India singed

What is significant is that the Hindus and Muslims stood together to protest against what they saw as a law targeting Muslims

Once the B was replaced by Aand CAB became CAA, hell broke loose with many sections in India taking to the streets.   The CAB, or the Citizenship Amendment Bill, was in existence till the Parliament did not pass it and the President of India Ram Nath Kovind not give his assent to it. Once that was done it replaced CAB: the Bill became an Act and subsequently CAA or the Citizenship Amendment Act was the law of the land and cast in stone as it were.

 The CAB did face roadblocks in Parliament but finally was passed in both Houses: after a 12-hour debate, it  was passed in the Lok Sabha with a total of311 MPs voting in favour and  80  against the Bill.  In Rajya Sabha too it passed a crucial test with 125 members voting in favour and 105 against the contentious legislation.

The President lost little time and gave his assent to the Bill: enough for India to singe.

What started as a peaceful protest on a Friday ended up in a bloody Sunday. It began in the heart: the capital city of Delhi; it tore into its spirit with students and later state governments taking to the streets: violence and mayhem reigned with no reprieve in sight.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Delhi has not witnessed such scenes since the riots of 1984: post Indira Gandhi’s assassination. It was then between Hindus and Sikhs: this time around it is the turn of the Muslims the epicentre being the Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi.

Buses were set ablase; private property damaged and residents threatened. In a face off that resulted between the protestors and the Police, several students were rounded up, beaten, injured and arrested. The Police resorted to using tear gas shells to disperse the mobs which were menacingly violent. Lathis were also used even while there are unconfirmed reports of police opening fire.

Even while the university said its students were not behind the violence and  people from outside the campus were involved in the clashes with the police, there is evidence of police entering the university library and using force on the staff and students. There is video footage to substantiate that the cops led out the students from the  campus with their hands raised: something which did not go down well: “Are we terrorists?” is what many sought to ask after what they described was a “brutal police act”.  Even while the students claimed that they were not part of the protest, Police say that stones were pelted from inside the university campus targeting the Police force.

What started off as a face-off between students and the government soon turned into one between the students and the Police. Other universities including the Jawaharlal University or the JNU as it is more popular as and the Delhi University students lost no time in coming out in large numbers to support the students of Jamia.

Hundreds of students gathered outside the Police headquarters in Central Delhi raising anti-police slogans to draw attention to the mishandling of the situation by the cops. There was more in store with universities in other parts of India coming out in solidarity namely Aligarh Muslim University which too became a battleground as police clashed brutally with protesting students; Tata Institute of Social Sciences and IIT Mumbai , Patna University in Bihar, Jadavpur University in Kolkata and Banaras Hindu University in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh to name a few.

What is significant is that the Hindus and Muslims stood together to protest against what they saw as a law targeting Muslims despite the government bending over backwards to hammer the point that this law is not against Muslims. Both are right: technically what the government says makes sense because the law talks about giving fast track citizenship to the religiously persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries including Pakistan and Bangladesh mainly Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and even Buddhists. The law however excludes   Muslims on grounds that Muslims are neither a minority nor do they face persecution in Muslim countries. But the anti-Bill lobby says that this is a deliberate omission to keep the Muslims out and  change the demography in favour of non-Muslims. This too makes political sense because any move to isolate the Muslims consolidates the Hindu vote which is the mainstay of the BJP.  

As a government the BJP should have chosen a less volatile path: instead of obviously excluding Muslims and including others it could have worded the Bill intelligently and rather than excluding Muslims so blatantly and obviously it should have tread softly rather than hit where it hurts.

Fully aware that there is a trust quotient between the saffron party and the Muslims it needed to at least appearto balm wounds rather than scraping them.

In fact the problem is more with the messaging that is blatant and in the face rather than it being subtle and soft.

But then it is the BJP and in turn its government’s agenda to ensure that it sends out a pro-Hindu message loud and clear as it does its bid to exclude Muslims. Therefore when the Government says that the protestors have not read the Bill or understood it, it is perhaps right. But on the other hand so are the people who do not wish to read one Bill or Act in isolation but go beyond and look at the pattern which they clearly see as the BJP targeting the Muslims in pursuance of its anti-Muslim agenda and slowly and steadily outnumber and overrun them.

Therefore what India is fighting against is not one law but a mind-set of a government which is pursuing an agenda of making the Muslims second class citizens in a country where either they were born or to which they belong.  

The recent riot therefore must be seen against this backdrop: if India is singed which it clearly is, the government cannot shrug its responsibility of igniting the spark. And if Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s provocative statements of  the government being “firm like a rock” and there is “no going back” on the Act are anything to go by, it is a deliberate move to add fuel to the fire.

