Opinion Prayer and punishment in Uttar Pradesh

Among the many depredations of British colonialism in India, some of whose effects are felt to this day, is the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871. An example of gross discrimination, it categorised several communities as “criminal tribes” and their members often bore the brunt of police excesses – their “guilt” an assumption rather than a matter of proof. The Act was repealed soon after Independence. Unfortunately, when it comes to the police apparatus and how it looks at minorities, part of that ethos seems to linger. Ahead of Eid-ul-Fitr, the Uttar Pradesh Police have issued advisories that fly in the face of natural justice and the principles of the Constitution.

First, the UP Police have gone beyond their remit. Meerut City SP Ayush Vikram Singh said that people offering prayers in the open on Eid will be prosecuted and have their passports and licences cancelled. Sadly, it now bears repeating that the police are not meant to impart punishment or take suo motu punitive action. The judiciary — not the permanent executive — can pronounce a sentence after a due process. Police forces are not passport-issuing authorities, and threatening to use the process of verification amounts to making a simple process the punishment. Second, and even more disturbing, the police seem to assume, a priori, that the responsibility for “untoward incidents” lies with the Muslim community. In Sambhal, SP Krishan Kumar Bishnoi said, “People can offer prayers at their house. But they should be careful that there’s no untoward incident.” Similar statements have been made by several other senior police officers in the state, “going by the advisory of the UP government”.

Advertisement

The statement by Union Minister of State and BJP ally Jayant Chaudhary should give the UP government and police cause to rethink their approach to maintaining peace and order during Eid. Moving “towards an Orwellian 1984” does not behove a state that is trying to become a destination for investment, both domestic and international. Finally, the justification offered by the Hathras SP, that “we will not be allowing anyone, irrespective of community, to offer prayers on roads or in any public place” also does not inspire confidence. After all, the police rarely talk of cancelling passports during robust celebrations of other festivals — and rightly so. The Indian state and Constitution, rather than framing secularism in opposition to religion, saw it as allowing all of them to flourish. Each citizen has the fundamental right to their religion and culture, of course, subject to public order. India’s largest state must live by that principle — anything else will make it look weak and prejudiced.