By Abdul Rashid Agwan,
There is a talk in the air regarding proscribing some agitationist organizations in the wake of forthcoming Babri masjid judgment. The expressed cause seems to control public sentiments in consequence to this emotive issue. Vishva Hindu Parishad(VHP) and some Muslim organizations are showing their anxiety on the probable fallout of one of the longest and most controversial litigations of the country. The question arises how far it is justified in a democratic country like ours to ban organizations which are otherwise working within a democratic framework?
The fate of the British period is before us. In the 62 year long history of its active struggle, the foreign rulers outlawed the Congress only twice and in both the cases revoked it within a few months time while realizing futility of preventing a popular resistance by sheer force. But, in independent India and that too in less than 60 years, our democracy has brought more bans than the British imperialism; three times on RSS, two times on Jamat-e-Islami Hind, repeated four times against the SIMI and once against VHP and Bajrang Dal. Besides these national outfits, there are 175 outlawed organizations on the list having local or regional suffrage. History indicates that at least in case of the afore-mentioned organizations the court of law hardly endorsed propriety of the state action of prohibiting them.
Killing of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948 by a Hindu fanatic entailed a ban on RSS for around 11 months. The second time the organization was outlawed during the emergency. However, this time, there was an innovation. Along with the RSS, Jamat-e-Islami Hind was also banned for nothing sort of its apparent or hidden involvement in any anti-government agitation which was the comprehensible cause of prohibiting the RSS but just to communally balance public opinion and to avoid a communal tag on the state decision. In the aftermath of Babri masjid demolition Narsimha Rao government banned RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal. Again, Jamat-e-Islami was banned to deliver a communal justice in spite of the fact that it belonged to the aggrieved party and known to believe in the significance of the judicial process for a proper solution of the issue. SIMI was banned by the NDA government in the aftermath of 9/11, although no charge of terrorism did exist on it before the ban. Since then the organization has been kept outlawed through four successive notifications. Presently, the same scenario is being created in the backdrop of the forthcoming decision of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court which will make its decision public any time after September 15. This time perhaps the VHP may be banned once again and to communally balance the act any Muslim organization has to sacrifice its genuine existence. The guess is that the government may spare the Jamat this time and target an emerging Muslim organization named Popular Front of India (PFI), which recently came in the lime light due to its country wide campaign seeking reservation for Muslims.
Save India Day poster of PFI
If we go by the political grapevine and selective media reports, a lobby in the central and some state governments is raising the point hither dither that the PFI should be banned. A few weeks back around one dozen PFI activists were arrested in Kerala for allegedly chopping hand of a Christian college teacher for his sacrilege against the prophet of Islam. The case is sub judice, and the organization itself has condemned the illegal act and suspended the arrested youths from its membership; yet there is a demand by some sections for its prohibition. Hundreds of RSS and CPI(M) cadres are presently behind bar in Kerala on similar charges but no one demanded prohibitory action against these outfits. It seems that some vested interests are against the emergence of the PFI among Muslims, and for that matter against any other Muslim organization to reckon with, and on having the first make-believe pretext in hand, start voicing for its embargo. The recent spurt of ban fillers has come to fore due to a poster of the said organization on the anti-fascism day. The poster simply highlighted the involvement of some Hindu organizations in terrorist activities. It was analyzed by a section of media as inflammatory and improper in the wake of the awaited decree of the high court within a few days, although it was pasted many days before the news of imminent judgment broke out. It is beyond comprehension, how in a democracy an organization would be banned just for sticking a poster inconvenient to some people in the ruling elite and that too for condemning fascism? Even if the organizations like VHP or PFI chose to mobilize masses on their expressed viewpoint on any public matter within a democratic norm, may it be on such delicate issues as the Babri masjid controversy, then, will it be justified to outlaw them? Presumably, some members of an organization may have committed an illegal act, so will it cause the entire organization to suffer? At least in case of Abhinav Bharat the establishment has not shown any hurry to ban it even though its several members have been arrested on the charge of terrorist activities then what will be the propriety of proscribing a Muslim organization on some lame excuse?
