Ram May Yet Defeat Ravan Again
Ram
May Yet Defeat Ravan Again
Democracy rarely dies in
a single moment. It weakens gradually, one institution at a time, until the
very institutions created to protect the Constitution begin losing the
confidence of the people. Among those institutions, none is more important than
the judiciary. Courts are not meant to protect governments. They exist to
protect citizens from governments whenever constitutional limits are crossed.
Today, many Indians
believe that this balance has been lost. Whether that perception is entirely
justified or not, the fact that millions of citizens now question the
independence of constitutional institutions should concern every democrat. Once
people lose faith in the courts, the Election Commission, and the media at the
same time, democracy itself begins to stand on uncertain ground.
Several events have
contributed to this growing distrust. Reports that a large amount of cash was
allegedly discovered after a fire at the residence of a judge raised serious
questions about accountability within the judiciary. Many citizens expected a swift,
transparent, and public response. Instead, for many critics, the episode became
another symbol of a system that appears reluctant to hold powerful people
accountable.
Public confidence was
also shaken when Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended Ganesh Puja at the
residence of then Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud. No law prohibits such a
visit, and many viewed it as a private social event. Others, however, believed
that the head of the executive and the head of the judiciary should avoid
public interactions that create even the appearance of institutional closeness.
Judicial independence is not only about being impartial it must also be seen to
be impartial.
Questions surrounding the
treatment of opposition leaders have deepened these concerns. Several leaders
of the Aam Aadmi Party remained in custody for extended periods while
politically significant elections approached. Their supporters argued that
different investigative agencies repeatedly pursued substantially similar
allegations and that the legal process itself became the punishment. In some
proceedings, judges made observations questioning aspects of the prosecution's
case while bail continued to be contested over multiple hearings. Critics argue
that the prolonged detention of opposition leaders had significant political
consequences and reinforced the perception that constitutional safeguards were
not being applied with equal urgency.
The Election Commission
has become another focal point of controversy. Critics argue that changes made
to the appointment process increased executive influence over an institution
whose credibility depends upon visible independence. They believe those changes
deserved stronger constitutional scrutiny. Others disagree and maintain that
the law is constitutionally valid. Whatever one's position, the debate itself
reflects how essential public confidence is to democratic institutions.
Equally troubling, in my
opinion, has been the government's response to public criticism. A confident
democracy answers difficult questions. It does not simply remain silent. On
issue after issue, critics argue that the Prime Minister has chosen not to address
public concerns directly, leaving ministers, party spokespersons, and political
supporters to defend the government's actions. Silence may be a political
strategy, but it cannot become a substitute for accountability.
The role of the media has
also become part of this debate. A free press exists to question those in
power, regardless of which party forms the government. Yet many critics believe
that sections of India's television media have increasingly acted as defenders
of the government rather than independent watchdogs. When journalists stop
asking difficult questions and instead begin answering them on behalf of those
in power, the public naturally begins losing confidence in the press as well.
One aspect of this debate
has particularly caught my attention. In my observation, many of the
government's strongest supporters vigorously defend the executive whenever
criticism arises, yet comparatively little public defense is offered when
controversies involve constitutional institutions such as the judiciary.
Whether this reflects agreement, indifference, or something else is for
individuals to decide. But the silence itself has become part of the public
conversation.
History rarely judges
institutions by their speeches. It judges them by whether they defended
constitutional principles when they mattered most. If future generations
conclude that the judiciary, the Election Commission, sections of the media, or
other constitutional institutions failed to act independently during moments of
national importance, that judgment will become part of India's democratic
history.
India has survived many
constitutional challenges because its institutions were ultimately stronger
than those who temporarily occupied positions of power. That strength must
never be taken for granted. Governments come and go. Political parties rise and
fall. The Constitution alone must remain above them all.
If the controversy
surrounding the Ram Temple were ever to become the reason this government loses
power, history would record one of the greatest ironies in modern Indian
politics. A political movement that rose to power invoking the name of Lord Ram
would have been weakened by questions surrounding the very temple built in His
name.
For millions of
believers, that outcome would carry a symbolism that goes far beyond politics.
It would be seen as a reminder of the Ramayana itself that power without
righteousness cannot endure forever. Whether one sees Lord Ram as God, as a
historical figure, or as the eternal symbol of justice and dharma, the lesson
remains timeless.
Ravan was not defeated
because Ram sought power. Ravan was defeated because power had abandoned truth,
justice, and righteousness.
If that lesson still
holds true today, then Ram may yet defeat Ravan again not on a battlefield, but
through the awakening of a democracy that remembers no government, no judge, no
political party, and no individual stands above the Constitution or above the
moral principles that give a nation its soul.
Comments
Post a Comment