In the previous article, we saw that forcible conversions were taking place in the Narayanpur and Kondagaon districts of Chhattisgarh, but that of Christian vishwasus to Hinduism, and the state has done next to nothing besides pleading those who were threatening and indulging in violence against the vishwasus, turning them out of their villages, to let the displaced persons return to their villages. Adivasis became, by choice, vishwasus, turning to Lord Jesus. Their numbers were growing since year 2015. The modus was this: small, independent one-Adivasi pastor led churches, having a following of less than 100 vishwasus, and sometimes more, organised prayer meetings wherein those with chronic sickness felt they were cured, and would thereafter also give up their drinking habits. Giving up drinking habit led to some improvement in their lives economic condition and they, thereafter, focussed on the education of their children. The strong fellowship that developed during the prayer meetings and love of Lord Jesus is the sine qua non for prevention of a relapse into drinking habits. The short visit did not enable us to examine the internal social dynamics within the village community, which pushed a section of the Adivasis towards prayer meetings and developing fellowship with other vishwasus within the Church. However, this did not necessarily mean that the vishwasus gave up all Adivasi traditions, customs, culture and way of life. Most of them told us that they contributed to the village festivals and participated in cultural events. However, they did not partake in the offerings to traditional Gods nor participated in the idol worship. 

The Chimdi village sarpanch however said that the vishwasus would not contribute financially in the village festivals or religious rituals. Jaising Potai (45), a displaced vishwasu, told us that he gave his contribution to the village festival, however, Kamu Patel and Kachra Gaita refused to accept it because they were not vishwasus. Patel and Gaita are traditional designations of the village head of the Gond community.

In the village Pawada, Manku Koram, belonging to the Gond community forced out one family with five members including three sisters, after  a meeting was held. The foodgrain stock of the vishwasus was looted on December 18, according to Jaldev Koram (male, 30 years). They were paraded on a tractor and threatened with loss of life if, either they did not convert to Hinduism or, left the village. Jaldev had turned vishwasu in the year 2016. After his becoming a vishwasu in 2016, the village would not accept his contribution to the village festivals. Jaldev was member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and always voted for the Party, even after 2016. A social and economic boycott was declared against Jaldev’s family. This meant nobody would offer their tractor to plough his land and people from outside the village were fined Rs. 10,000/- if they came with their tractors to plough his land. These were early warnings of the impending storm of violence or threat of life that turned out one thousand adivasis in the two districts, out of their villages. These were early warning and similar such episodes took place since the month of October 2022 as well. The vishwasus complained to the police but their complaints were ignored. Seeing the indulgent attitude of the state (to their acts of criminal intimidation) the non-Christian Adivasis were emboldened to scale up the pressures and coercion.

We talked to three victims from Temrugaon – Ramesh Koram (27), Nevru Koram (24) and Shambhulal Koram (27), all from Gond Muria community, belonging to the Maranatha Full Gospel Church, under the leadership of Pastor Mayaram Nag. The Temrugaon vishwasu community has a prayer hall belonging to the New India Church, wherein the vishwasus from Chalka village also would come to pray. The prayer halls we saw are in fact, small mud, bamboo and reed structures. The prayer hall was constructed three years ago, but it has been functional only since last year. The vishwasus in the village converted in the year 2007 and 2008. Twenty seven out of the total, 110 families have converted.

After their Sunday prayer meeting on December 18, a mob from the village led by the sarpanch Rajman Koram, caught them, sprinkled alcohol on them (to break their vow and spirit), beat them up and chased them out of the village. The vishwasus named eight other accused in their complaint to the police for assault on their perdon: 1) Jhelu Karanga, 2) Dhannu Koram, 3) Laxman Koram, 4) Jairam Koram, 5) Bajman Koram, 6) Jagnu Koram, 7) Shriman Koram, and 8) Ramsingh Potayi. The sarpanch was (allegedly) instigated by Ramdhar Suri from the village Chalka, a Gondwana Samaj and BJP leader. They were beaten with lathis and rods. Besides the above-named Ramesh, Nevru and Shambhulal, the others injured in the attack were Kulram Sodi, Ramadhi Koram (35), Shalu Koram (F, 30), Shankar Koram (23), and Jugai Koram (30). Jugai was hit on head. Six of those injured were hospitalised in the district hospital, Narayanpur. Some vishwasus rushed to the police station to report the violence. About 10-15 policemen were deputed in the village. Ramesh, Tularam, Fagu and Sukhlal were all beaten in presence of the police and their uniform was also torn 

There were attacks on the vishwasus in 2009 as well when they were driven out of the village. They were staying in Narayanpur till 2014 on government land. However, there was a settlement and they were allowed to reside in the village once again. The sarpanch changed and the new woman sarpanch – Ratni went back on the settlement. On December 4 this year, Ramadhi Koram was beaten with a burning stick on his back, hands and legs. He was immobilised due to the attack. A Complaint was filed, but the police reprimanded the complainants, turned them away and did not act on the complaints.

From the above, it was obvious to us that when there were early warnings as late as in the first week of December 2022, with low intensity violence targeting vishwasu individuals, the police in particular and the district administration in general turned a blind eye by turning away complainants or ignoring the complaints of violence, breach of peace, social boycott etc. There was another serious early warning of the emerging conflict. The vishwasus were refused permission to bury their dead since about six months ago in the village on their own land on the pretext of maintaining Adivasi traditions and customs. Burial of dead vishwasus was in violation of Adivasi traditions and customs, according to the non-Christian Adivasis. They wrongly invoked the Panchayats (Extension to Schedules Areas) Act, 1996. Even after this the police and the administration did not act to protect them. The vishwasus would have to carry the body of their dead for burial all the way to Kondagaon, sometimes more than 50 kms away to a dedicated cemetery for Christians in a hearse. Those buried in the village were dug out. The non-Christian Adivasis kept escalating their violent actions to the next level until on December 18, about a thousand displaced vishwasus camped in the compound of the Narayanpur District Collector. It is only then that the administration partially woke up, arranged relief centres for the displaced – in the indoor stadium in Naryanpur and Panchayat Bhavan in Kondagaon.

(… To be continued) 

Note by the author: 1) Administrations inaction on the ground that both sides are wrong, 2) Instances of forced conversions, 3) how peace was maintained in Chiprel village and the way ahead, 4) what should the established Church, civil society, human rights organizations and political parties to establish peace.

The original copy has been edited for style and language —Editors 

Also Read

‘Forcible Conversions’ in Narayanpur and Chhattisgarh – Part 1

Forcible Conversions in Narayanpur and Kondagaon districts in Chhattisgarh – Part III

Related:

Anti-Conversion Laws: The trope of forced religious conversions

False allegation of Conversion leads to the continuing Abuse against Christians

The post ‘Forcible Conversions’ in Narayanpur and Kondagaon districts in Chhattisgarh – Part II appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amidst Islamophobia which was increasingly gripping the world after September 11, 2001, Dr. Engineer wrote extensively defending Islam as a religion of peace and harmony. He wrote several books on Islam and his books were translated in Bhasha Indonesia, French, Malayalam, Hindi and Marathi.  His approach to religion in general and Islam in particular was that of an empathetic rationalist, studying and examining the Holy Quran, Hadith, history of Muslim rulers and present state of affairs of Muslims. He developed theology of peace and social justice. He was a voice of gender justice and Muslim women’s rights.

He never hesitated to critically examine the role of Muslim civil society and religious leadership and did not spare them if he found them on the wrong side. He had the courage of conviction to speak out the truth and for which he suffered several attacks on himself and his family. Nevertheless, he never wavered from the truth he believed in.

He not only wrote extensively (78 books and several articles), he worked to bring about social change – reforms within Bohra Community; communal harmony and peaceful co-existence between all religious communities and training Muslim women to be alimas and Muslim scholars within their own rights.

He was also a humble human being, accessible to all, sharing his knowledge and convictions with all, even polite to his worst opponent and those who abused him, a wonderful father (more of a friend with whom we could freely discuss and differ), father-in-law, family person, a friend who was always concerned about the well being of his friends. A person without any ego or vanity and truly social human being. He practiced the equality that he preached in his own day-to-day dealings.

I consider myself very lucky that he was my father and I learnt a lot from him. Pray and resolve to carry his forward his legacy. We in Centre for Study of Society and Secularism are striving to do so.  

The post Remembering Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Judgment of the Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suit (hereinafter, ‘Title Suit’) is expected before the retirement of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on November 18. Justice Gogoi was one of the 5 judges hearing the matter. The Prime Minster of India, Narendra Modi has appealed for peace whatever may be the outcome of the case. It is heartening too, that Hindu supremacist organization the RSS has also appealed for maintaining peace and accepting the judgment with ‘open mind’. Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Muslim litigants have always said that they would accept the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Title Suit after having done their best to save the Babri Masjid. They will face God on the Day of Judgment (qayamat) with a clear conscience. Other Muslim organizations have also likewise appealed for peace and acceptance of the judgment whatever the verdict may be. With these appeals, we hope that the people of India will maintain peace irrespective of in whose favour the judgment is.

In this short piece, we try to trace the history of the litigation. The story of Babri-Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi conflict is story of demand of Nirmohi Akhara permission to construct a permanent structure over Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid premises to the claim of entire 2.77 acre of land on which Babri Masjid once stood with Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas’s filing of the suit in 1989 on one hand and democratic institution of state caving in and crumbling under the pressure of mobilization by the Hindu supremacist organizations watching the rule of law and the might of the Constitution crumble under the weight of the mobilization by majoritarian politics. The executive and the judiciary twiddled their thumbs, passing on the buck to each other to save the Babri Masjid from demolition. The Allahabad High Court then legitimised faith of the majority community and legitimized the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The High court delivered its judgement dividing the land into three parts with Hindu parties getting two-thirds and Muslim litigants.

History of the litigation

In the year 1855, there were communal riots between the Hindus and the Muslims. Some 500 followers were mobilized by orthodox Sunni cleric Shah Ghulam Hussain to claim Hanumangarhi Temple in Ayodhya, which according to him was constructed after the demolition of a mosque. The Hanumangarhi temple is about a kilometre far away from the Babri Masjid. The attack was repelled by 8,000 Bairagis who had assembled to protect the Hanumangarhi Temple. The Bairagis chased the Muslim followers of Ghulam Hussain who took shelter in the Babri Masjid. Several of the Muslims who died during the riots are buried near the Mosque. Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah, too ruled in favour of the Temple. The Bairagis of the Nirmohi Akhara laid no claim to the Babri Masjid premises.

It is disputed as to when the Ram Chabutra was constructed. The Muslim litigants in the Title Suit maintained that the Chabutra was constructed after 1855 and surreptitiously, while the Hindu litigants maintain that the Chabutra always existed and Hindus worshiped the idols of Lord Ram in the Chabutra admeasuring 17’ X 21’. After the 1855 riots, iron grills divided the inner courtyard and the outer courtyard adjacent to the iron railings. The Chabutra was in the outer courtyard. In 1856, Awadh was annexed by the British colonisers and in May 1857, Hindus and Muslims together fought the first war of independence against the British rule. The movement was crushed brutally.

Nirmohi Akhara, worshippers of Lord Ram, which moved to Ayodhya sometime between the year 1734 and 1800 filed a suit before the sub-Judge of Faizabad on January 29, 1885 through Mahant Raghubar Das. The suit was only for awarding permission for constructing of temple over the Chabutra which, the suit stated was Janam Asthan, where Charan Punya (embossed on the Chabutra) were worshiped. The plaintiff in the suit claimed possession of the Chabutra, admeasuring 17 feet X 21feet, and permission to construct a temple over it to protect the worshipers from the vagaries of the weather. It is worth noting that there is no claim in the plaint that the construction of the Babri Masjid is after demolition of any temple; that the birth place of Lord Ram is under the mosque or that Hindus worship the entire land as Janam Asthan; or that they were entitled to the entire land premises on which Babri Masjid stood. Pandit Hari Kishan, Sub Judge of Faizabad dismissed the suit by his judgment dated December 24, 1885. The permission was denied as there was likelihood of communal riot in future.

An Appeal was preferred before the District Judge of Faizabad Col. FEA Chamier who dismissed the Appeal by his judgment dated 18/3/86 as “there is no ‘injuria’, nothing which would give a right of action to the plaintiff.” The District Judge, however struck down the observation of the Sub Judge stating that the plaintiff on account of their possession is owners of the land on which the Chabutra was constructed. Second Appeal was preferred before the Officiating Judicial Commissioner, Oudh, and W. Young too dismissed the Appeal vide his judgment dated 1/11/1886. The observations of Young are worth producing here.

“The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precincts adjoining the mosque and they have for a series of years been persistently trying to increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure: (1) Sita ki Rasoi (b) Ram Chandar ki Janam Bhumi… There is nothing whatever on the record to show that Plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question”.

This observation of Young proved so true. From a claim over Ram Chabutra as Janam Asthan, the Ramjanmabhumi Nyas filed a suit in 1989 claiming that the entire 2.77 acres of land on which the Babri Masjid was constructed, the inner court yard and the outer courtyard belong to the deity, are sacred to the Hindus and the land would always belong to the deity even if intermittently the possession passed on to any other party, no matter for howsoever long. They borrowed the position Muslim litigants who were arguing – “once a Janambhumi, always a Janambhumi”. Muslim litigants were arguing that a Mosque belongs to Allah, to Him alone, and cannot be alienated or the user or ownership changed. Ramjanmabhumi Nyas argued on similar lines. The Allahabad High Court accepted this as faith of Hindus and the judgment is heavily relies on acceptance of this as faith of all Hindus.

After Independence

Besides a communal riot in 1934, Ayodhya there were no significant developments on the issue of Babri Masjid.

On the intervening night of December 22 and the morning of December 23, 1949, Lord Ram’s idols were taken from the Ram Chabutra in the ourter courtyard and installed the deity under the central dome of Babri Masjid after breaking the locks. A police picket of 15 persons was on duty but did not apparently act. Several instructions were given by the Central Govt. to remove the idols, but they were not on the ground that it would ignite a law and order problem. The installation was not all of a sudden. It was being planned for a while.

