Conflagrations in Democracy: A Peep in Causes and Cure

 

Vector courtesy: pixabay.com

British Prime Minister Boris Jhonson, while on a two-day tour to India, said, “India is a very different country from autocracies around the world. It’s a great democracy. It’s a stunning, shining fact that 1.35 billion people live under a democracy. That is something we should celebrate as it offers us an opportunity for closer cooperation and partnership.”  Mr Jhonson was speaking at a press conference on 22 April 2022.

With an age-old democratic system, India is now the world’s biggest democracy. With its elaborate and foolproof electoral system, it is robust and deep-rooted. However, there is a thorn in the flesh harmful to a harmonious society. Three-quarters of a century ago, the world saw that the people of a great country break the shackles of slavery to become a free nation in 1947. India was a free nation but wounded, profusely bleeding and vivisected. Staggering initially, the nation started to become strong and determined to walk on the road to success. The journey was bumpy but the people did it. There are still bumps, potholes and challenges but the pleasure is to conquer them all and achieve the goal. 

One such challenge, the cancerous rot of communalism, is yet to be treated effectively. Without going into the past, the recent incidence of communal flares would satisfactorily meet the requirement of this discussion. There had been a series of conflagrations in various parts of India, especially in the Northern part. The spark was ignited on 02nd April 2022 from Karauli, Rajasthan where on the onset of Vikram Samvat, a procession, organised with prior government permission, was pelted with stones followed by a rapid spread of arson and riot. The magnitude was such that numerous shops were gutted, vehicles torched and a curfew was imposed. This was followed by the incidence of riots, arson, stone-pelting and mayhem on festive occasions across the country. 

The unfortunate incidents including organized and planned riots broke out simultaneously in about twelve places encapsulating Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Goa, Gujrat, Uttarakhand and Delhi on the occasion of Ram Navami (10th April 2022) and Hanuman Jayanti (16th April 2022). The modus operandi of each was similar, indicating meticulous planning. Reports indicated that the sinister plan to malign India was conceived on the soil of a hostile neighbouring country. It was made operational and spread using social media platforms plus sleeper cells. 

 

The worst clashes started in Khargone, Madhya Pradesh on 10th April 2022. It was alleged that the procession (Shobha Yatra) while passing through the communally charged Talab Chowk area, was pelted upon from the roof-tops of houses and places of worship. Police personnel were hurt, and an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police received a gunshot injury while trying to stop a rioter brandishing a sword in the crowd. The other side, however, has a different story. It was counter-alleged that provocation came from the procession that led to the untoward incident. Who instigated the violence and how is a question of enquiry, but it left many innocents in a lurch. It sent a shock wave across the country. The government took stern and timely action. “No one would be spared”, thundered Shivraj Singh Chauhan the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. With the help of video footage, the rioters and hooligans were spotted and arrested. Houses started bulldozing. Ironically, the violence went on deaf ears until the demolition of houses started. Obdurate factionist political leaders, whose survival leaned on hate-mongering and communal politics came onto the central stage. With the parochial divisive agenda of playing the victim card, scathing and painting the government actions with communal hues started. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalmeen (AIMIM) chief Mr Assaduddin Owaisi claimed it was a “State complicit violence”, selectively targeted towards Muslims. He also alleged that the selective demolition of Muslim houses was “Illegal and against Geneva Convention”. He conveniently ignored the stark fact of stone-pelting on the procession and rioting. Owaisi in his tweet (22 April 2022), said:

“ “For...Muslims, living in India today effectively means being at the mercy” of a Hindutva govt. Things are unlikely to get better

We must not give in to hopelessness but also not become complacent. Inshallah, these dark clouds will pass”

Following suit, leaders like Shafiqur Rahaman Barq and others were seen blatantly flouting the social norms, spreading hate and fear among the communities. The atmosphere was being charged and drenched with inflammatory hate speeches that rant in the air. The political and self-proclaimed messiah of religious cause also contributed their bits. Social media was brimmed with canards of fiery concocted speeches. A rat race started to appease and polarize communities to win votes.

Council House, Uttar Pradesh
Photo: by author

The whole pantomime, staged by anti-nationals and quislings, was for maligning India’s image in general and Prime Minister Modi in particular. Ostensibly it was done to chip off the meticulously created monolith through the hard work of the people to present a towering image on the international forum. TV reports and a plethora of videos testify to organized hooliganism, arson and stone-pelting. It did not appear spontaneous even considering ‘provocation’ a cause of ignition, as devil’s advocate. It left no doubt about the malicious intention of those who used petrol bombs and brickbats that were pre-piled up for ready availability on the rooftops, besides intimidatingly crowd gathering of hooligans and rioters.

After a lull, the incidence of violence and arson, conflagrations and riots are becoming an order of the day. Society appears to be sitting on a heap of gunpowder. For the last seventy and five years, the people are feeling the brunt of serious riots even after the vivisection of the country and the creation of the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” based on the “Two Nation Theory”. Jinnah used to put it that Hindus and Muslims were poles apart that could not live together. This stubborn attitude resulted in the religious divide and is continuing to do so. Addressing the Lahore session of the Muslim League on 22nd March 1940, Jinnah said:

“[[23]] It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.” 

They wanted and had it. Pakistan is a reality. The religious division, however, failed to cement the two wings of Pakistan which, within about a quarter-century, were torn apart. Bangladesh emerged as a new country on the world map consequence of the civil war in 1971. The politics caused the vivisection, large-scale genocide and exodus way back in 1947. Paradoxically, most of those who instrumentalized the formation of Pakistan did not migrate there. 

It is being repeated in the same token. Politicians, who accepted division during the freedom movement, superficially tried to bandage the wounds of carnage. India opted for a secular system, though the word “Secular” was introduced in the Preamble of the Constitution by way of the 42nd Constitution Amendment in 1976. However, there had been no serious effort to bridge the gap between the two communities instead, the Indian polity adopted a policy of appeasement to garner minority support, ignoring the majority sentiments. 

Mosque in 'Bara Imambara'.
Photo by the author

The psyche that the two communities were poles apart is rearing its ferocious head once again. It suits the parochial agenda for votes. Communal frenzies were used to terrify the minority Muslim community and hate-mongering against the majority Hindu population. This is the gravest fallout of the electoral politics in India that acts as a fertilizer, augmenting the harmful weeds and choking the healthy growth. No wonder why a section of politicians is seen involved in encouraging, pampering and appeasing a section of society. This has helped the hardening of their approach and therefore, the minorities become aggressively defensive to protect their ‘right’. 

The political parties, self-proclaimed champions of human rights, leftists and liberals were mum on the unfortunate happenings at the time riots erupted. However, they sprang to action and started howling the moment houses started bulldozing. It all started when in Jahangirpuri of Delhi, slated to be cleared of heavy encroachment, authorities started demolishing illegal constructions and encroachments. Ironically, they were seen crying hoarse in favour of those who were found guilty of illegal construction and encroachments. Confabulations started on the legality of the action. The questions were being asked about the rule of law and the law of the land. The justification was sought for the validity of the government’s action. Victim cards were played, portraying the guilties as poor and oppressed. The ‘progressives’ rushed to the Supreme Court to stop the demolition drive and the Hon'ble Court did not disappoint them. Within no time the stay was granted and the work had to be stopped.

The government’s action may seem arbitrary and ruthless but it needs to be seen from the proper perspective as well. Communal violence is a blot on a civilized society that adversely affects the social fabric and economic activities. The threads of the working class and the traders are intertwined. They work together and live together. The daily wages are the lifeline of the working class while on the other hand, the traders need a regular supply of products. In such a condition, common people do not like to be involved in rioting. Despite this, the riots are an ugly reality. In a written reply to a question, the government told the parliament that 3400 riots took place in the country from 2016 to 2020 (Click here for details). Besides causing loss of life and property, the riots leave a trail of destruction and damage in terms of harmony, social relations and mutual trust. The causes of conflagrations need serious cogitation.

