Good Society Essential for Maintenance of Peace & Order

A very good evening, and thank you all for joining us today evening. I extend warm and very hearty welcome to our eminent speakers and other delegates present in this session. NISSMAT has conducted so far 134 webinars, and each webinar is addressed by two scholars. Besides that, we have also conducted some interactive sessions where only one scholar presents his view. Today's edition of the webinar is under three five. The subject, as you know, is Good Society Essential for Maintenance of Peace and Order. This session shall be addressed by two eminent speakers.

Let me introduce NISSMAT in a few words. NISSMAT was established in 1990. It started training courses in the field of private security, safety, security management and technology. Now NISSMAT has become a think tank organization with an association of more than 90 scholars who were providing inputs to us in the field of security, safety, management, applied technology, and as well as on topical and current subjects. NISSMAT has now established four wings: NISSMAT Forum, NISSMAT Academy, NISSMAT Enterprises and NISSMAT Foundation. NISSMAT Forum conducts these webinars, interactive sessions, awards function, etc.

With these words, I'll pass on to introduce to you the moderator of today's session. A word about him: Captain took a voluntary retirement from the Parachute Regiment of the Indian Army at a very young age and started his business, an unknown area at that time to him. He's now become a businessman. Really, he's unafraid of telling the truth. I have seen him in various business sessions and webinars; he is really very straightforward, and he is not afraid of telling truth. A thoughtful and inspiring leader, he is adept in creating alliances. He's a past president and former chairman of Council of International Investigators, USA, and is in the body of Malcolm Thompson about, and could really award by this Council. With this word, I'll pass on and introduce the subject to you.

The subject of today's: Good Society Essential for Maintenance of Peace and Order. The scholars tend to view the relationship between law and order and society through various perspectives. But what is a society? Consensus perspective views that society shares common values in a relatively stable manner. Society is based on shared values; it observes the prevailing laws to maintain stability. Now, no doubt laws are very essential, but resolving the dispute cannot only be done by laws. A good society does not necessarily needs very harsh laws and respect enforcement, wherein we look out for new laws or amendment of the whole laws. Our amendment of the prevailing laws deal with any deviant behavior of citizens, which assess the civility of the society.

In India, I vividly remember, in the Nirbhaya case in India, the sexual brutalities inflicted on a woman created a message. It created immense anger amongst the citizens. This isn't resulted in amendment of prevailing laws and introduction of worship punishment to the offenders. But there's a little evidence to show that severe punishment and harsh laws have essentially created a good society, as I feel that the incident of sexual brutalities are contrary. So this is not necessary that harsh laws can make it a good society.

For ensuring a good society, we should realize that there is some constitutional responsibilities of the representatives of the people. It is the representatives of people are home so much sarkar, or society defense, for maintenance of law, peace and good functional society. Somehow or the other, our lawmakers sometimes tend to fail in this duty due to some external pressures. For example, there was introduction, when law was introduced, for non-compliance of obligations for corporate social responsibility, which provided punishment up to 30 years — at three years, sorry, punishment up to three years — to offenders who did not comply with the social obligations. But due to presence and pressures exercise by a lobby of the powerful corporate world, this law was withdrawn. Some offenses are also listed in a bill presented by a private member to prohibit use of tobacco, paan, gutka, etc., but this could not see the light of the day for reasons as there were a lot of differences, and our lawmakers then were diffident to introduce this law.

Basically, laws are only enacted to ensure obligations by the individuals in the society. Good normative behavior, they are also be possible through good education. Good behavior can also be possible by fortification of the individuals in maintaining the good society, or in solving the conflicts by means of community action. Common laws are actually a derivative from the moral values expected from the citizen. Good values are important for any society, and therefore I had chosen the subject to consider that good values are the core of an ego society. No doubt, laws do help in creating a group normative behavior to some extent. However, the central values of any good society can be enforced by the society itself. Social control is the best process of ensuring individuals in a society to transact and engage in the right context. Therefore, I said in the caption, a good society or a smooth functioning society can result in maintenance of peace and order. Our speakers today will go into dynamics of this subject and discuss further. With these words, I pass on the session to the moderator.

Thank you, President sir. Just to get everybody know that we are at this point of time live on YouTube as well as Zoom, and we have participants, registered participants, from India, the United States, Canada, UK, UAE and Panama. We have Brett Nicholson from Panama at this point of time. This event has been sponsored by Brett Mickelson from Panama, who's a resource for everybody in Latin America through his company called BM Investigations. And the event has also been supported by Premier Shield, which is a security company; Premier Consulting and Investigations, which is a pre-employment screening organization; India Skills, which is an assessment company for the Skill India projects; Tax Course, which is an assessments platform; and JMD Cargo, a logistics company.

A word about our president. I think Mr Shripal Singh is one of the most illustrious persons that you can ever meet in life. He served in various states of the Government of India on senior police assignments. He's a masters in English literature. He raised the Rapid Action Force for the Government of India, and he was the first chief of this force. He also raised the Internal Security Academy in Mount Abu, which is a central police academy in the state of Rajasthan in India. During the service he was decorated with several honors and awards, a few of them being the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service, the India's Police Medal for Meritorious Services, the Police Special Duty medal with bar, Asana medal, and a number of other commendations and rewards.

Post retirement, he's worked as a consultant with the Tatas, and he has also been the chairman of the technical committee of Quality Control of India, which formulated the standards of the star rating of private security companies. He was involved in developing the curriculum for private security guards training under the Security Sector Skill Council. He was the head of the committee we designed the national occupation standards for the firefighters in India. In the year 2009, post retirement, he was awarded the Security Personality of the Year by the President of India. He today advises the Asian Professional Security Association and is the honorary director general to CAPSI, which is the Central Association of Private Security Industry in India, and the Association of Private Detectives and Investigators. Mr Shripal Singh's face is well known in India as a dynamic security professional, and is frequently called to share his views on various subjects connected to homeland security on national news channels.

NISSMAT can help businesses grow by providing greater visibility to their company's products and services by creating opportunities to talk about their products and advertisement to NISSMAT Communications. So should there be any person who's interested, please contact the NISSMAT office for this opportunity.

