Reformist Khatami's landslide win in Iran

By Jagmohan Mathur

Syed Mohammed Khatami has created history in Iran by win-ning more votes for his second term then he got in 1997 elections.

His landslide victory at June 8 poll is a boost to the process of democratic reforms he initiated four years back. The young generation and womenfolk are particularly happy at the outcome of these election. They look upon Khatami as harbinger of new era in Iran.

It is true that Khatami could not fulfill his promises he made at the time of his first election in 1997. But he was able to create an atmosphere of liberalism in society and polity. Syed Mohammed Khatami a moderate cleric was elected Iran's fifth president in May 1997 with huge margin indicating people's strong desire for a change as they were fed up with the 18-year rule by hard-line mullahs imposed since Islamic revolution in 1979. Khatami at that time was voted for his advocacy of democracy, freedom and rule of law. He got 70 percent support from people whereas his nearest rival parliament speaker Nateq Noori supported by conservatives, could hardly get 25 per cent.

Under Iranian constitution President is not all powerful as in some democratic countries. In Iran, The spiritual leader's position is supreme. He guides all the institutions and control military. Judiciary & several non-elective bodies are controlled by conservatives. One such institution is the Guardian Council, which clears names of candidates before they are allowed to contest. All laws are vetted and approved by guardian council and its conservative members are not in favour of reforms. Another roadblock till last year was Iranian Parliament (Majlis) itself which was dominated by conservatives but people through their vote in February, 2000 elections bulldosed the hurdle as reformist candidates won a majority of 290 seats.

In this year's presidential election, there were ten candidates including incumbent Sayed Mohd Khatami. The Guardian council which approved nine other candidates against Khatami, saw to it that none of them is pro-reformist. The Council chose candidates who were capable of dividing votes from different segment of the society. One such candidate was the former Labour Minister Ahmed Awakole. He had defeated the then President Hashemi Rafsanjani in one province in 1993 elections. Tawakoli argued that currently economic development and corruption were more important issues than political reforms.

Another candidate who fought against Khatami was 44-year old Defence Minister vice admiral Ali Shamkhani, head of an Open University. He was fielded to attract votes from academicians and student community which strongly favour Khatami. Other candidates fielded were not well-known figures but were capable of drawing votes of youth.

During election compaign Khatami attracted huge crowds and his popularity among women and youth was clearly established. He spoke in favour of quickening the pace of reforms and exhorted his followers to hold patience and have faith in him. He said the main objective of reform programme is the democratisation of decision making process. His view was that all state institutions must be made accountable to the public. Despite some misgivings at the slow speed of reforms, people showed their inclination towards Khatami as was clear from large turnout in cities as well as rural areas.

On June 8, people went to polling booths to express their choice in 8th presidential elections. Polling was sluggish at the beginning of the day but picked up by noon. Later they thronged in large numbers and continued till late in the night. Polling hours were extended by five hours and doors were finally closed at midnight. Still some went back without casting their votes as they were late.

Khatami's victory at the hustings was a certainty even before manual counting began. The only point to be decided was the size of his success. It was to be seen if he had secured more votes than he won in 1997. The result proved that he was broken his own record of 1997. The 57-year-old reformist clergy polled 21,594,070 votes of a total of 28,860,507. Thus Khatami got 79.88 per cent of total votes cast. It was much higher than his 70 per cent of 1997 poll. His nearest rival Ahmed Tawakoli who was expected to give a tough fight finished with only 4,283,190 votes which is barely 15.6 per cent. The remaining votes were shared by eight other contenders. There were roughly 42 million voters in all.

Thus more than half of them gave their verdict in favour of Khatami. Even votes of 10 of the 28 provinces were sufficient to make him President for another four year term. From legal point of view also this was a resounding victory as he got more than 50 per cent of votes cast. A run off round is required if the winner get less than 50 per cent of total votes cast.

Politically Khatami's victory is a big setback for conservatives who wanted to show decline in Khatami's popularity if he got less votes than 1997 polls.

Thus Khatami has now clear mandate to go ahead with his reform policies. The vote is for his vision for a more open society free of repressive restrictions through imposition of strict Islamic laws. The huge support to Khatami also indicate that the most of Iranians including women now want to live in a modern society. Students revolt in July 1999 also showed that the country's youth will forcefully resist any attempt to restrict their freedom of expression. With fresh mandate Khatami will be able to carry out reforms with greater vigour which is necessary to remove frustration of the Iranian people looking forward to a freer society.

Khatami's victory at this poll is good for India. A Liberal regime headed by a leader like Khatami, will ensure better cooperation in strategic, economic and political spheres. During the recent visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee to Iran, it became clear that on most of international and bilateral issues, both the countries have similarity, of views. Iran's isolation is ending and European countries like Germany and France are increasing trade relations with it. India will also be able to have more trade with Central Asian countries through Iran. Politically and economically stable Iran will be beneficial to India and rest of the world. Thus the second term of four years for Khatami will ensure more freedom for its people and better and stable relations with India.

PTI Feature

The sacrosanct rights of individual

By Nalini J. Singh

It was the Madras High court judge, Mr. Justice Narayana Kurup’s to slam the Jayalalitha government for taking "major policy decisions which smacks of political vendetta by ordering arrest and detention of her political rivals and bureaucrats". The caustic observation came when a Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Kurup and Mr. Justice A. Ramamurthy was hearing ahabeas corpus petition of a DMK advocate, Mr. Kanagraj regarding "illegal detention and use of force" by the state police against Mr. K. Karunanidhi, Union Ministers Murasoli Maran and T. R. Balu, and the former Chief Secretary, Mr. Nambiar. The two judges maintained that Ms. Jayalalitha’s government was on a sticky wicket with her appointment itself being a matter pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.

