The R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital case has become an important element of our social existence. A friend of mine, fearing political violence, recently opined that the junior doctors should go back to work immediately now that the Central Bureau of Investigation has taken over the probe and with the Supreme Court involved, justice would be served. Any residual concern the doctors might have could be communicated to the CBI or to the Supreme Court. Hence, for the greater good of society, normalcy ought to be restored in hospitals as quickly as possible. The doctors have so far (at the time of writing this piece) refused to do so, continuing with their demands. Which of the two positions is more reasonable?
It may be useful to dwell on the idea of what is ‘normal’ and the different dimensions of justice as demanded by the doctors and by many other people. The return of normalcy, if the doctors went back to work, may not be ethically tenable. For instance, whatever had been the contours of the murder-rape case, it is clear that the doctors were being coerced to work in an environment replete with innumerable transgressions. They would face dire consequences if they protested, putting their careers, and perhaps even their lives, at peril. With the alleged culprits still at large, and with strong signals indicating the presence of powerful political interests in the case, going back to work under such oppressive conditions cannot be considered ‘normal’ by any stretch of imagination. However, there is a social cost of their refusal to return to work: a very large number of ordinary, and relatively poor, patients are suffering from the lack of adequate medical care. That is the reason why the Supreme Court had requested the doctors to resume work.
There is an ethical dilemma here. The positional perspective of the doctors and that of the court as an impartial observer are quite different. The doctors continue to perceive the present conditions as dangerous. The apex court’s perspective encourages the victims of alleged coercion to take comfort from the fact that somewhere down the road, the case is likely to be solved, the perpetrators punished, and justice served. Both positions can be viewed as reasonable. Normality can mean different things to different people.
Similarly, justice can have different dimensions and can have different meanings for different people. If one asked the striking doctors what would receiving justice entail, they are likely to say that the case would have to be solved with the sequence of facts and supporting evidence established by the investigators. These should be sufficient to indict the perpetrators. Needless to say, the culprits would have to be apprehended and brought to trial. Would that suffice? What about the people who might have been indirectly connected to the crime or other related criminal activities in the hospital? If they are identified and apprehended, or even punished, some might feel that the unethical behaviour of powerful people, the politicians and the bureaucrats who apparently protected the perpetrators and their associates, need to be penalised as well. Further, as one woman doctor put it on YouTube, she did not want protection, but wanted safety instead. There is an important difference between the two concepts. Asking women to be not put on night duty is not an acceptable solution for most women. Another question being raised is about retributive justice: nothing short of the death penalty ought to be enforced for the guilty. Even ‘encounters’ have been mentioned by responsible people.
A related issue is the well-known one of delay in delivering justice. Take, for example, the investigation into a murder-rape. The investigators require time to sort out information, clues, and possible evidence to ensure that they have a plausible reconstruction of the crime and are armed with facts that would convince judges beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody would want investigators acting in haste to make errors in identifying the wrong-doers. Against this belief, there is the widespread anxiety of leaving the victim’s assaulters unpunished and unidentified. In such a situation, the emotional wounds of people closely associated with the victim get stoked into rage as time goes by. Often, many citizens begin to believe that justice is never actually served and criminals are seldom brought to book, especially the ones who are powerful and wealthy. On the other hand, in a few cases where there is a quick closure, one is never fully sure whether the right person had been apprehended, or a convenient scapegoat was punished for the sake of optics.
Talking of optics, perceptions are important too in the delivery of justice. For instance, in a very conservative village, if a woman is believed to be a witch with magical powers to create mischief, she may be lynched irrespective of the objective truth. In the R.G. Kar case, there are widespread perceptions that have emerged: that no woman is safe in her workplace, that material evidence was removed or destroyed by authorities, and that powerful people are linked with the killer/killers. Hence, a common generalisation is being voiced frequently that all administrators are vulnerable to political control and that all members of the police force are anything but neutral keepers of the law — these are sweeping assumptions that fan the flames of fury.
It is true that a plurality of reasons can define and defend moral positions. These often lead to alternative priorities for action. It may be difficult to pick out only one set of priorities that is suitable for action. In this particular case, there are a number of moral issues that are important but they could be prioritised differently by different individuals — bringing the murderer/(s)-rapist/(s) to book, creating protection for doctors in the workplace, safety of women in society, accountability of bosses who run public institutions, political interference in backing anti-social activities, curbing crime in the hospitals, and financial corruption.
Historical analysis of societies can provide insights into what kinds of morality are possible under specific social circumstances — Taliban-run Kabul and metropolitan Calcutta present different strands of moralities regarding rape. These social beliefs influence moral positions adopted in each situation and the priorities assigned for action. Any discussion on justice quickly moves to a larger arena: the political and the social issues of gender equality, workplace safety, an administration free from criminal activities and, above all, a government that is not afraid to take moral responsibility for failing to abate systematic crime.
All these requirements of justice, as is evident, go far beyond the powers of any court of law. If the doctors want justice in all the extended aspects of the horrific murder-rape, they have to be patient. There has to be a long-drawn movement with informed public discussions on morals, governance, safety, and gender equality. For the rest of us, we will have to create our own moral standards of condemnation and our own forms of collective action. There is nothing in the structure of the universe that guarantees success. In fact, there is no guarantee that such endeavours will even take place at all, except sporadically.
Anup Sinha is former Professor of Economics, IIM Calcutta
