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.