On January 5, the Dist. Magistrate locked up the disputed structure and a scheme was framed for the maintenance of the premises. The order of the civil judge restrained by means of temporary injunction from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with ‘puja’ etc. as at present carried on. However namaz was stopped. In 1955, Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the DM passed on January 19, 1950. In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara through Gopal Visharad filed a title suit claiming the inner sanctum of the Babri Masjid. And Sunni Waqf Board filed a suit in 1961 claiming ownership right over the inner as well as outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid.

On February 1, 1986, the position on ground was again changed. At 4.40 pm the District Court in Faizabad passed an order on an appeal of one Umesh Chandra Pandey, who was not even a party in any title suit and without hearing any party to the title suit to the effect that the lock on the Ramjanmabhumi temple should be opened and unrestricted and free offering of prayers be allowed. The appeal was filed on January 31, 1986 after the Musnsif’s Court of Hari Shanker Dubey rejected Pandey’s application dated January 25, 1986 for opening the lock on the ground that suits were pending in the Allahabad High Court and no such order could be passed. Next day i.e. on 1^st February the appeal was heard without notice to any party in the suit and order passed by Dist. Judge and the same day at 5.19 pm the locks were broken and prayers allowed. Mohammed Hashim who was plaintiff in the title suit filed in 1961 to be impleaded as a party to the Application.

In 1989 Ramjanmabhumi Nyas filed suit as next friend of Ramlalla Virajman claiming that the entire land belonged to the Deity who cannot be dispossessed of the title to the land. Limitation is not applicable to the Deity and the Deity can sue through a next friend. Then on 6^th December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished and this time not surreptitiously in the wee hours of morning but after full preparation, planning and mobilization which neither the highest court of the land nor the Central Govt. prevented the demolition which it could have if it had sufficient will.

While twenty-seven years ago, Babri Masjid came crumbling down on  December 6, 1992 amidst massive mobilization by the Sangh Parivar – organizations affiliated to right wing Hindu supremacist RSS. Liberhan Commission which was appointed to look into the circumstances and events that led to the demolition of Babri Masjid found that demolition of the Mosque was meticulously a planned event. It further observed that “Kalyan Singh’s (the then BJP Chief Minister of UP) government was the essential component needed by the Sangh Parivar for its purposes. Kalyan Singh lived up to the expectations of the Parivar”. Regarding the demolition, the Commission stated, “The preparation was accomplished with phenomenal secrecy, was technically flawless with consistency and assured results…. The theme was power. It attracted clusters of young men to support the hidden agenda. Leaders know how passions are aroused and how to prevent the same; they however always see what would be beneficial to them rather than what would be good for the nation. This is what happened in Ayodhya.” The crowd mobilized by the Sangh Parivar cheered the demolition. Among those who cheered the demolition were BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, L K Advani and others. What came down on December 6, 1992 was not only the structure called Babri masjid, but also the Constitution of India, democratic institutions that were mandated to protect the rights of the citizens of India in accordance with the Constitution, including the judiciary and the executive. When there were clear signs of planning and preparations to demolish the mosque on 6^th December all were twiddling their thumbs, dilly dallying in taking action, passing the buck on other agencies to take preventive actions to stop the demolition and even hoodwinking each other and hoping that the mosque will not be demolished after all.

Tremendous pressure was mounted on the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing of the Appeal against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the Title Suit. Senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar said on November 28.^, 2018 that the country would not be handicapped for 2-3 Judges to throttle its beliefs and in construction of Ram Temple. Ram Madhav, General Secretary of the BJP warned that if hearing of the Appeal by the Supreme Court is not fast tracked. Other options would be explored.

Arguments of the parties

The Arguments were opened by the Hindu litigants. Nirmohi Akhara sought the possession of the entire disputed plot and a declaration that it’s right to continue to worship at the site as a distinct religious denomination. It argued that Nirmohis were worshipers of Lord Ram. They were dispossessed in 1950 when the DM took over the site. Ramlalla Virajman argued that Ramlalla in Indian jurisprudence has a status of juristic person who can file cases to protect its rights. It was further argued that entire Hindu community considered Ayodhya as birth place of Ramlalla from times immemorial and have been continuously worshipping at the disputed site, whereas Muslims have abandoned the site since 1934, and in any case since December 23, 1949. The character of disputed structure – mosque or temple – can be determined only by who worshiped there.

If we revisit the judgements in 1885 and 1886 in the case, which was filed for construction of a temple on the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid and not for claiming the entire site, the claims of Hindu litigants were rejected mainly on two grounds 1) limitation – the claim was too delayed as Babri Masjid has been in existence since 1528; and 2) Possession was the only claim in their favour without any records of title, grant etc. The third issue that went against them was possibility of violent conflicts in future between the worshipers belonging to the two communities. To overcome these handicaps, the Hindu litigants adopted two strategies – 1) disrupt the normalcy and use the threat of breakdown of law and order for augmenting their claims; and 2) Plead faith as a source of their right from times immemorial, not provisions of law, documents or evidence. Thus far their strategy has worked and even the Allahabad High Court’s judgement heavily relies on faith to grant reliefs to Hindu litigants. The threat of law and order is always there.

The outcome

The mobilization for demolition of the Masjid was not for religious attainments. While its immediate objective was to dislodge Congress and install BJP in power, its long term objective was to undermine the Constitution, its core values of liberty, equality and fraternity, rule of law and establish hegemony of Hindu supremacists. The Hindu supremacists wanted construction of Ramjanmabhoomi temple (and by extrapolation, entire polity) to be based not on legality but on the (unsubstantiated) Hindu faith that Lord Ram was born precisely on the spot under the central dome of Babri Masjid. They wanted to create might of Hindu nationalists and governance to be based on might of the mobilized. Every trained blow on the Masjid that day was a blow on the Constitution and rule of law; blow to rule of sanity; blow to the idea that governance should ensure development of the most oppressed and marginalized – antyoday.

Congress failed to protect the Masjid in 1992 and utterly failed to stop the country from sliding into the hands of Hindu supremacists. The demolition of the Masjid was followed by communal violence in several cities and towns, particularly in the western and northern India, including Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Surat. About 900 people were killed in the communal violence in Mumbai, 246 people were killed in Gujarat, 95 were killed in Bhopal communal violence and 25 in other parts of Madhya Pradesh, 200 were killed in UP, 100 in Assam, 60 in Karnataka, 32 in West Bengal, 48 in Rajasthan, 24 in Bihar, 12 in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh each and 2 were killed in Tamil Nadu.

Violence was the weapon deployed by the Hindu supremacists to extend their influence politically and strengthen their party. Demolishing Babri Masjid and advocating violence they demonstrated that rule of law meant nothing to them and their faith was above law; that law could not protect all citizens and that sections they chose to stigmatize could be practically relegated to second class citizenship.

We sincerely hope that the Judgment of the Supreme Court restores confidence of all citizens in rule of law and the Constitution.

(The author is Director, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai)

The post Babri Masjid-Ayodhya Judgement must restore faith in the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most Indian language media do not use the word “lynching” to describe such incidents. Urdu media uses the word “bheedtashadud” (mob violence). Other Indian language media use translation of words ‘mob violence’ that captures the phenomenon of a mob beating up a few individuals. Does use of any word to describe the phenomena reduce the pain of the victims and their families? Bhagwat and, in fact, the organizations subscribing to Hindu supremacist political ideology, which are commonly referred to as the SanghParivar in the Indian media, attempt to kill the sensibilities of Indian people in general, and especially of the consumers of media, towards the suffering of victims by problematizing the word and passing off these incidents as isolated, unconnected, ordinary occurrences in society, although undesirable. Calling the incidents ‘undesirable’ is more for public consumption, political correctness and niceties, in order to qualify as a responsible mainstream organization. However, important SanghParivar leaders unapologetically justify, and even encourage, incidents of mob lynching. They are not even condemned by others from the Sangh Parivar.

On July 7, 2018,Jayant Sinha, Union minister in the BJP led government garlanded 8 persons convicted in the lynching case of Alimuddin Ansari in Ramgarh. Alimuddin Ansari was lynched to death by a mob of nearly 100 people on June 29, 2017. The message that lynch mobs get from the garlanding of those convicted for the crime by the Union minister is that the governmentis with them and supports their ‘heroic’ act. There are other leaders of the SanghParivar, who have approved and encouraged such heinous act.

The BJP led Union government was over enthusiastic and in a tearing hurry to criminalise the practice of triple talaq, or instantaneous divorce of Muslim women by their husbands, and made several attempts were made to get the legislation passed in the Parliament, merely on the grounds that the Supreme Court had recommended it, even though such incidents of triple talaq were very few. The same enthusiasm is not seen in enacting a law against mob lynching, even though the Supreme Court directed that such a legislation be passed(News18.com, 2019). The hurried enactment of a law criminalizing triple talaq and the denial of the necessity of a law to deal with lynching – both are politically motivated, even though the former was sought to be passed off as a legitimate response to the Supreme Court judgment.

What is lynching?
Let us try to understand why the incidents that are described as lynching by the English language media are different from ordinary violence leading to physical injuries, or even deaths, of the hapless victims. We will primarily try to understand this through two fact finding missions of such incidents in Jharkhand, in which this author was involved. The first incident happened onApril 10, 2019,in Dumri block of Gumla district, in which Prakash Lakda was lynched to death and two others were injured. The fact finding mission was appointed by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) (CSSS Team, 2019). The second incident of mob lynching took place on September 22, 2019, which again led to the death of ClemitiusBarla and injury to two others in Karra block of Khuntidistrict. This incident was investigated by SAFFORB-India, of which CSSS is a constituent, and this author was a member of the fact finding team. The report was published on October 5, 2019 and distributed to the media in Ranchi.

The lynch mob, in both the cases, accused their victims of slaughtering a cow and distributing its meat among the participants. In the Gumladistrict incident, the victims were skinning a dead ox. Traditionally, the caste Hindus hand over their dead animals to the Oraonadivasis for disposal. The Oraons extract the skin, distribute the meat of the dead cow and dispose of the carcass of the dead animal. Oraons eat meat of dead animals at the risk of their health, as they are poor. On the said day (April 10), a mob of 40-50 attacked those skinning the dead ox and brutally beat them up for close to 4 hours, till midnight, when they called up the police to take the injured away and charge them for illegally slaughtering a cow. The police responded by telling the members of the lynch mob to bring the three injured to the police station, even though the hospital was on their way to police station. The lynchers obliged, organized a vehicle and dropped them on the premises of the police station, where they continued to lynch them for some more time. Then the police took to lynching the injured, and then, carried two of the three injured to the hospital at 4.00 am in the morning. By then Prakash Lakda was dead. It is not a mere co-incidence that the targets of the lynching belonged to the Christian community.

In Khuntidistrict, Christian adivasis, belonging to the Munda community, were celebrating their festival Badpahari – an ancient adivasi festival. They were cleaning an ox on September22, near the river, and doing dangri (distribution of meat of the cleaned animal). Badpahadi / dangri is a tradition practiced by all adivasis, and despite the conversion to Christianity, the tradition continued. At around 8.00 AM, 15-20 people, armed with sticks and other weapons, from 3 to 4 villages, 3 to 10 kms away from Suari village, where the lynching took place, started attacking them. The attack could not have been but planned, if so many people from different and far away villages assembled early in the morning, travelling by foot, as the river bed where the attack took place is not motorable. Those, who were cleaning the animal, escaped while others, who were in the neighbouring field, were targeted. ClemitiusBarla, who died in the incident, was handicapped and, having his bath in the river, was caught and severely beaten. So was PhaguKachhap, a Hindu from a neighbouring village, who was watering his field, was wantonly caught by the mob. KushalHoro’s testimony to the SAFFORB team is important. He said, “Without asking anything, they straightaway started beating us. We all ran away to save our lives.” Both the teams concluded that the incidents, they were investigating, appeared to be planned. The targets were carefully chosen – poor, Christians and adivasis making them vulnerable three-times over.

Victims of mob lynching
Christians, and that too poor adivasis, are unable to fight, raise their voices in media before those who matter or come to their help. They are deserted not only by the media, institutions of the state and civil society, but also by the Church itself, which is as scared of the political consequences and accusations of conversions. Clemitius’ sister, KarunaBarla, who is an eye witness to the lynching of Clemitius, told us that after the incident, some unknown people visited them and told them not to file any case against those involved in the lynching. The case would be time consuming, the result of the case would be uncertain and it would cost a lot of money. The villagers got convinced on the last issue. They decided not to file any case, as it would cost them a lot of money. They were so naive as to believe the strangers, and the fear of financial cost involved deterred them from taking recourse to legal remedies. They did not know that they would not have to spend any money, as the state would prosecute the accused on their behalf.

The triply vulnerable poor Christian adivasis are further victimized by the state, by filing cases against them under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act 2005. Instead of getting FIRs registered against those lynching them, their instinct is to run away to protect themselves from being maliciously prosecuted on false accusation of slaughtering a cow. An FIR against the lynched victims is registered first, before registering an FIR against the members of the lynch mobs. Tabrez Ansari and his friends were charged for theft in another instance of mob lynching in Jharkhand. Pehlu Khan and his son were charged under Section 5 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995, in the case of mob lynching in Alwar in Rajasthan. In the Khuntidistrict case, the police had not charged the victims, till the date of our visit. That seemed to be a rare exception. The police took the injured to the hospital immediately, though Clemitius died after his hospitalization.

The main reason why only Christian adivasis are planned targets of lynch mobs is to accomplish their objective of triggering a communally polarizing discourse of Christians slaughtering gaumata. That is the plank for the Sangh to divide the Christian and non-Christian adivasis, and create its influence among the non-Christian adivasis. Communally polarising the adivasis blunts their ‘adivasi’ consciousness as having different way of life and weltanschauung, and weakens their struggle to protect their right to land, natural resources, forest produce, both minor and major – in short, their right to jal, jungle and jameen– against the mining mafia and against displacement in the name of development. In Khuntidistrict, the adivasis – Christians and non-Christians together, waged a successful struggle against the amendment of the Jharkhand and Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Acts, which would have enabled the big corporations to acquire their land. Their traditional rights to jal, jungle and jameen are statutorily protected under the PESA Act, wherein gram sabhas are all powerful. The Pathalgarhi movement is to, precisely, defend these rights wherein the statutory provisions are carved on stones in villages. The Christian – non-Christian divide is blunting this adivasi consciousness. The BJP is known to be favouring big business more than any other political party in the country. The discourse of development favoured by the BJP is one which spurs urbanizing, construction of massive infrastructure of roads and flyovers for the urban rich and middleclass.

