विदीर्ण मनःस्थिती: आधुनिक भारतातील न्यायव्यवस्थेचा विरोधाभास

भारत हा विविधतेत एकतेचं उदाहरण आहे. अनेक भाषा, संस्कृती, आणि प्रादेशिक भिन्नता असूनही आपण एकाच संविधानाखाली, एकाच गुन्हेगारी कायद्याखाली, एकाच न्यायिक प्रक्रियाखाली, आणि एकाच सर्वोच्च न्यायालयापासून खालच्या न्यायालयांपर्यंत एकसंध न्यायव्यवस्थेखाली कार्यरत आहोत. या एकसंध व्यवस्थेचा पाया आपल्या समाजाच्या एकात्मतेचं प्रतीक आहे. मात्र, जेव्हा या प्रणालींच्या अंमलबजावणीचा विचार केला जातो, तेव्हा निर्णयांमधील विसंगती आणि भेदभाव दिसून येतो. हा विरोधाभास ‘विदीर्ण मनःस्थिती’ अर्थात भग्न-मानसिकतेचा परिचय देतो.  

२१व्या शतकात, जिथे तंत्रज्ञान आणि जागतिक संवाद सहज शक्य आहे, तिथेच आपली कायद्याची अंमलबजावणी करणारी व्यवस्था आणि न्यायालये निर्णय घेताना अतिशय विसंगत वागणूक दाखवतात, हे चिंताजनक आहे. हा प्रश्न केवळ न्यायव्यवस्थेपुरता मर्यादित नसून राजकीय आणि प्रशासकीय नेतृत्व, बौद्धिकवर्ग, माध्यमं, आणि तरुण पिढीपर्यंत सर्वत्र पोहोचला आहे. या परिस्थितीचं एक जिवंत उदाहरण म्हणजे तेलुगू अभिनेता अल्लू अर्जुन आणि तथाकथित संत भोले बाबा यांचे प्रकरण.

अल्लू अर्जुन आणि भोले बाबा यांचा विरोधाभास

प्रकरण : अल्लू अर्जुन यांची अटक

तेलुगू अभिनेता अल्लू अर्जुन यांना त्यांच्या चित्रपटाच्या “पुष्पा २: द राईज” च्या प्रीमियरला झालेल्या चेंगराचेंगरीमध्ये एका महिलेचा मृत्यू झाल्यानंतर अटक करण्यात आली. या घटनेत त्यांच्यावर थेट जबाबदारी टाकली गेली. मात्र, तेलंगणा उच्च न्यायालयाने त्यांच्या अटकेच्या वैधतेवर प्रश्नचिन्ह उपस्थित केले.  

न्यायाधीश जुव्वडी श्रीदेवी यांनी नमूद केले:  “केवळ ते अभिनेते आहेत म्हणून त्यांचा स्वातंत्र्य हक्क हिरावून घेता येईल का? प्रत्येक माणसाला जगण्याचा आणि स्वातंत्र्याचा हक्क आहे. केवळ ते अभिनेते आहेत म्हणून त्यांच्याशी वेगळं वागवलं जाऊ शकत नाही.”

प्रकरण : भोले बाबा यांना मिळालेला अभय

याच्या नेमक्या उलट प्रकारात, उत्तर प्रदेशातील हातरस येथे तथाकथित संत भोले बाबा यांच्या सत्संगादरम्यान झालेल्या चेंगराचेंगरीत १२१ जणांचा मृत्यू झाला. या भीषण घटनेनंतरही भोले बाबा यांना ना अटक झाली, ना त्यांच्यावर जबाबदारी निश्चित करण्यात आली. उत्तर प्रदेश पोलिसांनी दाखल केलेल्या ३२०० पानी आरोपपत्रात देखील भोले बाबा यांचे नावसुद्धा  नाही!  

या विरोधाभासाचा अर्थ काय?

अल्लू अर्जुन यांना एका मृत्यूमुळे अटक केली जाते, तर १२१ मृत्यू घडवणाऱ्या भोले बाबांना कोणताही त्रास होत नाही. दोन्ही प्रकरणं समान कायद्याखाली येत असूनही असा फरक का? याचं उत्तर एका गोष्टीत आहे – “विदीर्ण मनःस्थिती”.  

