed out the advantages of a Commission of

Inquiry; in India itself there have been instances where the findings
recorded by the Commission of Inquiry have resulted in some public
good or at least in public knowledge of affairs which would have
never otherwise seen the light of the day. The classic example of the
Chagla Commission has already been referred to above. Undoubtedly
there are pros and cons to this question. Two views in theory are
possible. The first view is that because in India the Judges have been
enjoying large public confidence and have maintained a high degree
of reputation it is the Judges alone who should take up this work
because the findings recorded by them will inspire greater

confidence. The Commissions of Inquiry Act itself does not mention
who should head a Commission of Inquiry.
Technically, therefore, any person with some status in the society and
with reputation of impartiality and integrity can be appointed to
head the Commission, but there is always the risk of the public
criticising the appointment of such a person as being politically
motivated or as an appointed of person who is likely to be influenced
by the Government. In the case of appointment of a Judge of the High
Court or of the Supreme Court, such criticism cannot be made. The
Judges of the High Court and of the Supreme Court in the course of
their normal duties decide hundreds of cases where the Government
is a party. Rightly they are enjoying reputation of being impartial
between citizens and citizens and the State. They belong to a category
of officers whose tenure of the office is constitutionally protected. It
is, therefore, always felt that the Judges should not hesitate to accept
such assignments when they are offered to them. When a call comes
for a Judge to do something for his country which a Judge can do so
well, he should not hesitate to undertake it.
Second View
On the other hand, there is the second view that Judges should do
their judicial work and such extra-judicial work should not be their
concern. One American author has said:
“Surely, too, there is enough qualified brain-power in this nation of

200 million people (i.e. U.S.A.) not to have to call upon judges to
perform extracurricular jobs. However important those tasks may be
and however laudatory the motives of the participants, such a
practice subtly erodes the indispensable confidence of people in the
impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
[Prof. Miller - The Supreme Court: Myth and Reality]
At one place Mr. Justice Krishna lyer has noted that the
indiscriminate use of Judges and retired Judges for extra-judicial
work has come in for criticism and unless wisely restrained, may

injure judicial credibility. He has further said that “the ultimate
public good is illusory as even the frequency of use blunts the
instrument”. It has been feared that the frequent use of the members
of the judiciary for such extra - judicial work may degenerate into
political devices to ward off mounting public disquiet or
administrative embarrassment. “It sometimes happens that judges
are used by politicians in power to pull their chestnuts out of the fire
by appointing commission with men in robes to preside. This is
regarded by some as dubious step because the credibility of such
reports is in controversy, political artillery from the affected side
being invariably turned on the Judge”. (Mr. Justice Krishna lyer in his
Foreword to The Commissions of Inquiry Act by Ramasubramaniam.)
Extreme Positions
In the author's opinion, these two views represent two extreme

positions. It is undoubtedly a call to duty if a Judge is appointed to
head a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the affairs of national or
of public importance. It cannot be laid down as a rule that he should
not answer such a call of duty. But at the same time it is also not a rule
that every time the Government requests, the Chief Justice should
make available the services of a Judge. It might be broadly said that a
Judge should not even tread in areas where the issues involved and
the findings that are likely to be given are likely to affect the prestige
and the reputation of the Judge or of the judiciary. Moreover, one
should also bear in mind that a Commission of Inquiry is appointed
for uncovering the facts and not for expressing opinions. If, therefore,
a particular assignment is likely to lead to the expression of opinions
by the Commissioner, then a Judge should decline to accept that
assignment. This is not the place to enumerate in detail the types of
work that can be accepted by a member of the judiciary. But, in the
author's opinion, there are at least three categories of subjects from
which the Judges should keep away.
Political Questions
Any assignment which requires the Judge to sit in judgment over the

policies of the Government must be avoided. If the Government has
followed, according to the allegations, a wrong policy in respect of a
particular matter, the forum for airing the grievances is naturally the
Parliament and not a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The remedy is
also essentially political and lies with electorate which, if it disagrees
with the policies of the Government, is free to change the
Government. The question whether economically the sale of gold by
the Reserve Bank was a wise policy could not be the subject-matter of
judicial or quasi- judicial inquiry. If, however, the intention of the
appointing authority was to find out whether the policy has caused
any damage, then conceivably it could be inquired into by a
Commission of Inquiry because whether or not damage has been
caused is a question of fact.
It is also the author's opinion that purely political questions should

