Violence within, politics without

The defence of Modi and his goons, both in and out of the government, by all the NDA partners after the 2002 riots has a parallel only in Rajiv Gandhi explaining away the brutal 1984 anti-Sikh riots as a tremor caused by the fall of a big tree. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee8217;s 8216;paid back in their own coin8217; justification of the brutal reprisal by the party cadre in Nandigram against the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Samiti supporters offends civilised ears despite his recent apology. Worse, Prakash Karat virtually justified Bhattacharjee, by pointing fingers at the Congress for the Babri Masjid demolition. This 8216;your violence is worse than ours8217; and 8216;don8217;t blame us, you too have done the same, or worse8217; rhetoric is creating a new raison d8217;ecirc;tre for promoting and perpetuating violence in the social arena.

We have lately had several examples of the thin line between social and political violence being smudged and its spill-over in the social domain. An attack by the Guwahatians on a Santhal tribal rally witnessed five being lynched, several injured and a young girl being dragged, stripped and chased. The tribals retaliated a couple of days later. The Nandigram episode crossed all civilised limits. The social sanction to the dragging of a chain snatcher tied to a cop8217;s bike in Bhagalpur appeared to have triggered similar incidents of vigilantism elsewhere in Bihar. Earlier this year, an agitation by the Gurjjar community for their inclusion in the ST category met with violent reprisals by the Meena community, leaving dozens dead. Taken together, these various incidents represent an ominous portent of an emerging Hobbesian society in India.

Ironically, despite the principal justification of the state being to protect citizens and secure their lives, the fundamental arm of the state apparatus is force: in the language of Frantz Fanon, 8216;the state is violence8217;. However, constitutionalism, the rule of law, political activism and civil society interventions minimise the state8217;s violent streak to a large degree. But when the state machinery is used for competing violence by the very actors who are supposed to be buffers between state violence and the society, the very principles and instruments that are protection against violence are used to support aggression. As it is, Indian society inheres a variety of conflicting contestations that could, and do, lead to violent clashes in which the state is supposed to mediate. If the state turns partisan in the hands of political players, using the balance like the monkey adjudicating between two cats clashing over a piece of bread, we have a ready recipe for social and political disaster.

Gandhi believed, 8216;Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.8217; Political leaders and parties using and justifying violence for electoral and political gains are ignoring the defeat that is facing them in the long run. Narendra Modi and his party supporters in Delhi and elsewhere should be aware of the Frankenstein they are creating by inciting, supporting and perpetuating violence in society. It may be easier to widen the existing cleavages in the society than to bridge them; but if this continues to be the trend it will soon be impossible to bridge these cleavages, it will become impossible to 8216;rule8217;, let alone 8216;govern8217; an atomised society at war with itself.

Despite all its limitations, civil society in India is waging a heroic battle against such a trend. But overcoming the contradictions will not be easy. Those justifying their brand of violence on one ideological ground or the other should remember what Gandhi said on another occasion, 8216;What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?8217;

The writer is director, Centre for Public Affairs, Noida drmehravsnl.com