Anti-India elements should be taught a befitting lesson as per procedures laid down by law and conforming to the Constitution, argues SUNIl FERNANDES
The late Harper lee, the author of the iconic 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, gave us (especially lawyers), an unforgettably inspirational character — Atticus Finch, memorably portrayed on-screen in an Oscar-winning performance, in the eponymous film by Gregory Peck. In the face of adversity, Atticus defends a Black man accused of raping a White girl, a case no White lawyer would have touched even with a gun to his head in a racially segregated and divided, pre-luther King era of 1930s American South. Atticus gave lawyers an invaluable lesson, more so relevant in these times, that every accused has an undeniable right to be heard before being condemned and that it is every lawyer's duty to help him be that voice. What played out in the Patiala House District Courts over the course of the last few days was the exact opposite of the lessons Atticus Finch taught us.
It is very likely that you may had never heard of advocate Vikram Singh Chauhan prior to last week. But he is all over in the news today, not because he answered a challenging call to his duty and fought for the constitutional rights of some universally derided accused, but because he demonstrated his ‘nationalism’ by thrashing media persons and supporters of JNU Students Union president Kanhaiya Kumar, inside the precincts of a court complex. Mr Chauhan’s act was viewed on television screens and written about in newspapers,from the prism of the ‘nationalist versus anti-nationalist’ debate. The debate is itself deeply flawed. We have utterly lost the distinction between crass xenophobia and nationalism, between violent jingoism and sane patriotism.
By physically assaulting those with whom he disagrees, Mr Chauhan has set a dangerous precedent for lawyers in this country— that is permissible, indeed heroic, to dispense rough and ready justice, as long as it is for a ‘noble cause’ like ‘Bharat Mata’ or ‘patriotism’. There’s no need to go to a courtroom, present evidence, lead arguments and wait for a judgement. Just hammer the living daylights of those who disagree with you or with whom you have a differences of opinion, and things will be just fine.
There are many who readily defend his actions on the analogy that he did what he did to defend the honor of his country and his ‘Mother India’. Then why did these same people criticise the Islamists who killed Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in FranceIJ Those killers also an equally ‘justifiable’ excuse —“I killed because I genuinely believed that my god, my religion and my holy book was insulted.” Where does this endIJ Will justice be meted out as per the whims and caprice of the select few who are willing to kill or assaultIJ If this is so, then what role does the judiciary playIJ Is it that the courts in India will be left only to adjudicate ‘residuary cases’ — those instances where the accused persons are not already ‘dealt’ with by a Hindu or a Muslim fanatic mob or by a ‘nationalist’ like Mr Chauhan claims to beIJ
I am all for the most strict punishment to those who have been raising pro-Afzal Guru and anti-India slogans. But the punishment cannot be given in the manner that Mr Chauhan executed. He has in fact done incalculable harm to the cause of those opposing people who indulge in anti-national slogans. He has shifted focus from their condemnable acts and concentrated it on the action of lawyers, bringing disrepute to a noble profession.
Criticism of Mr Chauhan’s actions should not be construed as support to those who raised anti-national slogans in the JNU. To conclude so would be an over-simplification, deliberately done to shroud and deflect the real issue at hand. By all means, the culprits should be prosecuted in the most stringent way, in a manner known to law and in accordance with the procedure laid down by our Constitution. The Chauhan-esque method cannot be condoned as the right way to ‘teach a lesson’ to the anti-nationals.