Our speaker for the day — we have two speakers. One is Mr Amod Kanth. I first introduce Mr Amod Kanth. Mr Amod Kanth is a very distinguished police officer from the 1974 batch of the Indian Police Service. He has served as a director general police of Goa and Arunachal Pradesh. He's a member coordinator of NITI CSO standing committee — CSO stands for the Civil Society Organization. He is the chairperson of the Domestic Workers Sector Skill Council. He is the founder and general secretary of an NGO called Prayas, which he founded. He is the chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights of the government of National Capital Territory. He founded Prayas in 1988 in Jahangirpuri in Delhi with 25 children. Prayas works for care, protection, development and rehabilitation of the rights of marginalized children and women for the past 34 years. Today Prayas has 161 centers, including 38 homes, shelters for children and women, six child helplines — 1098 being the number — in 10 states of India, serving over 50,000 marginalized children, youth and women.

He has the unique distinction of being a part of all policies and legislations about children in India. As a police officer he has had a distinguished career. He served in Delhi, Goa and Arunachal Pradesh. He's investigated assassination cases of Rajiv Gandhi, Lalit Maken and Arjun Das, the transistor bomb case, the hawala and Banks Camp cases related to economic crimes involving the high and mighty of our country. He also was instrumental in catching Charles Sobhraj, your credit criminal who had escaped from Tihar. The story is now a successful movie, and the movie's name is Main Aur Charles. He was also involved with the Jessica Lal murder case, where the culprits had been let off by the Supreme Court of India. Mr Kanth has served on several policy matters as a social development expert and policy analyst. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Mr Amod Kanth.

Thanks a lot. I think I'm really privileged today to be once again with NISSMAT, and I can see the standard of deliberations here is far better than many others in which I participate. Shripal is a friend of mine, very old friends; we know each other for decades and decades. And thank you, Pavanji, with a very good introduction. Dr Suraj, I can find being here with us, another old friend. It's an opportunity, and NISSMAT, with its brilliant track record and its access to large number of people, is bound to spread our views far and wide. So I'm thankful once again.

Friends, on this issue of good society essential for maintenance of peace and order, you know, several thoughts came to my mind. In the sense that, first of all, I thought whether society is good or bad is a very difficult interpretation. It's very difficult to find out what kind of society you call good and what kind of society you call bad, or maybe whatever description you give. But one thing goes very clearly, that society truly mirrors the law enforcement agencies. I mean, as a policeman for these 34 years, I intensely felt that police perhaps was the most faithful mirror, a true mirror, of the society itself.

I mean, you'll agree with me, police officers being here with us. For example, when I served in Delhi — in Delhi I served in almost all districts, South Delhi, West Delhi, Central Delhi, all over; I was Deputy Commissioner Police, then Joint Commissioner Police — let me tell you, even in a city like Delhi, which has now the population of nearly three crores, the city, when you work in East Delhi, trans-Yamuna, the character of the society of trans-Yamuna used to be very different. I mean, everybody knows about it, what kind of characteristics they define the area of trans-Yamuna, East Delhi, which has now changed a lot. Central Delhi, particularly the area of, let's say, Walled City — the Hindu, Muslim living together, riots taking place from many times, and many a times, you know, these riots getting resolved also, and their harmony and conflict blending together very beautifully. So it has a character. So Delhi — they think they are high and mighty, they are very powerful, and society has certain kind of vanity about them; they are full of ego and whatnot. A different kind of challenges. West Delhi, when it grew, it grew out of different situations. It's a new area, different kind of people. So in a city like Delhi, which I live now and I have seen growing for the past many, many years, nearly 45 years, I can see the difference.

When you go to Pondicherry, you know, you find a society a very heady cocktail, I would call it, of, let's say, urban on the one side, the French culture on the other side, and third side, Tamil culture. In fact, there was highest number of suicides in Pondicherry when I was there, my first posting as ASP, way back in 1976-77. I mean, I was accused to see why so many suicides, because society has a character. And of course, with those typical French caps, the policemen behave very differently. It was mirroring the society, the society of, let's say, Pondicherry. Goa, as you know, it can be a very interesting cocktail again — anytime drinking, very sunny drinking; policeman can be found with siesta in the daytime, that kind of character. Then of course, I went to Tamil Nadu, I saw those kind of policemen. I went to Mizoram, Arunachal being the last one where I served. You know, the world of Arunachal, those 26 tribes operating in Pradesh — it presents very different kind of society.

So I entirely agree on the point that this society very truthfully mirrors the legal situation, the policemen, or the law enforcement agencies, and of course that influences the situation of peace and law and order, the entire criminal justice system as it operates in societies. I talked about these states, and you go to other countries abroad, you find similar kind of complexions. This is very interesting, of course, the subject, from that point of view. Partly I accept, I partly accept that yes, good society or bad society, that reflects, at least reflects, the law and order machinery, and what kind of situation is there, and what kind of challenges are being faced by the law enforcement agency that is there.

So friends, I divide my life in two parts, and hence, you know, my experience also comes from there. 34 years, as you mentioned — 1988 till date I have been running this organization, Prayas, and along with Prayas, you might not be knowing that there are six other agencies, five of them of course you are aware. Shripal ji, you know about the skill development programs, and there are generations and stance; each one trains about 2,000 at any point of time. So there are nearly fifty thousand — forty to fifty thousand — footfalls every day in those 164 or 200 centers that Prayas runs. So in a way, I have more experience of the society as it operates, because I am deep into a civil society organization for the past 34 years. So my understanding of society, their aspirations, their problems, their issues, how they interact with each other, how they interact with the government — that understanding, I think, is perhaps more dominating today than it was. Because, you know, it's nearly 14 years back that I came out of service, and prior to that, you know, nearly 34 years I served in police. Exactly the same number of years: 34 years in police and 34 years in social work. And 20 years, friends, 20 years was common — 1988 till 2008. These 20 years I worked both as a police officer, and I was able to run this organization, which is not decidedly not my organization; it's a very vast organization run by a very illustrious kind of governing body and all types of people operating in it. Presently there are nearly 800 full-time employees. So this is what I am. This is the combination of my work as a policeman and of course as a social worker, I would call it.

And this is seamless. I find my life not divided in compartments. I very strongly disbelieve in the idea of compartmentalizing, let's say, as a policeman, a social worker, or a bureaucrat, or whatever. Every one of us, each one of us, happens to be a social animal, a social being, which, of course, they talk about it. There is no problem with the individuals or human beings being social animals; we have to be creatures, all of us, and there's no problem about that. The problem arises when a social being or social animal becomes a rational being, when the fellow starts applying the mind. Where the person who is — I mean, the animals can be as social, really, in terms of harmony, in terms of rules and regulation they follow. In fact, it is found that far more than the human beings, the other species, the other animals, can be far better. I mean, they can live together more happily, more in harmony. Their families, their life, their togetherness is perhaps better than the human beings many a times. But the fact remains that when we start thinking, our ideas come to us, then all kinds of problems come.