भेदभावपूर्ण नव्यवस्था

हा विरोधाभास आपल्या न्यायप्रणालीतील काही मूलभूत त्रुटींवर प्रकाश टाकतो:  

 . प्रसारमाध्यमं आणि जनतेची मानसिकता

अल्लू अर्जुन सारख्या अभिनेत्यांना प्रसिद्धीमुळे त्वरित लक्ष्य केलं जातं, कारण माध्यमांना त्यांच्या बातम्या दाखवण्यात रस असतो. दुसरीकडे, भोले बाबा धार्मिक क्षेत्राशी संबंधित असल्यामुळे त्यांच्यावर कारवाई करणं राजकीय आणि सामाजिक दृष्टिकोनातून धोकादायक ठरू शकतं.  

. राजकीय हस्तक्षेप आणि प्रशासकीय दबाव

राजकीय नेते आणि प्रशासकीय अधिकारी धार्मिक नेत्यांना सोयीस्करपणे दुर्लक्ष करतात, कारण त्यांच्याकडे मोठा समर्थकवर्ग असतो. मात्र, सर्वसामन्यावर  कारवाई करताना अशा गोष्टींचा विचार केला जात नाही.  

. पोलिस  निष्क्रियता

तेलंगणा उच्च पोलिसांनी  अल्लू अर्जुन यांच्या अटकेची तत्परता दाखवली, पण हातरस प्रकरणात पोलिसांची  सक्रियता दिसली नाही. हे निवडक सक्रियतेचं उदाहरण असून पोलीस यंत्रणेच्या  असमानतेच्या मानसिकतेचे दर्शन घडवतं.  

विदीर्ण मनःस्थितीचे दूरगामी परिणाम

 . जनतेचा विश्वास गमावणे

जेव्हा कायदा भेदभावाने वापरला जातो, तेव्हा लोकांचा कायदा आणि सुव्यवस्था तसेच न्यायप्रणालीवरचा विश्वास उडतो. लोकांना कायदा हा न्याय देणारा नसून प्रभावशाली व्यक्तींना जपणारा वाटतो.  

 . दुहेरी मापदंडाची सवय

भोले बाबा यांसारख्या व्यक्तींना माफी मिळाल्याने अशा प्रकारांचा प्रसार होतो. या दुहेरी मापदंडामुळे कायद्याचा आदर कमी होतो.  

. सामाजिक प्रगतीला अडथळा

भेदभावपूर्ण न्यायामुळे समाजात विषमता वाढते. समानतेच्या तत्वांचा अभाव राहिल्याने सामाजिक सुधारणा मागे पडतात.  

काही मार्ग आहे का ?

 . संस्थात्मक स्वायत्तता वाढवणे

पोलीस आणि न्यायालयांना राजकीय हस्तक्षेपापासून मुक्त ठेवलं पाहिजे. त्यांच्या कार्यप्रणालीवर निगराणी ठेवणाऱ्या स्वायत्त यंत्रणा उभारल्या पाहिजेत.  

 . नैतिक नेतृत्वाची गरज

नेत्यांनी प्रामाणिक आणि नैतिक दृष्टिकोन बाळगला पाहिजे. त्यांना कोणत्याही परिस्थितीत भेदभाव टाळण्याचं भान ठेवावं लागेल.  

. सतर्क नागरिकांचा सहभाग

जागरूक नागरिक आणि माध्यमं हे भेदभावास तोंड देण्यासाठी सक्षम असावेत. प्रकरणं पारदर्शकपणे तपासण्यासाठी लोकांमध्ये जागरूकता निर्माण झाली पाहिजे.  

 . आत्मचिंतनाची सवय

शाळा, महाविद्यालयं, आणि माध्यमं यांच्यामार्फत तरुण पिढीला आत्मचिंतन करण्यास प्रवृत्त केलं पाहिजे.  

