Should these teachers face a jail term?

I was slightly disconcerted with the pictures of the La Martiniere principal and some other teachers being arrested. Sure, they were later released on bail, but the media pressure on the men is so enormous, it’s clear jail time awaits the masters.

For those who don’t know, the teachers inflicted some caning (and perhaps some other humiliations) on a boy in the school. Unable to handle it, the poor kid went ahead and killed himself. A very tragic situation, and one’s heart goes out to the bereaved family. They must be in trauma.

Now, by no means is one justifying corporal punishment (yes, it’s great that it’s deemed illegal now). But my question is: Is it fair that the school teachers be charged for instigating suicide, and be punished on that account? It is highly unlikely that the punishers either wished for or expected that the child would take his own life. All they did was to break a law… which is to indulge in corporal punishment… and at the most should face some heat on that count. But abetting suicide?? I think that’s over the top.

Here’s why: Almost all of us boys were caned and struck and insulted by our teachers and head masters in the school days. I particularly recall being caned many times over by our school principal, the tough Sir William Dias (may his soul rest in peace, he was a good man!). And it was usually because I was late to school or had forgotten to snip my hair. And many other boys in the school faced a similar fate. But I don’t think any one of us went ahead and slashed our wrists. We used to get annoyed at first, then have a good laugh, and move on. In fact, here’s a funny episode: One fine Monday morning, Sir Dias arrived in our classroom, and he wasn’t in a particularly pleasant mood. And he caned and threw out almost all the boys. Ordering that we must return only after a decent hair cut. And I recall the few of us who were left behind, also pointed out to Sir that we needed a cut too! And got caned and thrown out as well. So about 20 of us lads spent the entire day playing cricket and generally enjoying an unexpected hol! (As the girls were busy mugging away their lessons, hehe!) And no, no one died. And no, neither did we have that hair cut… barber shops used to be shut in Mumbai on Mondays in those days.

Which brings me to the main point of discussion: How can a teacher possibly tell there is an ultra sensitive boy in a school of hundreds? Should not the parents take some responsibility as well, for not being aware of their lad’s fragile temperament? Were they available to the boy when he was feeling traumatised? Had they created an environment in the house which allowed for a hurt child to freely confide in the family? In short, did they play the role of shock absorbers, which all parents are supposed to play for their young children? Some tough questions need to be asked of the parents as well. That would be fairer.

Bottom-line: Yes, one feels sad for the family. Yes, it’s difficult to ask them searching questions in their devastated frame of mind. Yes, it’s a tragic story, so the media gets tempted to get after the ‘villains’. And make sure they go into the slammer.

But, this just isn’t just. Think about it.

Judges as politicians.

While there is a sense of relief that the HC judgment did not lead to a round of street riots (though the calm is a bit uneasy, one must quickly add), some issues need to be considered.

Many eyebrows have been raised over the strange verdict. And quite correctly so. It’s as if going against all tenets of our Constitution, the three judges seem to have arrived at their judgment based more on personal beliefs, subjective views and ‘greater good’ considerations, rather than strictly follow the law. Which is why no one is entirely happy (not necessarily a bad thing!) and all the parties involved are moving to the Supreme Court.

The issue I want to raise is this: I actually endorse what the judges have done. In fact, I quite understand where they are coming from. The large political parties, whose leaders are supposed to play the role of the executive, have shirked away from taking a call on this dicey issue. Simply because they have carved out India between themselves (based on religion/caste/language considerations), and would find it impossible to resolve this issue in a parliamentary debate (which is actually the way national contentious issues need to be resolved).

With the executive having excused itself from doing its job, the judiciary is compelled to step in and do the honours. The judges, after all, don’t need votes from the junta to further their careers. Although this is shameful, as the people who ought to be deciding the nation’s future are the people’s elected representatives, I am happy that the judges have voluntarily agreed to perform that role, as someone’s gotta do the dirty work. In that context, I think we should all be pleased that the judiciary, in this case, exceeded its mandate, and invoked mythology, emotions and peace considerations to judge an issue that in ideal circumstances must purely be judged on legal parameters. That the judges put India first. Rather than the books.

Think about this: Had the High Court judges acted purely as judges, it is very possible that the title of the land would have been wholly awarded to one of the parties. Because whatever evidence you dig up, it is simply untenable to arrive at judgments based on what may have happened 500 years ago. Or earlier. And if the entire land had been awarded to one party, one can be pretty sure that would have resulted in a huge unrest in the nation. And possibly riots and other criminal activities. The one-third formula was announced so that the nation remains at peace. Clearly, the judges have played the role of politicians and arbitrators. In other words, the role that the parliament should be performing.

And therefore, instead of questioning their motives and methodologies, we should actually be applauding them.

Having said the above, two points: One, it is critical that people who demolished the masjid in 1992 are punished. Because that was a criminal act, any which way you look at it. That is paramount if we need real closure on this issue. And once again, if the government is too chicken to take a call on this, the judiciary must take independent, suo moto action.

Two, now that the case has moved to the Supreme Court, one sincerely hopes the judges take another twenty or thirty years to pronounce the final verdict. The reason? All the fossilised leaders (both, political and religious), the dudes who are constantly trying to push India back into the medieval age, would have moved on from this world. (Good riddance, if you ask me.) And a Brand New India, circa 2040 AD, may just want to have nothing to do with Ayodhya. So the judgment can be pronounced without palpable fear on the streets. And maybe, just maybe, we will finally get a hospital at the site. Which is the most ideal way out. Where, instead of 1/3rd mandir, 1/3rd masjid, etc, we get 1/3rd orthopedics, 1/3rd cardiac care, and so on. That is the India the new gen deserves. Surely.