In recent times, a peculiar form of political symbolism has gained prominence across the country, primarily starting with its appearance during the Uttar Pradesh Elections of 2021, i.e. Bulldozer Politics.
This form of politics is mainly performed by bulldozers and it has been associated with various political slogans and campaigns. The phenomenon began with the emergence of slogans such as “Bulldozer Baba” during the UP elections, even being celebrated in a song, “Long live Bulldozer Baba.”
Subsequently, this trend extended to Madhya Pradesh, where the government, led by Shivraj Singh Chouhan, utilized hoardings on the streets to promote “Bulldozer Mama.” Gradually, the concept evolved further, culminating in what can be termed as “Bulldozer Justice.”
Madhya Pradesh’s Home Minister, Narottam Mishra, expressed his stance during an interview, emphasizing the need to deal firmly with troublemakers who disrupt societal harmony and cause inconvenience to law-abiding citizens. According to him, the government’s actions were framed as swift responses to maintain law and order in the face of unrest.
Following this development, bulldozers made their way to Jahangirpuri in Delhi, under circumstances that raised suspicions of opportunism. They arrived shortly after a communal riot, leading to the demolition of homes and shops owned by certain individuals.
However, the story doesn’t conclude here. We all know how in recent times even the media houses which are considered the fourth pillar of a healthy democracy have been biased towards a political ideology and have been involved in spreading unverified and false information.
Hence, after the demolition drive in Jahangirpuri, a journalist from an esteemed media house spread misinformation that as a result of the demolition in Jahangirpuri, there was demolition even in the Alwar district of Rajasthan in a form of retaliation.
This misinformation was spread to defame the incumbent Rajasthan Government but after fact-checking of the incident, it came to light that the demolitions in Rajasthan were conducted much before the Jahangirpuri incident. Hence, the incident was wrongly connected with the Jahangirpurim incident to spread hatred and serve a particular political motive.
Recently, bulldozers were employed for what was termed “instant justice” in Haryana’s Nuh district. Following communal unrest on July 31, sparked by a clash during the VHP’s ‘Brij Mandal Jalabhishek Yatra’, where stones were hurled and vehicles set ablaze, the violence even spread to Gurugram.
The Haryana government responded by arresting 116 individuals and detaining 90 in connection with the turmoil. Subsequently, the government initiated the demolition of homes and shops belonging to those accused of participating in communal violence.
In sum, the use of bulldozers as symbols in politics has sparked a series of events across different regions of India, each with its unique political nuances and underlying motivations.
Let’s not delve into specific incidents; instead, let’s grasp the essence of Bulldozer Politics—its implications on law and order, its impact on the lives of ordinary citizens, and the reasons behind its appeal to some sections of society.
Identifying The Problem of Bulldozer Politics
At first glance, Bulldozer Politics is commonly perceived as follows: when individuals engage in rioting and stone-throwing, the government identifies them and promptly dispatches bulldozers to their residences and businesses, demolishing their properties. In a broader sense, this is the prevailing notion of Bulldozer Politics.
Some individuals argue that there is another criterion the government considers – checking whether these properties were constructed illegally or involved in any illegal encroachment.
This adds a second condition: first, being a stone pelter, and second, illegal encroachment. Only under these circumstances will bulldozers be deployed to the targeted properties. This is what is referred to as Bulldozer Justice.
Regardless of the reasons, it essentially implies that neither the police nor the courts will take action. The government independently decides to use bulldozers to raze homes. This form of justice is highly contentious, and I believe it cannot truly be called justice; instead, it resembles revenge.
Also Read: Why Assam Floods Every Year?
Justice and Revenge are completely two different concepts. Although they might seem similar, a deeper examination reveals significant differences between them, often leading to conflicting outcomes.
Revenge is an emotional response characterized by a desire for immediate retaliation. The one seeking revenge aims to exact it as quickly as possible. In contrast, justice is a rational response, a reasoned decision
arrived at after careful deliberation.
It often requires a significant amount of time for thorough examination and consideration. Revenge effectively places both the wrongdoer and the victim on the same level. After revenge has been taken, both parties often experience similar emotions.
Consider this scenario: if a family member is murdered, and in pursuit of revenge, you locate and kill the murderer, the number of murderers in society remains unchanged.
As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The need for revenge will leave the whole world blind. The justice system doesn’t operate on a simple ‘an eye for an eye’ principle. If it did, every murderer in the country would be sentenced to death for their crimes.” However, this isn’t the case because the framers of constitutions worldwide recognized that revenge cannot bring lasting peace to society.
Way Out
The pressing query at hand revolves around understanding the underlying motivation behind Bulldozer Politics and why certain individuals support this political ideology. This phenomenon can be dissected into three primary driving factors.
Firstly, a substantial catalyst for this adherence lies in communal enmity. Certain individuals harbour such intense hatred towards those of different religious beliefs that they forsake their fundamental sense of humanity.
