Apoorvanand- Compensation most foul
October 8 will be
remembered as the date when India crossed the Rubicon. Nothing as dramatic as
the “surgical strikes” happened on this day. On this date, the
government of Uttar Pradesh decided to award a compensation of Rs 25 lakh to
the family of Ravin Sisodia, a resident of Bisara, a village in Dadri. Sisodia
died in jail due to multiple organ failure. The doctors and the forensic report
concluded that it was a natural death. Sisodia wasn’t in jail for some petty
crime. Last year, he was allegedly part of the crowd which dragged a Muslim
man, Mohammad Akhlaq, out of his house and killed him. Akhlaq’s death raised
indignation across the nation and led to a wave of protests initiated by
writers against the state-sponsored intolerance directed at minorities.
Only one death. An
insignificant figure when compared with the numbers of Muslims killed in
Bhagalpur or Nellie or Gujarat or the Sikhs killed in 1984 in Delhi and
elsewhere. But the shock it generated was felt across the nation. The act and
its fallout played a major role in the assembly election of Bihar. The death of
Akhlaq was a result of the complete failure, not only of the state’s organs,
but also of our polity. It was because of the realisation of the enormity of
this failure that the UP government gave a huge compensation to the family of
Akhlaq.
Compensation to
Muslims in the wake of communal violence has always been an issue with Hindus.
I would call this compensation envy or compensation complex - which neighbours
of the Muslim victims suffer from. We have heard complaints - most recently in
Muzaffarnagar - that Muslims are, in fact, beneficiaries of communal violence. Hindus feel deprived
and they believe that the violence is in fact invited by the Muslims themselves
for this compensation. They allege that Muslims burn their houses for state
money. It also leads to a hatred for Muslims as they are seen helpless, seeking
alms from the state and unable to fend for themselves. They are looked down
upon as lesser human beings living off the money of the Hindus, who are the
real and major taxpayers.
The compensation for
the death of Akhlaq was made an issue by the leaders of the BJP and the villagers.
Violent campaigns in the name of cow protection even after this death continued
across states which caused humiliation and claimed more Muslim lives. All this
led the villagers of Bisara to feel that killing of Akhlaq was a just and pious
act. The fiction of the killing of a cow and eating beef turned into fact
through a sustained campaign. Within a year, Akhlaq and his family were
converted from victims into accused and suspects. They had by their alleged act
of killing of a cow, sacred to Hindus, instigated and lead the Hindus to
express their anger which led to the death of Akhlaq. The courts have directed
the authorities to file a criminal case against the family of Akhlaq.
In the imagination of
the villagers of Bisara, Sisodia and others became victims and heroes at the
same time. We have seen agitation by the villagers of Bisara demanding their
release and withdrawal of cases against them. A similar agitation is going on
in Muzaffarnagar. These agitations are led by locals blessed by the RSS and the
BJP. The BJP has decided to remove the fig leaf: Its leaders openly address the
revenge-seeking crowd and generate a sense of injustice and anger in them.
Sisodia was a taxi
driver. Did he actually participate in the killing? It was yet to be decided.
But he was an accused. And he died due to an illness awaiting trail. Are such
deaths compensated by the state? We know the answer. But the UP government
thought otherwise.
By giving in to bullying by the kin of the accused — who
refused to cremate Sisodia if their demand was not met — the government has
created a dangerous precedent. What is also unique in this affair is the
arrangement through which this figure has been achieved. The state government
pays Rs 10 lakh, 10 lakh will be given by some NGOs and five lakh by Union
minister Mahesh Sharma and Sangeet Som, a BJP MLA who is also an accused in the
communal violence in Muzaffarnagar. It was a deal brokered by the minister. The
state government agreed as it did not want the impression that Hindu deaths
didn’t matter to go in an election year. We need to notice that the state
government sheepishly allowed its jurisdiction to be violated by the Central
minister.
Involvement of NGOs in
this compensation package is an innovation. Why was this done?
Did the state
government not have sufficient funds? What is the Central minister’s
contribution doing here? This single act is a complete capitulation and
surrender of its authority by the UP government. It will have grave
implications for the principle of division of powers between the states and the
Centre. It is also an act that informalises governance.
Muslims in India are
quite used to majoritarian violence against them. They are aware of the general
reluctance of the authorities and the politicians to ensure justice in such
cases. They have also witnessed campaigners of hatred and violence against them
reach the highest offices. The only consolation has been that these acts
violence are recognised as wrong — the violation of the constitutional promise
given to them. October 8 changed that in significant ways. The principle behind
state compensation was turned on its head. This was not an act of compassion
shown by the state towards one of its citizens. It also negates the crime
committed last year and vindicates the stand of the villagers and the BJP.
The government of UP
is led by the heir of a man who as the chief minister did not hesitate to order
firing on a Hindu mob which threatened to destroy a Muslim place of worship. He
only felt bound by the constitutional morality which asked him to preserve the
rights of the minorities.
This act reminded one of
the letter by Jawaharlal Nehru to Padmaja Naidu from Patna in 1946. He had
returned from Bhagalpur, which was in the grip of communal frenzy and Hindus
were attacking and killing Muslims. Nehru writes that he was horrified by the
madness of the Hindu peasants but what brought some solace to him that the
security forces opened fire to stop them. In the firing, some 400 Hindus were
killed. Nehru tells Naidu that
he generally abhorred killing but somehow this act seemed to restore a
semblance of balance in favour of the victim Muslims.
Nehru’s vision was
instrumental in shaping our constitutional morality: To stand firmly for the
rights of the minorities, undeterred by the threat of the numbers. Indian state seems to
have travelled far from 1946 and 1990. The only question minorities have now,
when it would throw away the fig leaf of secularism and show itself as it
really is.
see also
