Centuries ago, by the time Islamic Sultanates had managed to exercise their supremacy over Gangetic India, there arose a peculiar conflict – of bands of sanyasis being beaten and robbed by bands of fakirs. If one wonders on what made these fakirs act so violently towards sanyasis, the answer lies in three basic facts:
· Fakirs were considered above the law on most matters
· With the imposition of Jaziya on Hindu lands, carrying arms had become the sole prerogative of Muslims, with the only exceptions being Hindu noblemen / warriors being in direct service to the emperor
· Crimes by Muslims against the kaffirs carried little censure as compared to crimes by Muslims against fellow Muslims and worse, crimes by Hindus against Muslims
Anyways, the drift continued for a couple of centuries only being broken in phases where the Muslim rule weakened. However, with the consolidation of Akbar’s rule, jaziya was first temporarily and then permanently removed and Akbar, on representation by various sanyasi orders, allowed them to carry arms and act in self defense. Very soon, the Sanyasis found themselves on surer footing compared to fakirs and we had more militant sanyasi orders coming into being. Things, of course, took a worse turn for sanyasis with the rule of Aurangzeb when the fakir order became bolder again but soon again, the rise of multiple revolts through the country weakened his Empire and the Mughal Empire was served a fatal body blow with the rise of Maratha Empire.
And the impact of these changes – many sanyasi orders became equivalent to a band of brigands, collecting taxes from villages and zamindars in their area of operations and many a times, liquidating competing bands of sanyasis and fakirs. These sanyasi bands had become so powerful that even during the oppressive Islamic rule in Bengal, their writ run over large areas and later, the East India Company had had to fight pitched battles to get rid of the marauding bands.
But how are events which happened over the last few centuries relevant to us now? Plainly, because it reinforces the fading reality that without the fear of law, even the most humble and meek creatures can turn into bloodthirsty marauders. Had the fakirs been under the pale of law, the sanyasis, in most likelihood, would have continued to be away from acts of retributive violence. Likewise, if the sanyasis had been adequately controlled by local kings, it is unlikely that they would have turned to medieval version of local warlords.
Today, we are faced with the prospect of being thrust with a legislation, which will ensure that the identified ‘minority’ communities will be above the law while any act of the majority, which can even remotely be construed as damaging to the identified minority.
And who is this minority? Minority in a state – meaning Hindus and Buddhists in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Muslims in all other states of the country and probably Christians in all states of the country other than the North Eastern states of Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya. Even here, it is to the discretion of Jammu & Kashmir assembly if they do indeed decide to extend the law to the state.
Rather than delve into the point of weakening of the federal structure of our country on account of this legislation, let us only concentrate on the banality of assumptions which has moved the NAC driven UPA Government to introduce such legislation.
Assumption 1: The legislation assumes that minorities are minorities through the entire geographical / demographical area of the state and hence are always weak.
Reality: Each state may have districts where the minority is in a majority, i.e., Malappuram and Manjeri in Kerala, Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, Malegaon in Maharashtra, Murshidabad and Malda in West Bengal, Dhubri and Barpeta in Assam, Kishanganj and Purnea in Bihar, Rampur in Uttar Pradesh and so on. Likewise, if not in districts, many states have parliamentary and assembly constituencies where the minority is in a majority or towns / cities where this phenomenon can be observed. Further, each town has at least one locality where the so called minority is a majority. If we leave aside the question of base majority/minority, we have whole regions like Western UP, North Bihar, Lower Assam, Gangetic Bengal etc where the so called minority is around 40%-45% of the total population. If the Act defines minority at the macro level, should it not go deeper and define minority in a fairer and more relevant micro level.
Assumption 2: Numbers alone mean domination.
Reality: if the assumption were true, a handful of colonizers from Europe would not have ruled the world, 300 strong Muslim army would not have won the Battle of Badr, nor would Babur have won Panipat and Plassey would have seen Siraj-ud-daula victorious. A determined, organized and well resourced group with a definite goal is way more powerful that an larger group of vacuous and disparate individuals. It is not for nothing that one says, ‘Having One Lion in the army is better than having a million sheep’.
Assumption 3: It is always the minority which bears the brunt of the riots.
Reality: While this assumption is certainly true in countries like Bangladesh, which have only Hindu casualties whenever riots happen, one would be surprised to note that the so called majority community forms a disproportionately large proportion of the killed, hurt and displaced. Rather than delving too far into history, let us look at figures on riots in the last decade or so:
a. Mumbai – 1993 - 575 Muslims and 275 Hindus (2:1)
b. Malegaon – 2002 – 12 Muslims and 3 Hindus (4:1)
c. Gujarat – 2004 – 794 Muslims and 254 Hindus (3:1)
d. Marad – 2003 – 1 Muslim and 8 Hindus (1:8)
e. Mau – 2005 – 2 Muslims and 10 Hindus (1:5)
f. Aligarh – 2006 – 2 Muslims and 4 Hindus (1:2)
g. Hyderabad – 2010 – 0 Muslims and 4 Hindus
h. Deganga – 2010 – 0 mosques damaged and 4 temples burnt
In case riots are really one sided, one can wonder whether the number of dead from the ‘majority’ community means that they committed suicide only to give a bad name to the meek, peaceful minorities! And before anyone steps into point out that minority casualties are higher than the majority casualties in case of Bombay and Gujarat riots, one should account for the fact that normally an 80% strong majority would ensure that cent percent casualties are from the 20% minority or a the very most, a few collaterals in course of the one way blood bath. But one can see, reality is different. Higher number of Muslim casualties in Muslim dominated Malegaon was on account of police action on marauding mobs, yet again an indicator that better armed crowd can inflict more damage on a larger opposing mob.
Assumption 4: Riots are always instigated by the majority
Reality: Majority of riots in the country have been instigated and led by the minorities. Even the arch liberal, Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his 1971 address to the Parliament, used home ministry data to buttress that point. But since 1971 is so last century – let us look at facts for the last 2 decades.
a. Mumbai – 1993 – Destruction of Ganesh Idol in Bandra East
b. Malegaon – 2002 – Procession protesting attack on Afghanistan turned violent
c. Gujarat – 2004 – Godhra carnage
d. Marad – 2003 – Unprovoked. Police inquiry pointed to a conspiracy to intimidate the Hindu ninority.
e. Mau – 2005 – Attack on Ram Baraat procession
f. Aligarh – 2006 – Attack on Bharat Milap procession
g. Burhanpur – 2008 – Attack on Hanuman Rath
h. Dhule – 2008 – Attack on Navratri Pandal
i. Kandhamal – 2008 – Killing of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati
j. Miraj – 2009 – Ganpati pandal depicting killing of Afzal Khan by Shivaji
k. Bareilly – 2010 – Banned Tazia procession taken out through a prohibited route
l. Hyderabad – 2010 – Removal of Hanuman Jayanti banners
m. Deganga 2010 – Unprovoked. Apparent Muslim anger at the upcoming Durga Puja celebrations
n. Bharatpur – 2011 – Attack and arson on Gujjar homes following dispute on a public ground
Both the above lists can go on and on.
All the right thinking citizens should ponder and evaluate if this proposed bill is indeed being driven by the noble intent of preventing communal violence? In its present form, the bill is certain to handle immunity from prosecution and retribution to a very organized, militant and belligerent ‘minority’ – which may not even be a minority in the true sense of the word.
The passage of this bill in its current form, where perpetrators and victims are defined by birth is the worst form of legal apartheid and can only lead to a situation where a cornered ‘majority’ may be forced to jettison its wavering belief in the intent and capability of its ruling classes to protect its basic rights to life and dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment