Opinion: Bilkis Case Convicts Freed. This Is Not The Idea Of India

When the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2008, it seemed her long, tortuous fight was finally over. There was a sense that justice, though delayed, had not been denied.

Fourteen years later, the release of these convicts, in a crime that was heinous, the rarest of rare and purely animalistic, shatters one's faith in justice. It reminds me of the famous poem of Pushyamitra Upadhyay:

"Suno Draupadi shastra utha lo, ab Govind na aaenge
Swayam jo lajja-heen pade hai, ve kya laaj bachaenge?

Kal tak keval andha raja, ab goonga behra bhi hai,
Hoth sil diye janta ke, kaano pe pehra bhi hai,

Tum hi kaho ye ashru tumhare - kisko kya samjhaenge?
Khud hi apna cheer bacha lo, ab Govind na aaenge."

Govind or Lord Krishna rescued Draupadi when she was being humiliated by the Kauravas. In my interpretation, Govind represents the government - which has the duty to protect the vulnerable, the marginalised and abused.

As the Prime Minister boasted of Nari Shakti in his Independence Day speech, the pardon for the Bilkis Bano convicts begged the question - has our country, governed by a Constitution and on the principles of Constitutionalism, reached a state in which a woman who has gone through the most heinous violence - physically, mentally and emotionally - cannot be protected by the State?

Far from it, those who subjected her to unspeakable trauma were honoured and garlanded. Then a BJP leader' shocker: "Some of them (the accused) are good Brahmins too".

It is not only disrespectful towards the strength, courage and moral tenacity shown by the survivor but also impacts the collective conscience of the society. Have we come to this as a society? Religion versus Basic Human Dignity?

The prisoners were freed as part of a special gesture on 75 years of India's Independence. While the policy was based on restorative and rehabilitative justice, and encompassed 'socially sensitive' and 'reformist' provisions, the decision to free rape convicts in a case like this flies in the face of "social sensitivity". The only way to explain such an appalling and inexplicable move is basic political partisanship and a complete disregard to justice.

It has been argued by supporters of the decision that this reprieve follows a Supreme Court decision to apply the 1992 remission policy. My question here is whether any reasonable balance is struck between their so-called "good behaviour" and the dangers associated with these convicts, the nature of their offence and the impact, not only on Bilkis Bano but also the society in general.

Even when it considers bail, the court considers the impact the prisoner's release may have on the victim. Shouldn't the same, if not higher standard, apply in the case of a remission? The decision is not only untenable from the perspective of criminal law but also constitutionally and morally unjust.

One of the fundamental pillars of restorative justice is genuine repentance. The big welcome for the convicts found guilty of raping Bilkis Bano and killing seven of her family is the opposite of repentance. Rather, it shows pride in the convicts, who represent the current majoritarian socio-political narrative.

The link between the Gujarat government's decision and the upcoming election is obvious. However, what is more shocking is the extent of moral decay in the society, exposed by the silence on a crime against the basic dignity of a woman. This is similar to the deafening silence from several sections of the society in 2018 on the rape of an eight-year-old girl in Jammu.

In times of such moral crises, local regional newspapers can play an important role in steering the discourse. The regional media's coverage, however, has been disappointingly minimal. The incident not only did not find mention on the front page of the most widely circulated Gujarati newspaper, but editorials on the issue have been almost non-existent.

The response to injustice is increasingly becoming socially differentiated, politically calculated and conditional. The long-term impact of such polarisation is on the unity and integrity of the nation.

It is high time we, as a society, introspect whether it is morally justified to shred all constitutional and political morality, that too for an offence this horrific, for the sake of a majoritarian win for one section of society over another? That is not the idea of India.

The idea of India as a nation is based on the values of respect for women, humanity, equality, justice in all forms, and most importantly, empathy and fraternity.

(Priyanka Chaturvedi is Member of Rajya Sabha and Deputy Leader Shiv Sena.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.