 "Link between BJP's electoral plans, UP riots needs probing: B Rajeshwari")
Whenever the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has tried to expand or consolidate its base in a particular area, there have been incidents of communal violence in that region, says inter-community relations expert B Rajeshwari, in an interview with Aditi Phadnis. Edited excerpts:
You have studied communal riots in India intensively. What is the pattern you see?
The pattern of communal rioting in India can be divided into three different phases. The first phase, during the partition, saw riots occurring due to elites of two different communities clashing over political interests. In the second phase, between the 60s and the late 80s, riots were an interplay of local economic and political factors that often resulted in communal rioting. From the late 80s and the 90s, there began a new phase in communal rioting which could be attributed to the emergence of Hindutva politics. It needs to be seen in light of the changing political equations in the country. Till the 1980s, there was no single issue which became the driving force behind communal riots. But, all this changed when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its sister organisations decided to take up the cause of building a Ram temple at Ayodhya. While this gave the BJP an opportunity to consolidate its vote bank, it also created a communal divide across north India, leading to rioting at different places. Whenever the BJP has tried to expand or consolidate its base in a particular area, there have been incidents of communal violence there. The recent riots in Muzzafarnagar can perhaps be explained in the same context.
Uttar Pradesh (UP) witnessed widespread riots in the beginning of the 90s after the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the different parts of the state witnessed violence after regular intervals in that decade. The incidents of communal violence in UP coincided with the sudden and noticeable rise of the BJP to power. The BJP came to power on the basis of Hindutava politics. Whenever the party has digressed or distanced itself from Hindutva, it has not done well in elections. The party raised the slogan of "India Shining" in the 2004 elections and failed miserably. But the election-related activities of the BJP in the recent months clearly suggest the party wants to be seen as supporting the cause of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Some of the speeches given by Narendra Modi who is the chairman of the election campaign committee for the 2014 general elections, indicate that the party wants to cash in on the majority-minority card.
The riots in Muzaffarnagar are perhaps the starting point for communally dividing the people so that the party would be able to muster the support of a certain section of the majority community. Muzaffarnagar has witnessed three riots in 2013 that coincided with the introduction of Amit Shah as the campaign coordinator for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. In a communally charged environment such as the one in Muzaffarnagar, the killing of a boy of one community for allegedly molesting a girl from another community becomes an excuse for triggering communal riots. The larger context is the struggle to reassert its traditional base in UP by the BJP, which has once again brought the state in news for communal tensions. The past record of the political party and the recent developments in the state would force any analyst to probe further the relationship between BJP's electoral ambitions and the riots in Muzaffarnagar.
How important is the role of the state government in controlling riots?
The role of the state government is vital to the extent that it has the capacity to control riots within a certain time frame. All the major judicial inquiry commission reports on communal riots, whether it is the Jaganmohan Reddy commission - the D P Madon commission or the Srikrishna Commission - have highlighted this aspect. Most inquiries have critically reviewed the role of the state administration during riots. The police and the state administration are either not efficient to handle these situations or deliberately do not take action in their attempt to shield one particular community. Purposive action by the state administration during any riot has led to the end of rioting with minimum destruction. Inability of the state to protect the life and property of its citizens during communal riots results in the victim community's loss of confidence in the state and its agencies and raises questions on the legitimacy of the state. Therefore, the state's role in controlling communal riots is not just important from the point of view of law and order but is significant in assessing the democratic principles of governance.
What is the politics of a communal riot?
The fact that communal riots have linkages with power politics has been established in many researches on the subject. The power struggle that emerges between groups or individuals that involve both economic and electoral interests often results in giving way to communal tension. Detailed studies on riots have suggested these have a close relationship with conflicting political and economic interests that might emerge between members of two communities. While scholars might differ on the intricacies of how riots are planned and the reasons for these, there is little difference among these on the fact that they are not spontaneous occurrences. In fact, the politics related to a communal riot does not end with the incidents of rioting, but goes beyond, while establishing an inquiry or collecting evidences or trying to establish the responsibility on individuals and groups for the riot.
Has there been a region where no riots took place earlier and which has now become an endemic rioting spot (such as Jaipur)?
Yes, some parts of Rajasthan and parts of Karnataka in south India have witnessed communal tensions since the beginning of the 90s. The south of India, except for Hyderabad which has a communal past, has been relatively peaceful. But this changed in the 90s when the Rath Yatra was organised by the BJP. Many towns in Karnataka such as Ramanagaram, Channapatna, Kolar, Davangere, and Tumkur witnessed communal violence during this time. This was also the case with Rajasthan. Jaipur, Udaipur and Jodhpur which were not communally sensitive previously, but since the Ram Janmabhoomi, have become trouble spots. The changing political equations in these states are primarily the cause for this change. Even Odisha has, of late, become a communally sensitive area where several attacks have been witnessed against the Christian minority community.
Is there a possibility a communal riot like the one in Gujarat (2002) would occur again?
Gujarat riots were unique in the sense that these were the first riots to be televised by the Indian media so extensively. The documentation and incidents of riots were recorded in a more comprehensive and detailed manner by the civil society, if not by the state administration. While the state administration has been held responsible and accused only to a certain level, it has become clear that difficult questions would emerge and the state has to account for its actions. The 2002 riots still haunt a number of people who were part of the state administration in Gujarat and, in some form or the other would keep coming back. This can also be said of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. While the number of conspirators of the riots punished for their actions are few, the struggle for justice isn't over. Moreover, the political careers of Jagdish Tytler and Sajan Kumar is almost over since their involvement in the 1984 riots came into question. These cases, perhaps, are a signal that riots of large proportion with direct involvement are not on the cards.
