India is known to be a secular country which does respect
all religions, their worldviews. The ‘neutrality’ can be seen to be the best
options available for a secular state. Many events in Indian politics have
shown that this neutrality of the government is in theory rather than in practice.
One could argue that it is better to be in papers than nothing at all. Confidently
some may argue that a ‘kind totalitarian’ is better than a ‘ruthless secular
state’. However, it is unthinkable for a modern man to think of monarchy, or
totalitarian regime however kind and loveable the rulers are. It is a [?]
historical impossibility to throw away the democratic elements of our
polity. It is then important that we constantly purify the brutal aspects of
theoretically democratic and practically undemocratic elements of the State.
One issue to show how sometimes most respected secular
states can fail to establish its own secularity is the case of Afzal. Afzal
Guru was hanged recently in Tihar Jail in India without the knowledge of his
wife and his son. What is important here in the case of Afzal Guru is to pay
attention to the verdict: “In its over300 page judgement
the apex court said, ‘The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had
shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only
be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.’”[1]
The invoking of the collective conscience is important
because it means that whole nation is traumatized at what happened in December
2001 – an Attack on the Parliament when the B.J.P. was ruling the country.
Afzal Guru was seen to be the culprit although there were no evidences to
suggest that he was either directly or indirectly involved in the attack. The
judges invoked the ‘collective conscience of the society’. The collective
conscience of the society does not definitely include the Muslims of the nation
but mostly of the Hindus. The point is when one raises voice against the
verdict or the brutal hanging of Afzal, those citizens will be seen not to
belong to the ‘collective conscience’ and therefore not as members of the
country. Should I consider myself to be part of the collective conscience? It
was invoked because the case was one of the rarest of its kind in the country –
an attack on the pillar of the nation and Democracy.
In order to satisfy the majority collective conscience, the
government / Court has executed the verdict soon after the refusal of the mercy
petition by the President of the country. The B.J.P. leaders had earlier raised
slogans like “Desh abhi sharminda hai, Afzal abhibhi zinda hai", which
means (in stirring rhyme), "Our nation is ashamed because Afzal is still
alive.”[2] The B.J.P cannot raises
slogans like this in the coming election, because Afzal is no more. The
congress will gain popularity also among the Hindus. While all others will keep
silence since it will be against the collective conscience. What has been done openly by the B.J.P is done quietly by the Congress: the difference between
both kinds of ‘Hindutva’ is the mode of operation – open and secret.
Going beyond evidence and to invoke collective conscience is
not new. In the Ayodhya case the honorable judges invoked ‘faith and belief’.
To this many like Ashgar Ali have
responded who said: “Tomorrow other judges motivated by their faith may use
this judgment as a precedent and deliver other judgments invoking faith….Thus,
stretching the argument … in a democracy after all numbers count and so faith
of majority community will play greater role than faith of minority community
and court of law will thus become majoritarian in their attitude and all the
legal values and protection of minorities and their faith in the constitution
may be ultimately subverted.”[3]
This raises the question whether a secular state can really
be secular forgetting one’s own faith at all in the functions. Will it be
possible for the citizens or the responsible office holders to use ‘the veil of
Ignorance’ of John Rawls? It seems not... Our deep and ultimate concerns keep
coming in different ways.
Although there were gaps in the evidences and arguments, the
country needed a perpetrator who will be hanged and in whom the vengeance can
be thrown. It can mean that what is stake is the ‘scape goat mechanism’. Girard
says: “In the evolution from ritual to secular institutions men gradually draw
away from violence and eventually lose sight of it; but an actual break with
violence never takes place.”[4]
For the unity and to satisfy the collective thirst for
revenge a perpetrator was hanged and our thirst is quenched. May be joining
with Arundhathi Roy, one may rightly ask: “Now he has been hanged, I hope our
collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only
half full?”[5]
[3] Asghar
Ali Engineer (2010): “Ayodhya judgment – triumph of faith or constitutional
legality?” accessed on 19th October on http://www.csssforum.org/default.as…
As quoted in http://www.lebret-irfed.org/spip.php?article450
[4]
Rene Girard, Violence and the
Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory
(Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1972 [4th
1984]), p. 307.