So friends, you know, the human beings, or as social beings, the society as it is defined — we can't live in isolation. We have to be together. We live together. We have to indulge in conversation. We have to share our times. We have to share our problems, our issues, our thoughts, our lives, our fights. We sing together, we dance together. We live in harmony, we live in discord. So it's a peculiar mixture. It's a peculiar mixture of all types of situations coming. One doesn't know how to define it — how to define that which kind of society is good society and what kind of society is not so good society. It's very difficult to say. I mean, it's society's own characteristics which has said.

But yes, I mean, when you talk about good society, I would like to think about it. Perhaps the society which is peaceful, a society where there is sharing of resources, a society where less of violence, less of conflict, and let's say there is certain kind of order. A society where things are better regulated, we are allowed to prosper, we are allowed to live comfortably. A society in which the economic, cultural, social activities, they grow and they go properly. The society where growth and prosperity, it happens to be the better way of life, the more natural way of life. I mean, these are the things, you know, perhaps this defined a good society, in my opinion. So safety and order and collective endeavors, they're flushing together — that kind of society can be called a good society. I mean, that's how, if you're able to define it.

And of course, there are certain preconditional sorts. I mean, this society, it's two-way traffic. On the one hand, the legal processes, or the laws and regulations, they create a good society. On the other side, the good society creates that kind of laws and regulations which makes life comfortable and happier. The preconditions being: for a good society there should be peace and harmony — I mean, there are people who are naturally fighting types, they get into conflict far faster — there has to be justice, there has to be legal processes, there have to be development and happiness. I mean, there are all these issues. These situations are the preconditions for a good society also. So these are there.

Now friends, I mean, how does it work out? In fact, Shripal sahab, he spoke about the fact that many a times when the laws are passed, but the laws really don't create that kind of impact, because society inherently has certain problems, it has deficiencies. I'm just reminded of a national study on child abuse. You might recall that in 2005-07, as a part of United Nations study on violence against children, a national study on child abuse was carried out in all the countries across the globe. India's study was the largest one. We had about 18,500 respondents to understand whether children are being abused and what kind of February being carried out. I happen to be DGP Arunachal, but the Government of India decided to give me the charge of this study. It was nearly two years. The results of this devastating study — I mean, this study was about in 13 states of India, and it was carried out by 200 investigators; it was part of the minister criminal Child Development study — the results, when they came, they never thought that this country can be so atrocious to children. The level of child abuse in India was unimaginable. I mean, it was found that every second child was being abused sexually. I mean, other kinds of physical abuse, economic abuse, emotional abuse, they're part; the sexual abuse was so rampant, was found to be so rampant. And it was found that every second child, male and female alike, they told in some language, some kind of indication, that they had been sexually abused. It was devastating. We thought India was a very, very cultured society. We thought that really good, and our culture and our traditions perhaps protect the children better. But unfortunately it didn't.

And let me inform you, Shripal Singh sahab, that POCSO was the direct outcome of that study. Today, I mean, how many years later, 2012 the POCSO came, and only exactly 10 years — this, in fact, we observed 10 years of POCSO's operation. Nearly 140,000 crimes are being reported every year. 140,000 crimes are being reported every year. I mean, this is the level of reported cases. You might imagine that what exactly is the level, because I said that every second child is being sexually abused. So, I mean, what kind of impact this law has created, it's very difficult to say. As you know, that there are death sentences now in POCSO and those kind of crimes, and despite death sentences, the crimes don't seem to be stopping or minimizing; they are growing still. So this is very difficult, that whether the legal system or the harsher laws can bring about the change in society. It's a matter of thought. It's a matter of thought whether it's happening or not.

I mean, on that point, I would like to tell you about my own understanding today. You might have heard that my first book, which was called Khaki in Dust Storm, that was published by Bloomsbury. The second book is going to be published in the month of December itself. I have named it Khaki on Broken Wings. Broken wings, because I find that police, or the law enforcement agency, being the overarching factors — the three segments of the criminal justice system, that is, lawyers as prosecutors and different defense lawyers, the judiciary as the law enforcement, I mean the deciding bodies, and the prison systems — all the three have come to a point which is a break, which is kind of breakdown of it.

Now, you know very well that the Chief Justice of India, he made a statement recently that law must not become kind of instruments of operation. In India it appears to us, and the Chief Justice of India, Chandrachud, who is a very thoughtful judge, he made a statement that the law and justice need not be complementing to each other. Indian laws become more oppressive many a times. I mean, why it's happening? So my own analysis or understanding of the Indian laws being so — I go back into a situation where, you know, our system, 1860s, is a direct outcome of the first war of independence, and that remains the main structure. I mean, that was not exactly according to society. Indian society did not produce India's criminal justice system. The India's criminal justice system was brought into India to serve the colonial interest of the Britishers. They wanted to control India indefinitely, and they created a system, and that system even now persists. Police Act 1861 hasn't changed. IPC 1860 hasn't really changed. Even, let me inform you, sir, that Society Registration Act is also 1860. They wanted to control the society, and hence they created Society Registration Act 1860.

The situation is very strange, that they created a system — the system was created where the Britishers have — I mean, that system that was created to serve the colonial interest, that is still continuous. It's an archaic system, it's an alien system, and that alien system is not befitting India's social orders even now. I mean, the common man doesn't understand. The Indian laws are such, the criminal laws particularly and the civil laws, even the judges have to refer the laws time and again. We must keep the arrow of books and legal literature to understand law every time. So the normal, let's say, litigant, a witness, or relationship — we are not able to understand the legal process. That is the kind of archaic law we have here.

I would like to point out another thing. Since we are talking about the society, we can talk about social legislations. I feel personally that India's social legislations — where I am deeply connected, to children's laws, to women laws, let's say the trafficking laws which is coming up; POCSO, I was party to it; Juvenile Justice Act, I was party to it, because I'm in the drafting committee itself — the social legislations of India are far ahead of time. In fact, the fountainhead being the India's Constitution, of which I am a great admirer. India's Constitution is a dream document. India's Constitution looks beyond the present time. With the passage of time, we find that Indian Constitution has become the most important document, the most important, let's say, thought process, and it is protecting this country. All of us know why I'm saying so. But the same Indian Constitution appears to be ahead of time and creates a social legislative process, or that kind of legal system, that kind of laws, which should be brought into force. But we are not able to bring those laws into force, because we have got an archaic structure. Within that archaic structure of criminal justice system, we cannot force, we cannot bring the laws to be implemented properly.

