Leila Seth talks about the judiciary, men, women and of course the Preamble.
You were a lawyer, and I had also read in an interview, where you stated that you like to do things in order. So, are you a disciplined writer as well?
I am not a very disciplined writer. I am very obsessive. When I decide to do something, I just do it, I go all out. But anyhow, I have only written two books; my autobiography and the preamble book. So, I have not yet really turned into a writer. I become a writer by the virtue of my students. But anyways, I do not have fixed writing hours in a day or anything like that.
How challenging was the process of writing ‘We, the Children of India: The Preamble to Our Constitution’, considering the fact that your target audience were children?
You know I thought it would be very easy. I am a lawyer, I am a judge, and I know everything about the Constitution. But the reality struck me hard. It became very difficult. I realised the difficulty of writing a book on the Constitution for 7-17 year olds when I asked my granddaughter, who was 8 years old back then, the meaning of citizen. And she didn’t know what citizen is, although she is a very educated girl. She asked me, “What does the citizen ‘represent’? What is courageous?” Then I became aware of the difficulties lying ahead, and decided that I had to change my mindset. I looked up in the dictionary the meaning of citizenship, and it sounded even more difficult. So, then I said to her, “Like you belong to a family, you belong to a country.” And she understood. So, I had to find expressions for children. Then I told her that you need to be a courageous citizen, because if you are not, then you will not be able to defend other people’s rights. Then she asked me, “What is courageous?” I told her, “Brave.” They are not exactly the same, but you know, at least she could understand. So, writing for children is very very hard.
Most Indian citizens haven’t read the Constitution. How challenging would it be to introduce the Preamble to the adults of this country?
And they can’t really be expected to read the Constitution. All I say is read the Preamble. I think every child must read the Preamble. It is just one long sentence, and if you read it, you will get bored, you will not understand it. So, that’s why I have written it like this, and grown-ups are telling me that they have read my book, and now understand the Preamble. So, I am happy. And in fact, in the second last page of the book, I have written for both the children and adults that we, the people of India are the children of India as well.
All the protests against the Delhi rape case, or other instances of corruption and malpractice in this country generally seem to be pointing out the absence of a competent law to fight against the whole issue. But can laws themselves cure this country of all wrong doings?
I don’t agree with them. There is the law, what lacks is its implementation. The police don’t follow it, they do not conduct proper investigations, the forensic bodies do not have proper laboratories, and they are corrupted. So, it’s the implementation that is the need of the hour, and has always been so. The law has always been there.
What is your opinion about the current state of India’s judiciary? A lot many instances of corruption have been brought to light, thanks to a few RTI activists and other sources. But often, we have also seen that the judiciary has not really been able to act upon them…
The fact is that judiciary cannot cure the scams. When there is a case in front of the judiciary, they can look at the case, they can make some observations, they don’t have any implementation. When the judiciary passes a rule or a law, who implements it?
The executive
Yes. The only thing that the judiciary can do is pass 6 months contempt of court. If I, as a judge, make an order and the executive fails to carry it, he/she faces 6 months of jail. Even that sending of jail has to be again done by the executive.
And talking about judiciary, when you started as a lawyer, everybody looked up to the ‘father of Indian judiciary’, V.M. Tarkunde. Do you think the judiciary needs to revisit his school of jurisprudence in today’s times?
You see, it all depends on the time and situation. Every time brings up its people. He was suited to those times. I am not sure whether his school of jurisprudence will work now.
From the times when you were the country’s only lady lawyer to to today, how has the male gaze changed in India?
There is a change, but I don’t think it has been fast enough. If this country still witnesses female foeticide, then the change has been insignificant. But the male gaze has changed, there’s no doubt about it.
I was watching an interview of yours, where you were telling the interviewer that once a young female lawyer approached you and spoke in a very mild voice. And you told her to speak like a man. Is it pertinent for a female to act like a man to be counted as an equal?
Oh yes, I remember her. But I was not aware they were filming the conversation. It must have been 30-40 years ago. During those days, my male counterparts used to shout in the courtroom, literally shout. And she came to me speaking in such a timid tone, as if she was mumbling. So I told her to speak out like a man. I think I only meant for her to speak boldly. And no, women don’t need to behave in any which way like a man to be counted as an equal. They need to be confident, and not be frightened of anything or anybody. I was a very frightened teenager who brought about a change in herself in a very quiet manner. And the current female population is capable of a larger societal change. I believe so.