The lynch mobs and their objectives
The lynch mobs are drawn from the dominant caste Hindus of the region, who use symbols like cow as a political tool to further their social hegemony and domination in the area, particularly over the adivasis. In the case of lynch mob in Dumri Block in Gumladistrict belonged to Sahu community, Sanjay Sahu, who was arrested for lynching Prakash Lakda to death and injuring two,is a criminal history sheeter, accused previously of extortion and murder. Many Sahus had their brick kiln on adivasi owned land and were using the soil of the land to bake bricks without paying a farthing to the adivasis. They wanted the adivasis to live in fear and never demand their land back. Sanjay Sahu was protecting his hegemony, and those of his minions and community members, and killing Prakash Lakda was neither his first murder nor would be the last murder. ‘Gauraksha’ was a convenient cover for his social, economic and political interests rather than a religious conviction. Sanjay Sahu enjoyed the political protection of elected representatives, and the elected representatives need Sanjay Sahu and his minions to push the voters to electoral booths. Sanjay Sahu’s political clout is evident from the fact that the BJP MP, SudharshanBhagat’s victory procession ended in his village, Jairagi, which makes no other sense as it is neither the border of the constituency nor has any other significance.

The accused in the Khuntidistrict incident were allegedly from Bajrang Dal and belonged to the Rajput caste. They were from Poda, Jaltanda and Karra block headquarters. Their names are Parmanand Singh, Ravindra Kumar Singh, Bhubaneshwar Singh and Pushpa Raj. Our informer told us that there were several other incidents of mob lynching in the area. However, no one reported the incidents, the victims being from the marginalized community. When the victims did summon courage, the police scared them away. Since, in this case, the lynching resulted in death, it attracted media attention and, therefore,the FIR was finally registered. The group was working with impunity and creating their political clout and fear among the marginalized communities. In both the cases, one of the objectives of the mob was to establish their unquestioned social hegemony, not only over the victims, but the entire community to which the victims belong.

Lynching and ordinary crimes
The difference in lynching and other crimes lies in the manner in which it is carried out and in the objective. Lynching is carried out openly, publicly, demonstrably and without any fear of law. Ordinary crimes are done with as much stealth as necessary to escape the law. Unlike terror attacks, caste violence and communal riots, wherein the targets are any and every member of a community, the lynch mobs target particular individuals accusing them of some wrong doing – whether or not the accusation is a fact. The mob may consist of scores of people from the dominant section of the society, enjoying the patronage of the state. The individuals targeted by the mob are under their complete control and can be made to do anything that the mob orders them to do – even eat shit or chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ or ‘Bharat mataki jai’ or chant any invocation against the most sacred creed of the victim. The target of mob lynching is totally helpless. The members of a large mob encourage even the worst brutality. No brutality is brutal enough to be not perpetrated on the victim. This includes jumping on the body of the injured victim lying on the ground and unable to get up, beating for hours together with sticks and other weapons, burning, hacking with sharp instruments. The victim is perceived as worse than an animal – a demon whose existence, and his/her community’s existence, is a threat to the entire society. The brutalities are committed to send a message to the entire community to which the victim belongs. Therefore, videos of the brutality are made and uploaded on the social media to terrorise the entire community and gain sympathies of others for, what one thinks, a ‘heroic’ act.

There is no remorse in the members of the community to which the lynch mob belongs. Lack of remorse surprises us. How can human beings be without any remorse for the brutal act on the victims? While the theatre of communal riots has been mostly in urban areas with some exceptions, mob lynching is communally polarizing in the rural areas as well. Mob lynching is encouraged by SanghParivar as a vehicle to take the Hindu supremacist political ideology to the rural areas. Empathy of the SanghParivar for the lynch mobs is, therefore, understandable. The BJP and the SanghParivar are, therefore, against enacting any legislation to deter mob lynching.

By problematizing the word ‘lynching’ as foreign,Bhagwat and others in the SanghParivar obliterate this distinction between ordinary social violence and the brutalities that entail the mob lynching incidents, and indirectly acquiesce the incidents. Some even glorify these incidents. However, lynch mobs are not only digging the grave for humanity, they are also digging the grave for the rule of law in India and for Hinduism itself.

RELATED ARTICLES :

1. No data on lynchings, NCRB withholds figures
2. Jharkhand, Mob Lynching and Marginalization of Adivasis
3. FIR against celebrities who sent letter to PM against mob lynching: Bihar
4. Dalit men beaten up for attending birthday party, Rajasthan
5. Lynching: India’s Shame!

The post Mob lynching and its defenders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

A policeman guards the premises of the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand on March 23, 2019.PHOTO: AFP
 
On March 15, 2019, 50 Muslims offering their Friday prayers died and 48 injured when they were gunned down in Masjid al Noor mosque in Christchurch and at Linwood Avenue mosque in New Zealand. Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old son of an Australian working class family and the gunman behind at least one of the mosque shootings in New Zealand posted his 74-page manifesto making his reasons for the shooting clear. Prime Minister of New Zealand called the attack as a terrorist attack and condemned it strongly and unequivocally as one of New Zealand’s darkest days.
 
There was a world of difference how the media reported the Christchurch mass shooting incident wherein the shooter belonged to the white race and Christian faith and how such incidents are reported when the person involved professes to be a Muslim. London based Daily Mirror’s front page headlines the next day were “Angelic boy who grew into an evil far-right mass killer”. The Daily drew the attention of the reader to the innocence of the shooter in his childhood and sought their sympathies. The story further tried to evoke empathies of the reader by tracing the troublesome situation in which he was. It mentioned, that the blonde little boy had a father who had cancer. The same Daily’s headlines were outright condemning the ISIS shooter involved in Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016 and causing 50 deaths. The headlines then were, “ISIS MANIAC KILLS 50 IN GAY CLUB”. Compare “ISIS maniac” with “Angelic boy”. The former rightly evokes disdain, condemns and censures the killer whereas the latter evokes empathy, tells the reader something went wrong with “person of our race, culture and faith” otherwise an “angel”.
 
The Australian daily – Courier Mail’s front page headlines were “WORKING CLASS MADMAN” and wrote in its opening sentence “Terrorist Brenton Tarrant became twisted by severe addiction to wild video games as he morphed from a curly haired schoolboy into a mass murderer”. The story finds fault with the “wild video games that Tarrant loved to see, once again not finding fault with his ideology or racist attitudes and hatred towards immigrants and Muslims. The Daily found nothing wrong with Tarrant’s 74-page manifesto and launching a war with people of different faith and culture and offered no comments thereon. Western media unequivocally and promptly condemns incidents of terrorism wherein Muslims are involved, as it should be. Section of dominant western media names the religion of the terrorist willy-nilly drawing the entire community in the blame game.
 
They link Islam with terrorism in such incidents. The Daily Telegraph’s headlines while reporting the Orlando nightclub shooting incident was – “SAME SEX JIHAD”. Jihad is popularly linked with Islam.
 
A section of popular media equivocates when the terrorist incident is carried out by a person belonging to a white racist Christian fundamentalist and ultranationalist group describing them as a madman and lone wolf attack. Something went wrong with the individual, they seem to say. As if there was no trace of racism in their culture and body politic and all Christians in the Northern world were most are modern and have the right attitudes. The fault lies with the ‘others’ – those who profess a different religion and are from different race, ethnicity or culture. In the case of terrorist attacks by politically motivated Muslim groups, the cause is located in their religion rather than in the political context. The cause of the attack is attributed to their objective of destroying, what they term as “our way of life”.
 
However, motives of the racist Brenton Tarrant or anti-immigrant Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who gunned down 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp on the island of Utoya on 22^nd July 2011, are not critiqued or condemned.
 
White supremacists, anti-immigrant ultranationalist or Christian fundamentalists are not perceived to be destroying “our way of life”, although that is a bigger threat rather than the political Islamists who carry out terrorist attacks without leaving their footprints except the ghastly toll and enable the state to acquire more authoritarian powers on the pretext of security. Tarrant and Breivik are seen as “us” rather than “them”, whose strategy to achieve their objectives may have gone a bit wrong.  Deep down there is some sympathy with Tarrant and Breivik as they were trying to get their countries rid of “them”, the people who threaten “our” culture and “our way of life”. Tarrant and Breivik haven’t parachuted from anywhere. They are products of the society that has a deep dislike for immigrants and people belonging to other religion, race, ethnicity, language or culture.
 
The covert and subtle racism which exists in a large number of people makes them believe that their race, religion, language or culture is superior and is entitled to various privileges which need to be maintained by institutional structures and force if necessary. That discrimination against “others” is natural. Covert racism allows institutional structures and systems that produce inequalities in wealth, income, the criminal justice system, housing, health care, political power and education among other factors. Covert racism thrives on prejudices against “others” and dehumanizes them. It is this covert racism that gives rise to double standards in dealing with racism or supremacism of all sorts. Covert racism calls ISIS terrorist as a violent maniac and Tarrant and Breivik as angelic boys with whom something went wrong. It is unwilling to question the racism within individuals when they want to know, or media that wants to report, personal stories of angelic boys rather than the plight of survivors of their reckless attack.
 
Covert racism allows racist ideologies and organizations to thrive and individuals to be filled with hatred and anger and take to violent means and terrorist acts. The ideology of “clash of civilization” by Samuel P. Huntington and Ku Klux Klan and many such violent organizations are supported by covert racism. The racist ideologies and organisations in turn nurture, deepen and spread racism. Merely condemning terrorist act is not enough. Civil society and state must identify the covert racism and address it.
 
The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern is precisely addressing the covert racism within New Zealanders when she enters mosques and condoles the survivors of the terrorist attack and embraces members of Muslim community calling them their own and “us” while calling Tarrant and terrorists as “them”.
 
In the Indian situation, if we replace the word racism with communalism in the above analysis, we get the same result targeting Muslim and Christian community. We have overt communalism in the form of communal riots, demolition of Babri Masjid, mob lynching of Muslims transporting / owning cows alleging them to be cow slaughterers, renaming places and lanes that have Muslim sounding names, when hate speeches is a norm rather than exception and highest political officials and officials of ruling party freely propagate hate speeches which is punishable offence and no action is taken against them. Due to limited space here, we are not listing the hate speeches here which have been dealt with in other issues of Secular Perspective.
 
We know there is widespread prevalence of covert communalism when people nurture prejudices against the Christian community that they indulge in mass religious conversions and their prayer meetings and churches are attacked, when Muslim community is stigmatized to be fast multiplying with the intention to become a majority community within a short span of time, that they are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslims even if all Muslims are not terrorists, that their rightful place is in Pakistan a country to which they are loyal, etc.
 
Covert Communalism has led to decline in socio-economic condition and educational status of the community as pointed out by the Sachar Committee Report, Ranganath Mishra Commission and Amitabh Kundu Committee Report. While terrorists from Muslim community are dealt with the severest punishment in law, as they should be, the terrorists of Samjhauta Express Mecca Masjid bomb blasts, perpetrators of communal violence, mob lynchers of Pehlu Khan belonging to Hindu community are allowed to go scot free.
 
Institutionalized communalism leads to innocent Dr. Kafeel Khan being suspended and victimized for the deaths of more than 60 children in BRD Hospital in Gorakhpur only because his religion happens to be Islam.
 
Muslims and Christians are highly underrepresented in Parliament and state legislatures, in Govt. employment and in the private sector. In several cities, housing societies refuse membership of the society to Muslims and Christians. We could go on listing the exclusion of Muslim and Christian community but these are just a few examples.
 
It is the covert and subtle communalism that does not condemn communal riots, mob lynchings and attack on Christian prayer meetings and Churches; that acquiesces terrorist attacks where most victims are Muslims as in Malegaon, Mecca Masjid, Ajmer and Samjhauta Express while it loudly and unequivocally condemns other terrorist attacks where most victims are from Hindu community to be an anti-national crime demanding severest of punishment.
 
We, however, do not have anybody like Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand.
 
Mahatma Gandhi once made some of us question our covert communalism when he undertook fast unto death when there were communal riots. Societies would not be liberated from the cycle of violence unless covert racism, as well as communalism and supremacism of all hues and colours, is addressed. We need to identify our own covert communalism and address it. There are enough resources in all our religions to do so.
 
In India we believe in “vasudhaiv kutumbakkam” – the entire world is my family; and “ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti” – there is one truth, wise people have described it differently. Buddhism teaches us to be rational and compassionate towards all, rather than build communities based on ideologies of superiority and supremacism. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in his Tarjuman-ul-Quran opines that it is compulsory for Muslims to accept all religions to be true. Saint Kabir, Maulana Rumi and Bulleh Shah tell us that love is the essence of all religions. We have Christianity that teaches us equality and ‘love thy neighbour’.
 

The post Opinion: Reflecting on our own racism in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a surprise development, the Supreme Court, on March 21, 2017 urged the rival parties in the Ram Janamabhoomi – Babri Masjid (RJBM) case to negotiate and resolve the dispute in a spirit of give and take. The Chief Justice of India offered himself to be a mediator should both the parties agreed. The observations came on application of Subramanian Swamy seeking urgent hearing of the appeal against the order of Allahabad High Court dated September 30, 2010 in the RJBM title suit. Subramanian Swamy, a BJP leader, has no locus standi in the case and he is not a party in the Appeal. Yet the Supreme Court exercised its discretion and even asked the BJP leader to talk to all parties to the case and bring them to negotiating table.

