Democracy Vs Mobocracy Vs Nationalism Vs Sovereign State Vs Capital punishment
Democracy:
A system of government in which power is vested in the
people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.
Mobocracy:
Rule or domination by the masses.
Nationalism:
Is a belief or political ideology that involves an
individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation.
Sovereign state:
Is a state with borders where
people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign
states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes.
When 2014 results of Saffron party’s massive victory came
in, it was termed in by the so called liberals as win of mobocracy, a
majoritarian government which is in fact a threat to the very fabric of Secular
fabric of this country.
The scenes were recreated a few days back with a baffling
amount of interest by group of elitist people and human right activists to
question hanging of a proven terrorist. There was a run from pillar to post to
challenge the verdict and in a historic milestone created by the judiciary,
they listen to both side of argument till dawn literally and gave logical
conclusion to a never ending saga.
While I write strongly backing the verdict on this particular case, I don’t want to sound a nationalist while pronouncing my point of view. It’s critical that we understand the difference between nationalist mindset and a state of mind which believes in a Sovereign state to which I lean. One question in the pretext of this article of mine of which I never got an answer is: Why can’t I be liberal when I subscribe to Sovereign state?
Few reasonable questions that come in mind to argue against
it are:
- Why the minorities are always on the eye of storm?
- Why they always have to bear the brunt of a political unsettling?
- Why the epitome of unfair justice’s sword only hangs over their head?
- Why there is a majoritarian view that they are the epicenter of all the wrongs happening in country?
To be frank, I also subscribe to most of above questions but
I wish to strongly differ from the point of view of liberals which is: “The true test of democracy is its
protection of minority rights.” My reason to not agreeing this is very
fundamental, when you look at favoring a side for whatever reason, how could
you provide equal voice and rights to everyone in a democracy? In my view it’s
nothing but appeasement. Such motivated events unfortunately bring in sense of
unrest in a mostly pluralistic society of India.
However, the crux of this article is not to question liberal point of view but to question the obnoxious run of liberals to save a proven convict to prove a democratically elected government and independent judiciary’s decision wrong. Democracy is sure going to allow plural point of view but that shouldn’t suppress the essence of being righteous. While one can definitely subscribe to a point of view of why people shying away from discussing what was the root cause of this event that led these blasts is not being discussed, like Babri masque demolition and riots that took place after that. There is very limited to none who were booked for that. I totally agree to that; however that doesn’t dilute the gravity of the Mumbai bomb blasts. One could also sum up Babri Masque being staged due to Shan Bano case till reservation based on caste which in my opinion one of the most pivotal death of democracy. How could "not convicting people responsible for riots" are given as an excuse to do away with an anti-national activity, BTW when said as anti-national, it doesn’t mean it’s a nationalist thought. It’s an act against a sovereign state and that needs to be dealt in the most defining way and judiciary took cognizance of that in the decision. There is no doubt that death penalty to an innocent man is the biggest miscarriage of justice but even those who support the convict in this case can’t stand by his innocence.
Lastly, the point of death penalty doesn’t deter crime. In this specific case, the message one get from the same argument would be that it’s fine to collude with enemy state to conspire against own land and still brave out after serving a sentence of a decade or two and become role model for such anti national conspiracy. The notion of key conspirators being still at large and only small fishes facing wrath of nation is also misplace, it doesn’t bring down gravity of the co-conspirators crime. When you know the consequences and impact of the act and still becoming party to such heinous crime then you lose out on crying against made the scape goat. Those human right activists should also answer the question: How come these guys have right to live but not the poor victims? Those who are terming this verdict as state sponsored murder and leveling them to the same level as these conspirators are missing the most poignant point which is that in this case, both sides were given enough opportunities to defend their point of view and only when it was established as guilty and by taking cognizance of the nature of crime as rarest of rare the quantum of punishment was decided. Unless those victims in the blast were given even iota of these opportunities, you can’t level state at criminal’s level. I am sure given an opportunity of all them would run to the same battery of human right activities to save themselves.
In conclusion, democracy may be a failed affair but still remains the moral fabric of Sovereign state and as long as judiciary remains independent we will never fall prey to ultra-nationalism to which liberals are crying foul, of course mobocracy still remains a distinct and dim possibility.
Labels: Issues