Leading lambs to the slaughter.

ROHIT YIPPEED OVER the U P election results: “Forget your pessimism over criminal MLAs and MPs,” he told Deb. “Look: U P’s voters’ve sacked 60% of sitting MLAs. And not just Mulayam’s men; they sacked sitting MLAs from all parties. In as many as 242 places.”

“A vote against criminal MLAs,” said Chhanda with satisfaction. “The people were fed up with the goonda Raj. And then there was Nithari . . . all those little children strangled and roasted into kebabs by a cannibal. Oh my god!”

Deb wasn’t enthusiastic: “But if they voted against criminal MLAs, how come the mafia dons won? All except one hardened gangster won again.”

“But they won on a much reduced margin this time, y’know,” said Rohit.

“Only because Election Commission vigilance made rigging and booth capturing difficult this time,” said Deb. “In the past, that’s how they got their huge majority. They’ve umpteen murder, rape and kidnap charges against them. They thumb their noses at the law because their lawyers manipulate legal loopholes. Their voters’ve seen ’em kill and loot. If they went out to punish criminals, how come the worst criminals got elected again?”

Chhanda was exasperated: “D’you mean our voters are mindless people?”

Deb stressed each word: “Look at the results again. Only one veteran mafia don didn’t make it---obviously because his goons couldn’t capture booths this time. Our voters never unite to punish crime; only on mindless issues such as nasbandhi.”

“But nasbandhi did lead to a lot of crime,” Chhanda said.

“But that didn’t fetch the nasbandhi votes against Indira Gandhi,” Deb retorted. “Muslims queued up as never before because they viewed nasbandhi as an affront to their religion. So it was a religion thing, not a vote against crime. Indians’re comfortable with crime; they wallow in crime.”

Chhanda resented that: “That’s very harsh. Care to explain?”

Deb kept his calm: “Every party fields goondas and criminals. D’you think they’d dare to, if voters blackballed criminals each time? If a mafia don can assure a party he’s got muscle power to coerce voters, the parties’ll want to field him. Character or integrity is the last thing that counts with the parties---or with the voters. If there was a goonda Raj in UP, it’s because voters elected goondas. Isn’t that logical?”

“That’s very unkind,” Chhanda persisted. “Some voters are uneducated; they don’t understand the power of their vote; we can’t blame them if the parties are bands of thugs.”

Anjum didn’t like that. “I thought it’d become the fashion to say it’s an affront to voters to say they don’t use their heads. But you want to believe the parties just lead so many lambs to the slaughter; the voters haven’t a clue what they’re doing.”

“These gangsters contest as Independent candidates,” Deb went on. “They’re always confident of victory because they’ve the muscle power to capture booths, and arrange false votes. Once elected, they recover their election expenses when the horse-trading begins. And then as MLAs, they make their pile from contractors’ kickbacks, and deals they engineer.”

“But why do you say Indians wallow in crime?” Chhanda demanded.

“You talked of Nithari and cannibalism. Is cannibalism something unknown to Indians? Haven’t you heard of the Aghori Baba tantriks? Cannibalism is their rite. But most familiar to us all is Sati.”

Chhanda shot indignantly: “Suggesting Indians ate the women they burnt?”

Deb ignored her anger: “There is some evidence to suggest that during warfare, some primitive tribes tried to drive fear into their enemies: they cut open a captive in full view, and made a show of eating the liver or heart. That’s how the legend of cannibal tribes began. But there’s no evidence to suggest that any ‘cannibal tribe’ ever killed and ate their kin. Indians, especially the Bengalis, made no bones of roasting their bahus alive. Whether they also ate their roasted flesh is a mere technicality. Fact is, all cannibal rites pale before what Indians practised.”

Chhanda was incensed: “You love to say outrageous things, don’t you? And why do you single out Bengalis? Sati happened all over India.”

“No, not so much in the South,” Deb retorted calmly. “The highest number of Satis was recorded in Hooghly district of West Bengal. And that was no accident, as you might wish to believe. It was deliberate; done for filthy paise.”

“How so?” Chhanda challenged.

“Our law of inheritance,” Deb said. “The rest of north India followed the Dayabhag system of inheritance; Bengal alone followed Mitakshara. Dayabhag apportioned the grandfather’s property into equal shares among his sons and grandsons. If one co-sharer died, his parcel would revert to the grandfather and be divided equally again among all survivors. Grabbing a share wasn’t all that lucrative.

“But Mitakshara made the father the sole proprietor, who could apportion his property among his sons as he liked. If one son died, his widow inherited the property. And so, if they bumped off the widow, the surviving sons could grab and share the property, and pretend to look after their orphaned nephews and nieces.

“And so, bump off the widow they did---with a gala Sati dhamaka. And they got the orphaned children for free child labour---all in the name of being their protectors and benefactors. All so innocent-looking, you know.---Just as innocent-looking as our sheepish voters electing murderers and rapists to power everywhere.”

“But all that was a long time ago,” Chhanda protested. “Why bring it up now? India’s a forward-marching nation.”

“Only, we turn about any moment. As when Gujarat goons threw pregnant Muslim women into fires. Just as they once did with Hindu women. How many Godhras do we need to face our criminality?”