For example, you know, we have this 370 Indian Penal Code. There was a change in it, and trafficking was defined as a crime for the first time after when Criminal Law Amendment Act took place in 2013. Now trafficking has been defined as crime, and the child trafficking and forced labor is rampant in the country. Millions of children are being trafficked every day. The number of child labor in the country is not less than 20 to 35 million, and the number of cases that come up in trafficking law, 370 IPC, is hardly two thousand — nearly 2,000 cases being registered every year. So, I mean, there are issues and issues. The social legislations are not being implemented, because perhaps either the machinery is not prepared for that, or despite society's aspirations, we are not able to fulfill. So that's really, to an extent, prove your point that society's preparedness and society's relativity with the peace, law and order is something which is very, very important.

These are some of the issues. I thought, you know, why, how it happened. I mean, if the society is there and the state is there, what kind of relationship we have? I mean, I feel that, you know, we go back to the theories of social contract — Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. I mean, as the students of political science, all of us read it. Now, they said that it was some kind of contract between the society, in the society itself, amongst the citizens of the society. Those who are part of society, the stakeholders, they entered into some kind of contract to create this state. The entire governance of the state system was a result of a contract. Contract means understanding. Contract means that they decided to create a sovereign body. That's how it happened. I mean, I'm talking about the time from hunting states to pastoral stage, agricultural stage, and finally people got civilized and they got settled in life. They created a society, and that kind of society — I mean, it's not an artificial contract; it could be a natural contract which was there, and that contract resulted in the society or the government being created.

Now, the issue is that we give our authority — society handed over the authority to a sovereign body, and plethora of laws came up. These hundreds and billions of laws, you know, across the globe, and thousands of laws in country like India which are in operation, are the byproduct of that sovereign authority. Now the issue is that, with the intentions and ideas when we decided to hand over to this state the authority to rule us, how far the state is able to do it, and whether the state or the sovereign authority is fulfilling its promises — I mean, that is something where society must understand. Perhaps it's not happening. I mean, we are not really serving the most needy. If you look at India's legal process, legal system, you will find that the poor, the deprived, the vulnerable — children, women, disabled and those kind of people — they are not really getting the services they deserve. So this is something which is very important.

Now, on that point, well, I fall back to India's Preamble, the Constitution's Preamble. I mean, it starts with "We, the people of India," and we constitute sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. We as a society create, we as a body create — I mean, the same contract I am referring to. We should be giving justice — social, economic and political. It is the dream kind of thing. You think of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. I mean, these are the things which are there. Fraternity. We have fundamental rights and directive principles all laid down. If you look at the directive principles, it creates another set of dreams, another set of ideas for the society at large. So these are, you know, social aspirations which create these kind of bodies. But whether these bodies which are governing the people at large are able to give it — these are some of the thoughts which I thought I'll share with you.

I think I would like to conclude in couple of minutes by saying that India being a functional democracy — if you compare India with USA today, I told you that my son-in-law is here from USA, and I was discussing with him on the same issue, I mean, how the democracy is functioning today in USA, for example. He said that they have become very, very political. The American democracy is becoming almost similar like Indian democracy. But there's a difference. The difference is like this: that their people are more conscious about their rights, and those who represent the people have to carry along the people whom they represent. In the sense that here the problem is that we move from election to election. The politicians are not able to do what they are supposed to do. The politicians between two elections are not able to fulfill the promises. First of all, they don't fulfill — they don't give promises in a manner which is actionable. It is non-actionable promises that are being given — freebies, for example, and those kind of things. And during this period they completely forget what kind of support and service they are supposed to give. So Indian democracy has become like this. So it is there.

Now, in that context, again we'll go back to my experience of 34 years through voluntary organizations, the civil society organizations, in my considered opinion, which form the third sector. If, let's say, the bureaucracy and the democratic institution happened to be the first sector of governance, the second being the market economy, the corporate — India being the fifth largest economy, as they say — the third and the very important of the development process happens to be civil society organization, who represent the society at large. I mean, perhaps the true CSO represents society better than the politicians, because they remain engaged in more intensity, in more detailed situations, and they are able to understand people perhaps better than the politicians. And that's my experience as a social worker for 34 years. So that point I would like to point out.

I mean, just would like to say that today, when India happens to be fifth largest economy, it happens to be the third largest military power, we are at crossroads. In fact, I am leaving you with a question, a very, very important question. Why is it that a country being fifth largest economy and third largest military power globally, competing for supremacy and for all that it's happening around us, happens to be 132 among 191 countries of the world in the human development indicators index? In SDIs we are 131 out of 191 and other very important parameters. Today, in terms of the sustainable development goals, the SDGs — you know very well, I am sure, that the honorable Prime Minister, he has assigned the NITI Aayog to find out, on the parameters given under SDGs, as to how the country is progressing in the SDGs — again we have the same position. We are again around 131, 132 out of 191 countries. We are very badly off. This contradiction, this contradiction between, let's say, India's being fifth largest economy, huge economic power, huge military power — why are we so badly off in terms of social indicators, human development indicators, health, education, poverty alleviation, children, women, disabled, elderly, environment and all that? So this contradiction is very much in line with the subject that we are discussing today: society and order, society and the government. I think that's all I would like to say. Thank you very much once again, Shripal sahab. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I have a question to ask. Can you sort of talk off more about the Prayas, the organization that you run, and how is it contributing to creating a good society?

It was created out of the needs of the society, number one, in the sense that I started Prayas in 1988 when, as a police officer, I was supposed to give solution to those kind of children who could not be sent to various government homes, you know, the juvenile homes and children homes, but at least 50-60 children could be found across the city, and they had to be given certain kind of facility, certain kind of support, for just few days, couple of days. That's how I started Prayas. Then of course there was a big fire in the area of Jahangirpuri — you know, it's a very big slum area of Delhi — and I happened to go there, and Prayas was set up. I thought very accurately that Prayas could not be a policeman's job as such; it had to be social workers' job, and we created a partnership: Delhi School of Social Work, Delhi Police and Shramik Vidyapeeth, which ultimately became a very powerful vocational training program body.