अल्लू अर्जुन आणि भोले बाबा यांची प्रकरणं हे केवळ कायद्याचं अपयश नाही तर आपल्या समाजाच्या विदीर्ण मनःस्थितीचं प्रतीक आहे. हे भग्न  विचार आपल्या एकसंध संविधानाचा अवमान करतात आणि त्याचं सार्थक साधण्यात अडथळा आणतात.  

जर भारताने प्रगतीशील समाज म्हणून उभं राहायचं असेल, तर कायदा आणि सुव्यवस्था तसेच न्यायव्यवस्थेतील या विदीर्ण मनःस्थितीला सामोरे जावं लागेल. न्याय हा कोणत्याही प्रकारच्या भेदभावाशिवाय, सर्वांसाठी समान लागू होईल, हे सुनिश्चित करण्याची आज सर्वाधिक गरज आहे. 

-महेश झगडे, IAS(rtd)

Standard

Fractured Minds: A Deep Dive into the Paradox of Justice in Modern India

India stands as a testament to the triumph of unity in diversity. A land where linguistic, cultural, and regional differences abound, yet we function under a singular Constitution, one criminal law, one judicial procedural law, and a unified judicial system that spans from the lowest courts to the Supreme Court. In principle, this structural uniformity symbolizes a cohesive society, seemingly immune to fragmentation. However, this veneer of unity begins to crack when we examine the operationalization of these institutions, revealing a landscape fraught with inconsistency, bias, and paradoxical decision-making—a stark indication of fractured minds.

It is unsettling that in the 21st century—a time of advanced information systems, global connectivity, and heightened awareness—the very individuals entrusted with upholding this unitary system often display fractured decision-making. This malady, unfortunately, extends across the spectrum of leadership, from political and administrative figures to intellectuals, the media, and even young minds who ought to shape a progressive future. The inconsistency is glaringly evident in various sectors, but the realm of law enforcement and judicial interpretation offers particularly disturbing examples, highlighting how fragmented perspectives undermine the cohesive spirit of justice.

The Allu Arjun vs. Bhole Baba Paradox

Consider two recent incidents that illuminate this disconcerting dichotomy.  

Case 1: The Arrest of Allu Arjun

Telugu superstar Allu Arjun, a figure adored by millions, was arrested and sent to judicial custody, following the tragic death of a woman during the premiere of his film “Pushpa 2: The Rise”. The city police detained him, holding him accountable for the stampede that ensued at the event. The matter escalated to the Telangana High Court, where Justice Juvvadi Sridevi questioned the rationale for detaining the actor, stating:  “Can his personal liberty be deprived just because he is an actor? On this earth, he has the right to life and liberty. It can’t be taken away by virtue of being an actor.”

The High Court granted Allu Arjun a four-week interim bail, expressing unease over the implications of holding him in custody without substantial grounds.  

Case 2: The Immunity of Bhole Baba

Contrast this with the case of Surajpal, known as Bhole Baba, a self-styled godman. A religious congregation organized under his aegis in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, led to a devastating stampede, resulting in the deaths of 121 people. Despite this monumental tragedy, Bhole Baba was neither arrested nor held accountable in the 3,200-page chargesheet filed by the UP police.  

Here lies the paradox: on one hand, a film actor is swiftly arrested for an incident resulting in a single fatality; on the other, a godman escapes scrutiny despite presiding over an event that claimed 121 lives. The same legal framework, criminal law, and judicial system govern both cases, yet the outcomes diverge drastically.  

What explains this disparity? The answer lies not in the law but in the fractured minds of those who interpret and enforce it.

A System Fractured by Bias

The contrast between these two cases underscores a deeper issue:  “selective accountability”. The law, which should serve as an impartial arbiter, often becomes a tool wielded by fractured minds influenced by societal, political, and emotional biases.  

1. Public Perception and Media Influence

   In the case of Allu Arjun, his celebrity status worked both for and against him. While his fame ensured swift legal action, it also drew media scrutiny that ultimately questioned the necessity of his arrest. In contrast, Bhole Baba, operating within a socio-religious framework, leveraged the protective cocoon of faith and tradition, evading accountability as public and media narratives hesitated to challenge a godman’s authority.

