14th March 2011
Injustice of the “Justice of Yesterday” and Social Justice
To rationalize his ideology of socialism, Nehru used other related arguments as well. He called for ‘not just the justice of today, but the justice of yesterday’.[i] Of course, he wasn’t the only one to make such an argument, for this argument echoes throughout the Constitution. But in claiming that accountability transmits over generations, Nehru, a barrister, made a most fundamental error of all; for people who have nothing to do with an alleged injustice are never accountable for that injustice.
The idea of ‘justice of yesterday’ can lead to extremely convoluted consequences. Just because someone couldn’t catch a guilty person and punish him or her in the past (quite possibly because the law under which that person is being deemed guilty today, did not exist then!), therefore our government must apparently punish the innocent progeny of that guilty person now. It seems that alleged criminals’ children and great-grand children who were not even born when the alleged crime was committed, must now be punished without trial by taking away their lands and property and denying them an equal status under today’s laws. The Preamble’s assurance of equal status is made completely hollow if such a logic is adopted.
According to such a theory, had Nehru investigated his family history, he might have found that, possibly 50 generations ago, one of his ancestors had treated a low caste person criminally but was not caught out and tried by the law of that time (there most likely having been no such law at that time). Applying Nehru’s own principle to himself, Nehru would have had to give himself up to the nearest police station and sought to be jailed for life on behalf of his allegedly criminal relative who died 50 generations before he was born. Even atwo-year old can tell us that such justice is absurd!
Freedom hinges on the very simple concept of individual justice – a justice that belongs to our lifetime, not a ‘justice of yesterday’ wagging its long tail for a thousand generations. Unfortunately, many people in India continue to behave as if common sense is not necessary. There is nothing to distinguish rabid socialists from rabid religious fundamentalists on this form of justice. BJP and VHP used exactly such reasoning[ii] to provoke and at least indirectly encourage their followers to tear down the Babri Masjid.[iii] Apparently, some primitive barbarian (doesn’t matter who – for that person is surely long dead!) demolished a temple that presumably existed at that site and built a Babri Masjid instead, hundreds of years ago. Hence the Masjid had to be destroyed in 1992 by barbarians who, without reference to any legal process, took the primitive concept of the ‘justice of yesterday’ into their own hands. Should this continue unchecked, we would have a situation of continuous retaliation forever; until possibly everyone is dead! ‘Justice of yesterday’ stands for revenge, a revenge to be extracted from babies not yet born. Nehru should not have aligned with such barbarism.
While it is unfortunate that a temple was destroyed a few hundred years ago by a primitive barbarian, it is criminal to break down a Masjid by force today. Law and order in a free society cannot function if the concept of ‘justice of yesterday’ is allowed even the slightest foothold. To the extent that Nehru used this argument, we must hold him responsible for promoting barbarism in India.Nehru only had to open his eyes to find that this primitive concept was no longer being applied anywhere else in the modern world. With Hitler’s death, the book of his wrongs was closed and consigned to the archives. Whatever ‘extra’ punishment Hitler subsequently received in hell, if such a place exists, was a matter between Hitler and God, not a matter for man to consider.
[This is an extract from my book, Breaking Free of Nehru]
[i] Nehru, cited in Austin, Granville, op. cit., p.654.
[ii] One of the leaders of the BJP, K R Malkani, wrote, ‘the BJP had already raised the Ayodhya issue. And it had done so early in 1989, not on the basis of any electoral calculation, but on ideological conviction. Historic wrongs had to be righted, however, symbolically’ (‘BJP HISTORY: It’s Birth and Early Growth’, at [http://www.bjp.org/history/history.html]). RSS said in the Organiser of 14 January 1990 that it ‘was not a case about the title of a place but of undoing a historical wrong and for that matter no court could decide it’.
[iii] When the demonstrators had pulled down the outer wall of the mosque around 1:30 pm, one could hear the frenzied slogans of Uma Bharati, another Hindutva leader on the stage: ‘Aur ek dhakka do. Babri Masjid thod do. Aur jor. Aur jor!’ (One more hard push. Break the Babri Masjid. Harder. Harder!) (The Week, 20 December 1992, p.42). See also Mark Tully’s account at [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2528025.stm].
