Atiq Is Merely A Symbol
In a world fascinated with instant gratification, the Atiq episode seems to have conflated instant justice with the thrill of consuming instant noodles ! In all the noise and fury of the past few days I felt it was best to let the froth of opinions - most of them political - subside before we could dispassionately look beyond the multivariate range of emotions which cloud the judgement necessary for an unbiased analysis of what is unarguably a very complex situation.
Popular press is merely stating the obvious, ie, our criminal justice system is broken, religious overtones, state sponsored vigilante justice, etc. Instead, we need to calmly introspect - if at all that is feasible - on three core issues.
One, what makes us as a people so delirious with joy at the extra judicial and staged killings of criminals ? Two, what makes us normalize the existence of such criminals as law makers ? Three, is this the best way to clean up and eradicate crime ? If we have the collective courage to handle the truth, the answers to these questions will make us think where we are headed as a nation.
That many people approve of criminals being eliminated by the police is a reflection of the 30 years of free run that Atiq enjoyed as a lawmaker, and a system which perpetrated such a wanton assault of democracy. Coupled with the belief that the normal criminal justice system is incapable of delivering results, retributive justice by any means is being welcomed. Being a reflection of citizens' will, this narrative suits politicians as well.
Citizens don't ask though what makes us normalize the likes of Atiq - and there are countless more roaming around in parliament and legislative assemblies - being elected to represent us. Is it our own apathy to get involved in the cleansing process or even raise our voice ? The Indian middle class exhibits a remarkable indifference to the common good, an apathy in upholding the fundamental principles of democracy and a vacuousness in its public spiritedness. This numbed social conscience - due to self interest, fear or greed - and consequent erosion of national character is the key contributor to our situation today. And most alarmingly, this trait of selfish disinterest, based on the 'free rider' theory, and groveling to authority is evident all across society. This provides the political class with a virtual walkover to involve criminals in our polity.
The third point is more consequential for the future. Is this the best way to clean up crime ? Perhaps not. But I do empathize with the argument of the state using unconventional means when violence becomes ingrained amongst a section of the society, existing law and order mechanisms prove inadequate and the existence of the state itself is at stake. We have lived through this during the Naxalite movement in Bengal and the Khalistani movement in Punjab.
Eradicating deep rooted crime could arguably fall in this category too, but only for a limited period. Sustainable crime eradication can only happen through a constitutionally approved process, and not by extra judicial killings, as criminal warlords would be replaced by trigger happy policemen once the discipline which restrains the uniformed services is shaken at the roots. Duerte faced this challenge in Phillipines in his bid to eliminate drug cartels by shoot to kill operations.
Following the opium wars, Chinese people migrated to Singapore only to find large criminal organizations controlling society. The business of crime was similar to what we have here : prostitution, protection fees, extortion, etc. Lee Kuan Yew, faced with systemic corruption and related widespread crime in Singapore in the late 50s, fought it with a three pronged strategy to create the Singapore we know of today. Firstly, he recognized that corruption is the fountainhead of crime, and to eliminate it he created a system which combined the principles of behavioural economics of diminishing marginal utility, and the Mexican stand off where everyone holds a gun at someone else, and no strategy exists for fraudulent collaboration without causing a chain reaction of sure death. Secondly, he structurally reduced the human temptation towards crime by tilting the risk reward spectrum towards the high risk- low reward end, and thus inflicting inordinately high costs through very tough laws and immaculate enforcement. And lastly, a speedy justice system was created to dispense justice in a court of law. Once it was recognized that the default norm is to assume human greed and its propensity to be corrupt - and its definitive relationship to crime - he displayed the political will to change the rules of the game itself.
Similarly, the American mafia of 50s - 80s do not exist today primarily due to the enactment of its very tough laws called RICO and CCE which effectively imposed very high economic costs on racketeers, including confiscation of all their allied businesses - including shell entities meant to keep assets of crime legitimately insulated - and allowed for long prison sentences without parole. The principle was the same - make the risk-reward equation of crime unviable. Additionally, surveillance, infiltration to gather evidence, witness protection programs for approvers and passionate prosecutors like Rudy Guillani helped stamp out the Mafia.
We are imminently capable of setting up a similar eco system to control crime - tough laws , fast track courts, and dedicated prosecutors with a strong witness protection programs. But do we have the political will to do it ? Do we have our own Lee Kuan Yew or Blakey - Robert Kennedy combine?
I suspect that is where the core problem lies. We must reflect on this as a nation which has, inter alia, legitimized the opacity of political funding through electoral bonds to create the fountainhead of corruption in our polity.
The author is a Sloan Fellow from the London Business School, Director and Advisor to Chairmen of corporate boards.
