HANG INDIAN DEMOCRACY? GO THE PAK OR SAUDI WAY? On Jul 21, 1:08 pm, reny ayline <[email protected]> wrote: > *FOR PUBLICATION > *AHRC-ART-071-2010 > July 21, 2010 > > *An Article by the Asian Human Rights Commission * > > *INDIA: Assault on Professor Joseph, an ode to Indian democracy * > > *Avinash Pandey** > > Rarely do individual tragedies reflect all that is wrong in a society. Even > rare are occasions where their implications go beyond the lives of the > individual, his family, or the neighborhood. But, when they do, they assume > a significance that has bearings on the history of the community and the > society. > > The recent attack upon a college professor in Kerala comes under the > category. The attack is no doubt tragic. The fact that it happened in front > of his family is worse. The brutality of chopping the palm off the teacher > has scarred the psyche of the family, scars that will probably never be > erased. The significance of the event, however, does not lie in the personal > tragedy inflicted upon the family by a gang of criminals. It goes much > beyond the family, the town where they live, and the state of Kerala. > > The attack, rather, is a marker of the times to come in India. Times when > freedoms guaranteed by the constitution will cease to be guarantees and > convert into empty words devoid of any meaning, buried deep down the pages > of a book no one uses anymore. > > Or these dark undemocratic times have already descended and the attack is > just a grim reminder of that? > > The details of the case point to nothing if not this. The attack did not > emanate from any personal enmity. The intent was not only to hurt, or to > kill, but also to terrorise everyone. That is why the assailants decided to > attack him in full public view. The most bizarre thing about the attack, > however, is the motive and not any of the above. The assailants allegedly > belonged to the Popular Front of India, a fundamentalist Islamic political > organisation. They were incensed at a paper allegedly having a blasphemous > conversation between God and Muhammad, set by the professor for the > examinations of the private missionary run college. > > Just that nothing in the conversation pointed to the Muhammad being referred > to as the Prophet Muhammad. Yet, there was a boycott of the papers and > protest rallies were promptly organised. Realising the electoral > ramifications of the controversy, the state government sprung into action > and directed the college administration to suspend him. It goes without > saying that the government did it without any proper inquiry. Yet the real > question is a little more startling, that in what capacity a secular and > socialist (literally as Kerala is ruled by an alliance led by the Communist > Party of India Marxist) state directed a private institution to suspend a > professor in absence of any enquiry, internal or by the state agencies. > > The travesty of the justice and abuse of state institutions did not stop at > that. The suspension of the professor was followed by a police case against > him for 'hurting religious sentiments' and death threats issued by > fundamentalist Islamic groups. Further, the police issued 'wanted' posters > against the professor who had gone into hiding precisely because of the > reluctance of the police to provide him with security in the face of death > threats. But maybe we are just cribbing too much. Maybe it is the discretion > of the police whether to provide security to a person or not, especially if > the person is accused irrespective of the facts of the case. > > Just when we might think that things could not go worse than this, they > went. As if failing to provide security to professor and bringing the > culprits to books was not enough, the police did go all the way wrong, post > attack as well. The first thing the police did, as per media reports was > convincing the Church leaders about their earnest pursuit of the attackers. > The Hindu, one of the most respected news papers of India quoted T. Vikram, > the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam Rural, saying: "We have talked to > church leaders to convince them that an all-out effort is being made to nab > the culprits." > > A person like me with limited understanding of democracy may wonder how the > Church Leaders enter the scene and why exactly a senior ranking police > officer was trying to convince 'them' about the 'all out efforts' the police > was making to nab the culprits. This was a criminal assault after all and > the police are required to do their job. To gather the evidence and produce > the suspects for trial is in essence what policing is. Further, they should > investigate the attack in all details, including the role of instigators and > not only the perpetrators. They should have done all this, further, without > even thinking of the identity of the victims and that of the perpetrators. > > Does not the political identity of being a 'citizen' is the crucial and > decisive one in a democracy? Does not Indian constitution guarantees the > same while criminalising any kind of discrimination based on any of the > exclusive innate identities attached to a person, like those of caste, > religion or ethnicity? And does not the very act of convincing church > leaders in this case proves that the trail must have been going cold more > often than not in cases where neither the victims nor the cases were not > high profile. > > The question, that what police would do after nabbing the suspects and > getting them convicted raises itself. Will police apologise to the leaders > of Muslim community in case all the accused happen to be Muslims, as is most > likely? This sounds absurd but then this very absurdity is the hallmark of > Indian criminal justice system. Where a criminal is not just a criminal, but > always has an identity to invoke and dodge the law. > > The legal course-of-action should be very clear. Anyone, and just about > anyone, violating the law of the land should be dealt with firmly. Further, > citizenship should be the only identity recognised by the law, accepting > none other barring those of deprived sections constitutionally mandated for > positive discrimination. > > The case, therefore , should have been treated as an outright case of > criminal and murderous assault and investigated like that only. Further, the > investigation should have tried investigating the roles of instigators as > well and to bring the whole ring of such exclusivist and fundamentalist > religious fanatics to books as they pose a grave threat to