Bull's Eye

Raj could be arrested on two counts. First, he violated Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. He caused hatred and division between peoples on the basis of region, religion, language—this could mean imprisonment for two years. Secondly, his remarks provoked the violence against hapless north Indian taxi drivers and street vendors in Mumbai.

That is why the government contemplated his arrest. That is why the government continues to contemplate his arrest even after filing an FIR against him. To soften the blow, an FIR was filed against a Samajwadi Party leader too. Meanwhile, Raj graciously attended the Mumbai police chief’s daughter’s wedding as the chief guest.

As the government dithered, the media continued to speculate if and when Raj would be arrested. Doubtless he sought arrest to become a ‘hero’. It may be recalled that, briefly, the government also contemplated Karunanidhi’s arrest for his description of Lord Ram as a drunkard. That remark too violated Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. But the contemplation that time led to procrastination followed by meditation followed by a flash of very worldly wisdom: arresting Karunanidhi would have toppled the government! Delaying Raj Thackeray’s arrest has created a situation which any terrorist can exploit.

Contrast this foot-dragging by authority with how it recently reacted to Simranjit Singh Mann. Last December, Mann remarked at a press conference that Bhagat Singh’s portrait should not hang in Parliament House. He said Bhagat Singh believed in violence and had killed two innocents. Mann’s son added that Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru had not opposed Bhagat Singh’s hanging by the British. Although Mann’s remarks were critical they were couched in parliamentary language. Nevertheless, the police descended on Mann and threw him in jail.

One may not take to Mann as a politician—he tends to be too erratic. But should that preclude him from equal treatment under rule of law? Is restrained criticism of Bhagat Singh more damaging in law and divisive of society than diatribes against Lord Ram or against all north Indians? The government seems to think so. What do you think?

(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)