THE entire country witnessed the collapse of governance will in the events leading to the conviction and sentencing of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim. And a day after he earned two decades in prison, another self-proclaimed godman Rampal was arraigned before the court. He was acquitted for allegedly masterminding a spell of riotous frenzy by his supporters in a case whose denouement is also close. For that matter, though Ram Rahim was convicted of a charge that involved betraying the trust of vulnerable women, he too will shortly be arraigned for charges of murder. The only difference between the two godmen, both of whom ran veritable empires that brooked no challenge to their suzerainty, was that Rampal wasn’t charged with grave moral turpitude.But what was common between the two was that for all their teachings about egalitarianism and piety, they had assumed that their empyrean status among their apostles would grant them immunity from the temporal world of rules and regulations outside their dera gates. Once that was not to be, there is tacit encouragement to the bereft followers to go on a riotous frenzy. Another common element behind the travails of both self-anointed saints was the strange radio silence from politicians. The televised spectacle in the run-up to Ram Rahim’s sentencing was tailor-made for politicians to weigh in. Rarely has the political class willingly passed up an opportunity to insert itself in an event that had the whole country riveted.The politician is ever-willing to overlook indiscretions by the Babas because of the nature of the battle for votes where only the winner matters. Very few contestants, mostly those in it for a token contest, are loath to allow even a single unsolicited vote to escape their grasp. The Babas, with a complete sway over lakhs of followers, are a temptation a politician can hardly overlook. The politician is willing to let matters rest and wait for another day, perhaps when the Baba walks free, rather than risk antagonising his captive vote bank by taking a stand. Principles can wait for another day. 

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a path-breaking judgment ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, like the right to life. This verdict will impact national and global jurisprudence on privacy vis-a-vis information-based economy and governance.

Need of the hour: Parliament has to perform its constitutional obligation of making a law on privacy. Tribune photos

Madabhushi Sridhar

THE basic concept and definition of privacy rendered by Justice BP Jeevan Reddy in the Rajgopal case (1994) and the emphatic dissent of Justice Subbarao in the MP Sharma case formed the solid basis of the nine-judge bench recognising and declaring that the right to privacy is the intrinsic part of life under Article 21 and a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Now the Aadhaar link has to be decided on the Aadhaar of this unanimous order of the Supreme Court. Justice Chandrachud referred to the landmark order of Justice Jeevan Reddy, who said: “The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his home, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent — whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. The position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy”.  Recently, in the Ram Jethmalani case, the Supreme Court held the revelation of the details of the bank accounts of individuals without the establishing wrongdoing would be a violation of the right to privacy. The judges cited catena of orders from India and abroad to explain how privacy assumed fundamental importance as a basic right. This judgment will have a significant impact on the Government’s Aadhaar scheme, under which the state is collecting huge personal details and biometrics to identify beneficiaries for accessing social benefits under various welfare schemes.  The question that another five-judge bench of Supreme Court is going to decide is: Whether the Aadhaar programme is a breach of privacy, informational autonomy and bodily integrity?The Union contended that the right to privacy was not fundamental, while four state governments — Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry —where non-BJP political parties are ruling, opposed the Centre’s contention and pleaded for the right of privacy. The Maharastra government said that it is a concept and not a stand-alone right.  This landmark declaration that it is a fundamental like the right to life will impact national and global jurisprudence on privacy vis-à-vis information-based economy and governance.The Supreme Court overruled its earlier verdicts in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh. As an eight-member bench in MP Sharma decided against the fundamental right status of privacy, this nine-member bench was necessitated. The Supreme Court prepositions subsequent to the Kharak Singh case were held to be correct position in law. The Attorney General’s argument of doubtful status of privacy based on the Supreme Court orders in the MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases was rejected emphatically. In MP Singh, the Supreme Court held that a power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law.  The Court felt that the Constitution makers did not subject the regulation by law of the power of search and seizure to a fundamental right of privacy. The decision in the Kharak Singh case held that clause (b) of Regulation 236, which provided for domiciliary visits at night, was violative of Article 21. The bench observed that Kharak Singh regards the sanctity of the home and the protection against unauthorised intrusion an integral element of “ordered liberty”.  The Supreme Court agreed with the dissent of Justice Subbarao in Kharak Singh. He held that the rights conferred by Part III have overlapping areas. Where a law is challenged as infringing the right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1) (d) and the liberty of the individual under Article 21, it must satisfy the tests laid down in Article 19 (2) as well as the requirements of Article 21. Justice Subba Rao recognised a constitutionally protected right to privacy, considering it as an ingredient of personal liberty.  Justice Chandrachud’ draft was signed by Chief Justice Khehar, Justices RK Agrawal, Abdul Nazeer, and approved by  Justices Chalameshwar, S A Bobde, R F Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, by separate judgments.  Referring to the informational privacy, he says: “In aggregation, they disclose the nature of the personality: food habits, language, health, hobbies, sexual preferences, friendships, ways of dress and political affiliation. In aggregation, information provides a picture of the being: of things which matter and those that don’t, of things to be disclosed and those best hidden”.The bench finally cautioned that the judicial recognition of the existence of a constitutional right of privacy is not an exercise in the nature of amending the Constitution nor is the Court embarking on a constitutional function of that nature which is entrusted to Parliament.  The Parliament has to perform its constitutional obligation of making a law on this vital point. Such a law if made should not encroach upon privacy, and if it does it has to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. Such a law shall stipulate a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable.  Thus, a law of privacy with reasonable restrictions to advance security and public interest is the need of the hour. The writer, a Central Information Commissioner, is a former Professor of Law at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