not form the subject matter of inquiry by the Commission headed by
a Judge. For example, what should be the solution to the Assam
question can only be the responsibility of the Government or of the
political parties in the country. A solution to that problem cannot be
suggested by judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. However, it may
be borne in mind that merely because the persons involved are
politicians, a Judge should not refuse to accept the assignment. What
is to be avoided is a political issue and not a question which may
affect the politicians. Whenever a Commission is set up by a
Government to inquire into allegations against a former Minister,
allegations of malafides and political vendetta will naturally be
made. But, as the Supreme Court has pointed out in K. B. Sahay's case
(AIR 1969 SC 258), the truth or otherwise of the allegations of either
side must be found out by the Commission itself, And further “when
a Minister goes out of office, his successor may consider any glaring
charges and may, if justified order an inquiry. Otherwise, each
Ministry will become a law unto itself and the corrupt conduct of its
Ministers will remain beyond scrutiny” (on page 261).
Cognizable Offences
A field which is wholly unsuited for the inquiry by a Commission

headed by a Judge is the investigation into cognizable offences.
When the public mind is agitated rightly or wrongly by reports about
the commission of a cognizable offence, it should not be regarded as a
matter which should be looked into or investigated by a Commission
of Inquiry, especially one headed by a member of the judiciary. There
are several reasons why this is so. In the first place, there is already a
well-established machinery for investigation into the offences
which are registered as cognizable offences under the Criminal
Procedure Code. This ordinary process of law should not be
circumvented by adopting any other procedure.
If a commission holds an inquiry into the subject-matter of an alleged

commission of a cognizable offence, it is beset with several
difficulties in its task. The Commission itself cannot locate witnesses
who can fruitfully throw light on the subject. At best it will only issue
notification inviting such members of the public, who are in the
know of the alleged offence or of the circumstances leading to the
said offence, to come and depose before it. Not all the persons would
be ready and willing to oblige the Commission of Inquiry in this task.
On the other hand, regular investigating machinery can, with the
large number of personnel working in it, locate the persons who are
witnesses and go to their doorsteps or call them to the police station
and record their statements.
Regular Trial
In the case of a Commission by the time the witnesses are brought

before it considerable delay will necessarily have taken place and
what even the willing witness may be telling before the Commission
will be from faded memories. Their statements having not been
recorded at the earliest, it will be impossible to test the veracity of
what they would be deposing before the Commission. It is
conceivable that several persons who can contribute nothing to the
work of the Commission may come before the Commission and
waste its time while vital witnesses may stay away from the
Commission. On the other hand, the regular investigating machinery

under the Criminal Procedure Code will do a quicker job, if it intends
to do, by arriving on the scene immediately and by recording the
statements of the witnesses. As is well known, contact with one
person gives clues to the names of other persons who can be of
possible help. In this manner several witnesses are contacted within a
matter of hours and their statements are recorded.
Another factor which militates against the desirability of using the

Commission for inquiry into the commission of cognizable offences
is the fact that ultimately it is a court of law which will decide where
the truth lies. Witnesses who have deposed before the Commission
will have again to be examined by the police who will be-recording
the statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
thereafter a regular trial will have to be held before the persons who
are found to be, if at all, guilty by the Commission are convicted and
sentenced in accordance with law. What could be finished off within
six months will take years if a Commission of Inquiry is entrusted
with this job to begin with.
Many Statements
It is well known that when witnesses are examined in the Court,

cross-examination is often directed to exposing contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses made on different occasions. When a
Commission of Inquiry has been appointed, there will be a statement
of a witness before the Commission; thereafter again there will be a
statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and
subsequently there will be a deposition in the Court. It will indeed be
a miracle if a witness who will thus be ultimately examined in the
Criminal Court does not disclose at least some contradictions in his
statements made on three different occasions. The credibility of the
witness is often tested by reference to the presence or absence of
contradictions. A witness who might have been found wholly
truthful by the Commission of Inquiry may be dubbed as a total liar
by the Criminal Court because in the latter forum that witness will be
subjected to severe cross-examination by the counsel for the accused.

