PAROLE

Introduction

Parole is an integral part of the correctional process. It is a kind of consideration granted to the prisoners to help them to come back into the mainstream of life. It is nothing but an instrument of social rehabilitation of the prisoner. In recent times, however, the concept has seen a wide shift with parole been utilized by the rich and influential class to escape the prison sentence. Thus, we have the infamous examples of Manu Sharma[i], Bibi Jagir Kaur[ii]or Biti Mohanty[iii]who are enjoying the intermittent bliss of free life, even after committing heinous offences and conviction. In contrast, stands the lakhs of other prisoners, whose pleas of parole fall in deaf ears, and being poor and influential, they do not have means to utilize the process or are unjustifiably refused the benefit on flimsy grounds. The present article is an attempt to revisit the concept of parole, its underlying object, means and processes in the legal system and finally, the issues which are of immediate concern in recent times.

Concept and Philosophy behind Parole

The word ‘Parole’ comes from the French word “je donne ma parole” meaning ‘I give my word’, while the dictionary definition is ‘word of honour’[iv]. The term ‘parole’ was first coined in a correctional context in 1847 by Samvel G. Howe, a Boston penal reformer. Later, Parole was introduced by Brockway Zebulon in the year 1876 as a way to reduce jail overcrowding and at the same time as a way to rehabilitate prisoners by encouraging them to win their way out of prison through good behavior. Parole is rewards granted to prisoners for good behavior, they entail a reduction in the number of years and months one serves in prison[v].

Parole had its root in the Positivist School. The Classical School of thought opined that people are free to choose their own conduct. While committing any crime, an offender always calculates his gain, his pleasure, at the cost of other’s pain. So he must be punished.  But the Positivist school argued that it is the circumstance which forces anybody to commit crime. So he must be rehabilitated. From there the thought of parole arose. It provides a second chance to the prisoner to rehabilitate himself. The offender might have committed an offence, but it is not desirable that he always be labeled and must not be given any chance to rehabilitate himself. Its objectives are twofold: the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of society. It is a means of helping the inmate to become a law-abiding citizen, while at the same time ensuring that he does not misbehave or return to crime[vi].

Parole ideally includes treatment in the form of supervision, guidance and assistance. It has been rightly held that all released prisoners can benefit from the guidance of parole officers, but the benefit that society itself would derive if all prisoners were kept under close surveillance during the period of adjustment immediately following incarceration, is also considerable[vii].A prisoner who has spent a decade inside has lost touch with the everyday world of transport, shopping and renting, but has gained a set of different everyday living skills relevant to prison life that needs to be unlearned[viii].

Parole gives a chance of reformation to the prisoner. It can have a positive impact towards changing the prisoner’s attitude to what they have done and make them come to accept that their behavior was wrong[ix].

Theoretical Foundations of Parole

There are a number of theories which state as to how and why parole as a means of reformation has come into being and provide the rationale in introducing the same into the criminal justice system[x].

Grace Theory: The theory draws its vitality from Justice Cardozo’s famous dictum in Escoe v Zerbst that “probation or suspension of sentence comes as an act of grace”. Under the grace theory, both the establishment of a parole system and the release of an individual prisoner are gratuitous acts by a merciful executive[xi]. Parole is analogized to a pardon, the grant of which was “an act of grace”. Using the grace theory, the courts have been able to dismiss the possibility of prisoners’ rights to be paroled and to minimize the legal protections accorded a parolee’s limited freedom. “When the board grants a parole, it does so as a matter of grace and not as a duty”[xii]. According to the theory, since parole is a gift, it may be conditioned as the grantor pleases. Thus, in permitting revocation of the gift, whatever the grounds of revocation, the courts can maintain a defensible position.

Contract Theory: When the parolee leaves the prison, he often signs a form setting forth the conditions of his release. This formality has given rise to the contract theory. The parolee accepts the conditions of his parole just as a party to a business contract agrees to be legally bound by its terms. Because he has accepted the parole terms, whatever rights they cut off, the parolee is stopped from complaining about those terms. As all of the meanings derive from the French parole meaning ‘word’, the term came to be associated with the release of prisoners based on their word of honor to abide by certain restrictions. Consistent with the contract concept, theoretically, the parolee may reject the proffered terms. The rejection option finds its origin in United States v. Wilson[xiii]. The Court noted that acceptance was a requisite of an effective pardon[xiv].

