Between the fault lines: Riots and Wrongs

47 dead and 40,000 people have been displaced in Muzzafarnagar violence.  This strife ridden area questions our visceral conjectures on secularity and diversity. The government’s inability to anticipate communal violence, the deadly combination of criminality, communalism and administrative incompetence of the Samajwadi Party, sordid propaganda of the VHP, the irresponsible rabble rousing of the MLAs across political divide, the ineptitude of the ruling Congress and the fact the principal opposition party’s Prime Ministerial candidate cannot speak with much moral authority on the subject. All these factors have equally contributed in inciting this communal conflagration. But where does the buck stop for such kind of carnage?

In the backdrop of incinerate statements and insidious intentions over 450 incidents of communal violence have been reported this year. If scrutinized carefully, one can find a very tantalizing context to such occurrences.  For one, there is no doubt that the phase of identity politics is resurfacing. There is extensive polarization on the basis of religion and caste. The Hindu-Muslim equation still determines the political equilibrium of this “progressive” India. In case of Muzzafarnagar, the Jat-Muslim combination proved fatal for the Samajwadi Party. Their gamble of polarization has backfired upon them. But the sociological trend that is worrisome is, the violence is increasingly rural. In the face of new economic mobility, development and youth empowerment this moral opportunitism is most likely to be considered an all party crime by the people of India.

1984 anti-Sikh riots, 1993 Mumbai riots and then the devastating 2002 Gujarat riots successfully polarised the masses on both sides of the religious divide. This resulted in creation of fault lines who’s gargantuan tremors can be felt even today. The very same seems to have happened in Muzzafarnagar. The camaraderie which prevailed between Jats and the Muslims before the onset of this strife lies in tatters now. Do the Muzzafarnagar riots mark the return of 90s era where development politics was a chimera which was masquerading identity politics?

Does Muzzafarnagar challenge our assumption or are we being too simplistic about the relationship between growing income and diminishing communal violence? Fundamentally, Muzzafarnagar riots depart from our existing understanding of Political theory. It is widely observed that economic differences tend to aggravate fault lines. So, a certain degree of economic and civic engagements will promote amity and break down the pre existing fault lines. Also, when government largely depends on the votes of minority communities, frequency of communal violence becomes low. We came to believe that contingent political alliances between communities are harbingers of secularism. But it is indeed intriguing that democratic, secular and sovereign country like India defies even this political theory.

There is a very complex (‘complex’ is underrated here) relationship between diversity and tolerance. India is one of the few ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse countries. While we as Indians take mammoth pride to in its medley of cultures, it is a harsh reality that we lack the tolerance to face the consequences of being a multicultural secular nation.  Diversity if not elaborated in context of freedom can be a fetter producing a suffocating discourse of identity.

We live in an India where a rumour legitimises a discourse of revenge, the same old propaganda of Muslim guys out to ensnare Hindu girls or vice versa is given free reign by the politicians, the standard blame mongering over which community started it, the morally sick metrics over which community got more sympathy and then the creation of thousands of refugees.  This is an India where Electoral secularism + politics have proven to be a vicious cocktail for its citizens. A cocktail with a deathly hangover!

In the name of secularism we have been doing the appeasement of Hindu communalism and Muslim communalism. But time and again, we fail to understand that no minority community wants to be a bonded labourer of secularism. We need to move from a discourse of diversity to a discourse of freedom and human rights. The underlying structure of potential conflict remains sensitive to the slightest political perturbation.

But are we raising fake alarmist conclusions about this politics of polarisation? Or has the era of identity politics returned to haunt India? These questions have to be discussed and deliberated in the public domain. Surely, other political parties do not realize the counter narrative of fanning these riots, but it will be long before Akhilesh Yadav gets to wipe off this blot of disgrace from his political career.

UNITED STATES OF INDIA

India was created by a consolidating hundreds of princely states. And yet again there is a pushover for creation of newer states. The 29^th state of India was born on August 1, 2013 by bifurcating the state of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Seemandhra. This division was a result of decades of agitation by the people of Telangana demanding a separate state.

But was this division inevitable? Or is it a consequence of electoral compulsion? Lets us take a closer look at it. Bifurcation leads to smaller states and smaller states ideally imply strong governance due to administrative ease. Also smaller states are found to be more progressive, have higher literacy rates and higher growth rates. States like Kerala, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh are good examples. But on the other hand states like Jharkhand (carved out of Bihar) haven’t done well on the same parameters. Pro- division people argue that a country as large and diverse as India needs smaller units for governance. Creation of new states is not simply the acknowledgement of the cultural aspirations of the region but also an amalgamation of social and political factors.

The downside of creation of newer states is that instead of making borders irrelevant it is making them more and relevant. Often, the creation of political and administrative boundaries, become social and economic barriers. Issues like resource redistribution, sharing of water bodies, sharing of revenue system between the newly divided states sours the celebratory atmosphere and often becomes a bone of contention.   

Recently India witnessed agitations involving the creation of Telangana and demanding the creation of newer states of Bodoland (by dividing Assam), Gorkhaland (by dividing West Bengal) and Haritpradesh (by dividing Uttar Pradesh).  But the question arises that why the clamour for creation of new states is so sudden?

Apart from providing administrative ease, smaller states result in decentralization of power. After the division, the new government has to concentrate on smaller area with lesser population. It makes the government more effective and responsible. This decentralisation of power is purely based on the Panchayati- Raj system which is the basis of governance in India. Also, division results in regional similarities like sharing a common cultural history or a common language or belonging to the same caste or religion. These factors enhance the probability of living harmoniously in that region.

