On Friday 29 Feb 2008 12:15:31 am Charles Haynes wrote: > So why is the official reaction to violent intimidation by right wing > looney thugs one of appeasement? Is not what they did both clearly > illegal and offensive to anyone who believes in a free society? Why is > there not outraged reaction? What is it that keeps people of > conscience quiet?
The people who are doing the vandalizing in a mob consider themselves "people of conscience" and their conscience tells them that their religious beliefs are being messed with. In the absence of good opinion polls and with 50-60% illiteracy it could well turn out that there are tens of millions of Indians who are actually sympathetic to the views of the ABVP (the vandal) about the Ramayama. In which case the sentiment is hardly a "fringe". Only the violence is by a fringe. There are two separate issues here: 1) The truth or otherwise of the vandals' (The ABVP in this case) accusation 2) the issue of vandalism By resorting to vandalism the vandals are utilizing an old political trick that works well in India, which still has old British laws and a creaky legal system. By the act of vandalism they get the publicity they want about their feelings. But the Indian penal code does not have a harsh penalty for such vandalism and in order to bring anyone to book, one would have to go through a tortuous legal process lasting years, starting from the initial booking of the vandals, arrest if an arrest is applicable, bail after that, charges, courts, the works. As with everything else in India it is easy to do something illegal, but completing the process to remedy that using the proper legal process is a bottleneck. If the police book people for vandalism - the case will die long before it gets to court. If the police simply bash up the vandals, the police will be accused of excesses. In the case of the Akhil Bharati Vidyarthi Parishad vandals, the police could be sympatehtic to the vandals and they could choose a more "legal" course. For some other crime by some other group of people, the police could decide to end the matter there and then and mete out punishment on the spot. What could "people of conscience" do in this sort of situation? They could attack the ABVP verbally, which is fine but may be unfair if they don't know what is in the book. After all who actually read any of Taslima Nasreen's offensive passages? Without actually reading them we can't judge. It is the freedom to read Taslima Nasreen that is being restricted by the same government that is allegedly allowing the freedom to read "Three hundred Ramayans". The ABVPs contention is that if Muslims can riot and have their way stopping release of a book that hurts religious sentiment, why not Hindus? In India it is a serious mistake to consider religion-charged people as a "fringe" of any sort. That is a misunderstanding of India. Indians are not secular. They are pluralist. "People of conscience" are a nebulous entity, and a lot depends on whether people of conscience want to stick to the letter of the Indian constitution, or act on their conscience. Very often people resort to the latter. shiv