Custody Theory: Parole statutes specifically state that parolees remain in the legal custody of the warden, parole board, or other agent of the executive.  From this, courts have derived the custody theory.  Parole “is in legal effect imprisonment”, and the parolee is “constructively a prisoner…fettered by the conditions and restrictions of his parole”.  The parolee is in “substantially the same position as a ‘trusty’….”.[xv]  A violation of the conditions of his release relegates him to the status of an escaped prisoner.  As are the other theories, the custody theory is often used to insulate parole matters from judicial examination and review on both non constitutional and constitutional grounds.  The parolee is limited to the status of an inmate, and parole is the administrative exercise of the prison discipline authority, subject to the wide discretion granted prison officials when dealing with persons committed to their custody.

Exhausted Rights: The exhausted rights theory is a concomitant of the custody theory.  Its origins lie in the view that parole is a part of the prison system, and not a part of the sentencing process.  After the accused is convicted by a trial in which all his rights are protected, “constitutional guarantees … do not extend to a later enforcement of punishment already validly imposed.”  In short, the theory posits that the accused is entitled to a fixed quantum of due process protection, and that this is satisfied by his original trial and sentence.  The prisoner’s due process rights are then exhausted until the end of his maximum sentence.  This theory is clearly addressed to the “criminal case” and “criminal prosecutions” applications of the fifth and sixth amendments, and seeks to insulate the parole process from applications of the amendments by denying that post-conviction disposition is within their scope[xvi].

Parens Patriae:  Closely tied to custody is the parens patriae theory.  Based on the rehabilitation model of correction, parens patriae limits the rights of prisoners and parolees on the basis of a perceived need for great discretion and flexibility in rehabilitating the parolee.  It assumes that “the Board of Parole as an identity of interest with the parolee … to foster his rehabilitation…”[xvii] because one need not be protected from another who has an identity of interest, the theory serves to insulate the parolee from judicial concern.  This rationale and the consequences of this theory are comparable to those long applied in the juvenile law area, but rejected not many years ago in In re Gault. [xviii]

Parole in India

In India, the grant of Parole is largely governed by the rules made under the Prison Act, 1894 and Prisoner Act, 1900. Each of the States has its own parole rules, which have minor variations with each other.[xix] There are two types of parole- custody and regular. The custody parole is granted in emergency circumstances like death in the family, serious illness or marriage in the family. It is limited to a time span of six hours[xx] during which the prisoner is escorted to the place of visit and return therefrom. The grant of parole is subject to verification of the circumstances from the concerned police station and is granted by the Superintendent of Jail[xxi].

Regular Parole is allowed for a maximum period of one month, except in special circumstances, to convicts who have served at least one year in prison. It is granted on certain grounds such as:

Serious Illness of a family member

Accident or Death of a family member

Marriage of a member of the family

Delivery of Child by wife of the convict

Maintain family or social ties

Serious damage to life or property of the family of convict by natural calamities

Pursue filing of a Special Leave Petition.

Certain categories of convicts are not eligible for being released on parole like prisoners involved in offences against the State, or threats to national security, non-citizens of India etc. People convicted of murder and rape of children or multiple murders etc. are also exempted except at the discretion of the granting authority[xxii].

As per procedure, after an inmate seeks parole, jail authority (Superintendent) asks for a report from the police station that had made the arrest. The report, with all other papers like medical report (in case of illness being reason for parole), recommendation of the Superintendent are then sent to the Deputy Secretary, Home (General), State Government which decides on the application[xxiii]. In some States, the application along with the police report and recommendation is sent to the Inspector General of Prison, which is then considered by the District Magistrate. The State Government takes the decision in consultation with the District Magistrate. A prisoner who overstays parole is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 224 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and may be prosecuted with Government sanction and forfeit all remissions earned.

