A DANGEROUS GAME

The unfortunate incident of a man’s death at the hands of a mob in Uttar Pradesh over the contentious issue of a piece of food comes as a stark reminder of how communal and religious sensitivities continue to dominate public discourse. That the ghastly incident took place in the backyard of the national Capital has shattered the belief that proximity to Delhi translates into a change in mindset in its neighborhood. What happened in Dadri near Noida on September 28 was not a simple killing of a man belonging to a different community, but it was a clear expression of intolerance that now permeates the very fabric of Indian society. It is not for the first time that a section of society is consuming a food item that is an anathema to certain other people. This, in turn, has led to self-imposed dietary restrictions that almost every nonvegetarian adheres to in public domain, which essentially means keeping sensibilities of vegetarians in mind. Therefore, lynching on mere suspicion of possession and consumption of a certain animal meat is indicative of a deeper malaise. In the aftermath of the tumultuous events of 1992, the social interaction between the Hindu and Muslim communities had changed in a subtle manner, and the resultant unease has taken years to subside. The opportunities that emerged in subsequent years because of opening up of the economy helped bridge this chasm, especially as small businesses grew. The telecommunication revolution and growth of real estate sector provided a further fillip to small towns and villages, which led to general prosperity. But it did not necessarily lead to progressive thought. Ironically, the paved roads, parked tractors and cars, smart phones and improved electricity supply in the countryside conceal a narrowmindedness that degenerates into ugly violence at the slightest provocation – real or imaginary. While this may be true to varying extent in all states, it is a daily revelation in large parts of Uttar Pradesh. Districts in western UP had been known for harmonious co-existence. Just as communal flare-up in Muzaffarnagar and Saharanpur in the last two years has altered the socioreligious matrix, similarly the emergence of a new breed of tough-talking and aggressive generation has sharpened the communal divide. Preliminary investigation into the Dadri incident indicates that probably there was no organised group behind the incident. But it also indicates that technology – either in the form of the ubiquitous public address system or as social media interface through mobile phones – did not actually open up the minds of those who use it. Rather, it spurred the execution of their vicious game of hatred.

While on one hand, the incident underscores the failure of the Uttar Pradesh law and order enforcement and intelligence machinery, on the other hand, it is a social commentary on the culture of intolerance that has festered despite tall claims of development and digital growth. A young and dynamic Chief Minister talks of development. So does a globe-trotting Prime Minister. Yet, when it comes to a turf they both share, they fall short of assuring the people that pettiness has no place in their dreams of a robust India. In the last couple of years, a feeling has taken hold among some political parties that communal posturing pays. The electoral success that emerged from such polarisation further reinforced this viewpoint. It is unfortunate that behind the veneer of talk of development, there still lurks a desire to fan the communal divide, ostensibly in the quest for a political harvest. The state of Uttar Pradesh may never shed its ‘backward’ tag and the dream of a robust India may be seriously undermined if the politics of polarisation is allowed to thrive. That the Dadri incident has not had any repercussion at the grassroots level in UP, and has not attracted retribution anywhere else, is a sign of the maturity of people of both communities. But it would be too much to expect that such restraint will hold for long if such groups of misguided and communally surcharged men are allowed a free run in any part of India. Uttar Pradesh is a difficult state to govern, but if the hate pot keeps simmering, the dividends for all political stakeholders can well be imagined. It is not too much to expect from the political leadership that it will rein in fringe elements. Getting rid of such elements, regardless of the positions they hold, will send a clear signal to all sections. The question is: do our state and national leaders really have the political will? Or a simple blame game is serving the purpose of all concerned?