By Biplab Roy
Jamshedpur Dec 20, (The Avenuemail) A child is not born as a criminal even his birth takes place within four walls of the prison. Constitutionally the place of birth of a person is not important in the context of his human rights but same is very important with regard to his enjoyment of such rights.
A clear distinction is visible between a child born in the footpath in an uncared condition and a child born in the high society. Both the child in the category of “haves and have not” do not look to the human and other constitutional rights from the same angle.
Thus, the out-look of persons towards the society and the law manifestly differs between the persons of haves and have not which, according to me, is the major problem for non-growth of any country like India. It creates not only a division between person to person but it manifests executive non-action also for establishing good governance and the rule of law.
“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any forms is forbidden under Article 17 of the Constitution. It is also an offence under the penal laws. Have we really renounced the untouchability from our mind and soul? No, untouchability is still in existence in our society and causes immense suffering to the people at large including the backward classes.
Even after 67 years of independence we have failed to wipe out the same from our society. The ugly picture of untouchability always lives in and develops day by day due to non-action of the executives as they have accustomed to close their eyes and seal their ears to the sufferings of the downtrodden and also the persons of backward classes.
To be born in such a family is still a curse to a child rather than a blessing. An illustrative example in this context is about the life of a 37 years old woman who barely unfolded the executive non-action. Allow me briefly to examine such executive non-action in the interest of the State.
The incident came into light when she took revenge against her rapists and killed many persons at village Behami, Uttar Pradesh and by such action she had shaken even the highest chair of the administration. We often forget that a man takes arms in his hand when his cry does not reach to the ears of the executives who are entrusted to maintain law and order in the society.
The said tribal girl was given in marriage at the age of eleven years with a man of 30 years although the Child Marriage Restraint Act was in force at that point of time. She was forcibly cohabited by her husband and sustained immense pain and agony in her body, mind and soul although such act of her husband was rape within the meaning of Section 375 of the IPC, 1860.
She was thrown out from her matrimonial home when her husband contacted second marriage which is punishable under Section 494 of the IPC, 1860. At the age of 18 years she was gang-raped by several men of higher caste over a period of three weeks but the administration closed the ears and eyes although same was the most heinous crime against the humanity.
In such compelling circumstances, she joined in dacoit team and took arms in her hand. If appropriate steps were taken by the administration against the atrocities inflicted upon the said girl, the said girl would get justice and mass killing at village Behami, Uttar Pradesh could have been avoided.
All that unfortunate incidents happened in her life due to non-action of the executives as if they were watching everything to be happened as a silent spectator and was waiting for a complaint to be registered in this regard. Yes, I am talking about the woman who faced all the challenges in her with high head and ultimately received the bullet of hatred in 2001 in Delhi from a person of higher caste who took revenge for Behami incident. She is none but Phoolon Devi, the bandit queen of India.
Her hatred against the executives of the said State reached at a level that she did not surrender before the police of Uttar Pradesh. She dropped arms along with her gang at Madhya Pradesh before the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and Maa Durga. She renounced violence but violence did not leave her.
I was remembering her when I was watching Parliamentary debate in T. V. over indecent statement of a highly qualified Parliamentarian. Phoolen Devi having passed through the worst stages of her life never used hatred statement either inside or outside the Parliament.
Broadly speaking untouchably is the outcome of hatred by one person towards another. If a person is socially boycotted on the ground of religion, caste or political ideology, it amounts to untouchability as it manifests hatred by one person to another.
Such a thing becomes an epidemic when the executives is biased and favours the wrong doers. This attitude on the part of the executive is very much common resulting lawlessness in the society. Impartiality is an essence of good governance which upholds the rule of law.
We should not forget that non-action on the part of the executive not only weakens the fabric of the multi-facet cultures of the country but it breeds criminality in the society also.