|
In Saidabad and Madannapeth areas of
Hyderabad (April 1st week, 2012) violence was unleashed against
the local Muslims. In this violence several houses were damaged,
many a people were injured and women were raped. Just before the
incident Praveen Togadia had given an inflammatory speech in the
area. There was news that fundamentalists (read- Muslims) have
thrown beef and green color in the Hanuman temple. This news was
enough to instigate the violence. The police succeeded in
arresting the culprits, who turned out to be those belonging to
Hindu communal outfits.
On the New Year eve, 1st January (2012), In Sindagi town of
Bijapur Pakistan flag was seen on the government buildings. The
news spread with rapid speed and violence which followed led to
the burning of six state transport buses and many other vehicles.
As it turned out it was the activists of Sri Ram Sene of Pramod
Mutallik, an ex-RSS Pracharak (Propagator), who first hoisted the
Pakistan flag and then went about telling people about the same.
There are many more dimensions of both these acts of violence,
brought in by using religious identity, symbols and emotive
appeals. Communal violence is a cancer which has spread in to the
body politic of our society. The very foundation of communal
violence is the ‘social common sense’ the ‘hate-other' ideology
build around the myths and biases prevalent against the ‘others’.
As such communal violence is the superficially visible part of the
communal politics, a politics deriving its legitimacy from the
identity of religion. To begin with the hatred for ‘other’
community’ started getting consolidated around the communal
projection of History, supplemented by aspects from the present
social life of a community, exaggerated and put forward in a
derogatory way. In pre-partition period the violence was emerging
from both communal streams and British were a sort of neutral
umpires.
With partition process Muslim communalism got deflated, violence
changed its form and started assuming different trend leading to
rise of conservatism; orthodoxy amongst Muslims. The minority
communalism promoted more conservative values amongst minorities
and also gave provocations to the majority communalism. After the
quiet period after the ghastly post-partition riots, violence
started surfacing after 1961 with Jabalpur violence, in the wake
of which Pundit Nehru, the then Prime minster of the country,
constituted National Integration Council, which has been playing
some insignificant role in promoting national integration. It is
more of a debating club, meeting once a while, forgetting about
the issue in the intervening period.
The communal violence, where two communities are made to pitch
against each other has been changing its character and now
communal groups, who are on the provoking and attacking spree have
a clear goal of intimidating and subjugating the religious
minorities. At the same time the pretext is manufactured that
Muslims are violent or Christians have attacked, ‘they’ begin the
violence and then get the ‘deserved’ punishment. This again is a
totally make believe construct. The two incidents which have taken
place amply show the anatomy of manufacturing a riot. The
majoritarian communal streams have built up their strength by
polarizing the communities along religious lines. Founded on the
deeper biases against minorities, the rumors played the role of
triggering the violence, or rumors play the role of the
precipitating factor in the concentrated solution of ‘Hate other’.
Many rumors have been used, killing of the cow, abduction/rape of
Hindu women, cutting of the breast of women, discretion of the
holy place/book etc. Adding on the list has come in this Pakistan
flag, which is a quiet an innovation during last some time.
The violence by and large is a planned one and is made to look a
spontaneous one, that too sparked by the minorities. The Hyderabad
and Sindagi incidents are new pointers to this. Earlier in the
Kandhamal, violence was triggered on the pretext of the death of
Swami Laxmananand, who as such was killed by Maoists. Swami
Laxmananand’s dead body was taken in a procession through
Christian minority areas, and the rivers of blood followed. The
Gujarat violence was undertaken in a pre planned manner on the
pretext of the burning of train in Godhra and the merchants of
death followed. In Mumbai after the demolition of Babri Mosque,
some Muslim youth threw stones on the police station, the Shiv
Sena activists threw Gulal (Orange color of celebration used
mostly by Hindus) on a mosque and Bal Thackeray gave the call for
‘teaching them a lesson’. So far many inquiry commissions and
citizen’s tribunals have pointed out the role of the majoritarian
communal organization. Starting from the report of Bhivandi riots
(Madon Commission) to Mumbai violence (Sri Krishna Commission),
their conclusions are similar to a large extent. The riot
instigation is done in a way, it is orchestrated it in such a
fashion, as if the Muslims have thrown the first stone or
Christians have precipitated the violence.
Dr. V.N. Rai, a police officer did his doctoral work on the theme
of riots between 1968-1980 (Combating Communal Conflicts), and a
longish quote from this book will enlighten us on the issue, “very
often the way in which the first stone is thrown or the first hand
is raised in aggression, suggests an outside agency at work, an
agency that wants to create a situation in which members of the
minority community commit an act which ignites severe retribution
for themselves. In order to guard them against external criticism
and to preserve their self righteousness, violence is projected to
be started by Muslims. It is as if a weaker person is pushed into
the corner by a stronger, forcing him to raise his hand so that he
may be suitably punished for his `attack'. Before the punishment
is meted out a suitable hue and cry can be made about the fact
that because the person cornered is naturally wicked and violent,
he is bound to attack first" (Pg. 56-57).”
Now there is some change in the trajectory of the riot
instigation; there is a continuity and change in the issues used
to manufacture the riots. Now the communal elements are becoming
bolder to hoist the Pakistan flag or to throw the piece of beef
and green color more boldly. The other change is in the relative
increase in the percentage of victims belonging to minority
community. By 1980s 65% of victims were Muslims (V.N.Rai) in 1991
it was 80% (Union Home ministry data) and by 2001 this percentage
has further gone up. These data tell their own tale. The communal
violence has polarized the communities along religious lines, and
has given flesh and blood to the communal politics. It has laid
the foundation for identity related issues coming to the fore and
marginalizing the core issues of society.
While large number of measures are needed to curb the communal
violence and to snub the organizations deliberately playing
mischief, it is imperative that multi layered approach is taken up
to bring peace and harmony in the society. We need to battle
against the stereotypes and biases at all the levels, amongst the
people and amongst the administration. At the same time a major
step of setting up inter-religious committees in all the areas can
combat the rumors or find the truth as to who has hoisted the flag
or thrown beef, and this may prevent the violence in many a
situations.
|
Comments
|
Quick links