Since before the Commission there is no accused, there will be no
counsel for the accused.
The third objection to Judges accepting assignments connected with

cognizable offences is still more serious. The findings given by the
Commission are subject to further review by a regular criminal court
presided over by a judge who may be of a position subordinate to that
of the judge who presided over the Commission. It is highly
improper that a superior judge's findings should become the subject
matter of sort of re-examination by a subordinate judge. But this is
inevitable in view of the system prevalent in this country. It is well
known that evidence in a court of law is weighed and not counted. In
a criminal trial, all the so called findings of a Commission may sink to
the bottom by witnesses turning hostile or may be blown into pieces
by a new witness who might have been in the meantime discovered
and who might be found to be wholly truthful. These are all hazards
of the time-consuming process which results from the appointment
of a Commission.
FIRs
If a Judge of the High Court heading a Commission of Inquiry

inquires into the allegations relating to the commission of cognizable
offences and thereafter his conclusions are subjected to a further
review by a Sessions Judge in a trial, as indeed they are bound to be,
then the entire work of the Commission of Inquiry will have been an
exercise in futility. In the author's opinion, in cases where specific
allegations of the commission of cognizable offences are made, the
only rational thing that ought to be done is the registration of these
allegations as First Information Reports and to entrust the work of
investigation to the regular investigating machinery. In case the
members of the police force themselves are involved, the
investigation could be entrusted to some other branch of the police
department or to the CID or CBI It may even become necessary to
entrust this work to some trusted officer of known competence from
a place outside the place where the offence has taken place.

Loss of Confidence
It is true that in recent months the public confidence in the police and
even in such agencies like CBI has considerably shaken. However,
entrusting the work to a Commission of Inquiry is no answer to the
loss of confidence in the regular or special investigating machinery of
the land. The Government must find out or establish an investigating
machinery in which the public confidence will be created and
sustained The quickest investigation and the promptest trial of
persons accused of cognizable offences are the only answers to the
problem and not keeping the whole matter suspended for months or
years together by entrusting it to a Commission of Inquiry. This is
bound to result in grave miscarriage of justice A Government must
govern and must govern strongly for the maintenance of law and
order. Public confidence in Governmental machinery will be
destroyed if dilatory methods are adopted In any case, Judges, in the
author's opinion, must scrupulously avoid being parties to a process
which is likely to result in miscarriage of justice.
In the light of the public agitation as a result of the refusal of the

Government of Maharashtra to accept Srikrishna Commission
Report some points need to be clarified. The agitators seem to be
under the impression that the findings given by the Commission are
binding on the Government which must necessarily act upon them.
This view is untenable. The law does not say so. It has been
unequivocally laid down by the Supreme Court on more than one
occasion that a Commission's findings are not binding upon the
Government or on any party.
There is a rationale behind this. In the regular judicial process, there

is almost invariably an appeal provided against a decree or a
conviction. There is no such provision in respect of findings of a
Commission of Inquiry. Our jurisprudence does not contemplate a
finality to a finding against which there is not even one appeal.
It should also be noted that on the basis of the findings of the

Commission, no arrests can be made of the persons indicted; indeed

no criminal investigation can be begun. For a criminal investigation
to begin, what are called “first information reports” have to be
lodged under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This essay is an attempt to explain the nature, scope and limitations
of an inquiry by a Commission appointed under the Commission of
Inquiry Act and also the results of the labours of such a Commission.
A proper understanding of the same is necessary to avoid false
expectations leading to bitter disappointment.

Alphabetical Index
'Shoka Chakra' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Babarki Aulad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

“Apology” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Bacon Francis . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 23, 38, 75
“On Liberty” . . . . . . . . . 3, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 Bal Thackeray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
28 Tatvas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Ballantyne J R Dr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Abdul Karim Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Bangalore Science Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Abu Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Bangla Desh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Adlai Stevenson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Benazir Bhutto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Advani L K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126, 133 Benenson Peter. . . 3, 7, 172, 173, 174, 175
Agarkar Gopal Ganesh . . . . . 72, 73, 85, 90 Bertrand Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
agnostic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 48, 49 Besant (Annie)3, 6, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62,
Albert Camus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 63, 86
Aldenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Bhagawadgita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Bhandarkar R G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Bhopatkar L H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Amartya Sen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Biafra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Ambedkar B R Dr.26, 28, 31, 45, 88, 137, Bible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 41, 42
141 BJP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 144, 148
Amnesty International3, 7, 100, 172, 174, Bradlaugh Charles48, 49, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62,
175, 176, 177, 178 63, 85, 86
Andrew Carnegie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Brahmanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Anna (Dhondo Keshav Karve). . . . . . 83, 84 Buddha . . . . 3, 6, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Annie (Besant)3, 6, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, Buddhism. . . . . . . 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 98
60, 61, 62, 63, 86 Burkha 3, 6, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,
Archana Guha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 116
Archimedes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11, 17, 37, 38 Cardinal Newman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Arthashastra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Catholicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Arthur Digby. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Catholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 41, 118, 159
Arthur Koestler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 173 CBI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180, 202, 203
Article 370 . . . 3, 6, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 Censorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Aruna Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167, 168 Chador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
astrology . . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 19, 88, 93, 127 Chagla Commission . . . . . . . . . . . 195, 196
atheism . . . . . . . . 48, 49, 50, 56, 60, 63, 94 Charles Knowltan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Charles Voysey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58, 59
Auden W H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Chinna Reddy, Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Ayatollah Khomeini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 chromosomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
B.V. Raman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Church37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 55, 58, 59,

