Tehelka, 21 June 2011
OPINION
Angry young men can get it wrong too
KS Dakshina Murthy on how Ramdev’s vigilantism has echoes of Latin American anarchy
Illustration: Tim Tim Rose
Baba Ramdev recently announced he would impart arms training to 11,000 citizens drawn from different regions of the country. If he does carry out these plans, the next time the police attempt to storm a similar gathering at the Ramlila Maidan, it will face citizens armed and trained. What could follow if the two sides clash is too disturbing to contemplate here. But, in effect, this will signal the arrival of organised vigilantism in the mainstream India.
Already, in Chhatisgarh, the havoc caused by the armed vigilante group Salwa Judum has been extensively documented by human rights groups. Backed by landlords, supported by security forces and the government ostensibly to fight Naxalism, the Salwa Judum was accused of being used to settle personal scores, target innocent people and assert the authority of vested interests until the Supreme Court intervened to check it.
Ramdev’s threat may have been an angry reaction to the midnight police action against him and his followers, but that it should have been aired at all is a serious blow to the tradition of peaceful democratic protests that have survived so far, despite the state’s heavy-handedness, the worst of which one witnessed during the Emergency.
The text book definition of vigilantism is an attractive proposition, especially in a dysfunctional democracy. It fills up an administrative vacuum left by the state. Groups of people trained in weaponry or otherwise band together and hunt out officials or anyone else perceived to be corrupt and unjust. While the popular middle class perception tends to romanticise these groups, in reality there is no way of saying which way they can head and who the target can be.
Worse, there have been several instances in Latin America and Africa where vigilante groups have been co-opted by the state to stifle genuine dissident movements. Even the Salwa Judum eventually ended up as an unofficial arm of the state. Since vigilante groups do not have a firm ideological basis for their formation, they tend to be loose and open to subversive influence that can re-route them far from their original intent.
In the specific instance of Ramdev’s stated intentions, considering his leanings, his armed group will be broadly right wing, conservative and tied to the Hindutva sentiment. The implications of this are obvious. In a country where there are already deep fissures and hidden fault lines, a mainstream entry by vigilante groups can only mean social turmoil and big trouble for the state.
Moreover, formally training ordinary people in using weapons and giving access to arms can encroach on India’s democratic space and irrevocably alter the largely peaceful dispute-resolution mechanisms that have evolved over the years.
Since Independence, despite the various pulls and pressures applied socially and politically, the Indian democracy has managed to survive much to the surprise of many outside the country. One reason for this is the largely non-militarised character of the society. Other than the fringe Naxal groups and separatists in Kashmir and the Northeast, recourse to arms is rare. Disputes have been resolved without the use of organised weaponry, even if violence has been resorted to.
The point is not that vigilantism is unknown in the Indian lexicon. It has always been the staple of mainstream cinema, celebrated by filmmakers and devoured by audiences. Naseeruddin Shah’s A Wednesday, Rajinikanth’s Sivaji or Kamal Hassan’s Indian were almost inspirational in their depiction of vigilante justice. In the past, there have been countless others, like the all-time favourite Sholay. An actor like MG Ramachandran acquired legendary status almost always playing the part of a vigilante. The sheer power of his roles later won him the popular vote, jockeying him into the position of the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.
Vigilantism on celluloid is vastly different than it is in reality. From a sociological perspective, watching vigilantism in action within the confines of the cinema hall appears to be a safe outlet to ease the pressure, anger and frustration of people who constantly have to deal with the perceived injustice and unfairness of the “system”, particularly that exuded by an apathetic bureaucracy, the police and the judiciary. But, replicating that in real life can have disastrous consequences. Training citizens, who otherwise would have had no access to weaponry, is a logical precursor to vigilantism, which has had a controversial and bloody history around the world. Several nations in Latin America – Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru and Mexico to name a few – with an entrenched practice of vigilantism are even today struggling to end this dubious practice. Among many others, one that shocked the world a few years ago was the burning alive of two federal police officials in a suburb of Mexico city by vigilante groups which, mistook them for kidnappers.
Reacting to that incident, an expert on the subject Mark Ungar was quoted by Newsweek as saying that in Latin America "it's spreading in the sense that vigilantes are going after criminals, officials, even governments – and once it starts it's hard to stop".
Once citizens are grouped and trained in weaponry, it is next to impossible to control what they do with that skill. Vigilante groups by definition bypass the established institutions of the state, mainly the police and judiciary, and start meting out instance justice. Many a time a vigilante action can end up in a situation where targets are lynched. During 1996 to 2002, some 482 people were reportedly lynched in Guatemala by vigilante groups.
In western Sudan, the Janjaweed (Arabic for riders on horseback), a vigilante group backed by the Sudanese government, has terrorised people in the Darfur region as reprisal against a rebel movement there for a separate state. In the last eight years, the Janjaweed has indiscriminately laid bare entire villages, driving out an estimated one million people out of their homes. Thousands have been attacked, raped and looted across the region.
Somalia is another extreme example of what happens when vigilantism becomes the mainstream mode of settling disputes and asserting control. The central government there has lost authority, legitimacy and ability to govern. The vigilante groups owing allegiance to feudal lords have a free run of the country. Somalia’s government and parliament operate from the neighbouring Kenya. In Afghanistan, where the power of regional commanders undermines that of the central authority of President Hamid Karzai, there are fears that the country may be heading the Somalian way. A similar, though not as serious, situation prevails in Iraq.
Typically, vigilante groups operate in democratic countries. In the case of Libya or Yemen, where large sections of people are combating the state, they cannot be termed vigilante. Rather, they are perceived to be resisting authoritarian governments.
In the Indian context, other than parts of the rural hinterland, where vigilante-type violence is already prevalent, the mainstream discourse still favours a democratic process with all its attendant pitfalls, delays and frustrations. The practice of non-violent protest, a Gandhian legacy, continues to command a large following. The movement against large dams, exemplified by the Narmada Bachao Andolan, is an example of a protest within democratic parameters. So also is the fight headed by the National Alliance of People’s Movements to retain the rights of tribals living in forests, among others.
The Anna Hazare-led resistance against corruption has used the democratic space successfully to spark a debate in the country on the issue and focus on ways to strengthen the accountability of the legislature, judiciary and the executive. After pushing hard democratically to attract the attention of the people and grow the anti-corruption mood into a popular movement, to allow someone like Ramdev to veer it into vigilantism would be tragic.
KS Dakshina Murthy is an editorial consultant with The Hindu, Bengaluru
daxshin@gmail.com
|