You have studied communal riots in India intensively. What is the pattern you see?
The pattern of communal rioting in India can be divided into three different phases. The first phase, during the partition, saw riots occurring due to elites of two different communities clashing over political interests. In the second phase, between the 60s and the late 80s, riots were an interplay of local economic and political factors that often resulted in communal rioting. From the late 80s and the 90s, there began a new phase in communal rioting which could be attributed to the emergence of Hindutva politics. It needs to be seen in light of the changing political equations in the country. Till the 1980s, there was no single issue which became the driving force behind communal riots. But, all this changed when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its sister organisations decided to take up the cause of building a Ram temple at Ayodhya. While this gave the BJP an opportunity to consolidate its vote bank, it also created a communal divide across north India, leading to rioting at different places. Whenever the BJP has tried to expand or consolidate its base in a particular area, there have been incidents of communal violence there. The recent riots in Muzzafarnagar can perhaps be explained in the same context.
Also Read
Can you elaborate further? Is there a close relationship between BJP's electoral ambitions and the riots in Muzaffarnagar?
Uttar Pradesh (UP) witnessed widespread riots in the beginning of the 90s after the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the different parts of the state witnessed violence after regular intervals in that decade. The incidents of communal violence in UP coincided with the sudden and noticeable rise of the BJP to power. The BJP came to power on the basis of Hindutava politics. Whenever the party has digressed or distanced itself from Hindutva, it has not done well in elections. The party raised the slogan of "India Shining" in the 2004 elections and failed miserably. But the election-related activities of the BJP in the recent months clearly suggest the party wants to be seen as supporting the cause of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Some of the speeches given by Narendra Modi who is the chairman of the election campaign committee for the 2014 general elections, indicate that the party wants to cash in on the majority-minority card.
The riots in Muzaffarnagar are perhaps the starting point for communally dividing the people so that the party would be able to muster the support of a certain section of the majority community. Muzaffarnagar has witnessed three riots in 2013 that coincided with the introduction of Amit Shah as the campaign coordinator for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh. In a communally charged environment such as the one in Muzaffarnagar, the killing of a boy of one community for allegedly molesting a girl from another community becomes an excuse for triggering communal riots. The larger context is the struggle to reassert its traditional base in UP by the BJP, which has once again brought the state in news for communal tensions. The past record of the political party and the recent developments in the state would force any analyst to probe further the relationship between BJP's electoral ambitions and the riots in Muzaffarnagar.
How important is the role of the state government in controlling riots?
The role of the state government is vital to the extent that it has the capacity to control riots within a certain time frame. All the major judicial inquiry commission reports on communal riots, whether it is the Jaganmohan Reddy commission - the D P Madon commission or the Srikrishna Commission - have highlighted this aspect. Most inquiries have critically reviewed the role of the state administration during riots. The police and the state administration are either not efficient to handle these situations or deliberately do not take action in their attempt to shield one particular community. Purposive action by the state administration during any riot has led to the end of rioting with minimum destruction. Inability of the state to protect the life and property of its citizens during communal riots results in the victim community's loss of confidence in the state and its agencies and raises questions on the legitimacy of the state. Therefore, the state's role in controlling communal riots is not just important from the point of view of law and order but is significant in assessing the democratic principles of governance.
What is the politics of a communal riot?
The fact that communal riots have linkages with power politics has been established in many researches on the subject. The power struggle that emerges between groups or individuals that involve both economic and electoral interests often results in giving way to communal tension. Detailed studies on riots have suggested these have a close relationship with conflicting political and economic interests that might emerge between members of two communities. While scholars might differ on the intricacies of how riots are planned and the reasons for these, there is little difference among these on the fact that they are not spontaneous occurrences. In fact, the politics related to a communal riot does not end with the incidents of rioting, but goes beyond, while establishing an inquiry or collecting evidences or trying to establish the responsibility on individuals and groups for the riot.
Has there been a region where no riots took place earlier and which has now become an endemic rioting spot (such as Jaipur)?
Yes, some parts of Rajasthan and parts of Karnataka in south India have witnessed communal tensions since the beginning of the 90s. The south of India, except for Hyderabad which has a communal past, has been relatively peaceful. But this changed in the 90s when the Rath Yatra was organised by the BJP. Many towns in Karnataka such as Ramanagaram, Channapatna, Kolar, Davangere, and Tumkur witnessed communal violence during this time. This was also the case with Rajasthan. Jaipur, Udaipur and Jodhpur which were not communally sensitive previously, but since the Ram Janmabhoomi, have become trouble spots. The changing political equations in these states are primarily the cause for this change. Even Odisha has, of late, become a communally sensitive area where several attacks have been witnessed against the Christian minority community.
Is there a possibility a communal riot like the one in Gujarat (2002) would occur again?
Gujarat riots were unique in the sense that these were the first riots to be televised by the Indian media so extensively. The documentation and incidents of riots were recorded in a more comprehensive and detailed manner by the civil society, if not by the state administration. While the state administration has been held responsible and accused only to a certain level, it has become clear that difficult questions would emerge and the state has to account for its actions. The 2002 riots still haunt a number of people who were part of the state administration in Gujarat and, in some form or the other would keep coming back. This can also be said of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. While the number of conspirators of the riots punished for their actions are few, the struggle for justice isn't over. Moreover, the political careers of Jagdish Tytler and Sajan Kumar is almost over since their involvement in the 1984 riots came into question. These cases, perhaps, are a signal that riots of large proportion with direct involvement are not on the cards.