2. Political and Administrative Complicity

   The fractured approach to justice often stems from political expediency. Religious leaders like Bhole Baba command significant influence over their followers, making them untouchable in the eyes of administrations wary of public backlash. In contrast, celebrities, despite their popularity, are easier targets for law enforcement seeking to demonstrate action without upsetting entrenched power structures.

3. Law and Order and  Judicial Inconsistency

       Police and Courts, too, are not immune to this fracture. While the Telangana High Court rightly questioned the rationale behind Allu Arjun’s detention, the actions of police and absence of judicial intervention in the Hathras tragedy raises troubling questions about selective activism and the prioritization of cases based on public pressure rather than principles of justice.

    The Far-Reaching Implications of Fractured Minds

    This fragmented mindset is not limited to isolated incidents but pervades the entire spectrum of governance and societal functioning. The consequences are manifold:  

    1. Erosion of Public Trust

       When the law is applied inconsistently, public confidence in its fairness and impartiality erodes. Citizens begin to perceive the Law and Order and  judicial systems not as pillars of justice but as a labyrinthine structure influenced by power, privilege, and prejudice.

    2. Normalisation of Double Standards

       Cases like Bhole Baba’s set dangerous precedents, where influential figures can evade accountability while others face disproportionate consequences. This normalization undermines the rule of law and perpetuates a culture of impunity.

    3. Stagnation of Social Progress

       Fractured minds are a reflection of fractured priorities. When leaders and institutions fail to act cohesively, societal progress stalls. Issues that demand collective introspection—be it gender justice, caste equality, or environmental sustainability—remain mired in partisan divides and selective action.

    The Path Forward: Healing the Fracture

    To mend these fractured minds, a multi-faceted approach is required:  

    1. Strengthening Institutional Independence

       Law enforcement and judiciary must operate free from political and societal pressures. Mechanisms for accountability and oversight should ensure that decisions are guided by principles rather than expediency.

    2. Promoting Ethical Leadership

       Leaders, whether political, administrative, or intellectual, must champion ethical conduct and reject opportunistic biases. Training programs and public platforms should emphasize the importance of impartiality in decision-making.

    3. Encouraging Public Vigilance

       A vigilant citizenry is the bedrock of a healthy democracy. Public awareness campaigns, coupled with transparent systems for reporting inconsistencies, can empower individuals to hold institutions accountable.

    4. Fostering a Culture of Introspection

       Educational and cultural initiatives should encourage introspection, challenging individuals to confront their biases and work towards a more cohesive society. Schools, universities, and media have a crucial role in shaping this narrative.

    The cases of Allu Arjun and Bhole Baba are not merely legal anomalies but symptoms of a deeper malaise afflicting our collective psyche. They highlight how fractured minds undermine the unitary framework of our Constitution, betraying the promise of justice enshrined within it.  

    As Indians, we must collectively confront this reality. Healing these fractures requires a commitment to fairness, consistency, and introspection—a recognition that our strength lies not in selective accountability but in the unwavering application of justice. Only then can we hope to build a society where the promise of unity is not just a constitutional ideal but a lived reality.

    -Mahesh Zagade, IAS(rtd)

    Standard

    Only education is not enough….

    The Importance of Creating a Relevant Education and Opportunities-to- Earn Ecosystem: A Government Responsibility

    Education has always been recognised as a vital aspect of human development, empowering individuals with knowledge, skills, and opportunities. However, in today’s rapidly changing world, the significance of education has taken on an even greater importance. It is no longer enough to simply provide access to education; it is equally crucial to establish an ecosystem wherein education remains relevant and aligns with the needs of society. This responsibility primarily lies with the government, as it plays a pivotal role in shaping policies and frameworks that enable individuals to thrive and secure their livelihoods.

    In the absence of a comprehensive approach to education, the consequences can be dire. The trajectory of society could take a distressing turn, posing a severe threat to the very existence of humanity. Therefore, it becomes imperative for governments to recognise the crucial link between education, livelihood, and the overall well-being of their citizens.

    Creating a relevant education ecosystem encompasses several key elements. Firstly, it involves ensuring that education is accessible to all, irrespective of social, economic, or geographical barriers. This entails implementing policies that promote inclusivity and provide equal opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds. By removing obstacles such as financial constraints, discrimination, and limited resources, governments can pave the way for a more equitable society where education becomes a vehicle for social mobility.

