One nation, two laws: What was the hurry in Saharanpur?

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

An old mosque has been demolished by the Saharanpur administration under the pretext of a court order that was about to be challenged in a higher court.

It is extremely shocking to see how the administration has turned highly biased and quick to invoke the "rule of law" when the alleged violation or crime is committed by Muslims. It keeps a blind eye when lumpen elements from the Hindu community take the law into their own hands, violate it, and rubbish it.

Such open and blatant prejudice on the part of the state apparatus is not just shameful but extremely dangerous and unconstitutional.

There are issues of religious places—whether Hindu, Muslim, or any other—obstructing important public spaces such as railways, airports, highways, and government offices, including police thanas. But these issues need to be handled with great care, dignity, and involvement of the communities concerned. Such laws must be implemented fairly.

Yet it is clear that most police thanas celebrate Hindu festivals and have temples inside their complexes. Janmashtami is celebrated in every thana, and police personnel facilitate all the religious activities. But a Muslim offering namaz becomes a "threat" even if he is doing so individually.

Thousands of Kanwariyas create nuisance on the roads, and commuters face hardship for several days. Yet they are treated like "freedom fighters," as if they have won some battle against enemies, while the state apparatus showers flowers on them.

We have all seen what happens in Haridwar after the festival of Sawan is over. Trillions of tons of waste are left behind, and we do not know where it will flow. Yet it is all acceptable in the name of "religious" sentiments and age-old traditions.

No one denies this, and it is good that the government accommodates it. But should the government not also ask its administration to respect the religious feelings of others?

There was a time when we used to say that government offices and institutions must remain "secular"—meaning they must have equal respect for, or equal distance from, all religions. Today, however, the entire governance structure is being turned into a vehicle of intoxicated hatred against Muslims in particular, and Dalits and Adivasis in general.

Look at the public flogging by the police of an accused in Gujarat who had killed his wife. The person being flogged was a Muslim who had brutally killed his Hindu partner, with whom he was in a live-in relationship.

Now, people are giving the argument that such a person must be treated in the same way, and the police personnel who were doing it knew well that "Hindu" masses would love them and support them. But if our public departments function in such a way—as if they are making reels and wanting to get more views—then they are actually finished.

Similarly, we saw two women journalists getting beaten up by the police just because they were seeking a response from Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.

We all know well that social media and new-age "journalists" often report deliberately provocatively, seeking a response. They shout in front of a person who avoids responding. We all know this is an issue and needs an answer. But the beating of these two women was not because they were journalists; it was because they happened to be Muslims.

These issues are serious and need corrective measures by the state apparatus.

I am not writing here about who is right and who is wrong. It is not the duty of the police, administration, or society to sit in judgment themselves. For that, there is a procedure, and the judicial system is there.

It is the strength of the judicial system that many times lower court judgments have been overturned by higher courts. What was the hurry in Saharanpur to demolish a mosque? Is it that the administration knew well that the mosque committee would approach the higher court, and they did not want to wait for that?

The Supreme Court should take a course correction now.

The damage to our Constitution and society would be irreparable if prejudices against minorities and the marginalised continue in our administrative structure.

Already, the SIR process has created serious insecurity among people, particularly Muslims, as well as all others whose names have been deleted merely on the false complaint of somebody. How can you allow such a frivolous complaint structure where some individuals can seek the disenfranchisement of thousands of people?

The law and the Constitution were once upon a time our biggest tools to protect us from the wrongdoing of the state and its apparatus. But today, laws are being weaponised to terrorise the people rather than improve our lives.

So far, the response from political parties has been very cautious. Most of them have merely "tweeted" and satisfied themselves.

I think there are numerous issues where opposition parties must seek accountability from the government. As elections in Uttar Pradesh and other states approach, we will see attempts to polarise people.

The administration and justice system must be made accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to a particular ideology or political party. The legal fraternity, as well as political parties, have a bigger role here, and they must speak up.

The state needs to follow procedure, and the victims have a right to approach all legal avenues available to them. Let the writ of the Constitution prevail, and let proper legal procedures be followed by administrative bodies everywhere.

---

*Human rights defender