Judicial Approach towards Grant of Parole

Penological innovation in the shape of parole is claimed to be a success in rehabilitation and checking recidivism[xxiv]. That’s the view of the Indian judiciary. In Mohinder Singh[xxv], parole has been defined as “a conditional release of a prisoner, generally under supervision of a parole officer, who has served part of the term for which he was sentenced to prison”. Parole relates to executive action taken after the door has been closed on a convict. During parole period there is no suspension of sentence but the sentence is actually continuing to run during that period also.”[xxvi]

In Babu Singh and Ors. v State of U.P. [xxvii], Justice Krishna Iyer remarked that “It is not out of place to mention that if the State takes up a flexible attitude it may be possible to permit long spells of parole, under controlled conditions, so that fear that the full freedom if bailed out, might be abused may be eliminated by this experimental measure, punctuated by reversion to prison. Unremitting insulation in the harsh and hardened company of prisoners leads to many unmentionable vices that humanizing interludes of parole are part of the compassionate constitutionalism of our system”[xxviii].

In Babulal Das v The State of West Bengal[xxix], the Court opined that persons kept incarcerated and embittered without trial should be given some chance to reform themselves by reasonable recourse to the parole power … calculated risks, by release for short periods may, perhaps, be a social gain, the beneficent jurisdiction being wisely exercised. Again in Inder Singh v The State (Delhi Administration)[xxx]  the Court has emphasized on the need for liberal use of parole even in the case of heinous crimes.[xxxi]

In the recent case of C.A. Pious v The State of Kerala and Anr.[xxxii], while discussing the scope of the term ‘life imprisonment’, the apex court held “In our view, penal humanitarianism and rehabilitative desideratum warrant liberal paroles, subject to security safeguards, and other humanizing strategies for inmates so that the dignity and worth of the human person are not desecrated by making mass jails anthropoid zoos. Human rights awareness must infuse institutional reform and search for alternatives.” [xxxiii]. It added that “Section 433A Cr PC does not forbid parole or other release within the 14-year span. So to interpret the section as to intensify inner tension and intermissions of freedom is to do violence to language and liberty.”

Critical Issues in Parole

Two significant issues arise in case of Parole in contemporary India- one, the refusal of grant of parole on insufficient grounds and second, the misuse of parole. A glance at the statics of Prison Population in the year 2011 reveals that there are about 128592 convicts lodged in different prisons in India. These persons have been found guilty of different offences under the Penal Code and special laws. Out of that, 28581 have been temporarily released in the year 2011, just about 22% of the prison population. Some states have recorded an appreciable number of released convicts like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, while other States have recorded substantially low numbers in this regard. Though the release of prisoners is dependent upon several factors, it is important to emphasize that probably the provision of parole is not being utilized to the full.

Details of Prisoners on Parole in Select States of India (2011)

Sl. No	State	Prison Population (Convicts)	Released on parole	Parole Absconded
1	Punjab	7526	6646	65
2	Maharashtra	7952	1706	333
3	Uttar Pradesh	28051	113	19
4	Rajasthan	6159	1977	39
5	Himachal Pradesh	942	464	27

            Source: Prison Statistics, National Crime records Bureau, 2011.

Misuse of Parole: A Route of escape and Reoffending?

While the notion of parole has been emphasized and re-emphasized by the Judiciary and penologists alike to reduce the ills of prison life, whether parole really serves a purpose or provides a means to escape becomes a significant question. The recent case of Manu Sharma drew the ire of the entire nation towards a casual prison administration, and an even more casual State Government, which granted and vociferously supported the grant of Parole to a convict in the Jessica Murder case.

In Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)[xxxiv], Manu Sharma murdered Jessica on 30^thApril, 1999 at about 2 a.m. Manu belonged to a rich influential political family. On 20^thDecember, 2008 he was sentenced with life imprisonment and fined by the Delhi High Court. On 24^thSeptember, 2009, he was granted parole for one month. Later it was extended to one more month. Manu Sharma asked for parole on three grounds: to attend religious rites for his late grandmother, to tend to his ageing mother and, as the largest shareholder of Piccadilly Industries, to take care of the family’s business interest. He returned to Jail on 10^thNovember, 2009, only after he was traced to a Delhi pub enjoying his night life with friends, drinks and dance. Media flashed the same in national newspapers. Meanwhile, his (ill) mother was found attending programs and functions in different parts of the capital[xxxv]. Investigation further revealed that his grandmother passed away on April, 2008 and he was appealing for parole on that very ground after one year and seven months of her passing away. Again on November 2011, the High Court granted him five days parole to attend his brother’s wedding, but on the condition that he should not visit any clubs or discos. “Interestingly, the parole was granted despite Sharma violating his earlier parole. Justice VK Shali, while issuing notice to the Delhi Police on Sharma’s application, had mentioned his conduct while he was on parole pointing out that he visited discotheques in violation of parole conditions. ‘He need not attend all (wedding functions),’Shali had commented earlier while rejecting his request for parole from 10-20 November. The Delhi Police, however, did a U-turn on their earlier stand of opposing parole for Sharma. Senior lawyer Pawan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, did not oppose Sharma’s parole plea but told the court that they had “no objection” if he gave an undertaking to the court that he would not leave Karnal and Ambala. In its earlier affidavit submitted to the court last week, the Delhi Police had objected to Sharma’s plea pointing out that his past conduct did not entitle him to parole.”[xxxvi]

The day Manu Sharma sauntered out of Delhi’s Tihar jail on parole, he left behind over a dozen irate, but helpless prisoners. They too had applied for parole, much before him; their reasons were as varied as a marriage in the family, the settlement of a property dispute and the need to tend to sick family members. However, there’s been no word on their applications[xxxvii]. Reportedly, till September 15, 2009, the Delhi Government had granted parole to only 11 out of 132 applicants[xxxviii].

Another case is Bibi Jagir’s Kaur. Bibi Jagir was jailed for her role in her daughter’s kidnapping. The murder charges against her had been dropped. She was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. She was granted parole just after 4 months of her imprisonment. It was reported that preferential treatment had been extended to her as she was the former Cabinet Minister of Punjab[xxxix].

The latest case on parole is Bibi Mohanty case. The convict, in the instant case, the son of a DGP, Orissa, was sentenced for rape of a German national. He was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine. In November 2006, he was granted fifteen days parole to visit his ailing mother. At that moment his father stood as his surety. However, soon thereafter, he escaped and his father pleaded ignorance about his whereabouts. A significant period of seven years elapsed, after which on a tip off, the police was able to arrest him from Kerala in March, 2013[xl]. The convict had, by then, changed his identity, and refused to reveal himself as Biti Mohanty. His father, seconded him, refusing to accept that the person arrested was his son. A court has recently ordered the DNA profiling of the convict to establish his identity.

An audit finding of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) also showed how parole granted to prisoners had not only been abused but in a majority of the cases jailbirds had made it a favourite escape route. The auditor called for records from Amritsar central jail and from four Superintendents of Police and found that more than 8,200 prisoners convicted for serious crimes under NDPS Act, murder, rioting, armed with deadly weapons etc., and released on parole between May 2001 and May 2008, did not surrender even after expiry of their parole period[xli].

Looking at the seriousness of the issue, CAG brought the matter to the notice of the Centre when it found that late reporting of non-surrender of prisoners by the SPs coupled with inaction on the part of SPs, SHOs and DMs facilitated the offenders to misuse the facility and that it was becoming almost a trend. The police’s record of tracking parole jumpers is also dismal. In Maharashtra, only 310 were re-arrested, in Punjab, 80 and in UP, 14 between 2007 and 2011. “Jumping parole is no big deal. Even those convicted for hard crimes are easily able to obtain no-objection certificates about their character, and get parole. From there, it is a short step to not report back to prison,” says a senior IPS office[xlii].

Parole also provides a dangerous opportunity to a criminal to engage in criminal activities while on parole. As in Saibannav State of Karnataka[xliii], the appellant killed his first wife and was serving his life sentence. He was released for a month on parole during which time he killed his second wife and child inflicting as many as 21 injuries on the body of the person. The Supreme Court agreed that the case at hand was a “rarest of rare case” involving pre-planned brutal murders without provocation and that the only condign punishment was sentence of death. In yet another case of Krishan v State of Haryana[xliv]punishment of life imprisonment was awarded where the murder was committed while the accused was already undergoing life imprisonment and was on parole.

