Are We in the Era of Less, or Uneven, Accountability?

Recall if you will: Reports of incidents of kicking people who are praying, urinating on Dalits, shooting people, incidents where laws are broken: underage drinking and driving, driving under the influence, both of which lead to death for unwitting passers-by; socially mandated ‘justice’: women being flogged because they fell in love or being stripped and paraded as a punishment for their family members’ misdeeds; intimate partner violence (which makes headlines only if the perpetrator is from the minority community), or women killed for refusing a friend’s proposal for marriage; and the lynchings and the violent punishments to Dalits or to the minorities which are minor news items.

It might seem that there is nothing that connects these incidents, some of which are criminal and liable for prosecution, others which are more in the nature of threats, or humiliations meted out to so-called transgressors, which are reported in newspapers/outlets on a fairly regular basis, at least once or twice a week, if not more often.

Is it also that only some of us are accountable, or can be held accountable? In earlier times, when there were grave railway accidents, the railway minister would resign, acknowledging his moral responsibility for the loss of life and property. Now when something goes wrong, the ministers concerned, whether it is to do with paper leaks or railway accidents, point their fingers at previous ministers who did not resign when similar incidents occurred or at other minor functionaries who are immediately placed in the dock. How is it that some people are expected to be accountable, to accept the consequences of their actions and failures while others are let off the hook, time and again? We now make greater allowances for some sections of the population, or certain individuals, while holding others to higher standards.

So is it that we are seeing a change in societal norms, a demand for greater tolerance as to what is permissible, what and who can be condoned? Can we think about these unconnected incidents, occurring in geographically and socially disparate parts of India as demonstrating a change in the way in which society functions? It would be an easy claim that these shifts are linked to the political establishment or to patriarchal structures and imperatives, and while there is truth in these claims, it is only a partial truth, I suggest.

Instead, is it that there is a shift in the socio-cultural imaginary which makes it possible, indeed desirable, to perpetrate violence and engage in breaking the law, and to do so without fearing the consequences?

My first contention is that there is a perceived lack of accountability that pervades our world now and that helps in creating an enabling environment for acts of intimidation and violence. This lack of accountability may be only a perception created by social media and news outlets that focus on the event but not on the consequences, and which move on to the next event fairly quickly.

It is also true that the outrage and vehemence that is seen on the front pages of newspapers on day one slowly moves to the inner pages by day three and eventually slips off the grid altogether in less than a week. In doing so, it creates an appearance of immunity for perpetrators, a shield that then renders them safe.

There is also, simultaneously, an actual immunity for several, depending upon their closeness to the powers that be, their roles as religious heads and godmen, whether this is the immunity of those who preach violence and indulge in hate speech or that of the officially sanctioned bulldozers which destroy homes and livelihoods without consequences.

Indeed, instead of accountability, there is often a valorisation of some of these actions, a perception that these are just and essential as otherwise protesters, whether farmers or those belonging to the minorities or the Dalit groups become too empowered and emboldened. This framing by social media and its often shrill voices becomes the overriding discourse and this in turn helps others to proceed on roads which would have been seen as unthinkable even a few years ago.

How is it that we have arrived at a point where actions, even heinous and corrupt ones, are often seen as having no consequences?

When roles are mixed and muddled, when perpetrators are also seen, or projected, as victims the rhetoric sometimes elides the original misdemeanour which is worthy of punishment. We see this in cases of communal violence where both parties are equally victim and perpetrator or in some cases where the media outrage has cast the dominant player and perpetrator in the role of victim because of so-called media trials which unfairly indict them.

An example to consider might be the incident wherein a CISF security staff slapped Kangana Ranaut: some sections of the media saw the CISF personnel as having had a genuine cause for what she did, while others laid all the blame at her door, making Ranaut a complete victim. Where did the truth lie: was there just cause for a security staff, tasked with protecting the people, to take the law into her hands?

The debates only muddy the waters providing no clarity as to who was right or wrong, although some propositions could be forwarded.

Money or access to power enables a person to evade accountability, as we see in cases such as where a minister’s convoy ran over protestors, or when a person with influence is able to persuade their driver to take the fall for their actions. In India, as also elsewhere, money and power still talk, loudly and clearly. Justice and law work on unequal premises often and given the right conditions and contacts, it is perfectly possible to brush a crime under the nearest carpet and continue to live the good life.

The role of the media cannot be underestimated in this regard as often it is the media which helps transform a perpetrator into a victim and change the discourse around some of these events. This is especially so in today’s world where social media is where several people find their news, the older, more reputable news sites and outlets are fading from public consciousness, and those with better media skills can control the narrative.

We see this when political discourse becomes one-sided, when opponents are routinely either mocked or held up as failures, whether here or in other countries. When one leader can do no wrong, and the other can do no right, accountability has already been sacrificed.

Is it that there is impunity from the law or from justice for several of these perpetrators? Or is it that once justice begins to take its course, the incident is no longer newsworthy and it slowly slips out of sight? While this might be how it plays out in actuality, what it also does is highlight a moment of violence without also showing how there is accountability for that violence. As such, the effect of this reportage is to glorify the event without showing the consequences that (should ideally) usually follow.

There are also many instances where justice does not follow: the Bilkis Bano case where the perpetrators were let out of jail would be one such instance. This further emboldens the ordinary citizen who is led to believe that even such depraved and inhuman actions have few consequences in real life. Adding to this immunity is the current political ecosystem which sees the minority community as fair game or the patriarchal ecosystem which sees women as fair game, and of course, both of these come together to make it possible for violence to be unleashed against the Muslim woman.

Bulwarks which hold back individuals from doing whatever they want include social mores and norms, as well as feelings of guilt and shame. But when someone who has done something which used to be considered shameful is instead valorised and given a hero’s welcome, greeted with understanding or their misdeeds excused on debatable grounds because it fits into dominant ideological mindsets, these affective guardrails do not hold any more.

In many countries, not just India, we are witnessing this and the effect it has on the ordinary citizen who does not need to hold back violent impulses any more, as social codes become more elastic. One of the best examples would be that of a presidential nominee who can assert that even if he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue he would incur no loss of popularity. Closer to home, there is the incident where an administrative officer’s wife threatened her opponents with a gun, his daughter bent the rules and yet the father and husband asserted that they had done no wrong.

In many of these instances, there is also the fact that these actions are the outcome of subtle dog whistles or even open calls for violence for certain groups. But even apart from these, the everyday violence and anger that is often seen in large and small incidents across the land today should make us pause to think about accountability and consequences: is it that when these fade, the civilisational fabric is loosened and things that were earlier seen as unacceptable become acceptable?

Anna Kurian is a Faculty Fellow – UNESCO Chair in Vulnerability Studies, Department of English,
University of Hyderabad.