Communalism

Secularism Is Dead, Long Live Secularism

We can hug the constitution as much as we want, the powers-that-be have already and with gusto changed it without actually changing it.

Just to recapitulate some famous constitutional sayings:

that, among its other attributes, the Indian state/republic is a ‘secular’ one;
that all citizens, regardless of caste, creed, class, race, gender, language or region have the fundamental right to ‘profess, practice, and propagate’ their religious faith;
that the state shall not ‘discriminate against or favour any particular religion’;
that appeal to religious identity/sentiments during electioneering is ultra vires.

Quite recently, an honourable Justice of the Supreme Court observed that secularism is the core feature of the constitution.’

Thus, as of now, everything remains de jure secular in India.

Only that over the last decade, and fiercely now, Bharat has changed all that.

Look where you will, and agents of the executive think nothing of observing the injunctions noted above in widespread de facto breach without raising the least public or institutional eyebrow.

The pragmatic fourth estate desists wisely from making an issue.What corporate may put the constitution above unimpeded profit making?

Day in and day out, bold and blatant communal fulminations blare from electronic channels as barely any aspect of institutional and collective social life is spared from being incorporated into a majoritarian makeover of the realm.

Every syllable of political discourse is calculated to remind us of the allegedly fatal divide between Hindus and Muslims.

Paradoxically, the stronger our executive gets, and by its own boastful claims, the more sectarian fears it busily propagates; you would think that Hindus were never as much in danger of all sorts from a 14% Muslim minority as they are under our staunch saffron rule.

The latest slogan is that were Hindus to come to be divided, a Bangladesh-like calamity would descend upon them.

Be it noted that, barring some episodes of minority harassment by sectarian vigilante groups after the change of regime there, no credible evidence of any persecution of Hindus in that neighbouring country has come to the fore. To its credit, the new regime remains as committed to the protection of the Hindu and other minorities as was the Hasina regime.

More recently, as our current season of election campaigns proceeds, the honourable Narendra Modi has in person voiced the fear that a ‘vote jihad’ has been unleashed by the godless opposition against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

One must of course marvel at the ingenuity with which, ceaselessly, the right-wing generates an unrelenting and an unmistakable dog-whistle discourse.

Not for a second does the ruling rightwing ask itself why it is that if Muslims voted zestfully for the BJP during the Vajpayee regime (1999-2004), they have been unwilling to do so during the Modi regime’s second tenure especially.

The official project is to convey to hoi polloi that in not voting for the Modi-led BJP, Muslims have proved themselves to be anti-national threats both to Sanatan Dharma and the ordained theocracy it seeks to install for the good of Bharat.

If the much touted slogan used to be ‘sab ka saath, sab ka vikas, sab ka vishwas (that the Modi government means to carry all citizens with it, labour for every Indian’s progress, seek every citizens’ trust),’ a noted satrap in West Bengal was to holler forthrightly that it is time the BJP stood only for those who stand for it – ‘jis ka saath, uss ka vikas.’

Even an honourable Justice of the top court, ultimate guardian of the secular constitution, thought nothing of hosting the honourable head of the secular executive at a Ganesh puja in his residence.

These unlovely considerations lead but to one unlovely conclusion: we can hug the constitution as much as we want, the powers-that-be have already and with gusto changed it without actually changing it.

And with no demur from any quarter that matters barring an irritatingly persistent Rahul Gandhi.

This is truly a historic achievement.

Day by uncontested day, the liberal contract that had once informed the freedom movement and the creation of our constitution stands mortally eroded.

It would be foolhardy to prognosticate that the occurrence is a passing one.

Even if a truly secular dispensation were to come to power in 2029, it is much to be doubted that the transformation our state and vast sections of the polity have been subjected to would be wholly reversible.

Given what depredations are continuously wrought on our school education, college syllabi, and institutional recruitments, the generation to come may find itself as much a stranger to our history prior to the Modi era as cheese is to chalk.

So, we can continue to hold our constitution sacred like other sacred books, and disregard its pronouncements as we disregard our best scriptural teachings as well.

God helps those who help the stock market.

The rest are but fodder for the cannon.

Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.

How Majoritarianism Based on ‘Divide and Rule’ Undermines Itself

Majoritarianism is an admission of weakness which needs an ‘other’ to assert itself and feel superior to gain confidence.

The nation is not at peace. News of violence and protests have become routine. The result is diversion of the nation’s energies from tackling urgent long term national and international challenges that are piling up with implications for national well-being.

Internal strife reduces the capacity to tackle the challenges. Globally, challenges of environment and climate change, geo-political tensions and wars and rapid technological changes need to be addressed. Nationally, there is communal and caste strife, growing inequality and unemployment, persisting poverty, challenges to federalism, etc.

Lessons from colonisation

Hind Swaraj, written by Mahatma Gandhi in 1908, has lessons to offer in this regard. It not only presented a plan for India’s independence but a blueprint for the nation’s future. Why did the nation get colonised?

It answers, ‘The English have not taken India; we have given it to them”. Further, “…we encouraged them. When our Princes fought among themselves they sought assistance of Company Bahadur.” It adds, “We further strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves.” On the divide between Hindus and Muslims, it says, “These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers.”

Gandhi pointed out that the English practiced “divide and rule” and succeeded because the princes and the people were disunited. So, Indians themselves have to accept blame for their colonisation. This has relevance in the present situation of growing internal strife because of the use of the divide and rule policy by the present day rulers. But to what end?

The English colonised India to enrich themselves. They undermined the Indian economy so as to capture markets for their industry. Their rule resulted in India’s deindustrialisation and the deterioration in the socio-economic conditions. When they departed, there was wide spread illiteracy, poor health infrastructure, low life expectancy, etc.

Divide and rule was used to thwart Indians from rising against their unjust and pauperising rule. It is the national movement that united large sections of Indians.

Clearly, the lesson was that outside powers take advantage of a divided nation to gain at its expense. Further, the divisions are used to divert people’s attention from the real issues. These lessons from colonisation need to be taken note of by the current rulers.

Divide and rule results in growing instability

Divide and rule in a formally democratic system, results in growing social, political and economic instability. Conflict among the groups grows, making it difficult to arrive at a consensus on national policies. Those in power, corner the gains for their groups. So, capturing power becomes an end in itself and that leads to growing conflict and partisanship.

Since independence, India has followed “trickle down” policies so as to quickly achieve western modernity. This was the ruling elite’s self-serving policy which was accepted by the rest in good faith. But, with little trickle down over time, the people at the margins have lost faith in the developmental policies of the rulers.

Today, every caste and community group wants to capture power to benefit their people. This accentuates the national divide with people voting for their own community leaders while distrusting national leadership. People have lost faith in any long term promises of national development and demand immediate tangible gains.

So, political parties are competing with each other in offering immediate lucrative benefits. As the long-term perspective gets diluted, instabilities get aggravated and problems grow.

This is an ideal situation for vested interests to capture power via financing of political parties and their leaders. Democracy is becoming more and more formalistic with voting not leading to representation of people’s interest. Huge sums of money are used to contest elections and stay in power.

The money spent is largely illegal and provided by businesses and the corrupt who expect a quid pro quo. So, on attaining power, the ruling dispensations serve the interest of those financing them and their politics, no matter what the electoral rhetoric. This is cronyism and it has grown in scale.

The net result is that the economic gains are cornered by the vested interests leaving little for the marginalised – this is a variant of colonisation which Gandhi referred to.

