Thursday, September 6, 2012

Anatomy of communal riots - 2

Communal riots, according to many reports of enquiry commissions, is because of provocation of other community members.  When some members of a community are provoked, they resort to violennce. Typical acts of provocation are creating disturbance in front of a place of worship, beating drums during the celebration of events by members of a community, public celebration of festivals of one community etc. The first question that begs answer is "who is at fault?" The one who is provoking? or the one who is provoked?

When analysing a riot, typically attempts are made to identify the initial incidence of violence.  The one who initiated the violence, the community to which he/she belongs, the details of the triggering incident may generally be considered as three facets of  root cause of the violence.  The perpetrator of a violence is responsible for the communal riot.  But, if the perpetrator of the violence is hurt by unjustified acts provoking the sentimens of the perpetrator of the violence, then at least part of the responsibility has to be shouldered by the person/community which has provoked the perpetrator of the violence.  Similarly, when some one faces an act of violennce, is he/she justified in responding by another act of violence? Legally no. But, can there be any concession to such a violent act?   There can not be any justification because of two reasons. One the victims of the violence may not be perpetrators of the violence that resulted in the counter violence. Second, counter violence, when justified, will result in cycle of violence.

What is happening in practice?  Religious processions like Ganesha, Rajyothsava and other Hindu deities in front of mosques are objected.  Playing of music instruments is also not accepted by Muslims. Stone throwing, obstructing the procession are manifested.  Hindus consider this attitude of Muslims as the root cause of the problem. On the other hand, Muslims consider the Hindus organizing the processions in front of their place of worship as intentional.  Muslims also allege that Hindu processions increae the volumen/rhythm of the music when they pass infront of the Mosques provoking the community members.  Wearing Tilak is also cited by Muslim as an act of provocation.
Similarly, teasing a girl of one community by a boy of another community may be a provocation of the community of the girl. The prevention of the girl or physical assault on the boy by community of the girl may be a provoke the community of the boy.  Which one of these are provocation? and which of these are not? One simple approach is considering both of them as provocations.
The simple approach may not be an optimal solution. It could even considered as a surrender to the rioters as they have successfully prevented members of a commnity in practicing their festivals in a free manner.  The rioters intolerant attitude has been rewarded when we consider the other act as provocative when in reality it may not be a provocation at all.  Although this simple approach, when enforced strictly, may lead to riot less situation, the situation may not be called as peace. 
When we dont consider both actions as causal provocations, at least one of them must be  a provocation.  Or there must be an underlying phenamenon which is responsible for both these actions.  So, the initial act of obstrution of a procession or intentionally organizing the procession in a particular route may have some other reason.
The way we are analysing a communal riot is very shallow. There is too much focus on the triggering incident. So, always news papers report that the riot was the result of a trivial dispute.  Since, individuals are involved in the dispute,  it is not wise to describe the incident as a conflict between two communities. So, never the communities are analysed in any riot. Further, we are so much convinced of irrationality of communal (community) identities,  analysis or policy meaures on communal lines are never considered.
Careful analysis reveals that a communal riot does not happen sporadically. There are underlying causes. The provocation happens at multiple ways in various degrees over a very long time. The lull betweeen two riots is not peace. Atttempts to domminate create resentment among those who experience  dominance.  Intolerant approach create difficulties among those who are discriminated.  The subtle effects of intolerance have significant effects on the community.  Using horn loudspeakers 5 times every day from early morning to late evening is a problem for nearby people.  Why there is so much of insistence in continuing this illegal practice?  Unfriendly attitudes towards neighbors belonging to other communities,  insistence on one name for the God, one mode of worship  are first level of provocation which is not being considered in our analysis of a riot.
When these initial provocations are not addressed, the diverse ways of living may be alleged as provocative.  When love marriages are becoming more common, insisting that a Muslim girl can not marry a Hindu boy (or a dalit boy can not marry a girl belonging to OBCs), creates problem.  If the community members decides to kill the boy or the girl or the supporters of such a marriage, there is something serious which is not addressed by us.  Either we should have courage to shun love marriages or we should stop the disapproval towards the marriage crossing a decent limit.

So, what are the root causes of the problem? Why are we unable to identify the root cause of the problem? Why are we unable to pursue a consistent policy towards a justified solution towards a peace.  There are no riots in Saudi Arabia. But, we can not say that there is a peace that we like in Saudi Arabia. Uniformity can bring silence but that silence may not always be peace. At the same time, diversity and tolerance by majority may bring some noise. But this noise could be better than the silence of Saudi.  At the same time, a tolerant society can not be allowed to be exploited by the intolerant minorities.

Having said this, the tolerance of Hindu society need not become a subject of discussion. And, the root causes of the ongoing riots are to be positively identified and the loopholes are to be plugged in.  Arresting the one who has stabbed a fellow citizen has to be done consistently. The courts have to be positively pronounce judgements always - not just in isolated cases like Naroda Patia. NGOs have to proactively act in  all cases of riots. But that is not sufficient. The time has come to identify the one who has provoked the one who has stabbed by preaching false religions and ideologies.

Are present day intellectuals  capable of deliver?

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Anatomy of communal riots in India -1

Communal riots is a serious problem faced by India from independence. It should be mentioned that communal riots were happening in India even before independence.  But, for drawing concrete conclusions, post independence period is to be considered. As these conclusions could be applied to the periods before independence with little more effort. 

Communal riots in India refers mainly to clashes between groups of people belonging to Hindu and Muslim communities. Approximately, Hindus are about 80% of the Indian population and Muslims are about 15% population. According to one official estimate, in the last decade, about 7000 communal riots were witnessed by India.  More than 2000 people were killed in these incidents and the number of injured were many times more than this.  More than 40 commissions of inquiry have been appointed to study major communal riots since independence and suggest solutions to the problem.

The problem is so familiar that everyone is aware of the dynamics of a riot, the culprits, the cause and the solution. Groups of people belonging to different communities engage in a clash over a petty issue - in many cases a fight between two individuals will turn as a clash between two groups and then as a clash between two communities.  The culprits are communal elements belonging to two communities, selfish politicians, biased police and administration.  The cause is the communal feelings of people provocated by vested elements by false propaganda and rumors. The solution being educating people to become less communal (religious), avoiding politicians and reforming police and administration to become sensitive to minority aspirations.

But, careful analysis of the above paragraph shows that it is vague and not actionable.  This is precisely the reason why no additional social, legal, administrative measures have been taken in the last 7 decades to solve the problem of communal riots.  There seems to be a reluctance, may be borne out of fear, to make a decisive move towards a solution. Even today, news papers report the communal incidents without revealing the identity of individuals, organizations involved in a communal riot. Administration hesitates to initiate strict legal measures against those who are involved in a riot. Even before the commencement of a riot, inputs from the police and intelligence will be consistently neglected.  No one will be identified either by the police or by the courts as responsible for the killings in such riots.  There will be no official version of precise sequence of events that led to violence. There will always be at least two versions of the stories, emanating from one of the groups nurtured by the official corners according to its convenience. 

Although, the riots are being reported from nook and corners of the country at all times, there is not even one effort to identify root cause of the problem.  No one is ready to go beyond the concrete wall of religion. No one is willing to ask reasonable questions about the religions involved or even to verify if there is really any connection between the religions of the groups involved in riots and root causes of the riot. 

Some people are calling this attitude of ours as Secularism, some as Dhimmitude. Some are attributing it to majoritarian communalism and some to Sangh Parivar. But all of our thoughts, repetitions without any modifications, are inadequate so far and prove to be futile in the future.