Now, since Prayas happens to be an organization which works in the community — 80 percent we are into services in community — and since we are in the community, we understand the problems and issues. Like, you know, the homelessness in the city of Delhi. We are running about 15 centers for the homeless people. This city has 140,000 homeless at any point of time. To look after, let's say, 5,000 homeless is a big deal. Same way, you know, the Prayas impact on the governance, as a partner to the government or as partner to various civil society operators — it may not be very big affair, but it happens to be reasonably okay, because we are able to directly serve nearly 40 to 50,000 people on day-to-day basis. We have nearly 800 full-time workers. Most of them are driven by their spirit of social work. There may be experts like counselors and educationalists, or let's say vocational instructors. Even we are running, for example, couple of primary health centers and community health centers in Arunachal Pradesh and in Bihar, where there are doctors and health workers. All these people are working outside the government, but they are working in partnership with the government, in partnership with the local institutions and democratic bodies, in partnership with the corporate at many a times. This is what is needed. I mean, that is what the voluntary sector is supposed to do — to fill the gap and try to answer the problems being intensely felt in the community. That's what Prayas does.

Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask one question. I mean, thank you very much for complimenting right in the beginning that our discussions are quite at the high level, but I must compliment you today that you have elevated the discussion — beautiful presentation. One question which I like to ask you is out of your own presentation. While we say that, as you rightly said, of course, the criminal justice system's archaic and Constitution is looking far ahead of social — but as well as the directive principles are concerned, as you know and I know, it's not justiceable. The directive principles of Constitution are not necessarily — but other things are justiceable. Why our founding fathers, knowing that our society has been under the regime of the foreign government for 100 years or so, why the directive principles — some of the directive principles which are really, really very important for any social justice — why they have not been made justiceable? And is there any remedy? Because otherwise we cannot tinker with the basic facts of the Constitution. How do you manage to give this answer, that the directive principles should also become justiceable, some of the directive principles particularly?

I entirely agree with you. I entirely agree with you that directive principles should have been in the domain of justiceability. They should have been as justiceable as fundamental rights. That's the basic difference, you know. The Constitution creates — perhaps they become wiser — not become wiser, but they thought they were wise enough to understand the limitations of the government. I mean, when the Constitution of India was brought into action, 1950, India's economy was in total shambles. I think they had no money at all. Perhaps if they had given, like, you know, the right to work, the right to livelihood, and variety of other rights which are contained in directive principles — right to free and compulsory education also, which came after how many years? 2009 we got the law, and it was kind of — it was promised in 1950; it came after so many years. It all perhaps was done because those people who are supposed to implement the tenets and the provisions of Constitution thought we could not do it financially. We could not do it.

Today, I mean, let me point out — I'm not legal expert in that sense, but then, those were legal experts, they would speak better about it, maybe talk about it — that a large number of directive principles have actually become law. Like it has become law, for example, environment. Environment — I'm really surprised, I mean, at the wisdom of our founding fathers. I mean, I must kind of hold my hands for them. Remarkable, what beautifully they have written about the environment in just two words, and today environment has become something which has — a lot of laws are there pertaining to environment, pertaining to livelihood, pertaining to the basic standards of life, all those things. Children, for example — trafficking has come after 63 years. I mean, trafficking was a crime, you know that — forced labor and child trafficking was a crime under the law, under the Constitution of India. It was perhaps the only crime, and that crime came on the statute book after Criminal Law Amendment Act, after Nirbhaya case, in 2013. So, I mean, perhaps the directive principles, 80 percent, will become law very soon. That's my wishful thinking. And thank you, sir. It's something very important. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Amod Kanth. Could you just sort of tell us — you've been involved with policy making on various laws of the country, the protection of children from sexual offenses. Can you sort of just tell your role as to how this law came about?

Actually, see, the basic law, the basic law for children in India, happened to be Children's Act 1960. Now that Children's Act was, of course, because children and women and all had to be in the state subject within the framework of Constitution, state list. So the laws were being made for children by the states, or they were being replicated from one state to other state. Now we decided — because I was active in those times, 1986, and finally 2000, the real law came into existence in 2000, that is Juvenile Justice, within bracket, Care and Protection of Children, Act 2000, which has since been amended many times, and 2021 was the latest amendment. This gives a remarkable framework. I mean, this particular law is a unique piece of legislation, because it creates complete provisions for the children — whether the children happen to be offenders (I mean, child offenders are a small part of the slope), the children in need of care and protection, the victims of crimes, and all types of children who suffer any kind of disadvantages. All of them have been covered within this law, number one.

Secondly, this law creates a very distinct and separate juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system is very different compared to the criminal justice system. And let me inform you, sir, that today I am more of a practitioner in the juvenile justice system. I have to fight in it. I'm very happy about it. So the juvenile justice system which has been created, which must be implemented independently and not as a part of criminal justice system, is suffering many assaults. And let me inform you, in a small gathering I am talking — perhaps the assaults are coming more from the courts. The highest courts are making inroads into JJ system. The children are very special. The children should be protected and looked after separately. That's what I say. Their needs are different. But there are many issues. I think perhaps one session we can discuss for this issue alone. But then, yes, these laws are very important. They need to be implemented in their spirit and letter.

Okay, thank you very much, sir. Thank you very much. Now I switch over to Dr Suraj Singh, who's our second speaker of the day. As an introduction to Dr Suraj Singh: he's a lawyer of great eminence. He practices in the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India, serving nationals and international customers and clients. He has been educated at Delhi, Oxford and Harvard, and is a classmate of President Barack Obama of the United States. He started his legal career, after completing his education, in the offices of the Attorney General of India, Mr G Ramaswamy, in the year 1992. He has successfully handled complex legal cases in the real estate sector which would be valued in excess of US 50 billion dollars. He's an educationist, and he works with colleagues to improve the education, training and practice of law in the country. He also champions causes through public interest initiatives. Ladies and gentlemen, Dr Suraj Singh.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. My friend Amod Kanth has given such a brilliant analysis of good society and the role of law and the role of values, and it's a rare combination where a person is head of the police on the one hand, and head of, founder of, Prayas, a social improvement agency, on the other. And some of his remarks are so remarkable, coming particularly from such a successful police officer: that Police Act, Indian Penal Code — all in 1860s, came right after 1857, what we call First Freedom Struggle, and of course English will call it Mutiny. So the relationship between the two is very striking.

Now let me go from 1860 to 1950, even Constitution, and even up to 2022, as I teach Supreme Court lawyering at Jindal University, analyzing the 72 years of Supreme Court. There are a lot of very interesting features of our Constitution. But before that, coming to the fundamental thing which Shripal ji had said, that values really make all the difference. Law, of course, is one of the values. There's a famous Greek saying that life is a gift of nature, but a good life is a gift of culture. So we are all born like animals, in animal world, but in a society we are socialized. Now what kind of values create a good society? And as Amod rightly pointed out, what constitute a good society, to begin with?