The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])  

 

India singed

What is significant is that the Hindus and Muslims stood together to protest against what they saw as a law targeting Muslims

Once the B was replaced by Aand CAB became CAA, hell broke loose with many sections in India taking to the streets. The CAB, or the Citizenship Amendment Bill, was in existence till the Parliament did not pass it and the President of India Ram Nath Kovind not give his assent to it. Once that was done it replaced CAB: the Bill became an Act and subsequently CAA or the Citizenship Amendment Act was the law of the land and cast in stone as it were. The CAB did face roadblocks in Parliament but finally was passed in both Houses: after a 12-hour debate, it was passed in the Lok Sabha with a total of311 MPs voting in favour and 80 against the Bill. In Rajya Sabha too it passed a crucial test with 125 members voting in favour and 105 against the contentious legislation. The President lost little time and gave his assent to the Bill: enough for India to singe. What started as a peaceful protest on a Friday ended up in a bloody Sunday. It began in the heart: the capital city of Delhi; it tore into its spirit with students and later state governments taking to the streets: violence and mayhem reigned with no reprieve in sight. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Delhi has not witnessed such scenes since the riots of 1984: post Indira Gandhis assassination. It was then between Hindus and Sikhs: this time around it is the turn of the Muslims the epicentre being the Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi. Buses were set ablase; private property damaged and residents threatened. In a face off that resulted between the protestors and the Police, several students were rounded up, beaten, injured and arrested. The Police resorted to using tear gas shells to disperse the mobs which were menacingly violent. Lathis were also used even while there are unconfirmed reports of police opening fire. Even while the university said its students were not behind the violence and people from outside the campus were involved in the clashes with the police, there is evidence of police entering the university library and using force on the staff and students. There is video footage to substantiate that the cops led out the students from the campus with their hands raised: something which did not go down well: Are we terrorists? is what many sought to ask after what they described was a brutal police act. Even while the students claimed that they were not part of the protest, Police say that stones were pelted from inside the university campus targeting the Police force. What started off as a face-off between students and the government soon turned into one between the students and the Police. Other universities including the Jawaharlal University or the JNU as it is more popular as and the Delhi University students lost no time in coming out in large numbers to support the students of Jamia. Hundreds of students gathered outside the Police headquarters in Central Delhi raising anti-police slogans to draw attention to the mishandling of the situation by the cops. There was more in store with universities in other parts of India coming out in solidarity namely Aligarh Muslim University which too became a battleground as police clashed brutally with protesting students; Tata Institute of Social Sciences and IIT Mumbai , Patna University in Bihar, Jadavpur University in Kolkata and Banaras Hindu University in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh to name a few. What is significant is that the Hindus and Muslims stood together to protest against what they saw as a law targeting Muslims despite the government bending over backwards to hammer the point that this law is not against Muslims. Both are right: technically what the government says makes sense because the law talks about giving fast track citizenship to the religiously persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries including Pakistan and Bangladesh mainly Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and even Buddhists. The law however excludes Muslims on grounds that Muslims are neither a minority nor do they face persecution in Muslim countries. But the anti-Bill lobby says that this is a deliberate omission to keep the Muslims out and change the demography in favour of non-Muslims. This too makes political sense because any move to isolate the Muslims consolidates the Hindu vote which is the mainstay of the BJP. As a government the BJP should have chosen a less volatile path: instead of obviously excluding Muslims and including others it could have worded the Bill intelligently and rather than excluding Muslims so blatantly and obviously it should have tread softly rather than hit where it hurts. Fully aware that there is a trust quotient between the saffron party and the Muslims it needed to at least appearto balm wounds rather than scraping them. In fact the problem is more with the messaging that is blatant and in the face rather than it being subtle and soft. But then it is the BJP and in turn its governments agenda to ensure that it sends out a pro-Hindu message loud and clear as it does its bid to exclude Muslims. Therefore when the Government says that the protestors have not read the Bill or understood it, it is perhaps right. But on the other hand so are the people who do not wish to read one Bill or Act in isolation but go beyond and look at the pattern which they clearly see as the BJP targeting the Muslims in pursuance of its anti-Muslim agenda and slowly and steadily outnumber and overrun them. Therefore what India is fighting against is not one law but a mind-set of a government which is pursuing an agenda of making the Muslims second class citizens in a country where either they were born or to which they belong. The recent riot therefore must be seen against this backdrop: if India is singed which it clearly is, the government cannot shrug its responsibility of igniting the spark. And if Union Home Minister Amit Shahs provocative statements of the government being firm like a rock and there is no going back on the Act are anything to go by, it is a deliberate move to add fuel to the fire. The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])