Political correctness, as imposed by Left-liberals, demands a
conspiratorial silence over Savan Rathod’s death, even as the deceased
Rohith Vemula is remembered raucously, lest we betray the ideals of our
socialist, secular republic
The past fortnight has seen an unending series of reports, accompanied
by commentary, analyses and opinion masquerading as fact, on the
unfortunate death of a student at University of Hyderabad. In the
spurious debate that has followed Rohith Vemula’s death, goal posts have
been shifted repeatedly with twin objectives: To avoid addressing the
real issues behind the alleged suicide, namely the rancid state of
affairs in tax-funded institutions of learning, and, linked to that, the
festering cesspool of what passes for student politics.
Politicians descending on the university campus like vultures who have
smelled a meal of dead and decaying flesh, have added to the
obfuscation, peddling fiction to pander ersatz outrage. We saw that at
Dadri too. Some deaths in this benighted land tend to capture the
attention of the commentariat, and hence that of politicians for whom
the national interest is secondary to crass politics of cynicism.
The Dalits (as Scheduled Castes whom Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi called
the Harijan, children of god, are now referred to by activists and
politicians) continue to suffer because in their suffering lies
redemption for politicians. Had caste ceased to matter, had society
become free of debilitating identities, had empowerment and enablement
ensured equal opportunity, both activists living off Dalit misery and
politicians trading in Dalit votes would have been beggared. We could
say the same about India’s religious minorities, including Muslims, the
least of all minorities.
Entitlement is clearly not the solution, but who’s to stand up and say
this and be spat upon? Education is the solution, but who’s to believe
this given our ramshackle tax-funded system where bogus rights like
‘Right to Education’ have become a substitute for knowledge
dissemination and skill acquisition? The Allahabad High Court had ruled
that everybody holding public office, whether lawmakers and bureaucrats,
police or judges, must send their children to Government schools. The
order, flawed because it restricts freedom of choice, was meant to force
improvement. We haven’t heard any further on that lofty directive.
But if it is death that obsesses us, instead of how to make life, and
living, better for all, then we really should be undiscriminating.
Instead, the self-appointed guardians of society, the sanctimonious
mainstream media, the virtuous army of the righteous, the politicians
who constantly connive to feather their own nests and further their own
interests, pick and choose the dead to feast upon. And so it is that
while buckets of glycerine tears are shed for Rohith
Vemula, not a word (barring the odd story) is heard about Savan Dharma
Rathod. Neither of them deserved to die at a young age for no fault of
theirs. Yet while one is remembered raucously in death, the other is
ignored. Political correctness, as imposed by the intolerant
Left-liberals, demands that we speak out about Rohith but maintain a
conspiratorial silence over Savan lest we betray the noble ideals of our
socialist, secular republic.
Since this column has never been accused of being politically correct,
it would be perfectly fine to tell the other story here. The details are
culled from the few reports that have appeared in media, including The Indian Express which, to its credit, had the most comprehensive story. So here is Savan’s tragic tale.
On January 13, Savan, a 17-year-old boy (some reports suggest he was
16) belonging to the Banjara community, who had run away from home to
make a living scavenging waste in Pune, was accosted by three men.
Initial reports said Savan was accused of theft and burned alive.
Subsequent reports, quoting his dying declaration, said the three
killers asked him if he was a Hindu; when he replied in the affirmative,
they poured petrol on him and set him ablaze. The barely alive boy was
dumped near a dargah where he was spotted by a group of ragpickers. Savan died in a hospital of the terrible burns he had suffered.
The FIR registered with the police says “he was set on fire by three
persons who suspected that he was stealing batteries of vehicles on the
street”. Those three persons are Ibrahim Mehboob Shaikh (35), Imran
Tamboli (28) and his brother Zuber Tamboli (26). They were arrested by
the police and possibly the incident would have been filed and forgotten
but for a video tape that surfaced and went viral. The minute-long
video, shot on a mobile phone, shows Savan saying, “I was working with
my family in Pandhapur. I had a dispute with them and came to Pune
looking for work… While I was taking a leak, three persons objected and
asked me my name. I said Savan Rathod. They asked me if I am Hindu. I
said, yes. Then they poured something over me from a can and set me on
fire.” According to the report in The Indian Express, “The
person, recording the video, asks Savan if he feels that he was burnt
because he is a Hindu. To this, Savan is seen moving his head in
affirmation in the video.”
Who shot the video? The police should have recorded Savan’s statement
in the presence of a Magistrate but they did not do so for reasons best
known to them. Perhaps a poor Banjara boy is not deserving of such
attention. So who thought of recording Savan’s dying declaration?
Apparently, an advocate, Ramesh Rathod, who is a leader of Banjara
community in Pune, who recorded the video along with some of his
friends. The Indian Express quotes him saying, “We recorded the
video around 11.30 pm on Thursday (January 14) and it is like a dying
declaration. He died the next day morning. We have given the video to
the police demanding proper investigation. Had the assailants believed
he was a thief, they would not have asked his religion. They would have
handed him over to the police. Instead, they set him on fire. They had
not consumed liquor and were fully conscious. So, we suspect they had
communal intention..After recording the video, we asked the police to
record his statement. But police said that Savan himself is the
complainant in the FIR.”
The Deputy Commisdioner of Police Tushar Doshi has a slightly different
take: “Our investigation has revealed that Ibrahim first spotted Savan.
Later, the Tamboli brothers joined him. For over two hours, they
questioned Savan regarding theft and took him to various spots. We have
confirmed at least two spots where they took Savan. Then they forcibly
made him drink petrol and set him on fire. It is confirmed they were
suspecting theft. We have probed on possible extremist links. So far, we
have found nothing of this sort. As of now, there is nothing to believe
that assailants had communal intentions. The probe is still on.”
Even if Savan was suspected of petty theft, does that justify setting
him ablaze? Did his tormentors indulge in a horrific crime, confident
that killing a poor Banjara boy would not fetch them severe punishment?
Were they sure the police would go easy on them because the
administration would not want to incur the wrath of the Muslim
community? What does ‘extremist links’ have to do with three Muslim men
setting a Hindu boy on fire? Since when has that become a pre-requisite
to label a crime as communal? Did the arsonists who set fire to coach S6
of Sabarmati Express, burning alive its occupants, at Godhra have
‘extremist links’? Does not having ‘extremist links’ absolve Mehboob
Shaikh, Imran Tamboli and Zuber Tamboli of their hideous crime? And last
though not the least, who will speak up and speak out for Savan Dharma
Rathod?
No comments:
Post a Comment