August
1996
The Satya Interview:
Satyagraha for Change
|
|
|
Raj Panjwani is
an Indian advocate who has won a number of important and ground-breaking
cases for animals in Indian courts. As we found out when we talked
with Raj at the World Congress for Animals held recently in Washington,
DC, its a question of satyagraha (truth-action) making a difference.
Q: What for you is the meaning of satyagraha in your work?
A: Satyagraha was such a beautiful and strong concept with Gandhi
who actually gave birth to it that one can imagine what he must have
understood and felt about this new concept before he actually propounded
it. Its what I think all of us feel whilst doing and talking about animal
rights. Though animal rights is not a very old subject, the passion I
feel is the passion of Gandhi and satyagraha being experienced by each
one of us.
Q: What is your specific job in India and what particular projects have
you worked on?
A: I am a lawyer by profession and out of my professional
time I donate about 50% towards animal rights. I am a counsel
for several NGOs [non-governmental organizations], prominent
among which is People for Animals, headed by Maneka Gandhi [see
Satya 2:3]. Another is WWF-India and various other organizations.
Our laws are far more strict and stringent as far as use of animals
and protection of endangered species is concerned. But unfortunately,
laws by themselves are not complete. They are completed by the
executive, which is the implementing authority. It is the implementing
authority whose duty it is to ensure and make definite plans,
and provide awareness and education so that the laws are obeyed
and implemented.
Unfortunately, that is one aspect which I have found to be lacking to
a considerable extent. It is these NGOs who run around, sweat it out,
and find out the various malpractices and inhumane practices which have
been committed on the animals and bring it to the notice of authorities.
But we have noticed that authorities do not move. The only option is
to approach the court of law, because being children of ahimsa [non-violence]
and believing in satyagraha, we obviously cannot take violent steps.
And in the absence of violent steps we can only meet the authorities,
persuade them, make them understand. And if they yet dont follow it,
we go to the court of law.
Q: How have your cases been received by these courts of law.
A: They have been extremely helpful. Each and every judge whom
I have appeared before has gone out of his way to accommodate the case,
give it the maximum amount of time, and the earliest possible decision.
Q: You recently won a victory regarding
dissection in Indian schools. Can you describe what happened?
A: Dissection is so, so important that it overshadows
other cases relating to animal rights. I filed a petition for
People for Animals, whose counsel I was. There were other parties
as well: students whom I made petitioners, social institutions,
colleges and educational institutions, and doctors. It was a
complete spectrum. The dissection case was filed some time in
October last year. The court heard it and was impressed with
the arguments.
Q: This is not just that you
have an option not to dissect. This means that all dissection
has been banned.
A: All dissection in schools has been banned. This law
hopefully should come into operation by July 15th, because it
has to be published. And before it comes into operation, we are
to give a 30 day period for people to prepare themselves for
implementation.
Q: How did you argue the case?
A: We looked towards two concepts which are guaranteed to us under
the Constitution: one is right to conscience and the other is right to
life. If you guarantee right to conscience, then I have a right to object.
Because if something is not permitted by my conscience, then Ive got
a full right to say no to it. So I said: If youre compelling me to do
a dissection and if my conscience does not permit it, therefore it would
be contrary to the right to conscience which has been guaranteed to me.
That was one argument. The other argument was right to life.
When we talk of right to life, it does not mean mere physical existence.
Right to life includes fresh air, fresh water, clean food, and every
possible thing which makes the life of a human being happier and better.
Now when we are talking about right to life the question which arises
is: if all these attributes are part of right to life, are our morals
also a part of life? If they are a part of life, then they are guaranteed
under the Constitution. So I have got a right to my own morals. Therefore,
irrespective of whether my religion allows it or not, if my morals do
not allow it then you cannot compel me to perform a dissection because
then youll be infringing upon my right to life.
Q: What strategies do you employ and
what were they in this case?
