Allow me to begin with a more specific question. Do we in India need semi-religious, semi-cultural semi-political organizations in a secular democracy? My answer is yes! We do. In a country such as India where the myth of endurance lords it over the idea of progress, religion is the pivot on which the entire concept of a social being turns. Religion enriches the daily life of an ordinary mortal, creates camaraderie among followers of different faiths and invokes a fear of the Almighty to an otherwise corrupt dispensation. Although organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) or Bajrang Dal do not directly influence any of the attributes, they still play a crucial role in keeping the masses rooted to their traditions. They do social service in the aftermath of disasters, natural calamities and accidents. But why do they wreak havoc and create communal frenzy?
The answer lies partly in their genesis. Historically "anti-isms" have bred most of these outfits. Fundamentalism of one faith gave rise to another. Organizations owing allegiance to one ideology created antithetical ideologies and all grew cumulatively. Through all this, a hypocritical one-party dominant multiparty system turned a blind eye to an emerging crisis. Now things have reached a flash point because Indian polity is deeply fragmented and the political ideologies are shifting bases. A political party is largely answerable to the masses and gets punished for wrong decisions, bad policies and false promises. On the other hand, these organizations have no accountability bogey attached to them. They remain rooted in their ideologies and draw inspiration from vices within and without.
SIMI, for instance, existed side-by-side the RSS and its affiliates. Yet its activities remained largely confined until the Sangh Parivar began to change gears in the wake of its political power. The student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami matched the rhetoric of the Hindutva brigade to the extent that it chose to go beyond the limit. Whether RSS and its sister concerns were also going overboard is a matter for another discussion. But the truth remained that they were answerable to none for their activities. Rhetoric is prelude to fascism and causes incendiary situations. But mere rhetoric remains inconsequential until there is a rise in mass followings. The more dangerous situations arise when the state becomes part of the rhetoric. Such joining of hands cause orgies of violence such as happened in Gujarat. The line dividing rhetoric and full-blown hatred and aggression blurred and things spun out of control. It was one of those momentous occasions when the good, the bad and the ugly all got caught in the cauldron. Mindless violence began the process while revenge, hatred and vendetta overcame sanity.
The opposition wasted no time in charging the administration with connivance and complicity. The allegation is largely debatable and should be left to the political parties. But there are a few observations that need reiteration. The pretext of "sentiments" that Gujarat’s police commissioner talked about is a case in point. Individuals are susceptible to being ruled by "sentiments" but in that case, they cannot wear two masks at the same time. Those getting swayed by "sentiments" were free to join arsonists, but without their uniforms. By default, the police commissioner should have given the statement in civilian clothing. I am not accusing him of complicity. He was simply ignorant.
While this was not the first communal violence India has seen, it was very similar to the 1992-93 Bombay riots in terms of design and execution. While on the previous occasion, it was the general unrest after the Babri Mosque demolition, the Godhra killings added fuel to the fire in Gujarat. In all these years of communal violence, the common link is lack of justice. Outbreak of communal violence simply means a license to loot, kill and settle scores. Such incidents happen time and again also because there is a very low punishment rate. The bureaucratic routine of judicial inquiry follows the customary appearance by high-profile charge-sheeted personalities. To add to the woes of justice, the reports and recommendations are thrown into the dustbin. This only causes further divisions and a lack of faith in the administrative machinery. That brings us back to the issue of organizations wreaking havoc. As we can infer, the identity of the organization should be of no consequence. Justice in a civil society should not prevail because of, or in spite of, some organization or ideology. It should be the last word in moments of chaos. Justice means different things to different people. For the man on the street, it is compliance but for those implementing, it is the rule of law. If the ruling class wants reconciliation in society, it will have to ensure that justice and the rule of law prevail without fear or favor.
***
(Riyadh-based Ehtesham Shahid is editor of www.peacemonger.com.)