Majoritarianism is an admission of weakness

Currently, divide and rule is being used to promote a divide between the majority and the minorities. Is the goal to energise the former to overcome its inferiority complex and regain its confidence that it lost during colonisation? Will it strengthen the nation in spite of the growing conflict between the communities? Will it raise India’s standing in the world?

Actually, majoritarianism is an admission of weakness which needs an ‘other’ to assert itself and feel superior to gain confidence. Unfortunately, conflict adds to the nation’s problems and weakens it, rather than strengthening it. This is what Gandhi enunciated. Majoritarianism depends on assertion and not reason. It sees any critique as an attack on itself and counter attacks that aggravates the conflict leading to greater instability.

Narrowing of perspective results in policy induced crisis

The impact of rising instabilities and cronyism weakens the investment climate for private investment which is 75% of the total investment. The government has raised capital expenditure substantially hoping that would crowd in private investment. But, that has not transpired and the shortfall in private investment persists with adverse impact on growth and social welfare.

The narrowing of perspective has also led to policy induced crisis due to demonetisation, structurally faulty GST, sudden lockdown and pro big-business policies. These decisions have damaged the unorganised sectors which employ 94% of the workers. The capital intensive organised sector which generates few jobs has grown at the expense of the labour intensive unorganised sector, thereby curtailing employment generation. The result is growing unemployment, persistence of poverty and rising inequality.

To divert attention of the people from this highly iniquitous development strategy, divide and rule is used by accentuating divisive social and political issues. The sub-conscious fears of the public are aroused. This is far easier than filling the societal cracks that would enable harmonious existence.

Adverse impact on knowledge generation

Growing conflict in society results in rising social waste. People get diverted from productive endeavours. This impacts the critical task of generation of socially relevant knowledge – something the institutions of higher learning are to fulfill.

But, they have been also drawn into the arena of conflict which has setback to higher education and research and development. This has weakened technology development which is crucial to face the challenge of globalisation.

India’s dependence is visible in the import of not only strategic defence items but also in trade. India is the largest importer of armament. It depends on Russia for legacy defence equipment and on the western powers for advanced armament it has obtained in the last 20 years. This dependence prevents it from taking an independent line in the evolving geo-political alignments.

In trade, it has a whopping $85 billion deficit with China, an enemy. Many of its factories are dependent for their functioning on Chinese engineers.

The drawing of Indian institutions of higher learning into the arena of conflict and politics has led to the appointment of poor quality ideologically correct faculty. Further, the autonomy of these institutions has been curtailed so as to prevent them from critiquing the ruling party’s ideas and its strategy of divide and rule. Both these impact generation of new knowledge which crucially depends on critiquing existing ideas.

The result is a lowering of standards in Indian institutions of higher learning. The response to this decline has not been to set things right but invite foreign institutions to establish campuses in India. Assuming that they raise the standards of some institutions, they will bring their own context and not generate knowledge relevant to India.

This will also put paid to the present regime’s pet idea of ‘decolonising’ the Indian mind. Further, the foreign institutions will undermine the existing moribund Indian institutions. Finally, the new institutions will also need autonomy to generate new knowledge – something the present ruling establishment is not willing to grant and was trying to circumvent.

Increase in wasteful expenditure

Growing strife in India requires increased expenditures on law and order. At present India already has a much larger police force than the number of personnel during colonial rule. The courts are packed with cases which take years to resolve. Given these difficulties, people often resort to instant justice through illegal means. This undermines faith in justice, leads to corruption and in a vicious cycle, results in rising alienation. The result is a decline in faith in the leadership and that degrades their capacity to implement policies.

Foreign powers take advantage of these weaknesses and foment trouble to weaken the nation. This calls for increased expenditures on law and order machinery and on defence of the country. The rising social waste diverts resources from development and inadequate allocation for education, health, research and development, etc.

Social waste, together with weak policy implementation makes it appear as if the nation’s problems are due to shortage of resources and foreign resources are needed. Prior to 1991, India depended on foreign aid and after that it is seeking capital flows from global markets. In the markets, there is competition for capital, so, concessions have to be offered.

This further reduces resource availability in the country and makes the nation more dependent on capital from big business and MNCs. Countries and markets are governed by the institutions of global governance, such as the World Bank and the IMF. They represent the interests of MNC capital and to further its interest, they impose cross-conditionalities. This amounts to truncation of sovereignty since policies get determined more by foreign interests than the needs of the Indian public.

Gandhi’s idea can be reformulated in the current neo-colonial phase as “foreigners have not captured policy making; we have ceded control to them.” This is a result of our rulers weakening the nation by practicing “divide and rule” through accentuation of the divides.

Arun Kumar is retired professor of economics, JNU.

Shoddy Police Work, Ineffective Courts: PUDR Highlights Struggles of 1984 Sikh Massacre Victims

‘The legal battle continues for some of the families, even after 40 years of the incident. Ironically it is their words against the powerful.’

New Delhi: On the completion of 40 years since the massacre of Sikh people across the country, the People’s Union for Democratic Rights has released a statement essaying the inordinate delay in bringing justice to the victims.

November 1, 2024, marks 40 years since violence against Sikh people after the assassination of former prime minister Indira Gandhi by two of her bodyguards led to the death of thousands across India.

Since then, the PUDR has noted, investigation and trials have been delayed to an extraordinary extent – in Delhi a total of 587 FIRs were registered, of which 241 were shown as untraceable and could not be proceeded against. Out of a total of viable 302 cases, legal battles continue against 20. In many of these, powerful leaders of the then ruling Congress party are named.

The statement is signed by PUDR secretaries Paramjeet Singh and Joseph Mathai.

The PUDR has called for the opening of all pending cases, proper police investigation into them and retrial of all the cases where prime witnesses turned hostile.

The full statement is below.

November 1, 2024, marks the 40th year of pan-India massacres in which thousands of Sikhs were brutally maimed and killed. Although the official figure on the number of deaths in Delhi alone was 2733, other estimates placed the total number between 3,000 in Delhi to 30,000 deaths all over India. The scale and design of the organised massacres clearly pointed towards the complicity of the then ruling political party which later used the state’s executive and other agencies for acts of commission and omission.

In Delhi a total of 587 FIRs were registered in all. Of which 241 were shown as untraceable and hence could not be proceeded against. 11 others were quashed by the Police and 3 were withdrawn leaving a total of 302 cases. Of these, it was only in 25 cases that conviction happened, while in 264 cases the accused were either acquitted or the cases discharged. Although the total number of persons charged for murder was 1286, only 60 persons were convicted of murder charges while 68 others were convicted for petty crimes such as theft, violating the curfew, criminal trespass etc. The inordinate delay tactics adopted and engineered by the police in presenting facts of the cases resulted in many of these cases failing to progress beyond the trial courts. At present there are about 20 cases that are pending in various courts in Delhi. Of these 6 cases are against the senior Congress (I) leader and former Member of Parliament Sajjan Kumar (3 in trial courts, 3 in High Court of Delhi and 1 in Supreme Court) and 2 cases against another Congress (I) prominent leader and former Member of Parliament Jagdish Tytler.

Also read: 1984: That Which We Cannot Name

The legal battle continues for some of the families, even after 40 years of the incident. Ironically it is their words against the powerful. For example, even though 34 years after the carnage that Sajjan Kumar was finally found guilty on the charges of IPC 120B, 302 and 436, by Justices S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel in 2018; another judgement pronounced by Gitanjali Goel at the Rouse Avenue District Court acquitted Kumar of the charges brought against him under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153, 295, 302 and 436 IPC. Sheela Kaur who lost her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, has challenged the decision in the Delhi High Court.