It is not clear whether Swamy was prompted by the Prime Minister but the application seems to be made in the background of massive victory of the BJP in UP Assembly elections. Though the mandate was primarily sought for development – or sab kasaath, sab kavikas, the BJP might have seen this as most opportune moment to push the construction of Ram Temple on the site where BabriMasji once stood for 464 years before it was unlawfully demolished.

The parties to the Appeal before the Supreme Court did not feel the need to move the Court for urgent hearing of the case. Many other cases are pending before the Apex Court and which may be of real urgent nature. What persuaded the Court to spend its valuable time on this contentious case wherein one party to the case is in stronger position in the prevailing scenario while the other is more defensive and feeling diffident will be for the Court to satisfy itself. Litigants defending Babri Masjid title are naturally feeling extremely vulnerable and in a very weak position. Not agreeing to settle on the terms desired by the litigants who already have 2/3rds of the land in dispute according to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and are seeking the entire land would endanger the security of the community at worst and open to charge of being intransigent at best. Several attempts were made to arrive at negotiated settlement and all of them failed.

One attempt was made by the Shankaracharya and religious leaders from Muslim community. Muslim religious leaders gave favourable statements and nod at the initiative. They were hopeful of the initiative leading to an amicable settlement with the spirit of give and take. However, the SanghParivar which felt that a settlement would be reached without them being involved opposed the initiative. Statements were planted in the media that Shankaracharya was a devotee of Shiv rather than Lord Ram. Shankaracharya withdrew from the initiative and the settlement did not materialize.

The inhabitants of Ayodhya would have long settled the issue in the spirit of give and take had the dispute been left to them. The Head Priest of Hanumangarh, the largest temple in Ayodhya, MahantGyandas has organized iftaars for Muslims inside his temple and repaired Mosque situated on the land owned by his temple with their funds. Muslims have invited MahantGyandas, inside their mosques. Such was the amicable relations between Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya during the peak of Ram temple agitation. The agitators were mobilized from outside.

The priest of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple – MahantLal Das too opposed the VHP-BJP led Ram Janmabhoomi movement. MahantLal Das was assassinated and his assassins have remained a mystery. The final attempt to settle the issue was made by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the dispute, a simple man living in hut. Hashim Ansari died a few months ago after the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court. He was disillusioned with the Judgement and wanted to settle the issue. Hashim Ansari and the rival litigant MahantRamchandra Das Paramhans of the Ram JanamabhoomiNyas were good friends and remained so till the Mahant died in 2003.

Hashim Ansari told this author that they would not only eat from the same plate, they would also travel in the same vehicle to and fro Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court where the title suit was being heard. Had it been left to the people of Ayodhya, they would have in all likelihood resolved the dispute in the spirit of give and take. The inhabitants of Ayodhya enjoy the bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood and were vary of SanghParivar’s mobilization for construction of Ram Janambhoomi Temple as it disturbed peace of the town for days and they would lose their livelihood. The earlier negotiations failed primarily due to intransigence of the SanghParivar for whom the issue was more of a political weapon which they would pull out during elections rather than issue of faith.

If negotiations are held today, those defending the title of Waqf Board would be under extreme political and social pressure to give up whatever little they have got from the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. Whereas NirmohiAkhada and Ram Lalla, who have got 2/3rds of the land parcel would be negotiating for the rest of the 1/3^rd of the land with the political might of the State and Centre backing them. Does the Supreme Court want a “settlement” between hugely unequal parties or justice in accordance with the law? One of the legal doctrine is “he who wants justice should approach the courts come with clean hands” Those who mobilized and demolished the Babri Mosque cannot be said to have approached the court with clean hands.

A demand to construct a protective roof against the vagaries of nature on the chabutra outside the Mosque but within the precincts in the year 1885 enlarged to demanding the entire Mosque land and construction of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple on it not on the basis of law of the land, but on the basis of faith. While the claims did not succeed with the British Colonial government, it is the secular state that progressively gave in to the demands of manipulated faith of the cultural and political elite claiming to represent the entire majority community. The Allahabad High Court too ruled on the basis of unproven faith rather than on the basis of law of adverse possession.

From Ram Chabutra to claim over BabriMasji: failure of Justice
Let us examine this story. There are no two opinions that in the year 1528 a mosque was built by Mir Baqi, one of the Governors of the Mughal Emperor Babar. The SanghParivar maintains that this mosque was built after destroying a Ramjanmabhoomi temple, which existed on the land whereas the Muslim political leaders as well as most reputed historians of integrity insist that there is no credible proof that there was any Ramjanmabhoomi temple.

The District Gazetteer of 1905 notes that till 1855, Hindus and Muslims prayed in the same premises that is now contentious Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. After 1857 rebellion, an outer enclosure was put in front of the mosque and the Hindus who were forbidden access to the inner yard raised an outer platform (chabutra). The first signs of the dispute sometime in 1861 appear too close after the 1857 rebellion to warrant such a conclusion. A British officer who was officiating as a Commissioner and Settlement Officer, Faizabad, in 1861 wrote a book A Historical Sketch of Fyzabad Tehsil Including the Former Capital Ayodhya and Fyzabad. The book was based on what he found was “locally affirmed” and his own surmises – Ayodhya must at least have possessed a fine temple in the Janmasthan. The dispute was initially only regarding Chabutra adjoining the Babri Masjid. He further wrote: “It seems that in 1528 Babar visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple was destroyed”. There is slender evidence to conclude that Babar ever passed Ayodhya.

Hindu priests wanted a temple constructed on the Chabutra to be able to conduct their worship without vagaries of weather, as Chabutra was an open platform.

In the year 1885, one MahantRaghubarDass, claiming himself to be the Mahant of JanamAsthan had filed a suit on 19-1-1885 in the Court of Sub-Judge Faizabad, PanditHariKishan (Suit No. 61/280 of 1885). It was alleged in the said Suit that Chabutra of JanamAsthan was a platform of 21 feet towards East and West and 17 feet towards North and South. It was further alleged in the said Suit that as there was no building over it and the Mahant and other priests had to face grave vagaries of the weather. The Mahant therefore wanted permission to construct a temple over the said Chabutra of 21 X 17 feet, which had been prohibited by the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad. The Suit 61/280 of 1885 was dismissed on 24-12-1885 by PanditHariKishan, Sub-Judge of Faizabad. Relying upon the site plan prepared by GopalSahai, the Learned Sub-Judge observed:

“The entrance to the enclosure is under a gateway on which appears the superscription of “Allah”. Immediately on the left is the platform or chabutra of masonary occupied by the Hindus. On this is a small superstructure of wood in the form of a tent. This chabutra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander. …

“… in between the mosque and Chabutra, there is a wall…and it is clear that there are separate boundaries between the mosque and Chabutra and this fact is also supported by the fact that there is boundary line built by the Government before the rent dispute”.
It was further observed that if temple was allowed to be constructed on the Chabutra at such a place, then there would be sound of bells of the temple and sankh, when both Hindus and Muslims passed from the same way. If permission was given to Hindus for constructing temple then one day or the other there would be rioting and thousands of people would be killed. Thus, the learned Sub-Judge opined that awarding permission to construct the temple at this juncture is to lay the foundation of riot and murder, hence in view of the policy and also in view of justice the reliefs claimed should not be granted. The Sub-Judge also rejected the reliefs sought on the ground of adverse possession and observed that:

“It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as that occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo.”
The Appeal of MahantRaghubarDass against the judgement of the Learned Sub-Judge before the District Judge of Faizabad and the Judicial Commissioner, W. Young (Civil appeal No. 27 of 1886) was also dismissed. In his judgement dated November 1, 1886 observed:
“This spot is situated within the precinct of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years age owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend as the site of his mosque. The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precinct adjoining the mosques and they have for a series of years been persistently trying to increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure namely (1) Sitakirasoi (kitchen of Sita) and (2) Ram ChanderkiJanmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama)… I am further of the opinion that the civil courts have properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.”

Two things are to be noted here. The suit as well as the Appeal was rejected on grounds of adverse possession. The dispute was about the Chabutra situated in the precinct on which a building was sought to be erected and never the mosque itself. As set out in the judgement, certain elements from the Hindu community tried to persistently increase their rights – in the second and third round to the entire mosque itself. Even though the reliefs prayed for were not granted, the judgement tried not to antagonise the Hindu Community entirely by mentioning the atrocities of the tyrannical and bigot emperors (from whose tyrannical rule the colonial rulers claim to have “liberated” the sub-continent). It is not clear on what supporting evidence did the judges observe that the tyrannical Mughal Emperor out of bigotry demolished a temple 350 years ago to build a mosque in his name. Thus in spite of the judgements, the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy remained very much alive.

In 1934 riots, which were triggered off by the slaughter of a cow in the village of Shahjahanpur near Ayodhya, riotous mobs demolished part of the wall surrounding the mosque and damaged the domes. However, the mosque was restored at the cost of the Government.
Till December 22, 1949, Muslims offered namaz in the Babri Masjid. However, on the night of 22^nd December 1949, idols of BhagwanshriRamchandra were surreptitiously smuggled and installed inside the mosque. Constable Mata Prasad at Ayodhya Police Station reported the incident next day morning and the District Magistrate K.K. Nayar sent the following message to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary by radiogram:

“A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the masjid was deserted and installed a deity there, DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control, Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act.”
K. K. Nayar, who later contested elections on the then Jan Sangh ticket, wrote in his diary:

“The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen rushed off their legs. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and the police force was strengthened.”

Nayar also wrote to the Chief Secretary that in grave risk of large-scale riots it would not be desirable to attempt the removal of the idols through governmental agency. He also advised against stopping bhog and aarti but advised that the present pujari should be changed. Markandey Singh, Magistrate, First Class, and Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cumAyodhya after being “fully satisfied from information received from police sources and from other credible sources that a dispute between Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya over the question rights of proprietorship and worship in the building claimed variously as Babri Masjid and JanmabhoomiMandir, Mohalla Ram Kot, within the local limits of my jurisdiction, is likely to lead to a breach of peace,” ordered the attachment of the “said buildings” under Section 145 CrPC and appointed PriyaDutt Ram, Chairman, Municipal Board, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya, as receiver to arrange for the care of the property in dispute on December 29, 1949.

Then a civil suit number 2 of 1950 was filed on January 16, 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad in the court of the civil judge, Faizabad, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to worship and visit without obstruction or disturbance ShriBhagwan Ram Chandra and others installed in the Janmabhoomi and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from removing these idols. Amongst the eight defendants were five Muslims and the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner and the Police Superintendent of Faizabad.

The civil judge N.N. Chadha, granted an interim injunction on 16/1/1950 allowing puja and darshan though the rights were in dispute. The Order was later modified on 19/1/1950 as follows:
“The parties are hereby restrained by means of the temporary injunction to refrain from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with the puja etc. as at present carried on.”
In addition to the above suit, three more suits relating to disputes over receivership and waqf were filed during the intervening period. The NirmohiAkhara also staked its claim for ownership of the disputed land.

A lawyer of Ayodhya, Umesh Chandra Pandey quietly moved an application on 25/1/86 in the Court of SadarMunsif, HariShakarDubey seeking directions restraining the respondents from imposing any sort of restrictions or hurdles in the darshan and puja, etc. of Lord Rama and others in the Janambhoomi offered by him and other members of the Hindu community. The Application was in regular Suit no. 2 of 1950. The Munsif refused to pass orders on the ground that the file of the leading case along with which the above suit was consolidated was requisitioned in the High Court. Umesh Chandra had no locus standi in the above suit, and had not even impleaded all the defendants in the suit as party respondents in the application. Umesh Chandra filed an appeal against the order of the Munsif before the District Judge, Faizabad, K.M. Pandey on 31/1/86. The district judge rejected the application of the Mohammed Hashim to be impleaded as a party in the appeal. The District Judge recorded the statements of District Magistrate, Indu Kumar Pandey and Senior Superintendent of Police, Karma Vir Singh to the effect that:
“…it is not necessary to keep the locks at the gates for the purpose of maintaining law and order or the safety of the idols. This appears to be an unnecessary irritant to the applicant and other members of the community. There does not appear o be any necessity to create an artificial barrier between the idol and the devotees. It appears that the opposite parties have remained a prisoner of indecision for the last 35 years. Somebody in his wisdom thought fit to put locks at the gates at any point of time and nobody since then has seen whether there is any necessity to retain locks or not”.

The District judge then observed:
“after having heard the parties it is clear that the members of the other community, namely the Muslims, are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and the idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees. It is undisputed that the premises are presently in the court’s possession and that for the last 35 years Hindus have had an unrestricted right or worship as a result of the court’s order of 1950 and 1951. If the Hindus are offering prayers and worshipping the idols, though in a restricted way for the last 35 years, then the heavens are not going to fall if the locks of the gates are removed. The district magistrate has stated before me today that the members of the Muslim community are not allowed to offer any prayers at the disputed site. They are not allowed to go there. … If this is the state of affairs then there is no occasion for any law and order problem arising as a result of the removal of the locks. It is absolutely an affair inside the premises. There is no justification for retaining locks after the positive statements of the district magistrate and the SSP Faizabad that the law and order situation can be very well kept under control by other means as well and for that end it is not necessary to keep the locks on these gates.”
The appeal allowed and the respondents – district magistrate, the city magistrate and the police superintendent of Faizabad were directed to open the locks forthwith and not to impose any restrictions or cause hurdle in the darshan and puja, etc. of the applicant and other members of the community in general. With the order of the District Judge, the site, which was in the register of waqf as a mosque for over over 400 years as a mosque was converted into a de facto temple. The procedure adopted by the district judge of recording the statement of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of the Police was very unusual to the say the least. Application of Umesh Chandra Pandey was incompetent as he was not a party in the suit. The suit itself was not pending. Gopal Singh Visharad, the Plaintiff in the Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 had died years ago and no substitution had been made in his place and as such the suit had automatically abated. Such an order could not be passed altering the situation after 36 years.  Also, contrary to the general procedure and practice was the fact that the District Judge rejected the application of the Muslims who were originally party to the suit to be impleaded as a party. The District Judge had no basis to conclude that Muslims would not be adversely affected and that too without hearing the applicants to be impleaded as a party.

