Opinion Don’t mind your language

The fact that popularly elected representatives would abandon their chance at five years of articulating the aspirations of their constituents through debate and discussion on the floor of the house,for a few shameful minutes of petty assault and battery,perhaps speaks volumes about intellectually bereft political posturing.

Remarkably,the Indian Constitution mandates a penalty of five hundred rupees for each day that a duly elected representative assumes office without subscribing to the oath prescribed by the Third Schedule to the Constitution. The rare sight of a textually prescribed monetary penalty within the Indian Constitution underscores the sanctity of the oath of public office.

Significantly,the oath prescribed by the Third Schedule for members of state legislative assemblies was amended by the Constitution (Sixteenth amendment) Act,1963 to include a promise to “uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India”.

By insisting that the oath of office should only be taken in Marathi,MNS chief Raj Thackeray ironically defeated the very ‘integrity’ of the country that the oath seeks to enshrine,for national integrity knows no linguistic chauvinism.

An oath of office is unique to public life. Unlike the typical “horizontal” employer-employee relationship where terms of employment are governed by contract,the Indian legislator,on account of the momentous nature of his duties,is granted security of tenure for a period of five years,with equal and correlative fiduciary obligations.

Corporate directors,despite owing fiduciary duties to their corporations,seldom recite an ‘oath of office’,but those charged with the duty of managing India Inc,in which every Indian citizen is a stakeholder,are necessarily entrusted with graver obligations. Courts may not question the business judgment of corporate directors,but Indian courts often enter the political thicket to question the judgment of legislators.

The oath serves both as an occasion for introspection during its recital,and as a frame of reference thereafter,to ensure that the high ideals demanded of public office are met. So serious is the oath of office that Chief Justice Roberts of the American Supreme Court was compelled to re-administer Barack Obama’s oath last year,on account of a mistake during the official ceremony. There is good reason,therefore,to ensure that the oath assumed by every politician meaningfully transcends the otherwise rigid barriers of the political conscience.

The oath of office is also a deeply personal utterance,taken before a strikingly public audience — like a marriage ceremony of sorts. The Indian Constitution permits its public officials: presidents,vice presidents,parliamentarians,governors,legislators and judges,to choose the form of their oath: to take the oath either in the name of “God” or the Constitution alone.

Accordingly,every legislator is accorded a remarkably private freedom of conscience in choosing the form of the oath. In a similar sense,couching the oath of office in the language of one’s personal choice may make the words of the oath more meaningful.

Besides the obvious problems associated with petty regionalism,one cannot help but question the effectiveness of the methods adopted by Maharashtra’s linguistic chauvinists. After all,what if the average Marathi-speaking migrant,one who moves to a different state or country hoping to retain his own cultural and linguistic identity,meets with the same fate as “north Indians” do at the hands of the MNS?

The Indian legislative edifice is a remarkable pocket of unparalleled liberty — no member can be liable for anything said or any vote given within its walls,yet its proceedings are not confined to legislative walls alone.

Legislative sessions are made public by way of broadcast to innumerable television sets across the nation,a privilege of unadulterated free speech that few Indian citizens can boast of.

The unruly behaviour at the recent swearing-in ceremony in Maharashtra was an affront to this legislative privilege,even though it may not exactly have been an isolated incident in the history of democratic India.

It was allegedly contended by some MNS members that by refusing to take his oath in Marathi,Abu Azmi disrespected the average Marathi-speaking inhabitant of Maharashtra. One wonders if the converse is not true: that by resorting to hooliganism and childish rough-housing,the self-appointed guardians of Marathi have disrespected the fine traditions of Marathi culture.

The writer is a California-based lawyer