In yet another case involving a prominent member of the Congress (I) party, having held even higher office, is that of Jagdish Tytler. Here, the CBI had filed three closure reports in 2007, 2009 and 2014. But Delhi’s Karkardooma courts rejected the CBI closure report on December 4, 2015, on the protest petition by Lakhwinder Kaur, who lost her husband in the Gurudwara Pul Bangash attack. Notably, it was during this attack that three Sikhs by the name of Sardar Thakur Singh, Badal Singh and Gurcharan Singh were killed. The court asked the CBI to continue its probe, which eventually resulted in filing of the chargesheet in May 2023 and the Rouse Avenue Court asking the police to frame formal charges against Tytler in August 2024. Unlike his colleagues H.K.L. Bhagat or Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler up until 2024 had never had formal charges framed against him.

In the report “Who are the Guilty” (1984) based on the investigation of PUDR along with PUCL, published within the fortnight of carnage, 17 November 1984, names of these prominent Congress (I) leaders and their involvement as per allegation levelled by the victims was clearly highlighted. It also included the names of over 140 police officials, many of whom played active roles in the killings. Based on these finding PUDR and PUCL also moved the Delhi high court for a comprehensive enquiry, which was dismissed. However, facing pressure from various civil rights and other organizations, the government started setting up committees to look into the cause of this carnage and to provide relief and compensation to the victims. Till 2015, altogether 12 commissions and committees have be setup in this regard. Despite all this, cases hardly moved and there was hardly any justice provided to the victims. PUDR reports “Justice Denied” (1987) and “A Report on the Aftermath” (1992) critically reviewed the working and findings of these commissions and committees and status of cases.

The shoddy work of police officials and ineffectiveness of judiciary process and providing justice to the victim has been clearly highlighted in the findings of Justice S,N. Dhingra committee, latest being set up in 2015. The cruel twist can be clearly understood by the fact that even of the cases recommended by Dhingra Committee on April 15, 2019, three of those were dismissed by a Delhi High Court Bench consisting of Justices Pratibha Singh and Amit Sharma in October 2024. The dismissal was approved by the Court on grounds of the accused having already been cleared of charges over 36 years ago. Irony cannot be amiss because the dismissal of these three cases could very well establish a precedent for 10 other cases, eventually compromising the essence of justice.

Despite all such hardships, few victims and survivors of the 1984 massacres have continued their struggle with unwavering determination. Despite reposing little faith in police investigations and even lesser towards political parties in power, their hope now rests squarely upon the judicial process, which has already taken years of toll on their health, family and relationships.

PUDR Demands:

1. To open all the pending cases and reinvestigate with proper police investigation as pointed by the Dhingra Committee

2. Retrial of all the cases where prime witness had turned hostile.

3. Speed up all the pending appeal in higher courts.

4. Action against all the police officials who did not perform their duty in presenting credible investigation by colluding with the accused.

1984: That Which We Cannot Name

We need to confront the violence that was visited on the Sikhs, and to name it. We need figures and data on how many people were affected.

Today, October 31, is the 40-year anniversary of the assassination of Indira Gandhi, then the prime minister of India, and the subsequent massacre of Sikhs in various parts of India.

Anniversaries can be difficult affairs. Forty years on from 1984 – the date itself is shorthand for the trauma of an entire community that needs no explanation – we live with the continuing betrayal of the thousands of Sikhs who lost everything in the orgy of violence that followed Indira Gandhi’s assassination at the hands of her Sikh bodyguards, two men tasked with protecting, not killing her.

Yet, one betrayal does not justify another.

In the words of the only prime minister to have attempted any sort of apology for the violence that overtook the Sikh community in large swathes of north India, particularly Delhi, “what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our constitution.” Note that even Dr Manmohan Singh, who we now know was threatened by the same mob dynamics that obliterated so many lives, was not able to put a label on “what took place in 1984”: 40 years on we are yet to agree on whether the brutal violence directed at Sikhs was a massacre, a pogrom, or an attempt at genocide. (Whatever it was, it was not a riot, which implies two sides clashing.)

How can you properly apologise for that which you cannot name?

Of course, October brings with it two anniversaries.

One, a defined act of violence and betrayal, bound in time and space to the moment when Indira Gandhi was gunned down at close range by her two bodyguards at her residence on the morning of October 31, 1984.

The second act of violence and betrayal started when she was declared dead. It radiated from her residence to parts of Delhi most susceptible to communal mob dynamics, and from there, to some other states. (To some states, but not all.) Starting with ‘khoon ka badla khoon (avenge blood with blood)’, it swept through localities. Sikhs were hunted down – the men and boys pulled out of their homes and killed, often after being doused with kerosine and then set alight in front of their remaining family. Homes were looted and then burnt down. Sikh businesses were targeted, sometimes in busy markets where adjoining establishments were not touched because they did not belong to Sikhs. Gurudwaras and schools were attacked. And all the while, the organs of state that were meant to protect the citizens of India stood by idly, or worse. Khoon ka badla khoon.

In the absence of definite figures, we do not even know for certain how much blood was spilled just after October 31. There is no definite data on the victims, no redressal or compensation, and vitally, no justice in the form of punishment of those who killed, maimed, raped, looted, incited and facilitated. This act of violence and betrayal has no end point or closure.

Sikhs as a whole are not given to public lamentations and demonstrations of victimhood. It should not need repeating that many of this community lost everything when their homeland was divided in 1947. They rebuilt their lives, letting go of the past in the tacit understanding that their future lay in secular India. Thirty-seven years later – and after almost a decade of tumultuous politics in Punjab that exploited that very loss of heritage and home – many found that their faith in the state had been naïve. Silence on these matters is not indifference or amnesia.

If I needed any reminding, it was provided last month, on the death anniversary of my grandfather. As in recent years, his children and grandchildren remembered him on a family WhatsApp group. It was all fairly normal – our usual reaching out in memory of someone who died far too young, in 1983. Until my aunt typed, ‘Thankfully [he] didn’t have to live through the carnage of the Sikhs in 1984.’

1984, the date that says it all.

It was as if a dam had been breached in our collective memories. The stories are painful, and sadly, all too common – we have heard many versions of them. These happened to my family, and the smell of fear came through my screen 40 years later. We knew then, as we know now that the violence was not some spontaneous outpouring of grief that turned violent. It was targeted. That much was clear even by mid-November when the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and the People’s Union for Democratic Rights published the conclusions of their fact-finding missions that examined the violence between November 1 and 10 in a slim pamphlet titled Who are the Guilty. Four decades later, it still makes for devastating reading.

And of course, the violence did not end in November. The fires spread to Punjab and continued to spark and smoulder for another decade. We are arguably still witnessing the fallout of those funeral pyres as suggested by developments in relations with Canada. And while Punjab burnt, every Sikh man was a potential terrorist. Checkpoints, airport check-ins, trains, any public place: if you wore a turban, or were with someone wearing a turban, these places were to be navigated with care.

1984 was not an event: it is an open, suppurating wound. This wound will continue to fester as long as justice is not delivered to the victims. We are well past apologies now. Qualified apologies have been delivered, but without concrete action they remain empty words. Inquiries, eye witness accounts, testimonies, NGO reports and others provide a wealth of evidence to start the wheels of justice rolling – if there is the political will to seek meaningful justice. Testimony from the survivors have named locals, corporators, councillors, MPs, police, bureaucrats and ministers. And yet the Indian state has displayed a strange reticence in following the testimony to its logical conclusion. In the interim, governments have changed at the centre and in the affected states. And yet, even those who were in opposition when the killings took place now appear to show an indifference to the suffering that they decried at the time. Is it because it is politically expedient to keep those wounds fresh, to pick at them, come election time?