The District Judge in effect adjudicated the rights of the contending parties without hearing all the parties to the suit on a very narrow and negative ground that there would not be any law and order problem if the locks were removed. The adjudication was not on strength of respective claims and the case of the parties, as all the parties concerned and the strength of their claims were not heard were not heard at all. Law and order problem is never a consideration while adjudicating rights of the party. If the courts adjudicate rights of the parties to litigation on consideration of law and order, what we will have is not rule of law but rule of might.

The background in which the judgement was delivered will not be out of place here. The SSP and the DM would not have given the statement about their confidence in being able to maintain law and order, without approval of the State and Central Government. The Rajiv Gandhi Government was on the one hand trying to appease the Muslim Fundamentalists on the issue of Sahabano and intended legislation for denial of maintenance to divorced Muslim women under S. 125 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the Government was also trying to appease the Hindu community by getting the locks of Ramjanambhumi-Babri Masjid opened for darshan and puja.

Supreme Court Judgement in Ayodhya case
The decade of 1980 will be remembered as a bloody decade with communal clashes all over the country as the issue of Ramjanambhumi was politicised and nationalised by the SanghParivar. The Ramjanambhumi, which had hitherto remained a dispute between some elements from both communities in Ayodhya, was taken to every nook and corner in most cities and even rural areas all over the country. The demand for which the mobilisation was aimed was to open the lock of the Babri Masjid and permit puja and darshan. After the lock was opened, the next demand was handing over the entire site for construction of Ramjanmabhumi Temple and shifting of the mosque outside panchkoshiparikrama.

Legally, it was difficult to achieve this fete without the intervention of the courts and the state. The issue of title of the property, which is the main legal issue involved in the dispute pending in the courts operates against the protagonist of Ramjanmabhumi temple. For right to worship cannot be claimed as an easement on somebody else’s property. So far as law is concerned, faith and belief, or even proof of place of birth of BhagwanRamchandra is also not a relevant issue to decide the title and / or grant right to worship. Agitational mobilisation by the SanghParivar was to pressurise the state and the courts to act and the pressure did work.

First the UP State acquired the place surrounding the place in the name of providing certain facilities to the pilgrims, the site on which Rajiv Gandhi laid foundation stone of the Ramjanmabhumi on in November 1990. Babri Masjid was then demolished on 6.12.92 by mobs mobilised by the SanghParivar. The Courts as well as the state allowed the mob to assemble in the naïve belief that the Mosque will not be touched. Then the Union Government issued ordinance named ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance’ on 7.1.93 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land, including the site of Babri Masjid. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act. The Union Government also made a Special Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court for the opinion of the Court on:

“Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood”.

The reference itself was slanted in favour of the majority community. The Court was called upon to give its opinion whether any Hindu religious structure existed prior to construction of Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid. … The structure that stood was certainly not “RamjanmaBhumi” but Babri Masjid admittedly constructed by Mir Baqi. The only contention of the protagonist of RamjanmaBhumi Temple being that the same was after demolition of JanamAsthan Temple. Secondly, no time frame was prescribed for examination of existence of Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid. If the referendum had been answered in positive, the Union Government would have been compelled to hand over the entire site on which Babri Masjid stood to the Hindu litigants or a trust or association. The Supreme Court however rejected the reference as superfluous.
The five judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court was also called upon adjudicate on the validity of the Acquisition Act in Ismail Faruqui Vs. Union of India (1994 (6) SCC 360). The Judgement delivered by Justice Verma on behalf of the majority held the Act as a whole to be valid, striking down only Section 4 (3) of the Acquisition Act on the ground that extinction of judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute without providing any alternative dispute resolution forum amounts to negation of rule of law. The Section 4 (3) is as follows:
“If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of the right, title and interest relating to any property which has vested in the Central Government under Section 3, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate.”

Even while holding Section 4 (3) to be void and unconstitutional, the majority Judgement upheld the Constitutional validity of the rest of the provisions of the Act, including that of Section 3 by virtue of which, right title and interest of the 67.703 acres of land area, including the site of Babri Masjid stood transferred and vested in the hands of the Central Government. The minority Judgement delivered by Justice Bharucha delivering judgement on behalf of himself and Justice Ahmedi held that the section 3, 4 and 8 are unconstitutional.

The majority Judgement held that the land of even mosque can be compulsorily acquired by the state and it stood on the same footing as that of other places of worship. While there can be no quarrel with that, the effect of compulsory acquisition could not be lost in the case at hand. The minority judgement held that secularism is absolute and

“the state may not treat religions differently on the ground that public order required it. … When adherents of the religion of the majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail the place of worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create conditions that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect that place of worship and to preserve public order, using for the purpose such means and forces of law and order as are required. It is impermissible under the provisions of the Constitution for the State to acquire that place of worship to reserve public order. To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the Constitution…”
Section 7 of the Acquisition Act is slanted in favour of the Hindu community as section 7 (2) required maintenance status-quo as prevailed before 7-1-93, which would mean that idols must be retained where they were before 7-1-93 and puja as carried on as before. Section 7 would entail idol would remain and puja continue for an indefinite period.

The Ayodhya Judgement thus struck down only section 4 (3) of the Acquisition Act as per the majority Judgement and as a result of striking down Section 4 (3) all the Suits pending before the High Court revived and the High Court is now hearing the suit day to day. The minority Judgement, however, held that the Acquisition Act vested a whole bundle of rights in the Central Government, including that of the disputed site. According to Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, the Central Government was enabling provision and the Central Government could further transfer whole bundle of right and property to any authority or a body or a trust on terms and conditions that the Central Government might think fit to impose. Those terms and conditions are not specified in the Act, nor is there any indication in that behalf available. The majority Judgement however held that after the pending dispute was adjudicated, the Central Government would hand over the disputed site in accordance with the adjudication to appropriate authority, trust or body. In the event the adjudication is in favour of litigants from minority community, would the Central Government with any political party in power have the political courage to hand over the disputed site to a body, authority or trust of minority community to reconstruct the demolished mosque? That remains to be seen.

Conclusions
To summarise, admittedly, Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi in the year 1528 and is noted in the waqf register of Sunni Central Board of Waqf. In 1885 and 1886, the claim of the Hindu litigants was only on the Chabutra as they wanted to construct a structure to protect the devotees from the vagaries of the weather and no more. On the strength of adverse possession, the courts dealing with the dispute during the colonial period rejected the prayers of the Hindu litigants to construct any structure even on the Chabutra.

The prayers were rejected even though the courts held (it is not known on what evidence) that the Masjid was built on land held sacred by the Hindus but that occurred 356 years ago on the same spot. After independence, the Hindu litigants adopted incremental approach, slowly enlarging their rights and claims with combination of surreptitious acts, agitational mobilisation and repeated applications to the court. Surreptitious acts when no legal claim left on their side. Another round of litigation on threat of agitational mobilisation. The claims were based not on the strength of title to the property but on their right to unhindered and unrestricted worship.

After the idols were smuggled inside the Mosque, there was another round of litigation, which virtually ignored the title and turned the court into a receiver of the property giving the Hindus increasing access to the property as and by way of right to worship, while the Muslim community was denied the access in spite of the fact that the property was a waqf property. After the locks were opened in 1986 on the ground that there would be no problem maintaining law and order if the locks are open, the Hindu nationalist forces were emboldened even more. As they were mobilising their forces and indulging into hate propaganda, the State remained a mute bystander refusing to act and take preventive measures for maintenance of law and order. Even the courts when they had the opportunity did not act decisively and the hoodlums of Hindu supremacist forces were allowed to assemble in large numbers, ultimately resulting in demolition of Babri Mosque and construction of a make shift temple.

The Courts as well as the executive rewarded those who demolished the Mosque by legitimising the “rights” acquired by force in the name of maintaining status – quo and maintaining law and order. The Central Govt. acquired the disputed site and the surrounding areas under the Acquisition Act, thus depriving the Muslim litigants of their defence or claim of adverse possession to the disputed site. The Supreme Court majority Judgement legitimised the acquisition by state in the name of maintaining public order. The litigants from the minority community, we feel, are fighting a losing battle – not because their claim to the title of the disputed site is weak or defective, but because they cannot match the power of the Hindu supremacist forces in creating law and order problem, which is material in influencing the decision making in our country. The Hindu supremacist forces have enlarged their rights and claims from Chabutra to worship on the disputed site not because of their legitimate claim but by threatening not to obey the orders of the Court in matters of “faith”.

Let us pray that the Supreme Court won’t be swayed by the might of the parties and faith but will do justice focussed on Constitution and law of the country.

The post Rewarding Those Who Demolished the Babri Masjid: A History of the Ayodhya Dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most of the public speeches seeking to arouse the sentiments of Hindus around RJT accuse the Supreme Court of India to be insensitive to the feelings of Hindus and even discriminating against them. They argued that a terrorist, Yakub Memon, was given hearing at 3.00 am on 30^th July 2015, as he was to be hanged till death the following morning the same day. Adjourning the matter would require stay on his hanging and not hearing his final plea would have left the court open to the charge of not doing justice. Their charge that Apex Court does not have time to hear the “issues of Hindus” is without any basis.

Besides comparing apples and oranges, their outbursts also amount to contempt of court as they are discourteous towards the court and seek to lower the dignity of the court. They are also interfering in the dispensation of justice by resorting to intimidation. Why is the Apex Court not proceeding for contempt of court suo moto against all those who made such provocative statements perhaps tells its own story.

The Hindu supremacists are deliberately twisting the facts about the issues involved in the Babri Masjid – RJT case. Basically the case pertains to title suit of 2.77 acres of land on which Babri Masjid once stood and was demolished on 6^th December 1992. Who was the legal owner of the parcel of land in question and the structure on it legally? Through political mobilization other issues were piled on viz. whether the disputed site is believed by Hindus to be birth place of Lord Ram and whether the mosque was constructed after demolition of RJT under the orders of Mughal Emperor Babar.

The Hindu supremacists are converting the title suit into an issue of faith according to which Hindus believe the land parcel to be birth place of Lord Ram; and since they believe so, their faith should reign supreme and disregarding any other legal issues the parcel of land should be handed over to them for construction of RJT. They further argue that Muslims have not prayed in the Mosque since 1949 and therefore the place is not a mosque any more. Further, they argue that Muslims can pray anywhere and therefore it is not essential and integral part of their religion. Some even argue that since the Mosque was constructed after demolition of a temple, it was done so in violation of tenets of Islam and therefore it was never a mosque. Be as it may, it is for the Apex Court to do justice on the basis of laws as applicable in the land.

The dispute is not for temple or mosque anymore
Although the dispute appears to be between the Hindu community and the Muslim community, it is not so! That is what the Hindu supremacists want to turn the dispute into. If it becomes one between the two communities, then on the basis of sheer might of numbers and levers of power that the community elite control, the Hindu supremacists stand to win hands down! Construction of RJT has become a milestone in asserting ‘faith’ and power of the Hindu supremacists. All Hindus are not Ram bhaktas and all Ram bhaktas are not in favour of the RJT on the very spot where Babri Masjid was demolished.

Although the issue – whether Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born on the very spot where Babri Masjid once stood, was answered by the Allahabad High Court in affirmative, the Hon’ble court did not have any sufficient material to reach the conclusion. There was no referendum or even a fairly representative survey carried out to ascertain beliefs of the members of Hindu community on the issue. The constant mobilization by Hindu supremacist and the nature of media coverage may have coloured the judgement of the court. In the south of Vindhyas, the issue of RJT and place of birth of Lord Ram is of much less consequence that North. The slogging classes and castes are much less bothered as to where Lord Ram was born, although they have firm faith in Lord Ram. Dalit leader Chandrashekhar Azad has named himself “Ravan”.

Before the year 1985, the question, ‘where was Lord Ram born?’, would not have been answered with certainty by most Hindus, including those in Ayodhya, pointing to any precise spot. Overwhelming number of Hindus would have been clueless, except saying that the Lord was born in Ayodhya. Ayodhya city had more than 14 temples located in various places claiming to be on Ramjanmabhoomi which have now been demolished to make way for another one. The faith pertaining to precise spot on which Lord Ram was born has been constructed in late eighties using mobilization for political outcomes aided by mass media.

The plea of supremacy of faith over facts and law is not a religious project but a political agenda. For, to privilege faith of one section of populace sharing a particular religion over other faiths, and more importantly over demonstrable truths requires a theocratic state, not a democratic state which gives space to all religions, faiths and beliefs subject to certain reasonable restrictions in the interest of peace, harmony, equality, liberties and dignity of all individuals. The mobilization of gullible sections willing to subscribe to the faith being propounded by Hindu supremacists forcing the state to hand over the parcel of land based on their faith for construction of RJT is therefore a political mobilization to hammer nails in the coffin of democracy. More than construction of RJT, the Hindu supremacists are keen on dismantling democratic state which affords more or less equal space to all faiths subject to certain reasonable restrictions. That is why there was series of mobilization and show of strength by various Hindu supremacist organizations, including Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Hindu Mahasabha, Dharmasabha and Shiv Sena. Their target was the Supreme Court which they do not seem to trust, fearing that Supreme Court’s outcome might not be based on faith but law and justice. Their demand was that Parliament pass a legislation to hand the entire land on which Babri Masjid once stood for the construction of RJT. Construction of RJT on ruins of Babri Masjid is simultaneously laying foundation stone of Hindu Rashtra, a communal state that privileges the elite of Hindu community and relegates the rest who do not subscribe to Hindutva political ideology and its faith to second class citizens without any rights.

The conflict therefore is not between Hindu community and Muslim community, but between those who want India to be democratic, diverse, liberal respecting all faiths, including that of rationalists and atheists, dignity of all individuals and equality of all citizens on the one hand, and those who want India to be one homogenous society with state monitoring food and clothing and regimenting religion, state and community elders overlooking matrimonial alliances faith and truth is what the elite declare it to be so. That latter notion is against Hindu religion as propounded by great saints like Kabir, Ravi Das, Mirabai, Chokha Mela, Aakho, Narsi Mehta, Sree Naryana Guru, Basavanna, Swami Vivekananda, Guru Nanak, Buddha, and many other saints.

