ABVP's fascist face in harassing Sabira

If a student organisation demands that a girl whom they had assaulted has no right to file complain against them to the police and further makes a demand that she should leave the college, what should be the response of the state and civil society?

The ABVP members of the K Shivarama Karanth government first grade college have decided to boycott classes and hold protests if college authorities allow Sabira, a Muslim girl who is a student of the college, to sit in the class and study in that college. Her only fault was her refusal to join their protest against ‘Coalgate’ and her filing a case against the organisation for assaulting her. If what she did was no wrong, why is the state not protecting her? 

 From the reports, it is clear that Sabira is a law abiding person and whatever she has done is in accordance with the rule of law. The state as the protector of rights should have protected her at the very first instance by taking action on those who have violated her rights.

As soon as the complaint was filed, the police should have booked all the representatives of the organisation that had assaulted her to make her secure without granting bail to the culprits. Given the state patronage the ABVP enjoys, the police have not been able to do their duties. The organisation has now demanded that she should not be allowed to attend classes anymore in that college. While the demand is illegal, what surprises citizens is the total lack of support to Sabira by the state and the citizens.  
Attack on democracy

In a democracy, citizens are allowed to make choices. While some can decide to protest, the others can decide to dissent. Some others can choose other ways of responding to an issue. By refusing to join a protest that was called by the ABVP, Sabira has exercised her right of choice. While the ABVP has a right to organise a strike, do they have a right to hold any individual to ransom for not toeing their line? More than an attack on a student of the college, it is an attack on Indian democracy.

While the Constitution provides all citizens the right to protest, it also bestows the right to dissent. Those who protest and those who dissent have the obligation to listen to the voices of each other instead of offering threats and intimidations. How can a consensus be arrived at without listening to different voices? No organisation can say to the state that there is only one way of understanding reality and if others dissent from it they have no place for existence. This is fascism at its worst. Not listening to dissenting voices is unconstitutional. 

Coalgate is an issue of a major corruption. There is unanimity on it.  But the campaign against it cannot become offensive and dismissive of other opinions and ways to obtain political mileage. Democracy holds that all individuals have a right to their opinions. The opponents have an obligation to listen to them even if they do not agree on them.

If we do not accept the opinions and views of others and impose a single view on the population, that would amount to intolerance. In a democracy differences have to be negotiated. By being intolerant what the ABVP is telling us is that if we are not with them in opposing the Coalgate, we are with the government. That is a poor reading of facts. Who can deny that both the parties have skeletons in their cupboards?

One wonders at the reasons behind the silence of different actors of the state against such assault on the rights of an individual. Why are the Opposition parties silent? The courts which are protectors of the fundamental rights of people could have taken suo moto notice and filed a case against the ABVP.

Where is the civil society in the state? The student is allowed to fight her own battle. When there is total silence by the Opposition, there is every possibility that incidents of the kind can further communalise the state creating division, fear and insecurity in the population. If Karnataka has to remain secular, there needs to be a better commitment from the Opposition parties, the judiciary and the civil society for protection of human rights.

(The writer is administrator of St Joseph’s evening college)