“The Democracy – All about setting the priorities
right”
And finally he was hanged. Many of my fellow citizens were mollified and
few of them were euphoric. It was not only about the crime he perpetrated of
attacking the temple of democracy, the Parliament, but it was also about
treachery committed by a person holding an Indian Passport, committing an odious
crime against the Sovereign State of India.
They said and I followed: Each and every person, irrespective of his/her
nationality, cast, creed, and sex (you remember Nandini? assassin of Rajiv
Gandhi! Yes you do, I am sure, we never forget or forgive such evildoers),
socio-economic background, etc. should be dealt with, in such a robust manner,
that nobody else will dare to repeat it.
They said and I followed: He was rightly hanged, in 2013, based on the
verdict of the Apex Court in 2006, for the crime committed in 2001, wherein he
was a mastermind.
They said and I followed: A decade long process of justice delivery,
including a pardon, ensured that this execution soon after Kasab’s execution
will send a “strong” message to the world community at large, that we are not
“soft” on terror.
“Hang him!” was the clamour for last 7-8 years, about his hanging.
Nobody is aware what happened between 2006 and 2013.
I still have few questions, just like many of us.
What was our “strong” state with all its efficient bureaucracy was
actually doing to draft/craft its “strong” message on terror? Why nobody is
aware as to how much they have toiled to prepare for this strong message?
Collectively, have we granted them such a long rope, even of not placing on
record formal ripostes for all these years? Was it only about their liberty of
being tight-lipped or was it related with our right to seek answers of these
unsolved riddles? Why won’t we ask these questions on Priority?
Once we found out that he is an offender, we nabbed him, we exposed all
his links with Pakistan and how he produced terror herds, and accordingly job
of the prosecution was complete. When Supreme Court declared him guilty based
on the direct/circumstantial evidence before it, the job of the apex court was
complete. This matter was sub-judice between 2001 till 2006.
But the real question is the intelligence failure which could have
prevented the attack. Which were the loopholes, by taking advantage of which,
terrorists reached inside the parliament building compound? What actions have
been taken against the defaulting officials (at least for namesake)? How did the
entire defence machinery fail to discover the preparatory steps of terrorists?
Why we never heard a whisper about punishing those officers at fault, by
opposition parties and/or by others? Why won’t we ask these questions on Priority?
He was from Kashmir Valley, a land of trapped destiny. He appears to
have led a muddled life, always surrounded by trepidation. From an Indian
perspective, he committed a serious crime of joining JKLF, a separatist
movement of some Kashmiris. He knowingly/unknowingly became a pawn at their
hands and kept a visible trail of evidences which lead him to gallows. Since,
he is no more, our quest to understand about his surrounding circumstances, his
ideological perceptions whilst joining hands with JKLF etc. seems to have ended
half way. What were the concerns which compelled him to join a widely known and
officially declared terrorist outfit? Why did he not think twice before
establishing nexus with them? Was he the only person from valley, who went off the
road? And if NO, how many went that way? Was/is their understanding/notion of
“being Indian” so frail that, we still may face the same offence again in
future? What have we done to address these concerns? What steps we have taken
to neutralize these elements and to bridge the gap? Why have we failed
miserably in trust building, for decades together? Why won’t we ask these
questions on “Priority”?
I really don’t want to transgress into the domain of the Supreme Court, since
in a democratic set up evidence evaluation is an exclusive prerogative of the
Apex Court. He may have died a deserved death, judicially upheld at all levels.
No one is bound to agree with Human Right Activists, who have failed to be
consistent, arguably, on all counts. But was the entire episode only about
being “judicially” right? Is it sound to always be “judicially” right and
“politically” wrong? Why have we jumped the queue, arbitrarily? Don’t we see
the point that entire disorder of informing/ not informing his family, startling
reaction of CM, has actually spoiled the argument of fair play? Why won’t we
ask these questions on “Priority”?
Now at this juncture, we have to answer ourselves, a few questions. Is the
test of democracy, about respecting voice of dissent and anti democratic
thoughts? Are we willing to accept that the strength of governance is beyond
curfews and bans but about trust of its people? If it is evident on all counts
that he was Indian; Kashmiris are Indians; Aligadh Musilim University students
are Indians; Naxalites are Indians; Nagas, Mizos, Bodos, Gorkhas, Khalistanis all
are Indians;
then can we still treat them like foreign invaders? They may not share our views
of patriotism and so called sacrosanct structure of our governance system and
citizenship. Our general perception of India as a political entity may not be
palatable for them, especially in view of their turbulent past and present.
In view of this, will it be correct to mandate
the government to oppress them, ban them, and kill all and/or any of them? Don’t
we agree that the might of democracy is all about our consistent efforts,
unbridled by violent attacks, insurgencies, anti government campaigns etc. to
reach out to each of them, pursue them to participate in governance process and
extend the constitutional guarantees to their ethnicity, linguistic
protections?
Don’t we agree that we should be able to keep
our head high, that we are not the people who are thirsty for anyone's blood? Don’t
we agree that we the people of India believe in participation and persuasion;
and we represent a long cherished dream of a nation, which will never advocate
cruel, violent, oppressive nature of governance? Don’t we agree that we ought
to have and show a soul, full of compassion, respect, love and mercy? Why won’t we ask these questions on “Priority”?
It appears that many of us feel this approach
will make us a “soft state”. Don’t we agree that we are fooling ourselves in
believing in a wrong notion that we become a “strong state” by oppressing and
killing our own people?
It is of utmost importance that we have to ask
all these questions on “Priority” to our government and to
ourselves. It is not about what Arundhati Roy thinks about it, or human rights
activists or other separatists, think about it. It is actually about us, our
democracy, its future, and what we think about it. Our long revered, Mother
India, cannot be so “strong” to kill some of her own children, to keep a few other
children happy.
We should not breach our “tryst with destiny”,
so unilaterally and in such an undignified manner. Thomas More coined a term
“End of History” as “the advent of a particular political and economic system
as a signal of the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the
final form of human government”. On similar lines we should not become an
exponent of another term “End of Future” of democracy. Despite all odds, we
actually represent the true form of democracy, representation and dialogue
between all sorts of diversities- linguistic, cultural, ethnic etc. No other
political system in the world even comes close as to how we govern ourselves.
End of democracy in India, will be a serious blow to most of the third world
countries and even to developed countries.
We all are in the midst of a long voyage, facing
a tempest.
