There has been a spate of untoward incidents that have caused astute analysts to question everything in Indian society; from its social mores to the intentions of its elected government. Accomplished authors are returning awards, famous media persons are crying them selves hoarse, news-apps (they are the closest I can get to figuring out whats in Indian newspapers these days) are full of opinions and counter-opinions on the existential crisis that faces the country today. Mob-lynching, ‘Inking’ faces, even targeted killings of supposedly blasphemous writers. These are dangerous times we are told, intolerance is on the rise in India.
The dire assessments may seem reasonable to some, given recent events. To others it may seem that the pitch of protestations is not high enough, ‘secularity’ of the country is under threat and the apocalypse is nigh. But despite all the signs that the seals of hell are being broken, there are still those who are are celebrating the recent turn of events. Whatever else the general elections of 2014 might have accomplished, it succeeded in polarising the political spectrum in the country like never before. There is name-calling, mud-slinging, grandiose claims of knowledge about internal machinations of the other side, their ulterior motives and then more name-calling and mud-slinging. There is plenty of excitement there, enough for the news to qualify as a masala-sitcom for the politically inclined. If however, your ideological inclinations are less certain or dedication to the subtle art of classifying and categorising political views not obsessive, you might find that the reportage is not very helpful. The fear mongering inherent in playing up the motivations for a crime (communal instead of murder) surely makes for good drama, but it hardly serves the purpose of informing the public (startling headlines are moderated by usage of words like ‘alleged’ in the body of the article) or of holding the government responsible (for ensuring law and order instead of their clarifying their ideological positions).
This inordinate focus on the motivations of the criminal or the Government is not a mere an annoyance, its disingenuous and has it has real consequences. It encourages identification with factions, fosters perverse reasoning and inhibits any real analysis on what needs to be done to improve the situation. Consider the following bit of news, according to National Crime Records Bureau 2014 data, the charge-sheeting rate in crimes committed against Dalits is 92.3%, while the conviction rate is 28.8%. This piece of data can be interpreted in multiple ways, but the most obvious inference of a dismal conviction rate must be ineptitude of the police. Now, it may be the case that that many in the police are casteist bigots or it could be because they work hand in glove with the perpetrators of the crime, it may even be due to many senior members of state governments forcing the police to do their bidding. But in espousing these causes, there is an implicit assumption that the police are adequately trained to do their job and that they are well versed with the laws they are charged with upholding. If only the ‘system’ would let them, they would rid the country of crime in a matter of days. Neither of these implicit assumptions stand up to scrutiny.
The police are not trained well, they are unaware of basic investigative techniques and are sloppy when it comes to gathering evidence. Many judges have reprimanded the police for their inability to conduct an investigation and build a case. Cops routinely flout laws (and all norms of decency): suspects get beaten up, many complainants are harassed and alleged perpetrators of crime heckled at the whims of the local police. In claiming that the ineptitude of the police is a matter of choice (bigotry or doing favours for political masters), the lack of policing capacity goes unquestioned and with it go the calls for for better training and/or recruitment of better qualified candidates. The reality of the lack of state capacity in enforcing the rule of law is buried under the avalanche of allegations concerning the ideology of the incumbent government.
The implicit acceptance of this limited state capacity is showcased in previous instances of governments deciding against taking on perceived public anger: books have been banned, authors/painters have been asked to leave the country or not to enter it, goons burning books have been let off the hook etc.. All acts of governments concerned about not being able to deal with ramifications of dismissing demands that trampled on the constitutional rights of its citizens. The history of modern Indian republic is littered with instances of governments being eager to defend the right to be offended. If that is the case, how are any of the recent events a shock to us. We have implicitly (or explicitly in some cases) accepted the idea that mobs will violently protest if their demands are not met. Do we then have any right to be surprised when the law is broken by people who think they have been left behind in the race to get governments to acquiesce to their wishes?
None of this is to suggest that any government should let be let off the hook, although it may seem so to some. It is small attempt to sieve out the noise from the continuing outrage, my illustration of what a more reasoned debate would look like. While having a government that responds to questions asked of it is our right, asking the right questions is our duty. We spend too much effort inferring and ascribing intentions and too little in keeping tabs on things that can be observed. Claims about intent can be easily dismissed with counter claims, neither of which are verifiable with certainty. Observed and verifiable outcomes on the other hand are tougher to put a spin on. So when we say we want a more tolerant country, what we must ask for is a country with better enforcement of law and order as prescribed by our constitution.
