Till now, probably such "public terms" were used by the police, politicians and right-wing groups to harass people and extort money. So, you could be sitting in a park, talking to a girl (need not be your girl-friend) and you would have gone against the "public morality". You could be a girl who could have gone to a discotheque and you would have been branded immoral by the "public". You could be walking on a road holding hands with your partner, or just having an ice cream in an ice cream parlour, and you could be booked for "indecency in public". You could be a painter who could have painted a few nude paintings, and so the "public sentiments" could be hurt, or you could be a film maker, whose movie theme could "hurt the sentiments of a section of the public". And let me not get started on the "public trials" that are held during the News-Hour discussions of this country every day. And as I write this, I just receive the news that another (gay) party was raided by police and people booked for dancing "indecently".
But, when the courts start meting out justice on the basis of the conscience of the "public", things take a new low. I woke up on Sat morning to the news of the hanging of Afzal Guru, which was conducted in total secrecy in the wee-hours. The whole state of J&K was put under curfew, many modes of communication shut down. And much of the "public" in other parts rejoicing. But something seemed shoddy to me, the whole manner in which the hanging was conducted. What did the Govt fear? Keeping my reservations about death penalty aside, I would have considered it as justice being done finally. But when I read the basis of judgement, I was shocked. And as the rhetoric now dies down, and facts start to emerge , the shoddy manner in which the trial was conducted, and the gaping holes and questions left unanswered surely point to other directions.
In this piece A Perfect Day for Democracy, Arundhati Roy puts across some of the facts, "At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid — in the High Court and the Supreme Court you can only argue points of law, you cannot introduce new evidence — Afzal Guru, locked in a high security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court-appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Afzal’s defence and did not cross examine the prosecution witnesses." Which can only mean one thing. This letter written by her wife that has emerged now also puts across the lawyer situation that he faced in his trial (and the other background things that people ight not know, or would not like to look at)
But what shocked me was when a friend, celebrated the hooliganisms of the hooligan group named Bajrang Dal and VHP at Delhi Jantar Mantar, where they attacked people (mainly from J&K) who had come to protest against this shoddy judgment and hanging. How easily can rabble rousing on the name of Nationalism cloud your judgement. So, where these people and students not Indian citizens now? Don't they have a right to protest against what they consider is wrong? Do I have to agree with everything the Govt does? So if I am in Gujarat, do I have to agree with Modi on everything, and not have a right to protest against him? That friend pointed to me that Guru had himself confessed his role in a TV interview. But since when did TV interviews become the mode of deciding the truth? In all likelihood, Afzal Guru would have been tortured, threatened, and given a script that he had to enact. Haven't we all seen such concocted police evidences, "confessions under duress" and framing of innocents?
And as Omar Abdullah asked, "There are others on death who are also implicated in attacks on democracy. If chief minister of a state not a symbol of democracy? Is a former Prime Minister not a symbol of democracy? Of course, he is." But no, the swollen chests and egos of the so called "nationalists" and "patriots" can only be satisfied by the blood of another person. It doesn't matter if the person was innocent or not. Someone had to die to fix the situation and send out a message. It doesn't matter that an entire State has since been placed under curfew and most basic communication modes shut down for them. It doesn't matter whether as a society, death penalty in itself should be there on our law books or not. The death penalty does nothing but make martyrs of people in such situations. Afzal Guru may or may not be involved in the Parliament attack (directly or indirectly), but he will now surely been turned into a martyr by the extremist forces who would exploit the situation well. The sense of injustice would only mean that people who would have otherwise not listened to such rabble rousing in the valley would now be tilted towards them. But no, after all, the "public conscience" is satisfied. Strangely enough, this "conscience of the public" lacks when poor people are made homeless by builders, corporators or others. No, i don't want to be a part of this "public".
To end this, I will just paste this poem that someone named Sameer Bhat penned and captures the pain and anger of the people from the valley:
Why is moral conscience so thin?
when collective conscience howls
like old miseries
deep inside democratic dungeons
The executioner wipes his hand
and neatly folds a black hood
He has stopped breathing
The public can exult
Guests descend upon studios
in big cars and winter shawls
No registered mail arrives
in desolate apple orchards
We are a secret society now
where death, too, is classified
There are no graves
Memory, too, is hanged
Does life become extinct
when the soul has exited?
Someone ask the grand minister
why is moral conscience so thin?
