Why is it important to re-examine the Gujarat Genocide?

Inter-ethnic (or communal) violence is nothing new in India; Hindu-Muslim violence has been endemic in India since Independence. However, the riots that occurred in Gujarat after a train carriage caught fire on the 27th February 2002 are considered to be the worst ever in India. This was a calculated episode of anti-Muslim violence that lasted three months, claimed over 2000 lives and was characterised by the systematic burning alive of people, rape, looting and targeting of Muslim homes and businesses.

But why is it important to mark this event? Are we just regurgitating an old issue, refusing to let it lie and move forward, and unnecessarily stirring emotions and passions?

This being the fifth anniversary, it’s important to look back at the episode in respect of those who died. It’s also necessary to renew and re-emphasise our empathy and solidarity with those who survived and those who are still seeking justice. Additionally, the Gujarat carnage and issues emanating from it can give us a valuable insight into the potential consequences of using religion and identity as tools to further political interests.

A reminder of the sinister effects of using identity and religion for political gain

‘We are all Indians first. It’s only political leaders who have made us majority and minority.’(An Ahmedabad resident speaking about the post-riot segregation)

It’s essential to understand here that Hindu-Muslim violence in India isn’t really about religious difference and has everything to with power, politics and winning elections. Identity and religion can be a tool used to stoke up communal tension, those with aspirations of power inadvertently use identity to mobilise support; in return, identity based groups use politics to serve their own interests.

Gujarat has seen many episodes of communal violence, and has experienced particularly violent episodes in 1969, 1985, 1992 and 2002. All of these have been associated with political gain between and even within political parties vying for votes. These bouts of violence were engineered by politicians, who were guilty of pandering to a certain identity and vilifying, effectively creating an enemy, out of another identity.

The Sangh Parivar, a family of cultural and political organisations pursuing a common ideology known as ‘Hindutva’, has emerged as driving force behind divisive communal politics and violence in recent years. The Sangh Parivar includes the RSS (the ideological forebearers of Hindutva), the VHP (the social and religious arm), the Bajrang Dal (a militant youth wing), and the BJP (the political and electoral arm). The BJP lead a right-wing coalition of parties that governed India from 1999 until 2004. Gujarat has been governed by the BJP since 1995.

The train incident at Godhra occurred at around 8am on the 27th February 2002. The first time that Gujarat came to know of the incident was through a news report broadcast on a Hindi language news channel at 1.27pm. Reaction to the incident was almost immediate, with 13 incidents of attacks upon Muslims before 3pm. The next day, the VHP called for state-wide protests and the closure of all business, which eventually descended into chaotic scenes of rioting, slaughter, arson and complete lawlessness.

Respected organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the National Human Rights Commission of India have all accused the BJP led Central and Gujarat governments of inaction, complicity and direct participation in the carnage. They have all pointed to evidence suggesting that political actors directly engineered and helped facilitate the violence. Tellingly, this all occurred in view of the 2003 state elections, which the BJP was afraid of losing, but eventually won in a landslide victory.

Bringing the global to the local

Key debates in the UK today centre around the somewhat contentious terms of multiculturalism, community cohesion and integration. Post 9/11 and 7/7, and in the aftermath of recent riots in Bradford, Oldham and Birmingham, the crux of the debate is essentially this: What forces unite and divide communities? How can we work towards promoting collective understanding over identity based vilification?

The social and political landscape in the UK is very different to that of India. However, we can draw distinct parallels in terms of identity and religious based politics. The current government has encouraged and even directly facilitated the growth and establishment of identity based organisations under the veneer of engaging with diversity. Two prime examples are the Muslim Council of Britain and the Hindu Forum of Britain, who purport to speak on behalf of their respective communities. We can see a similar vicious cycle of politics and identity being acted out. A mutual benefit arises where the government is using identity to mobilise support for its policies; in turn these organisations are using identity politics to pursue their own organisational and political interests.

The Hindu Forum of Britain recently held a ‘Hindu Security’ conference attended by the Chief Inspector Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The conference was followed by a press release, seemingly endorsed by Sir Ian Blair, highlighting the issue of forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls by extremist Islamists on University campuses. These allegations, which have been put forth without even the slightest modicum of evidence being presented, are precisely an example of the divisive vilification that occurs as a result of identity politics.

Such instances need to be taken seriously because the ramifications are huge. It’s important not to sensationalise the level of segregation that exists in Gujarat, but the existence of so-called ‘border’ walls that separate Hindu and Muslim neighbourhoods puts the potential problem into context. Re-examining our current situation of identity based politics through the lens of the Gujarat carnage shows the urgent need for a rational, progressive and collective response to the naïve identity based policies of our government and the fear based politics of organisations such as the MCB and the HFB.

By recognising the infinite shades of difference and complex modes of commonality within and between communities here in the UK, and emphasising the irrelevance of so-called ‘community leaders’ and ‘representative organisations’, it might just be possible to build new lines of communal solidarity based on progressive and humanist values.

Shivit Bakrania is a member of the South Asian Alliance