the very ethos of > the country. > > All this discussion makes it very clear that the police had no business of > convincing the religious leaders. But they did it. So, the question becomes, > are they, in fact, responsible or at least answerable to religious leaders? > De facto if not de jure. And if they are, leaders of which religion are they > answerable to? Or, they are answerable to leaders of all religion? In that > case what would be the line of action in cases of communal religious riots? > > They are, or at least seem to be. There was nothing new in Kerala police's > actions. Police forces across the country have done the same. Right from > being biased in favour of one particular religion, they have presided over > the genocidal attacks of one religion on another. The way Delhi Police did > in 1984 when murderous Hindu crowds butchered Sikhs, in the name of taking > revenge for the killing of Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister, by her > Sikh bodyguards. The government in charge of Delhi police was led by Indian > National Congress, the party the slain prime minister belonged to. > > Disgusting it may sound, but that was still better than what Gujarat police > did in 2002 pogrom of Muslims by murderous Hindu crowds belonging to the > Rashtriya Swyamsewak Sangh(RSS) and its affiliate organisations. This time > they did not assist the pogrom just by looking away. Rather, they actually > supported it by stopping the Muslims from trying to escape the attacks. They > did this by firing, actually firing, at Muslim victims running for their > lives. Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), the political arm of the RSS was in the > government. > > The Odisha police did this in 2008. Christians were the target this time > though the perpetrators remained the same. The riots took place apparently > for revenging the killing of a Hindu sadhu (preacher) belonging to the > Vishwa Hindu Parishad, another RSS affiliate allegedly by the Maoists. The > police looked the other way again. Rather as per several victims, the police > were quite friendly with them. The province was being ruled by an alliance > of BJP and Biju Janata Dal, a regional political party. > > These cases are just the tip of the iceberg. The gross ones. In all of these > cases, the riots were led by the ruling party itself, which controls the > police. Apparently, the police cannot go against their political bosses. For > every riot this huge, there are hundreds if not thousands of small localised > attacks on minorities. > > Most of these attacks are supported, if not organised, by the local > government and the police. And that is done for a simple reason, for > democracy. This may sound weird to untrained ears but then this is it. These > riots are organised to mobilise communal passions. The communal passion in > turn animates communities herding together. And that translates into votes > for the leadership of 'democratic' parties. > > The governments, therefore, need the religious leaders, especially of the > highly sectarian nature as mobilising communal passion will be very > difficult without them. And the numbers would follow the age old dictum, the > more the merrier, as there would be as many fault lines to play with as many > religions/sects/denominations. What else can explain that the best political > scientists of the country explain every election in the biggest democracy of > the world, right from the village council to the parliamentary ones, in > terms of the caste, sects, and religious and ethnic break ups of the > constituencies. Forget that these were precisely the identities that should > play no role in any democratic process, leave aside elections. > > But then, India is a democracy more than half of whose parliamentarians have > serious criminal charges against them. Where a chief minister of a rich > state organises and presides over a pogrom of Muslims to win an election and > retains his chair. It is a democracy, where the same chief minister mocks > the commission appointed by the Supreme Court of the country for looking > into the pogrom. It is a democracy where half of the top leadership of the > main opposition party would have been behind the bars for inciting communal > frenzy and destabilising peace. > > This is this systemic and systematic cultivation of mechanisms to find the > loopholes in the legal system and exploiting them to escape punishment for > one's crimes that makes the flawed democracy India has evolved into. The > failure of the system has resulted into the police evolving as the extra arm > of the ruling parties which is often used to terrorise the opposition. The > injustices committed by the police lead to the alienation of the whole > communities from the system, leading to their taking recourse to the > extremism. Can one forget the incidents like when the Mumbai police lined up > more than a thousand Muslim youth immediately after the blasts that rocked > the city? Or the fact that there had been no action or even an inquiry > against officers of the Uttar Pradesh state police who killed the alleged > masterminds of the bomb blasts in Varanasi, almost a year before the Delhi > police killed a completely different set of people for being the masterminds > of the same blast? > > This is what leads to a situation where extremist groups belonging to all > religions play victims and emerge as the saviours of their communities. The > clash of these fundamentalist groups with the state placating the needed one > on that hour becomes the inevitable consequence of such an unjust system. A > system where murderers of Muslims and Christians take oath in the name of > Indian constitutions and run governments, and where no action is taken > against Muslim legislators even when they assault and incite their > supporters to kill Taslima Nasreen. > > Evidently, cracking down on the religious fanatics does not make sense in > the democracy of Indian kind. Neither does secularism. Rather, it does. Not > in the Nehuruvian sense though which defined secularism as 'equal state > protection to all religions'. It makes sense in its current form, equal > state protection and immunity to the highly organised and institutionalised, > rogue fundamentalist fanatics of all religions. The fanatics then, of > course, can protect the followers of their religion. > > **Mr. Avinash Pandey alias Samar is a research scholar based in New Delhi, > India. Currently Samar is in Hong Kong on a work assignment with the AHRC.* > > # # #
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
