In August, the Supreme Court (SC) announced the setting up of a
high-level committee to check why 241 cases closed by the Delhi police
after the 1984 anti-Sikh violence, remain closed even after another set
of policemen re-examined them. Such committees have to report to the
court that appointed them. Hence, if evidence still exists, the culprits
of 1984 may well face trial.
Unfortunately, such hope has long been extinguished in families whose
loved ones were similarly killed in Mumbai. The 1,358 closed cases of
Mumbai’s 1992-93 riots account for 60 per cent of the total cases
registered then. In Mumbai too, a special police team re-examined them,
barely a decade after the incidents took place — not a long time, given
our legal system. But this team reported to the Maharashtra government.
The result? Just five of the cases were re-opened and all of them ended
in acquittal.
Such a farcical exercise was not expected of this grandly-named
Special Task Force. The STF comprised hand-picked police officers,
supposed to be different from the Mumbai police, who had been indicted
by a judicial commission for their pro-Shiv Sena,
anti-Muslim conduct during the riots. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna
Inquiry Report into the riots recorded that the Mumbai police closed
many of these cases even though complainants had given names and
sometimes, even addresses of the suspects.
Were these officers hauled up for their shoddy investigations? That
would be expecting too much. The STF reported to Chhagan Bhujbal, former
Shiv Sainik turned state home minister under a Congress-NCP government.
Bhujbal set up the STF only to show the SC that the Srikrishna
commission report was being implemented. An angry chief justice, A.S.
Anand had demanded to know what action was being taken against those
indicted by a sitting high court judge. That was the last meaningful
intervention by the SC in the 1992-93 Mumbai riots matter.
Why have the riots that broke out in Mumbai after the Babri Masjid
demolition been pushed to oblivion? Nine hundred persons died in
violence which lasted more than a week in December 1992 and again in
January 1993. The Justice Srikrishna Commission Report became the most
publicised report of any inquiry commission, because the judge, without
mincing words, indicted Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray.
Yet, the communal violence debate continues to focus only on Delhi
1984 and Gujarat 2002, using each episode as a weapon against the
Congress and Narendra Modi
respectively. The Mumbai riots, on the other hand, exposed both the
Congress who ruled the state and the Shiv Sena, which was responsible
for the violence, specially in January. Bit difficult then to lay the
blame on one door. And if you can’t use them politically, why mention
communal riots at all?
But there’s another reason why the Mumbai’s riots are rarely mentioned.
More than the Congress and the Shiv Sena, it was the Mumbai police that
was exposed. The Srikrishna commission indicted 31 policemen for crimes
ranging from murder to rioting to shielding rioters. Twenty-four years
later, just two cases against the policemen, filed under judicial
pressure, are alive. The “secular’’ Congress-NCP government that ruled
between 1999-2014 made sure the other cops went scot-free.
Although overwhelming evidence exists against the policemen in these
two cases, one officer was exonerated by the CBI. The cases meander from
court to court. Investigating officers reluctant to get their
colleagues into trouble, occasionally show up. Bored public prosecutors
barely glance at the tattered files. And no one’s present in court to
exert public pressure.
Delhi’s Sikhs have been helped not just by untiring lawyers but also
by human rights groups and powerful community organisations. In Gujarat,
the violence was televised and shook the entire country, prompting a
number of NGOs to intervene, who then roped in the NHRC and the SC.
Mumbai’s victims have always had only a small band of activists and
lawyers. But as cases were deliberately prolonged, only a few stayed on
for the tedious job of attending courts, supporting vulnerable victims
and witnesses, assisting lawyers fighting for free. Ultimately, they
were just not enough to take on a state determined to protect its own.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Mumbai
Theodore Mascarenhas, secretary-general of the Catholic
Bishops Council of India, the apex body of Roman Catholics, recently
appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to curb the “spread of hatred
by [Jharkhand] Chief Minister Raghubar Das”. Mascarenhas pointed out
that a manifestation of this hatred was the advertisement the Das
government issued in August, accusing Christian missionaries of
converting Dalits and Adivasis to Christianity.
The advertisement was published just before the state legislature adopted the Religious Freedom Bill, 2017,
which prescribes stringent punishment to those convicted of using force
or allurement to proselytise people. It is hard to tell whether hatred
motivates Das, but he is undeniably paranoid about Christians and
Muslims outstripping Hindus in Jharkhand, which, according to the 2011
Census, is nowhere near facing such a threat.
Christians account
for just 4.3% of Jharkhand’s population, Muslims 14.53% and Hindus
67.83%, according to the Census. If the figure for Hindus is relatively
low in comparison to many states, it is because 12.84% of the state’s
population counted themselves as followers of “Other Religions”, an
omnibus category of local faiths in the Census.
