If anyone thought that the order of the recovery of the value of the property destroyed in violence in UP from the perpetrators was a decision of chief minister Yogi alone, prime minister Modi has proved this impression wrong. In his addresses to the public,  in Lucknow  on the eve of Late Vajpayee’s birthday Modi has supported Yogi’s actions in clear words. According to reports, the Rampur administration has issued notices to 28 people “identified for violence” during last week’s anti-citizenship law protests, asking them to explain their position or pay for damage caused to public and private property. Meerut admin has sent notices to 517 arms license-holders. In Muzaffarnagar, around three dozen shops have been sealed with the intention of recovering the loss of public property by selling the goods stored in these shops and shops themselves if needed. In Kanpur, 28 persons have been identified as the perpetrators. In Muzaffarnagar, around three dozen shops have been sealed with the intention of recovering the loss of public property by selling the goods stored in these shops and shops themselves if needed. In Kanpur, 28 persons have been identified as the perpetrators.

India has a long history of the destruction of property, both public and private, in various kinds of violence associated with protests and communal riots. But it is for the first time that there is an open declaration of state “revenge” against the perpetrators. Is it because, this is perhaps one of the rare occasions where the majority of perpetrators of violence are being identified by the police as Muslims?

What about the perpetrators of the Gujarat 2002 violence?  Here are excerpts from Wikipedia article on Gujarat violence durinv the reign of Mr. Narendra Modi:

“Property worth 42 million rupees was destroyed during the riots, with Muslims losing 32 million worth of property….There was widespread destruction of property. 273 dargahs, 241 mosques, 19 temples, and 3 churches were either destroyed or damaged….. It is estimated that Muslim property losses were “100,000 houses, 1,100 hotels, 15,000 businesses, 3,000 handcarts and 5,000 vehicles.”

Who paid for this huge loss? Were perpetrators forced to pay the losses? The same article adds:

“Overall, 27,780 people were arrested. Of them, 11,167 were arrested for criminal behavior (3,269 Muslim, 7,896 Hindu) and 16,615 were arrested as a preventative measure (2,811 Muslim, 13,804 Hindu). The CCT tribunal (Concerned Citizens Tribunal, Crimes Against Humanity) reported that 90 percent of those arrested were almost immediately granted bail, even if they had been arrested on suspicion of murder or arson. There were also media reports that political leaders gave those being released public welcomes.”

According to other reports, more than 200,000 Muslims were displaced and even after more than 15 years, a large number of them are living in ghettoes.

So, if the victims are Muslims and perpetrators Hindus, they are welcome in the BJP regimes as the “braves” who have done the commendable work. But if the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, they need to face the “revenge” in style.  24 Muslims have died since 2014 in Mob Lynching incidences. Were Hindu perpetrators forced to pay the compensation to the families of the dead? Again, many such perpetrators have been openly felicitated by the political leaders. In response to CAA and NRC, there has been widespread violence and destruction of public property in Assam. Why should the PM not ask his party CM there to recover the loss of property from the perpetrators? Similar questions can be asked about the Jat violence in Rajasthan and Patel violence in Gujarat. According to reports, assets worth ₹340 billion were destroyed in Haryana in February, 2016 in Jat violence. In Gujarat, in Patidar agitation too, there was sizeable destruction of public and private property. But again, perpetrators were not asked to pay for the destruction. Both these states were ruled by BJP at those times.

It appears that the ruling dispensation, instead of trying to pacify the agitators and removing their fears by taking corrective constitutional measures, plans to use this for further division of the masses on the communal lines. This of course is what suits their vote bank politics.

In response to the CAA and NRC, there has been widespread violence and destruction of public property in Assam. Why should the PM not ask his party’s chief minister there to recover the loss of property from the perpetrators?

The post Seizure of Properties in UP: Who paid for destruction of property in Gujarat Violence of 2002? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: PTI

Some commentators have been giving the impression that CAA alone is not bad and it becomes dangerous only in combination with NRC. The truth however is that they are bad in isolation as well; and when they combine they become dangerous. The supporters of the CAA are not tired of trying to convince Muslims that Indian Muslims have nothing to fear. They purposely hide the fact that as soon as the non-Muslims other than Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh become citizens and Muslim from these countries become ghuspaithiyaas (intruders), not only Muslims from the three countries living in India for decades are thrown into detention camps and then out of the country, many Indian Muslims too may be subjected to severest kinds of interrogation. Some of them may factually face expulsion from the country. Obviously, after CAA, this threat looms large only on the heads of Muslims while all the rest can live in peace irrespective of whether they are Indians or not. Those facing the greatest threat will of course be the labourers particularly working in the farms in other states. Their number may be as high as 30-40 lakhs.

Once NRC comes, this will bring trouble to all but in varying proportions. With a Demonetization like situation, people other than Muslims will face only physical exertion with the fear of standing in queues for hours with huge disturbances in their businesses and jobs. They will however be under no psychological pressure as their names alone will be enough to ensure them Indian citizenship. Muslims however can again be subjected to severe interrogation, even intimidation, and at least a certain percentage of them particularly those from the poor background can find it hard to submit the required papers. Even if they ultimately get the citizenship, the amount of physical, mental, social and economic pressure will have already taken a hard toll on them.

If there was any hope from Prime Minister’s Modi’s speech at Ram Lila Maidan on Sunday, it was belied by an address, which was full of rhetoric and mutually contradictory statements. Instead of allaying fears, he said things which further accentuated the doubts about the CAA. What he said in effect meant that while anyone other than Muslim coming from the three countries was a genuine victim of religious persecution in those countries, Muslims are nothing but intruders. He tried to arouse the sympathy of Dalits saying that almost all these refugees were Dalits. This statement in itself contradicts the claim of “religious persecution” because if religious persecution had been the reason the majority could not have been Dalits. He forgets that if Muslims too entered India, they too faced one or the other kind of persecution and they entered India in the hope of leading a safer and better life. Why would they otherwise leave their own country and become refugees in India? How can one be so sympathetic to six communities born on Pakistani soil and so cruel to one religious community? How can these Muslims living in India for decades be thrown out just because of their faith? He tried to support the claim of the six communities by saying that as soon as they would cross the border they would approach some police personnel to grant him permission while the intruders (Muslims) did not do so. Obviously if Muslims did not take that route, it was because of the fear that the Indian police would not welcome them the way they welcomed Hindus and Sikhs.

He claimed that for now there has been absolutely no discussion on NRC contradicting his own Home Minister who has repeatedly talked about a pan-India NRC. His claim that no detention centres exist in India has also been dismissed by the experts.

The only solution is to either take back CAA or change it to include all irrespective of their identities and irrespective of the kinds of persecution or difficulties they faced in Pakistan, which forced them to come to India.

The post Both CAA and NRC, even in isolation, problematic, together dangerous appeared first on SabrangIndia.