Imposing dome of Council House, UP
Photo: by author

The democratic setup in India is leaned heavily on the arithmetics of votes. The public vote count determines the fate of a party or a candidate. During the 2019 general elections, out of ninety-one crore twenty lakh eligible voters, 67% cast their votes. The huge voter turnout lures the political parties to attract voters in their favour. Religion, community, caste and creed are used to garner support. Polarized minority votes have attracted politicians for a long. It has been the decisive factor to win an election. A fragmented society thus becomes a philosopher’s stone, a dire necessity for parochial political gains. Suspicion, mistrust and terror are the building blocks of communal frenzy. An unseen but effective system has sprung up to operate, rule and mastermind the communal frenzy. It is terrifying and damaging to society.

Instead of canvassing about the developmental work and assurance about the future, the thrust on divisive politics appears more convenient to political parties, hence division and conflagrations. A ‘philosopher-king’ is a utopia and absolute is impossible. Good and bad, evil and virtue are the two aspects of the same coin. A good balance is a need for time to have a healthy and sustainable society with minimal outlaws.

Lotus flower
Photo: by author

 

Secularism: Reality or Rhetoric

Photo: by Author

The concept of governance that advocates and aims to implement equality and justice for nationals of a country, irrespective of their religion and caste, secularism and its way of implementation is under the scanner. India is a declared 'Secular' country. Objectively speaking, with a highly complex brain and society, the near ultimate outcome of organic evolution Homo sapiens ought to be equal. They must not be discriminated against on religion, ethnicity, skin colour et cetera. It would be misbegotten to confine them in religious and sectarian compartments. It is, therefore, imperative that the state should be non-aligned to religion; untouched by religious dogma. Law of the land ought to be equal for all its citizens. The theory appears rosy but is it the ground reality too?

Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh said that the word secularism was the biggest threat to develop India's prosperous traditions and give it a spot on the global stage. Speaking on the occasion of the first launch of the edition of the Global Encyclopedia of Ramayana on 06-March-2021, he was referring to the way of using the principle in the past. The supposedly 'unconstitutional' remarks, however, received severe criticism from Asaduddin Owaisi, head of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a party that draws its nourishment from sectarian ideology in the name of secularism. The words like 'Secularism', 'Secular Forces' and 'Communal' et cetera have been the favourite catchwords for politicians who often use it to create a bogey of communal spectre and polarization of votes.

The idea that religion should neither be a guiding principle nor should it interfere with governance fits well with secularism. In 508 BC, when the concept of democracy was introduced in ancient Greek, people except women and slaves were given voting rights. Each citizen had had a single vote. The society was predominantly theistic that gave priority to religion and social status. The ancient states were not indifferent to religion. Tabernacles, lofty temples, synagogues, churches and mosques were patronized and often constructed by states. Talking or preaching against the beaten principles of religion was considered blasphemy and the culprits were brutally executed. The concept of secularism albeit occupied the thought process of early Greek and Roman philosophers, it is not antediluvian. Relatively new, the term ‘Secularism’ was first used by British writer George Holyoake.  

With the growing prominence of intellect, the Age of Enlightenment started in 17th and 18th century Europe. The advocacy for the separation of religion and church from the governance started gaining ground. Thoughts accorded a sovereign status and the perception considered as the only valid source of knowledge. The changing perceptions were bound to develop cracks in the bastion of the intolerant, religion-based political system wherein the king was supposed to be the representative of God and the clergy as his aides. The opposition of the system was unacceptable and used to be brutally crushed.

