Recent actions have proved just how the executive deals with two sets of people differently. One in favour of yes men, often those of the ruling party, and the second its critics
Last Thursday, a District and Sessions Judge at Patiala House, New Delhi, denied bail to a 27-year-old sociology student, Safoora Zargar, now six months pregnant and one who has been accused in the Delhi riots along with many others. In its order, the court examined the facts as placed by the prosecution. Taking note of it, the court said that there is evidence that there existed a “conspiracy” to block a road, which the accused was involved in. The tone of the order, especially the words used therein, give an impression that Zargar, along with others, “conspired to cause disruption of an unprecedented scale.”
Some WhatsApp messages and disclosure statements were enough for the learned judge to come to the conclusion that on the face of it, a “conspiracy” was hatched to cause “disruption” to such an extent and such a magnitude that it would lead to disorderliness and disturbance of law and order at an “unprecedented scale.” The judge said, “...when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire” and that consequently, the “acts and inflammatory speeches of the co-conspirators are … admissible against the accused.”
Presumably, he pointed out that the embers of this conspiracy led to the engulfing flame, ie, the Delhi riots, where more than 50 people lost lives. I will not talk about the legal merits of such an order because frankly, I am not the best person to do so. However, I recommend one should read what legal experts have said about it over the past few days. They have talked at length about the legal shortcomings of the order. In this article, I want to talk about how the executive deals with two sets of people differently. One in favour of its yes men, often those part of the ruling party, and the second critics of the Government. Along with this, it is also important to reflect on who we can hope will check this arbitrary exercise of power.
The Delhi police charged Zargar with the non-bailable Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This means that at some level, the State believes that by blocking a road during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), Zargar, as also another accused in the case, threatened the unity and sovereignty of the country. However, this treatment is not unique to Zargar alone. Take the example of human rights activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, against whom the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has slapped charges under the UAPA. She, too, was recently denied bail despite the fact that she had diabetes. She also came under a vulnerable category of people, who are at risk of contracting COVID-19 while being incarcerated. What’s more amusing is the fact that one of her bail applications was opposed on the ground that she had formed an “anti-fascist front” along with some of the co-accused and that this front planned to, among other things, “topple the democratically elected Government.”
I am not sure what the NIA is admitting here. But I’ll let the readers make their own inferences. Then there is also the example of Bittu Sonowal against whom the NIA has slapped charges under the UAPA for using phrases like lal salam and “comrade” as proof to show that he is a Maoist. Even owning books written by Karl Marx or Lenin that are freely available could possibly be a reason to slap charges under the UAPA now. It’s surprising then that books by MS Gowalkar (a proponent of maintaining the caste system) are not taken as evidence for being casteist.
This is where the problem lies: The Government often acts brazenly in treating some people as rioters and slaps charges under the UAPA. Is there any difference in the way it treats its leaders like Kapil Mishra or Anurag Thakur? To cite an example, with reference to the threat issued by Kapil Mishra against anti-Government protesters, Facebook has said that his statement “serves as an example” of the kind of content that they would take down because it, in a more direct way, encourages supporters to be violent.
Further, as opposed to Zargar or Bharadwaj, does Anurag Thakur’s videos, where he is seen shouting, “Desh ke gaddaron ko,” while the crowd chimes in repeatedly with the phrase “goli maaro saalo ko,” not form part of a conspiracy to carry out disruption at an unprecedented scale?
This is just about the executive. Unfortunately, one had expected the police and the NIA to act more in the image of the Government but the judiciary has been found extremely wanting, too, in terms of laying down clear jurisprudence for bails. They are, of course, not helped by the executive, which sought to charge dissidents under the UAPA. But it boggles one’s mind that BJP MP Pragya Thakur, also an accused under UAPA for the Malegaon blasts, was granted bail while close to six-month pregnant Zargar was not.
However, heads in the BJP’s social media cell compare this refusal of bail with how an accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, who was pregnant, was refused bail. Or what do we say of videos circulated by social media heads of Zargar, which were several months older, where she was seen raising slogans, to show that she seems completely fine. I do not want to comment on the intelligence of these observations but I’ll let the readers make their own inference.
So what is the way forward? Where should the common man go? Is it a given that the State’s position is always right? When the district judge says, “When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire”, are we supposed to blindly trust the Government to be the weatherman telling us where the wind blows?
One thing that can be done is that when the Government tells us where the wind is blowing, I recommend we step out and see for ourselves. And the pillars of our democracy should note that what we sow in the wind, we reap in the whirlwind.
(The writer is a former IPS officer, a former MP and currently a member of the AAP)