If anyone thought that the order of the recovery of the value of the property destroyed in violence in UP from the perpetrators was a decision of chief minister Yogi alone, prime minister Modi has proved this impression wrong. In his addresses to the public, in Lucknow on the eve of Late Vajpayee’s birthday Modi has supported Yogi’s actions in clear words. According to reports, the Rampur administration has issued notices to 28 people “identified for violence” during last week’s anti-citizenship law protests, asking them to explain their position or pay for damage caused to public and private property. Meerut admin has sent notices to 517 arms license-holders. In Muzaffarnagar, around three dozen shops have been sealed with the intention of recovering the loss of public property by selling the goods stored in these shops and shops themselves if needed. In Kanpur, 28 persons have been identified as the perpetrators. In Muzaffarnagar, around three dozen shops have been sealed with the intention of recovering the loss of public property by selling the goods stored in these shops and shops themselves if needed. In Kanpur, 28 persons have been identified as the perpetrators.
India has a long history of the destruction of property, both public and private, in various kinds of violence associated with protests and communal riots. But it is for the first time that there is an open declaration of state “revenge” against the perpetrators. Is it because, this is perhaps one of the rare occasions where the majority of perpetrators of violence are being identified by the police as Muslims?
What about the perpetrators of the Gujarat 2002 violence? Here are excerpts from Wikipedia article on Gujarat violence durinv the reign of Mr. Narendra Modi:
“Property worth 42 million rupees was destroyed during the riots, with Muslims losing 32 million worth of property….There was widespread destruction of property. 273 dargahs, 241 mosques, 19 temples, and 3 churches were either destroyed or damaged….. It is estimated that Muslim property losses were “100,000 houses, 1,100 hotels, 15,000 businesses, 3,000 handcarts and 5,000 vehicles.”
Who paid for this huge loss? Were perpetrators forced to pay the losses? The same article adds:
“Overall, 27,780 people were arrested. Of them, 11,167 were arrested for criminal behavior (3,269 Muslim, 7,896 Hindu) and 16,615 were arrested as a preventative measure (2,811 Muslim, 13,804 Hindu). The CCT tribunal (Concerned Citizens Tribunal, Crimes Against Humanity) reported that 90 percent of those arrested were almost immediately granted bail, even if they had been arrested on suspicion of murder or arson. There were also media reports that political leaders gave those being released public welcomes.”
According to other reports, more than 200,000 Muslims were displaced and even after more than 15 years, a large number of them are living in ghettoes.
So, if the victims are Muslims and perpetrators Hindus, they are welcome in the BJP regimes as the “braves” who have done the commendable work. But if the perpetrators happen to be Muslims, they need to face the “revenge” in style. 24 Muslims have died since 2014 in Mob Lynching incidences. Were Hindu perpetrators forced to pay the compensation to the families of the dead? Again, many such perpetrators have been openly felicitated by the political leaders. In response to CAA and NRC, there has been widespread violence and destruction of public property in Assam. Why should the PM not ask his party CM there to recover the loss of property from the perpetrators? Similar questions can be asked about the Jat violence in Rajasthan and Patel violence in Gujarat. According to reports, assets worth ₹340 billion were destroyed in Haryana in February, 2016 in Jat violence. In Gujarat, in Patidar agitation too, there was sizeable destruction of public and private property. But again, perpetrators were not asked to pay for the destruction. Both these states were ruled by BJP at those times.
It appears that the ruling dispensation, instead of trying to pacify the agitators and removing their fears by taking corrective constitutional measures, plans to use this for further division of the masses on the communal lines. This of course is what suits their vote bank politics.
In response to the CAA and NRC, there has been widespread violence and destruction of public property in Assam. Why should the PM not ask his party’s chief minister there to recover the loss of property from the perpetrators?