complaints he has gathered from those who have narrated their tale of woes or that of their friends and associates. He is all ears when listening.

This belief led some eight concerned citizens to meet President Abdul Kalam a few days ago. The specific instance in their mind was that of underworld's attack on film director Mahesh Bhatt. But they had gone to how their concern over a principle -- the principle to live securely from the increasing power of the don, the mafia and the underworld to which people were perpetually exposed. They told the President how criminals, communalists and casteists were throttling our democratic, secular polity from breathing free.

They made three points. One was how the creeping fascism was devouring the country bit by bit, and how the anti-social elements pounced upon individuals or groups which dared to differ with them. Two, the respect for the rule of law was lessening day by day. The authorities did not act either because of political pressure or because of fear of masters. The

third point was that the society had become so insensitive that it had ceased to realise what was wrong. For many, the dividing line between right and wrong, moral or immoral had ceased to exist.

The President listened to the concerned citizens but said little in response. Even when one of them said that the President, as the guardian of the constitution, should have dismisse Narendra Modi for the pogrom in Gujarat, he kept quiet. Here and there

the President sought further information but did not react in any manner to indicate his inclination. It was apparent that he had gone over the same exercise

with some other concerned citizens many a time before.

"What are your suggestions?" the President asked. "Give me five points." One at the meeting tried to propose something. But the President cut him short by the remark: "I want all of you to put your heads together and e-mail your five suggestions to me directly." He promised to consider them. The concerned citizens are yet to meet and draft the five points. Their problem is that they live in different cities and have a busy schedule. Yet they want to place the five suggestions before the President as soon as possible because the ball is in their court.

If I alone were to send five suggestions, I would convey to the President something like this: There is no doubt that independent India has earned prosperity, power and landmark achievements, especially in the field of science and technology. It is no longer an underdeveloped country. However, we still wallow in poverty, hunger, violence, discrimination, casteism, communalism and unemployment, the problems which have

plagued us for decades. This has been compounded by the problem of inequities and inequalities.

* Only 27.8 per cent of the Indian population resides in cities, but three-fourths of the unemployed are in rural areas. If the growth rate of our economy is a commendable 10 per cent, then why is 26 per cent of our population still below poverty line? The real

challenge before us is to overcome the imbalance in distribution of our resources and outputs.

* A strong judiciary is a key ingredient in the development of the social sectors. A judge does not merely interpret the law but he moulds it to suit the changing social and economic scenario to make the ideals enshrined in the constitution meaningful. The system is rightly derided by saying that there is too much of law and too little justice. It is pointless to

talk of an effective rights regime if the people lack the basic ability to access the justice dispensation system, both in terms of awareness and resources. As an English judge has cynically remarked, "The law, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to rich and poor a like."

But can the poor have a realistic access to it?

* The greatest challenge before the Indian judiciary is the tremendous docket explosion. The courts are flooded with cases and this has, consequently, led to immense pendency. On an average every year, the Supreme Court decides about 40,500 out of 42,000 cases

filed, the high courts decide 11,23,500 out of 12,41,00 cases and the subordinate courts decide 1,32,22,000 out of 1,42,29,000 cases filed. In spite of such high number of disposal, the pendency figures have been rising due to increasing influx of cases.

The Law Commission in its 120th report (1987) had stated that in India there are only 10.5 judges per mission population (which is now said to have gone up to 12-13) whereas countries such as the US and the UK have between 100-150 judges per million population.

This is the primary cause for the staggering number of arrears burdening the courts.

* Disconcerting is the burgeoning violence. It cannot possibly lead today to a solution of any major problem because violence has become much too terrible and destructive. If the society we aim at cannot be brought about by big-scale violence, will small-scale violence help? Surely, it cannot. Partly because that itself may lead to a big-scale violence and partly

because it produces an atmosphere or social theory that enables the individual to rise above his petty self and think in terms of the good of all. In a sense, every country, whether it is capitalist, socialist or communist, accepts the ideal of a welfare state. Capitalism, in a few countries at least, has achieved this common welfare to a very large extent, though it is far from having solved its own problems and there is a basic lack of something vital. Democracy, allied to capitalism, has undoubtedly toned down many of its evils and, in fact, is different now from what it was a generation or two ago.

* Ultimately, the constitution is the most important for us because it regulates the governance. Dr Rajendra Prasad, president of the constituent assembly, said after the constitution was passed: India needs today nothing more than a set of honest men who will have the interest of the country before them. We have communal differences, caste differences, language differences, provincial differences and so forth. It requires men of strong character, men of vision, men who will not sacrifice the interest of the country at large for the sake of smaller groups and areas and who will rise over the prejudices which are born of these differences. We can only hope that the country will throw up such men in abundance.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.