In Jharkhand,
followers of “Other Religions” are primarily those of the Sarna faith,
who worship nature. For long, they have been campaigning to have Sarna
assigned a separate code during the Census so that it is recognised as a
distinct religion, instead of being subsumed in the category of “Other
Religions.”
Despite Jharkhand having a minority population of
31.67% (including Muslims, Christians and Other Religions), Hinduism is
the majority religion in 19 out of 24 districts of the state. Only
Simdega is a Christian majority district, with 51.4% of the population
following that faith. But Simdega is also the third least populated
district. Topping the list of least populated districts are Lohardaga
and Khunti, both of which have Hindus in the minority. None of these
three districts has a population of over six lakhs. In addition, Hindus
are also in the minority in Gumla and Paschimi Singhbhum, both of which
have a population of over 1 crore each. Except
for Simdega, it is Sarna followers who are dominant in the four
remaining districts in which Hindus are a minority. Sarnas account for
51.1% of Lohardaga’s population, 44.62% of Gumla’s, 45.37% of Khunti’s,
and a whopping 62.96% of Paschimi Singhbhum. In contrast, Christians
comprise just 3.63% of Lohardaga’s population, 19.75% of Gumla’s, a
substantial 25.65% of Khunti’s and 5.83% of Paschimi Singhbhum’s.
It
is obvious that after decades of providing healthcare and education
facilities, apart from their alleged evangelism, Christian missionaries
have not managed to convert Adivasis on a scale as is alleged.
Given
that Christians in Jharkhand are also largely Adivasis, the leaders of
the Sarna faith support the anti-conversion law, dismayed as they are to
see their numbers dwindle. But the alleged propensity of Christian
missionaries to covert Adivasis is just a factor in their decreasing
population.
As Krishna Kant Toppo, a former secretary of the now-defunct Sarna Central Committee, told the Indian Express,
“The best thing would be the Sarna code, which would enable us to get
enumerated in the Census as a separate religion. Otherwise…some give in
to the Church, others migrate, and a few of them get to recite Hanuman
Chalisa in the morning.”
Spectre of conversions
For
well over a century, India’s Census, conducted every 10 years, has been
a crucial factor in bolstering caste and religious consciousness. This
is precisely why Hindutva leaders are reluctant to support the demand
for Sarna to be treated as a separate religion. They insist that those
classified under the category of “Other Religions” in the Census are
Hindu, on the basis of which they invent a Hindu identity for them.
They
also raise the spectre of India turning Christian with a little help
from the West. This was the rationale behind passing anti-conversion
laws in a slew of states – Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh,
Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and now Jharkhand.
When the Census
religion data of 2011 was released in 2015, newspapers carried alarmist
stories saying that the Christian population in Odisha has grown by 478%
and Muslims by 323% in the last 50 years, as against Hindus increasing
by just 130%. Who would ever put out a headline saying that despite
growing by 478%, Christians are just 2.77% of Odisha’s population today,
rising from 1.15% in 1961. (Muslims are 2.17% and Hindus 93.63%.) Between
2001 and 2011, Odisha’s Hindu population dipped by 0.72%. In 1961, they
constituted 97.57% of the state’s population. They are nowhere near
being swamped. All districts in Odisha are Hindu majority. The Christian
population has crossed double digits in percentage terms in only three
of them. These are Sundargarh (18.39%), Kandhamal (20.31%) and Gajapati
(37.98%). The category of Other Religions constitutes just 1.14% of the
state’s population. In
Chhattisgarh, for all the talk of missionaries converting Adivasis, the
state’s 18 districts at the time of the 2011 Census (nine new districts
were carved out in 2012) have an overwhelming Hindu majority.
Christians comprise just 1.92% of the state’s population, Muslims 2.02%
and Hindus 92.25%. Only Jashpur district has a Christian population of
22.26%. None of the remaining 17 districts has a Christian population of
more than 5%. In fact, in 11 of these, Christians comprise less than 1%
of the population. In
Madhya Pradesh, judging from the stories of missionaries being nabbed
while converting Hindus, it would seem that the Christianisation of the
state is well underway. In reality, however, Christians comprise just
0.29% of the state’s population. According to the 2011 Census, 48 of
Madhya Pradesh’s 50 districts (the 51st district was created in 2013)
have less than 1% of Christians, and the remaining two less than 4%.
These are Jhabua (3.75%) and Mandla (1.18%). Himachal
Pradesh has 95.17% Hindus, 2.18% Muslims and just 0.18% Christians.
