The former Supreme Court judge B.N. Srikrishna (75) continues to call a spade a spade. A devout Hindu, he quotes from the scriptures and Manusmriti and finds the ban on beef insufferable. The outspoken judge, who was advised by Bal Thackeray to go to Pakistan after the release of the Srikrishna Commission report on 1992-93 riots in Bombay, also finds the current debate on nationalism spurious and charges of sedition against the JNU students over-the-top. Excerpts from the conversation he had with Prachi Pinglay Plumber.
What is sedition?
Originally the British introduced sedition to keep control over populace. They being outsiders were always scared that local populace may rise against them. They introduced section 124-A in IPC, which means causing disaffection towards government established by law by words or any other means. That is sedition. It was punishable by life or death, earlier it was punishable by kala pani. This was the manner in which the law was laid down.
The High Courts were following this section strictly but the Federal Court took a position that it needed to be read down. It would not amount to sedition unless there is incitement of violence and break down of law and order. (The distinction has to be made – murder is a law and order problem but a riot is break down of law and order.) Unfortunately, this was carried to the Privy Council, they reversed it. They said they would go by the letter of the law. Fortunately, after constitution came into force, the Supreme Court came into force and again reversed it.
Does the current incident of JNU campus fall under this?
I read what is said to be the transcript of the speech. I don't see what is seditious. For a moment let us assume he said India murdabad etc, but that by itself doesn't amount to sedition. Only if it is followed by incitement such as saying let's go storm the parliament, let's burn down, let's attack etc. Also the courts will decide whether it amounts to sedition or not. Who on earth are these fellows who jump on him and break his head?
What bothers me is lawyers behaving in this manner. Lawyers are becoming ruffians. Rather ruffians are becoming lawyers. Assume police were wrong but as lawyers you cannot take law into your own hands. You are sworn to act by the constitution, which does not allow anybody to use violence except when sanctioned by law.
How fair is it for the police to be on a college campus?
There is no law for police not to be on campus or even courts. As a matter of courtesy, they don't enter unless they talk to the Vice Chancellor or the Chief Justice. As far as the law is concerned, whether murder takes place inside the court or outside, it is the same. When Telangana issue was burning, the police were on the campus every day. But their job is to prevent break down of law and order; not to aggravate it.
The attack on journalists in the court premises took it to the next level…
Attack on journalists is as bad as attack on judges. Democracy has survived in this country because of these two institutions, the judiciary and the free press. They are now acting against journalists as they did against Muslims during the riots. Mob psychology is different. When one fellow throws a stone, everyone does. When you talk one to one, people are normal but when they come together, the mob psychology takes over. (In IPC there is a section for common intention, so whether you throw a stone or not you are liable if you were part of the mob)
One of the reasons why riots took place was because of the failure of the state machinery that's supposed to protect people from violence, atrocities. But the state was complicit in it, whether its government officers or the police, which are the visible limbs of the state. Then the helpless person looks outside for help.
Like Sanjay Dutt?
Yes. The only mistake of Sanjay Dutt was that his mother was a Muslim. It has happened to Shah Rukh, Aamir also. This is a disturbing trend.
Do you feel bad that nothing really came off the commission report?
After the commission report, Bal Thackeray had said I should be kicked out to Pakistan and be given Nishan e Pakistan. He said it was a hindu dweshi report. He also said there was no need to read the report. That is how people react, without reading and thinking. Some minor people were arrested. RD Tyagi was discharged. Compared to what should have happened, nothing happened. I agree it became a joke.
How different was the time of riots from today's atmosphere?
At that time the atmosphere was charged. In those days there was open incitement to kill, hurt and loot. This is more disastrous because it is done in a subtle way with the blessings of the state in power. The more you read the more you are reminded of what happened in hay days of Adolf Hitler. As Lord Acton says, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Are we more and more accepting of violence?
Unfortunately, yes. Whether it is road rage, throwing acid at women, catching women and raping women for rejecting advances, violence is increasing. It suggests some kind of deterioration of values in society. It is outrageous… We have forgotten that we are in the land of Buddha and Gandhi.
What about the reaction to Headley's mention of Ishrat Jahan and subsequent justification of her encounter?
I'll assume that Ishrat was connected to ISI, LeT, Jaish e Mohammed, or whatever. But how do you decide that she should be killed in cold blood? You don't do these encounter killings. Tomorrow they will say Srikrishna is attached to some group. Ten fellows will shout outside my house and strip me naked and beat me up? Last time this happened in times of Ku Klux Klan. Have we come to that?
But this may be a typical trait among Asians such as Indians, Chinese, Japanese, a hidden instinct for violence and revenge. In the Srikrishna commission report I have said, the beast is always under the leash. And an occasion when the leash comes off, the beast jumps out!
Does religion come in the way of your functioning?
When I was called Hindu dweshi someone had asked a fellow judge about me. The judge told him that if he wanted to learn about Hinduism he should become my disciple. I am a big Shakti upasak. I pray every Friday and used to go to court wearing the tika. The Muslims got jitters when they heard that a "tikawala" is heading the commission. Later on they had put banners saying insan nahin farishta hai. They realised I am not going to be biased because of my religion. Not bringing your personal prejudices is the test of the judge. The largest number of liquor licenses were given by me in the Bombay High Court. To me it doesn't matter, I just go by the law. It is not my duty to judge moral characters. I only have to go by the law.
We have always been a diverse society, how do you perceive decisions such as the beef ban?
Diverse people managed to go on in life without having this kind of confrontation. The beef ban is ridiculous. I have never eaten meat in my life but I am upset by it because it is not your job to tell me what I should eat, how I should dress, how I should think. Society is becoming Orwellian. It is dangerous. For example that is what happened to Aamir Khan when he spoke about intolerance…
Can different people co-exist?
I come from a very orthodox family. My grandfather used to wake up at 4 am, wear dhoti etc., our wall was shared by a Muslim neighbour. This fellow would start his namaz at about 5 am. My grandfather would stop whatever he was doing and intently listen to him. He told me, "I don't know what language it is, but it is melodious and impresses me and like saam gaan." They were neighbours for 70 years. During Diwali the neighbour would give fruits and do namaskar and they would talk to each other nicely. They would exchange basic courtesies. That's all you need. They didn't eat in each other's houses, but were good friends for 70 years. We have nothing to be afraid or angry with each other.
In fact the scriptures have put the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam?
Yes the complete shloka goes like this, "To think this is our man or not, is the thinking of a narrow minded person; to those who are broadminded, for them the whole world is their family." And it must have been 4000, 5000 years ago. Even in Manusmruti where he defines aryavarta, with boundaries such as the Himalayas, he didn't say Marathi fellows here, Kannada here etc etc. This is our stupidity of creating states on linguistic basis. Today you are suffering for this wrong decision.
How do we go from here?
All I can say is this; you are a Maharashtrian and I am not, but let us make this work. Let us not fight over it. If I look at distinctions and exaggerate them, the gap widens, be it language, gender, anything. How you communicate is important. Then we start seeing commonalities. Extend it to religion, countries such as Pakistan. You think about a Pakistani, who is looking for job, worried about inflation, has children this and that, just like me. When you look at commonality, the distinction reduces, when you highlight distinction, gap widens. That's precisely what is happening at all levels and is encouraged actively and passively.
The bottom line is you cannot take the law in your hands. What is nationalism anyway? The communists don't agree with the notion of country. A nation is just an artificial boundary drawn on a geographical tract. If the concept is used to unite people, it is good; if it is used to divide people, it is bad.