Refusal of Parole: Executive Arbitrariness and Apathy

While this is the picture on one side, on the other, stands the dismal apathy of the State Governments to grant parole to prisoners. “Release on parole is a wing of the reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen. Parole is a grant of partial liberty of lessening of restrictions to a convict prisoner.”However, in this country, there are no statutory provisions dealing with the question of grant of parole. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contain any provision for grant of parole. By administrative instructions, however, rules have been framed in various States, regulating the grant of parole. Thus, the action for grant of parole is generally speaking an administrative action.

Parole Rules or administrative instructions, framed by the Government are purely administrative in character and for securing release on parole, a convict has, to approach the Government concerned or the jail authorities. Unfortunately, however, in most cases, the executive acts in a mere mechanical manner, without application of mind and appreciation of facts and refuses the chance of parole to the convicts. The police reports are also prepared without due consideration to ground realities and more often, indicate a threat to law and order or breach of peace, without substantiating the grounds for such apprehension. Thus, in Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan[xlvii], a letter was addressed to the Court by the convict that he was behind bars for a considerable period and his plea for parole was rejected in view of a baseless police report. The Court examined the report sent by the Superintendent of Police and concluded that the same was vague and uncertain. “It is well settled that the object for grant of parole is to make necessary efforts to rehabilitate a convict-prisoner in the main stream of society. Maintaining of law and order and prevention of breach of peace are the aspects required to be taken care of by the authorities concerned but on vague and uncertain suggestions, the petitioner cannot be denied parole when he is otherwise eligible and entitled therefor.” The Court accordingly ordered his release for a period of 20 days with conditions[xlviii]. In  Kesar Singh Guleria v State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.[xlix], referring to the grounds for declining parole the Court proceeded to hold that a mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not the same as disturbance which subverts the public order. An apprehended breach of peace or the possibility of the prisoner committing a crime during the parole period, without anything more, would constitute a law and order problem and not a problem touching public order. It would thus appear that “public order” comprehends disorder of lesser gravity than those affecting “security of the State” and that “law and order” comprehends disorders of lesser gravity than those affecting “public order”. In cases involving problems of law and order, the proper course to be adopted is not to give an opinion that the request for release be rejected but to advice that the release be ordered subject to appropriate conditions, such as, that surveillance be kept over the prisoner during the period of his temporary release and that he asked to report to the nearest police station at appropriate intervals.

Laying down the criteria for probable refusal of parole, the Delhi High Court specified the following[l]:

i) A reasonable apprehension, based upon material available with the Government such as the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by him and the other cases if any in which he is involved, that the petitioner, if released on bail may not return back to Jail to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence awarded to him;

ii) A serious apprehension of breach of law and order or commission of another offence by the petitioner if he comes out on parole;

iii) Past conduct of the petitioner such as jumping the bail or parole granted earlier to him;

iv) A reasonable possibility of the petitioner trying to intimidate or harm those who have deposed against him or their relatives.

The Court emphasized that it is neither possible nor desirable to exhaustively lay down all such grounds as would justify denial of parole in a particular case. Each case has to be examined by the Government dispassionately and with an open mind, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances[li]. In no case, a mechanical rejection of request for release on parole, such as for breach of apprehension of peace, is warranted by law. The competent authority is required to pass reasoned and speaking order, whenever it is to decline request for temporary release specifying danger to the security of the State or of public order and the grounds on which such opinion is held.

Human Rights v. Social Security

The grant of parole is not a matter of right, but a concession granted to the prisoner. The grant is regulated by rules laid down in each state and is a part of executive discretion. Such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, without due application of mind. It is important that the power to release a prisoner is exercised objectively keeping in view the intention of the legislature and the purpose of the same.

The grant of parole should be based on twin considerations- human rights and social security. It is important to ensure that the convict is not deprived of his rights as a human being. The imposition of sentence, in itself, impairs the exercise of basic rights granted under the Constitution. The liberties and freedoms remain curtailed during the term of sentence. But that should not take away the fundamental humane considerations of life such as attending to family members in need or an opportunity of happy reunion with family and friends. Long years of incarceration without breaks are more likely to dehumanize the mental frame, while temporary release may soften the criminal proclivities.

