Respect for the law

There is a glaring lack of respect for the law in Indians. Many people (even well educated ones) think that if the law is unfair to them they have a justification for breaking the law.  The do not say this for small issues but for big ones. Such as that the hindus were right to riot against the muslims in Gujrat because "they asked for it". In this particular case the administration colluded with the hindus to "teach muslims a lesson" or "discourage them for ever from trying similar things in future".

I am not taking sides. And, I do not claim to know the truth. All I am going to comment on is how the situation was handled. So I will refer to two religions as A and B. Let us say that the A community started the rioting against B community. The administration should have made it clear to the A community that they are breaking laws and that there will be consequences. Evidence should have been collected for prosecution while measures were being taken to maintain law and order. Immediately after the first rioting, the police should have made arrests and prosecuted some of the rioting criminals. This would have sent a message to community A that truly there are consequences of breaking the law and a message to community B that the law is punishing the criminals so there is no need to take matters in their own hands. To really drive the message home, there should have been some warning issued by the police to both the communities that there would be consequences for any law breaking.

It is the responsibility of the police to maintain public confidence not only in the law but also in its proper enforcement. This can only be done by properly treating every crime only as a crime. Politicians want to claim that a crime is more that just a crime, that it is part of a bigger malicious plan against a community etc. Even if this is the case, the police should still treat every crime as a crime and follow the legal procedures for dealing with it. If individual crimes become too costly for the criminal they will not be willing to commit crimes for a bigger malicious plan either because of the risk involved.

If committing crimes becomes too costly, communities will have no option but to move towards the proper democratic procedure of lobbying to get the laws changed to their liking.

When B community attacks community A in retaliation they essentially take matters in their own hands. They do this because the cost of committing a crime is quite low especially under conditions of riot. The criminal thinks "too many people are doing it so I can also get away with it."  And then there is this moral justification for breaking the law because of being offended by the other community. By prosecuting even a few criminals a message can be sent very easily to all the criminals that it could be them being prosecuted the next time. And also that being wronged against does not give one the right to break the law.

Unofficially inciting community B against community A may lead to a temporary solution (still illegal) but it also results in under currents of tension between the two communities and  loss of confidence in the administration and police.