Eleven of the state’s 12 districts have Hindus in the majority. Hindus
are in the minority in Lahaul and Spiti, where Buddhists account for
62.01% of the population. Himachal Pradesh is the only state where an
anti-conversion law was passed by a Congress government, in 2007. Similarly,
in Gujarat, where an anti-conversion law was enacted in 2003 under the
chief ministership of Narendra Modi, Christians comprise just 0.52% of
the state’s population (Muslims are 9.67% and Hindus 88.57%.) According
to the 2011 Census, its 26 districts (seven more were carved out in
2013) are all Hindu majority. Barring Tapi with 6.77% and The Dangs with
8.77%, the Christian population does not exceed 2% in any other
district in the state.
These figures testify that either Christian
missionaries are not particularly zealous about proselytisation, or are
terrible at their mission, or people are not as amenable to conversion
as Hindutva ideologues think.
Hindutva propaganda
Indeed,
the outcry against missionaries is just propaganda designed, as
Mascarenhas pointed out, to mobilise people for the Hindutva cause. The
mobilisation is based on spreading hatred against Christian missionaries
and dividing Adivasis on the basis of their faith. It also prevents
Adivasi assertion, required to ensure they do not unite to oppose mines,
the setting up of factories and exploitation of forests. As the only
party to bait religious minorities, the Bharatiya Janata Party hopes to
gain from the polarisation between Christian Adivasis and those who have
been Hinduised or follow local faiths.
Fathoming the pitfalls of
such polarisation, Sarna leaders in Jharkhand said they would study the
provisions of the state’s anti-conversion law and, simultaneously,
demanded a separate religion code for Sarna. But Hindutva leaders,
including Raghubar Das, have been silent on this demand. This is because
to accept it would undermine Hindutva’s very idea of uniting
non-Christians and non-Muslims under an overarching Hindu identity and
counting them as adherents of Hinduism.
Then again, if Sarna is
recognised as a separate religion, as Buddhism and Jainism are, then
what about the claims of Lingayats who say they are not Hindu? Or, what about the Ravidassias,
who declared themselves as a separate religion in 2010? Recognising
Sarna as a separate religion could very well trigger separatist
tendencies in Hinduism.
Stirrings for a separate religious
identity are suppressed by propagating that there is a conspiracy to
convert Hindus into Christianity or Islam. Intermittent violence against
these minorities helps to consolidate the Hindu community. After all,
communities, like nations, tend to forget their differences in the time
of conflict. This is vital for Hindutva’s mission of turning the 80%
Hindus in India into a monolithic political constituency.
This is
also precisely why Hindutva has raised the bogey of evangelism by
Christian missionaries, never mind that there is no possibility that the
land of Adivasis will transform into Christendom at least for the next
few centuries.
नफरत फैलाने वाली विचारधारा ने की गौरी लंकेश की हत्या
-राम पुनियानी
गौरी लंकेश की गत 5 सितंबर, 2017 को बेंगलुरू में हुई हत्या से उन लोगों को गहरा धक्का लगा है जो प्रगतिशील और उदारवादी मूल्यों के हामी हैं। कई हिन्दुत्ववादी ‘ट्रोलों’ ने इस हत्या का जश्न मनाया। इनमें से कई ट्रोल ऐसे हैं जिन्हें प्रधानमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी ‘फॉलो’ करते हैं। गौरी केवल एक पत्रकार नहीं थीं। वे बेंगलुरू की जानमानी सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता भी थीं। वे कन्नड़ पत्रिका ‘गौरी लंकेश पत्रिके’ की संपादक थीं। यह पत्रिका उनके पिता पी. लंकेश द्वारा शुरू की गई ‘लंकेश पत्रिके’ की उत्तराधिकारी थी। वे जातिवाद, ब्राह्मणवाद और आरएसएस की हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी राजनीति की कठोर आलोचक थीं। प्रजातांत्रिक और सामाजिक अधिकारों से जुड़े मुद्दों पर साफगोई से अपनी बात रखने से वे कभी नहीं चूकीं। वे अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों की पैरोकार थीं और उन्होंने लिंगायतों के एक अलग धार्मिक समुदाय होने के दावे का समर्थन किया था। वे ब्राह्मणवाद के वर्चस्व की कटु विरोधी थीं।
सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता बतौर वे ‘कौमू सौहार्द वेदिके’ नामक धर्मनिरपेक्ष समूह से जुड़ी हुई थीं। इस समूह ने सामाजिक सौहार्द को बढ़ावा देने वाले कई आंदोलन चलाए और बाबा बुधनगिरी के मसले पर अल्पसंख्यकों के विरूद्ध हिंसा का कड़ा विरोध किया। उनकी पत्रिका कन्नड़ भाषा में प्रकाशित होती थी और स्थानीय राजनीति पर उसका गहरा प्रभाव था। मुख्य मुद्दा यह है कि वे हिन्दुत्ववादी राजनीति की विरोधी थीं और इस अर्थ में वे दाभोलकर, पंसारे और कलबुर्गी जैसे तार्किकतावादी विचारकों की कामरेड थीं। उनकी हत्या का देश भर में विरोध हुआ। ‘आई एम गौरी’ लिखे हुए प्लेकार्ड लेकर देश भर में लोगों ने विरोध प्रदर्शन किए। लोग उनके प्रशंसक इसलिए थे क्योंकि उन्होंने अपने सिद्धांतों और विचारधारा से कभी समझौता नहीं किया। वे अपने काम के बारे में क्या सोचती थीं यह उनके इस वक्तव्य जाहिर हैः ‘‘...मैं हिन्दुत्व की राजनीति की निंदा करती हूं और जाति व्यवस्था की भी, जो हिन्दू धर्म का हिस्सा मानी जाती है। इसके कारण मेरे आलोचक मुझे हिन्दू-विरोधी बताते हैं। परंतु मेरा यह मानना है कि एक समतावादी समाज के निर्माण के लिए जो संघर्ष बसवन्ना और आंबेडकर ने शुरू किया था, उसे आगे बढ़ाना मेरा कर्तव्य है और जितनी मेरी शक्ति है, उतना मैं कर रही हूं’’। ये शब्द गौरी लंकेश की सामाजिक प्रतिबद्धता को प्रतिबिम्बित करते हैं।
उन्हें जिस ढंग से मारा गया, वह ठीक वैसा ही था जिस ढंग से कलबुर्गी, पंसारे और दाभोलकर को मारा गया था। वे एक पत्रकार भी थीं और इस अर्थ में उनकी हत्या, देश में पिछले कुछ वर्षों में बड़ी संख्या में पत्रकारों की हत्या से भी जुड़ती है। उनकी हत्या किसने की इसके बारे में कई अलग-अलग बातें कही जा रही हैं। उनके भाई, जिनकी विचारधारा उनसे अलग है, ने यह संदेह व्यक्त किया कि इस हत्या के पीछे नक्सलवादी हो सकते हैं क्योंकि गौरी कई नक्सलवादियों को सामाजिक मुख्यधारा में लाने का प्रयास कर रहीं थीं। नक्सलवादी यदि किसी की हत्या करते हैं तो वे इस तथ्य को छुपाते नहीं हैं। यह एक जाहिर बात है। ऐसा लगता है कि गौरी लंकेश के भाई का यह वक्तव्य, असली मुद्दे से ध्यान बंटाने का प्रयास है। राहुल गांधी ने कहा कि ‘‘जो भी आरएसएस और विहिप के खिलाफ बोलता है, उस पर हमले होते हैं और उसकी जान ले ली जाती है’’। उन्होंने एक ट्वीट कर प्रधानमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी पर हमला बोलते हुए कहा कि ‘‘प्रधानमंत्री केवल बहुत दबाव पड़ने पर इस तरह के मुद्दों पर कुछ बोलते हैं। जो कुछ हो रहा है उसका असली उद्देश्य असहमति को कुचलना है और यह इस देश में एक बहुत बड़ी समस्या बन गया है।’’
इसी तरह, जानेमाने इतिहासविद रामचन्द्र गुहा ने कहा कि ‘‘इस बात की काफी संभावना है कि उनके (गौरी लंकेश) हत्यारे उसी संघ परिवार से आए हों, जिसने पंसारे, कलबुर्गी और दाभोलकर की हत्या की थी।’’ कर्नाटक भाजपा युवा मोर्चा ने गुहा को एक कानूनी नोटिस भेजकर उनसे, उनके इस वक्तव्य को वापस लेने के लिए कहा है। भाजपा के एक शीर्ष नेता नितिन गडकरी ने कहा कि इस हत्या से आरएसएस और भाजपा के कार्यकर्ताओं का कोई लेनादेना नहीं है। इसी के साथ एक भाजपा विधायक ने कहा कि अगर गौरी ने संघ परिवार के अंत का जश्न मनाने की बात नहीं कही होती तो शायद वे आज जीवित होतीं।
हत्या की जांच जारी है परंतु अब तक जो कुछ सामने आया है उससे ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि उनके हत्यारे वही लोग थे जिन्होंने दाभोलकर, पंसारे और कलबुर्गी को मौत के घाट उतारा था। परंतु हमें यह नहीं भूलना चाहिए कि इस तरह की घटनाओं के लिए केवल वे लोग ज़िम्मेदार नही होते जो पिस्तौल का ट्रिगर दबाते हैं। इसके पीछे दरअसल नफरत फैलाने वाले अभियान और राजनीति होती है। गौरी लंकेश के पूर्व हुई तार्किकतावादियों की हत्याओं के सिलसिले में सनातन संस्था के कुछ सदस्यों को हिरासत में लिया गया है। यह हत्या भी उन घटनाओं से मिलती-जुलती है।