Ms. Jayalalitha’s comment that the three top accused obstructed the police in discharge of its duty has raised many legal questions. Under the Indian Penal Code, every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body, and movable or immovable property belonging to him or of any other person against any act which is an offence under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or constitutes an attempt to that end.

The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body, or property arises from an attempt or a threat and continues as long as such apprehension or danger to the body or property continues. It extends to the right to cause death or any harm to the wrongdoer(s). The right can be exercised even in respect of a public servant or police if there is reasonable cause to apprehend that their acts can cause death or grievous hurt, and the exercise of such a right cannot be construed as causing obstruction to them in the discharge of their duty.

As interpreted in a variety of judgments, the basic principle underlying self-defence is that a person whose rights to privacy, life and liberty are aggressively or violently encroached upon is not criminally responsible or accountable for using a reasonable, proportionate or necessary amount of force against the encroachers. The law also allows a third party to use force to defend someone whose rights to privacy, life and liberty are violated in his presence.

The National Police Commission, comprising the former Cabinet Secretary and the Governor of West Bengal, Dharam Vira, as the chairperson, Mr C. V. Narasimhan, former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, as the secretary, and distinguished persons from various walks of life as members, had remarked that the arsenal of powers of arrest, search, seizure, institution of criminal cases and so on enjoyed by the police afforded a vast scope for misconduct by police personnel of different ranks causing harm and harassment to citizens. It laid down very stringent criteria for making arrests during investigation of a cognisable case.

The case should involve a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery or rape, making an arrest necessary to restrain the accused and infuse confidence among terror-stricken victims; there should be a reasonable presumption that the accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law, or given to violent behaviour, or is likely to commit further offences. The accused should be a habitual offender and it is essential to take him into custody so that he is not free to commit more, or similar, offences.

The report of the Commission had been accepted by the Government which had circulated to the State Governments and police forces all over the country a Code of Conduct to which they were required to adhere by way of pledging their allegiance to the Constitution and their sacred commitment to human rights and dignity.

Among the specific measures to guard against the police going on a rampage, or behaving like "street rowdies" to borrow a description that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Ms Jayalalitha, arrogantly applied to Cabinet Ministers, Mr Murasoli Maran and Mr T. R. Balu, the Supreme Court had directed that the police official making the arrest should prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest which should be attested by at least one witness and countersigned by the arrested person, bearing the date and time of arrest.

The police personnel effecting the arrest should inform relative, or friend or a person interested in his welfare of the arrest and place of custody. The Court has also frowned on arrests being made at unearthly hours and transgressing the fundamentals of fair-play and natural justice.

All these pious efforts were obviously like water on buffalo’s back, forcing the former Chief Justice of India and Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, Mr M. N. Venkatachaliah, to observe on one occasion that 60 per cent of all arrests in India were "unnecessary and unjustifiable".

Let us now apply these perspectives to the incontrovertible circumstances surrounding the arrests of Messrs Murasoli Maran and T. R. Balu. At virtually dead of night, they learn that some persons purporting to be police officials, who at that hour could even be dacoits in police uniform, have gatecrashed into the home of Mr Karunanidhi on the ostensible pretext of arresting him.

Considering the advanced age of Mr. Karunanidhi and his fragile health, and the life-threatening condition for which Mr Maran had only recently been treated, the midnight trespass and physical assault by the intruders calling themselves the police could have caused serious harm to both, or even possibly led to their death. The situation thus satisfies the conditions of the law for private defence.

Although the offence for which he is supposed to be arrested is cognisable and does not require any warrant, in view of the time of night and the manner of forcible entry, in the spirit of Supreme Court’s instruction which was nothing but a reiteration of the canon of civilised conduct, they were expected to show some kind of official sanction in writing empowering them explicitly to make arrests violating the code of conduct of the National Police Commission, Government of India and the Supreme Court.

Their assertion that they can arrest without warrant cannot hold water at that hour of night, for, as mentioned earlier, they could be robbers or dacoits masquerading as police.

It was clear that their actions not only ran counter to the requirements of transparency and accountability as established by the Police Commission, Central Government and the Supreme Court, but had all the ingredients of an unjustified assault on life and liberty and was tantamount to a crime in itself.

In these circumstances, Mr Karunanidhi’s family members, especially Mr. Maran and Mr Balu, who heard his cries of his life being in danger when he was jostled and pushed down, and had witnessed the havoc caused by the police by way of tossing furniture, cutting telephones and even allegedly using foul abuses and manhandling the women of the household, had a right to exercise their right of defending him from further bodily harm and save him, themselves and the family members with all the power placed at their disposal by the Indian Penal Code.

This right is not extinguished even if Mr Karunanidhi, as claimed by the police, was affably and smilingly willing to submit himself to the perversities of the police. Indeed, Mr Karunanidhi himself had every right to resist the arrest carried out flouting all instructions, codes and dicta on the subject.

It is a pity that the higher echelons of the Indian Administrative and Police Services of Tamil Nadu, of the rank of the Chief Secretary, Director General and Commissioner of Police who, at the time of their appointment, take a solemn oath to abide by the Constitution and the rule of law in the discharge of their duties, should have shown such reprehensible indifference to what is expected of them.

It is more of a pity that the judicial functionaries of the State, before whom the victims of the police excesses were produced, should also be so ignorant, if not unconcerned, about their duty as per rulings of the Supreme Court, to satisfy themselves that all criteria of legality, equity and good conscience have been observed by the police.

One, unfortunately, cannot escape the impression that they far too often consider it prudent not to rub the police the wrong way. If these tendencies are not checked, India, which is fast degenerating into a police state, may soon end up being a living hell for its citizens. INAV