If this anniversary is to mean anything other than shame, it is time for concrete action. There has been 40 years of obfuscation, indifference, and then, to add insult to injury, exhortations to move on. Can we really expect the women of the ‘widow’s colony’ (its very existence should be an affront to our nation) to move on when their past, present and future went up in diesel-fed flames four decades ago, and when, in those four decades, nothing has been done to address their immeasurable loss? These are women whose male family members were claimed by the mob. Records from the time indicate that those seeking shelter in Tilak Vihar in 1984 were families of women with young children. There was not a single boy over 10. There was not a single earning male left, and any means of livelihood was probably reduced to ashes – that is, if they could bear to return to the place where their neighbours had turned on them. The women of Tilak Vihar are still waiting for justice. And it seems we are comfortable ignoring their grief.

We need to acknowledge what happened in October and November 1984. We need to confront the violence that was visited on the Sikhs, and to name it. We need figures and data on how many people were affected. The fact that we do not have any definite data on those killed or injured, on properties and possessions burnt or looted, on citizens displaced, helps our collective inability to name the violence. We have elided the nature of the violence by hiding behind generalities and estimates.

We also need to take a hard look at how the violence spread so quickly. Yes, of course, it was sponsored and encouraged, and the diesel that fed the flames came from somewhere, as did the buses that brought in mobs, or the rods and crude weapons that were handed out. But, people do not wake up one morning deciding to turn on their neighbours. The seeds of communal hatred had been cultivated while insurgency and secessionism grew in Punjab, culminating in Operation Bluestar. Once a community is painted as a problem, once their loyalties to the state are questioned, even briefly, it takes very little for communal flames to roar into life.

The beast of communalism lurks within us still. It was nourished in the butchery of 1947, and fed again in 1983, 2002, 2008, 2013, 2020. It lies in wait for the next spark. It is time to confront the beast. The pogrom of 1984 would be a good place to start.

Priyanjali Malik is an independent researcher.

How the Constitutional Aspect of Citizenship is Getting Blurred in Regional and Religious Assertions

The politics of the past decade in India has dragged religion again in defining citizenship, much to the peril of social cohesion and constitutional rectitude.

In a detailed judgement on October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India seemingly laid to rest any controversy relating to the Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 conferring citizenship on a specific class of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam.

While the controversies relating to Assam and the north-east India are of a special category, historically and constitutionally independent India that emerged from the British Indian empire, on August 15, 1947, was prone to facing contestations regarding citizenship from day one. No wonder, the SC’s attempt to end one aspect of the controversy leaves another relating to religion still smouldering.

The partition of the British India with an obdurate stress on the construction of a nation based on ‘religion’ was bound to leave a shadow on the formation of citizenship in India, which avowedly shaped its nationhood on secularism by framing a constitution accommodative of regional, cultural and religious diversity.

However, as East Pakistan negated the Muslim League’s idea of nationhood based on Islam in the next 24 years and emerged as Bangladesh – a nation based on linguistic affinity – on 26 March 1971, it weakened the logic of religion-nation link in the subcontinent. No wonder, the two partitions in south Asia – of India in August 1947 and of Bangladesh in March 1971 – created issues relating to citizenship rooted equally in the process of migration in a region that had a fair degree of organic unity in its geography.

Yet, the politics of the past decade in India has dragged religion again in defining citizenship, much to the peril of social cohesion and constitutional rectitude. Thus, it is worthwhile to begin an analysis of citizenship in India from the current SC judgement that digs deep into the constitutional roots.

India’s constitutional citizenship

The Indian Constitution came to life in less than two and a half years since independence, even as the process of partition in terms of population transfer was still on; obviously, citizenship was being reconstituted and reshuffled in the Indian subcontinent.

The Constitution brought tremendous clarity in defining citizenship in Part II (Articles 5-7); and captured the fluidity of the political situation that was bringing about kaleidoscopic shifting shapes of citizenship. While Article 5 defined citizenship at the commencement of the Indian Constitution, Article 6 laid down rights of citizenship of persons who migrated ‘to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan’.

Article 7 went ahead of Article 5 in taking into consideration the process of transfer of population referring to migration taking place between 1 March 1947 to 26 January 1950. It also takes into account the complex process of migration from ‘India’ to the territory that became Pakistan and eventual permanent return back to India.

However, the building up of the Naga issue in the north-east India threw up fresh citizenship challenges since 1946. This is an ember that is still smoldering, even as the region has been unceasingly throwing up issues of citizens that have not been easy to resolve. Second, and an important aspect of reimagining citizenship beyond being an Indian also expressed itself from the early 1960s, i.e., soon after the reorganisation of states, was emerging demands for new states.

This led to a political journey from initially organised fourteen states to 28 presently. Despite single citizenship, the assertion of this identity, which has fortunately been beyond religion, has been a significant political development in India.

Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 6A

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, also resulted from the issue of citizenship emanating from the north-eastern region – from Assam following an amendment in 1986. It has also been linked to the issues underlined above that emerged from the two partitions in the subcontinent, particularly the creation of Bangladesh.

Citizenship Act enacted by Indian Parliament in December 1955, five years after the Constitution of India was adopted, was expected to end controversies regarding citizenship in independent India. However, the movement for and the creation of Bangladesh led to large-scale refugee influx – both Hindus and Muslims – into India. The long-term result was that a large number of refugees stayed in India and got spread across the country in search of livelihood. The border between Bangladesh and India being porous and with the surrounding states having linguistic and cultural affinity, the incessant flow caused unease.

Arising apprehension over change in demographics, language and culture as well as pressure over resources in a state with severe employment deficit led to the Assam Movement in the 1980s. The all-Assam Students Union (AASU) spearheaded a movement focused on ouster of the foreigners, stressing distinctive Assamese identity, demanding differentiated citizenship.

Grounded in the linguistic/cultural identity of Assamese people, this peaceful movement later passed on to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), which emphasised unequal development and discrimination. While the movement had emphasis on Bengalis and Bangladeshis inundating the state disturbing its distinctive Assamese identity and culture, apprehension on religious imbalance was also there. This powerful sentiment of crisis in citizenship in Assam had a long-term impact on Indian politics and on citizenship.

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s ‘politics of accord’ was extended to Assam in less than a year after he came to power. The Assam accord dated August 15, 1985 with the leaders of the movement brought in Section 6A in the Act, creating a template of hierarchised model of citizenship in Assam.

Shifting the chronological boundary of citizenship for the state from July 19, 1948 to March 25, 1971 for Assam, it also created a category of residents, who needed to prove their citizenship claim. The scrapping of the IMDT Act by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in 2005, rendered immigration from Bangladesh not only as illegal entry, but as an act of aggression. The SC created a category of ‘infiltrators’ who posed a threat to national security, which has played out in recent years with a mix of national and religious identities.

However, in the PIL filed in 2012, the petitioners pleaded that immigrants exerted pressure on Assam’s resources. Granting citizenship to them is according a special privilege while denying equal rights to Assam’s indigenous people. As the SC upheld Section 6A and the existing arrangement in Assam in a 4:1 majority judgement recently, it upheld the sanctity of the 1985 accord. This leaves the petitioners’ claim that the provisions seek to shelter “foreigners” over the rights of the Assamese citizens. They argue this is step-motherly treatment to Assam and its ethnic Assamese identity. No wonder, in the current atmosphere of the country, this creates a possibility of the future flare up.

The future citizenship conundrum

Unfortunately, the element of religion introduced through the CAA and the exercise of the NRC that privileges the victimised Hindus in other countries, particularly those of the South Asia, and otherises persons of other religions in the citizenship register, creates another tinderbox.