In the Indian thought process, Charvaka were the main exponent of philosophy who put thoughts and perception on a high pedestal. Religious tolerance gradually made inroads. In the 3rd century BC, Ashoka the Great appealed to his subjects to follow religious tolerance and treat other religions with respect (Rock Edict - XII). In the 19th century India, devout Sikh emperor Maharaja Ranjeet Singh honouring other faiths had soldiers of different religions in his legions.  

                                                 Photo: by author

The medieval period of Indian history witnessed a watertight and intolerant system of governance of monarchs. They invaded and looted India. Some established their kingdom. Invaders became emperors who happened to be dynastic, wishes of whom used to be a command. Proselytization was a state policy. Non-muslims and Hindu natives were considered inferior subjects. Their faiths were corrupted, routed and trampled; the ‘jizya’ tax was imposed on them. In northern India especially, Hindu temples were desecrated, idols of deities were beheaded and temple materials were used to construct mosques deliberately on the fallen temple spots to trample the self-esteem of Hindus. The opposition was dealt with brutally and the 'culprits' were tortured to death. Rulers like Akbar, portrayed as a tolerant monarch, were religious bigots for a fairly long time.

Photo: by author

The divide on religious lines was distinct during the British empire in India. They encouraged religious intolerance and created a furrow between Hindus and Muslims to establish and strengthen their rule, especially post-1857. In an upheaval against the British East India Company, both Hindus and Muslims participated in the joint operation and courageously fought the first war of independence in 1857, termed ‘mutiny’ by Britons. Even though that the upheaval was crushed and henceforth governance was taken over by the British crown, Britons sensed the threat of joint native force. Slowly and meticulously divide was created to appease a section of society. In 1909 an Act was promulgated to constitute a separate electorate for Muslims. Later it was furthered to include other communities as well by the Government of India Act, 1919. Cracks started appearing between Hindus and Muslims - the communities that fought as one in the first combat against foreign rule. The foundation of the Muslim league in 1906 ensured the divide on a religious basis culminating in India's vivisection in 1947. 

Party spearheading the freedom movement in India sans Muslim League had been in favour of collective fight without any discrimination. Many illustrious leaders like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Rafi Ahmad Kidwai contributed positively to the fight for freedom. Gandhiji wanted a wholly tolerant India with its religions working side by side with one another. However, there was a section of society that had a different ideology. Muslim League, which was constituted with the sole aim to garner the support of the Muslim population, started demanding a separate state for they could 'not live with Hindus'. They propounded “Two Nation Theory” and impetuously worked on it. Fierce communal riots were instigated, causing panic and colossal loss of lives and properties. People started transmigrating well before the actual vivisection of India. They were aghast, did not know as to why they were being displaced from their soil.

Freedom came staggering; India was freed but paid a heavy price. The nation was lacerated, wounded and vivisected. Rampant communal conflagrations started on the call of "Direct Action" by the Muslim League. Large scale arson, loot and violence had left people in the lurch. Newly established Pakistan chose to be an Islamic state, but India opted for a secular structure. Religiously intolerant Pakistan became hellish for non-muslims. In India, however, Nehru was for a robust system indifferent to religion. The first Prime Minister of free India, Pt. Nehru was a visionary. He was an atheist but not anti-religious. For a country like India, which is pluralistic and varied with many cultures, languages and religious practices, secular democracy was the option that aligned to many west educated Indian leaders of the time. The Constitution, adopted in 1950, guaranteed the citizens a society free from religious interference but simultaneously gave them individual freedom of religious practice. It had to be a harmonious society. Article 14, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Constitution ensures freedom of expression, worship, and work. There is no state religion. Article 25 of the Constitution ensures “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion”, while Article 26 gives the right to establish, manage and maintain every religious denomination or any section thereof. These provisions ensure individual freedom which aligns with Nehru’s thoughts. Later, with an amendment in the Constitution adopted in 1976 (42nd Amendment Act, 1976), “We The People of India” resolved “To constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic”. India was now a ‘Secular’ country not tangentially but directly.  

