Kashmir Times
23 January 2008
Editorial
Fighting communalism
Bilqees verdict inspiring but it's a long road ahead
It took six years for gang rape victim Bilqees Bano to get justice, despite the much promised fast track courts. Life imprisonment to 11 accused and 3 years rigorous imprisonment for one may have brought some respite for Bano. This may be a significant step in dealing with the crisis of communal violence in this country, albeit a very small step. Much more needs to be done than simply gloat over the success of this tiny achievement. Several complexities related with this case alone have not been addressed. The trial may have fairly taken place but only outside Gujarat state. Once the victim and witnesses who deposed against the convicts before the courts go back to their homes, would the state be in a position to provide them adequate security? In Gujarat, where an unrepentant Modi has once again won the electoral battle, guided by his fascist streak and the inability of a bankrupt Congress to bring home a clear message, the vulnerability of people like Bilqees cannot be ruled out. Horrifying memories of one of the worst state sponsored genocides in the country's history is too recent. Though dust may have settled on the face of it and Gujarat may appear to be calm. The psychological impact of the violence has been too deep. The rift it created between the two communities, the magnitiude of deprivation, homelessness and alienation it created for a community is too large to be ignored. The state's role in the pre-meditated violence in Ahemdabad is evident from the door to door census by the Hindutava brigade preceding the violence, the absolute silence of the police and authorities while thousands of armed Hindutavavadis descended on the streets and indulged in selective killings. The recent Tehelka expose has only further lent credence to the theory of state sponsored genocide. When the state becomes a tacit supporter, the scars of violence get compounded by a strong feeling of insecurity for the entire community, particularly for victims and witnesses who have dared to go against the wind while deposing before the courts.
The major problem arising out of the threat perception to the victims in areas of communal strife is not being addressed by the fast track courts that evolved after Gujarat's heinous mass murders and several other communal riots, inspiring the government to table the Communal Violence (prevention, control and rehabilitation of victims) Bill in 2005 in the parliament. The Bill was introduced and passed but the law itself is characterised by limitations and fails to address issues of communal violence, barring bringing some uniformity in patterns of relief and compensation and introducing a mechanism for speedy trials to provide legal justice to the victims. The security of the victims after the riots has not merited the attention of the decision makers. Besides, a major loophole is the law's inability to provide for a mechanism to prevent communal violence in the first place. Rhetorically speaking, the communal violence bill is aimed to empower state and central governments to take measures to provide for the prevention and control of communal violence which threatens the secular fabric, unity, integrity and internal security of the country. However, all it does is suggest an administrative and law and order mechanism to deal with an area disturbed by communal threat or violence. What if the administration and the police are inspired by a communal mind-set, as happened in the case of Gujarat? It is common knowledge that communalism does not emerge from the minds of those who wield the weapons on the streets. But, it percolates down from the top, designed and crafted by politicians, who do not get tried in fast track courts. Instead the existing laws ensure that they continue to spread the canards of hatred and fascism and reap the benefits in electoral politics. The recent Orissa violence is a case in point.
Right wing politicians are known to prepare an atmosphere for communal violence through provocative speeches. This is often followed by a well prepared plan of spreading rumours that ignite unjustified prejudices and then finally offer a little spark that can provoke violence. If communalism has to be fought legally and morally, the government needs to adopt multi-pronged strategy. While politicians taking recourse to provocative speeches, often for vote bank politics, should be disqualified and tried in courts, a more effective battle on the ground can be fought against wrongly propagated myths and rumours by countering these with the help of peoples' committees, backed by administrative support. As far as the final provocation for communal violence is concerned, these can be dealt with immediacy and seriousness only if the administration and police set up is not politicised or communalised. A lot needs to be done on the issue of dealing with communal violence. The Bilqees case has only inspired hope. The welcome verdict is not an end in itself.
|
