This columnist has always propagated a cultural revolution that must not break the law but observe it, not promote violence but end it, not remove the Constitution but reform it, and not end democracy but restore it.
This columnist has always propagated a cultural revolution that must not break the law but observe it, not promote violence but end it, not remove ...
This columnist has always propagated a cultural revolution that must not break the law but observe it, not promote violence but end it, not remove the Constitution but reform it, and not end democracy but restore it.
Has the defining moment arrived? An event occurred that could jolt the system. It could lead to chaos or to genuine reform. Self-proclaimed revolutionaries who kill defenceless landlords and extort money from innocents did not undertake the action. Fifty women in Nagpur undertook it. They lynched to death one Akku Yadav, facing 24 cases of extortion and eve-teasing, who terrorised the community with impunity.
Symbolically, the lynching occurred inside a court of law. The women administered their version of justice. The police arrested five among 50 women. Subsequently, 400 women descended on the court to profess their involvement in the murder unless the five were released. The five are out on bail. Senior citizens of Nagpur are urging authorities to set them free. But they do deserve token sentences because of the extenuating circumstances. The authorities should not withdraw the case. They must take it to its logical conclusion.
The women took the law into their own hands. What can be their defence? A society becomes a state when it adopts a constitution that dispenses the rule of law. If it ceases to do so, the state loses its moral right to exist.
The women took the law into their hands because the state had let it slip from its hands. By acting in a court of law, the women reminded the state that they were fulfilling the responsibility abandoned by the government. The debate now is not between the women and the late Akku Yadav. It is between citizens and the Indian Republic. The government ought to convincingly tell people why the Republic must continue even if it cannot provide the rule of law. And if drastic reforms are required to achieve this, why they are not undertaken.
Two things can happen. First, more and more citizens could opt for the path taken by the women of Nagpur. They could start targeting real or perceived public enemies and start eliminating them. This path will lead to chaos. Need one say that a large number of national leaders are also perceived as public enemies?
Alternatively, the system could be made to undergo radical reform. The ruling class could be purged of criminals. We could return to the rule of law and reclaim genuine democracy. India must choose. Urgently.
(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)