A comment on the recent (a few months back) judgement of the Allahabad High Court should have been included in the foot-notes.
The argument would be valid if it was any temple or any mosque but here it is a case of many millions of Hindus believing it to be birth place of one of the most revered icons of Hinduism.
A comment on the recent (a few months back) judgement of the Allahabad High Court should have been included in the foot-notes.
The argument would be valid if it was any temple or any mosque but here it is a case of many millions of Hindus believing it to be birth place of one of the most revered icons of Hinduism.
The social justice argument is not to punish somebody but to provide conditions to those who have suffered indignities for thousands of years to uplift themselves and regain their dignity.
The social justice argument is not to punish somebody but to provide conditions to those who have suffered indignities for thousands of years to uplift themselves and regain their dignity.
Dear Kishan
Can you please define social justice for me? No one in the world has done so, so maybe you can give it a go?
You’ll need to ensure that you don’t create individual injustice by harming someone who was not even born thousands of years ago.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Kishan
Can you please define social justice for me? No one in the world has done so, so maybe you can give it a go?
You’ll need to ensure that you don’t create individual injustice by harming someone who was not even born thousands of years ago.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Kishan
Hinduism has many levels of belief. Advaita believes that God is everywhere, and specific avatars are therefore merely illustrative stories. On the the other hand many people do believe that Ram actually existed. That belief doesn’t prove anything, but that is a different matter.
Regardless of the kind of Hinduism we are talking about (the higher form that I mentioned would worship at no specific place, but everywhere), there is simply no way that BJP was justified in demolishing a mosque. They could have BOUGHT it (the solution that I strongly recommend in such cases), they could have gone to court seeking determination of property rights, etc.
The court ruling you cite could have been achieved without demolishing a mosque and creating a huge law and order issue. Advani will always remain guilty in my mind, and BJP, of this crime that sullied India’s fair name as a place of tolerance and non-violence. Shame on BJP and Advani.
Regards
Sanjeev
Dear Kishan
Hinduism has many levels of belief. Advaita believes that God is everywhere, and specific avatars are therefore merely illustrative stories. On the the other hand many people do believe that Ram actually existed. That belief doesn’t prove anything, but that is a different matter.
Regardless of the kind of Hinduism we are talking about (the higher form that I mentioned would worship at no specific place, but everywhere), there is simply no way that BJP was justified in demolishing a mosque. They could have BOUGHT it (the solution that I strongly recommend in such cases), they could have gone to court seeking determination of property rights, etc.
The court ruling you cite could have been achieved without demolishing a mosque and creating a huge law and order issue. Advani will always remain guilty in my mind, and BJP, of this crime that sullied India’s fair name as a place of tolerance and non-violence. Shame on BJP and Advani.
Regards
Sanjeev
Defining social justice is really a very difficult thing. But should that prevent the govt from doing anything and let the indignities perpetuate themselves? Of course, the argument that reservation is not the best solution is a valid argument. A better solution is to provide financial help for education but in the leaky Indian system there is only half a chance that the assistance will reach the needy.
On the Ayodhya issue, the enthusiasm of the simple village folk to the Rath Yatra was simply unbelievable. I know it because I come from a Haryana village. The demolition was unfortunate but the obstinacy of the leaders of Muslim community also should share some blame for it.
Advaita may be the belief system for intelligent people like you but in the villages the greeting is still "Ram Ram" or "Jai Ramji Ki" and the simple village-folk still swear by Ram and Ramayan.
Defining social justice is really a very difficult thing. But should that prevent the govt from doing anything and let the indignities perpetuate themselves? Of course, the argument that reservation is not the best solution is a valid argument. A better solution is to provide financial help for education but in the leaky Indian system there is only half a chance that the assistance will reach the needy.
On the Ayodhya issue, the enthusiasm of the simple village folk to the Rath Yatra was simply unbelievable. I know it because I come from a Haryana village. The demolition was unfortunate but the obstinacy of the leaders of Muslim community also should share some blame for it.
Advaita may be the belief system for intelligent people like you but in the villages the greeting is still "Ram Ram" or "Jai Ramji Ki" and the simple village-folk still swear by Ram and Ramayan.