Ensure full justice to anti-Sikh riots victims

By The New Indian Express

03rd May 2013 07:16 AM

As the protest against the acquittal of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case refuses to subside, the ruling Congress has reason to be worried about its political repercussions. What many of the protesters do not realise is that the judge, who heard the case and against whom a shoe was hurled, is not to blame. He could have gone only by the evidence produced before him by the investigating agency, i.e., the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Instead of barking up the wrong tree, they should have protested against the conduct of the CBI, which has been behaving like a handmaiden of the government, despite all claims of having been invested with autonomy.
The fact is that the Congress never wanted the police to investigate the charge that some of its leaders, including Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler, had led the mobs that attacked the Sikhs in Delhi following Indira Gandhi’s assassination. An attempt was made to treat the killing and looting spree that the capital witnessed as a consequence like the earth that shakes when a banyan tree is uprooted. Small wonder that the present case against Sajjan Kumar was registered only in 2005. What forced the government to act was the recommendation of the G.T. Nanavati Commission, appointed by the NDA government in 2000, to go into the whole gamut of the 1984 riots.
If the case has fallen it is because the CBI, which had once concluded that there was no actionable charge against Sajjan Kumar, did a shoddy job of probing the case and producing hard evidence against the Congress leader. Of course, all is not yet lost. The CBI has one more opportunity to prove that it is not “duty-bound” to protect the accused by appealing against the trial court’s verdict. It is not uncommon for the higher courts to punish those who were acquitted by the lower courts, as in the Suryanelli rape case in which the Supreme Court has rejected the Kerala High Court decision acquitting all but one.

Echoes of dissent smothered or shackled

By Lasya Shashimohan

04th May 2013 08:01 AM

There was a time when the world believed the earth to be the centre of the universe. In what could have been an offshoot of self-aggrandizement, the planet that the human race inhabited was steadfast and the other planets and stars revolved around it.
One man begged to differ; “the earth moves”, he argued and espoused the Copernican heliocentric theory. Galileo was arrested, accused of heresy for going against notions contrary to those of the Catholic Church and was condemned to house arrest for the rest of his life.
Dissent — be it holding a marginally different viewpoint or being diametrically opposed to certain established ideas, social, political or religious — has not been tolerated but in fact has evoked much wrath. Most societies ostensibly champion and patronize every individual’s right to the freedom of speech and expression.
Paradoxically, it is unforgiving of any philosophy or outlook that threatens to shake the foundation of its existence. Perhaps it is the fear of a diverse train of thought disrupting the core belief that it has been affirming from time immemorial to ensure its continued existence.
Salman Rushdie, who was no stranger to controversies, courted one of mammoth proportions with The Satanic Verses that among other “sacrileges” also apparently implied that the verses of the Koran were the “work of the devil”. A fatwa was imposed that ensured that he spent nearly a decade leading a claustrophobic existence, zipping from place to place under tight security using the cryptic byname Joseph Anton. Stores that stocked his books were bombed. He tasted freedom in 1998, but continues to pay a price for dissent in many ways.
M F Husain had to wake up to the fact that free expression of ideas comes with a price. His paintings that depicted many Hindu deities in the nude or in a sexually explicit fashion elicited the displeasure of certain Hindu radical organisations. Following several criminal cases filed against him and the attack of his home by a Hindu fundamentalist group, he went on a self-imposed exile, alternating between Dubai and London and was later awarded Qatar citizenship. When his health failed, Husain wished to return to his homeland, but instead, the artist who had put Indian art on the international podium had to breathe his last on foreign soil.
The existentialists, among other things, emphasized on “authenticity” or finding one’s true inner self as a stipulation for overcoming angst and finding meaning in an otherwise inane world. However, we seem to live in a set-up that feels so insecure and threatened by an innocuous Facebook post made by a young girl and “liked” by her friend that it raises a hullabaloo and plunges into extreme, destructive action.
Given such a state of affairs, authenticity seems a far cry. The true spirit of democracy entails tolerance of a different opinion or ideology and of iconoclasts.