इस तरह की घटनाओं के पीछे दरअसल क्या होता है, इसका अत्यंत सारगर्भित विवरण सरदार पटेल ने महात्मा गांधी की हत्या के बाद लिखे अपने एक पत्र में वर्णित किया था। ‘‘जहां तक आरएसएस और हिन्दू महासभा का प्रश्न है...सरकार को मिली सूचनाएं और रपटें यह बताती हैं कि इन दोनों संस्थाओं, विशेषकर पहली (आरएसएस) की गतिविधियों के कारण देश में ऐसा वातावरण बना जिसके चलते यह भयावह त्रासदी संभव हो सकी...’’। यह बात सरकार पटेल ने हिन्दू महासभा के अध्यक्ष श्यामाप्रसाद मुखर्जी को 18 जुलाई, 1948 को लिखे अपने एक पत्र में कही थी (सरदार पटेल करसपोनडेंस, खंड 6, संपादक दुर्गादास)।
पटेल केवल गांधीजी के हत्यारे गोडसे की बात कहकर रूक सकते थे परंतु उन्होंने उससे आगे जाकर उस विचारधारा की बात की, जिसके कारण इस तरह की हत्या हो सकी। यही बात आज समाज में हो रही सांप्रदायिक हिंसा के बारे में सही है। हिंसा करने वाले व्यक्तियों की तो पहचान हो रही है और उनमें से कुछ को सज़ा भी मिली है परंतु वह विचारधारा, जो इस तरह की हिंसा के पीछे होती है, उस पर पर्याप्त ध्यान नहीं दिया जा रहा है। अल्पसंख्यकों के विरूद्ध हिंसा की पृष्ठभूमि, देश में संप्रदायवादी राजनीति के उदय के साथ शुरू हुई थी। इसके चलते अल्पसंख्यकों के बारे में आम लोगों के मन में ज़हर भर दिया गया और इसका लाभ उठाकर निहित स्वार्थी राजनीतिक नेतृत्व जब चाहे तब सांप्रदायिक दंगे भड़काने में सक्षम हो गया। गोडसे, आरएसएस का एक प्रशिक्षित स्वयंसेवक था जिसने बाद में हिन्दू महासभा की सदस्यता ले ली थी। उसका यह आरेाप था कि महात्मा गांधी मुसलमानों का तुष्टिकरण कर रहे हैं और हिन्दुओं के हितों को नुकसान पहुंचा रहे हैं। अदालत में दिया गया उसका बयान उस हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी विचारधारा पर आधारित था जिसने महात्मा को निशाना बनाया।
यह साफ है कि गौरी के हत्यारे नफरत की विचारधारा से प्रेरित थे और यह भी कि उनकी हत्या कलबुर्गी, दाभोलकर और पंसारे की हत्या की अगली कड़ी है। हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी विचारधारा इस तरह की हिंसा को प्रोत्साहन दे रही है। यह हत्या, बढ़ते हुए संप्रदायवाद और असहिष्णुता का परिणाम है। (अंग्रेजी से हिन्दी रूपांतरण अमरीश हरदेनिया)
[. . .]
In the backdrop of the Rohingya issue, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi
on Thursday alleged that the NDA government was looking at the topic of
foreigners seeking to stay in India through the “prism of religion”.
Owaisi was responding to a query on the Centre’s stance that the
Rohingya people staying in the country are not refugees but illegal
immigrants.
“The present Modi government has amended the Foreigners Act. They
have amended the Passport Act, wherein they said if a Hindu, a Sikh, a
Parsi, or a Buddhist or a Christian who is coming from Pakistan,
Bangladesh even without valid papers, even without valid passport, we
will give them exemption under the Foreigners Act,” he said.
“Now, why is this issue being looked through religious prism wherein
this government is practicing that. That is what we are questioning
them,” Owaisi told reporters here. [. . .]
Kolkata: Durga puja is the most popular festival in
West Bengal. Politicians of all hues usually suspend their mutual
bickering and agitations mid-autumn and focus on public relations in and
around puja pandals. Among the traditional rivals,
nationalists of the Congress and the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC)
variety flex their political and financial muscles to put
on ostentatious pujas in their paras (neighbourhoods). The old-styled competitive extortion of chanda (donation)
has now largely been replaced by contests over corporate sponsorship in
Bengal’s big towns. The Left leaders enjoy inhaling this especially
aromatic opium of the masses, but prefer to hang up their boots for a
while and man makeshift stalls selling Marxist literature close to
the pandals.