There are certain fundamental values which are universal, whether it's India, America or Africa. One I would call the value of mutual respect. Where mutual respect is there, a lot of other qualities also come. It means there is no hierarchy, there is no domination of the one side over the others. Abraham Lincoln put it very well. He said, I would not like to be slave, so I would not like to be a master either, because being master and being slave are the two sides of the same coin. So mutual respect means everybody deserve equal respect. Then, of course, society should be inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Similarly, in a good society there is order, but at the same time a good society is also progressive. That order is there, but order for what? If there is a higher order, society should not hesitate to change. Then in a good society there should be prosperity. Poverty is not source of wisdom or virtue; it is prosperity. Earlier in Constitution we have right to property, which now has been taken away and made only legal right. I am very much in favor of what I will call right to prosperity, in the sense that individual initiatives are encouraged rather than frustrated by the government.

Now, if we apply these criteria — and of course, last one is very important: whether society creates self-centered people or what I call enlightened self-interest. Famous economist Adam Smith said everybody is guided by self-interest. I add that everybody is guided by self-interest, but enlightened people are guided by enlightened self-interest. Now what is enlightened self-interest? Self-interest is, as the generation talk all the time, what is in it for me. Enlightened self-interest, by contrast, says what is in it for us — both of us, for you and for me. So it's a win-win situation. A good society goes for enlightened self-interest, and that's why the civic virtue is important.

Now coming to Indian Constitution. Now, since I have been a student of Indian Constitution, both at Delhi University, then comparative Constitution at Oxford, and constitutions of three countries at Harvard — now, in Indian Constitution, we look at it, it is full of contradictions. Now that may come as a surprise, because Supreme Court interprets all the time like it is as if one monolithic piece. No, Indian Constitution is full of contradictions. Now that's a very dramatic statement, but let me explain what do I mean. See, there is a part of the Constitution what I will call progressive. Like Preamble is a progressive part; three, fundamental rights, progressive; part four, directive principles, as Shripal ji pointed out, and my friend Amod Kanth also pointed out — they are part of the progressive part of the Constitution. But in the same Constitution, lot of provisions are there which are more authoritarian. For example, all the emergency provisions.

We all condemn ADM Jabalpur, 1976 case, by the Supreme Court, where the question was that what is the scope of fundamental rights during emergency, and a majority of the Supreme Court said the only rule of law during emergency is emergency law. It means all fundamental rights can be suspended. Now, it was only honorable Justice H.R. Khanna who stood out and said no, liberty is not a gift of law; rather, because we have a fundamental right of liberty, that's why laws are made. So any law which denies our liberty is a bad law. Why, out of five judges, four judges came to this conclusion? Now, one may be saying anything, but if you take really the plain, strict text of the Constitution, Constitution provided that. So if you take a literal, what we call black letter, interpretation of the Constitution, many provisions of Indian Constitution are authoritarian.

How? Let's face it. Out of 393 provisions of the Constitution of India, 254 had been bodily lifted out of Government of India Act 1935. And Government of India Act 1935 was no charter of liberty. As my friend Amod Kanth rightly pointed out, it was for crowd control. Crowd control was needed in 1860, crowd control was needed in 1935 also, and unfortunately even today crowd control is needed. Never more than 300,000 — means three lakhs — English people ever came to India, including army, including priests, including businessmen, and our population even at that time was, at the time of independence, about 330 million. Means for every Englishman or woman there were 1,100 Indians. Now, do you expect that when one person is there among the 1,100 people, he will adopt a democratic, participating, inclusive system? No, it's a control. And unfortunately that system has continued.

And in 1950, right after the partition, situations in India were such that we needed two things. On the one hand we needed a progressive society; on the other end we needed law and order also. And that's why an authoritarian Constitution at that time was meeting, because at that moment, in 1947, partition afterwards, we could not have afforded a progressive democracy Constitution. But there is a provision of amendment, and that's why, when Palkhivala, in the most famous case in the entire Constitution so far, case 1973 — question was whether Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, what is the scope — argued: power to amend is a power to improve and not to destroy. So as long as we improve upon our Constitution, Parliament is a lot of power to amend, but if you want to destroy the Constitution or institution, no, that cannot be allowed, because there is a fundamental basic structure of the Constitution. That means the democracy character, republican character, cannot be changed. Now that is the basic structure of Indian Constitution.

But we have to also see basic structure of Indian society. And as my friend Amod rightly pointed out, painfully though, that has instances of child abuse like that — that's the way we treat our children. Where does the culture come from? Where we will start our values? Plato, famous philosopher, talking about education, said that a child must be free even when he is a student; otherwise it will not be education of a free man, but of a slave. Do we allow that kind of freedom of thinking and independence in India? What kind of values we have got?

In 1835, Macaulay started this education. He is responsible also for Indian Penal Code. Now, the original education minutes are there in Portland library in England — Oxford; I read them. And what does he say? He said, now the question comes, what kind of education we should provide to natives? They can't be taught in their own language, because a shelf in a good library in Europe contain more wisdom than the entire literature of Hindus and Arabs put together. He was historian. What kind of historian was he? He did not know that when England was just in Dark Ages, we have golden period in India — even in Arab countries, because what we call darkest age of Europe were the golden period of Muslims, and we have Harshvardhan. And I studied at Oxford; Lord Macaulay went to Cambridge — they are comparable. What do they teach at Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard? Independence of thought, not the servitude of thought. And what Lord Macaulay was saying: we should create a class of people who would be interpreter between us, the ruler, and millions who are being ruled. And we have adopted that culture. What do we teach in our education institutions even now? What kind of values are we creating? That's why I say there is a difference between reality on the one hand and rhetoric.

In India, education is very important. Even Bhagavad Gita says knowledge. But do we really respect our educators? Politicians sit at the head of everything, and politician's power is given — fundamental principle of constitutional law, or even administrative law, is that power is given for a specific purpose, to achieve certain goals, and it should be utilized for that course. Politician, the moment they get elected, they forget for what purpose they were elected. Apart from self-interest, there is hardly any vision. I have the privilege of representing as a lawyer many Chief Ministers. When I ask them, what is your vision, they say, dogs to remain in power. Well, I appreciate their candor, but is that the beginning and end? Politics, according to Plato, is where you create strong individuals in a strong society. So a good society where strong individuals are there, but at the same time strong society also.

So now, if we go by their standards, as Shripal ji rightly pointed out, values are the fundamental things, and in a secular society, Constitution is a source of all fundamental values, and the role of the Supreme Court is maintaining, preserving, protecting those values. Because politician, because of their individual interests, might sacrifice fundamental values. So it's the task of the Supreme Court to make sure that politicians, or whosoever, maintain the discipline to respect the fundamental values enshrined in our Constitution.

