Violence in Delhi: A Result of an Ecosystem marked by Acquiescence and Hatred?
Irfan
Engineer and Neha Dabhade
(Secular
Perspective, March 16 – 31, 2020)
Amit
Shah, Home Minister of India, recently in a statement in Parliament said, “Such riots can happen only when there is a
pre-planned conspiracy behind it. We are also probing the conspiracy angle. All
those who caused the violence will not be able to escape the law” (Indian Express,
2020) . However, it
is still unclear who is to be blamed for the riots in Delhi which burnt the
city, mercilessly claimed lives of the innocent and ripped apart the social
fabric of the neighborhood, scarring it with suspicion hatred and polarization.
The riots triggered by incendiary speech of Kapil Mishra, who warned of
forcefully eviction of peaceful protestors protesting against the discriminatory
Citizenship Amendment Act/ National register of Citizens and National Population
Register, claimed 53 lives- mostly of Muslims. The violence left over 200
injured and ravaged northeast Delhi areas of Mustafabad, Shiv Vihar, Brijpuri,
Jafrabad. While it is more or less certain that these riots were pre-planned,
there is a debate if this violence can be called riots, pogrom or genocide.
There are also some stray parallels drawn between this riot and the others in
the past. So what exactly is the nature of the violence that unfolded in Delhi
between 23rd to 25th February 2020? And how is it similar
or different from other riots that India have witnessed in the past? And who is
responsible for this violence?
Let
us begin by understanding all the three terms. According to Paul Brass, a riot
carries the appearance of spontaneous, intergroup mass action while a pogrom is
deliberately organized—and especially—state-supported killings and the
destruction of property of a targeted group (Brass, 2002) . As per the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide
means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a.
Killing
members of the group;
b.
Causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c.
Deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
d.
Imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e.
Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.
Looking
at the broader definitions or attributes of the words, riots, pogrom and
genocide, it will not be incorrect to say that terming the Delhi violence as
‘genocide’ would be a little far-fetched. However, the violence does exhibit the
characteristics of both- a riot and pogrom. Most of the times, genocides are
masqueraded as large riots. Though there is enough on record to suggest that the
police were mute spectators and also in toe apart from aiding the Hindutva goons
while they unapologetically and mercilessly attacking the Muslims, forcing them
to chant or sing national anthem in their moment of fatal vulnerability,
dehumanizing them, vandalizing mosques and “conquering” them by unfolding the
saffron flag on them, calling this violence a pogrom would be inaccurate/
fallacious. Or at least terming all three days as a pogrom is fallacious. On the
first day of the violence, there was attack and retaliation from the Muslims
too. Hindu lives too were lost albeit very few compared to the Muslims. One can
argue why the Muslims were or if they were compelled to attack or indulge in
violence, but the reports state that Muslims also indulged in the violence,
making it a riot on the first day. But the complicity of the police where they
can be seen as not responding to the pleas of help, not giving way to the
injured to the hospitals, beating up the Muslims and burning Muslim properties,
or merely allowing this violence to go on for 3 days taints this violence as a
pogrom. Reports and testimonies continue to pour out depicting how brutally the
police turned against the Muslims during the riots.
The
pertinent question at this stage is whether this riot/pogrom was planned or
orchestrated? This point has to be investigated in order to ascertain the
culpability of the perpetrators and bring them to justice for their heinous
actions. The usage of guns, petrol bombs, gas cylinders, bricks, swords, rods
indicate the planed nature of the violence. Not only were such weapons used but
the efficiency and know-how with which the weapons were used with also points
towards some degree of training to use such weapons. The survivors of the
violence have repeatedly claimed that the attackers were not residents of the
neighborhood but were “outsiders”. These “outsiders” in an organized manner
attacked Muslims for over three days while the police controlled by the Centre
government refused to help the victims.