Members of the All J&K Army Porters’ Union protest in Jammu on Sunday. Tribune photo

Tribune News Service

Jammu, August 20

The All J&K Army Porters’ Union has alleged that they were recruited in their respective areas by the Army as ‘Army civilian porters’ during the Kargil war from 1999 to 2004 but they were not given jobs by the government despite assurances to this effect.The union members, hailing from Jammu, Samba, Kathua, Akhnoor, Poonch and Rajouri, while briefing the media today alleged that they served in most difficult terrains during the war and many porters lost their lives.They added that the government had given financial help as well as jobs to kin of the porters killed during the war while the rest were waiting for their engagement as per promises made by the government.“After the Kargil war, the Army authorities verbally assured us and handed over certificates to every individual porter and promised us that preference would be given to Kargil war porters during the recruitment. It is very difficult for us to earn livelihood for our family members. We spent precious time of our life for the sake of our motherland,” a statement said.“The government has framed a policy for surrendered militants who were involved in anti-national activities but the ill-fated Army porters are still deprived of jobs,” it added.

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, August 14

It is unlikely that the People’s Liberation Army of China will attend the ceremonial border personnel meeting with the Indian Army tomorrow.The two countries are locked in a military standoff at the Doklam plateau since June 16.As per the laid down protocol, the Indian Army, on August 15, hosts the People’s Liberation Army of China for a ceremonial border personnel meeting at five designated meeting points along the 3,488-km Line of Actual Control (LAC).Top sources in Delhi confirmed tonight that Beijing might not send the PLA troops as this could indicate a thaw. By not attending the meeting, China would indicate a status quo in terms of the standoff.The previous such ceremonial meeting that was to be held on August 1 did not materialise. China was to host the meeting.Ceremonial meetings are not like the usual flag-meetings, these are events to know each other socially, there is lunch hosted and a cultural show. There are five such meeting points along the LAC and ceremonial meetings are hosted at all these points, Depsang in sub-sector north and Sappangur Gap (both on eastern Ladakh), Nathu La in Sikkim and Bumla and Kibithoo in Arunachal Pradesh. The last flag-meeting between two high-ranking military officers of India and China failed to end the stalemate on August 11.A Major General-rank officer was leading the Indian team and was matched by an equal rank officer from the Chinese army.The two sides stuck to their stated stands. India asked China to end its road construction activity and China asked India to withdraw from what it said was its territory. India fears Beijing is aiming to make a road to cross east of the Torsa nullah and reach the Jampheri ridge from where it gets a clear view of the Siliguri corridor, the narrow sliver of land that connects North-East with mainland India.

As the standoff at Doklam Plateau in Bhutan, the 89 square kilometres area which China lays claim to, enters the ninth week  and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval back from Beijing,  the Chinese game plan is becoming increasingly clearer. In early Jun 2017, China had taken Bhutan and India by surprise with aggressive moves to build a road through the Doklam Plateau to the southern end of the Chumbi Valley near Trijunction. Doklam is disputed between China and Bhutan; India is not a party to that dispute. However, Doklam lies on the eastern side of the Chumbi Valley opposite our defences on the western side of the same valley. Any construction activity there changes the strategic picture with enhanced Chinese capability to operate against the southern end of Chumbi. India is even more sensitive to the extension of the road because that provides capability to the Chinese to threaten the Siliguri Corridor, commonly called the Chicken’s Neck, lying fifty kilometres further south but through some very rugged terrain. 