    However, accessibility alone is not sufficient. The education system must be dynamic and adaptable to the evolving needs of the job market and society at large. Governments should foster collaboration between educational institutions, industry leaders, and policymakers to identify emerging trends, skills, and knowledge areas that are in demand. This collaborative approach enables educational curricula to be revised and updated regularly, ensuring that graduates possess the skills and competencies necessary to excel in the current job market.

    Moreover, it is crucial to foster an environment of innovation and critical thinking within educational institutions. By encouraging creativity, problem-solving, and entrepreneurial spirit, governments can empower students to become active contributors to society. This entails investing in research and development, promoting interdisciplinary approaches, and integrating technology into the learning process. By doing so, educational institutions can equip individuals with the ability to adapt to new challenges and seize opportunities in an increasingly dynamic world.

    In addition to cultivating relevant skills and knowledge, governments should also focus on fostering values and ethics within the education system. Education should not solely revolve around academic achievements and professional success but should also aim to nurture responsible, empathetic, and ethical citizens. By emphasising the importance of integrity, compassion, and sustainability, governments can shape a society that is not only economically prosperous but also socially cohesive and environmentally conscious.

    The responsibility of creating a relevant education ecosystem cannot be shouldered by educational institutions alone. Governments must play a pivotal role in formulating policies that support and enhance education at every level. Adequate investment in education, both in terms of financial resources and human capital, is essential to build a strong foundation for a prosperous future.

    Furthermore, governments should engage in partnerships with private enterprises, non-profit organisations, and civil society to leverage their expertise, resources, and networks. Collaboration with these stakeholders can help bridge the gap between education and employment, ensuring that individuals are equipped with the skills demanded by the job market.

    Standard

    Perceptions of Justice:The Dichotomy between Ideal and Realised Justice.

    Introduction:

    The concept of justice holds a significant place in human societies, embodying the fundamental principles of fairness, equality, and moral rightness. However, the perception and experience of justice often differ between the idealistic notion and the practical realisation. The intriguing dichotomy that justice is not solely defined by its inherent qualities but rather by the outcomes individuals actually receive within a given societal context. Justice, as a fundamental principle, is often associated with notions of fairness, equality, and the rule of law. While subjectivity has been acknowledged as an inherent element in the interpretation and application of justice, the proposition that striving for objectivity in justice can enhance its integrity and alleviate potential biases should not be ignored. By exploring the factors influencing the interpretation of justice and examining the implications of this distinction, we gain valuable insights into the complex dynamics that shape our understanding of justice.

    Justice, as an abstract and multifaceted concept, is subject to diverse interpretations and contextual influences. It represents an ideal state of affairs, characterised by equitable treatment, impartiality, and adherence to ethical principles. However, the reality of justice is far from a universal experience, as it is contingent upon numerous socio-cultural, economic, and political factors. Let’s try to shed light on the intricate interplay between the ideal and realised dimensions of justice, emphasising the significance of outcome-based perceptions in evaluating the fairness of a given system.

    Ideal Justice:

    Ideal justice embodies the vision of a perfect and morally upright society, where every individual is treated fairly, rights are protected, and the rule of law prevails. Rooted in philosophical and ethical frameworks, this conception of justice serves as a benchmark against which societies measure the quality of the human existence. It encompasses theories such as distributive justice, retributive justice, and procedural justice, all seeking to establish a framework that ensures fairness and equality.

    Realised Justice: Contextual Factors and Disparities:

    The realisation of justice is contingent upon various contextual factors, including socio-economic disparities, cultural norms, historical legacies, and the functioning of legal and political institutions. The application of justice in practice often faces challenges such as bias, corruption, unequal access to legal recourse, and systemic inequalities. These factors contribute to the divergence between the idealised vision of justice and the outcomes experienced by individuals within a given society.

    The Role of Perception:

    Perceptions of justice are subjective and influenced by personal experiences, social conditioning, and cultural values. The gap between ideal justice and realised justice can lead to disillusionment, frustration, and a loss of trust in the system. Individuals’ perceptions of justice are shaped not only by their direct encounters with the legal system but also by societal narratives, media representation, and collective experiences. Moreover, the unequal distribution of justice can perpetuate social divisions, engendering feelings of marginalisation and injustice.

