Dadri Lynching Compensation most foul

October 12, 2016

0

The UP governments move to pay relief to the family of an accused in

the Dadri lynching turns the principle of justice on its head.
Written by Apoorvanand |

Compensation
to Muslims in the wake of communal violence has always been an issue with Hindus. (Illustration by: C
R Sasikumar)October 8 will be remembered as the date when India crossed the Rubicon. Nothing as
dramatic as the surgical strikes happened on this day.
On this date, the government of Uttar Pradesh decided to award a compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the
family of Ravin Sisodia, a resident of Bisara, a village in Dadri. Sisodia died in jail due to multiple
organ failure. The doctors and the forensic report concluded that it was a natural death. Sisodia wasnt
in jail for some petty crime. Last year, he was allegedly part of the crowd which dragged a Muslim
man, Mohammad Akhlaq, out of his house and killed him. Akhlaqs death raised indignation across the
nation and led to a wave of protests initiated by writers against the state-sponsored intolerance
directed at minorities.
Only one death. An insignificant figure when compared with the numbers of Muslims killed in
Bhagalpur or Nellie or Gujarat or the Sikhs killed in 1984 in Delhi and elsewhere. But the shock it
generated was felt across the nation. The act and its fallout played a major role in the assembly
election of Bihar. The death of Akhlaq was a result of the complete failure, not only of the states
organs, but also of our polity. It was because of the realisation of the enormity of this failure that the
UP government gave a huge compensation to the family of Akhlaq.
Compensation to Muslims in the wake of communal violence has always been an issue with Hindus. I
would call this compensation envy or compensation complex which neighbours of the Muslim
victims suffer from. We have heard complaints most recently in Muzaffarnagar that Muslims are,
in fact, beneficiaries of communal violence.
indus feel deprived and they believe that the violence is in fact invited by the Muslims themselves for
this compensation. They allege that Muslims burn their houses for state money. It also leads to a
hatred for Muslims as they are seen helpless, seeking alms from the state and unable to fend for
themselves. They are looked down upon as lesser human beings living off the money of the Hindus,
who are the real and major taxpayers.

The compensation for the death of Akhlaq was made an issue by the leaders of theBJP and the
villagers. Violent campaigns in the name of cow protection even after this death continued across
states which caused humiliation and claimed more Muslim lives. All this led the villagers of Bisara to
feel that killing of Akhlaq was a just and pious act. The fiction of the killing of a cow and eating beef
turned into fact through a sustained campaign. Within a year, Akhlaq and his family were converted
from victims into accused and suspects. They had by their alleged act of killing of a cow, sacred to
Hindus, instigated and lead the Hindus to express their anger which led to the death of Akhlaq. The
courts have directed the authorities to file a criminal case against the family of Akhlaq.
In the imagination of the villagers of Bisara, Sisodia and others became victims and heroes at the
same time. We have seen agitation by the villagers of Bisara demanding their release and withdrawal
of cases against them. A similar agitation is going on in Muzaffarnagar. These agitations are led by
locals blessed by the RSS and the BJP. The BJP has decided to remove the fig leaf: Its leaders openly
address the revenge-seeking crowd and generate a sense of injustice and anger in them.
Sisodia was a taxi driver. Did he actually participate in the killing? It was yet to be decided. But he was
an accused. And he died due to an illness awaiting trail. Are such deaths compensated by the state?
We know the answer. But the UP government thought otherwise. By giving in to bullying by the kin of
the accused who refused to cremate Sisodia if their demand was not met the government has
created a dangerous precedent. What is also unique in this affair is the arrangement through which
this figure has been achieved. The state government pays Rs 10 lakh, 10 lakh will be given by
some NGOs and five lakh by Union minister Mahesh Sharma and Sangeet Som, a BJP MLA who is also
an accused in the communal violence in Muzaffarnagar. It was a deal brokered by the minister. The
state government agreed as it did not want the impression that Hindu deaths didnt matter to go in an
election year. We need to notice that the state government sheepishly allowed its jurisdiction to be
violated by the Central minister.
Involvement of NGOs in this compensation package is an innovation. Why was this done?
Did the state government not have sufficient funds? What is the Central ministers contribution doing
here? This single act is a complete capitulation and surrender of its authority by the UP government. It
will have grave implications for the principle of division of powers between the states and the Centre.
It is also an act that informalises governance.
Muslims in India are quite used to majoritarian violence against them. They are aware of the general
reluctance of the authorities and the politicians to ensure justice in such cases. They have also
witnessed campaigners of hatred and violence against them reach the highest offices. The only
consolation has been that these acts violence are recognised as wrong the violation of the
constitutional promise given to them. October 8 changed that in significant ways. The principle behind
state compensation was turned on its head. This was not an act of compassion shown by the state
towards one of its citizens. It also negates the crime committed last year and vindicates the stand of
the villagers and the BJP.
The government of UP is led by the heir of a man who as the chief minister did not hesitate to order
firing on a Hindu mob which threatened to destroy a Muslim place of worship. He only felt bound by
the constitutional morality which asked him to preserve the rights of the minorities.
This act reminded one of the letter by Jawaharlal Nehru to Padmaja Naidu from Patna in
1946. He had returned from Bhagalpur, which was in the grip of communal frenzy and
Hindus were attacking and killing Muslims. Nehru writes that he was horrified by the
madness of the Hindu peasants but what brought some solace to him that the security
forces opened fire to stop them. In the firing, some 400 Hindus were killed.
Nehru tells Naidu that he generally abhorred killing but somehow this act seemed to restore a
semblance of balance in favour of the victim Muslims. Nehrus vision was instrumental in shaping our
constitutional morality: To stand firmly for the rights of the minorities, undeterred by the threat of the
numbers.Indian state seems to have travelled far from 1946 and 1990. The only question minorities
have now, when it would throw away the fig leaf of secularism and show itself as it really is.

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/dadri-lynching-akhlaq-accused-ravinsisodia-custody-death-compensation-up-government-foul-beef-ban-3077505/