Rohith Vemula committed suicide after disciplinary action was taken by the University authority. His death has triggered a fresh row of debate about the status of Dalits in India; Rohith being from Dalit background. The controversy has its genesis because of a quarrel the students group he was affiliated to had with another students group. Rohith was part of a students group of the Dalits and the other group these students quarreled with was the right wing Hindu group, ABVP, the students wing of BJP. It has been reported that Rohith was labelled 'anti-national' by people in ABVP after he and his friends protested against the hanging of Yakub Memon, the person responsible for the bombing of Mumbai.
Whether the quarrel has anything to do with Dalit vs. Anti-Dalit or whether the extreme step was taken due to external pressure and blame must be shouldered by those putting the pressure, I am not going to touch on those matters. Much has been already said. I want to examine whether the protest against Yakub's hanging was an anti-national activity or not.
I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Yakub was indeed involved in Bombay bombing. When he was hanged last year, there was protest from different quarter, including Rohith and friends apparently. There was no denial that there was a protest. But why were they protesting against the hanging of a criminal, whose criminal activity led to the death of 257 people besides wounding many?
Was the protest trying to say (1) that Yakub is innocent and he is not responsible for the bombing and so he should not be hanged. (2) that Yakub should not be hanged though other people who would have done similar bombing should be hanged -- because Yakub is Yakub, and no one else, he should be spared. (3) that Yakub should not be hanged because hanging in general is to be done away with; he should just be kept in prison as it has been done till then.
No. 1 is not on the table... because he was guilty. I don't think Rohith and others were saying that Yakub was innocent. No. 2 is unreasonable... because Yakub alone being spared when others would face the rope is unfair. Why should Yakub be given special treatment? Was Rohith and his friends saying that Yakub and Yakub alone should be spared and other similar criminal activities deserve hanging? May be; may not be. How about no. 3? There were people who argued this way. It is possible that Rohith and friend were also saying this thing. The chance of this message being communicated through their protest was higher than other messages being community.
But if this no 3 was what they meant through their protest, was it an anti-national activity? I do not see how this would amount to an anti-national activity. Suppose they were saying for no. 2, would it mean that their protest was an anti-national activity? I would still say their protest was not an anti-national activity though I would say their protest was unreasonable and unfair. I would thus conclude that it was unfair for those in the ABVP camp to label Rohith as anti-national.
Whether the quarrel has anything to do with Dalit vs. Anti-Dalit or whether the extreme step was taken due to external pressure and blame must be shouldered by those putting the pressure, I am not going to touch on those matters. Much has been already said. I want to examine whether the protest against Yakub's hanging was an anti-national activity or not.
I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Yakub was indeed involved in Bombay bombing. When he was hanged last year, there was protest from different quarter, including Rohith and friends apparently. There was no denial that there was a protest. But why were they protesting against the hanging of a criminal, whose criminal activity led to the death of 257 people besides wounding many?
Was the protest trying to say (1) that Yakub is innocent and he is not responsible for the bombing and so he should not be hanged. (2) that Yakub should not be hanged though other people who would have done similar bombing should be hanged -- because Yakub is Yakub, and no one else, he should be spared. (3) that Yakub should not be hanged because hanging in general is to be done away with; he should just be kept in prison as it has been done till then.
No. 1 is not on the table... because he was guilty. I don't think Rohith and others were saying that Yakub was innocent. No. 2 is unreasonable... because Yakub alone being spared when others would face the rope is unfair. Why should Yakub be given special treatment? Was Rohith and his friends saying that Yakub and Yakub alone should be spared and other similar criminal activities deserve hanging? May be; may not be. How about no. 3? There were people who argued this way. It is possible that Rohith and friend were also saying this thing. The chance of this message being communicated through their protest was higher than other messages being community.
But if this no 3 was what they meant through their protest, was it an anti-national activity? I do not see how this would amount to an anti-national activity. Suppose they were saying for no. 2, would it mean that their protest was an anti-national activity? I would still say their protest was not an anti-national activity though I would say their protest was unreasonable and unfair. I would thus conclude that it was unfair for those in the ABVP camp to label Rohith as anti-national.
No comments:
Post a Comment