Role of NGOs

Letter to the Editor

Sir, I am not a lawyer and, therefore, not trained in the art of argument. Yet I take courage to react to Mr. Rajeev Dhavan's article "The Sahayog affair" (The Hindu, May 19) because I do believe there are times when justice is sacrificed at the altar of the law and, perhaps, this is one such case.

Mr. Dhavan is not the only nor the first to rally round in this matter. Already in Delhi a large number of NGOs (systemic siblings of Sahayog, so to speak) have met to discuss the crisis and there has been a media blitz of edit-page articles as well as, one hears, a signature campaign via e-mail to garner wider support. What has outraged these friends-of-Sahayog-come-lately is succinctly stated by Mr. Dhavan as "(a) All of a sudden (b) respected activists (c) were treated as goondas, porn- pushing criminals and, to top it all, a security risk and threat to the nation - after being handcuffed, humiliated and jailed.''

The last part is the one on which the case against denial of civil liberties to Sahayog has largely been constructed. Mr. Dhavan has effectively argued that Sahayog workers should not have been "handcuffed, humiliated and jailed." (The reference to "goondas" and "porn-pushing criminals" is, one presumes, incidental because surely even these lesser mortals are entitled to the same rights - or aren't they?).

What one would do well to remember is that while the administration may have acted unfairly towards Sahayog, it was Sahayog that first acted "unfairly" towards people - to the extent that its actions rightly or wrongly, did arouse such vehement public protest. Arguably, no one - least of all the state - should take the law into its own hands. (It is precisely by this logic that the fact that Sahayog has "gracefully withdrawn its publication and apologised'' should not be considered the "equivalent of a self-imposed forfeiture order'' as suggested by Mr. Dhavan and by others in simpler terms). But what if there is no clear law under which one can find redress, as in this case? Did the people who protested against Sahayog, albeit not politely, have an option to vent their sentiments against its self-styled "respected activism" in any other - more legal - manner? Is it not possible that the administration - perhaps for the wrong reasons - for once did act in accordance with the wishes of the people? Above all, if the "rights'' of NGOs have now to be defended against the very people whose rights NGOs are supposed to be protecting and interests they are supposed to be serving, are we not getting on to terribly thin ice? In my humble opinion, an eminent lawyer like Mr. Dhavan would do us all a great favour if he would apply himself to these larger questions of justice in public interest rather than defend Sahayog merely on the basis of law.

Regarding the bit about "respected activists", Mr. Dhavan has not mentioned which laws of the land deal with the role and accountability (or lack of it) amongst NGOs and tell us what exactly are NGOs apart from not being government. Presumably he has not done so because there aren't any such laws.

About the bit about "All of a sudden", however, the debate so far has been rather one-sided and centred around the time-tested politician-bashing. Nearly everyone is in agreement on one thing. Without the circumstance of a statehood agitation, the Sahayog episode is unlikely to have taken the course it did. Mr. Dhavan goes so far as to say - almost wishfully - that the "beautiful region of Kumaon is in ferment not because of Sahayog's pamphlet, but because of its prime political importance".

Gita Dewan Verma, New Delhi