Jallikattu shouldn't be a choice between Tamil cultural pride and rule of law

It is deliberately that I conjugate cultural pride and rule of law. I do so because, in connection with the high voltage Jallikattu sentiments, one is being pitted against the other. As a dispassionate observer I am worried about its serious consequences.

Life confronts us with situations that lend themselves either to the “A-or-B” format or to the “A-and-B” format. The first is the format of antagonism; the second, of harmony. When two values are in uneasy juxtaposition, maturity demands that every effort is made, and the extra mile walked, in order to harmonise them.

There is no doubt at all that cultural values, markers of an ancient way of life - its rituals, sports and practices - need to be preserved and respected. Popular sentiments matter. A way of life should not be altered, ideally, solely by coercive action: executive, legislative or juridical. Susceptibilities that pertain to identity issues need to be handled delicately.

Equally, the rule of law must be respected. Affinity to cultural practices and respect for the rule of law share a common denominator, which is "respect". If respect is belittled, everything gets cast in the confrontationist mold, which undermines felicity of social and national life. This is a calamity to be avoided at all costs.

Throughout the day a deluge of arguments buttressing Tamil pride have been aired through the media, all of which I respect. My roots are part-Tamil. I am not alien to the sentiments advocated. Even so, as a citizen in a democratic polity, I feel urged to place the other side of the story, howsoever feebly, deeming it a democratic duty.

The pronouncements of the Supreme Court are tantamount to "law declared". Central and state governments are constitutionally obliged to give effect to them. Not doing so slights the rule of law.

Why is that a problem for all? Why should we do all we can to uphold the rule of law?

The answer to that lies in the idea and purpose of law. The State is an instrument of raw power. All means of power are concentrated in the hands of the executive. The citizen is always in an unequal relation with the State. He cannot resist the might of the State either singly or in groups. The larger the polity, the greater his helplessness.

In order to protect subjects (in a democracy, citizens) against the caprice and tyranny of executive power, it is imperative to have a fountainhead of authority outside the ambit of its power and control. It is this need that underlies the doctrine of separation of powers. Law is the arbiter between the State and citizens.

Citizens must have, hence, a keen interest in abiding by, and upholding, the rule of law. They must be mindful of the fact that the executive has overt or covert interests in weakening rule of law, if not abrogating it altogether. It is in the nature of power to absolutise itself. Rule of law is the foremost stumbling block in its path.

In the best of times there is a tension between the judiciary and the executive. The fact that this is kept a closely guarded secret does not mean that it does not exist. At the present time, it is not even a secret! The situation was murky enough to cause the former Chief Justice of India to cry in public, an event unparalleled in history!

One aspect of respecting the rule of law is minimising avoidable litigation. During my tenure as the Principal of St Stephen’s College, one of the strategies used against me was piling cases after cases on me. I had to cope with 21 cases! I lost none. It was a clear case of using law as a weapon. This is an insult to the majesty of law.

Judges are not gods. They are not omniscient. They can judge issues on merit, only as merits are presented to them. It is not in their provenance to investigate. Juridical discernment is not infallible; if it were, there would have been no need to provide for appeal and judicial review.

As citizens who respect the sanctity of justice and the majesty of the rule of law, we must resort to litigation only as the last resort. NGOs must resist the temptation to take short-cuts. The first remedy must never be legal.

Understanding issues and concerns objectively and in their entirety and, based on that, educating public opinion so as to bring out a change from within should be the first option.

A wide enough margin should be left to the reality that attitudinal changes, especially centuries-old gnarled issues rooted in the culture of a people will take a long while to change. Reformers cannot afford to be impatient. To reform in a hurry is to bury the cause. 

Politicians, I am afraid, have not covered themselves with glory in the Jallikattu issue. Counting on easy gains, many of them set up the stage for the present uprising, which is not as spontaneous as it is made out to be. Making political hay by setting fire to the rule of law is utterly irresponsible and deserves to be deprecated. 

We should not have to choose between rule of law and cultural pride. Statesmanship demands that the present standoff be resolved by harmonising the two.

But, for that, we have to have statesmen. Where shall we go looking for them?

Also read: How music is being used to protest Jallikattu ban in Tamil Nadu