The activities of organisations that preach hatred against outsiders can be halted if a section is introduced in the IPC prohibiting incendiary language.
Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm.
Democratic Party convention, on August 28, in Denver
GOVERNMENTS and the civil service in India have a unique way of maintaining law and order. The principal mantra that guides them is stoop to conquer. The truth of the matter is that they invariably stoop but seldom conquer. This line of least resistance except on the odd occasion when a political adversary has to be fixed can often be attributed to an obsession with self-preservation and the concern to somehow retain support among different sections of those who count at an election.
Nothing else can explain the kid-glove treatment meted out to Raj Thackeray, a small-time leader whose spat with his own uncle [Bal Thackeray] had first brought him to the limelight. There is little other than rabble-rousing that commends Raj Thackeray for any public position.
By all accounts, Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh is a decent man, with good impulses. The apprehension, however, is that he is too soft to be a Chief Minister at a time when a certain craftiness and toughness are called for.
The gravamen of the charge against the Maharashtra government is that it acted too slowly when expeditiousness was demanded to protect innocent citizens of the State. Here is a leader who openly exhorts violence against fellow-citizens, all because they are supposed to be outsiders, namely, North Indians. Nothing can be more mischievous, dangerous and condemnable. Such objectionable rhetoric then leads to violence resulting in the avoidable loss of at least three lives. Lumpen elements, ostensibly owing allegiance to Raj Thackeray and belonging to the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), indulged in wanton violence against hapless taxi and autorickshaw drivers. Can there be anything more cruel?
Incidentally, I am intrigued as to how these hooligans tell a North Indian from other Indians. I have always believed that we Indians generally look alike, whichever region we belong to, and that it requires extraordinary ingenuity to distinguish a North Indian from the rest of us.
A number of cases have been registered against Raj Thackeray. The unlettered may be impressed and honestly believe that the government acted sternly against a leader who thrives on arousing passions against North Indians. (I do not know when he will start a similar movement against South Indians, something that his illustrious uncle did decades ago.) Registration of cases is a proforma fulfilment of what the State should do. There is nothing more to it. What is called for is to put a person like Raj Thackeray out of mischief and prevent him from disrupting normal life. The Maharashtra government has hardly done this. It has allowed MNS supporters to go berserk and cause physical harm to individuals and public property. This is a failure of constitutional governance at its worst. Expediency, rather than expeditiousness, has coloured the States response.
All civilised Indians will be appalled at the Kalyan Magistrates decision to release Raj Thackeray on bail. I am not questioning the legality of the decision. Nor do I suspect the magistrates motive. But I am sure many will agree with me that the release smacks of a way to appease the trouble-monger out on the street. At a time when the Supreme Court has shown itself to be tough on violators of public order, the bail decision comes as a total surprise.
While Raj Thackeray may adhere to the so-called bail conditions for a while, you can expect him to be back with his fangs bared in the immediate future. There is a world of difference between what is legally correct and what is required to promote order in society, as long as a judicial decision is within the parameters set by law for protecting the principles of natural justice. In my judgment, the magistrate erred in his decision to let Raj Thackeray out on bail.
The assessment that if Raj Thackeray had not been released there would have been more violence is no case for the kind of lenience shown on this occasion. I am certain that the Supreme Court is watching the situation with great interest.
An indication of this was available from the October 22 observation of the Chief Justice in an entirely different matter, namely, the violence against Christians in Orissa. When counsel for the Cuttack Archbishop complained of a lack of political will on the part of the State government, Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan quipped: See what happened in Mumbai where people are finding it difficult even to go to office because of the arrest of one man!
The recent events bring to focus two other issues of governance that should agitate all of us. The first issue is the role of the Central government in ensuring order in the States. The Centre invariably cites the constitutional stipulation that public order is solely within the jurisdiction of the States. This is an alibi for inaction that frustrates the common man. He is not bothered about constitutional niceties. He is entitled to peace, and when that is denied he expects governments, both in the State and at the Centre, to come to his succour swiftly. If this is not forthcoming, he is forced to approach anti-social elements for protection. This comes with a price tag.
Nothing can be more dangerous and shameful to a country that prides itself on being the largest democracy in the world. Is it not time for a constitutional amendment that invests direct authority in the Centre so that it can act fast in situations such as the one created by the MNS, without waiting for the State governments to react? I know I am asking for the moon, considering the unwillingness of States to permit even the slightest erosion of their powers. The stubborn refusal of the States to support the Centres proposal to create a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), apart from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is a case in point.
The second issue is one of how far the police can act on their own in situations threatening public order. Questions can be raised about the initial reluctance of the Mumbai police to set the law in motion after Raj Thackerays reported remarks inciting violence against North Indians. There can be two points of view. One is that the police have enough authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to act suo motu against persons like Raj Thackeray and that no direction is required from the State government (read, the Chief Minister).
The other perception is that in a democracy the civil servant cannot act unilaterally when such a move is likely to cause a breakdown of constitutional governance. The truth lies somewhere between these two extreme positions. I believe that the police are well within their rights to act as long as they keep the executive informed of their proposed action. There is no need to wait until the executive conveys its concurrence with such action. But then, under the present set-up, where the police are the handmaidens of the ruling party, it requires extraordinary courage for a Director General of Police (DGP) or a Commissioner of Police to resort to actions such as the arrest of Raj Thackeray without obtaining the Chief Ministers go-ahead.
This situation brings me back to my pet theme of police autonomy, something that was ordered by the Supreme Court way back in September 2006 and which has either not been acted upon by States or has been diluted by some wishy-washy legislation that has made a mockery of the Supreme Courts order. A police force that is autonomous, yet accountable, can alone ensure that persons like Raj Thackeray are prevented from holding society to ransom.
When I was discussing Mumbai and Raj Thackeray recently with a friend who is known for his clarity and balance, he suggested that it was time we brought in a new provision within the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that would make inciting disaffection against people belonging to a region within the Indian Union a criminal offence. The existing Section 153-A of the IPC, which deals mainly with inciting violence against religious/caste denominations, has proved ineffective and is hedged with so many conditions that the States are allowed to drag their feet enormously before they choose to move.
Organisations such as the MNS, which systematically promote hatred against outsiders in a State, can be thwarted only if a Section is introduced in the IPC to prohibit and punish incendiary language like that used by Raj Thackeray. I only hope the Supreme Court gives an early direction on these lines to our lawmakers. Again, am I asking for the moon?