This has had impact on the Assam politics. The vitriolic rhetoric of the previous and the present chief ministers of Assam for the past decade, and particularly since the passing of the CAA in 2019, have pushed the issue of religion avoidably on the forefront in the citizenship discourse and politics.

The agitation against the CAA and NRC, enacted by the Government of India on 12 December 2019, sparked a widespread national protests against the Act and its associated proposals of the NRC. The protests predictably originated in Assam and spread swiftly to Delhi, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tripura on 4 December 2019.

Breaking out rapidly across the country, protests resulted in widespread arrests, mostly of activists of a community, several of them young students, who are still languishing in prison. Neither the judgement discussed, nor protests in the country have exerted enough pressure for their release. Unfortunately, religion has entered the discourse on citizenship in India.

Ajay K. Mehra is a political scientist. He was Atal Bihari Vajpayee Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, 2019-21 and Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Evening College, Delhi University (2018).

‘System Attempt to Create New Nurseries of Hate’: Retired Bureaucrats Write to Amit Shah on Communal Unrest in Uttarakhand

‘The plan seems to be to make Uttarakhand a template for similar strategies to be employed elsewhere in the country, in all places that have so far resisted such majoritarian aggression.’

New Delhi: A group of over 100 retired civil servants have written to Union home minister Amit Shah on how government conduct has fomented communal hostility and violence, particularly in some north Indian states.

The pattern of hostility, especially in Uttarakhand, has ominous portends, says the letter. The former bureaucrats under the Constitutional Conduct Group noted that Uttarakhand’s traditions of peace and environmental activism had not had the faintest hint of majoritarian aggression until a few years ago.

Taking note of communal events that have made things worse in the state, the group has observed that a vicious cycle of lawlessness is afoot where even those who are out on bail for fomenting hatred, flout their bail conditions with impunity.

The full text of the letter is below.

28 October 2024

To
Shri Amit Shah,
Hon’ble Home Minister of India

Honourable Home Minister of India,

As you probably know, we, the members of the Constitutional Conduct Group of former civil servants, have frequently expressed our views on the systematic erosion in recent years of constitutional values in public policy, governance and politics. This erosion has been most evident in the way the authorities have dealt with situations of communal conflict. More often than not, the conduct of several governments has led to communal hostility and violence with the involvement of those elements in society that sustain themselves ideologically on the politics of majoritarian hate, exclusion and division. The rise of such elements has been particularly noticeable in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Today we write to you to express our alarm regarding recent developments in the state of Uttarakhand, a sensitive border state long known for its traditions of peace, harmony and environmental activism and which, until a few years ago, had never displayed even the faintest hint of majoritarian aggression and belligerence. In fact, given its long history of being a sanctuary for spiritual and philosophical pursuits of diverse faiths and traditions, the coexistence of different communities and their close relationship with one another was seen as normal and natural.

The wilful injection of communal poison into the body politic of Uttarakhand in recent years has been part of a systematic attempt to create new nurseries of hate which can change the syncretic, pluralistic and peaceful character of the region and make it into a breeding ground for an aggressive, militarised and bigoted version of Hindutva, permanently engaged in deepening the cleavage between communities. It is an attempt to force the minorities to live in a state of permanent fear and come to accept a premise that they are subordinate to the dominant Hindu majority. The plan seems to be to make Uttarakhand a template for similar strategies to be employed elsewhere in the country, in all places that have so far resisted such majoritarian aggression.

A pattern is beginning to emerge in Uttarakhand which has very ominous portends:

On September 10, 2024, a hate speech was made in the Dehradun Press Club claiming that a “dharma sansad” will be organised in December 2024. It may be recalled that a “dharma sansad” was organized in Haridwar in December 2021, in which a series of genocidal speeches demanded the mass killings and mass rape of Indian Muslims. The call for another “dharma sansad” has now been made by many of the same individuals and Hindus have been asked to arm themselves and treat members of the minority community as “enemies of humanity”.
The announcement on September 10, 2024 was made against the background of a series of carefully organised incidents of hate inspired violence in the state. Since August 12, 2024, hate speeches and violent attacks have occurred in Chauras (near Kirti Nagar), Dehradun, Srinagar, Berinag, Uttarkashi, Karnaprayag, Nandnagar (Chamoli), Tharali (Chamoli), Tilwada, Gauchar (Chamoli), Sonprayag, Haldwani and several other locations in the state. Properties have been damaged and, reportedly, minority families have been forced to flee from their Boards have been put up banning business by Muslim and non-Hindu vendors. A small handful of individuals and organisations – including those involved in the 2021 “dharma sansad” – are responsible for the majority of these incidents. (As per our information, these are just five individuals and two organisations, viz. Bajrang Dal and Rashtriya Seva Sangathan).
There are ongoing calls for “mahapanchayats” to be held, which are used as a means to stoke communal violence and demand the economic boycott and expulsion of Muslim residents. We are informed that those who instigated the violence in Uttarkashi on October 24, 2024 have announced that they are going to call a mahapanchayat on November 4, 2024.
In the vast majority of incidents, past and present, those responsible for false inflammatory allegations of “love jihad”, hate speech or property destruction have not even been detained. Even where a few arrests were made, most of those have been given bail including the notorious repeat offender and the main organiser of the 2021 event – Yati Narsinghanand.
When on bail, the accused flagrantly violate their bail conditions with the police remaining completely unconcerned. No attempts are made to cancel their bail.
In a particularly disturbing incident on September 27, 2024, the Dehradun police detained a repeat offender for being implicated in a violent communal clash that resulted in damage to trains as well as several private vehicles. However, his supporters were then permitted to block the main intersection of the city, call for a bandh in the main bazaar, deliver hate speeches openly and hold a celebratory parade after the main offender was “freed”.
On September 19, 2024, 53 women’s and civil society groups from 18 states wrote an open letter to the Uttarakhand Governor condemning the manner in which women’s safety was being endangered, and complained of the police being partisan. They noted that while some members of the minority community have been physically attacked and publicly blamed for crimes against women, in the case of people close to the ruling party who are the real perpetrators of such violence, the police have gone slow, tried to weaken the case against them and have even attempted to pressurise the victims to withdraw their complaints.

We applaud the fact that some district officials and police officers have adopted an even-handed approach, registered suo motu FIRs, and on some occasions prevented large scale violence from spreading. But these attempts have been sporadic and insufficient in the face of a larger concerted attempt to raise the communal temperature, with the authorities either being complicit, or apathetic and ineffective. We have raised this concern with the state government thrice since June 2023, but we see no change in the overall pattern.

Against this sombre backdrop, we have reason to fear that if this ongoing campaign is not stopped, and if the proposed “dharma sansad” is permitted, this sensitive border state may spiral into a vicious cycle of organised violence with serious implications not just for internal peace and public order but for national security.

We therefore request your urgent intervention to ensure that:

- Communally charged events such as the proposed mahapanchayat in Uttarkashi on November 4, 2024 and the proposed “dharma sansad” in December 2024 are not permitted; action should be taken against those attempting to use such events to foment hate and incite violence.
- The Uttarakhand police should be asked why they have failed to seek cancellation of bail in cases of violation of bail conditions, by Yati Narsinghanand and others. In fact, we feel Yati Narsinghanand should be arrested under the National Security Act for his attempts to disrupt public order.
- The Uttarakhand police should be asked to take strict action against all incidents of violence and hate speech, as per the law, the directions of the Supreme Court, and constitutional propriety.