This usual seasonal peaceful coexistence is likely to be shattered
this time around as the modified BJP is all set to play bull in the
china shop. The BJP opposed the
decision by Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee to disallow Durga
idol immersions from the late hours of Vijaya Dashami (Dussehra in other
states) till the next day, Ekadashi, which coincides with Muharram.
Banerjee and her top police officers have justified the
administrative order on grounds that the government wants to preempt any
clash between the routes of immersion and Muharram processions, and
avoid any law and order problems. The BJP and the rest of the Sangh
parivar has been quick to call this another example of Banerjee’s
“appeasement of Muslims” at the cost of Hindu rites, and are threatening
to violate the order. The Calcutta high court on Thursday cancelled the West Bengal government’s decision to restrict the immersions.
Another point of simmering showdown is the Bengal government’s decision to ban the public display of weapons on Vijaya Dashami in the wake of the Sangh’s show of Hindu might by brandishing swords and daggers at
the Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti rallies earlier this year. The
saffron camp has planned to defy the order, citing the government’s
permission to Muslims to carry traditional weapons in Muharram
processions, and demanding the same right be given to the Hindu
majority.
The tussle over idol immersion has reached the Calcutta high court
but both sides seem adamant on fighting it out on the streets. The court’s observation
citing the example of the Mumbai police allowing Hindu and Muslim
religious processions on the same day has emboldened the saffron side,
while the state government has dismissed this as a recipe for disaster
considering the spate of riots in that city.
Durga puja immersion. Credit: Reuters
The rise of the fringe
Most Hindus in Bengal will vouch for the fact that hardly any baroari or community puja organisers go to immerse the idols on Dashami, except families who manage barir puja (household worshiping). For the dadas presiding over para pujas and common revelers, extra party time is more than welcome.
Unlike the Hindi heartland, shastro puja or worshiping of
weapons and burning of Ravana’s effigy on Dashami are not part of Hindu
rituals in Bengal. For traditional Hindu Bengalis, the day is marked
more by sadness over a beloved daughter’s departure with her children
after a joyous but short stay at her parents’ home, than by the
celebration of Rama’s victory over Ravana.
Bengal’s post-immersion rituals of kolakuli (embracing of friends) and pranam (touching
elders’ feet) in a spirit of family and community togetherness
are widely different from the spectacular burning of the mythological
demon king’s effigy in north India, where Ravana has moved on from being
‘the demon within’to the epitome of a historical enemy of Hindus.
Although Durga puja is essentially a Hindu festival, Muslims in
Bengal have by and large participated in it for generations, both for
economic and social reasons. Despite being one of the original homes to
Hindu nationalism and Muslim separatism of the bhadrolok and ashraf
varieties, Bengal’s social milieu, nurtured by Bhakti-Sufi syncretism
of the medieval period and the modern humanist and left-liberal ethos,
has so far survived the ugliest communal riots and Partition horrors.
Its postcolonial history of political violence has hardly had a
religious hue. The battles of bullets and ballots for power were
never fought in the name of Ram or Rahim. But this is not the case
anymore.
The BJP’s fast emergence as the main opposition to the ruling TMC at
the cost of the Left and Congress is changing the political rhetoric and
social mobilisation. If the Left and the Congress had chosen to
overlook the ominous signs of communalisation of popular minds since the
demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992, they witnessed the making of
further inroads by Hindutva forces following the post-Godhra pogrom in
Gujarat a decade after. The spread of hatred was not limited to
Hindi-speaking working people and business communities – its seepage
into the Bengali-speaking middle class psyche became unmistakable.
Today, after the arrival of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Raisina
Hill, the mutual brinkmanship of Left-Congress and TMC is further
facilitating the occupation of the political as well as social
centre-stage by the hitherto fringe forces. The former fort of the
left-liberals appears to be crumbling before the charioteers of the Aswamedh Jaggya, with the BJP’s vote share increasing to 17% in 2014 and it winning three assembly seats in Bengal in 2016.
Despite a decrease in its vote share to 10% last year, its recent emergence as runner-up to the TMC
in an assembly by-election in Kanthi Dakshin, close to Nandigram, has
underlined the steep rise in its poll fortunes. The secretive Sangh’s
presence in the state has increased manifold and this is now evident
from its increasingly belligerent mobilisation. Majoritarian consolidation Amit Shah’s goal of bagging Bengal in
2019 would not have rattled anyone except the BJP’s rivals had his
blue-print for the D-day not revealed the madness of the method. Riots
have proved to be the most tested tool for communal polarisation for
political ends even before India became independent. It is now
increasingly apparent that the party wants a repeat of
post-Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh, if not Gujarat, in Bengal.
