Is right to move freely in India valid?:Dhananjay Mahapatra
30 Jun 2008, Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN
NEW DELHI: India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,¶ declares the very first Article of our Constitution. ¶Fraternity¶ is a key word in its Preamble that assures individual dignity to Indians and exhorts us to maintain unity and integrity of the country through brotherhood.
Article 19(1)(d) gives us a fundamental right to ¶move freely throughout the territory of India¶, from one state to another, with a sense of security and freedom. The rail network and national highways are important facilitators of this right, which is essential to inculcate in every citizen a sense of belonging to India and spread the sense of brotherhood.
Recent times have witnessed many an assault on this fundamental right. Both Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) and Shiv Sena have worked hard to give a sense of insecurity to north Indians, who do not feel safe to move about freely in Maharashtra, especially in the commercial capital of India — Mumbai.
The lessons in vandalism imparted by the Gujjars — uprooting rail tracks and blocking national highways — to get their demands met was learnt fast by the Sikhs who took identical measures demanding arrest of the Dera Sacha Sauda chief. A similar mode of protest is on in West Bengal where the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), seeking a separate state, blocked NH-31 — severing the only link that connected Sikkim to the rest of the country.
Apart from these publicized events, there are many more which continue to disrupt the free movement of citizens within the country. Can one move freely in the Naxal infested areas of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh? Or, for that matter, in the insurgent choked northeastern states, where the fight between the outlaws and law enforcers makes life difficult for the innocent? We have lived with these obstacles to our free movement hoping and praying that governments would come up with an acceptable solution for agitationists to end the road and rail blockades.
Railways and national highways are the lifelines of India. The governments’ inaction to maintain these lifelines, which promote ¶fraternity¶, is bound to encourage more vandalism in the name of regionalism and for fulfilment of demands.
Would the Centre and the states have adopted such a lenient attitude towards the agitationists who uprooted rail tracks or blocked national highways had they, take for example, breached the HBJ gas pipeline, which supplies fuel to the majority of industries across the country?
It is a proven fact that more the show of strength and higher the capacity to indulge in destruction of public property and cause inconvenience to public over an issue, then, more the chances of the government bending backwards to meet those demands.
Probably that is why the Supreme Court, in 2002, had okayed the ‘National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) — 2000’, which was challenged by Aruna Roy on the ground that it was anti-secular as it stressed on teaching essences of religions to school children.
SC asked a few basic questions. ¶During the last more than five decades, have we tried to safeguard public property and to abjure violence? Whether bandhs for attaining a political object or strike for redressing grievances have not increased violence? In most of the cases, public property is targeted and damaged. Loss is to the nation,¶ the court had said.
If the governments cannot do anything to redress the grievances, one turns to the courts. But in these mob-like situations, the role of courts are very limited — remember the apex court ruling upholding Kerala high court judgment banning bandhs. This is one judgment which is observed mostly in the breach.
So, whom should one look up to as the protector of common man’s right to move freely throughout the territory of India — God? Probably, yes. The Supreme Court in Aruna Roy case had reflected its faith in the good sense taught by all religions. It thought the solution lay with today’s children, who could emerge as responsible citizens if they were helped to inculcate the essence of different religions, as was envisaged under NCFSE.
