Who’s responsible for the damage of public property?

More often than not it is public property that becomes the prime target and is the worst hit during a protest or riot, irrespective of whether it is called by a political party or any two-paisa outfit looking for its five seconds of fame. The ongoing protests and violence in Rohtak, in Haryana and Villupuram, in Tamil Nadu reflect this dangerous trend where it is considered alright to vandalise public property and cause inconvenience to public life when grievances are not met. Tension in Karontha village, in Rohtak over the ownership of the Satlok Ashram turned violent when police, present to give protection to the ashram as per court orders, stopped protesting members of the Arya Prathinidhi Sabha from entering the ashram. In the ensuing violence three people were killed and hundreds were injured. Public transport vehicles were torched in addition to traffic being blocked on major roads. Similarly, the protests by the PMK claimed three lives, saw 16 vehicles torched, more than 800 vehicles damaged, two bridges damaged by explosives and more than 150 trees felled or torched. Whatever be the perceived injustice the aggrieved groups feel, there is no justification for violence and violence of this scale by no stretch of its meaning can be called a protest. This is simply a macabre display of highhandedness or goondaism.
The right to freedom of expression, with reasonable restrictions, and the right to assemble peacefully is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. Peaceful protests were a tool used by our leaders to fight the colonial British to win our freedom. However, this right has been misinterpreted, misused and abused by all and sundry. Vandals ransacking the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune in 2004, right wing groups vandalising paintings of MF Husain and other artistes, the quota protests by Gujjars blocking the Delhi-Jaipur highway, etc, show that protests for many mean to give the other party a bloody nose and destroy public property. What protesting groups fail to realise is that their right to protest does not supersede the right of someone to peaceful living.
While political parties and other groups are quick to highlight the deplorable condition of public transport and other public services, they are also the first ones to vandalise them. This should stop — now. Stronger laws, and its effective enforcement, need to come in place to ensure that public property is protected. Punishment in the form of fines and jail terms depending on the severity of the damage caused, need to be enforced. In this light Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa has rightly stated that the government will claim the damages from the PMK responsible for the mayhem using the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. It is to be seen if Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda will take such a stand.

Riots in India: A longing for justice

A Delhi sessions court by setting aside the CBI closure report on the 1984 Sikh riot case has brought to the front an issue that has been festering in the minds of thousands of its victims for almost three decades now. Riots, irrespective of where they happen or who are affected, not only bring untold misery but also leave scars that refuse to heal with time. Independent India has seen numerous riots: the 1969 riots in Ahmedabad, the 1984 Bhiwandi riots, the 1980 Morabadad riots, the Mumbai riots, the 2002 Gujarat violence, etc to name a few. Every now and then these blood-stained episodes in our history are brought to public gaze when fresh details emerge and court hearings occur. While there might be different accounts regarding the causes for a particular riot, there’s no two views that its effects are protracted, at times stretching for decades together.

Owing to the large number of people involved in it and the multiple views and accounts, enquires into riots, much like mob violence, are time-consuming processes. This, however, is little excuse. A reason why riot cases prolong is the inadequate or haphazard investigation and evidence collection at the initial phase and this lacuna affects the course of the case. Even in instances where there have been comprehensive investigations and detailed reports, governments of the day for various political exigencies have chosen to sit on it — or worse rubbish it. The Justice B N Srikrishna Committee report on the Bombay riots in 1992 and the blast in 1993 were rubbished by the Shiv Sena government and till date has not been acted upon by any of the Maharashtra governments that followed. Ignoring a commission report defeats the purpose of instituting it and also gives the victims of the riot a sense of further being wronged — this time by the state.
Rather than festering such wounds the government should come up with mechanisms to ensure speedy justice. The pursuit of justice in the case of riots is important, but equally so is the need to compensate and rehabilitate victims. Often the rehabilitation of riot victims has been shoddy. The government, both at the Centre and State, has more often than not failed to provide a sense of closure to victims whom the state is duty-bound to protect.
(An edited version of this appeared in the Hindustan Times)