Coming to the point of implementation, it is limpid that the Constitution and its provisions ought to be followed in its letter and spirit. Interpretation of the Constitutional provisions is under the purview of the judiciary. Interpretations and explanations of the constitutional provisions have been done by the judiciary from time to time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that preamble was part of the Constitution and could be amended. Secularism became a cromulent state policy after its inclusion in the preamble, therefore, it has to be observed diligently. In practicality, however, a deviation is witnessed. 

The electoral politics of India is a complex process. In a society with different languages, groups and sub-groups, customs and practices amalgamated with diversified regional patterns, an absolute system are difficult, if not impossible, to have. The number of votes and the ability to convert votes into seats is the crux of forming the government. The political party or the conglomerate of parties that gets majority seats can form the government. Ostensibly it is the vote which is a decisive factor in government formation. Political parties in India started eying on en bloc vote-share of minority voters. In all practicality, political parties prefer to choose their candidates based on religion, caste, creed and influence in elections occurring after lustrum.

In the rat race of getting votes, the political parties started making alliances ignoring the fundamentals of ethics and compromising ideology. The ‘Grand Old Party’, Congress, having the onus of carrying the torch of Nehruvian secularism, showed the inclination for ‘Vote-bank Politics’. They enter into alliances with sectarian regional parties which have been vocal against the majority sentiments and lopsidedly critical to them. Congress allied with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala, All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) in Assam, and Indian Secular Front (ISF) in Bengal for parochial motives. Parties vying for Muslim votes are seen in the mad race to show themselves as their Messiah, shunning secularism and following preposterous appeasement policy. In the over-enthusiasm for appeasement, they even declared that minorities, particularly Muslims, have the first claim on the government resources while some claimed that they would strife and die for the Muslim cause. People of the country saw that Puja in Bengal was banned while religious processions of minorities were permitted. Iftar parties organized by the Chief Ministers of States and at the President House happened to be the ludicrous show of appeasement blatantly flouting norms of the Constitution. 

The dent in the secular philosophy which started appearing in the period of Late (Mrs) Indira Gandhi, deepened when the then Prime Minister late Mr Rajeev Gandhi, yielding to the clergy pressure, turned turtle the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Bano case and later tried to pacify majority by letting open the gates at ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’. Vexed, especially after December 1992, the issue of 'Ram Janmabhoomi' has now been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after a very long legal battle. Numerous communal conflagrations took place which shook the very root of the system. People are now witnessing the pantomime of temple hopping and flaunting ‘Janeu’ by leaders of political parties ostensibly to balance the act of appeasement and to lure majority voters. 

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was probably referring to fake secularism in practice. Appeasement of a section of society was nothing but lip service. It harmed the minorities who had been kept frightened and lured with freebies. They went up to an extent of disintegrating the social and national unity by favouring those who are a potential threat. The support for Rohangiyas and eyebrow-raising on the Army actions are but few instances. Muslims feel cheated and cornered except for those who are getting a major chunk of the cake. The people are smart, they understand the acts. 

Photo: by Author

Secularism is not about appeasing a group or two. Appeasement is discriminatory and is against the spirit of the Constitution. The law of land treats everyone the same. Fruits of development are for all. A socialist, secular and democratic setup is unitary, not only in words but also in full practicality. The step-motherly treatment towards the majority section of society gives way to social discontent, which is detrimental to the nation. Each citizen contributes their share for the emancipation and development of the nation. It is equally important that the majority population have a tolerant and compassionate attitude towards minorities. There is no place for fear, haterade and suspicion among the sections of the society. Mutual trust, understanding and respect are the keys to harmonious coexistence. This is the essence and spirit of the Constitution that the eminent members of the constituent assembly envisaged while preparing the voluminous and exhaustive document which is the sole source of governance in free India. 

                                       Photo: by author