b>
By Shivaji Sarkar
The Imrana rape case and the subsequent ?judgement? by Muzaffarnagar pancha-yat, obviously dominated by the people of a religious group, Deoband Uloom and All India Muslim Personal Board, is a clear evidence of challenge to the state'sauthority by asserting that there is a state within the state. Politicking over it for votes is dangerous as it may tear the body fabric of this nation. Why don'tpoliticians consider the moves of these different bodies seditious?
It should not be viewed as an isolated incident. The bizarre incident is of criminal nature and involvement of any other organisation than the law-enforcing agencies has to be viewed as an intervention in the process of law and dealt as such. But since it involves a particular community and they have been trying to assert that they are a different entity for the past many decades, some political parties fall to the bait to ensure that they vote for them. Unfortunately, parties that give call for fighting social evils are ignoring the fact that this is the biggest malaise that is defying solutions.
The Shah Bano case and subversion of the Constitution to assuage the feeling of a community did not solve the problem. There are many other similar cases where the law was not allowed to take its course either through administrative fiat or by simply ignoring the complaints.
The hardliners are pandered more than the sober reasoning elements like Maulana Waheeduddin Khan or Javed Akhtar. Both of them have clearly stated that in the Imrana case the personal law was not applicable.
The malaise is much deeper. Some political parties do not have the foresight. They are daily wage-earners. They are more concerned about their immediate political future. The nation'sfuture is not much an issue for them. Any issue concerning this community is an electoral issue for them because they have been voting in ghetto manner for the last 14 national elections. Since Independence they are being pampered and it has led to catastrophic situations all over the country.
The hardliners are pandered more than the sober reasoning elements like Maulana Waheeduddin Khan or Javed Akhtar. Both of them have clearly stated that in the Imrana case the personal law was not applicable.
Jinnah had left India but not his ghost. The biggest national party of the time took care to see they remained out of the national mainstream. The result was the repetition of the Jinnah's?direct action? all through the 1950s and 1960 in UP, Bihar and many other areas. West Bengal has been suffering it since 1947 in a different way. For almost four decades after the Partition insecure Hindus continued to form a beeline of refugees from the erstwhile East Pakistan and later Bangladesh.
Now it continues as an influx of ?poor? Muslims from Bangladesh, which is changing its demographic character. Initially, it was considered a ?political? boon for the ruling Left alliance in West Bengal. Now its Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya considers it a menace. When others had pointed out to this menace in mid-1980s and later, they were dubbed communalists. Has Bhattacharya now turned a communalist or has he started seeing the reality? Obviously, he is seeing the reality. Why can'twe see such realities in the events like Imrana rape ?judgement? by the clerics?
It is a national shame. It is not only that the law-enforcing agencies should send the rapist to the jail but all those who are victimising the poor woman also should be booked as self-proclaimed subverters of law. The problem with this nation has been that we have been too tolerant with all kinds of criminals, who have either amassed ill-gotten wealth or created a mafia-like following.
It is not to say that all those belonging to the community do not think rationally. But they are not given weightage or rather ignored as ?lone? voice by the vote-catchers. They are considered a silent minority within the community.
The vote-catchers have always tried to instil a fear in the community either in the name of a non-existent backlash or in the name of a political party so that they remain away from the mainstream. The so-called ?national? parties have not been functioning in national interest. If they had been doing so there would not have been a Mallapuram in Kerala or a 20-km dangerous zone along the Bangladesh border in West Bengal or the rising of xenophobic situation in most parts of the north-east or the displacing of Pandits from Jammu and Kashmir.
They are further encouraging them by granting in Congress-held Andhra Pradesh 5 per cent reservation and making demands for similar moves elsewhere.
If this is allowed to continue it is likely to lead to dangerous future. The vote-catcher parties should know that secularism does not mean following an ostrich-like policy to ignore all their evils. Reforms do not come merely by uttering the words like secularism. To be secular one has to assess the existing realities in the light of history for giving a futuristic vision. Alas, the vote-catchers lack that.
