Can India afford to be any more polarised?

Sylvester Stallone explains the meaning of the word "expendable" in a famous scene in the second instalment of his Rambo series, First Blood 2 (1985). The discourse in the past few days makes us wonder the status of many of our citizens in the context of our criminal justice system. Every other month, we read about encounters involving Maoists and the paramilitary/police forces in states like Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Jharkhand, Orissa et al - and do not pause and reflect for a moment.

Maoists are expendable and we have subconsciously accepted that. We have also got used to the situation in Kashmir that evokes predictable responses from different people based on their ideological, political and religious predilections.

However, some of the sharp responses to the encounter of eight undertrials belonging to SIMI within hours of their jailbreak in Bhopal must come as a shock to any right-thinking Indian. While it has become "anti-national" to raise questions about the administration of late, the circumstances and the multiple versions emerging in the aftermath of this encounter ensured that the matter wasn't swept under the carpet.

When a few amateur videos surfaced, punching holes in the police version, the administration was seemingly put on the back foot. Later, even phone/wireless transcripts of the "encounter" were leaked to the media - leaving not many in doubt as to what exactly had transpired.

Also read: You're a Maoist in Bastar if you dare to oppose the State

The goalposts were shifted, veracity of the video and audio transcripts questioned and last of all, it was sought to be justified on the pretext of national security. It is another matter that despite the antecedents of the undertrials being what they are, many similar cases have ended in acquittal.

So, what is the reason behind the toxic discourse that we are witnessing today? Is it to do with a certain ideology and their progenies? Or does it always take two to tango?

The other day, I met a very senior lawyer in Delhi who has been my well-wisher for a long time. When the conversation extended to the alleged fake encounter in Bhopal, I was shocked to find him justifying it on some pretext or the other. I was left wondering why an ostensibly-liberal and generally compassionate person would justify an extra-judicial killing.

It is no secret that our criminal justice system leaves a lot to be desired, especially at the lower levels. But are the prejudices much deeper than what we have always imagined? Are some people less equal than the others when it comes to getting a fair deal from the police and our courts? While the decisive verdict in the general elections of 2014 seemed to be a result of multiple factors and an unambiguous development pitch, have we become a much-more polarised society since then? The lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq was a turning point.

It was so brutal that people had to take a stand, one way or the other, and many public intellectuals did so as the "Award wapsi" episode showed. Yet, a lot of people found it tough to air their opinions in public fearing backlash and a general sense of insecurity owing to the shoddy law and order machinery in different states. But it seems the air is further vitiated, going by the discourse in the recent months.

The premise is not that it is always one-sided. The arguments for instant triple talaq, so barbaric and medieval a practice that doesn't even find sanction in the Quran, have shown how people can easily be organised on religious issues.

The Muslim Personal Law Board, a glorified NGO that claims to speak for all Muslims in India, has enlisted the support of all Muslim sects projecting the matter as an assault on their religious freedom.

The misleading debate on a Uniform Civil Code, initiated by the Supreme Court, has also been an issue. While the laws on most matters except for inheritance, marriage, divorce and property are the same for everyone across religions, the Muslim groups are once again up in arms - interpreting it as a matter of divine sanction, wilfully ignoring the existence of other civil and criminal laws equally applied to everyone.

There are people who argue that this hardening of respective positions is also influenced by the narrow interpretations of nationalism in the current narrative. But where would this polarisation ultimately lead this country to? Can we afford to be any more polarised than what we already are?

A few days ago, I met a charismatic member of Parliament from my state and when the conversation shifted to his chances of re-election in 2019, he noted how the Right-wing forces are gathering strength in his constituency and how the voting patterns of the middle class and the techies has undergone a drastic change in recent years.

I remember a commentator once mentioning in the context of Gujarat as to how it was impossible for a party that professes secularism to win a majority in a state if more than 50 per cent of the people think on communal lines. It is distressing to imagine, what it could lead to, if it can be extended across the country.