One would have thought that with elections to state assemblies behind us, there would be some respite from hate speech and divisive controversies created mischievously regarding hijab, halal and jhatka. These hopes have turned out to be false. The spewing of communal venom continues unabated. Encouraged by the comments in court that if hate speech is delivered with a smile it can’t be construed as a criminal offence, miscreants are having a field day.
Every other day one self-proclaimed guru, godman or saint threatens the members of a particular minority community with rape and murder only to apologise the next day before the ‘law can take its course’ with the rider that the word sorry is being uttered if some mother’s or sister’s feelings have been hurt. This has made a mockery of the rule of law.
Then there is the case of a cult guru being granted parole or furlough curiously coinciding with elections in a state where his followers can decide the outcome in a few constituencies. What is astounding is that the enforcement agencies representing the state don’t oppose the plea on the ground that the person convicted of heinous crimes is ‘not a hardened criminal.’
Others less fortunate continue to languish as undertrials repeatedly refused bail even if by no stretch of the imagination they can be proclaimed hardened criminals. Police in different states can arrest and detain any person under more than one draconian law without a warrant and tell the courts that the evidence of the conspiracy they were hatching against the state cannot be divulged in the national interest. In few (shall we use the phrase ‘rarest of rare’) cases the higher judiciary intervenes and the accused regain their freedom.
Even in such exceptional cases, it may take years to move the wheels of justice. Sadly, the courts including the higher judiciary haven’t acquitted themselves creditably in defence of citizens’ fundamental rights to freedom and liberty. Anyone daring to express dissent or criticise the government in power is branded a traitor, a terrorist, Urban Naxal, interruptor etc.
The lookout notice that stopped Aakar Patel from boarding a plane in Bengaluru to travel abroad is a sad reminder of the sorry state of things—abuse of power against political opponents. One court had decided that the CBI was totally in the wrong in issuing the Look Out notice and ordered that not only should Patel be allowed to travel abroad but also a written apology be offered to him. The stinging rebuke was too much for the rulers to stomach.
Things moved swiftly and when Patel tried to emplane the next day he was again stopped on the same ground. The CBI had informed the court that it was filing an appeal against the order and the earlier order was retracted. Now, according to reports in the media, Patel is considering filing an appeal in a higher court against the CBI that apparently is skating on the thin ice of contempt. Earlier, Rana Ayyub had faced similar harassment. It must be made clear that the foregoing should not be misrepresented as a defence of anyone. What is extremely distressing is that the new jurisprudence seems to ‘consider a person guilty till proved innocent and the burden of proving innocence is squarely on the accused!’
Excising Harsh Mander’s stories from school textbooks on the ground that he is being investigated for FCRA violations is yet another case of presumption of guilt. This is not the first case, nor is likely to be the last, of vigilante censorship or abetting self-censorship of syllabi. What is disturbing is that the targeting of objectionable material or dangerous individuals appears to be very selective and dictated by partisan politics.
When the young and energetic honourable law minister suggests that the judiciary and legislature should work synergistically, one must prick up one’s ears. Are the days of the concept of separation of powers numbered? The honourable home minister has come up with another suggestion. States of the Indian federation should communicate with each other not in English but in Hindi. Footsteps of future—another Angreji Hatao, Hindi Apnao Abhiyan? The Constitution accords Hindi the status of Rajbhasha, not Rashtrabhasha and provides the option to states to use their own language and English or Hindi to communicate among themselves or with the state. One Nation One Language isn’t going to work in a multilingual country like India. One Nation, One Election and One Team working for One Purpose. Ours is not to question why.
Other influential members of the ruling establishment are busy raising demands to repair and restore monuments to their original form—testifying to a glorious past perfect in every sense before their description by foreign invaders. The objective is not closure but erasure. Revenge is prioritised over reconciliation. Polarisation may win an election, but it can’t contribute to nation building or inclusive economic development.
Pushpesh Pant
pushpeshpant@gmail.com
Former professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University