The state reorganisation committee listed linguistic barriers as the foremost basis for considering division of a state. This is why the state of Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1996 owing to cultural and linguistic differences. But social, political and economic factors also hugely determined the creation of new states. Owing to trust deficit in the government of Uttar Pradesh and cultural differences between the hill tribes and backward castes, Uttaranchal was born in 2000. Similarly, Economic disparities, caste distinctiveness and uneven distribution of natural resources led to the creation of Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh.

But in the case of Telangana, none of the above mentioned criterion holds true. It is purely the Telugu chauvinism at its peak. The creation of Telangana is also seen through electoral prism and the political fraternity remains sceptical about it. Many alarmist propagators conclude that this disintegration might lead to the reversal of history and bring to light the divide and rule policy of the British. UPA-II is also accused of putting the unity of the country in jeopardy by a so-thought reckless decision.

But the question arises, are the newer state agitations strengthening federalism? This is because the turbulence concerning the bifurcation may not necessarily be separatist. Whimsical parallelisms are often drawn about the states being like two couples asking about two private rooms.

But is our democratic structure strong enough to withstand this disintegration in the unity of our country? Or are we heading towards United States of America? These questions remain unanswered will stand the test of time. No doubt the creation of Telangana has opened up a Pandora’s Box. It may seem small and innocuous at the beginning but the aftermath may be perilous. 

Federation of Anarchists

It was a disgraceful day in the Monsoon Session of 2013, when the speaker of the Rajya Sabha Hamid Ansari, disillusioned by the routine disruptions in the Parliament, referred the honourable members of Parliament as a Federation of Anarchists.

Pride of India

During the recent times, members on both sides of political divide have torn papers, scuffled, agitated by using unparliamentary language, shouted slogans and caused all sort of possible disruptions in the working of the Parliament. The statistics of the lost working hours of the Parliament is itself a testimony to the pandemonium created by our elected representatives thereby jeopardising not only the decorum of the House but also its culture. Since 2010 winter session, Rajya Sabha alone has lost 520 working hours and each working hour lost costs about 25 lakhs. In this Monsoon session of the Lok Sabha alone lost 88% of its available sitting time to adjournments due to disruptions.  If we compare to the First Lok Sabha, which met for an average of 127 days in the 1950s and Rajya Sabha for 93 days in 2012 it decreased to 70 days for both Houses. The 1st Lok Sabha passed an average of 72 Bills each year while this has decreased to 40 Bills a year in the 15th present Lok Sabha. The Parliament has become a stage for our elected representatives to act to their discretion; regardless of the Parliamentary ethics. This blatant misuse of the taxpayers’ money has not only enraged the citizens but has also opened a Pandora’s Box raising doubts about the efficiency of Parliamentary democracy in India.

Though the frequency of hooliganism has increased exponentially over time, the honourable Members of Parliament were outraged by the use of the term ‘anarchists’ used by the speaker of Upper House. They termed it as unparliamentary and a phrase that was uncalled for. Now the question arises what constitutes unparliamentary language and who adjudicates it? The Unparliamentary Expressions, a book of 900 pages is published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and held as a reference. The list contains several words and expressions that are considered profane and disrespectful in the Legislative Assembly.  For example words like bluffing, bribe, double minded and corrupt cannot be used for a Member of Parliament. And while there are nearly 40 members from the communist parties in the two Houses, the word "communist" is unparliamentary, going by the book. But if such innocuous words form the definition of unparliamentary language, then shouldn’t disrupting the Parliament be declared unparliamentary as well?

The discussions on various amendments, new Bills, passing of new and required legislations all get stalled due to the frequent adjournments in the Parliament. As a result of which most of the analysis and development have to happen in the standing committees. This expunges the opportunities for genuine and open dialog between the opposition and ruling alliances. This was not how working of the Parliament was envisaged by our founding fathers.

Scuffling Parliamentarians

This barbarian behavior

on part of the Honourable Members of Parliament has raised questions on the honour and the work ethics of the Parliamentarians. Surely wilfully disrupting the law making body of the country to gain political and electoral mileage cannot be exonerated. Some blame competitive politics, while some condemn conflicting political interests (even within the same parties or alliances) to have increased the frequency of disruptions. By displaying such hooliganism, the Members of Parliament have raised serious questions on their credibility. They have formed an antagonistic perception in minds of the common man which will be difficult to obliterate.

This was one side of the story. However we must also dwell upon the fact that Parliament is the most substantial forum for public discourse with regard to representation in India. Its members are the elected representatives by the citizens of India. They represent the voice of India so varying emotions like happiness, anger, agony, pride, anguish, delirium, elation, prosperity are bound to be reflected in their words, expressions, emotions and body language.  Having said that it is also the prerogative of the ruling alliance to ensure, that the Parliament from being the biggest Panchayat in the country, does not become the largest Akhada (wresting arena).

Though we borrow our legislative model from the Westminster model, the readers will be shocked to know that the British Parliament has never been adjourned due to disruptions in the last 370 years. This fact should not only be a source of inspiration for our honourable legislators but should also serve as a wakeup call on their habit of procrastinating and disrupting passing of Bills in the Parliament.

Punitive measures must be taken for repeated offenders because deferring the Parliament is not only the betrayal of Democracy but also beguiles the trust of voters.