When it comes to
defining what is a ‘Crime’, the definitions and grounds we take are the reasoning
and understanding of the formal structures of law defined and constructed by
those who are in authority or controlling the power structure. Though it is
stated that an offence is an offence irrespective of the society's perceptions,
as long as it satisfies the essentials of the Criminal law. But that is the
partial reality because to consider a particular action or omission as an
offence we need a victim of the said offence. It may be stated that under Criminal
law the whole society is considered a victim of the offence, that’s why the State
leads the prosecution. The point, here again, is that whatever according to the
consciousness of the society is an offence or the offences of which society considers
itself as a victim, are the ones to consider and prosecute. This is the point
where the question of the definition of an offence again emerges itself into
the empire of Crime instead of its objective. May it be the formal structuring
of the law that defines what an offence is or not, but then again the formal
structuring is the rationale and outcome of the methodology of those who control
it.
Now, one can
question whether the above-mentioned interpretations are just the attempts of
deconstruction but unfortunately, it exposes the hidden realities of the sense
of the justice we propagate in society. Justice is only as per the
reason or understanding of those who are awarding it and does not include the
interpretations and pleas of those who are being oppressed and exploited by the
system. Justice is merely a sense of the dominant section’s understanding which
only cares about how to sustain the system, irrespective of the fact that it is
exploitative or oppressive in nature.
Take the example of
the recent video of the Mahant of Maharshi Shri Lakshman Das Udasin Ashram,
publically giving rape threats to Muslim women. The authorities are stating
that the investigations will be initiated against the action of the said person
but procedural investigations may be related to the hate speech or inciting
violence against the community or under laws relating to women's protection.
Nowhere the people of the same religion or community, whose prestige he is
guarding will consider themselves as the victims of the actions. Though we all
stand in solidarity against this act nowhere the act is individually
against everyone. Yes, it is against society at large but, did we all
consider it as against ourselves?
This act of only
sympathy by the society reflects the understanding of victimhood and offence
according to the formal structuring of the law. Now, let us take another
example of blasphemy: if anyone has said anything against the sentiments or
belief or faith, or the religion of any community or person in this scenario, the
people of that particular religion would have outcried against the blasphemer
for the offence of blasphemy because the act according to the standard
understanding is outraging or hurting their religious faith and belief. Also,
the act is technically satisfying the essentials of the offence of Blasphemy
under penal statutes or criminal law.
Ironically, when acts
like rape threats or genocide or forceful conversions or religious
enmity by any person or organization are committed under the guise of the
religious ideals or committed in the shadow or name of the upholding one’s
religious beliefs, they are not considered blasphemous by those who always
profess that their religion or all religions fundamentally inherit or preach
humanity or peace. Why aren’t these acts under religious shadow considered
blasphemous and only the critics of religion are blasphemers? Aren’t these acts
outraging or hurting their beliefs and sentiments about their religion? Or we
really consider that whatever they are stating is also the ultimate reality of
our agendas of faith.
Thus, it exposes
the way in which the formal structuring of law is not objective. As it considers
certain acts as the offence only in a certain technical way which is based upon the
understanding and rationality of the society and not upon the objective to
eradicate the injustice.
By: Himanshoo Atri
Comments
Post a Comment