This remission is a reward

In perspective

On August 15, in his speech marking 75 years of India’s independence, Prime Minister Narendra Modi advised Indians to “respect women.” He has since been silent on the latest manifestation of the ‘Gujarat Model’: the Gujarat government’s release, on the same day, of 11 men who had been serving life terms for gang-rape and murder during the 2002 Gujarat riots, when Modi was Chief Minister. These men had been found guilty of gang-raping their pregnant neighbour Bilkis Bano as well as her mother and sister, and bashing her 3-year-old daughter’s brains out on the ground.

It was reported that the Supreme Court restrained the counsel for the petitioners challenging the remission from discussing the gravity and brutality of these crimes and asked him to confine his arguments to the issue of remission alone. It went on to ask: “Merely because the act was horrific, is that sufficient to say remission is wrong?” I would suggest that the questions need to be framed differently, so that the issues at stake are revealed.

Unlike any other convicted prisoners released on remission, why were these 11 men garlanded and treated as heroes by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad? The answer is, precisely because of the anti-Muslim nature of their horrific acts. So, they cannot be treated like any other prisoner eligible for remission.

Also Read | Bilkis Bano remission order part of erasing truth of 2002 riots: SC Lawyer

Remission assumes that the convicts being released feel remorse and have learnt their lesson. These convicts, far from “learning their lesson”, are being taught to take pride in their crimes. Public celebrations show that their release is being seen by Hindu-supremacist politicians as a vindication of crimes committed against Muslims.

Recall here that the Supreme Court had transferred Gujarat riots cases to Maharashtra courts to prevent the ruling party and government from subverting the rule of law in Gujarat. Now, the remission by the Gujarat government on the eve of elections in the state, is being touted as a triumph for “Gujarat Pride” against the rule of law.

The question before all of us cannot merely be, “Was this particular decision of remission strictly legal?” The question has to be: “What message does it send to society?” We need only to look around us for the answer. Just a week ago, former BJP MLA Gyan Dev Ahuja boasted on camera that he had “given a free hand” to his men “to kill (insert derogatory word for Muslims) involved in cow slaughter; we will get them bail and acquittal.” The next time, he could well add “remission, in case of conviction” to his promises.

As a feminist activist and a strong advocate for civil liberties, I am all for the provision of remission. Recall that guidelines on remission issued by the Union Home Ministry in June stated that “horrific acts” are indeed a factor in granting remission: those convicted and imprisoned for murder or rape are not eligible for remission. I myself do not agree with these guidelines: I advocate for most convicts, including those serving out sentences for heinous offences, to be eligible for remission, because reformed and repentant convicts can better serve society as free men and women than as prisoners.

Also Read | Mamata asks Trinamool women to sit in dharna against release of Bilkis Bano rape convicts

Many crimes are caused by society and the State failing people – rather than by the inherent “evilness” of those convicted. The link between social oppression and deprivation and “crime and punishment” is clear: more than half of the prisoners in Indian jails are Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims; and a majority of them do not receive bail as undertrials, and rarely receive parole or remission. How did these 11 men get lucky? It is not liberal or left feminists who pointed out their obvious privileges of caste, religion and politics: it was one of the BJP leaders who served on the committee that took the remission decision who commented on camera that the convicts being “Brahmin” and thus “sanskari” (cultured) was a big factor in their decision.

The Supreme Court has recently held that, “The opinion of the presiding judge shines a light on the nature of the crime that has been committed, the record of the convict, their background and other relevant factors. The opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the right decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted.” (Ram Chander vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022). The presiding judge in the trial of the 11 convicts was against granting them remission. The Gujarat government ignored his opinion and thus flouted SC guidelines on remission.

What Bilkis Bano suffered as a woman, a Muslim, a mother was a crime against humanity. We, as citizens, cannot rest until the reward of remission granted to the culprits is revoked.

(The writer is a Marxist-feminist activist and author of ‘Fearless Freedom’, Penguin 2020)