The issue of social security is an equal area of concern where the release should not, in any way, interfere with the safety of the community or victims. It is important to ensure that the released convict does not use parole as a means to escape the rigors of law or commit further offences. A fine balance between the twin considerations have to be achieved and the State, including the Prison authorities, have a significant role to play in this regard. Parole decision makers should prepare themselves well before making a decision. They should know about the crime, how the crime affected the victim and what role the offender played. They should understand the pattern of criminality that preceded the crime and the contribution that the offender’s social history and life’s choices made to his criminality. Decision makers should inform themselves of the inmate’s recent behavior in the institution and the inmate’s needs and responsibilities on returning. The grounds on which parole is sought have to be satisfactorily established and thereupon, the decision of parole has to be objectively determined. Additionally, they must satisfy themselves, that the grant of parole should not send a wrong message to the society. The impact of parole on people should be carefully understood and appreciated.

The grant of parole to a particular convict should be based on considerations such as:

Nature of Offence and circumstances related thereto;

Time spent in prison;

Conduct of the convict;

Previous antecedents, if any;

Possibility of engaging in illegal activities, committing crimes, during the period;

Possibility of seeking vengeance, causing harassment, in specific categories of crimes;

Impact of release on society;

The decision of the State to accept or reject parole must be communicated to the convict at the earliest, along with the reasons for the same. A reasoned decision or speaking order lies at the root of fair decision-making process. The State should attempt to make more liberal use of the provision, with variations made, only is sparing cases of threats to security of State or public order. Even there, as has been earlier reiterated, an endeavor should be made to release the prisoner with such conditions as would hold him down and compel him to adhere to good conduct.

The current trend in India of grant to parole to politically influential people or wealthy groups is indeed disturbing and speaks volumes of the ludicrous manner in which the State determines cases before it. In spite of repeated judicial interventions in this regard, the State has done little to indicate the changes being made in this regard. The State government, with its known biases and political leanings, have continued to take decisions favorable to certain categories of people, while refusing innumerable others who may have justified grounds for seeking such release. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that the State must take fair, reasonable and unbiased decision for grant of parole and the same should be clarified in each case

Conclusion

The call for freedom and liberty is the highest call of conscience. The concept of parole is in line with the call of human mind to break free from the shackles of confinement and establish oneself in the warmth of societal love and acceptance. However it is more easily said than done. While the philosophy behind parole has been hailed and the judiciary has called for a liberal use of parole, the subjective satisfaction of the executive in grant of the same has posed a major roadblock in recent times. Inconsistent orders based on irrelevant grounds, callous police reports, misuse of the same to appease people in power and position has devoid the concept of its underlying purpose and utility. Probably, the fault lies, not in the underlying nobility with which it has been conceived, but in the manner of its usage. The State has displayed a lack of sound consideration in matters of determination of parole. It is important to revisit and re look at the existing system of Parole in India and give it some serious consideration.

IS INDIA BECOMING INTOLERA?

India, the land that gave birth to four religions and enshrined both secularism and free speech in its constitution, has been having a curious debate these past few weeks: Has the world's biggest democracy become an intolerant nation? 

Ironically, average Indians have been more than tolerant when it comes to enduring a lengthy political -- and politicized -- thrust-and-parry on the topic, one that has been playing out incessantly on the country's some 400 TV news channels.

But beyond the theatrics, the reality is that intolerance is a serious issue with important ramifications -- both social and economic.

The debate itself has mushroomed out of two separate, disturbing trends. The first is a spate of murders of Indian writers. In August, the Kannada language scholar M. M. Kalburgi was gunned down by a visitor to his residence. Kalburgi was a well-known critic of idol-worshipping, a practice adopted by most Hindus. Kalburgi's death followed the murder of a Communist leader in February, as well as the 2013 killing of a writer who was committed to debunking superstitions.

The second trend is that of an increasingly violent reaction to Indians who consume beef. In September, just a two-hour drive from New Delhi, a Muslim man was beaten to death by his Hindu neighbors. The reason? There was a rumor that a carcass of a cow was seen nearby. When an announcement was made at the local Hindu temple, emotions flared, a mob formed, a (Muslim) target was identified, and a horrific act turned into international news. Over the next couple weeks, at least two other Muslim men were attacked: one over rumors that he was transporting beef, the other for allegedly smuggling cows.

The national response has included a growing chorus of anger directed at the government. Numerous writers have returned their prestigious Akademi awards to protest a lack of action. Even India's central bank governor, Raghuram Rajan, made a rare foray into non-economic matters by calling for mutual respect and tolerance in public discourse.

