Rendering justice to victims of WB post-poll violence
A recent hearing before a five-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court on the scale of the post-poll violence in West Bengal threw up worrying details on the Mamata Banerjee government remaining in denial. What is worse is the complete lack of action on complaints from the riot-hit forwarded to the superintendents of police for redressal. That thousands of people were forced to flee across rural Bengal due to revenge attacks by Trinamool goons on those who had switched sides; and that the ones who came back home are being threatened to withdraw their cases or face cross-affidavits and endless litigation are now before the court. Data compiled by the state legal services authority so far show affidavits of over 3,000 people being affected. The complaints fall under six broad heads: property vandalised or looted; those who fled and need restitution; ransom threats; assault or sexual assault; property encroachment; and shops or businesses forcibly closed. Yet, the court found that the Mamata government has not even responded to complaints of some of the displaced people. “The state cannot be allowed to proceed in the manner it likes… It is the duty of the state to maintain law and order and inspire confidence,” the Bench commented, indicating the brazenness of the administration. It directed the NHRC to set up a committee to examine all complaints and make spot visits to verify them, warning any obstruction could attract contempt of court action. The panel has the mandate to point at persons prima facie responsible for the crimes and the officers who maintained calculated silence on the issue.
On a different note, sections of the civil society that rightly get worked up over human rights violations elsewhere have chosen to gloss over the situation in West Bengal. They instead pile on peripheral issues like the visit of the decidedly slanted and hyperactive Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar to Delhi, lecturing about how an elected government should be allowed to freely function in democracy, ignoring its trampling of human rights. Normalising the violence, saying it happens after every election, amounts to ignoring the fundamental principle that democratic norms remain the same for any elected government.