Is your problem with the State using violence or using unlawful or unconstitutional violence?
If it is the first, I can't agree with you. The state has and only the State has the normative right to use force against non-state actors (and state-actors, if the need be), the application of which is circumscribed by the Constitution, of course. That I agree with you if it is the second is evident from the above. What I disagree with is that, while there is of course, the possibility, or probability of misuse of authority, that is no excuse for shrinking from using the authority.
About the 'solution' suggested by Puniyani et al., there are two very good responses in the Acorn blog which I post here, as I can't express it any more succinctly:
(The Rational Fool)
I agree that there is a danger of due process being compromised by the authorities - "TADA ke andar band kar doonga". Potential misuse of authority, however, cannot be an excuse for no exercise of authority, resulting in the breakdown of law and order.
In a pluralistic democracy, there are institutions in place to check this tendency to misuse authority. Judicial oversight is obviously one of them. India has a functioning judiciary that is, in my telescopic view, fairly impartial and wise, particularly the Supreme Court.
The will of the people is heard through the parliament, the legislatures, and their committees, that are responsible for the strengthening of the existing laws and the passage of new laws, if necessary, to ensure the integrity of the process. These institutions are not perfect, but in this context, are more likely to err on the side of inaction than excesses.
And then, there are the non-governmental watch dogs such as the Press, the Amnesty International, the Arundhati Roys, and the Amartya Sens. I don't see the need to give these NGO's teeth through extra-constitutional committees as suggested by the IHRO, though. Giving them authority with no accountability for their "social audit" would be a mistake. At best, the bureaucracy'd be further bloated, adding another layer for influence peddling, and enhancing the income (to use your words) of the retired sexta-septua-octo-genarians at the tax-payers' expense. Paraphrasing the Queen in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, the professionals will be left to run faster and faster, just to keep in the same place!
(Rohit)
"A high-powered committee that could review such investigations similar to what the IHRO letter proposes is not a very bad idea. Could be constituted with sitting / retired judges, ex-police officers etc. on the panel along with the 'human rights' activists"
Jai, I hope you read the letter carefully. What they are demanding is an extra-constitutional authority which would ensure only the "guilty" are punished. Sorry. But it is the courts which are supposed to decide to who is guilty or not. It cannot be outsourced to a committee however well meaning it might be. (Not for a minute though I believe Puniyani et al. are well meaning.)
Sure, you can argue that courts are not perfect. But that is an argument in favor of improving the oversight mechanism rather than appointing a super-committee. At the very least, even if such a body is appointed, the Supreme Court is quite likely (and quite rightly) to throw it out.
Best regards,
Murali
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.
Sent from
Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