When Bhutan’s protests did not work, it requested India for help which India is duty bound to extend under provisions of the 2007 India Bhutan Friendship Treaty. Elements of the Indian Army moved into the Bhutanese territory and without firing a shot became an obstacle to further Chinese advance along the road. The kind of jostling seen on amateur videos was reminiscent of the Nathula standoff of 1967 although the latter was an eyeball to eyeball contact with bayonets at the ready. At Nathula there were heavy casualties on both sides, although more on the Chinese side, after the gung ho Chinese decision to use force to stop the Indian Army from constructing a wire fence to demarcate the exact border alignment at Nathula post. 

Unlike Nathula 1967, the Chinese response this time has been in different domains. First it refused to allow the annual  Mansarovar Yatra to proceed from Nathula on lame pretexts. Thereafter it commenced a vitriolic psychological campaign in its state controlled media, such as the like of which has not been witnessed in many years. The choice of words was actually unbecoming of a responsible power who is also a member of P5. That vitriol grew worse by the day and has yet to seize. Third, it conducted a brigade level fire power exercise in Tibet to project its readiness to employ the military option and intimidate India. While no Chinese mobilization or troop concentration has been reported there were enough threats to project as if a war was about to break out. The issue for us to examine is whether this was an accidental and unrealized event which just spiraled out of hand or was it deliberate.

Strategic military sense would have dictated to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) that attainment of whatever political objectives it had set would not be easy. By all reckoning Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambition of removing all opposition and obtaining and enhancing his influence substantially at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in Autumn 2017 is the core reason for the maverick Chinese actions. Xi Jinping has emerged as one of the most powerful Chinese leaders in the post Deng Xiao Ping era and is actually ambitious enough to attempt overtaking the image of even the father of China’s modernization. However, the projection of diplomatic, economic and military strength is an essential element of Xi Jinping’s strategy. The politico economic strategy has been largely displayed with the image building Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) conference in Beijing in May 2017; the attendance by even Japan and the US was a major diplomatic victory for Xi Jinping. This is further enhanced with the US reliance on China to rein in North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and prevent his threatening gestures. Xi Jinping had earlier initiated a host of measures to strengthen the effectiveness of the Chinese Armed Forces and reorganized the structure. The only thing perhaps left for Xin Jinping was to display China’s military might a tad more than just at parades, under his leadership; perhaps perceived by him as a virtual certification of his contribution to the Chinese nation. Earlier he had intimidated and tested the international community’s will on the issue of South China Sea by refusing to accept and implement the decision of the international tribunal. However, display of military intimidation there is fraught with higher risk.

The choice of Chumbi Valley was perhaps triggered by the decision of both India and Bhutan to avoid attendance of the BRI conference in Beijing; two nations noticeable by their absence and both being China’s immediate neighbors. China hoped that the proximity of the trigger point to the strategically vulnerable Siliguri Corridor would force both India and Bhutan to capitulate against Chinese demands and pressure. There doesn’t appear any intent to trigger major hostilities because there could be no guarantee of success in a localized exchange and an unpredictable war could go out of hand at this crucial moment.  In the worst case scenario of such an exchange the scope could quickly be extended to other zones in Ladakh, Central Sector or Arunachal Pradesh thus causing greater intimidation without going to war. It probably was appreciated by the PLA that India would unlikely risk a conflagration so close to its vulnerability and would buckle under pressure. It perhaps did not think through to the last order implications that an extended Indian resistance and acceptance of mutual withdrawal would amount to a strategic Indian victory. That is the likely reason one can ascribe today to a possibly long standoff extending into autumn because the Chinese cannot afford to accept withdrawal before the autumn meeting of the 19^th National Congress. That is also the reason why some lower level intimidation by the PLA is likely to continue in other areas; Barahoti in Central Sector has already seen an incursion two weeks ago. It could happen in the traditional areas of Ladakh and Arunachal; the idea being to boost the eye ball attraction through propaganda.

Those who were imagining the feasibility of the triggering of a full spectrum war between India and China must be clear that under no circumstance does such a showdown add to political objectives that China seeks in the long run or Xi Jinping’s current strategy. It knows that India has no major political ambitions, at least for the current. China has enough problems to contend with in terms of Japan and South East Asia. It should be pragmatic enough to ensure that creating another major adversary extending into the Indian Ocean Region serves Chinese interests no purpose. China’s growth story still revolves around the security of its Sea Lines of Communication (SLsOC) which are vulnerable and India can make them even more vulnerable, if it chooses to. Even a short limited spectrum war involving exchanges on the border and possibly one or two exchanges of surface to surface missiles, more as messaging, is unlikely to achieve any objectives and would show China in poor light with inability to press for its objectives.

