Open Forum
New Delhi, 18 August
2021
Snooping Row
DEMOCRACY DENTED
By
Dhurjati Mukherjee
Parliament’s monsoon
session turned out to be disappointing, with the Modi government refusing to
yield to the Opposition demand for a discussion on Pegasus, the snooping
controversy. With the Supreme Court hearing a number of petitions seeking a
court-monitored probe into the reports of allegedly spying on politicians,
activists, journalists among others, the Union government has decided to set up
a Committee of Experts to examine the issue. What is of interest is that it has
categorically denied all the allegations and claimed the petitions are based on
‘conjectures’ and ‘there is no substance in the accusations’.
However, till date
the government has not denied purchasing the software from the Israeli
government. And while it rubbishes the petitions, independent forensic analysis
on several of phones in the target list,
has shown these were indeed infected by the spyware. Since the snooping scandal
broke out, 500-odd citizens from various walks of life had addressed an open
letter to Chief JusticeRamana, seeking immediate intervention demanding answers
from the Centre as well as Editors Guild of India and two senior journalists petitioning
it.
In its response to
these, the Ministry of Electronics and IT said on Monday last, that it is
setting up the committee ‘to dispel any wrong narrative spread by certain
vested interests’. And though it would like to go into a denial mode, it is
pertinent to note that the Supreme Court has asked the Centre if it would file
an affidavit clarifying whether or not it had purchased and used Pegasus
spyware on Indian citizens.
Governments spying on
their populace serve two purposes. The first is active coercion -- finding
critics and punishing them. The second is passive coercion, i.e. the chilling
effect on citizens stemming from the knowledge that the government is watching
them. But such snooping can only happen in autocratic regimes, not in a
declared democracy like India.
Spying is an ancient
statecraft even if the present mechanism is more sophisticated. It is believed
that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff,
among many global leaders, were victims of tapping by American intelligence
agencies. Even in earlier times, Former Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was said
to have been closely watched by foreign secret service agents.
The NSO, the Israeli
group that owned Pegasus, has said openly that it only licenses the product to
governments. Thus, it is obvious that hacking of the phones of political
opponents, journalists, activists and others, would be by a government agency
only. The US and other European countries are rather indifferent to the
scandal, as they see India as a strategic partner, specially in countering
China. And perhaps that’s the reason they choose to ignore the wounds the Modi government
is inflicting on this country. But in mature democracies, ruling dispensations
must at least appear to heed the views of their people.
The charges of
snooping, if they are true, would force India to share space with autocratic
countries. That some Islamic nation states are keeping tabs on Muslim citizens
with an Israeli product shows that traditional enmity can be swept aside for
the sake of power. Autocratic countries like China do not need to use foreign
spyware to keep a tab on their citizens. Not only have they developed similar
technology but the idea of Big Brother watching is integral to the notion of
state craft.
The truth is that
societies themselves have become more intolerant than before. The prejudiced
and oppressive regimes and right-wing political outfits all draw support and a
tacit consent from an unusually intolerant society. Critics across the world
have rightly pointed out that in India, the last few years has clearly shown
that the government is unusually intolerant of criticism and this has been
specially manifest in the past three years. Governments in many States and the Centre
itself has been using provisions of the IPC Section 124A to gag critics of
authorities by applying a second meaning of sedition that is, “agitation against
the authority of a State”.
The lack of
Opposition unity and their failure to make a dent in the national scenario is a
major hindrance for the government to assert its authority in a crude manner.
Added to this, over centralisation and autocratic tendency of the present
government to retain power may have led to such snooping charge. Social
scientists point out that clinging to power by hook or by crook and
appreciation from sycophants’ lead political leaders to shed their democratic
spirit, as it has happened in India. Also accumulation of wealth is another
provocation for retaining power.
Congress leader Rahul
Gandhi rightly pointed out that the government has been able to bulldoze the
Opposition that represents 60 per cent of the population only because “we are
not united”. Conceding that there were differences among parties, he said there
was complete agreement on at least the Pegasus snooping. This could be a
cementing factor to ensure a united approach and keep up the federal spirit of
the country.
The privacy of the
individual is ignored and also his right to expression. In Parliament there is
no statement from the government, clarifying its position on the issue, which
is an indirect admission that snooping has been carried out on those who are
considered dissenters. The abrogation of the rights of citizens has been
clearly manifest.
The checks and
balances in the political system have been virtually non-existent with the
party in power yielding enormous power and caring less for good governance. In
fact, the lack of thrift, decency and objectivity in governance has been found
to cause more practical harm than breaches of notional democracy. Not
tolerating civil servants who do not toe the official line, the studied
avoidance of the media and the scorn for legislative authority, evident in the
refusal to answer questions on snooping, is not an end in itself.
It can easily be
concluded that democratic spirit is virtually absent in most countries and
dissent is not tolerated. Most governments are behaving worse than
dictatorships of the past and India is no better. In these countries, there is
no decentralisation of power and, even in India, political decentralisation has
not taken proper form. Though there is much talk of cooperative federalism,
this has not become a reality, obviously due to control from the top.
The future does not
look quite bright as the State being an embodiment of power, the temptation to
deal with citizens unilaterally is second nature to it. Hence, the need to put
in place effective checks and balances, though it is easier said than done. Democracy
is the best mode of governance; only if there is reciprocity between the ruler
and the ruled.
As is well known,
accountability is a function of reciprocity. The unilateralism that snooping
symbolizes has widely metastasized into our public life. It is inadequate,
therefore, to see snooping only as an intrusion into personal privacy. The
seminal issue in snooping is not that privacy is breached – admittedly that
happens – but that unilateralism has become the character of life today. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|