We reiterate that we, as a group, have no affiliation with any political party or group and that our request is motivated entirely by our concern that a State known for its traditions of peace, tranquillity and civic harmony should not degenerate into becoming yet another arena for communal conflict and public disorder to serve narrow political and sectarian ends.

Satyameva jayate.

Yours faithfully,

Constitutional Conduct Group

1.	Anand Arni	RAS (Retd.)	Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
2.	Aruna Bagchee	IAS (Retd.)	Former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines, GoI
3.	Sandeep Bagchee	IAS (Retd.)	Former Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
4.	G. Balachandhran	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
5.	Vappala Balachandran	IPS (Retd.)	Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
6.	Gopalan Balagopal	IAS (Retd.)	Former Special Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
7.	Chandrashekar Balakrishnan	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Coal, GoI
8.	Sushant Baliga	Engineering Services (Retd.)	Former Additional Director General, Central PWD, GoI
9.	Rana Banerji	RAS (Retd.)	Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
10.	T.K. Banerji	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, Union Public Service Commission
11.	Sharad Behar	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
12.	Aurobindo Behera	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Odisha
13.	Madhu Bhaduri	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Portugal
14.	Pradip Bhattacharya	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Development & Planning and Administrative Training Institute, Govt. of West Bengal
15.	Nutan Guha Biswas	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, Police Complaints Authority, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
16.	Ravi Budhiraja	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, GoI
17.	Sundar Burra	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
18.	Maneshwar Singh Chahal	IAS (Retd.)	Former Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Punjab
19.	R. Chandramohan	IAS (Retd.)	Former Principal Secretary, Transport and Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
20.	Rachel Chatterjee	IAS (Retd.)	Former Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
21.	Kalyani Chaudhuri	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
22.	Gurjit Singh Cheema	IAS (Retd.)	Former Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Govt. of Punjab
23.	F.T.R. Colaso	IPS (Retd.)	Former Director General of Police, Govt. of Karnataka & former Director General of Police, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir
24.	Anna Dani	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
25.	Vibha Puri Das	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, GoI
26.	P.R. Dasgupta	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chairman, Food Corporation of India, GoI
27.	Pradeep K. Deb	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Deptt. Of Sports, GoI
28.	Nitin Desai		Former Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry of Finance, GoI
29.	M.G. Devasahayam	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Govt. of Haryana
30.	Kiran Dhingra	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, GoI
31.	Sushil Dubey	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Sweden
32.	A.S. Dulat	IPS (Retd.)	Former OSD on Kashmir, Prime Minister’s Office, GoI
33.	Prabhu Ghate	IAS (Retd.)	Former Addl. Director General, Department of Tourism, GoI
34.	Suresh K. Goel	IFS (Retd.)	Former Director General, Indian Council of Cultural Relations, GoI
35.	S.K. Guha	IAS (Retd.)	Former Joint Secretary, Department of Women & Child Development, GoI
36.	H.S. Gujral	IFoS (Retd.)	Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of Punjab
37.	Meena Gupta	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI
38.	Ravi Vira Gupta	IAS (Retd.)	Former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India
39.	Vivek Harinarain	IAS (Retd.)	Govt. of Tamil Nadu
40.	Sajjad Hassan	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Govt. of Manipur
41.	Siraj Hussain	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Department of Agriculture, GoI
42.	Kamal Jaswal	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Department of Information Technology, GoI
43.	Najeeb Jung	IAS (Retd.)	Former Lieutenant Governor, Delhi
44.	Vinod C. Khanna	IFS (Retd.)	Former Additional Secretary, MEA, GoI
45.	Gita Kripalani	IRS (Retd.)	Former Member, Settlement Commission, GoI
46.	Sudhir Kumar	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, Central Administrative Tribunal
47.	Subodh Lal	IPoS (Resigned)	Former Deputy Director General, Ministry of Communications, GoI
48.	Sandip Madan	IAS (Resigned)	Former Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission
49.	Harsh Mander	IAS (Retd.)	Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
50.	Amitabh Mathur	IPS (Retd.)	Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
51.	Aditi Mehta	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan
52.	Avinash Mohananey	IPS (Retd.)	Former Director General of Police, Govt. of Sikkim
53.	Satya Narayan Mohanty	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission
54.	Sudhansu Mohanty	IDAS (Retd.)	Former Financial Adviser (Defence Services), Ministry of Defence, GoI
55.	Ruchira Mukerjee	IP&TAFS (Retd.)	Former Advisor (Finance), Telecom Commission, GoI
56.	Deb Mukharji	IFS (Retd.)	Former High Commissioner to Bangladesh and former Ambassador to Nepal
57.	Jayashree Mukherjee	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
58.	Shiv Shankar Mukherjee	IFS (Retd.)	Former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom
59.	Gautam Mukhopadhaya	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Myanmar
60.	Nagalsamy	IA&AS (Retd.)	Former Principal Accountant General, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
61.	P. Joy Oommen	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh
62.	Amitabha Pande	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Inter-State Council, GoI
63.	Maxwell Pereira	IPS (Retd.)	Former Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi
64.	G.K. Pillai	IAS (Retd.)	Former Home Secretary, GoI
65.	Gurnihal Singh Pirzada	IAS (Resigned)	Former MD, Punjab State Electronic Development & Production Corporation, Govt. of Punjab
66.	R. Poornalingam	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, GoI
67.	Rajesh Prasad	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to the Netherlands
68.	R.M. Premkumar	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
69.	N.K. Raghupathy	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, GoI
70.	V.P. Raja	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chairman, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
71.	V. Ramani	IAS (Retd.)	Former Director General, YASHADA, Govt. of Maharashtra
72.	K. Sujatha Rao	IAS (Retd.)	Former Health Secretary, GoI
73.	Madhukumar Reddy A.	IRTS (Retd.)	Former Principal Executive Director, Railway Board, GoI
74.	Satwant Reddy	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Chemicals and Petrochemicals, GoI
75.	Julio Ribeiro	IPS (Retd.)	Former Director General of Police, Govt. of Punjab
76.	Aruna Roy	IAS (Resigned)
77.	Manabendra N. Roy	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
78.	A.K. Samanta	IPS (Retd.)	Former Director General of Police (Intelligence), Govt. of West Bengal
79.	Deepak Sanan	IAS (Retd.)	Former Principal Adviser (AR) to Chief Minister, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
80.	G.V. Venugopala Sarma	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Odisha
81.	S. Satyabhama	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chairperson, National Seeds Corporation, GoI
82.	N.C. Saxena	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Planning Commission, GoI
83.	Ardhendu Sen	IAS (Retd.)	Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
84.	Abhijit Sengupta	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, Ministry of Culture, GoI
85.	Aftab Seth	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Japan
86.	Ashok Kumar Sharma	IFoS (Retd.)	Former MD, State Forest Development Corporation, Govt. of Gujarat
87.	Ashok Kumar Sharma	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Finland and Estonia
88.	Navrekha Sharma	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Indonesia
89.	Pravesh Sharma	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
90.	Raju Sharma	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
91.	Rashmi Shukla Sharma	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
92.	Avay Shukla	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary (Forests & Technical Education), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
93.	Satyavir Singh	IRS (Retd.)	Former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, GoI
94.	Tara Ajai Singh	IAS (Retd.)	Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka
95.	Tirlochan Singh	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary, National Commission for Minorities, GoI
96.	A.K. Srivastava	IAS (Retd.)	Former Administrative Member, Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
97.	Prakriti Srivastava	IFoS (Retd.)	Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Special Officer, Rebuild Kerala Development Programme, Govt. of Kerala
98.	Anup Thakur	IAS (Retd.)	Former Member, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
99.	P.S.S. Thomas	IAS (Retd.)	Former Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission
100.	Geetha Thoopal	IRAS (Retd.)	Former General Manager, Metro Railway, Kolkata
101.	Rudi Warjri	IFS (Retd.)	Former Ambassador to Colombia, Ecuador and Costa Rica

In Bengal, Amit Shah Once Again Brings up ‘Infiltration From Bangladesh’

Earlier, in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections in West Bengal, Shah had compared Bangladeshi immigrants to “termites”.