60, 110, 118, 159 Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 33, 34, 36
Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Guardian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162, 163
Clinton Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 53 Gujarat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122, 129, 131, 138
Clinton P Farrell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 H.N.(Narasinhaih) . . . . . . . . . 91, 92, 93, 94
Commissions of Inquiry 191, 192, 193, 197, Hadith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 115, 141
198 Haridas Mundhra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Communalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127, 128 Harriet Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 79
Copernicus . . . . . 16, 17, 18, 39, 41, 42, 43 Havelock Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Corruption3, 7, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 184 Helen Fenwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Criminal Procedure Code137, 181, 200, 201 Henry Cecil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Criminal Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 hijab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Cylon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Hindu Marriage Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 117
Daily Telegraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Hindu Rashtra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Dalit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Hindutva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127, 128
Darwin Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 9, 10 Hindu, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
death penalty7, 51, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, Hitler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
182 Horatad Hadi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Death Sentence. . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 177, 178 House of Commons. . . . . . . . . 59, 161, 194
Delphi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 35 Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 176, 177
democracy 3,7,34, 52, 99, 100, 123, 136, India in Slow Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
149,152, 153 154, 157, 160, 165, 166 Indian Evidence Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 138, 160
Desai S K, Justice . . . . . . . . . 183, 184, 187 Indian Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Dickens Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Indian Secular Society. . . . . . . . . . . 89, 134
Directive Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Indira Gandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 158, 159
Dukkhas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Ingersoll Robert Green3, 6, 45, 46, 47, 48,
Edison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Einstein Albert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 95 Inquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 40, 42, 43, 44
Election Commission . . . . . . . 156, 170, 171 Instrument of Accession . . . . 145, 146, 147
ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8 Io ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Europa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Ishwar Chandra (Vidyasagar)65, 66, 73, 74,
European Union. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 75
Fadela Amara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 J & K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144, 145, 146, 147
faith17, 20, 21, 43, 45, 75, 106, 115, 126, Jefferson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
127, 130, 140, 141, 153 Jenner Edward Dr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19
Faraday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Jew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
fatwa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 John Milton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Feroze Gandhi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Jonathan Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Florence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 42 Joseph Symes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Freedom Bloc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Judges (Inquiry) Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
French Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Jupiter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Fruits of Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 63, 86 jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 180, 203
Fundamental Rights . . . . . . . 124, 135, 141 Karl Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Galileo . . 3, 6, 16, 17, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 Karma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 30
Ganymede . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Karnataka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 92, 128
Gary Becker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Karve (RD). . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6, 82, 83, 84, 90
Gautam (Buddha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27 Kautilya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150, 151
General MacArthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Kenia, Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 37 Kennedy John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 164
George Holyoake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Khadija. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 102, 107
Global Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Kofi Annan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Godhra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122, 132, 138 Kosambi DD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Nicolas Sarkozy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Nikahnama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119, 120, 121
Lady Chatterley's Lover . . . . . . . . . . 40, 159
Novum Organum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Law Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 182
obscenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity . . . . . . . . 80
Observer, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Librorum Prohibitorum . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 159
Official Secrets Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . 161, 163
Lilavati Munshi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 50
Lok Ayuktas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Omvedt Gel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31
Lord Kilmuir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 196
P.M. Bhargav Dr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Lycon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Pagdi Setumadhav . . . . . . . . . . . . 125, 138
Mabel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 57
Paramhans Ramkrishna . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Madame Blavatsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 63
Parivartan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Madhav Gadkari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187, 188
Paul Kurtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Mahabharata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Pentagon Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164, 165
Maharashtra14, 71, 72, 90, 92, 117, 125, Personal Law Board . . . . . . . 120, 121, 139