This analysis would be incomplete without a positive word on the Indian strategy of ‘sticking it out’. Quietly, without unnecessary bluster, India has prevented a showdown and yet displayed strategic resolve. This is one of the most difficult things to achieve in strategic affairs. What must continue is the dignified and quiet demeanor that has been on display from the Indian side. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s recent speech in Parliament has been the most appropriate display of sensible discretion. Sometimes victory lies in the realm of silence and dignity. The analyses in the media by knowledgeable analysts have also been shorn of bluster but yet fairly accurate.

Next month’s BRICS summit to be held in the Chinese city of Xiamen and to be attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being viewed with much interest. However, China has often displayed its ability to keep issues of concern quite well separated. BRICS is more about economics and although the sensitivity of India’s non-attendance of the BRI conference may continue to rankle China it is unlikely that it will not adopt a business as usual attitude towards India at the upcoming conference. However, memory of the visit of then Foreign Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to China in 1979 with the war on Vietnam launched even with his presence there, needs to be recalled.

The last thing the Indian media or the Indian state should do is to celebrate prematurely. Nothing has yet been achieved and classically a stalemate continues, probably will continue for some time. The only thing to be positive about is that war was almost there and yet not there.  It should be enough of a signal to us that it is time to seriously look at our defence capability and infrastructure and review the long dead military transformation which was to take place in the first decade of the millennium.

(The writer is a former General Officer Commanding 15 Corps, now associated with the Vivekanand International Foundation and Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies)

Beijing, August 4

In an unusual move, a Chinese strategic analyst has questioned Beijing’s “national obsession” with Arunachal Pradesh, saying that the state is only a “chicken rib” and hardly an “asset” for the country.

China claims Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet” and in April Beijing had announced Chinese “standardised” names for six places in retaliation to Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama’s visit there.

The Chinese state media had said the move to rename the places was aimed at reaffirming China’s claim over the state.

But Union minister of state for home affairs Kiren Rijiju, who accompanies the Dalai Lama to Arunachal, had made clear that the state is “an inseparable part of India”.

The Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal was the seventh since he fled from Tibet through Tawang and sought refuge in India.

“Although China and India have been in a rocky relationship over the disputed territory for years, the disputed territory, which has been a national obsession, is hardly an asset to China,” Wang Tao Tao said.

“In realistic terms the area is just a chicken rib for China,” Wang wrote on the popular Chinese website zhihu.com — which is akin to Quora — mostly covers security matters.

Interestingly, the article came at a time when India and China have been engaged in a border standoff for more than a month after Chinese troops tried to construct a road in Doklam area in the Sikkim sector. India has protested the move saying it would allow China to cut India’s access to its northeastern states.

Social media websites and blogs — like the zhihu.com — have become popular over the years in China, where millions access them on their mobile phones.

“The territorial dispute between China and India is essentially meaningless, because this disputed territory for India and China, not only difficult to development, but the moral, economic, political and management costs are extremely high,” Wang said.

“In this case, it is hard for China to actually go to war with India for these chicken ribs as long as it does not hamper security interests,” he said, suggesting that any contest over Arunachal will have adverse impact on rest of the Tibet potentially strengthen separatist forces.

“Objectively looking, the potential for separation in Tibet could become more powerful,” he said.

Wang said China has failed to fully address Tibetan identity issues.

“While the land of southern Tibet is very different from the bitter cold in northern Tibet, agriculture is relatively developed, will also virtually strengthen the ability of Tibetans to support themselves,” Wang said.

Moreover, the area is vulnerable to attacks and cannot provide superior strategic depth and security interests for China’s inland like the vast Tibetan plateau, he said. PTI

Tribune file photo

Arun Joshi

Tribune News Service

Jammu, July 19

The Indian Army has set a deadline of September-end to eliminate most of the terrorists, if not all, in south Kashmir with the full backing of political groups of all hues in the Valley, highly-placed sources have told The Tribune.They said the Army has “complete political support of the government and the Opposition in Kashmir”.“All of them are nationalists notwithstanding their articulation of different nature, which may sound offensive to the sensitivity of the times, situation and the place,” a top-ranking officer observed.(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)Having realised the current volatile situation in south Kashmir, that has become synonymous with the Kashmir problem at the international level, the Army has embarked on a “surrender or face bullet” aggressive strategy.South Kashmir has posed a serious challenge to the security apparatus and has also changed the narrative after the July 8, 2016 killing of militant commander Burhan Wani.The Army has taken on terrorists in a big way with the help of the local police. The impression of “terrorists being more powerful” is being dispelled by the frequent anti-terror operations. There are approximately 100 terrorists in south Kashmir and many have been eliminated, including top-ranking ones like Sabzar Bhat, Bashir Lashkari and Junaid Matoo.“This is what we are supposed to do and that’s what we are doing. Our primary objective is to remove the atmosphere of fear,” the commander said.