But we don't need such a big government. In fact, in India, government is so intrusive. I lived in United States for six years; government never interfere with me. If I needed some help, I'll call government. That's why they will not interfere at all here — and I'm not talking about any political party here. We don't need government; government need us. So what kind of an exploitative state we have got? So if you want to create a good society, we need less role of the government and more of civic society like Prayas, more role of individuals like those who raise the level of the discourse. I totally agree with Amod Kanth that discussion by NISSMAT has really raised the level of discourse, and in fact it's wonderful to see that some people are still thinking about these larger issues beyond their narrow self-interest.

So what I say: that yes, law and order — maintaining law and order is good, but orderly — there can be, when there was a slave society, there was order. Order alone is not good enough. Is it a good order? And for that purpose, orderly plus progressive. And in progressive, this tolerance to experiment, to make mistakes, is very important. India is a very rigid society. It was not so during Vedic periods.

A very interesting thing: recently a British historian, from some Morrison, has come out with a brilliant book called economic history of India — economic history of the world of last 2,000 years — and some of the very interesting things he has come out with, which really — English say we taught law and order to India, we made them the civil. What he says is this, very interesting: that from first AD up to 1100, India's contribution to the world GDP was 32 percent. America has never crossed 25. 32 percent; China 24. Put together, China and India, we represented 56 percent. Europe was hardly six percent, Arabia was 12 percent, etc. That was from first AD till 1180, almost 1280. Then Muslims came; we went down, but not much — that's very interesting — from 32, our GDP became 25, means seven points only. So it means from 1100 till 1800, our contribution was still 25 percent of the world. What is the role of US economy at the moment? But during English rule, if you take it from 1800 to 1950 — 1947 — in only 150 years, our GDP went down from 25 to 2.5 percent. Will you call it a good rule? He said blatantly.

But those values are — I think it's amazing when you go and see these country first time. See, when Macaulay said, let's create a class of people who by ethics, temperament, values are English, and by color and blood, Indian — English are not miserable people. They have sense of intelligence, they have sense of humor, they have sense of enterprise. But an Indian cannot become English, as an English cannot become Indian. Every land have its genius. And now research has come out that those who study their first language, mother tongue, are more connected with the genius than those who studying foreign language. Foreign language you can learn. Now, Germans are learning English, Chinese are learning English, but their first language is their mother tongue. I was speaking at Gurdwara Karam Seva at Phoenix, Arizona. I said two things are needed to progress in life: one, you should have strong roots; second, you should have wings. Roots so that you are connected, and wings so that you can explore the world. I am in favor of exploring the world, whether it's England, America, Europe or any other country, but at the same time being rooted also in our own culture. That's why, despite Harvard and Oxford education, I came back to this country. So roots. Now those fundamental roots are there in our culture. At least they were there. Still there are very good virtues which we can emulate.

So a good society really empowers individuals, and individuals have some social sense. So it's mutually reinforcing: great individuals create great society, and great society create great individuals. If you weaken the individuals, in long term you will not have a good society. On the other hand, if you are only strong individuals and there is no orderly harmony among different means, you will not have strong individual for long. So this topic is excellent, that good society is essential for maintenance of peace and law. In fact, it's mutually enforcing: good society creates peace and order, and peace and order is needed to have a great society.

So finally, I would say that India has done great progress from 1950, but some of the steps taken by our leaders, including Supreme Court, have been very backward. For example, in 1950 the very first decision arose: can you deprive a person of his life or liberty without due process of law? Supreme Court said no, due process is not needed; any procedure is enough. It means procedure need not to be reasonable, just and fair. When was it said? 1950. When was it overruled? 1978, in Maneka Gandhi's case. It means in 28 years we suffered from the bad interpretation. Similarly, ADM Jabalpur, 1976 — of course, gradually that was deviated from, but finally it was really said to rest and overruled by my friend and honorable Chief Justice of India. When was it? 2017.

So whether the Supreme Court or any court or any administration, fundamental principle we have to remember: law is made for human beings, and not human beings for law. So we have to judge every law, we have to judge every action of the government, whether it shows really the public good or not. And that judgment should always remain with the citizens, and not with bureaucrats, because Constitution has been adopted, let me remind you, in the name of we, the people of India — not we, the ministers; not we, the IAS officers or IPS officers; not we, the judges. We, the people of India. So the source of entire power, source of entire duty and responsibility, source of entire frame of government and structure of society, starts from people of India, and it should end up with the evaluation by the people of India.

One last thing I would say. When I was at Harvard Law School, our professor will teach, but after every end of the course, they will ask us to evaluate them confidentially. Students will evaluate the professor. Here, teacher evaluates students all the time, but there, students would be evaluating whether professor is doing a good job or not. Is he a good communicator? Is he — heavy — good mastery over the subject? Is he able to communicate properly? Is he an effective teacher? And then my feedback would be taken very seriously by authorities in the career of those professors, so that they can improve upon. In India also we need to start this culture, that we should be able to evaluate whether our criminal justice system is doing a good job, whether our civil society, government, is doing a good job. Because unless the power finally remains with the source of power, that is people, we would be changing our exploiters. We would be victim, either one government or the other, and it would be changed from election to election. So patriotic, yes; socially minded, yes; responsible, yes; but the final word in our mechanism should lie with the people, and not with the government servants, whether they are judicial or bureaucratic.

So I am so glad that NISSMAT has started this wonderful, thoughtful discussions, and such evocative topic like good society, law and order. Let this dialogue go. I am very grateful to Shripal ji, to my friend, for providing such an excellent discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr Suraj Singh. I have a question for you. You know, we've been mentioning that there need to be checks and balances. What is your advice to the politicians of our country to create — what actions they should do to create a good society?

Simple. In Constitution there should be a provision, and we should ask for that, that final authority somehow of reviewing of the government, of reviewing even of judiciary, should lie with the people. What happens — who are judges? In America there is a famous saying: a judge is a lawyer who knows a successful politician well. Now, since there is — they select themselves — now a judge is a lawyer who know other judges. Now, instead of that, there should be evaluation, and there should be amendment in the Constitution for that purpose. Because if you see the distribution of power, so much power having given to the central government — now that was needed during emergency in 1950, that was needed during World War II; there is no needed today. So now structure is such.

