China is our neighbour, a big powerful neighbour. Undoubtedly it is in our national interest to maintain friendly relations with China. Independent Tibet happens to be an unmentionable subject for the Chinese. The Government of India has not advocated nor supported any movement for an independent Tibet. Indeed His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, has repeatedly stated that his movement is for genuine autonomy for Tibet. He has reiterated his commitment to his middle way approach in finding a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of Tibet through dialogue. His understandable concern is that the identity and distinctiveness of the Tibetans should not be submerged by demographic exercises undertaken by the Chinese government. Our government, when Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister, granted political asylum to the Dalai Lama. A Tibetan government in exile is permitted to function in Dharamshala with the condition that it should not indulge in political activities. The Dalai Lama and the Tibetans living in India have honoured this commitment, apart from some aberrations by some overzealous Tibetans.Our country has a tradition of permitting peaceful and non-violent protests against the ruling authorities in India and elsewhere. Criticism of some activities of the Chinese government in Tibet, particularly in Lhasa, cannot be termed as indulgence in political activities. The Return March to Tibet, a non-violent peace march organised by some NGOs and Tibetans, is mainly intended to arouse the conscience of the international community to the plight of the Tibetan people. It appears there is a strong anti-Tibet lobby. The Chinese government’s resentment about the march was conveyed to concerned officials and consequently government took the decision to stop the march, which was enforced with customary severity by the police against the peaceful marchers. This is highly deplorable.The truly disturbing part is the over-eagerness of our government not to ruffle Chinese susceptibilities. For example, its studied silence over provocative Chinese statements regarding Arunachal Pradesh, especially about our prime minister’s visit to that state. Another instance is the unofficial advice to officials not to attend the function organised in honour of the Dalai Lama for receiving the Nobel prize. Such acts do not behove a country like ours. It will lower our stature in the eyes of the democratic and liberal segments of the international community. By all means respect Chinese sentiments. At the same time, do not disrespect the basic right of expression of protest in a peaceful non-violent manner. We should not needlessly needle the Chinese government, but we need not bend over backwards to please them contrary to our tradition of tolerance.No anonymity in PILsAnonymity can be the cloak of a coward or of a person imbued with public interest who genuinely fears for his safety. However, there is no room for anonymity in Public Interest Litigations. Justice Sudarshan Reddy, in a recent judgment of a division bench of the Supreme Court, delivered a salutary admonition that High Court judges cannot treat anonymous letters and petitions levelling allegations against individuals or institutions as public interest petitions. The bench ruled that the High Courts cannot direct investigation by constituting a special investigation team on the strength of anonymous petitions and convert itself into police station. The bench emphasised that a petition of this kind ‘masquerading’ as public interest litigation should be dismissed at the threshold. Another important direction in the judgment is that individual judges ought not to entertain communications and letters personally addressed to them and initiate action suo motu on the judicial side. The letters are required to be placed before the Chief Justice for his consideration. Each judge cannot decide for himself as to what communication should be entertained for setting the law in motion be it in PIL, or in any other jurisdiction. This pronouncement should curb the overenthusiasm of some judges to act as passionate knight errants in the quest for justice forgetting that PIL is not a pill for every ill that afflicts our country. Hopefully, the judgment may also check the strong urge for media publicity in some judicial souls.