Muslims should leave resolution of the dispute regarding Babri Masjid-RJT to the Supreme Court and to those Hindus who follow the saints mentioned. It is more important to defend the Constitution and Constitutional idea of diverse, inclusive India where all citizens enjoy equal rights, liberties of thought, expression and conscience, where dignity of all citizens is upheld and there is social justice. The difficulty is that the religious leaders and political elite of the community also do not desire the idea of India which is democratic and respects the Constitution. They too give precedence their faith over Constitution, law, liberties and social justice. This was evident from the affidavit they filed in Supreme Court in support of triple talaq, when they deny equality to women on plea of right to follow their religious laws or Muslim Personal Law; when they demand ban on Salman Rushdie written book Satanic Verses; when they mobilized to oppose the Shahbano judgement that granted maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman under section 125 of the Indian Penal Code.

In fact the demand to open the locks of RJT for darshan and worship of Lord Ram and construction of grand RJT got tremendous boost after they forced the Rajiv Gandhi Government to bring in a law in Parliament to reverse the Shahbano judgement of the Supreme Court.
The Muslim community and its political leaders are doing well by maintaining silence over the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute. They are neither giving in under the pressure of mobilization by Hindu supremacists nor are they defiantly opposing construction of the RJT subjecting themselves to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Hindu supremacist have succeeded only in getting some degenerate leaders of the community to do the bidding for them.

The Muslim community needs to focus on secular education as Sir Sayyid did in the late 19^th century. Education would enable members of the community to be civil services and other important professions. Matured intellectual leadership of the community can come only from the educated class to steer them out of their social and educational backwardness.

The political leadership of the community needs to address itself to the issues of security and communal violence along with discrimination seeking justice and remedies through Constitutional mechanisms. In order to be able to do so, the leadership will have to build alliances with other marginalised classes who face similar discrimination, oppression and violence in their daily life. The alliance with other marginalized groups should not be opportunistic and only political power, but to seek political power to build robust democratic institutions that defend human rights of all citizens, to deepen democracy and democratic state that is accountable to its citizens. Muslim political leadership should apply itself to building structures of accountability and institutional mechanisms like Equal Opportunity Commission.

The political, intellectual and religious leadership of the community needs to apply itself to reforms in family laws that are within the framework of Islam as well as the Constitution. The Muslim political leaderships resists any reforms even though many Muslim countries have carried out reforms. Reforms should particularly ensure equality and equal status of women in the community in accordance with the Quranic spirit. Islamic laws and modern but still the community refuses to usher in reforms.

If these steps are debated within the community and followed, it would go a long way in weakening the Hindu supreamacist. More than Babri Masjid we need democratic India, educated India and India that embraces gender justice and diversity.

—

The post Babri Masjid: What should Muslims do? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Muharram is period of grief for Muslims to remember martyrdom of Imam Hussain. Imam Hussain preferred to uphold the principles of Islam and refused to give oath of allegiance to a tyrant Caliph of Umayyad Dynasty – Yazid. Yazid commanded a powerful and well equipped army of over a thousand whereas Imam Hussein’s 72 followers included women and children, youngest of them was six month old Ali Asghar. To refuse oath of allegiance was tantamount to embracing death. For the Dawoodi Bohra Pontiff to invite the Prime Minister who headed the Gujarat Government in the year 2002 when Muslims including members of the Dawoodi Bohra community were massacred is against the spirit of Muharram and martyrdom of Imam Hussain. As the then Chief Minister he provided justification to the anti-Muslim pogrom. He said it was reaction to burning 58 kar sevaks in S-8 compartment in Godhara on 27^th February 2002. Imam Hussain defended the principles of Islam – humanity even at the cost of his life and had the courage to names the tyrant on his face. Whereas, the then Modi Government had allowed post mortem of the 58 charred bodies to be carried out in public view in the railway yard and then the bodies were handed over not to their relatives for last rites but to belligerent members of Hindu supremacist organisations seeking revenge for the deaths. The bodies were then taken in procession from Godhra to Ahmedabad. Humanity was buried during those days of riots and Modi was certainly on the wrong side of the history.

Why did the Bohra Pontiff invite PM Modi?
The Bohra Pontiff’s financial empire runs into hundreds of billions of dollars. His extended large family lives luxurious life. The luxuries that entire family enjoys would shame any medieval king and give the richest families in the world run for their money. The only source of income is ‘taxes’ levied by the Pontiff’s establishment known as “kothaar” and zealously collected through coercive means. The ‘taxes’ include zakat, sila, fitra, nazar muqam, haqqun nafs, shabil, etc. collectively called as wajebat. Middle class individual families can be coerced to contribute couple of lakhs of rupees annually while some do escape paying a few thousand after a great deal of argument and persuasion.

Three consequences visit if the taxes levied by kothar are not paid – obstruction to entry inside mosques and various religious shrines maintained by kothar; obstruction or holding back or even refusal to solemnize a marriage within the family and finally refuse access to burial when there is death within the family. Besides, a Bohra has to seek permission or razaa of the kothar for many other activities – organization of religious ceremonies and life cycle rituals from birth to death. For all such ceremonies, the priest would ask for green card which is issued to all those who have paid up their wajebat. This writer was also asked for green card on death of his mother. When I told the priest that I hadn’t paid any taxes at all, I was refused access to burial grounds of Bohra community. Those who question any practice of the kothar or ask for accounts or those who do not act according to the religious edicts issued by the kothar are socially boycotted. The edicts can include whom to vote for and which newspapers  and magazines not to read and even certain employment that must not be undertaken – e.g. jobs in Bombay Mercantile cooperative Bank. Since Bohras are a tightly knit inward looking community with little or no socialization with non-Bohras, social boycott practically means civil death. In certain cases, the goons of kothar have even resorted to violence and rioting. There were 6 attempts on life of Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer. His house and office were completely destroyed on 13^th February 2000. This writer was also beaten up for attending a reformist Conference in Mumbai in the year 1981. The women in Udaipur were molested inside Galiakot Shrine in presence of the Pontiff and Pontiff’s goons beat up people inside a mosque in Udaipur.

Nathwani Commission appointed by Jayprakash Narayan to look into atrocities committed by kothar and violations of human rights of Bohras by kothar described the kothar as “state within a state”. All these violations have been challenged by the reform movement within the Bohra Community. They have drawn attention of the Governments of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, as well as Central Government towards violations of various laws by the kothar.

This massive empire can function like a state within a state only in violation of human rights and various laws of the country. In order to sustain this empire, the Pontiff and his establishment require protection and patronage of the state. To obtain the patronage of the state, the Pontiff’s establishment contributes generously to the ruling party and even promises votes. The contributions are so generous that even those who are ideologically inclined towards reform movement and sympathise with their cause find it difficult to resist offers. Reformists approached Morarji Desai, when he was PM with Nathwani Commission Report (appointed by Jayprakash Narayan). In spite of expressing sympathy, the Janata Party Govt. did nothing. Similarly Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi Govt. did nothing. The Reformists had high hopes from Atal Behari Vajpayee’s Govt. as they did not depend on Muslim votes. Moreover, Vajpayee’s Govt. could be relied on to take on their ideological and political opponents – Muslim fundamentalism and forces that promote separatist and exclusivist Muslim identity. However, Vajpayee also expressed his inability to take any steps when reformists met him. Bal Thackeray rarely stepped out of his home but he went to the Pontiff’s palatial residence in Malabar Hill, Mumbai to be felicitated and that too after communal riots in Mumbai in 1992-93. The Pontiff was appeasing the tiger to keep off his empire and so much for the tiger’s patriotism and ideology. The tempting contributions are from the hard earned money of the Bohras.

The Pontiff spends this huge amount from hard earned money of Bohras not protect their interest, but to protect the interests of the kohtar. Bohras having larger proportion of business than other communities was adversely affected by demonetization of GST. For a common Bohra, BJP would be her last electoral choice given its anti-minority rhetoric and communal violence, but also the discriminatory exclusion of minority in governance by the BJP and its economic policies that favour big business over the small and medium enterprises.

The Pontiff must have expended huge political capital to get the Prime minister to address the event his establishment organized. The Pontiff sends members of the community for all public events of Modi. He sent Bohras in Madison Square event of Narendra Modi.

When Prime Minister of the country associates with the Pontiff, message goes down to the bureaucracy not to investigate any violation. The pontiff reaffirms his authority over the community and to members of the community he appears invincible and the only option left for them either submit to the Pontiff’s whims and edicts or pay a heavy price for disobeying – social boycott and civil death being practically cut off from all relatives and friends; at times even face violence as this writer and Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer and many others did. Most do not have nerves of steel as Dr. Engineer did have on account of his social commitment and belief in truth and Allah. The practical businessman prefers to ‘buy peace’. Some other successful Bohra business families buy status and social recognition by contributing huge amounts as wajebat.

Why Modi praised the Bohra Community?
Hindutva always branded Muslim identity and culture as foreign to Indian culture, having separatist mindset and stigmatized the community as terrorists and inimical to Hindu culture. The moderates among them called for forceful integration of Muslims within Hindu fold and culture and to obliterate all vestiges of Muslim culture. The extremists among them called for their physical elimination from the Indian soil – either by physically eliminating them or forcing them to emigrate to other Muslim countries, particularly Pakistan.

Has Modi then changed while he was showering praises on the Bohra community and calling them honest traders, praising Imam Husssain’s teachings as the ones that upheld peace and justice. The PM praised the Pontiff for inculcating the values of peace, goodwill (sadbhav), satyagrah (sic) and patriotism (sic) within the community. He further tried to endear himself by saying that he felt part of the community and that family, and his doors were open for their family members as well. We do not think so that Modi has changed his views, he has only caliberated a bit to suit his purpose in election year – both the Madhya Pradesh state elections as well as general election which will be there in less than a year.

Those who are practical within the Hindu supremacist fold know that it is impossible to eliminate 172 million strong community according to the last census. They propose two alternatives – divide the community along sectarian lines and deal with them in parcels and force them to assimilate. Hindu supremacists have been trying to leverage Shia sect against Sunni Muslims as a part of their divisive politics. Shias e.g. are claiming that Babri Masjid land is a Shia Waqf property and they are ready to settle the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute by allowing construction of Ram Temple on the land. Other important RSS leaders like Rajiv Malhotra are demanding that RSS should encourage Muslims to indigenise and RSS would have no problems with indigenized Muslims praying to Allah and observing other religious rituals. By indigenization Malhotra means ‘de-Arabization’ of Muslims and virtually propounds accepting Hindu Supremacy. Malhotra’s solution is not different from Golwalkar’s solution of relegating foreign religions to second class citizenship. Malhotra propounds that ‘nationalized’ Muslims should severe all relations with religio-cultural centres of Islam. Their sources of knowledge should be the pitrubhoomi (fatherland). Bohra community and the Pontiff fits the description and requirements of Hindutva and is therefore called patriotic.

Dawoodi Bohra community’s head quarters are now in Mumbai for centuries and overwhelming majority of them are Gujarati speaking. The Pontiff’s sermons are also in Gujarati albeit with some sprinkling of Arabic words. The family Modi is referring to in his address refers to their Gujaratiness. Locating patriotism in small Gujarati speaking Shia Muslim community rather than in all citizens of the country is inherently problematic. It implies that non-Bohra and non-Gujarati Muslim communities are problematic, foreign, Arabised and therefore less patriotic. Modi sailed through three elections in Gujarat by invoking Gujarati asmita (dignity or pride).

The frame of reference still privileges communities over individuals and locates values like honesty, goodwill towards fellow human beings, satyagrah (sic) and patriotism (sic) within community. Accident of birth in a community shapes and determines every individuals. The Constitution on the other hand knows only its citizens and privileges citizens with fundamental rights of equality, liberty and dignity, and guarantees protection of these rights. The only group Constitution recognizes are those that are educationally and socially backward, oppressed and discriminated for affirmative action and minority groups to protect their cultural rights.

The Urdu speaking or Tamil, Bengali, Malayalam, Assamese, and other Indian language speaking Muslim may be different than Gujarati speaking Muslims but are not any less patriotic, indigenized Muslim than Bohras and  Shias. This artificial attempt to divide the communities along sectarian lines will have more serious complications. Urdu is not Muslim language, it is Indian language an draws from local culture. No Muslim in India is Arabised. On the other hand all kinds of foreign cultures, including Western, Arabic and Persian have influenced not only Muslims, but also Hindus and all other communities. Ghazals are written in many Indian languages, including Gujarati. Many English, Arabic and Persian words have been part of Indian language vocabularies and would the language poorer without them.

Bohra women, Pontiff and Modi
On the Triple Talaq issue, the Modi govt. claimed to be championing the cause of Muslim women. Modi castigated the Congress for appeasing only Muslim men. The Bohra Pontiff discourages education of Bohra women, compels women to be wear purdah and in order to promote separate identity, has banned black coloured veils. He discourages Bohra women to undertake employment or earn their livelihood. In one video he is heard advising the men to throw out their women if they do not listen to them! The Pontiff has also personally defended  FGM practiced in the community in a video without naming it.

How can a Prime Minister attend religious function of such a leader when his own slogan is beti bachao beti padhao? Is the PM’s claim of championing the cause of Muslim women mere rhetoric? It is evident that Hindutva does not respect any principles except one – Supremacy of upper caste and create an authoritarian cultural state that would defend the privileges of upper caste. Rest can be compromised.Theatre of Absurd: Modi and the Dawoodi Bohra Pontiff
 

The post Theatre of Absurd: Modi and the Dawoodi Bohra Pontiff appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mob lynching has drastically increased in recent years, particularly since the election of the BJP government. There has been a fourfold increase in cow related violent incidents from less than 5% of incidents of communal violence in 2010 to 20% in 2017 (Subramanya, 2017). IndiaSpend web portal claimed that 25 persons were killed in 60 incidents of cow-related mob violence between 2010 and 25th June 2017 and 97% of the incidents occurred after the BJP took over reigns of the Central Government in 2014 (Abraham & Rao, 2017). 84% of those killed in cow related mob lynching incidents were Muslims. The remaining 16% lynched on the accusation of cow slaughter are Dalits and other marginalised sections. While most cases of mob violence are related to cow vigilantism, the other triggers have been rumours of child lifting and allegation of being a witch. In the latter case, victims are women.

