Express Buzz, 6 February 2011
by Amulya Ganguli
The Gujarat riots of 2002 have a special place in the history of communal violence because of its prolonged duration and the indifference of the political and administrative bosses towards their constitutional duties of controlling the outbreak. There have been other instances of such neglect, notably during the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi in 1984, but the disturbances lasted for no more than three or four days. In Gujarat, however, the violence continued for nearly two months and was casually described by Chief Minister Narendra Modi as “stray incidents”.
It is in the aftermath of the riots, which were held responsible by Atal Behari Vajpayee for the BJP’s defeat in 2004, that the Centre started preparing a Bill for checking communal violence. But although it began work in 2005, the proposed measure is yet to take final shape. The reason is the overzealousness of the new extra-constitutional body, the National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi, which has been busy for the last five years to firm it up with the result that it is constantly facing political and bureaucratic hurdles.
Although there was scope for improvement with the first draft of the Bill, it still kept within limits the jurisdiction of a national council which was expected to oversee the relief and rehabilitation of the riot victims. To the NAC do-gooders, however, this was too restricted an initiative to satisfy their innate desire to encroach on the political and official turf. They have proposed, therefore, a grander body called the national communal harmony, justice and reparation council, which is expected to monitor and direct the law and order machinery and the prosecution of suspects. It will also have the power to recommend the transfer of the trials.
To dilute the impact of these overriding powers, which make a mockery of the existing administrative framework, the NAC has entered a caveat to the effect that the national council will act “without taking over any regular administrative powers of state, district or local authorities”. But how such a distinction can be maintained between the powerful national council and the various lower-level functionaries is difficult to say. Clearly, the blueprint of the council is being prepared by individuals with high self-belief and a sense of infallibility.
True, Gujarat’s ill-fame has led to the Supreme Court conducting its own investigations into the riots via a special team and even transferring some of the cases outside the state for the sake of impartial justice. But the apex court’s prestige and legitimacy cannot be compared with the attributes of the proposed council, which will be a novel experiment if it is constituted. Even otherwise, at least two defects are immediately noticeable about the idea. One is that the Bill is apparently being drafted with only Gujarat in mind.
Yet, that very tragedy should have reminded the NAC that the levers of power in both the national council and the state government could be in the hands of the same party, viz, the NAC’s bugbear, the BJP, as it was in 2002. In that event, the two might be equally tardy in the matter of dealing with “stray incidents”. The assumption of the drafters that the Congress will control the national council in perpetuity and be able to monitor the BJP-run state machinery is wishful thinking.
The second defect is that the solution of volatile problems of this nature does not lie in multiplying the centres of authority because, in typical bureaucratic fashion, they will be less likely to be cooperative than be confrontational. Personal and official egos, bolstered by behind-the-scene political instigation, can hinder the attempts to maintain law and order. In this particular case, the involvement of civil rights activists can cause further complications
Instead of setting up various panels, therefore, the best way to deal with communalism is the simplest one — that of strengthening the standard institutional framework. NAC member Harsh Mander, who resigned from the IAS in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots, has drawn on his experience as a district magistrate to say that a riot cannot last for more than a few hours in the absence of political support. If senior officials are allowed to act professionally by their political bosses, an outbreak can be easily controlled. What is more, if the anti-socials know that the police will act uninhibitedly, they will be unwilling to start a riot in the first place.
This argument presupposes, of course, that the officials themselves will be fair-minded and not be like those inmates of the IAS academy in Mussoorie who cheered the fall of the Babri Masjid. Needless to say, those who fail to imbibe the idea of a secular, multicultural India should be weeded out before they enter the services. But those who pass this crucial test will have to learn the vital lesson about the primacy of the rule of law. It is to instil such professionalism that the Supreme Court directed the Centre and the state governments in 2006 to insulate the police from political influence.
But if the judicial diktat has been quietly ignored, the reason is that none of the political parties, whether the Congress or the BJP or the CPI(M), will like to see the police following the law of the land instead of the party line. Just as the police in Gujarat was kept in check when the saffron stormtroopers ran amok, their counterparts in West Bengal played the role of bystanders while the Marxist militia targeted the CPI(M)’s opponents in Nandigram. Similarly, commenting on the anti-Sikh riots, a Delhi high court judgment noted that the “role played by Delhi police and state machinery in particular makes our heads hang in shame”.
Whether it is communalism or corruption or criminalisation of politics, the solution lies not in fanciful national councils or fast track courts — ideas that are floated to camouflage inaction and the lack of intention — but in restoring and preserving the sanctity of institutions, whose erosion started in Indira Gandhi’s time. The essence of a democracy is that every empowered body is manned by people dedicated to its aims and objectives and have no need to look over their shoulders at the powers that be.
In prescribing punishment for the officials for failing to check or control communal violence, the Bill is putting the cart before the horse by focussing only on the minions and not the masters, who have the reins in their hands. Since the latter will not sit idle, the proposed course will only lead to bitter politically-tinged litigation rather than communal peace.
About the author:
Amulya Ganguli is a Delhi-based political commentator
|
