Malda and Dadri, what is the difference?

Malda, a district in the Indian state of West Bengal (WB) is tense, the reason is very trivial, some person said something about Prophet Mohammad and the Muslim community of India didn't like it. I don't know what was his intention behind saying those things, maybe he was just joking or maybe he really wanted to hurt the feelings of Muslims all over the world for me this is not really important. But this guy said something that Indian Muslims or some sections of them thought was very insulting and derogatory to their prophet, hence many of them decided to protest. I don't see anything wrong so far. The guy said whatever he wanted to say under his right of freedom of expression and people who protested used their democratic right to register their opposition to that statement. But the problem started when some people in Malda decided to attack the police station and destroy public property which resulted in a serious law and order situation. Now one can easily ask, what was the intention behind all these actions apart from spreading the terror? If it was just a protest against some statement then it should have been a peaceful protest. There was absolutely no need for any sort of violence. As expected this violent behavior created an atmosphere of fear and flared up communal tension in that region. This can not be called a protest but it is an act of communal violence with a clear intention of spreading terror, especially among minorities of that area (who are Hindus and other religious groups). Surprisingly, there is not proportional outrage about this incident like it was in the case of the Dadri incident, I wonder why? I agree that in Dadri someone died, and one innocent man was lynched by a violent mob. So far no casualty has been reported in Malda but is this the reason not to offer equally strong condemnation for this act?

Actually, such incidents are not rare, these things happened in the past and they will happen in the future too. This is an ugly truth that many people don't want to accept. Such incidents start occurring especially if some type of election is around the corner. In this case, there are state elections due in WB this year, so this may be a warm-up round to get ready for the final battle for some political parties who are looking to appease their respective vote banks. Minority or majority appeasement politics is very common in India. All political parties use whatever tactics they can to appease their core constituencies. If the beef ban can be considered as majority appeasement politics then calling riots like Malda a routine scuffle between people and police is an example of minority appeasement. Such dirty tricks are always used and respective political parties or governments justify their stands by using their resources and talented spokespersons. Riots like Malda are as deplorable as the Dadri attack, a library burning, or any other mob violence incident. Just because no one died in this particular incident can not reduce its severity or cruelty. It is quite possible that it would have resulted in full full-fledged communal riot like Godhra. Any such incident must be taken very seriously. But the truth is as long as people are going to be selective in expressing their opinions about such incidents Indian society is not going to see any change in the attitude of political parties who use such incidents as a tool to polarize voters for political gains. If people are interested in putting an end to the use of such dirty tactics to win elections then they need to condemn such incidents equally irrespective of their political or religious affiliations. This can only happen in politically and intellectually mature societies. If this starts happening in India then only political parties will get a clear message that any such act is not acceptable to people and it might hurt their prospectus of winning elections. But if the majority somehow believes in those lame justifications like 'this is a reaction to certain action' or 'religious sentiments are hurt' or 'our idol or hero was insulted' then such acts will be repeated. Unless we are ready to condemn every mob violence and communal strategy by any political party this dirty game will not stop. The choice is really in people's hands as they are very important players in this game. Please think rationally and logically before justifying any such act, beware that any justification offered today might become the reason for regret tomorrow.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

It's not about meat ban silly!

The recent controversy about the meat ban in Maharashtra is an ideal example of how appeasement politics works in India. Actually, this is not the first time anything has been banned in India, we have a long history of banning books, movies, authors, different types of meats, etc. This is all done by different governments in the name of not hurting the sentiments of a particular community or religion. Sometimes it is about sentiments attached to some animal like a cow. Sometimes it is about the insult of some revered historical figure like Shivaji. Sometimes it is about the insult of some religious icons like Mohammad or Jesus or some goddess. And sometimes it is about some religious festivals or rituals. In the current case, it is about respecting the Jain ritual called 'Paryushan', as Jains are vegetarians and are against any type of violence some municipal corporations in Mumbai imposed a ban on the butchering of animals and selling meat for a few days during Paryushan time to respect their sentiments. Surprisingly killing and selling of fish is not included in this ban, so, I wonder if Jains consider fish as living things or not, or is there any different logic that allows fish killing but not of chickens or goats? One can find many technical mistakes in these types of bans, but this is not the main point, this particular incident along with many other similar incidents in the past exposes the prevalent hypocrisy of our society. 

The same political parties who were supporting the beef ban to its core are now on roads opposing this particular meat ban, they are so adamant in their opposition that they are going to the extent of selling meat on their own on streets to register their protest against this ban. Now just imagine what would have been the reaction of the same people if beef eaters who are again a minority in India had done the same thing. But we can ignore this for the time being as I already said this is not about a meat ban at all, people who think the issue is about meat or religious sentiments are living in a fool's paradise. There is already freedom to practice any religion guaranteed by the constitution in India. This is all about appeasement politics, not about any meat. Every political party has played this game and shamelessly says that they don't do any appeasement politics. Each one of them makes a huge hue and cry if someone else does this for political gains, but shamelessly justifies their own similar acts that too by citing instances in the past which they opposed. NDTV anchor Ravish has coined the very proper term "is equal to theory" for all these actions where every political outfit tries to justify their acts by claiming that in the past so and so has also done this. The sad part is that supporters of these parties participate in this drama without even realizing that they are becoming a part of a deeply hypocritical and regressive system.

These types of bans set up another dangerous precedence, if you ban one book to appease a certain section of society then what is going to stop some other communities from asking to ban another book or attack another author for hurting their sentiments? If you agree to one unreasonable or stupid demand to ban anything then automatically you give legitimacy to many other similar demands. This drama has been going on from last so many years without any interruption. India is already facing so many problems because of appeasement politics but still, people are refusing to learn from their past mistakes, rather, they are adamant about committing the same mistakes just because someone did it and got away with it. Every time it is expected from courts to bring some sense in such matters and unfortunately, they are also not very consistent on these types of sensitive issues. But I have to agree that they are doing a much better job than all political parties who are only interested in exploiting public sentiments.

Divide-and-rule politics is not new, Britishers used it to create a rift between Hindus and Muslims as well as between different castes of Hindus for their own benefit. All these bans are part of the same legacy and mindset, the intention is to appease certain sections by doling out certain unreasonable favors or to hurt some sections by banning something, which in turn creates polarization, and reaping the political benefit of this polarized atmosphere. There is no exception, all political parties are guilty of playing appeasement politics. Only common people, if they want, can stop this nonsense. But if they are okay with it, then this stupid drama will continue endlessly. This is not at all about any book or meat or movie this is about liberty, freedom, and appeasement. Religion is a very personal matter and everyone is free to practice their own faith, but no one has the right to impose their own beliefs or lifestyle on others. This is a simple fact that everyone should understand in any tolerant and progressive society. If they can't stop this nonsense, then at least please stop claiming that you are a tolerant nation. There are Islamic countries in the world where there is a ban on eating food in public places during the month of Ramadan, this is a very regressive thing, but if people think this is wrong, then please explain to me on what basis this meat ban or beef ban can be justified?

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]