And then there should be something done about the population control. Because the population is so much, resources are limited, our quality will suffer. So we should be taking good care of our citizens, but citizens should also be exercising some discipline — how many children they add to the society. And it is not about any particular community I am talking about, irrespective. That, because anybody who pledges his allegiance to Indian Constitution — very simple, that anybody who owes allegiance to Indian Constitution is Bharti. And to that extent, there should be some strong policy on population control, without any discrimination, without any discrimination. Voluntarily possible; otherwise, China had one — I would not say one in India, I would say two children policy in India — so that the resources can be utilized more effectively.

And what would your advice be to the judges of our country?

See, the judges, they are too much confined. They have their disposal with other judges or lawyers at best. They are not widely open as robust people should. At least politician go among the people and at least assess their sentiments. Judges are, you know, ivory tower. Now I am very glad that now judges have started interacting. In America there is — not even elected except for people. So judiciary should be more open, to meet the people, to see the agreements, to understand the purpose of the law, rather than merely the black letter of the law — to see the big picture. At Harvard, we call it big picture as opposed to black letter. Because, unfortunate aspect — I'll delete this — that we fight the case for 10 years or 20 years. We say this government officer made a mistake, and the irony is, after 10 years, High Court will say, okay, we set aside this order. Now the officer will review, will again pass out. Do you expect that once you have gone against an officer, second time, he do the justice, or his succession will do the justice? So we are having a procedural justice; we are not having the substantive justice. Supreme Court should think about justice like Vikramaditya will do the justice. These two women are fighting — yet the sound common sense to say, okay, dear, the child into park, and the mother will come up. So we should have that common sense. Sometimes, in the name of separation of power, we are separate from power. Power means capacity to do things. We need to see.

Sometimes I am amazed, sir, that how much we are really devoid of common sense — something which is very evident. See, sometimes they ask — it is funny case, it came — a person who was like 100 years old, his pension was stopped, declaring him dead. So he said, how do I prove myself alive? Should I commit a crime so that people know I am alive? So, a funny thing. We should have this power that people, instead of certifying by government officer — people should be given the power to self-attest, and a lot of other things where government is not needed. In everything, government — English people needed that; we don't need. So we need to make our laws people friendly rather than government friendly.

I think that's a very nice thing — people friendly rather than government. We have Brett Michaelson here. Brett, would you like to ask any question, or compare the society in Panama with the society in India?

One of the things that I've noticed is the similarities between the issues that we're having on two separate ends of the world. It's fantastic, and not only with your speaker, but with our previous speaker as well — talking about child abuse and everything that goes along with that. In reference to the judges, one of the things that I think has been frustrating — as you know, I was speaking mostly on loss prevention — and one of the things that we seem to fail on constantly is allowing, as a society, allowing judges to come up with determinations, final determinations, that make absolutely no sense when we're talking about common sense. Something as simple as a neighbor that would take land from another neighbor, but because it took them 10 years or 15 years to figure out who was who and who did what, well, that neighbor that took the land keeps the land, because the case couldn't go through its due process. Just give the land back, you know. And that's just a simple case. When we get into more complex cases, sometimes it's just — I'm dumbfounded by why some of these cases prosper. But it's fascinating to have someone of your stature and your educational background to point these things out, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to listen. So that it's more of a comment than a question, but it is fascinating to see the similarities between our nations.

People say — if you recall, in olden times we had the khap panchayats in our country, and we also had the elders taking decisions in the villages, and the judicial system at that time was quite fair with these people. What are your opinion of the khap panchayats that were existing in our country for social justice?

Some serious disadvantage. I remember that movie called Mother India, and there there's the carpenter — whether this lady really borrowed that much money at such much rate of interest or more, and the Lala was able to persuade, saying, you'll be needing me, so you and police will come, so better side with me. And all of them say, yes, yes, if signature is there, she has to pay. So then they have their own biases. For example, you have heard of this so-called honor killing. So because human beings cannot be more than what their situation, their circumstances are, there are very few people who are able to transcend their situation. So we talk about transcendental values, universal values, but most of, all of us are situated — situated in a particular country, situated in a particular community, situated in a particular value system. It's really a very herculean task to come out of that and being neutral. So khap panchayat will be much more reflection of the structure of society in a village, which unfortunately has been, at least after English, caste oriented.

I think we lost him. Hello — mediation, arbitration, it is coming back, but as a slightly more substitutive level. Yes, please. Thank you very much.

Mr Shripal Singh, I'd like to hand over the proceedings back to you for concluding the session, please.

Thank you very much. Having heard both the speakers — very limited speakers who are experts in their own subjects — I have hardly anything to comment upon them. But by and large, one point which I made it clear: that both the citizen and the lawmakers — I mean, you may say whether they are the legislatures or somebody else who's making a law — the citizen and the lawmakers both can contribute a lot in creating or establishing a good society. The citizens can perhaps pressurize the lawmakers that they should consider introducing such laws which may result in establishing a good society, and legislature should consider that even without pressure they should be always willing to introduce or amend laws which happen to be going against the good society, as explained by the whole speakers.

I'll only like to add one more thing — that is only just a tribute to both the speakers. I heard Kanth talking of Rousseau; I heard Dr Suraj Singh talking of Plato. Yet the platonic society was probably not appreciated much in the later — they say thus idealism is not a practical society. All the — the Plato did lay down certain things which are even now, say, platonic. They were the platonic, in terms of, they say, not essentially just ideal society, but ideal society is not possible. Anyway, I have the opportunity to pay tribute to Socrates — that is one; after that, saying the other Socrates is Mr Kanth — and I've heard about Plato, I've heard about Rousseau, and now I have also heard both the Socrates. And I'd like to — there's a cycle in terms of being Aristotle; there is starting behind, rather you are Alexander, sir. These two Socrates, they have got one more disciple with them. Let us see follows an Aristotle for them. But Aristotle also wrote, as you know, a treatise not only on poetics but on politics, yes, as you know, and the treatise of politics is still valid in many respects. So what I have started, my subject — I think I'm valid, because I started and I chose this subject, which probably became very valid for the two Socrates. Thank you very much for having us.

Still, I think this particular subject, which I thought was probably beyond some people — that what I meant was about a society and what is the law and all — they have done much more than justice to the subject which I selected, and I thank them once again for having come and shared with us. Thank you very much indeed, and thank you. Grateful.

All right, thank you very much. Bye-bye. And of course, Brett, you have done wonderful job by giving a slice over that, and then you gave your own views about the subject. I think you will join us more often in our session. Thank you very much. Thank you for sponsoring the session, actually.

You're very welcome. It's my honor. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Thank you very much. Thank you.