I
Centuries ago an eccentric ruler, Mohammed bin Tughlak, wanted to shift the capital—lock, stock and barrel—from Delhi. How could he have been so farsighted?
Why did traders, normally docile people, become violent? Because, without providing plans for rehabilitation, without warning, politicians ordered the police to seal their decades-old establishments forcibly.
Why did the politicians do this? Because they never expected this situation to arise. True, the Supreme Court had ordered the sealing. But the politicians circumvented it as usual. They issued executive notifications to make commercial, on a single day, over 2,000 Delhi streets.
Alas, the Supreme Court sternly told the government it could not implement its own notifications, which made a mockery of law. The government shamefacedly complied—to make a mockery of its own functioning. It drew comfort and a moral victory from the court’s abstention from striking down the notification. The court merely ordered the government to ignore its own new rules.
After the protests, urban affairs minister Jaipal Reddy said the court could only interpret the law. It could not make the law. He declared that a special session of Parliament could, if necessary, even amend the Constitution to legitimise what are illegalities under existing law.
What explains the rage of the traders? One furious trader told TV: "We did not get our premises free! We gave bribes to legislators to set up our businesses! We have been paying municipal taxes for our premises for years!" But wasn’t paying bribes wrong? Yes, but is there any other way of carrying on under the present system? Everybody pays bribes! But millions of ordinary citizens are furious with traders, though not yet violent with them: "Commercial establishments have ruined our residential localities! Our investments have gone down the drain! Life has become pure hell!"
So, who can help Delhi now? Certainly not the prime minister! He recently changed the Office of Profit Law to legitimise illegal profits of MPs. Certainly not the President. Twice, he signed the Office of Profit Bill, which he considered illegal, to protect MPs and Delhi’s MLAs from being unseated. So, what’s the solution? Centuries ago an eccentric ruler, Mohammed bin Tughlak, wanted to shift the capital—lock, stock and barrel—from Delhi. How could he have been so farsighted?
(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)