The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday stayed the action of various state governments, especially from conducting “unauthorised” demolitions as a form of retribution for crimes committed, which came to be collectively known as “bulldozer justice”. Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court alleging that state governments, especially those of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and several others, were resorting to “unconstitutional” retribution against those accused of a crime.
Homes of persons accused of crimes be it rapes, or those involved in incidents of public disorder like taking part in bandhs, hartals, protests as well as those involved other heinous crimes were singled out and their homes were demolished, sometimes the same evening.
The action disproportionately affected the homes and businesses of Muslims to the point that the ‘bulldozer’ or the earth-moving machinery became a symbol of Hindutva oppression and was paraded not just in Uttar Pradesh, where they were a crucial part of the imagery after the BJP returned to power in the state, and were even paraded at a rally in the USA to hammer home the point. The demolition didn’t spare homes rented by the alleged offenders and was used as a means of collective punishment, which meant that even if one was accused of a crime, by demolishing his home even his family was made to bear the consequences of his action, irrespective of whether they had a role in it or not.
Such a blatant assault on due process and the principle of no-punishment-except-as-per-law could not have been allowed to continue and as such, the Supreme Court’s action is better late than never. That said, the problem was allowed to fester for longer than it should have, emboldening the bad actors even further. On the other hand, the various governments have defended their action by claiming that the homes were illegal anyway that no particular community was targeted and that in many cases notices were also issued. Such arguments are nothing but specious arguments that those offering them, themselves know to be untrue. Bulldozer action was very deliberate both in its reasoning as well as its messaging. Besides there was no doubt as to the triggers that lead to the action.
As the Supreme Court observed: “It (the house) can’t be demolished even if he’s a convict...the demolition can be carried out [only] as per the procedure in accordance with law.” The action was meant to differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’ wherein no action was initiated against those sympathetic to the government and its ideology, much in tune with the larger messaging sent by the government over the last ten years that is aligned with the ruling party gives one a cloak of innocence and exemption from penal action.
This assault on the spirit of fairness has the potential to sow the seeds of discord and could ultimately lead to a breakdown in the social contract that holds society together and is often counterproductive in that it leads to an increase in violence rather than a decrease.
This has played out in many countries where different policing and law enforcement standards were applied when dealing with people on the basis of colour or ethnicity and the experience of those countries has shown that the communities that have been discriminated against have been living by and large peacefully up to that point, now will have nothing to lose and as such are likelier to pick up a stone in case of civil unrest. The actions of the government will compel the ordinary citizen to turn to violent ways.
