One question that has been troubling intellectual circles over the past few years is what wounds constitutional democracy more – a corrupt and compromised media, or a pliable judiciary? While the intellectual and moral integrity of both the media and the judiciary are critical for the survival of democracy, the dominant view is that corrupt judges demolish the last hope, spreading cynicism about the whole system. Nothing delights the conscientious citizens more than a judicial verdict reinforcing the power of truth and justice.What’s not open to dispute is that the decline in judiciary in recent years has been scary and none of the top ministers, or the prime minister, in this regime has expressed concern about it. While successive tenures of several Chief Justices of India have deepened the crisis, the judicial inaction in the cases of special intensive revision (SIR), defections of MLAs and MPs and the open defiance against the Places of Worship Act compelled the intelligentsia, including judges and top lawyers, to express despondency over the situation. Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal once said in a programme, “Don’t expect justice from the Supreme Court in political cases.” It’s a national tragedy that democracy is endangered because of judges and journalists, not fools, bigots and criminals.Justice Deepak Gupta, who retired from the Supreme Court a few years ago, recently wrote in an article that the number of black sheep in the judiciary is increasing. Shouldn’t this rattle the prime minister and trigger a national debate? How many TV channels, that ceaselessly debate silly statements given by clowns and criminals, picked up this disturbing question? Justice Gupta pointed to the failure of courts to protect fundamental rights and warned against drift towards majoritarianism. He declared, “No country can claim to be independent unless it has an independent and fearless judiciary” and asked the sitting judges to introspect. “This can and must be done because if people lose faith in the judiciary, the judiciary itself becomes irrelevant. That will sound the death knell for a democratic India. Where there is no democracy, the people can never be free or independent,” he said.This is not a solitary lament. While Justice S.N. Dhingra had in the past pointed to the “deep-rooted rot” within the judiciary, Justice Madan Lokur has been referring to the executive’s interference and elevation of undeserving judges. Even sitting judge Ujjal Bhuyan has talked about interference in the judiciary’s functioning. Another sitting judge Sandeep Mehta felt compelled to write to the chief Justice of India about the questionable conduct of an acting Chief justice of a high court. Justice A.S. Oka had also warned of an explosive situation when people’s faith in the judiciary dies away. The crisis of credibility is so deep that a group of lawyers and activists staged a protest recently where retired Bombay high court judge B.G. Kolse Patil accused the judges of not doing their job properly. The ‘Mian’ Rahul jibeThe new BJP president, Nitin Nabin, religiously following Sangh Parivar’s intellectual tradition, delivered the punchline: “Mian Rahul Gandhi will never understand the importance of Vande Mataram.” The ‘Mian’ prefix was an intentional mischief to give a false Muslim identity to Rahul Gandhi which demonstrated that the failed project of maligning the Nehru clan hadn’t been abandoned. Students of BJP-run ‘WhatsApp University’ have guzzled the nonsense long ago and spread silly stories about Jawaharlal Nehru’s Muslim lineage in their neighbourhood. The nasty “Feroze Ghandy” narrative is bandied about by semi-literate clowns both in rural and urban areas.These semi-literate clowns never talk about Nehru spending over 10 years in jail as the main leader of the freedom movement. Everybody in the family, his father, wife, sisters, brothers-in-law and daughter served jail terms. In one of the processions in Allahabad, Nehru’s mother was hit on the head by the police, leading to massive public protest and police firing. In the post-Independence era, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi sacrificed their lives for the country. But Rahul Gandhi doesn’t have the credentials to understand patriotism which is today monopolised by the RSS-BJP. The world knows the history but what’s interesting is the BJP’s presumption about the disgrace of the ‘Mian’ prefix, as if the Muslim identity is a political liability in this country. Let’s examine this absurdity. Even a school student can name countless Muslim freedom fighters whose sacrifice and contributions inspired the country. Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Ashfaqulla Khan, Begum Hazrat Mahal, Hasrat Mohani, Badruddin Tyabji, Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, Zaji Husain, etc all fearlessly fought against the British along with millions other ordinary Muslims. If Motilal Nehru offered his palatial house in Allahabad for Congress activities before Independence, the leader who hosted the meetings in Delhi was M.A. Ansari, whose residence, Dasus Salam (abode of peace) was always open to the freedom fighters. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), at that time, had decided to stay away from the freedom struggle. Some Hindu Mahasabha leaders participated in the freedom struggle and later even joined the Congress, but the RSS refused to pay any heed to the nation’s call. Their icon borrowed from Hindu Mahasabha, V.D. Savarkar, who was never in the RSS, wrote mercy petitions and vowed to work for the British Empire. Almost all illustrious Hindu intellectuals – from Mahatma Gandhi to B.R. Ambedkar, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan to Amartya Sen and other contemporary political scientists and historians – are opposed to RSS philosophy. Against this backdrop, which prefix is a matter of shame – Mian or Sanghi?Which Baba’s rule?Rising student leader Neha Bora said at a protest meeting in Uttar Pradesh, “Baba ka rule nahi chalega. Babasaheb ka rule chalega. (Baba’s rule won’t work. Only Babasaheb’s rule will.)” The young Communist was obviously trying to frame the political discourse in terms of chief minister ‘Yogi’ Adityanth’s whimsical administration versus B.R. Ambedkar’s constitutional scheme.Adityanath, hyped up as a tough administrator by the sycophantic media, is largely believed to be a religious bigot who describes the political contest as an “80 versus 20” battle. He used even more objectionable language: “Ali versus Bajrang Bali”, leaving little doubt about his mental orientation. The BJP takes him across the country to whip up communal passions, projecting him as “bulldozer baba” who doesn’t care for constitutional or legal niceties. The Supreme Court had to intervene to stop his marauding bulldozer that had become a symbol of instant justice. What actually happened is that the Uttar Pradesh administration discarded the due process and delivered punishment to the suspect without his guilt being established by courts of law. Allegations of fake encounters poured on him from all corners; some infamous personalities were shot dead in front of cameras. When RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat was giving sermons to foreign audiences on communal harmony and India’s composite culture, Baba’s bulldozer was demolishing a mosque in Saharanpur. Equality and justice were never treated with such contempt anywhere in the country. Baba rules with brute force, not compassion. Baba believes in religious supremacy; he once described the beautiful language of Urdu as “kathmullon ki bhasha”. Beneath the saffron robe lies a Hindu supremacist, not a custodian of constitutional principles. It is not difficult to accept that Baba’s politics are antithetical to Babasaheb Ambedkar’s constitutional vision.Ambedkar had said, “I hate mahatmas and firmly believe that they should be done away with. I am of the opinion that their existence is a curse to the nation in which they are born. They try to perpetuate blind faith in place of intelligence and reason.” This unpopular opinion will unlikely gain any currency in an age where the Prime Minister embraces the most irrational babas as his younger brother and ally. Forget Ambedkar. Even Hinduism prescribes renunciation – sanyaas – for religious leaders, away from political powers and worldly desires. Babas obviously can’t be done away with, as Ambedkar suggested, but can certainly be driven to their ashrams and maths which are apparently free of political conspiracies and administrative machinations.Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.