Prayagraj shootout: Did Yogi try to prevent it?

Recent incidents in Uttar Pradesh hardly leave any scope for suspicion that the country has rushed towards dismantling the democratic system our previous generation has assiduously built. The biggest irony is that the present generation has turned its eyes blind to the danger. Rather, it is endorsing and abetting the process.

The incident of gunning down two high-profile prisoners before a sufficiently numbered contingent of the police stirs no agitation is a disappointing feature of current politics. The two brothers, Atiq and Ashraf, who fell to the bullets of three young criminals were not only high profile because they were involved in several criminal cases, but also because they were senior public representatives. Moreover, they belonged to the minority community, which needs assurance in these times of marginalization and hopelessness.

Even for the sake of restoring the confidence of common people in law and order, the Uttar Pradesh police should not have allowed this to happen. We should not ignore the fact that the location of the crime, Prayagraj, is an important seat of justice and power and accommodates the High Court and other institutions. Prayagraj, formerly Allahabad, is religiously important in that it hosts Kumbh every 12 years.

It is astonishing that the State government feels no embarrassment over the incident, similar is the case with the central government, which has not expressed any displeasure over the incident. The latter has been raising questions every now and then about violations of law and order in non-Bhartiya Janata Party ruled states on much smaller incidents. It is really ridiculous that soon after the incident, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath declared in a public program that those who have been posing danger to the state are in danger. He also showed his utter casualness in his administrative actions. He took three days to suspend the part of the police contingent that was deputed to protect the high-profile prisoners. He also did it very reluctantly and suspended only five of the police involved in the security of killed prisoners.

However, it would be too superficial to view the Prayagraj incident as a breach of security only. We should not limit our attention to the failure of the police. A careful examination of the episode points to the complicity of the State and its role in abetting the crime. Though the government has been able to conceal the details of the incident, the chronology and the follow-up actions expose everything.

Some questions related to the incident certainly need attention. The police made the prisoners walk after they got out of the vehicle to allow the attackers to shoot him point blank. Was it a lapse or part of the conspiracy? Was it natural on the part of the police party not to fire a single bullet? Was it normal for the criminals to ensure that no policeman was hurt? Should it not alarm us that the criminals shouted the slogan Jai Shri Ram? Does it not point to an attempt of polarization that one of the criminals happens to be associated with Bajrang Dal, a militant Hindutva organization?

The theory of lapses in handling the security of Atiq Ahmad will only lead us to generalizations. People would say that nothing is unusual if criminals breach the security of prisoners. They would cite several other examples of such killings during other regimes. They would ask why there is this uproar when criminals like Atiq have met the end they deserve. These generalizations are basically political in nature and serve the interests of the ruling class, which wants the polity be repressive.

These generalizations hardly help in getting to the depth of the matter. If we take a look at how Atiq and his family members were annihilated, it immediately occurs that there is a communal angle to it. It is well known that there are several criminals who have serious criminal charges pending against them, but the police are either slow in taking action or doing nothing. Many of the criminals are openly associated with the ruling BJP. Many, in fact, are enjoying social protection from their castes.

If we go observe the BJP-sponsored campaign against Atiq, before and after he was eliminated, it is clear that the campaign was aimed at demonizing him. We must understand that Atiq was a product of social change that dominated the politics of eastern Uttar Pradesh and adjoining parts of Bihar and it played the most important role in his assassination. He was representing a social alliance of Muslims and backward castes that included Kurmis, a dominant backward caste of the region. His political ascendance was the result of post-Mandal social formations led by Mulayam Singh and Mayawati. He remained associated with Apana Dal and Samajwadi Party in his political journey. He was a four-term MLA and a one-term MP. He represented the Phoolpur constituency of Prayagraj. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, represented the constituency till his death. Prime Minister VP Singh also represented the constituency during the early days of political career. It should also be kept in mind that Atiq emerged as a local mafia after he rebelled against a sand mafia belonging to the higher caste. Those who voted for him in elections belonged to the underdogs of society. The present chief minister is known for his caste and communal bias.

Had Atiq been led to the gallop through a due legal process, no one would have raised any questions. The People’s Union of Civil Liberties rightly says, " This de facto policy of the Yogi Government of treating rule of law as an unnecessary irritant of no consequence, will result in the destruction of one of the basic pillars of constitutional democracy – the principle of ‘Rule of law’ and pave the way for lawlessness and brute power."

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)