Poor Delhi Police, despite all their efforts they couldn't jail Kanhaiya

Delhi Police activities have shocked me ever since I was a young boy in the 1950s. Since I lived in a "posh" house in an affluent colony, I could watch and even put in a word or two, protesting police manhandling of servants, chowkidars and even municipal workers.

Often the reason was gambling where barely Rs 20 or Rs 25 changed hands. Some constables wanted a cut, others were happy to be treated to tea or "golgappas" at the local sweet shop. The more senior were more careful. One sat with me and as we ate a few sweets he told me of the increasing thefts in a nearby colony. I didn't see him again for a year.

He told me that he'd caught the thieves, but one of them worked for a VIP, so he was transferred to old Delhi. Later, when my stepfather - a senior police officer - arrived and was posted to Telangana in Naxalite operations, I saw another side.

These policemen were armed and gave no quarter. A human rights activist who I came to know well, told me categorically that relatively few Maoists were taken alive, because of orders from "above". Now such reports are commonplace in areas like Bastar and Chhattisgarh. And it is widely believed that innocents are also killed in cross-fire or due to mistaken identity.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the police have been politicised. This leads me to the strange interaction between the Delhi Police and Jawaharlal Nehru University between February 2016 and today.

On the night of February 9, 2016, a meeting was organised by some students where they allegedly shouted "anti-India" slogans. The new ultranationalist JNU vice-chancellor had the security collect information on the students involved, helped further by the ultranationalist ABVP.

With this scanty evidence, Kanhaiya Kumar, JNU Students Union president, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya were arrested under the very serious charge of sedition. Sedition, a 1870 law, Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, is applied not because of offensive slogans but if there is incitement to violence.

But for JNU, which was unpopular with then Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung and the Union government, different standards apply. Interestingly, Gandhi ironically termed the sedition law the "prince of all laws" as it considered "disaffection against the King" to be sedition, and the Mahatma pleaded guilty and was jailed. Also of interest is the fact that last month, February 2017, the president rated JNU the best central university in India, despite some powers that be.

So the three students accused of sedition were jailed and tried. But the judge hearing the case immediately spotted the weakness of the sedition charge as pointed out by lawyers, that there had been no incitement to violence. And in the case of Kanhaiya, he had not been part of the protest, nor had he put up or held any "anti-Indian" posters.

So the JNU students came out on bail. But with strict orders from above, the Delhi Police continued to try making a case against the "JNU Three". Yesterday morning, a first page Times of India report came out titled, "Police fail to prove sedition case against Kanhaiya".

Poor Delhi Police, despite all their efforts they couldn't jail Kanhaiya. According to journalist Rajshekhar Jha, "the chargesheet nowhere says Kanhaiya raised anti-India slogans but does say he did nothing to stop them or the event". Witnesses would question this. However, Jha makes a peculiar statement: "Regarding Kanhaiya, cops have left it to the court if charges are to be framed against him, sources say."

Now this is highly irregular. It is for the police to collect evidence. On the basis of the evidence found, a charge is framed by the police. The court can then certainly change or add to the charge. But if the police states that Kanhaiya never raised "anti-India" slogans, then how can it ask that the court frame charges?

Jha also reports that "the chargesheet to be finalised under Section 121A (sic)", the actual Section is 124A, "and criminal conspiracy is before the police commissioner and a final nod for submission is awaited". And who are the witnesses to this "criminal conspiracy?" JNU administration, ABVP, DSU and security guards.

The vice-chancellor is a known right-wing person who is trying to dismantle statutes and rules of JNU. He was pulled up by the Delhi High Court for not punishing eight ABVP students who roughed up Najeeb Ahmed, the night before he disappeared.

ABVP students are highly unreliable. The DSU is a small far-Left students group. The large Left student organisations like AISA, AISF and SFI were not asked about the incident. Why not? The most intriguing aspect is of the nine "outsiders", all Kashmiris, none of whom were from JNU. They were the only nine identified by videos which "showed 140-odd protesters".

So the Delhi Police and its witnesses could only identify nine outsiders out of more than 140. Even for them severe incompetence. And what did the Delhi Police do with these protesters? Jha writes, "After assuring them that no legal action, that is arrest, would be taken, their statements were recorded. A few have gone to Kashmir and some refused to come back..."

So another first by the Delhi Police. Outsiders who were Kashmiris, with Kashmir being one of the issues in the protest, were not charged, and let off without any action. The moral of this story is clear.

There are different standards by the Delhi Police, and perhaps their superiors, applied to resident Indian students as contrasted to outside Kashmiris who are not JNU students. Unequal laws for equal people: the Delhi Police law!

Also read: Ramjas ABVP clash: Why they stopped Umar Khalid from speaking