Ram Jethmalani
We are informed that Sonia Gandhi is back to work. There have been three official statements regarding her unfortunate indisposition. The first was on August 4 to Parliament by Congress general secretary Janardhan Dwivedi that she was diagnosed with a medical condition, was advised surgery, had gone abroad and was likely to be away for two-three weeks. The second statement was on August 5 that the operation was successful and she was recovering in an ICU. The surgeon said that “as this is a personal matter that pertains to her health and medical treatment, her family requests that her privacy be respected.” The last public statement was made on September 8, by Rashid Alvi that “Sonia Gandhi is back and in good health”, and that he could not say anything more on this matter.
Other than these there has been a blackout regarding her location, the nature of her ailment, and the stability and prognosis of her health. Her last public appearance was during a visit to Bangladesh on July 25. The nation is naturally concerned and expects more information regarding what exactly is wrong with her, how serious it is and how long she will be away from performing her functions, fully or partially.
There is also a sense of discomfiture at this acute opacity, across all sections, including reportedly within the Congress itself. The aam aadmi finds it reminiscent of the feudal regimes when equal communication between rulers and subjects was unthinkable. The general population feels a sense of alienation in bonding with her in her difficult hour, as if they are not worthy enough to be taken into confidence.
This is an occasion to put privacy of public persons in proper perspective. The freedom movement and sacrifices of our leaders gave us constitutional democracy. The humblest citizen got his freedom of speech, the chief component of human liberty. The Greeks and the Romans had enjoyed democracy, an imperfect one though, both in its content and duration. But with Semitic religions that posited a supreme all-powerful ruler of the universe, democracy died a natural death. Divine rights of kings became the prevailing doctrine. After many centuries we witnessed the first glimmer of the reincarnation of democracy when some brave individuals challenged the power of the pope and some free thinkers acquired the courage even to deny the existence of god and his self-proclaimed agents on earth.
Thomas Paine proclaimed the Rights of Man and the American constitution explained that the right to criticise holders of public office is the vital building block of a republican edifice. In the celebrated case of New York Times vs Sullivan (1964), the US Supreme Court dismissed a defamation claim by Montgomery police chief Sullivan against the newspaper on the logic that a public official should be more open to public inspection and criticism. Fortunately India too found a great judge in Justice Jeevan Reddy who made the Sullivan pronouncement a part of Indian law. Briefly, the rule is that the people have the right to know practically everything about a person aspiring for political power. Even if the criticism turns out to be factually erroneous and hurtful to the plaintiff, the latter cannot succeed unless he proves that it is deliberately or recklessly false. Truth must collide with error in the free market place of ideas and win in fair combat. Law will not peremptorily suppress error.
The privacy debate has been going on in some sections in the media and over Internet. But to what extent does firewall privacy apply in this case? Sonia Gandhi is not on a holiday, nor is she a private person like Marlene Dietrich, who went to neurotic lengths to hide from the public. We are talking about an extremely important public figure who chairs the UPA that runs the Union government, a person who heads the ruling Congress that appoints the prime minister, and the chairperson of the NAC, where she holds a Cabinet minister status and performs an Eva Peron role of initiating laws for public good. Does that make her sound like a private citizen of India?
It does seem a bit ironic that in this day and age, such legitimate information is being withheld from the public, and that too concerning someone who is said to have been the chief architect of the Right to Information Act. The media, which normally are hungry for breaking news, seem either unconcerned or have been given strict instructions to lay off. No panel discussions on the subject or political analyses, not even basic information of where she is. Neither are there any spontaneous public gatherings at her residence, or mass prayer meetings for her health. Has everyone been gagged or does it mean that the public gatherings and spontaneous adulation of the past can only happen when allowed and sponsored?
Respect for privacy during a political leader’s difficult hour is basic to civilised democratic behaviour. Our people are already doing that and will continue to do so. But who has directed this information blackout? Is it she herself and the ‘Family’ or is it the Congress? Whoever it was should have realised the negative fallout of such an attitude. Shrouding Sonia Gandhi in such secrecy is not really in her or her party’s interest. Nor does it demonstrate a healthy relationship with the government and the people. It would have been a better strategy to recognise the distinction between privacy and secrecy and that intersection where privacy must give way to democratic obligation and ethics. This obligation has got completely obliterated by secrecy. The health of the person who heads the ruling UPA as chairperson and a virtual prime minister, chairperson of the NAC and president of the Congress is very legitimately the concern of the people and should not be kept under wraps. It is quite clear that Sonia Gandhi’s presence, and capacity to function optimally has a direct impact on the future of our polity, and a direct bearing on the way our country is run. So why is there this medieval secrecy, or as if we are some dictatorship of the old communist variety or a totalitarian regime of Latin America?
I wonder if the Congress is aware of the kind of speculation, most of it absolutely distasteful and insulting, that has been expressed by the citizenry in the electronic information highway. Wouldn’t it have made better public relations sense to inform the people in some more detail regarding Sonia’s health and progress? It would have struck an emotional rapport between her and the people, all the more important, since she is not a natural born Indian. The present attitude only strikes a chord of alienation between her and the people, who perceive that she owes them no communication, and rules only through dynastic right, sans responsibility. Bodily infirmities are often transmitted by genes. The required information is relevant on that score too.
I have no idea of Sonia Gandhi’s present state of health, but I do hope and pray that she has recovered completely and will be active soon. Just as I hope and pray for our country whose health continues to deteriorate and remains unattended.
Ram Jethmalani is an eminent jurist and Rajya Sabha member
No comments:
Post a Comment