- Sensitive matter
One must, regrettably, tread very carefully on the matter of making dams and saving our future lest one is misinterpreted and, quite wrongly, branded an enemy of the state itself. Isn’t Article-6 (of the constitution), for example, very narrowly focused on subverting or suspending or holding in abeyance, or attempting to conspire to suspend or subvert, the constitution by use of force or unconstitutional means? And while one can only praise the chief justice’s – and the prime minister’s, for that matter – personal involvement in a central national cause, should anyone not quite satisfied with the finer details of the dam donation drive really be threatened with high treason?
Wouldn’t setting such a precedent — by the highest court in the land, no less – open the flood gates to all sorts of interest-driven groups accusing each other of violating Article-6? Wouldn’t it also dilute any perspective prosecution of serious breaches of the constitution down the road? The chief justice has often found himself forced to shoulder the burden of nation building – simply because relevant institutions are apparently not doing their jobs well enough – therefore it is likely he will be more considerate, eventually, to ordinary people who share his concern for the country’s future.
Hopefully donations will soon overwhelm all expectations and give the country the dams it so desperately needs. Yet, even in success, we would have treated the symptom not the cause. And millions of people, who paid taxes and dam surcharges in utility bills and are asked to contribute again, should be forgiven for raising some pertinent questions. While the people finance the dam, what is the government doing about the broken down system that got us to the point of begging in the first place? And where did all the money our bills made sure we paid for dams all these years go to? Providing people with some direction at this point will, no doubt, add momentum to the dam drive as well; if only it weren’t such a sensitive matter.
