Why are there riots in India? Meghnad Desai : Sun Jul 21 2013, - TopicsExpress



          

Why are there riots in India? Meghnad Desai : Sun Jul 21 2013, 03:58 hrs There was a presentation of a new book on the Partition of Punjab last week in one of the committee rooms at the House of Lords. We still don’t know how many millions died in Partition. Even so, stories are always told of incredible hospitality when an Indian or Pakistani crosses the border and visits the other country. Partition and its memories are at the root of Hindu-Muslim communal riots in India. We have still not written the true history of why Partition happened. It is convenient for the Congress, which signed up for Partition, to blame it all on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In Pakistan, they blame Lord Mountbatten. The Indian attitude after Partition has been of denial. Jinnah, we are told, espoused the two-nation theory, which the Congress never believed in. India is a single, syncretic nation which the Congress fought to protect. This may be a desirable line to adopt as a device to maintain peace and harmony. It has not worked. But as a piece of history, it is tosh. Pakistan was demanded, not as a separate nation state, but as an autonomous sub-federation in independent India by Jinnah and, agreed to by all parties in July 1946. Jinnah, Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru were in London negotiating in December 1946. It was Liaquat Ali Khan’s radical budget, taxing businessmen (most of whom were Hindu) who made wartime profits, which ended the truce between the Congress and the Muslim League in March 1947. The cabinet could not function any longer and Mountbatten dealt with the two sides separately. By April, Mountbatten had swung Nehru and Patel in favour of Partition. By June 1947, the Congress had agreed and Mountbatten announced it. It took all of one month for Partition to be negotiated and agreed upon. The division of Bengal and Punjab came from the votes in their respective assemblies later, with Congress members voting for the break-up of both states. Boundaries were not fixed till after August 15, 1947. Carnage followed. Partition was a failure of all sides—Congress, Muslim League and the British. They all went into it with their eyes open. Their reasons may have been different. They were getting old and impatient as Nehru said. Or they knew they were dying as was the case with Jinnah. It was not built on any principle, only haste and expediency. But that is the past. One thing which emerged clearly in the House of Lords’ discussion is that mass violence can occur and persist only if authorities stand back, out of connivance or incompetence. That is one clear guideline through all the post-Independence riots in India. While Nehru was PM, for 17 years, no riots were allowed to flare up. Immediately upon some incident, police moved in and stopped further violence. One year after he died, riots resumed and have not stopped for the 48 years since. Think of all the major episodes. The 1984 anti-Sikh riots were carried out by Congress workers with police connivance. Three thousand Sikhs died because, as was said, ‘When a great tree falls, the Earth shakes’. The demolition of Babri Masjid was foretold and promised. Then PM Narasimha Rao chose not to deploy the Army or any other force, staying in puja on December 6, 1992, no doubt praying that the BJP pays for their folly. In effect, the Congress has alienated Muslim votes in UP and Bihar for 10 years at least. The 1993 Bombay riots were similar, as the Srikrishna report has shown. Again, passivity from police and connivance of the cabinet. No Maharashtra chief minister has apologised for what happened and Bal Thackeray was given a State funeral. Narendra Modi presided over riots which followed the burning down of a railway carriage carrying 59 Hindu karsevaks. Swift police action, even on the second day of the riots, would have stopped it. It was later that the Army took control. No one has apologised. The first law of Indian riots is that it needs a conniving executive to make them happen. The second law is that the prime minister/chief minister in-charge never apologises.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 07:15:09 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015