With panchayat polls round the corner, rousing Hindu sentiments over
Durga puja will be convenient for Shah’s goal of majoritarian
consolidation, as the issue has gained currency since last year. In this
context, Banerjee’s latest decision has appeared to be a godsend for
him as her administration prevented idol immersion for a day last year
too. This led to legal wrangling as well as communal flare-ups in Hajinagar and Chandannagore in the Kolkata suburbs.
The flare-ups were not area-specific as subsequent months proved. Bengal is fast becoming a communal cauldron
as religious strife engulfed several other areas since last year, from
Kaliachak in North Bengal’s Maldah in January to Howrah’s Dhulagarh in
December, as well as Baduria-Basirhat in North 24 Parganas this July.
Nakasipara in Nadia is now convulsing under communal tension.
BJP president Amit Shah with BJP MP Babul Supriyo in Delhi’s C.R. Park. Credit: Reuters
Recent riots have revealed the increasing influence of fundamentalist
hawks among Muslims in Bengal who are inciting community youth to vent
their pent up anger against the countrywide Hindutva rampage against the
minority and to fight back on the streets to ‘save the honour of
Islam’. Though saner voices among the community’s clerics in Bengal have
warned against falling into the Hindutva trap, their failure to reach
out to the youth, who are vulnerable to social media disinformation and
provocations, has created room for rabble-rousers.
The role of the administration and police during successive riots has
only reinforced the Sangh campaign and general Hindu perception of the
TMC being partisan towards Muslims. Banerjee’s balancing act
Muslims comprise more than 27% of Bengal’s population, though only
three of the state’s 23 districts have Muslim majorities. The minority
holds the key to at least 60 assembly seats, of which the TMC bagged 32
in 2016 while 18 went to the Congress and the rest to the Left Front.
This was crucial for Banerjee’s overwhelming majority in the house,
in addition to her relentless poaching into Left and Congress
legislative parties through a ruthless carrot and stick policy, even
after garnering 211 seats out of 294 in the assembly.
Her vow to protect constitutional secularism and the syncretic
tradition of Bengal notwithstanding, Banerjee’s realpolitik motives are
clear from her choice of mostly orthodox males as minority
representatives, both in her government and the party. They include a
loudmouth fatwa-giving shahi Imam in Kolkata, now fallen from grace, or
MPs who were either instrumental in fanning street violence in Kolkata
while demanding the ouster of feminist writer Taslima Nasreen or in
opposing Pulse Polio immunisation as an American conspiracy to
depopulate Muslims during Left rule.
The TMC’s earlier public support to the right of Muslim males to
instant triple talaq, and its silence over the Supreme Court’s recent
ban on it, speaks volume about Banerjee’s social-political imperatives.
Her refusal to rein in her minister and Jamat leader Siddiqullah Choudhury’s open defiance to the SC order has left no room for doubts.
Banerjee’s penchant for symbolism like public prayer in Muslim style and tokenism like allowance for mosque imams,
has been aimed at wooing conservative male opinion without caring for
substantial and long-term welfare, as many community insiders have felt.
Almost none of her chosen people are from the emerging educated middle
class within the community. Despite the visible regeneration of the
middle class, which had depleted its rank following the migration of a
large number of its members after Partition, it hardly enjoys political
representation under the current dispensation.
During the Basirhat violence, Banerjee obliquely chided the zealots among Muslim religious and political leaders for overreacting to the ‘fakebook’ hate campaign
against Islam that landed her in trouble at the height of the BJP’s
campaign for president’s rule and triggered her spat with the governor
on the breakdown of law and order. Earlier, she had cautioned two of her
Howrah MLAs whose factional feuds had facilitated communal violence in
Dhulagarh over the extension of the route for a procession in
celebration of the prophet’s birthday last year.
But Banerjee kept mum against such hotheads at her annual party rally
on July 21 and thereafter. Evidently, she does not want to chastise
minority hawks, at least in public, fearing the loss of a crucial chunk
of the community’s votes. Her public recitation of Sanskrit hymns, and
celebration of Hanuman Jayanti and Ganesh Chaturthi by her colleagues
this year are aimed at taking the wind out of Sangh’s sail. But it
remains to be seen whether her balancing act will work at the hustings.
In the meantime, the land of Rabindranath Tagore and Nazrul Islam is
heading for a further face-off between the politics of competitive
communalism. This puja may be the beginning of the next round. Biswajit Roy is a senior journalist.
