‘Bulldozer Action’ Is A Disproportionate Response For A Reason — And That's Precisely Why It Must Be Defended

Crimes driven by the ideology of Islamism require a disproportionate response. The ‘bulldozer action’ is a disproportionate response, and that is why it must be defended.

The Supreme Court (SC) is currently hearing several petitions against 'bulldozer action.' The various petitions have been clubbed together under the title ‘Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295/2022.’ The petition is being heard by a division bench of the apex court, comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan.

In the last hearing on 2 September, the SC indicated that ‘pan-India guidelines’ would be established to address concerns over bulldozer actions. The bench also invited suggestions from all parties to help formulate these guidelines.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the legality of demolishing a person’s property solely based on criminal accusations, stating, "How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he is a convict."

The state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), one of the respondents, opposed the petition. The UP government asserted through an affidavit that immovable properties can only be demolished in line with legal procedures. Reportedly, the court appreciated the state’s position.

The current batch of petitions stems from incidents like the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi's Jahangirpuri. Petitioners argued that the right to a home is a key part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that ‘bulldozer action’ should not be used as extra punishment.

The Justification for ‘Bulldozer’

In recent times, India has seen multiple incidents where individuals or groups committed assault, murder, rioting, or arson in the name of Islamism.

The anti-CAA (Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019) vandalisation in Lucknow in the last weeks of 2019, the Delhi riots of 2020, and the rallies threatening the beheading of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma in 2022 are some of the recent notorious examples of people driven by Islamism violating the law and order of the state (an exhaustive list is not being given here because that would take too much space and time).

What is relevant here is the lesson that traditional responses and punishments to such acts have proven ineffective in the past, as they fail to prevent future occurrences of similar crimes. The deterrence value is virtually zero.

They are fine with paying the cost the state imposes on them if at all the state does that. As a result, there is no deterrence, and Islamist street veto prevails over state actions and public life in India.

Unless the cost is made abnormally high or the worst-case scenario is made even worse, there will be no deterrence.

In his book Skin in the Game, author and philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb discusses this issue in the context of suicide bombers. He writes:

“The only way we have left to control suicide-terrorists would be precisely to convince them that blowing themselves up is not the worst-case scenario for them, nor the end scenario at all. Making their families and loved ones bear a financial burden — just as Germans still pay for war crimes — would immediately add consequences to their actions.”

What bulldozer action does is that it immediately adds weight to the gravity of consequences for an Islamist mindset of assaulting or rioting.

Razing the home of a rioter may be a disproportionate response, but as the experience in UP shows, it is effective. The likely reason for its effectiveness is precisely because it is disproportionate.

It increases the cost of a crime to a point where it works as a deterrent. It worsens the worst-case scenario. It makes a physical and virtual dent in the power of the Islamist street veto.

In short, it works.

Political correctness is a cheap price to pay for peace on the streets and the security of citizens. The bulldozer, at least in UP, is today a symbol of the ‘iqbal’ of the state. All right-minded, peace-loving people should come forward in its defence.