New Delhi: During his first visit to West Bengal after the BJP lost the majority of Lok Sabha seats it contested in the state, Union home minister Amit Shah claimed that “infiltration from Bangladesh” was disrupting peace in Bengal.

“Bring change to Bengal in 2026 (when Assembly polls are due)…(A BJP-led state government) will end infiltration and ensure peace in the state,” said Shah, reported The Telegraph.

“When there is no opportunity for legal (trans-border) movement of people… illegitimate methods of movement arise, which impacts the peace of the nation.… There can be peace in Bengal only after infiltration stops,” Shah added.

Earlier, in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections in West Bengal, Shah had compared Bangladeshi immigrants to “termites” and had claimed that the BJP will win 35 of the 42 Lok Sabha seats in the state.

However, despite its polarising narrative, the saffron party could win only 12 seats, lesser than its 2019 tally of 18 seats.

Shah made the comments on Sunday (October 27) at Petrapole, which is a port on the Bangladesh border, where the Union home minister inaugurated a new passenger terminal and a cargo gate.

In September this year, Bangladesh had lodged a protest note with India over comments made by Shah regarding Bangladeshi nationals during a rally in Jharkhand.

Shah had accused the Hemant Soren government of allowing migrants – whom he called “infiltrators” – to take over the state at a rally in Shahganj. Jharkhand is set to hold assembly elections later this year.

“Infiltrators are the vote bank of Lalu Prasad’s RJD [Rashtriya Janata Dal], Rahul baba‘s [Rahul Gandhi] Congress and chief minister Hemant Soren’s Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. I promise to drive out illegal immigrants. The time has come to show the corrupt JMM dispensation the exit door…We want to change Jharkhand,” he had said.

Top BJP leaders have often been accused of using the “infiltration” narrative before elections for polarisation.

At a rally in Jharkhand’s Hazaribagh on Gandhi Jayanti, October 2, Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed that the population of Hindus and Adivasis is declining and that of “Bangladeshi infiltrators” is increasing under the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha government.

Jharkhand is slated to go for assembly polls later this year.

Central Hall: What is Wakf, Why It’s in the News Now, and Why You Must Know About it

In this episode of the Central Hall, Kapil Sibal and three experts trace the beginnings of the practice and discuss why it is the goal of the current government to weaken this system.

What is the Wakf? When did it start? Why do people know so little about it? What does the Delhi Sultanate have to do with it?

In this episode of the Central Hall, Kapil Sibal traces the beginnings of the practice. Wakf is land donated to Allah which used to be used for social purposes. Why is it the goal of the current government to weaken this system?

S.Y. Quraishi was the chief election commissioner. He was the administrator of Wakfs in several states and Chandigarh.

Legal scholar Faizan Mustafa is the Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University and the former V-C of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. He was the founding V-C of the National Law University Odisha.

Kamal Faruqi is a chartered accountant and the spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Faruqi believes in modernisation and women’s empowerment.

Do Muslims Have the Right to Speak for Themselves?

Yes. If injustice is being done to you and you remain silent, waiting for others to stand with you, then you are abdicating your civic duty.

I was attending a meeting of an organisation working for civil rights. The first speaker pointed out to the organisers that most of the people sitting in the meeting were Muslims. He said that the organisation should try to include Hindus in it. Otherwise, he said, it seems that the struggle is only of Muslims and by Muslims. This makes it look narrow, he said. According to him, the meeting also did not seem complete or representative of the entire society, but only of one section – the Muslims. Then he said that it is not only the Muslim community whose rights are being violated. The rights of Dalits and Hindus are also being violated in many places. Attention needs to be paid to that too.

I kept thinking about this speech.

First, why does a meeting look incomplete or abnormal if the majority of the participants happen to be Muslims? Can we say the same about any meeting or gathering in which 99% are Hindus? At such a meeting, we do not ask why there are no Muslims or Sikhs or Christians in it. But if a meeting is 99% Muslim, then the absence of Hindus definitely stands out. And, if Muslims take any decision in such a meeting, then will that too be considered incomplete because Hindus are not included in it?

I should also make an admission. A few years ago, I was invited to Patna for a lecture. When I reached the hall, I came to know that 99% of the audience were Muslims. This fact struck me. Later, I kept thinking that in the dozens of meetings that we had held earlier at the same place, I had never thought that because almost 99% of the audience was Hindu, the attendance was strange.

I recount this because this way of thinking is not necessarily of those who are labeled as communal. Or to quote Asghar Ali Engineer, we can say that communalism is present in a very subtle way even in those who call themselves logical and secular. Our first reaction of accepting the presence of once community as ‘normal’ and another as not can tell us whether the communal bug is inside us or not.

The meeting in which the discussion was going on was on the question of civil or human rights. Is there a need to ask, today in India, as to which community is it whose rights in nearly all spheres of its life are being taken away? Whose houses and shops are being bulldozed? Whose places of worship are being attacked? Who is being arrested? Against whom are laws being made one after the other? Against whom is the major media of this country continuously spreading hateful propaganda? For whose genocide are slogans being raised openly? Which is the community that faces almost daily the threat of annihilation? Which community is subjected to hate campaigns relentlessly? The only honest answer is that it is the community of Muslims that is being attacked in an organised manner from all corners.

Is there any doubt that today the Union government of India and the governments of many states are in the hands of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which believes in and professes an anti-Muslim and anti-Christian ideology? Have we not seen for the last 10 years that in addition to the other political leaders of this party, even the prime minister incites anti-Muslim hatred in his rallies?

When houses are demolished, murders are committed, and hatred is bombarded, the victim will surely react. They will go to court, will have to hire lawyers and raise money for the bail of their arrested people. Others should stand with them. But should the victim wait until others realise their duty towards them?

This question was also raised when Muslims got together to protest against the new citizenship law. The amendment in the citizenship law and the announcement of the National Citizenship Register along with it created apprehension and fear among Muslims. In principle, this law was against the secular principle of India. Because of this, non-Muslims should also have opposed it. But it is also true that this law did not create apprehension and fear in Muslims. It was not without reason. Those who passed the law and implemented it were the people who never hide their anti-Muslim sentiments. It is true that after the publication of the NRC, it was found that more Hindus than Muslims were excluded from the register in Assam. But the government and the leaders said that they would get their place in the NRC and those who had been included would be thrown out. The message was clear. What is the ideological meaning and signalling of the NRC-CAA?

Those who were scared, those who felt afraid, came out on the streets. Many were Muslims. At some places, non-Muslims also joined them, but as we all know, Hindus did not feel any threat to their existence and their place in India from this law, so they were not exactly eager to join the protest. The Shaheen Bagh protests comprised mostly Muslim women. I was returning from one such protest in Pune. I asked the driver of the car if he had ever thought of joining it. The driver replied that it was ‘their’ problem. He was unable to understand the apprehension of the people sitting in the protest. It was a natural reaction, even if not appropriate. But what conclusion do we draw from this one incident? Is it that Muslims should have protested until others like the driver joined them?

Also watch: Central Hall | What Does It Mean to Be a Muslim in India Today?

