E-Paper
Gratefully yours
Invited to speak on the cultivation of a Thanksgiving attitude, I started by emphasising that attitudinal change is the most significant form of change, writes Abhishek Singhvi.
Invited to speak on the cultivation of a Thanksgiving attitude, I started by emphasising that attitudinal change is the most significant form of change. If ‘attitude, not aptitude, determines altitude, viz. how high you soar’, then an attitude of gratitude (A-of-G) can clearly allow us to soar as high as we like.
An A-of-G is nothing but a state of mind. It is learning to be happy with what you have, while pursuing all that you want. Hence, if the only prayer in one’s life is a ‘thank you’, it would suffice.
One cannot have this attitude unless one starts recognising the ‘supposedly’ small graces of life. Easier said than done, it is necessary to be grateful for the grace of better understanding, to be happy to want what one has, rather than seeking to have whatever one wants.
In a nutshell, the mantra for an A-of-G is to pause whenever one is in the midst of any extreme problem of daily life and then think of the thousands far less fortunate than oneself. Looking for the good in every situation generates this attitude. As was put tellingly: “I was once distraught because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.”
A third, more activist aspect is to indulge in positive acts of Thanksgiving. It has its origins in the US (from 1621) and Canada, which have national holidays every year on that day.
The basic aspect of Thanksgiving, involving an A-of-G, transcends national boundaries. Agricultural festivals in diverse countries and cultures are nothing but simple acts of Thanksgiving reflecting spontaneous A-of-G. India’s Makar Sankranti, Onam, Pongal, Baisakhi or China’s August Moon festival are manifestations of a collegiate, societal A-of-G. Jainism’s festival of forgiveness, Kshamayapna is another aspect of the same theme.
The challenge is to rediscover, reinvent, reincarnate and re-establish this quality in our daily lives, especially from childhood. A national Thanksgiving day — one that is Indianised, an Aabhar Parv or Kritagyata Divas — can be considered. Indeed, the ideal should be an annual global Thanksgiving Day. The year 2000 was so declared by the United Nations.
It is also necessary to develop school-based initiatives and modules to help children learn and develop an A-of-G at an early age. Thanksgiving opens changes a child’s personality. A child may be resentful or negative, or, alternatively, he may be thankful. Thankful children want to give and radiate happiness. William Faulkner’s analogy — “Gratitude is a quality similar to electricity; it has to be produced, discharged and used up to exist at all” — emphasises this giving aspect.
The manifestations of an A-of-G can be diverse and extreme: Eklavya’s offer of his thumb to Dronacharya as guru dakshina; Karna’s withdrawal of his vow to kill Arjuna (at Kunti’s insistence), but reiteration of his decision to fight the Pandavas because of his deep-seated sense of gratitude towards Duryodhana, a man whom he otherwise considered evil; Krishna’s washing of Sudama’s feet in remembrance of many kind deeds by the latter.
In my twin professions — law and politics — gratitude is not only not a normal feature, but it may be a rare aberration. Hence we must harken back to an attitude of Thanksgiving and gratitude, which is rightly described as the mother of joy.
Law upheld
The US Supreme Court’s decision last week, striking down the creation of special military tribunals to try detainees, is rightly hailed as a victory for human rights and the rule of law.
The court held that no domestic legislation authorised the setting up of such military tribunals, which were intended to function separately from both the established civilian judiciary of the US and US military court martials. It castigated the procedure of such tribunals, which effectively excluded the detainee from his own trial by not allowing him knowledge of evidence against him. The process was held to violate not only US military law but also the Geneva Conventions.
The court asserted that it was its duty, in both peace and war, to preserve constitutional safeguards of civil liberty. It also stated that even if one assumed that detainee Hamdan was a dangerous individual, capable of causing immense harm to and death of innocent civilians, it was still incumbent on the executive to comply with the rule of law. These statements are reminiscent of the celebrated dissent of Lord Atkins in Liversidge v Anderson in Britain during the Second World War, immortalised in his words that “amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent”.
The US court eschewed the approach of three majority judgments that have become synonyms for judicial abdication: Liversidge in Britain; ADM Jabalpur in India (holding that even mala fide exercises of State power during a state of Emergency would not be judicially reviewable) and Korematsu in the US (upholding segregation and detention of persons of Japanese descent in special camps).
But the judgment is based only on interpretation of relevant domestic US statutes, holding them as not authorising creation of such tribunals. Whether, if specific language in such statutes had authorised trials by such commissions, the US apex court would have held such statutes unconstitutional remains open and perhaps doubtful. I have no doubt that similar excesses in India, even during war-time, would be struck down by the Indian Supreme Court.
The judgment also reflects the new alignments on the court. It reversed the court of appeal that spoke through Justice Roberts, now the sitting chief justice of the US apex court, who, therefore, did not participate in the apex court’s decision. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, was joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, all known centrists or liberals, as also by Justice Kennedy, the liberal who is increasingly providing the swing vote to create 5-4 majorities, after the retirement last year of Justice O’Connor. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, who wrote the dissent, continue to form the conservative core of the present court.