A: We go for the soft relief first and the slightly tougher
the hard one second. The second relief I sought was a complete
ban on dissection. For that I raised an argument based completely
on Indian law: that the word experiment had not been defined
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Act only
laid down such limitations under which experimentation can be
performed on animals, and those limitations are when it is helpful
for the development of the physiological knowledge or for the
betterment of human life and animals. I raised the question whether
dissection performed at school level is for betterment or advancement
of that physiological knowledge.
What had happened was, about 30 years ago, in 1968, a committee had been
appointed under the Act to lay down the guidelines for experimentation
on animals. This committee, for some strange reason, decided to define
the word experiment, and it defined it as a demonstration of a fact or
a truth which is already known. Now once you give such a definition,
it legalizes dissection. But a committee cannot overreach or adopt or
give sanction for things which are not permitted under the Act. So I
challenged the definition of the word experiment.
In the meantime, a committee was appointed one like the committee which
was appointed in 1968 for laying down the rules. Now this committee,
of which I happen to be a member, adopted on 6th June the various contentions
of the petition which was already in the courts and banned dissections
in all the schools.
Q: What are some of the other cases you have worked on?
A: Some of the other cases are, for example, the prohibition of
sales of ivory, fur, and skins of animals. All these items had been banned
under the Wildlife Protection Act. Once they were banned, nobody was
supposed to carry on trading. But the traders, obviously being aggrieved
by such ban, filed a petition in the High Court saying that it deprived
them of their right to trade. Unfortunately, the court did grant a stay,
but we intervened and got the stay order vacated.
We have also managed to have banned something like 23 traveling zoos.
The animals have been confiscated and relocated in the various zoos in
the country, because we cannot rehabilitate them. We cant let them loose,
so we have no choice but to look after them.
Q: This was trading with animal products
that had been stockpiled in commercial premises?
A: Yes. What was happening was, by 1991, trade in Indian
and imported ivory had been banned. These traders got up and
filed a petition in the court arguing for a right to trade and
right to compensation because they had legally imported this
ivory and when I talk about ivory it includes fur and skin at
the same time in accordance with the procedures laid down by
law. They had paid customs duty for it and felt that, if they
couldnt sell it, what were they supposed to do?
Burn it! Thats what youre supposed to do, one of the judges said. If
other countries can do it, you do it. Just go and burn it. Why should
we pay money to you?
Now when the stay order was vacated, these traders continued to keep
all these articles of the ivory trade, furs, and skins in the commercial
premises. All these items were right there; but were always labeled Not
For Sale. From various sources I came to know that they were actually
carrying out business in these articles. So we filed a petition in the
High Court, saying that if the sale is prohibited, there is no purpose
for these items to be kept in commercial premises or anywhere else, because
it was actually drawing people who were saying, How beautiful. How wonderful.
And Im sure you must be having one that you can sell to us. And so on.
The court accepted this and ordered all ivory products, all fur, all
skins (for over 150 protected animals), wherever and in whichever premises
they were, to be kept apart in a portion of the premises which was sealed
and reported to the court along with the key.
Q: I know Maneka Gandhi was working
on a case concerning animals in circuses. Can you update us?
A: That is pending, unfortunately, and I hope it will
come up in August this year. Im 100% sure that well win this
case.
Q: What is your overall approach
to the law with regard to animals?
A: Its a very beautiful way of looking at it. We have
really expanded the definition, the meaning, of the words life
and liberty. We have included the word heritage that it is part
of life. So anything which affects my heritage, and all these
animals are part of my heritage anything which reduces or has
an adverse effect on this heritage lowers or takes away my life.
This you cannot do. Unfortunately, we have yet to reach the stage
where we can argue that it takes away the animals rights. But
I am waiting for the day, which I am sure is not far away, when
well have the complete concept of speciesism as a chapter in
the Constitution.
And that is how we go about it. All these cases are based on those four
beautiful letters, L-I-F-E. It functions at each and every step.
Raj Panjwani is an advocate who lives in New Delhi,
India.
 |
|
|
 |
|
© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. |
|
|