But perhaps the most painful assessment for India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi came from an analyst atMoody's Analytics, saying the country -- and Modi -- could "risk losing domestic and global credibility" if action wasn't taken.

Here's another headache for Modi: Senior members of his own Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have kept the issue in the headlines with a string of bizarre public pronouncements. Consider the following verbatim quotes:

1. "Muslims can continue to live in this country, but they will have to give up eating beef." -- Manohar Lal Khattar, Chief Minister of Haryana and member of the BJP.

2. "If by any chance the BJP loses ... [fire] crackers will be burst in celebration in Pakistan." -- Amit Shah, BJP President.

3. "Lynching a person merely on suspicion [of eating beef] is absolutely wrong." -- Tarun Vijay, BJP MP.

Rub your eyes, and read those three sentences once again.

Now consider the implications of those statements.

1. India has 175 million Muslims, more than the entire populations of Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia combined. Khattar's comment was essentially a threat: If you want to continue living here, be like most Hindus and stop eating beef. His remarks also suggest an unspoken validation for vigilante thugs, emboldened to threaten Muslims.

2. Shah was referring to the ongoing elections in Bihar. While he was obviously casting the BJP as the party of Hindus (80% of India's population), he was also painting opponents of the BJP as not only pro-Muslim, but also pro-Pakistan. In essence, he was calling into question the patriotism of 175 million Indian Muslims.

3. In an editorial in The Indian Express, Vijay points out the need for tolerance. He condemns lynching a person based on mere "suspicion" of consuming beef, but in so doing seems to leave open the question of how to respond to a known beef-eater.

It seems barely a day goes by without a BJP politician putting a foot in his mouth with statements that inflame an already volatile debate.

The real mystery is why the face of the BJP -- Prime Minister Modi -- has been aloof. He has yet to condemn such statements from his colleagues, and has only occasionally mentioned the need for Indians to be tolerant. Almost every night on India's TV channels anchors and pundits call for their usually vocal Prime Minister to say and do more on the issue. No luck so far.

Why?

There are two schools of thought whispered around New Delhi. The first is a truly despairing thesis: that deep down, Modi believes India is for Hindus. Modi's roots as a member of the RSS -- the umbrella Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, of which the BJP is a political offshoot -- have left many assuming he shares the group's core goals of a Hindu nation with Hindu values, beliefs, and practices endorsed by the state to the exclusion of other faiths.

The second thesis is that Modi is a realist. Modi's first priority, the theory goes, is the growth and development he promised on the campaign trail. But he can't push through reforms without electoral gains in upcoming state elections. And Modi can't achieve those gains, goes the line of thought, without appeasing and enlisting the more hardline RSS factions of his party.

Both theories, frequently discussed among New Delhi's liberal elites, suggest grim outcomes: an India where public speech, eating habits, alternative ideas, are all subservient to a restrictive interpretation of a single majority religion. In many ways it is the antithesis of centuries of inclusion in this region. Long before India formally became India in 1947 it was a refuge for Armenian Christians, for Jews, for Zoroastrians, for people of different religions from all over the world. Multiple faiths and beliefs intermingled for centuries in relative peace, a fact that has been celebrated and enshrined in India's remarkably progressive Constitution.

One of India's founding fathers (and pious Hindus) Mahatma Gandhi understood this well when he wrote about beef, more than six decades ago:

"No one probably experiences a greater agony of the soul when a cow is killed. But what am I to do? Am I to fulfill my dharma myself or am I to get it fulfilled by proxy? ... To make a [Muslim], therefore, to abstain from cow-killing under compulsion would amount in my opinion to converting him to Hinduism by force."

Modi would do well to remember Gandhi's words, and not feel bound by either of the two theories being used to explain his silence. Tolerance is important not only to harmony within the country, but also to India's considerable soft power abroad.

And there is anyway a third, more altruistic path to consider: Modi could take a lead on the issue, forging a progressive and forward-thinking path on inclusion and tolerance. He could set an example for the region and the world. Doing so would not only be good for the country, but it would also be politically expedient. Modi could start to close the debate, allow the country to move forward, and focus on his pet issue: the economy, stupid.