After the lynching

Communal approach undercuts basics of Constitution

Reactions over the past few days show that many commentators recognise the enormity of the crime committed against an innocent Muslim family in western Uttar Pradesh, on the outskirts of the Capital. Its significance and portents go far beyond this single episode. That recognition has escaped the cohorts of the Sangh Parivar, including at least one minister in the central government. You could arguably ignore the comments of what are euphemistically referred to as "fringe elements" of the Hindutva mainstream, though that too is questionable because of the role such elements play in creating a climate of hate that then encourages criminal action - like attacking youngsters in pubs. That said, what is particularly noteworthy is that the leading lights of the government have been silent on the subject. That includes the Bharatiya Janata Party president and the prime minister, who has also been remiss in not pulling up his culture minister (also the parliamentarian for the area) for a series of gratuitous or offensive remarks: that the lynching was an accident, that those arrested are innocent, that he will organise a 'mahapanchayat', and more in the same vein. The police decision to send the meat in the victim family's refrigerator for testing as to whether it is beef also shows a mindset that ignores the law - eating beef is not a crime in the state, and the heinous nature of the killing does not change depending on whether the meat was beef or mutton.

Only the willfully blind will not see the pattern of recent events. The right of Muslims in a Haryana village to build a mosque on land to which they had clear title has been denied recently, for all practical purposes. The followers of a Goa-based sect, the Sanatan Sangathan, have been implicated in the murder of rationalists, but the attitude of some advocates of Hindutva reflects what Lyndon Johnson said about a country's dictator: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch." Mukul Kesavan observed recently that the forces of Hindutva feel "freed of the euphemisms that cripple politically correct conversation". This is certainly true, as they have become steadily more aggressive and speak more plainly than before - revealing their mindset, motivations and objectives with a clarity that is hard to ignore. From criticising pseudo-secularism, some Hindutva votaries now argue that secularism itself is alien to India (since church and state were never combined in the same person, unlike in Europe). However, that has not stopped their cohorts from wishing that Nepal's new constitution had defined the country as a Hindu state.

If communal plain-speak goes unchallenged, including encouragement from responsible members of the government, it is the Indian system that will be on trial. If a communal approach is brought to the actions of the state, including to criminal prosecution and jurisprudence, it would undercut the basics of the Constitution which offers equality under the law to all citizens, and forbids discrimination in the name of creed. Do all citizens have rights that are justiciable, or only some? Already, Muslim representation in Parliament has fallen sharply - not because Muslim candidates aren't there but because they have become unelectable in states like Uttar Pradesh. The Muslim presence in the administration, the police force, etc. is also low. The community may have only itself to blame for some of this. The important point is that it is possible to have faith in the system even if you don't have much of a voice in it. Take that away, and an important line would be crossed, with potentially fateful consequences for everyone.