When the Dalits felt that the The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was being diluted, they came out on the streets in protest. Non-Dalits were not there. But no one said that their protest was wrong or sectarian. It was not asked as to why only Dalits were protesting. They felt the sting of injustice and so they came out on the streets. Just like the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement. It mainly had black people and was led by them. It was not asked why only black people were there, why were they leading it. Yes, people from other races also joined, but the blackness of the movement was prominent and not a problem.

When Hindus were attacked in Bangladesh, they came out on the streets to protest. Was that wrong? It is a different matter that a large number of Muslims were also with them. This cannot be said about the CAA movement. Hindus failed to appreciate the fear of Muslims. Should this fact be held against Muslims?

It is true that in India there are non-Muslims in courts and elsewhere fighting against the injustice against Muslims. Lawyers, human rights activists, journalists, intellectuals, students: we do see non-Muslims in these groups. But it should not be concluded from this that Muslims should not speak for their rights or against injustice against them if they are alone.

When Muslims protest, they use rights given to them in the constitution. They are not taking away anyone’s rights.

It would be good if others also join them and follow their civic duty. It is our duty as citizens to rise in solidarity with those who fight for their rights. But when even those political parties that win by the votes of Muslims are reluctant to be seen with them, then what should we expect from ordinary Hindus? Secular political parties cannot even pronounce the word “Muslim”. What are Muslims expected to do?

It is also not right to say that when Muslims speak with the same intensity against the injustice done to Dalits or women, only then will their own protest prove to be legitimate. Do farmers protest for the rights of workers every time? Do workers protest for farmers? Should they then lose their right to protest for themselves?

In a democracy, it is expected that we understand and feel the pain of others. That is civic sense. But if injustice is being done to you and you remain silent, waiting for others to stand with you, then you are abdicating your civic duty. If Muslims are speaking for themselves, then they are activating this civic sense in the society. By joining them, we prove our citizenship.

Apoorvanand is a professor of Hindi at Delhi University.

‘Batenge to Katenge’: What Kind of Unity Does the Sangh Parivar Want?

Do we need more evidence to convince ourselves that these people are itching to dance on the grave of Gandhian tolerance?

The Sangh parivar’s political arsenal has unveiled an enticing new slogan: ‘batenge to katenge’. This is the same old propaganda technique used to create irrational fears and emotional frenzy among the Hindus, telling them that a division in the community will see its people be butchered.

This sinister project to heighten anxieties in the majority community comes at a time when the protagonists of Hindutva politics have returned to power for the third consecutive term and the minorities, particularly Muslims, have been ruthlessly marginalised in India’s polity.

Ironically, they still feel the need for heightening a false sense of victimhood among the Hindus instead of using their political hegemony to make the majority community confident and secure. With all the levers of power in their hands, the rulers could have attempted to make the majority community more sensitive, tolerant and compassionate – a prerequisite for a healthy and civilised society.

But the BJP is constructing a fearful Hindu, troubled by false imaginations of a minority attack. They intend to sustain the hate for the collective other, of which Muslims make up the core. That is how they demolish the Gandhian project of tolerance and peaceful coexistence. That is how Gandhi is assassinated again and again, through newer manifestations of politics of hate and deception.

The tantalising impact of this catchy slogan, batenge to katenge – which was coined by Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath – has not only encouraged BJP leaders to weave electoral discourse around this weapon; it has also left political rivals numbed because nobody wants to explicitly speak against the apparent cause of Hindu unity. But the question is, what kind of unity does the Sangh parivar want?

The greatest example of national unity India saw was the freedom movement under Mahatma Gandhi. The Sangh, the ideological wellspring of the BJP, kept away from the freedom movement and was banned for creating a situation that led to Gandhi’s assassination. Does the RSS-BJP want a kind of unity that led to the demolition of the Babri mosque, unambiguously described as a crime by the Supreme Court?

The RSS is now 100 years old and must have an example in mind of the kind of unity it wants to see in the future. Does it want a unity of the kind Adolf Hitler achieved under Nazi Germany? This question arises because the RSS guru M.S. Golwalkar wrote: “Race pride at its highest has been manifested in Germany. It has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.”

Hitler’s experiment triggered a global disaster, leading to a protracted mayhem in which millions of innocent people were killed.

When Yogi Adityanath says batenge to katenge, the context and substance of his rhetoric is absolutely clear. He is using this slogan for Hindu mobilisation. In a speech he made in Maharashtra earlier this year – and where his slogan is now being put to good use – Yogi explained how Muslims had stopped offering namaz on the roads and removed loudspeakers from mosques. His model of governance, in its pristine form, offers encounters, bulldozers and fear among minorities.

Another Union minister, Giriraj Singh, said in a speech: “If these infiltrators, these Muslims, give us one slap, we will come together to give them a hundred slaps … Let’s stay united if we want to be safe. Batoge to katoge … you are yourself saying we will be butchered if we don’t unite. So, all of you keep swords and trishuls at home. Lord Shiva keeps trishul in his hand and goddess Durga keeps a sword in her hand. You too worship these weapons and defend yourselves from the attackers.”

The frame of reference for the description of the enemy is a Muslim. Such assertions are often heard at the gatherings of bigots in several states. Do we need more evidence to convince ourselves that these people are itching to dance on the grave of Gandhian tolerance?

Also read: Can We Please Stop Hounding the Concept of Secularism?

Leaders of the BJP, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the RSS have endorsed this batenge to katenge idea. Before taking this bait, Hindus must carefully scrutinise what is the ideological theme and political purpose of this unity being sought by the Sangh parivar.

Will this unity defy the constitutional principles of equality, justice and fraternity? What are the social, cultural and political aspirations of this unity? Is it to establish an authoritarian majoritarianism that treats the state as an entity with absolute power, above the constitution and the judiciary? Do they want the collective other – the enemy – defined on the basis of religion? When they say katenge, shouldn’t they say who is the murderer? Are they talking about external aggressors – Pakistan or China?

If yes, then the unity umbrella must accommodate every citizen of India. If the context is internal, are they projecting minorities as murderers? Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis – who are itching to cut down the Hindus? No group has ever indicated any such political agenda. Has the RSS-BJP found any evidence of counter-mobilisation among the minorities with an evil intent of targeting Hindus?

No, never. The RSS-BJP is only maligning minorities with a perverse fantasy and using this fictional agenda to grab political power.

How can the ruling party, having taken oath to abide by the constitution, declare that the intent of non-Hindus is so violently harmful to the majority community? How can they say the political interests of minorities are not compatible with the national interest?

A deeper analysis will reveal a partisan political motive devoid of any nationalist goal. These leaders are actually telling Indians that their social and cultural existence is safe in their political loyalty to the BJP.

They don’t want the citizen as a free agent, nursing his or her own independent political consciousness. They want robots in the political domain, even if they are free to practice their own religion. A Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi or a Shahnawaz Husain is safe even if they are Muslim. And a Hindu who doesn’t follow the diktats of the likes of Giriraj Singh – to keep swords at home to attack Muslims – he or she is not safe.

This is the purpose of the fusion of politics and religion. The real purpose is power. Politics and ideology are like an empty space for the RSS-BJP. They use and replace their agenda like furniture. They can decorate the space at times with soothing rhetoric like “sabka saath sabka vikas” and replace it with toxic divisiveness whenever they want.

At times, you hear the music of Mohan Bhagwat about peaceful coexistence, and at other times you get to burn your ears with the ‘Ali-versus-Bajrang Bali’ poison.

To escape the muddle, citizens need a larger understanding – unity is not a divisive instrument to create polarisation on caste and religious lines. Batenge to katenge should be an India slogan, not a BJP slogan.

Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.