 |
||
|
||
|
||
Hardly had Uttar Pradesh emerged out of the authoritarian rule of the BSP-BJP coalition, that it has been hurled right back into an abyss by the Mulayam Singh Government at Lucknow. There was abrogation of civil liberties at Ayodhya. The reason being the Ram bhaktas proposed a bhakt sammelan there on October 11 to express solidarity over their demand to construct a temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi site. What the State Government did to prevent the sammelan was dastardly. It would have even put the British rulers' crackdown on freedom fighters in the shade.
Newspapers reports mention that prohibitory orders, under section 141 CrPC, were promulgated, whereby all routes to Ayodhya were sealed; the entry of outsiders as also the movement of local residents without passes issued by the administration was banned; and, all trains and busses heading towards the temple town were either diverted or cancelled. Police was deployed at various railway stations. At Kanpur, 185 persons were arrested. Seventy-two persons in Varanasi and 400 in Barabanki were detained. According to a national daily, the total number of those arrested was 6,500. Not only this, education remained suspended throughout, with educational institutions being converted into jails. People in and around Faizabad and Ayodhya were under virtual siege.
The most significant feature of this crackdown is the repeatedly proclaimed justification of carrying out the High Court orders to maintain "status quo at the disputed site". The last order of the High Court in this regard is dated October 10. It directed the State Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that status quo regarding the disputed site was maintained as before, pass necessary orders to regulate the behaviour of the crowd, not to allow any congregation at or around the disputed site, and not to permit any religions activity to take place at or around the disputed site.
Could this order be used to authorise the arrest of persons in neighbouring districts simply because they were proceeding to Ayodhya for some reason, shut down all routes to Faizabad and Ayodhya and close all educational institutions for a week? The answer is "no". These directions applied only for the disputed site, not for Kanpur, Varanasi, Basti, Gounda, etc. Also, the local administration was to ensure the arrested persons be allowed to have the usual puja and darshan at the disputed site. The Government was mandated to maintain the status quo and the situation was quite peaceful. So, was there any reason for the ruckus?
There is no report that any of the arrested Ram bhaktas carried weapons. They certainly had a constitutional right to assemble peacefully without arms. Their right to freedom of speech included the right to raise slogans expressing a resolve to construct a Ram temple. What is wrong in resolving to build a Ram temple?
There is no report that the Ram bhaktas encouraged violence or use of force, or committed any overt act. The newspapers did not set out the terms of order, if any, under section 144 CrPC. A fundamental question could be whether the particular order satisfies the rest of constitutionality and conforms to the essence of the orders of the High Court or is it purely arbitrary and in excess of the exigencies of the situation, to satisfy the powers that be.
The role of the Centre in this case is interesting. The High Court order does not require the Centre to do anything in the matter - the direction is only to the State Government. Nevertheless, trains were diverted or cancelled if they touched Faizabad and Ayodhya. While the Prime Minister advised the local administration to have "faith" in the VHP's word that the programme would be peaceful, his Government had furnished several companies of security forces to aid the State Government. A classic example of running with the hare and hunting with the hound?
Be that as it may, the State Government and its agencies have violated the Fundamental Civil Rights, under Articles 19 (1)(a), (b), and (d), and Article 21 of the Constitution, of the residents not only of Ayodhya and Faizabad, but also of the bordering districts. The sooner these rights are restored to the people, the better it would be in terms of restoration of the rule of law in UP. But does anybody care?
(The writer is former judge of the
Allahabad High Court)
|
||
|
||
|
||