128, 131, 154, 155, 168, 184, 203 Polygamy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Mahatma Gandhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Pope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 41, 42, 43, 118
mankind6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, Ptolemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39
39, 57, 58, 77, 81 purdah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Manu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 132 Quran6, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 111, 114,
Manuvad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
115, 119, 120, 121, 127, 138-141
Margaret Sanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 85, 86
Raghavan R K . . 179,180
Marie Stopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Raghunath ( R D Karve)82, 83, 84, 89, 90,
Mark Tully . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
132
Mark Twain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Ralph Baze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Martin Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 42
Ramallah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Mary Carpenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Ramaswamy Justice . . . . . . . . . . . 183, 184
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan . . . . . 168
Ramayana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 94
Mecca . . . . . . . . . . 102, 105, 106, 109, 138
Rammohan Roy, Raja . . . . . . . . . 64, 65, 74
Medina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 104, 105
Ranade M G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 73
Meletus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 35, 36
Rangeela Rasul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 108
Michael Aris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 98
Rashiduddin Khan, Prof. . . . . 128, 129, 130
Michelangelo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
rationalism 3,5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19-
Mill J S . . . . 3,6, 67, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 158
23, 60, 72, 90, 91, 92
Millennium Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Razakars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
minorities123 - 126, 128, 131, 132, 136, 140
RD (Karve). . . . 3, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
Mizoram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Reason5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 38,
Monica Lewnskey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
41, 46, 52, 53, 72, 89
Morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 180
Religion (s) 12, 13, 14,15,22, 45, 110, 115,
Muhammad Prophet (Paigambar) 6, 101,
118, 124, 128
102, 103-109,114,118,138
Renaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mujumdar R C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 74
Reserve Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 199
Nagaland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Richard Nixon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Nairobi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Right to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7, 158
naqab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Roger E. Greeley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Narasimhaiah H Dr. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,91, 92
Roger Manvell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 86
National Reformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 60
Roosevelt Theodore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Nehru, Jawaharlal . . . . . . . . . 128, 137, 140
Samachardarpana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Nelson Mandela. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Samaj Swasthya . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 89, 90
New York Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 164 Sankhya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Newton Issac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Santati-niyaman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Sati. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 72,73,75 thread ceremony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Satya Sai Baba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 92, 95 Tilak Lokmanya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72, 73
Savarkar V D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Transparency International . . . . . . 149, 156
scientific method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17 Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act . . . . 193
Scot Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 UN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 176, 177, 179
secularism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 147 Uniform Civil Code. 3, 6, 134, 135, 136, 138
Select Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 vaccination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Senapati Bapat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 85 Vande Mataram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Shabana Azmi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Vedanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Shakespeare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 40 Venkatachaliah, Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Shakuntala Paranjpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Vidyasagar (Ishwar Chandra)3, 6, 64, 66,
Shankaracharya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76
Shariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 138 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Shintoism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Vivekanand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Shiv Sena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Walt Whitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Shriranga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Watergate Scandal . . . . . . . . . . . . 164, 165
Siddhartha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Westminster Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Sikkim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 whistle-blowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Socrates . . . . . . . . . 3, 6, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 165
Spycatcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163, 164 Widow Remarriage Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
superstition . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14, 19, 70, 127 widows. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75
Suu Kyi (AungSan) . . 6, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 Will Durant . . . . . . . . 11, 14, 36, 38, 44, 157
syllogism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Y. D. Phadke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Talaq. . . . 3, 6, 117, 119, 120, 121, 139, 140 Yajnavalkya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Taslima Nasreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Yerawada Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Tatwabodhini Patrika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Zainab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 105, 106
Teleology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Zeenat Ali Ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,120
Thervad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Zia-ul-Haq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112, 177
Thomas Aquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Thomas Paine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52

