Criminalising Justice

Criminal culpability in India is terribly poor. This is probably the only country where killer may really have a good chance of having a good chat amongst us. They are revered in many circles. The frauds are given special place in the system. I would really like to hear of another country where it takes as much time to charge sheet a person who is known to have committed a crime. Here after having a video footage, Ajmal Kasab is simply under custody. I wonder if carrying the gun and shooting so many people was really enough to allow the police to do something.


A few glaring examples of blatant travesty of judgement on behalf of any authority are listed below.


  • The Uphaar Tragedy was a clear case of some people liable to be held to the highest levels of culpability. Here are some people who are responsible for running a cinema which generates money. They live on it. Are they not supposed to be as much responsible for its upkeep? By simply not maintaining a structure which is owned by you and which is being used for public, you are holding these lives to ransom. Now I do not buy the argument that it was the management’s job to take care of the issue. They owned it; they should be as much responsible for its upkeep. 1 year for the loss of 56 lives seems a joke to me. Reminds me of Union Carbide once again. That was much stranger as the person did not even face trial really.


Having said so, at least the courts have held up the conviction of the Ansal bothers. This is a rarity, but something which we have seen happening often lately. This can be granted to a more societal aware Public. This is not the same India which cowered fearing a reprisal from the powerful.


  • Next up to me comes the formation of NIA and amendment of the anti-terror law by UPA. Did we all not know that we needed a law like this while they tried to be the saviours of the minority? Did we not know that we have left the police with very little in terms of preventive laws? They have woken up to some kind of a world where they can’t deny the need yet they can’t accept that the laws would be no better for the minorities now as well. So why did they even appeal a necessary law? Why did they not instead try to regulate the usage of the law than get rid of it outright?


Maybe we people are not as aware as the NHRC and other sane people who have upheld our rights. To tell them seriously, I think I will abdicate those few rights to be safe. We have a choice between security and Privacy. Now we can all keep our privacy, but then we must not complain about many things more. Now the argument has changed to this: They say the terrorist is here to die, so why such a law. Do I have to be more stupid to explain the preventive nature of such laws? Why do they not spend one day with a terrorist and tell me that they are humans as well. I would be surprised if they say the same lines ever again.


Well I know many want to tell me to change the system by becoming a judge or a politician. Next best option they give me is voting. Well, I would be cynical about it. After all we are a country where we do not choose between leaders who are good and bad. Good news is, now at least we know what we as people are capable of. Now we know that the power of the polity rests amongst us a little at least. We choose amongst the monster and the beast. The good person in the system is often gobbled by these beasts. Besides is it that easy to be in such a political system which is solely based on your clout? It definitely is not. The ordinary people like you and me will be brutalised by something called money. We cannot do it. Why lie about it.


Now we rest our lives with the government. We expect them to hold our lives with as much respect as they would for their own. We have never asked for something too much. Is it that unthinkable that we can’t provide the people with a sense of security and even more important a sense of equality?


Abhik Sen



[Image source:]