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) has observed in its monitoring of communal violence in India that after the BJP Government came to power, there has been no incidence of major communal violence as witnessed in Ahmedabad (1969, 1984-85, 2002) Bhiwandi (1970 and 1984), Nellie, Assam, (1983) Delhi anti-Sikh riots (1984), Bhagalpur (1989), Kandhamal anti-Christian riots, (2007 & 2008), Muzaffarnagar (2013). In the year 2014, the incidents of communal violence were lesser compared to the previous year. However, the communal attitudes were more heightened on account of hate speeches by leaders of the ruling party (Engineer, 2015). The incidence of communal violence increased marginally in the year 2015. However, the number of people killed in communal violence in 2015 decreased from 90 to 84. After the present government came in power, there has been a change of pattern in communal violence. Rather than an increase in the number of spectacular incidence of communal violence, there has been an increase in communal incidences which are of low intensity with no or lesser number of deaths (Dabhade, 2016).

According to Paul Brass (The Production Of Hindu-Mulsim Riot In Contemporary India, 2004), communal riots are produced by, what he calls, Institutionalized Riot System (IRS) whenever political conditions are conducive. Production of communal riots entails conversion of an ordinary everyday minor conflict into a major riot. The political advantage of communal riots until the first decade of 21^st century has always been accrued to a party that claims to represent the majority community, namely, the Jan Sangh earlier and the BJP. Jan Sangh earlier and now the BJP has used communal polarization which results after communal violence to its advantage to expand its political influence and political organization. Several Commissions of Inquiry appointed to look into the circumstances that caused communal violence have pointed needle of suspicion towards Hindu supremacist organizations and communal ideologies (Engineer I. , 2013). Of course, Congress too is responsible as it failed to take stern steps to prevent the communal riots and failed to punish those who indulged in producing communal riots.

The Hindu Supremacists now having to come to power do not need spectacular or major communal riots to expand its influence. The same objective can be achieved by hate speeches and broadcasting outrageous anti-minority communal attitudes. Hate speeches stigmatize minorities as compulsive religious converters, terrorists, Pakistan loyalists, separatists, anti-nationals, tukde tukde gang out to break the country into pieces, stealing Hindu women through ‘love jihad’, cow slaughterers, oppressors of Hindus in history, demolishers of Hindu temples, etc. That keeps the communal pot boiling without much attracting adverse media attention or attention of International human rights organizations as it does when major riots and pogroms are orchestrated.

While hate speeches are broadcasted by highest officials serving in the government and ruling political party, minorities feel powerless and incapable of countering the slander against them because they get lesser space and time in the media, and duty bearers ignore the slander which is a punishable offence. The low-intensity communal violence and hate speeches demonstrate two things – one – superior and unchallengeable might of the Hindu supremacists who are above law; and two – inferior political status – second-class citizenship of the minorities. The latter undermines democracy and rule of law.

The IRS now does not have to belabour to produce communal riots. To produce a major communal riot, one has to first mount propaganda war and stigmatize minorities as stated above. Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer called this macro-level factors (On Developing Theory of Communal Riots, 1984). Communal riot can be produced when macro-level factor exists, viz., prejudices against the minority community to be targeted. When political conditions are conducive, the IRS works to instil fear of minority community, deepen communal prejudices and consolidate unity of majority community across castes. Continuous propaganda builds up feelings against minority like pus in an infected wound. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Production of communal violence then requires micro-level factor or a triggering issue e.g. Hindu procession taken through a street on which mosque is located and throwing of vermilion on a mosque or a Muslim individual, an interreligious marriage, Muslim hawker beating a cow to shoo it away, any small petty fight between two individuals belonging to different religions, burning of Sabarmati Express in Godhra, etc. The trigger may then set off a riot.

For the riot to be major, other preparations like a collection of weapons and ammunition for inflicting major damage to the ‘other’ community, planning, surveying and marking ‘enemy’ residences and businesses to be targeted, spreading rumours that raise the anxiety of ordinary people and mobilize them on streets to defend themselves. The mobilized crowd then can be misused to attack innocents from the ‘enemy’ community when the anxiety levels are too high.^[1]

Mob lynching seems to be a continuation of that pattern of low-intensity communal violence. The innocuous-looking isolated incidents of mob lynching are in fact new pattern of low-intensity communal violence. The objectives of sustained communal polarization can now be achieved by this method.

Mob lynching and communal riots
Mob lynching and communal riots both rely on rumours to mobilize crowds on streets to carry perpetrate violence. Rumours are calculated to make people anxious and convert ordinary human beings into a member of lynch mobs. The common rumours during communal riots are – people of the other community have assembled with weapons; cache of weapons will be landing on Dadar beach, exported by Dawood Ibrahim; weapons are stored in the mosque; milk has been poisoned; drinking water has been poisoned; women of our community have been raped, their breasts cut and bodies thrown on streets; etc.

CSSS, in their fact-finding, have stumbled upon these common rumours. Poisoned milk rumour makes people anxious and mothers do not feed their infants; gullible believers stop drinking water but for how long can they remain thirsty? The rumours of large crowd assembled and marching towards the area with weapons; weapons stored in a mosque or to be landed; women raped; etc., draws a crowd out of their homes and once on street, can be made to target properties and persons from other communities to vent their anxieties.

Rumours of child lifters on prowl and cow slaughterers are also calculated to make people anxious and bring them out of their homes as in communal riots. People who lynch may be few but a large number of spectators intimidate the victim into submission and begging for life. The rumours have been carefully designed to mobilize the lynch mob as well – pertaining to innocent child and cow which is worshipped.

The other similarity between a communal riot and mob lynching is that both are based on distrust of the state in delivering justice to victims of crime. The rioters and lynch mob want instant justice without investigating into the guilt of the victim and the punishment meted out is as inhuman as possible for the mob, and with the motive of revenge. Qasim in Hapur incident died requesting for water after being lynched. Qasim’s body was then dragged by his hands on his stomach behind a policeman. The Dhule mob wanted to ensure that their victims loaded in police vehicle were dead (Rajput, 2018). Might is right is the rule.

Both pit one marginalized and oppressed community against the other. In communal riots, usually Dalits are instigated to attack Muslims and Muslims end up attacking Dalits. In Kandhamal riots, the Adivasi community was made to attack the Dalit Christians. Both further strengthen the powerful elements and increase asymmetry of power. Both are therefore popular with the mighty and powerful and deepen insecurity within the marginalised communities. Both normalize violence in social life. Both normalize disrespect and contempt for the law of the land, putting their beliefs and faith above law. Lynching and riots, both target ‘outsiders’ – riot targets ‘outsider’ to the nation, lynch mobs target outsider to their village or locality.

However, the distinction between a communal riot and lynch mob are interesting. Communal riots are with the leitmotif of war with the entire ‘enemy’ community – all members and their properties. Mob lynching targets particular individuals who are proclaimed by the mob to be guilty of specific ‘crime’ or ‘wrongdoing’. Communal riots mete out collective punishment. All members of ‘enemy’ community are targeted even those innocent and believed to be innocent of any wrongdoing other than membership of their community. For example, Muslims in Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat can be brutally targeted for burning Sabarmati Express in Godhra. For communal riots, much elaborate preparations and planning are necessary, whereas mob lynching is spontaneous. Targets are not known, even place, region and state where the lynching will be executed is not planned. Broadcasting of rumours using social media platforms and images calculated to arouse anxiety can result into lynching far and wide – Assam, Tripura, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, MP, UP, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Nagaland, etc. Theatre of violence in a communal riot is in a defined region where the triggering issue, or as Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer terms, micro-factor has influence.

While rumours of cow slaughter and gangs of cow vigilantes ensured that by and large targets were Muslims – e.g. Mohammed Akhlaq, Pehlu Khan, Junaid, Alimuddin Ansari etc. IndiaSpend report says 84% targets of cow-related mob lynching were Muslims. However, only a few Muslims can be targeted through rumours of cow slaughter – those transporting animals or those in possession of beef/meat in public space. To target other Muslims, another rumour was devised – that of child lifter. Carefully chosen rumour. Poison milk and child lifter – both rely on the anxiety of parents for their innocent children. It was further rumoured that the child lifters are extracting organs from the body of kidnapped children. The video images of child lifter on prowl were that of a burqa-clad individual must have hoped that members of the Muslim community will be targeted as child lifters as in case of cow slaughter related mob lynching.

The results in the case of rumours pertaining to child lifters on prowl seem to have gone horribly wrong – even non-Muslim strangers from marginalised sections were easily believed to be child lifters and lynched. The community wise break up of survivors of child lifter lynching incidents show most of them are nomadic tribes – street performers, beggars, etc. While communal riots and rumours of cow slaughter ensure victims are by and large Muslims, rumours of child lifters have not. The state is therefore now taking decisive action – compensation for the survivors of the lynch mobs, booking those involved in lynching after examining video clips and countering rumours in Assam, Tripura and Maharashtra.

Role of the state
In cow slaughter accusation related to mob lynchings, the state has played a role of selective enforcer of law – book the survivors of the violence under stringent provision of anti-cow slaughter legislation and a reluctant prosecutor of those involved in the serious crime of lynching that has even resulted in the murder of the victim. This appears to be so as the targets are primarily Muslims. In Pehlu Khan lynching case in Rajasthan, the state not only did not file any charge sheet against the accused, it actually filed cases against the survivors of the lynching. A Hindu supremacist Kamal Didi encouraged the accused of Pehlu Khan’s murder – Vipin Yadav by comparing him and his act with the great freedom fighter Bhagat Singh! (PTI, 2017). In Mohammed Akhlaq’s case, (Dadri, UP) the state sent the meat found in his fridge for forensic tests to find out whether it was beef or not, although it is not a crime to possess beef in UP. (As if to suggest that, if it was beef, the murder was justified.)

In spite of repeated calls, police normally arrive after the lynching is over. In some cases, more as an exception rather than the norm, the police have done an exemplary deed in preventing/rescuing the survivor of lynching. In case of lynching in Hapur, the police not only reached after the lynching had resulted in the death of Qasim in spite of repeated pleas from his loved ones, a policeman is seen walking ahead of the mob that is dragging the body of Qasim! Later for a strange reason, the police claimed that the lynching was in fact road rage when the video clearly shows the intent of the mob that is charging Qasim and his friend Samiuddin with cow slaughter.

The BJP leaders and ministers defend those accused of lynching. The 11 who were convicted for murder by the trial court in the case of lynching of Alimuddin Ansari, the Jharkhand State president of the BJP was competing with the Union Minister Jayant Sinha for credit of obtaining bail for the accuse from Jharkhand High Court. Jayant Sinha felicitated the convicts who were enlarged on bail pending their appeal in High Court. With BJP leaders and ministers backing the accused of murder by lynching the police sends a signal to law enforcing agencies as to how seriously they must investigate and prosecute such crimes. People, particularly those sections with some political connection and drawn from dominant sections trust the environment of impunity. They are so fearless that they video graph their act and make it viral and hope to achieve fame. Overall the state seems to be twiddling its thumbs and looking the other side giving the impression that it is alright to indulge in lynching Muslims to death.

It is only now that the lynching is acquiring threatening level wherein non-Muslims are also being lynched that the state has in some cases related to child lifting appearing to tighten its act. Two months before the 5 men from a nomadic tribe were lynched to death in Dhule, the Gosavi community had approached police to issue them letters. The rumours were doing rounds for over two months and the administration completely ignored them. A stern warning from the police of booking all violators of law would have sent the message and deterred the mob from lynching the 5 innocent men. But then who knew that the victims are going to be non-Muslims.

Conclusion
Mob lynching is unacceptable in any civilized society. It is the rule of might, not right and not rule of law. Lynching of blacks in US from 1877 through 1950 had similar objectives – to assert the hegemony of white people and to terrorize and control black people into submission (Lartey & Morris, 2018). All those lynched were black people on flimsiest of accusations which were false in most cases. To the white people, blacks did not deserve any trial, as they were slaves of yesteryears. They deserved only lynch mob justice. By and large no one was punished for lynching in US for 4,084 known lynchings in southern states and 300 in other states. The lynchings came to an end with the civil rights movement.

Savarkar and Golwalkar, the ideologues of Hindutva political ideology, portrayed Muslims and Christians as outsiders of Hindu nation. The Hindu nation was supposed to be at war with the outsiders. Golwalkar in his treaties “We or Our Nationhood Defined” canvassed for treating the Muslims and Christians the same way as Jews were by Hitler. Earlier communal riots and now lynching seems to be another war of followers of Hindutva political ideology targeting Muslims.

It is not only death and injuries that should worry us about mob lynching incident. Survival of democracy, rule of law and justice is at stake. Prime Minister’s silence in spite of a drastic increase in the incidents of mob lynching tells us about the priorities and the direction of his government. Hindu supremacists always ridiculed secularism and openly proclaim that for them, their faith is above law and that the state should be reshaped to uphold not truth and justice, but primacy of their beliefs. The frequency of hate speeches by the ministers and authorities in government targeting Muslim community has built an ecosystem in which lynching and ‘might is right’ doctrine is thriving. Lynching is encouraged by leaders of the ruling party and even ministers indirectly by garlanding and felicitating those convicted for the crime of lynching and publicly defending them.

Lynching results in increasing asymmetry of power and social capital. It enables the targeted community to be controlled even more by the dominant community. If lynching continues unabated, it would ultimately reduce the Muslim community to accept the status of non-citizens residing at the mercy and sufferance of the majority community, using them as slave labour without any rights. To some, this warning may appear to be farfetched. It is for us to arrest the frequency and brutality of lynchings by compelling the state to act against the lynch mobs in accordance with law. Lynching not only dehumanizes the targeted community, but also the entire society. Let us act now before it is too late to uphold human rights, rule of law and democracy.

