Violence in the capital

India’s capital has seen the worst kind of violence in recent times. It reminds one of the kind of violence that had gripped Delhi in 1984 after then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was killed by two Sikh bodyguards. This time, the apparent cause of the violence is said to be the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the upcoming National Population Register (NPR). While it is a fact that there has been a lot of resentment against the CAA across the country – because it goes against the very tenets of the Constitution of India by granting citizenship only to people of certain religious groups and denies the same to others – large-scale misinformation about the proposed NRC has further disturbed and agitated sections of people, particularly the Muslims. The ongoing riots and violence in Delhi is not an aberration; rather it was in the process for quite a long time with so many factors contributing to make it happen. It had the CAA, it had the NRC and NPR, it had the Ayodhya verdict, and then it had the Hindutva agenda of the ruling party and the Sangh parivar as also the role of the Muslim fundamentalists and fanatics – all adding fuel to a fire that was simmering for the past few years. The politics of divide and fear, which was once the trademark of the Congress, was so well replicated by the present dispensation that it has been paying much better political dividends, often with compound interest, as has been seen the last two Lok Sabha elections. While a section of Muslims has been pushed into a state of fear and desperation, a section of Hindus has been inspired to become fanatics. The outcome is that the large majority of those who have incited the mobs as well as those who have taken part in the riots – irrespective of the side they are on – do not know what these acronyms called CAA, NRC and NPR actually mean. The protests and violence could have been easily stopped, and still can be halted, if the government commits to legislation that does not discriminate, and a process that does not put the civic standing of anyone living in India at risk. The effect of the government’s refusal to do this was to humiliate certain sections of people who happen to be minorities – Muslims – and keep the issue on the boil. In Delhi, the protests in Shaheen Bagh were allowed to continue, not because the government was soft on the protestors. Instead the government probably thought it could use the protest as pretext to consolidate majoritarian sentiment; and this for the purpose of translating the sentiment to votes.