Reported By:
| Edited By: |Source: DNA |Updated: Aug 27, 2016, 08:05 AM IST
With several violations of the Supreme Court order restricting the height of dahi handi pyramids to 20 feet being reported across Maharashtra during Janmashtami celebrations, the top court would do well to set limits to its judicial activism. It is unfortunate that the top court of the country is expending precious judicial time on arriving at a safe height for such events when it could have done better by focussing on more pressing issues involving the denial of justice and the clearing of the huge backlog of cases. Every time the order of the Supreme Court is blatantly, and so publicly, violated, it damages the prestige and the authority of the court. It emboldens others also to follow suit and cock a snook at judicial orders. Deciding the height of dahi handis would have been best left to the civil administration and police force. Admittedly, these are several areas of governance where the executive fears to tread. But the solution is not judicial interference. What is needed is an enlightened citizenry who pressure public authorities to take good decisions. The Supreme Court would do well to take note of the fiasco and restrict its activism in areas where it has no means to ensure compliance of judgments.
France’s struggle to contain Islamic fundamentalism has veered off course with the controversial banning of burkinis at some beaches. The ban has been overturned by the top French court. The burkini, a portmanteau of burqa and bikini, which covers the head, torso and limbs, had been banned by a few mayors on the ground that it violates the French commitment to secularism in public life and the country’s discomfort with the public display of religious identity. Like the demand for banning hijabs in classrooms, these culture warriors depict the burkini as a regressive attire that holds women hostage to religious dogma. However, the French, famed for dogged defence of personal liberties, are unable to resolve the contradiction between the secularism ideal and the sovereign right of women over their bodies and personal choices. As the French tie themselves in knots over such unacceptable strictures on religious, cultural and personal choices, nobody wants to publicly admit that their problem is with showing tolerance towards conservative Muslims and ethnic minorities. France must understand that fighting radical requires emphasis on the idea of a shared humanity. Going after clothes that covers the entire body or long beards only accentuates the differences.
When a tribal man in Odisha’s Kalahandi district carries his wife’s dead body on his shoulders from a government hospital to his village 60 kilometres away, the deep inequality between cities and the rest of the country come into focus. The man had walked 10 kilometres in this manner before help arrived. It is unclear whether it was the man’s poverty, ignorance or the apathy of hospital authorities that forced him to take on the harrowing task at a time of deep sorrow. The hospital authorities claim he left without informing them. However, visuals of another incident of the corpse of an old woman being transported similarly, because of the absence of an ambulance, has surfaced from Odisha. Naveen Patnaik, in his fourth successive term as chief minister, has promised to ensure ambulances and hearses at all district hospitals. But such basic amenities should not have to wait till an outrageous incident occurs. Patnaik’s narrative of his political success stemming from good governance must be interrogated more thoroughly by the media and his political opponents.