This
orchestrated violence was incubated in an ecosystem where on one hand there was
acquiescence on the part of the Centre and a volatile atmosphere created at the
local level with instigating speeches which provided a trigger. There was
ongoing preparation for the riot in the form of a narrative- polemic where one
group- portrayed as Hindus were pro- CAA/NPR/NRC and another group consisting of
Muslims were anti- CAA/NPR/ NRC. This narrative regarding the Muslims was
amplified to demonize them as anti-national and in the context of protestors
occupying spaces in Delhi were depicted as “nuisance” obstructing the roads and
traffic and thereby causing inconvenience to larger public. This in some way
undeniably gave rise to a popular sentiment that CAA is the issue of the
“Muslims” and inconvenience caused to the rest of the society was due to the
protesting Muslims. The rallies in support of the CAA and the aggressive
sloganeering deepened this sentiment, the cleave between the two communities and
created an atmosphere of tension. The activation or trigger point came from the
incendiary speech of Kapil Mishra, BJP leader from Delhi at a rally in support
of CAA in Jaffrabad where he said, “We
have given a three-day ultimatum to the Delhi Police to get the road cleared.
Get the Jafrabad and Chandbagh (where another sit-in protest is underway) road
cleared. They (the protesters) want
to create trouble in Delhi. That’s why they have closed the roads. That’s why
they have created a riot-like situation here. We have not pelted any stones.
Till the US President is in India, we are leaving the area peacefully. After
that we won’t listen to you (police) if the roads are not vacated. (Bhatnagar,
2020) ” .
The
ecosystem mentioned above needs some more attention. A riot at this scale for
three days requires support and complicity even tacit at best from the higher
echelons of the powerful. Kapil Mishra aided in providing a trigger point.
However, one shouldn’t ignore the ominous ecosystem that was constructed
carefully which had patronage and ideological support from the top. Right from
the mark up to the Delhi elections, the campaigning was one of the most vicious
pitched on religious and communal lines- polarizing, debilitating and downright
filled with hatred. It normalized demonization of Muslims and violence against
Muslims at multiple levels- hate speeches, police inaction while the Muslim
youth and women were attacked during peaceful protests or on college campuses.
Narrative played a pivotal role in shaping the larger public discourse on the
CAA/ NRC and the on-going protests against it- support to CAA/NRC was deemed as
the ultimate act of nationalism or patriotism.
Anurag
Thakur, Union Minister, exhorted in rallies to shoot down traitors of the nation
referring to Muslims who were protesting against the CAA (Indian Express, 2020) .
Before the Delhi elections, speaking at a public event, Amit Shah
said, “February
8 ke
subah parivar ke saath, 10 baje se pehle kamal ke nishaan par button dabainge?…
Aur mitron, itni zor se dabana woh button ki current se hi sham ko woh Shaheen
Bagh waale uth kar chale jaayein (On the morning of February 8,
will you, along with your family, press the lotus symbol before 10 am… and
friends, press the button so hard that its current forces the protesters at
Shaheen Bagh to leave the place by evening). (Rajput, 2020) ”
Thus, opposition to CAA was construed as anti-national. Students from colleges
which participated in the protests were hunted down by the police by entering
campus and using uncalled for force including usage of stun grenades against
innocent students, protestors were fired at by Hindutva hoodlums chanting Jai
Shri Ram. Little action was taken against these attackers, in effect sending out
a clear message that the state supports such acts of intimidation and violence.
This acquiescence at the higher level and the
resulting ecosystem at the local level allowed hoodlums and the police in tandem
to target the Muslims.
While
all these aspects discussed above in terms of planning and the role of the
police in complicity with the powerful has echoes of resemblance to that of the
Gujarat pogrom, there are also some points of divergence from the Gujarat riots,
often cited as a point of analogy with the Delhi riots. To begin with, the
trigger point of the riot was different than those of other riots in the past.
In Gujarat riots, 2002, the trigger point was the allegation that the Sabarmati
express carrying kar Sevaks was burnt by Muslims. The ensuing pogrom that went
on for more than three days was justified as a spontaneous reaction to burning
of Sabarmati. In the other riots, especially the ones from 2014, religious
festivals, processions having same routes or alleged defilement of places of
worship have been the trigger points to spark off the riots. According to the
monitoring of CSSS, in the year 2019, 9 out of total 25 riots, in 2018 20 out of
total 38 riots and in 2017, 10 out of 43 riots were triggered by religious
festivals/ processions or religious symbols (Engineer, Dabhade, & Nair, 2020) .
Very
large reason for this pattern is the aggressive masculinization and
militarization of festivals where rallies are organized as a show of strength
and assertion by slogans and openly brandishing of arms. Recent examples can be
cited from Asansol riots in Bengal and Ram Navami riots in Bhagalpur where
religious processions were turned into ground for political mobilizations. The
riot in Delhi was different in a sense that this riot was directly related to
the fundamental question of citizenship- who can be legitimately called an
Indian? It also stemmed from the question as to who in India has a right to
protest and occupy public spaces to have their voices heard. This riot’s
underpinning directly hits at who in India can assert against deep-entrenched
discrimination and polarization. This marks a significant shift in the discourse
of riots in India where any dissent is crushed brutally with complicit state
power and patronage.
Rumours
too conventionally play a big role in riots. The usual rumors are about
defilement of places of worship by throwing forbidden meat in the premises, eve-
teasing of women by the men of “other” communities, rapes of women, mutilation
of their bodies, attacks on members of the community etc. However, in the case
of Delhi riots, there were no rumors of such kind. This can be explained by
reflecting over the purpose of rumors in riots. Rumors are used as mediums of
mobilization for the riots. Community members get incensed after hearing about
the cruelty inflicted on their community members by the “others” and participate
in the riots to avenge. But in this riot, the “outsiders” who attacked seem to
be hoodlums associated with a political ideology.
This
also leads to another larger point of analysis- so far communal riots were
instrumental in polarization along religious lines and subsequently pay
electoral dividends. Thus various commission reports have apportioned blame of
the riots in the past on Hindutva organizations which were not ruling.
Subsequently, the BJP came in power where major riots took place. Gujarat was an
exception where BJP was ruling in 2002 but the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
was still dominated by the Congress. Normally the ruling governments during the
riots don’t want the riots to take place under its watch and may not even
electorally stand to benefit. A Delhi riot is a point of departure from this
pattern. While the state government of Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi was compelled to
chant Hanuman Chalisa and did no more than twiddle its fingers from the safety
of their homes despite the landslide victory just a couple of weeks before the
riot, the BJP who has the police under its subject, allowed the vindictive
hoodlums to run loose wrecking terror in the streets with police offering
protection and also itself participating in the violence against the
Muslims.
Roughly
since 2014, the nature of riots in India has been that of small scale where the
durations are shorter and they are more sporadic. These sub-radar and well
contained riots are orchestrated in a way so as to attract little media
attention or public condemnation. Thus the area of its impact is smaller and so
is the number of casualties. But Delhi riot was a break from this pattern, the
area spread out in northeast Delhi, 53 casualties with over 200 severely injured
and economy of the region badly hit. The only bright spot was the encouraging
stories of some members of both the
communities protecting members from other communities reinstating faith in the
shared existence of so many centuries.
What
does it say about the Delhi riots? This riot was an overt unapologetic
demonstration of hegemony and moral collapse of the ruling dispensation. All the
namesake façade of impartiality of the state and the police crumbled in the face
of the blatant complicity of the police and naked acquiescence of the Union
government in this riot. Conducive environment or ecosystem of hatred was
meticulously constructed to unleash violence- free for all or with no holds
barred for the Hindutva hoodlums. The message is clear- Hindus and Hindus who
subscribe to the ideology of the government can exist in India. Muslims are in a
vulnerable position- prone to naked forms of violence, devoid of constitutional
protections so bluntly subverted by the government. Muslims have no democratic
space to occupy the streets or assert. Any form of assertion will be crushed
with an iron hand- unyielding in the face of constitutional morality, promise of
united India and tryst with liberty and freedom that modern India had dreamt of.
--------------------------------------------------------
Centre
for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai
Comments
Post a Comment