Bibliography:
Abraham, D., & Rao, O. (2017, June 28). 84% Dead In Cow-Related Violence Since 2010 Are Muslim; 97% Attacks After 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2018, from IndiaSpend: http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/86-dead-in-cow-related-violence-since-2010-are-muslim-97-attacks-after-2014-2014
Brass, P. R. (2004). Development Of An Institutionalsied Riot System In Meerut City, 1961 to 1982. Economic and Political Weekly Vol.XXXIX No. 44, October 30-November 5, 2004 , 4839-4848.
Brass, P. R. (2004). The Production Of Hindu-Mulsim Riot In Contemporary India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Dabhade, N. (2016, January 1). Communal Violence in 2015 – Rise in Hatred and Polarization. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from Centre for Study of Society and Secularism: http://www.csss-isla.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jan-1-15-2016.pdf
Engineer, A. A. (1984). On Developing Theory of Communal Riots. Mumbai: Institute of Islamic Studies.
Engineer, I. A. (2013). Issues of Communal Violence: Causes and Resonses. Mumbai: Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution.
Engineer, I. (2015, January 1). Communal incidents less compared to previous year, however, communalisation of attitudes more intense. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from Centre for Study of Society and Secularism: http://www.csss-isla.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jan-1-15-2015.pdf
Engineer, I. (2013, October 16). Sangh Parivar and Communal Riots. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from Centre for Study of Society and Secularism: http://www.csss-isla.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/October-16-to-November-15-2013.pdf
Express News Service. (2018, June 23). Hapur attack victim’s brother: FIR not lodged as per our choice…we are scared. The Indian Express .
Hafeez, M. (2018, July 3). Now, group of 5 saved from being lynched in Malegaon. Retrieved July 3, 2018, from The Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/now-group-of-5-saved-from-being-lynched-in-malegaon/articleshow/64833875.cms
Karmakar, R. (2018, June 26). Eight arrested in Assam for moral policing, assault. The Hindu .
Lartey, J., & Morris, S. (2018, April 26). How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people. Retrieved July 11, 2018, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/26/lynchings-memorial-us-south-montgomery-alabama
Naveen, P. (2018, June 19). WhatsApp rumour drives MP mob to nearly kill 2. The Times of India .
Pandey, P. (2018, June 16). ‘Easy for them, nothing to invest, everything to gain’. The Indian Express .
PTI. (2017, April 20). Sadhvi equates Alwar lynching case accused with Bhagat Singh. Retrieved July 11, 2018, from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/sadhvi-equates-alwar-lynching-case-accused-with-bhagat-singh/article18152682.ece
Rajput, R. (2018, July 3). Dhule mob thumbed nose at police: They are dead, take them away. Retrieved July 3, 2018, from The Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/maharashtra-dhule-lynching-mob-thumbed-nose-at-police-they-are-dead-take-them-away-5243288/
Saha, A. (2018, June 29). 30-year-old lynched in Tripura over suspicin of ‘child-lifting’. The Indian Express .
Subramanya, R. (2017, July 1). Has India become “Lynchistan”? Retrieved July 3, 2018, from Observer Research Foundation: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/has-india-become-lynchistan/
Syed a, R. (2018, June 19). Aurangabad man suspected to be thief thrashed, 15 booked. The Times of India .
Syed, R. (2018, June 16). Mob attacks two street performers in Aurangabad over talk of child-lifting. The Times of India .
The Hindu. (2018, May 12). Loss of innocents: on the wave of lynchings in Tamil Nadu. Retrieved July 3, 2018, from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/loss-of-innocents/article23857175.ece
TNN. (2018, June 28). Rumours triger fresh mob attacks in MP. The Times of India.

^[1] For more elaborate account of communal riots and its production, read (Engineer I. A., 2013)
 

The post Stop the political manufacturing of mob lynching and riots! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Courtesy: Twitter

Christians (including Protestants who are not addressed in the letter) are 0.87% of Delhi’s population. The Hindu supremacists project the letter as a huge problem even when this very tiny section of the population was addressed which hardly counts politically! However, by responding to an otherwise innocuous letter, the BJP leaders have made it a national issue reaching out to a much wider audience.

The Hindu supremacists have problematized the timing of the letter – just one year before the General Elections, as well as the observation of the Archbishop “turbulent political atmosphere which poses threat to the democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution and secular fabric of our nation”. The two most important persons after the PM Narendra Modi in the BJP and in the NDA Government responded to the letter. Rajnath Singh, Minister of Home Affairs said, “there was no discrimination against anyone”. The letter made no claim to the contrary. Amit Shah’s response was: “polarising people in the name of religion” was “not appropriate” (Mathew 2018). The letter remotely doesn’t seek to polarize in the name of religion. In fact it calls upon to pray for principles enshrined in the Constitution and preserve secular fabric of the nation. Both the leaders, and others from Hindu supremacists read something that is not there in the letter or want to deliberately draw conclusions to give it a political colour.

Elections are one year later and the letter will be forgotten by most people. Even if remembered, a very tiny section could hardly influence the outcome of elections. Besides, elections are almost always round the corner in some state or the other and such a letter could always be problematized whenever written.

Turbulent political atmosphere
The surge in hate spouted by the Hindu supremacists against non-Hindus is visible to all. To the Hindutva followers, the test of nationalism is neither in following Constitutional values nor in respecting rule of law nor in respecting democratic institutions like the legislature or judiciary. Their test of nationalism asserts supremacy of the privileged upper caste Hindu traditions and is proved only if one says “jai shri Ram”, “Bharat mata ki jai” and singing “Vande mataram” which, often they themselves cannot sing. Variants of these like “jai Hind” which is the tradition in security forces, or hoisting the national tricolour would not do. Expressing nationalism through constitutionally acceptable methods and plural traditions but which are not in conformity with the desires of Hindu supremacist becomes ground for them to indulge in violence and hate crimes. Violence against Muslims, Christians, Dalits and women are on rise. Social hostilities based on religion are on rise, particularly as the Hindu supremacists find an enabling environment where politically influential leaders and even ministers spout hatred against Muslims and Christians. Muslims are often advised to take permanent residency in Pakistan, an enemy state according to Hindu supremacists. Pakistan is projected to be patron state of Muslims in India. The BJP President Amit Shah publicly asserted while campaigning during Bihar Assembly elections – ‘Pakistan will celebrate if BJP loses elections in some innocuous Indian state’. Beef eaters (read: Muslims and Christians) are advised to emigrate to Pakistan (Anil Vij, Minister in Haryana).

Ministers in Central Govt. Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti publicly stated that Hindus were progeny of Lord Ram (Ramzade) and the rest – Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, atheists who do not accept Lord Ram to be their God are bastards (haramzade). The Sadhvi continues as minister and she was not even reprimanded. Maneka Gandhi, Union Minister said the profit from cow slaughter was financing terrorism. Sakshi Maharaj, BJP MP asserted that Madrasas religious schools run by Muslims were terrorist training centres. The person who asserted that Hindus should forcibly marry 100 Muslim women (and convert them to Hinduism) for every Hindu woman who chooses to marry a Muslim man (and gets converted to Islam), has been made chief minister of UP (FP Staff 2014).

Attacks on Churches and prayer meetings of Christians have dramatically increased. Instead of arresting the criminals, they are sought to be protected by categorising the attacker/s as mentally disturbed person/s. Mob lynching of Muslims and dalits on accusations consuming beef or slaughtering cows have grown manifold in the last four years.

Table – 1: Incidents of mob lynching on accusation of cow slaughter:
 

Source: www.indiaspend.com & www.news18.com

Mohd. Afrajul was hacked to death and then burnt alive in Rajsamand (Rajasthan) by Shambhulal Raigar, a follower of Hindu supremacist ideology. He videographed the incident and uploaded for popularity. Junaid Khan and Mohammed Akhlaq were lynched to death. Recently a dalit youth Mukesh Vaniya was beaten to death in Rajkot for refusing to clean up a factory premise belonging to an upper caste. Those who lynched Pehlu Khan to death in Rajasthan have been discharged and the accused freed. Survivors of mob lynchings have on the contrary been charged.

Communal conflicts have escalated. Communal violence has increased in Bihar since Nitish Kumar aligned with the BJP to form the state government. Massive Ram Navmi processions were taken out in March 2018 in several towns through new sensitive routes passing through minority areas in order to provoke and resulting in communal violence. In Kasganj Muslims celebrating Republic Day were asked to halt their Indian flag hoisting to make way for a bike rally of Hindu supremacist and on requesting them to wait a little, they sparked off communal riot. In WB there were riots during Muharram and Ram Navmi. Religious festivals are becoming tense moments for communities.

Table – 2: Number of communal incidents in the years 2014-2017:

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs’ reply in Parliament

Crime against women are on increase. Rape in Kathua was motivated by religious hostility and the Hindu Ekta Manch organized massive demonstrations in defence of the accused. BJP MLA in UP has been arrested for raping a child and later beating her father to death along with other accomplice. We could fill pages with sordid cases. If these are not turbulent times, what else could be? The PM of the country has by and large remained silent on all these issues.

Pew Research Centre, an independent non-partisan polling and research organisation, has been publishing its annual Global Restrictions on Religion Report since 2009. In their research, India ranked fourth in the world in 2015 – after Syria, Nigeria and Iraq – as having the highest social hostilities involving religion. India’s ranking worsened sharply since 2014. The report composes of two indices – the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index. While the former measures government restrictions on the free practice of religion, the latter looks at hostilities between groups around the issue of religion. The Social Hostilities Index looks at 13 indicators including crimes motivated by religious hatred, mob violence related to religion, communal violence, religion-related terrorist groups, using force to prevent religious groups from operating, the harassment of women for ‘violating’ religious dress codes and violence over conversion or proselytising. India ranked ‘very high’ on the index with an index value of 8.7 out of 10, 10 being the worst. Syria ranked at 9.2, Nigeria at 9.1 and Iraq at 8.9

Real reason
Hindu supremacist leaders problematize the Archbishop’s letter as polarizing and influencing voters. Such a conclusion would be a very remote possibility, and as pointed out above, would not influence the outcome. However, appeal by varied Hindu God men is far more direct and materially influences electoral outcomes. To give just a few examples, Haryana Chief Minister and several ministers visited controversial God man Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s Ashram and he is known to have appealed to his followers to vote for the BJP. The Ashram was beneficiary of Haryana Govt. funds. Another controversial God man Asaram was visited by the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee and other leaders and his Ashram in turn has been beneficiary of Govt. largesse in the form of land and ignoring illegal activities going on within the Ashram. BJP leaders visit the Ashram for votes of course.

Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali empire rapidly expanded after the BJP came to power. Patanjali’s Acharya Balkrishna become the 8th richest person in the country after 173 per cent rise in his wealth to Rs 70,000 crore. Patanjali has secured a second place in Indian FMCG market share in under 5 years, according to Hurun India Rich List 2017 (BT Online 2017). The rapid growth is because Baba Ramdev openly associated with the BJP and was in turn given Govt. land at highly concessional rates in several states ruled by the BJP. Haryana Govt. invited Digamber Jain monk – Tarun Sagar to address the State Legislative Assemble for 40 minutes. In his address, he asserted that relations between religion and politics should like those between husband and wife. Just as wife needs to serve the husband and husband needs to protect wife, politics should serve religion. In his words, “Rajniti par dharam ka ankush zaroori hai. Dharam pati hai, rajneeti patni. Har pati ki yeh duty hoti hai apni patni ko samrakshan de. Har patni ka dharam hota hai ki woh pati ke anushasan ko sweekar kare. Agar rajneeti par dharam ka ankush na ho toh woh magan-mast haathi ki tarah… ho jaati hai.” The Monk’s assertion is absolutely against both – the Constitutional principle of equality of genders and secularism.

When other parties approach Imam Bukhari for Muslim votes, then that becomes anti-secular and even anti-national (although election results do not bear out that Muslims vote according to the diktats of Imam Bukhari or for that matter any other Muslim religious leaders. In the 2014 General Elections, Rajnath Singh hobnobbed with Shia religious leaders. It is difficult to believe that during election time such a visit by the BJP leader was only a courtesy call without any electoral and political motive.

The BJP is not worried that innocuous Archbishop’s letter will contribute in any way towards losing even a few votes. Its real objective in problematizing the letter is that it wants to create a fear among the majority community about (non-existing) unity within the minority community. They scare the majority community that unity within minorities would lead to assertion of ‘their’ culture and dilution of the Hindu culture or ‘Hinduness’ of the nation. Minorities would struggle for secularism and space for their culture which is perfectly in accordance with our Constitutional principles but against the political ideology of Hindutva. It is the secularism and loyalty of the minorities to the principles enshrined in the Constitution that worries the Hindu supremacist and the BJP. The BJP leaders have always ridiculed secularism as sickularism. BJP has problematized Archbishop’s letter mainly because being from the minority community he has dared to speak up for the Constitutional principles and secular fabric of our nation.

The revered ideologue of Hindutva – M S Golwalkar – wanted that minorities should dream of nothing but the glory of Hindu (read upper caste) nation and Hindu upper caste traditions and symbols. Hindu supremacists’ objective is to relegate the minorities to the status of second class citizens. Bharatkumar Raut, former Rajya Sabha member of Shiv Sena – a party that subscribes to Hindutva ideology – even wrote an article demanding that the Muslims be disenfranchised – a demand which is punishable offence under section 153B of the IPC.

It is the idea of equality of all citizens that scares the BJP though it pays lip service to sabka saath sabka vikaas (with everyone and development of everyone). The lip service, even in its sincere implementation would actually negate democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution. It only asserts that if infrastructure of an area is developed, all communities would benefit ‘equally’. However, that is not true. If a road passes through a village the fellows having vehicles would benefit more than others in absence of affirmative action; and which village gets the road itself is a political decision and may be based on which community or caste forms the majority in the village.

What kind of new India do we want to build – One where lynch mobs undermine rule of law have the freedom to do so because they belong to majority religion and those who advocate for democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution and the secular fabric of our nation are questioned because they belong to minorities?

The post Arch Bishop’s letter: Storm in tea cup appeared first on SabrangIndia.