The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, was an event that exposed the fragile state of rule of law in our country. Our country which is the largest democracy and which advocates “equality of law” failed in its main task of protecting rights of minority citizens. The fault lies in the Indian Judiciary and Police who are not organized for impartial law enforcement.
Police is, rather, a subordinate body for enforcement of the policy of the government of the day, which is generally based on cynical calculations by players of the game of power. This could be clearly seen in Ayodhya where the majoritarian composition and attitudes of the police and security forces, whose subservience to the political executives made it function as a partisan force in the service of Kar Sevaks. Next, the judiciary, which is the only source of hope for the weak and vulnerable groups, failed miserably to come to the rescue of the victim group in 1950, when a one–sided attachment order was passed without removing the "idols of Shri Ramchandraj” secretly and in a clandestine manner put inside the Babri Masjid. Muslim worship was illegally brought to a stop 60 years back, and their dispossession was legally sanctified under the plea of apprehension of breach of the peace under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Hindu parties were allowed limited right of worship under a subjectively defined status quo. According to me this was an act of national shame.
Given the state of Indian judiciary and the time-consuming affairs, I wonder how within three days of the Munsif Court order, the District Court passed an order directing the government of Uttar Pradesh to unlock the gate and within hours of passing of the above order, the temple was unlocked and even the Doordarshan cameramen were present to cover the occasion, which was widely telecast all over India? How did this case move at this speed? How did the government acquiesce in this case? How did the Faizabad District Court allow the appeal ordering the opening of locks in a matter of two days when the Hindus had been pleading for nearly 37 years? How did the Doordarshan cameras click the opening of the locks within an hour of the court orders? All these questions have only one answer — when the government is against a particular religion and pro another, such things can, and do, happen (then who cares if it is legal or not). It was more than clear that it was at PM Rajiv Gandhi’s behest the lock was opened for political considerations.
Such incidents fall rather neatly into the pattern of political blessing, official connivance and police partisanship and impunity. The only reason I can see for such happenings in our country is that the institutional machinery for impartial, effective and humane law enforcement for prevention and speedy control of any inter–community violent conflicts simply does not exist in our country. The fragility and malfunctioning of institutions of law and order in India, has led to a denial of equal protection by law to all poor citizens and weak and vulnerable groups. (Do we care what Article 14 of the Constitution of India say “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”).
It is distressing to note that during the last three decades no sustained effort has been made by the various human rights groups, the bureaucracy and the media to reform the system by setting attainable goals. At present Muslims continue to be underrepresented at all levels and ranks of the police. In spite of periodic official directions for special recruitment of minorities, no appreciable progress has been made in this regard. The issue of adequate presence of minorities, in the law–enforcement machinery has not been addressed by the human rights movement, nor by the secular political class, because of a "secular-communal" fixation. Whatever opinion one may hold about how to ensure a fair share of minorities in other sectors of public life, their presence in the police is quintessential to enable it to enforce law more impartially by neutralising its own biases, and by inspiring greater confidence in the communities that it wants to serve.
I think the only overriding solution is that the government assumes the role of the promoter of “fruitful dialogue”. Appeasement of minorities is a necessary condition for creating an atmosphere conducive to a profitable dialogue over Ayodhya and other issues. Thus, the government should promote Individuals with the courage of conviction to be able to take apparently unpopular decisions over all contentious issues in the larger interest of the communities and the country. It should also make minorities develop a greater sense of belonging by expanding avenues and opportunities for their participation in national life.
A necessary component should be the “de-stigmatization” of Muslims for imagined sins of the past and their consequent negative stereotyping and treatment as a suspect community to be replaced by their treatment as normal Indians. This would require a commitment to educate and sensitize any average Indian for inculcation of positive humanist attitudes. Thus, the need of the hour is to bestow India with a new system wherein the correctly prioritized interests of all communities would be protected lawfully and with due respect to varying religious sentiments.
Posts