    Perceptions and Subjectivity:

    Individual perceptions of justice are subjective and can vary based on personal experiences, cultural background, and societal norms. The outcomes people receive directly impact their perception of justice, as they evaluate the fairness of the system based on the tangible results they observe or experience. Recognising the subjective nature of justice can lead to a deeper understanding of the diverse ways in which individuals engage with and assess justice in their lives.

    Implications for Justice Systems:

    Embracing an outcome-based perspective on justice has significant implications for the design and functioning of justice systems. It highlights the importance of creating mechanisms that ensure equitable outcomes, rather than solely focusing on the procedural aspects of justice. This necessitates addressing systemic biases, disparities in access to legal resources, and empowering marginalised communities to ensure fairness in outcomes.

    Promoting a Just Society:

    Acknowledging the connection between justice and outcomes encourages a proactive approach to fostering a just society. This requires continuous evaluation, reform, and the pursuit of policies that aim to improve outcomes for all individuals. Efforts should be directed towards reducing disparities, addressing systemic injustices, and ensuring that the justice system operates in a manner that promotes fairness and equality.

    The Societal Ecosystem: Elements and Interactions:

    The societal ecosystem comprises various interconnected elements, including cultural values, norms, power structures, economic systems, and legal frameworks. These elements interact and influence one another, creating a dynamic environment that shapes the understanding and implementation of justice. Cultural beliefs and traditions, for instance, inform notions of right and wrong, while economic disparities can impact access to legal resources and representation.

    Norms and Power Structures:

    Norms, both explicit and implicit, play a crucial role in shaping societal expectations and behaviour. They contribute to the establishment of standards for justice, dictating what is considered fair and acceptable within a given society. Power structures within the societal ecosystem, such as political systems and social hierarchies, can influence the distribution of justice, often resulting in inequalities and differential treatment.

    Legal and Political Systems:

    The legal and political systems within a society serve as key mechanisms for delivering justice. These systems are designed to interpret and enforce laws, resolve disputes, and safeguard individual rights. However, the functioning of legal and political institutions is influenced by the broader societal ecosystem. Factors such as corruption, bias, and systemic inequalities can undermine the impartiality and effectiveness of these systems, impacting the realisation of justice.

    Inequalities and Marginalisation:

    The existing societal ecosystem can perpetuate inequalities and marginalisation, leading to a skewed distribution of justice. Discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, or caste can create systemic barriers, limiting access to justice for marginalised communities. The interplay between societal power dynamics and justice can further entrench social divisions and contribute to the perpetuation of injustice.

    Justice cannot be viewed in isolation from the societal ecosystem in which it operates. The existing social, cultural, economic, and political dynamics significantly shape the understanding, application, and realisation of justice. By recognising and addressing the complexities and challenges within the societal ecosystem, societies can work towards creating a more just and equitable system. Achieving justice requires a holistic approach that encompasses legal reforms, cultural shifts, and a commitment to dismantling systemic barriers.

    Implications and Moving Forward:

    Recognising the gap between ideal and realised justice is crucial for fostering a more just society. Efforts should be directed toward minimising disparities and ensuring that legal frameworks and institutions are designed to deliver equitable outcomes. Strengthening transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the justice system is paramount. Additionally, promoting legal literacy and empowering marginalised communities can help bridge the divide between ideal justice and its realisation. In a nutshell, the understanding of justice goes beyond its conceptual definition. It encompasses the tangible outcomes individuals experience within the socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts in which they live. By acknowledging and addressing the disparities between ideal and realised justice, societies can strive towards a more inclusive and equitable system. Achieving justice requires continuous reflection, reform, and collective action to bridge the divide and ensure that justice is not just an abstract ideal, but a tangible reality for all.

    Keywords: #justice, #ideal_justice, #realised_justice, #fairness, #equality, #perception, #socio-cultural_factors, #legal_system, #disparities, #social_divisions, #inclusivity.

    Standard