They become inclined to celebrate the suffering inflicted upon individuals from targeted communities. This mindset often stems from profound indoctrination, causing them to disregard their shared difficulty with fellow citizens.
Despite sharing common hardships such as inflation, escalating fuel costs, and rising food prices, they derive sadistic pleasure from witnessing the torment of others. Nonetheless, this factor, while significant, should not
be considered the paramount reason behind this support.
The second factor is more pervasive and revolves around the lethargic behaviour of our judicial system. Instances of delayed justice administered by both the police and the courts are all too common.
For instance, the Nirbhaya case, which had deeply moved the nation, took an astonishing seven years to reach a verdict. Consequently, numerous individuals have grown discouraged by this prolonged justice system and are longing for “instant justice” as an alternative.
Their views are further influenced by media portrayals that glorify vigilante behaviour. It is imperative to note that these individuals need to comprehend that the notion of “instant justice” is, in reality, a form of revenge.
There exists a profound disparity between revenge and justice, with the latter being the harbinger of true societal harmony. Idealizing Bulldozer politics or pursuing revenge-oriented agendas will inevitably give rise to increased hatred, anger, and the proliferation of criminal gangs, consequently exacerbating crime rates.
The third reason behind support for Bulldozer Politics hinges on an admiration for strongman figures. Certain individuals exhibit a fondness for politicians who exhibit an aura of strength. Such individuals may harbour clandestine admiration for dictatorial regimes. The Bulldozer image serves as an extension of this strongman forerunner.
The solution to mitigate this support for Bulldozer Politics necessitates substantial reforms within our judicial system. It entails augmenting the number of law enforcement officers, providing comprehensive and improved training for the police force, instituting police reforms, and increasing the remuneration of police personnel.
Addressing the backlog of judicial vacancies and enhancing the quantity of judges and courts across the nation is equally imperative. It is crucial to bear in mind that the pursuit of instant justice carries the potential to imprison innocent individuals and harm those undeserving of such punitive measures.
True justice can only be established through a reformed and efficient judiciary system, which should be our unwavering focus in fostering a harmonious society.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution asserts that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” However, allegations from minority
communities suggest that the recent “Bulldozer” actions target them disproportionately, raising concerns about discrimination.
In the landmark case of Bachan Singh versus the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Article 14 in preventing arbitrariness. It declared that every action by the state should be free from arbitrariness, and any arbitrary action could be struck down as unconstitutional.
Article 15(1) of the Constitution further prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of these grounds. Minority communities argue that these fundamental rights are being violated by the government’s actions, particularly against Muslims.
Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty, stating that no one shall be deprived of these except according to a procedure established by law. The judiciary, especially after 1978, has interpreted this to mean that the procedure must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary. This interpretation was reinforced in the Maneka Gandhi case.
The main question arises: whether the government’s demolition actions violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. On June 16th, 2022, the Supreme Court, in “Jamiat Ulma I Hind versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others,” considered an application seeking directions to ensure that demolitions are in follow due process.
The petitioner argued that these demolitions violated the rule of law and municipal laws enacted by the state. The court asked the Government not to carry out demolitions except in accordance with established procedures and granted them three days to demonstrate compliance with the law. It emphasized that actions should be in accordance with the law.
A broader perspective on demolition reveals that the government can demolish private property under specific circumstances, such as unauthorized constructions, encroachments, or violations of regulations. However, different states have varying rules regarding the required procedure.
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, for example, mandates a notice before demolishing illegal buildings. Courts have consistently stressed the importance of issuing notices before conducting demolitions to uphold due process.
Conclusion
While conducting research on the subject, I approached a friend residing in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, a significant location in the context of “Bulldozer Politics.” I posed a series of fundamental inquiries to gain insight into his perspective.
He emphasized the importance of his location, as it serves as a focal point for this political phenomenon. When I inquired about his viewpoint on the matter, he shared that, based on his personal observations, demolitions were not limited solely to underprivileged minority communities but also affected Hindu residences and businesses.
His response underscored the idea that media outlets often exhibit bias, as they tend to sensationalize violence against minority communities to boost viewership.
Consequently, it became evident that media organizations have inherent biases, making it imperative to seek the unfiltered truth from individuals with direct exposure to the events.
Hence, in conclusion, the recent demolition actions have raised concerns about the violation of fundamental rights and due process.
The courts have consistently emphasized the importance of following established procedures and issuing notices before demolitions take place, ensuring fairness and transparency in such exercises of power.
I can say that when the government swiftly demolishes properties as a form of punitive action, it can be seen as a form of revenge rather than justice. Revenge is driven by emotion and a desire for swift retaliation, while justice is a rational and deliberative process aimed at bringing about lasting peace and closure in society.
Understanding this distinction is crucial in shaping a fair and equitable legal system that upholds the principles of justice rather than perpetuating cycles of vengeance.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! Please share this article if you enjoyed it. Also, you can follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pinterest to get more interesting articles.
Authored by Himadri Adhikari, a 1st year Law Student at National Law University Odisha.
Nicely explained.đź‘Ť