Murdering Mahatma?

I wanted the sesquicentennial post to be some light/frothy piece but alas no inspiration. Meanwhile the theme of increasing violence as a social phenomena has been making rounds to TV too. CNN IBN recently did a feature called "Murdering Mahatma". Since its the month of Mahatma Gandhi's birthday, I thought it appropriate to blog on the same.
First I think the program got it wrong. While Gandhian nonviolence credo I think refers more to non violence as a political tool i.e. the political approach should be non-violent and I do not think its really that much on the crime side which is what the program focussed on. Sure there should not be any crime and Mahatma emphasized on virtuous living. But surely a rape victim taking a knife and attacking the rapist in the act cannot be termed as Murdering the Mahatma which I thought the program argued!
So is non-violence really a philosophy when faced with a violent crime? Sure, when British army fired on peaceful assembly in a stadium (after sealing on exit routes) as far as I know, no one really turned and attacked the soldiers. Its a crime but again the soldiers were really following orders howsoever wrong. I think its again political violence countered with non-violence. But should I follow the same philosophy if a gang of dacoits enter my house, brandishing weapons with intent to hurt. If I have a loaded gun in hand and decide to use it, is it really murdering Mahatma?
While there might not be easy answers, I believe non violence is not about not offering violent resistance in face of hostile bodily harm. It is about not making violence a tool to achieve political or personal goals. And to a large extent Indians have followed the logic. Many of our protests while not being completely free from violence by and large do not make violence the center piece of policy.
What then explains the rise of violence which I paradoxically agree to in the beginning paragraph? I again come back to the theory of a failing state. The program interviews people who said that if they catch a thief they will beat him up. The reason was in the interview itself. Many said they will resort to violence because the culprit will not be otherwise punished. And its a very valid fear. As an ex Supreme court chief justice said once - justice late is justice denied. We had this case where an IAS official was killed by a mob supposedly incited by the sitting MP of the area. The court recently pronounced death verdict on the MP for the crime. And it came after 13 years of the act. 13 years when life imprisonment in India is of 14 years duration! When such a high profile, widely covered in media case takes 13 years to settle just think of a poor helpless person trying to get justice.
I've heard opinions that sometimes lawyers decided among themselves to drag a case longer since that gets more fees. And its not hard to imagine. So we can easily assume that if its a poor person, justice will not come easily to him or her within the span of a life sentence! Is it wonder that the people will want to settle scores on streets at the moment of crime itself. Combine the delay with so many cases (I covered em in some earlier posts) where the courts have pulled up prosecution agencies for botched probes - often deliberately botched posts and its even easier to assume that justice may not always come and when it comes its usually very late.
For me, the fundamental reason for a state to exist is that it provides guarantee of life and liberty. So if the same is not being made available to all, then is state really relevant? If not then why should i play by its rules? That I think is what is prompting so many cases of public taking law into its own hands. Its a telling point that most of such cases occur in places where its generally acknowledged that the state has not done well to keep its promises of crime control and safe life.
What then is the solution? One which come to my mind is to set up more courts. But merely setting courts will not help if the mechanism to administer justice is not improved and is perceived to have improved. And a key to improving the trust is to restore confidence in authorities. It doesnt help when sitting or ex MPs and sometimes cabinet ministers are convicted by courts for extremely serious crimes. Therefore I suggest we have special fast track courts specifically setup to handle cases against senior government official and all elected/nominated members of various legislative bodies. There should also be a separate investigative and prosecuting agency not under direct control of executive but maybe under a parliamentary committee along with maybe some public citizens (a judge/bar council/press council/ etc). Make it mandatory to wrap up a case within 6 months. All cases against such people and found to be prima facie admissible by a magistrate be mandatory referred to these.
All it proceedings should be in public domain and not hidden behind officials secrecy acts.
Once the custodians of public trusts are swiftly punished for any shortcomings public confidence will trickle back.
Next step, reform of criminal justice system for all. Only once the justice becomes really impartial and very swift will the state again become relevant. Only once that happens will public stop acting its own judge, jury and executioner.