I
took Usman Ansari’s one good hand in mine and said that I had come with
the message of sharing his pain. I sought his forgiveness, on behalf of
all of us. In hiding, his crushed arm in a sling, the old man was
manifestly broken. Not just in body but in spirit. He sobbed many times
as he spoke with us: When he talked of the lynch attack by his
neighbours, who accused him of killing his cows; when he told us how
much he loves his cows; while speaking of his family who have to beg to
pay for his medical expenses and food; his son, who has lost his mental
balance after the lynching incident. Ansari talked of his resolve to
return to his village — he knows no one wants him there, but there is no
other place he can call home.
We met Ansari on the third day of our Karwane Mohabbat, Caravan of
Love, a journey of atonement and solidarity with the people who are
targets of hate attacks across the country. We began in Assam on
September 4. Our first engagement in Jharkhand was to meet Ansari. But
he feared another attack, so Ansari’s family did not disclose his
hide-out. People met us instead on the main road, from where only a few
of us left in a jeep, driving through many villages before we reached
his secret refuge.
His story had chilling echoes of Akhlaq in Dadri. Ansari’s was the
only Muslim home in a Hindu neighbourhood in village Barwadah in Giridih
district. He reared 10 cows and sold milk to both Hindus and Muslims.
Some 10 days before the attack, one of his jersey cows fell ill and
died. The custom of the village is that dead cattle are not buried but
thrown in a designated yard. Ansari contacted the man from a
disadvantaged caste who usually disposed dead cattle. But they could not
settle on a price. So Ansari decided to drag the corpse with his sons
to the dumpyard, where it lay for two days. The day of the lynching, two
days after Eid on June 27, the corpse was found mysteriously without
its head and a leg. Rumour spread that Ansari had killed his own cow to
eat during Eid. A mob surrounded his home baying for his blood. A
terrified Ansari pleaded that the cow had died of sickness. If he had
wanted to eat her meat, why would he take away its head and leave the
body which contained the meat?
But the mob dragged him out, stripped him and thrashed him until he
lost consciousness. They locked his son and daughter-in-law in a room in
the house and set it on fire. They sprinkled the old man’s comatose
body with petrol and would have set him on fire, if not for the timely
intervention of the young deputy commissioner and the police force he
commanded. They rescued the unconscious man, but the throng then turned
its rage on the police, attacking their vehicles. The police opened
fire, injuring one man. Ansari’s son and daughter-in-law had a
miraculous escape because the village chowkidar broke down the door of
the room in which the horde had locked them before torching their house.
Ansari regained consciousness only eight days later. Discharged from
hospital after two months, he remains in hiding. He has no police
protection and dreads his neighbours may still take his life. The old
man is determined to fight for justice. He does not know how, amidst so
much hate, but he hopes — hopelessly — that he can return one day to his
village.
As part of the karwan, wherever we travel, we request local
organisers to arrange a peace meeting. We were encouraged that one such
meeting was organised after we met Ansari. We were heartened to find
that hundreds of men had gathered, including local officials. But our
optimism did not last long. Speaker after speaker declared that the
attack was an unfortunate “accident” that was best forgotten. Peace
could be restored if Ansari told the police that the men they had
arrested were innocent and that he did not recognise the men who tried
to kill him. After these men were set free, they would allow Ansari to
return. John Dayal, who accompanied the karwan, and I tried to reason
with the gathering. “If it was your own father who was stripped and
nearly killed by his neighbours based on false hate rumours,” I asked
them, “would you even then say it was a minor incident that should be
forgotten?” I appealed to them to go to Ansari, seek his forgiveness,
assure him of his safety without conditions, and pool money to rebuild
his home. Tempers rose. Speakers asked why we did not display the same
sympathy with the Hindu man who the police had injured while firing to
disperse the mob. They claimed Ansari was an evil man, a murderer. (We
enquired and learnt he had been involved in a violent property dispute
with his brother.) They said we were unconcerned that Ansari had
provoked the anger of the Hindus of his village by beheading a cow.
The programme organisers were members of a leftist organisation. But
they too said they were sorely disappointed with our visit. They had
hoped we would restore peace by brokering a compromise that set the
Hindus free. Instead all we could do was to “take the side of the
Muslims”.
We could have been in Dadri. We could have been in living rooms
across the land. The arguments are always the same. Muslims always
provoke violence, they are always guilty, even when they are lynched.
Hindus, in contrast, are innocent and non-violent, roused into
understandable violence only by the perfidy of Muslims.
The karwan could not make place for love in the hearts of the Hindus
assembled in the village there. Love that is inseparable from justice.
Love that does not differentiate between “Hindu suffering” and “Muslim
suffering”. Heavy in heart, we realised that it will take many journeys
for love to prevail, to overcome. Until then we must continue to
journey.
Mohd Akhlaq.