The allegation on the RSS about its involvement in the assassination of Gandhji could not be proved correct in the Supreme Court. Even the Kapur Commission set to enquire regarding the circumstances and involvements in 30th January killing concluded that there was no proof of the organizations hand in the heinous act. Consequently, the ban was lifted after 11 months with the condition of adopting a due constitution by the RSS for itself. As regards the last case of ban on RSS, it is a fact that the Bahri tribunal disapproved it and ultimately it had to be revoked. When Jamat-e-Islami Hind was banned in 1993 along with some aggressive Hindu organizations for a communal balance, it was judged illegal within a few months time none less than the Supreme Court itself. Even the repeated ban on another Muslim organization, the SIMI, seems unjustified. May be the state has its own compulsions and the police is ready with several failing stories about the SIMI and its barred activities but so far the only independent opinion available to the nation in this regard favors not the government or the police but the banned organization, that is the judgment of a Delhi High Court judge Justice Gita Mittal who repealed the ban in 2008 stating it to be unjustified. The matter was then referred by the government to the apex court, which by this time has four appeals pending against various notifications of ban on SIMI. May be the apex court would have taken a similar decision were it that the matter had been properly processed for fast hearing any time during almost a decade long span of its repeated prohibition. So the historical argument goes against the validity of proscribing any popular organization acting within the constitutional framework, even though some of its members may be alleged or convicted guilty of some criminal act. Perhaps, ban on the said organizations has served some short term political purpose for the ruling gentry but in the ultimate analysis of justice its legitimacy and propriety stood hardly proven.
The current talk of making some well known organizations dysfunctional on the fear of mass outrage will only demean democracy which has severally come under threat in recent times. The promulgation of the amended UAPA by passing it in the parliament in a jerk and without giving any opportunity to the nation to ponder over it seriously is one such thing. The present UAPA is nothing but an amalgamation of its previous version with the incorporation of harsh clauses of TADA and POTA combined; however, with the only exception of disallowing confession in police custody as an evidence. The act in its present incarnation has severely encroached upon the civil space. The enactment of the RTI in 2005 has not been taken by certain politicians and bureaucrats as an instrument which can strengthen democracy in the country but as an irritating hurdle to their conventional functioning and there is a growing aversion to the act in the establishment and the demand is more frequently being raised for tempering it to suit whims and wishes of some vested interests in the government machinery.
The union home minister has recently gone public to issue a statement disallowing any discussion on human rights of the people of the Naxalite affected regions and threatened that people who were found helping Naxalites by taking their cause even in a democratic manner will be booked for the act. Only when Arundhati Roy fearlessly reacted on his statement and challenged the government to arrest her for taking up the cause of the said regions the harsh overtures have evaporated. Strike of trade unions is increasing being taken as an illegal act. Any measure which suppresses a genuine public expression is really hitting hard on the very edifice of democracy itself. Posters, public meetings, strikes, demonstrations, rallies, etc are not only widely accepted democratic acts but are also the safety valves of its very survival. Unfortunately, a section of the people at the helm of affairs seems always in a hurry to reduce civil space and deal public in an undemocratic manner or disallow any public expression contrary to a hegemonic way of pursuing things. In a plural world, democracy is our only solace indeed. May be many of us would not subscribe to the controversial views and acts of some organizations of our dislike, but for the sake of upholding democratic values high we must plead against ban on them on any lame excuse. It is irony that those sections of Indian politics which hardly missed any opportunity to implore stern laws in the country are facing these days the hammering of MACOCA and UAPA on their own heads. It is more likely that an unbecoming precedence will hit back the one who sets it.
Coming back to the issue of communal balance, those who are mooting the line of clubbing the PFI with VHP as a preemptive measure, in the wake of potential Muslim reaction on the ensuing decision on the title suit of Babri masjid, are doing nothing but prompting that the judgment is going to be against the Muslim side. How do they have the hint? And, in case the judgment validates the Muslim deposition in the matter, then why Muslims will show upsurge on it? And, in that case raising the point of possible Muslim reaction led by the PFI or any other Muslim organization stands absurd. There is a consensus among Indian Muslims that they will only take recourse to the due process of law for a proper decision regarding the title suit of Babri Masjid premises, the PFI hardly falls beyond its pale. Therefore, the motive behind such fillers seems only to prepare mood of the nation to once more have usurpation of democratic rights for political gains.
Perhaps some strategists imbedded in the establishment would like the UPA government to ban any Muslim organization for checking electoral drift in favor of BJP due to the expected VHP campaign in either way the judgment goes, no matter which and on what pretext. However, the UPA leadership should think twice doing so since its Muslim vote bank is still floating and any misdemeanor would only further estrange the community from it. It should also remember that, generally speaking, popular organizations only gain and not lose due to political vendetta. No other organization is better testimony to this fact than the congress itself, which emerged victorious from the persecution of the British Empire just a few decades back.