Justice RA Jahagirdar. (Retd)
Justice RA Jahagirdar (Retd) studied economics and politics for his

graduation and post graduation. During his college days he took
part in dramas, debates, elocution and Students'
Union activities. He studied Law while in
employment and passed Law examinations
meritoriously in 1959. Having passed the I.A.S.
examination, he chose not to join the Civil Service. He
served as Government Pleader, Professor of Labour
Law in K.C. College and in the University of Bombay.
In 1976 he was appointed Judge in the Bombay High
court and retired from there in 1990. After retirement
he was appointed Chairman of Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission but did not continue for
long for personal reasons. He was also Chairman of the Committee
for Fixing the Feel of Higher Education in Maharashtra.
In addition to his qualifications in Economics and Law, Justice
Jahagirdar is a student of Philosophy, History and Religion. A
voracious reader, Jahagirdar is fond of Will Durant and his wife
Ariel, the famous philosopher-historian couple and quotes them
often. His personal library, containing all the volumes of "The
History of Civilization" written by this couple, is huge. Recently he
has donated all his books to Academy of Political and Social Studies
and SM Joshi Foundation Library, in Pune.
He is connected with free thought movement and organisations and
has spoken and written extensively on rationalism and secularism.
He had been the Chairman of Indian Rationalist Association,
President of Maharashtra Rationalist Association and Editor of "The
Radical Humanist". As a Founder-Trustee of the Rationalist
Foundation he has contributed Rs. 5 lakhs towards its corpus.
Dr. (Mrs.) Sharad Jahagirdar, daughter of Late Justice PB
Gajendragadakar (whom Mharashtrians know very well), is a well
known and an extremely successful gynecologist. Together, Dr.
Sharad and Justice Jahagirdar have very generously donated to the
cause of Rationalism, Secularism, Humanism, Social Justice and
Freedom of Expression.
Rationalist Foundation

Rationalist Speaks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rationalist Speaks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RRationalist

Justice R A Jahagirdar (Retd)

Justice R A Jahagirdar (Retd)

The Rationalist Foundation is very much indebted to Justice R A

Rationalist Speaks... Cover Design, Layout & Production

Not for Sale

Rationalist Foundation is Public Charity Trust for the promotion of

· Rationalism, viz. belief in the efficacy of Reason as the sole

· Secularism viz. the belief in the irrelevance of religions for the

· Atheism viz. non-acceptance of the hypothesis of the existence of

The Foundation promotes its objectives by publication of articles,

The address of the Trust is:

Justice Jahagirdar explains in lucid terms what Rationalism means.

Reason plays an important role in the mental attitude that can be

Rationalism also aims at establishing a system of ethics verifiable by

Justice RA Jahagirdar has penned biographical sketches of ancient,

Justice Jahagirdar tells us that Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, in great

In his articles on Burkha, Polygamy and Talaq, Justice Jahagirdar

'Human Rights' is a topic that is very dear to Justice Jahagirdar. His

'Amnesty International' and 'Death Sentence' are two topics about

Every article in this collection is informative and readable and

I must make it clear that rationalism is not any philosophy which

As I have mentioned above, there are different schools of rationalism.

In ancient Greece, thought flourished and science, though in a small

Since I am talking to you about rationalism and social progress, I

The importance of rationalism can be understood better by its

There is a second class of superstitions which may be called cultural

Though religion itself is an organised superstition, initially it was the

An attempt to understand the origin of the universe is to be found in

At this stage it would not be out of place to mention that rationalism

In the history of science no name shines as brightly as the name of

One example might be given to illustrate the role played by Reason in

I cannot help at this stage from making a reference to the widespread

Apart from the futility of the astrology, there is a great danger in

If people had accepted and followed unquestioningly and blindly the

Some misconceptions about rationalism may be at this stage

If, however, he comes across a white crow he is prepared to discard

It has been mentioned that everything cannot be known to Reason or

Another serious charge which is leveled against rationalists is that

It is equally untrue to say that rationalists are unemotional,

A more serious charge against rationalism has been made, namely

It became Zen (Dhyan) Buddhism in Japan though it did not retain

Buddhism was practically unknown in India after 5th century. By

After having seen the broad principles of Buddhism, it is inevitable to

After he decided to become a Parivraja, Gautam set out with his

Buddha's austerities are in company of five ascetics. He learnt

Every one was welcome to Sangha. If invited to poor man's house, he

Ambedkar repudiated three noble Dukkhas. Birth, according to the

The many problems to which human flesh is heir - of which

There are many anti-humanist trends in Buddhism. The first of the

Buddhism in one sense is not a religion. Every religion in the world

Buddha was unknown to Indians even in 19th Century. Thanks to the

Yet the modern books describe Buddha as if born to fight

Different countries have different kinds of Buddhism. Why not one

Socrates did not leave behind an autography; we have no

Father of Socrates was a sculptor who had carved some prominent

Often people consulted the oracle whose answer was accepted by

No diplomas or degrees were awarded, but learning, knowledge and

The indictment was brought by a religious fanatic, Meletus,

“Socrates is a public offender in that he does not recognise the gods

The defense of Socrates had been made available to posterity by his

Socrates compared himself with gadfly given to the State by God. He

Several methods were suggested to Socrates to escape conviction. He

The language was throughout defiant, almost arrogant. Does this