AT PENPOINT
- India is getting dangerous for non-Hindus
The sectarian riot in New Delhi was the worst in decades, ever since the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984, following the anger at the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by the two Sikh police officers who were her bodyguards. However, the recent riot was not caused by anyone’s assassination, but by the desire of the ruling BJP to suppress the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests that had rocked the whole of India.
Observers in Pakistan were obviously resentful of the slaughter, but uncertain about whether the creation of their country was the result of the spirit behind it, or was the cause of the resentment. On the one hand, an important reason for Partition, and for the solid support of Muslims for the Pakistan demand, was the fear of Hindu domination. It was not a desire to rule, for that was long in the past, but the decades leading up to Partition had led to this feeling that Muslims would get the short end of the stick. There had already been a taste of the shape of things to come, in the Congress Ministries which took office after the 1935 elections, which resigned in 1939, following which the Muslim League announced a Day of Deliverance. Even though the League had been rejected by the Muslim electorate in the elections, that the Muslims of the Subcontinent felt harried by the Congress Ministries was shown by the response to that call. Indeed, that response played a part in convincing the League that it should hold an extraordinary session and demand a separate homeland. It did so in March 1940 in Lahore, and the rest is history.
Delhi has been the scene of bloodletting for nearly four centuries now. It is not far from the tercentenary of the first massacre of recent times, the Massacre of Delhi in 1739, by Nadir Shah, the Emperor of Persia, who had already entered it after defeating Muhammad Shah Rangila at the Battle of Karnal. It was not quite a sack, for it started after a rumour of Nadir’s death had led to the slaughter of 3000 of his troops. After entering on 20 March and maintaining good order, the Persian troops were unleashed for six hours on 22 March, in which they killed as many as 30,000 people. That was not the first time Delhi was sacked, the first time being by Tamerlane himself, back in 1398, when he had given up the city to plunder for 15 days.
Then in 1788, Ghulam Qadir Rohilla took Delhi, sacked it, and deposed the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, after blinding him. The city was next sacked in 1857, when the British recaptured it after the Mutiny. That in fact was the last sack of a great city after its capture, by the capturing soldiery, and the last occasion when the capturing general gave a city he had captured into the hands of his forces.
There is only one problem with fuelling Hindu extremism. It will only end up fuelling Muslim militancy. India might like to learn from Kashmir, its only Muslim-majority state. Muslims will not take to violence in defence of secularism. They will be forced into violence so long as Hindu extremists offers them no space. So far, there has been no backlash, but when the penny drops, and Muslims realise that their religion offers them a militant path, they will take it
That was not the last occasion when the British oversaw slaughter in New Delhi, though it was perhaps the first time that the breakdown of law and order had nothing to do with a foreign invasion. In 1947, New Delhi was also the scene of a bloody communal riot. It was exceptional even by the barbarous standards of that year.
Like the British, Congress also kept careful control of the capital, but the mask slipped in 1984, and Delhi’s Sikhs were slaughtered, about 3000 of them. This was part of a general anti-Sikh movement, with between 8000 and 17,000 more killed in another 40 cities of India. All of this was supposedly done with the complicity of the Delhi police, then under the control of Congress. By those standards, the recent bloodshed in New Delhi was basically just a blip, with 42 killed. But again, the police did not lose control, as they did in 1947, but were complicit.
An important factor seems to have been the presence of US President Trump in the city. The anti-CAA riots had been going on for some time before his visit, and had led to the killing of 26 people in UP, where the BJP is in office with a Swami for CM. The Trump visit coincided with what had become the tail-end of the protests, and the BJP was ready to strike back at the base of the rioters, which it perceived to be the Muslim community.
At the same time, the slaughter served a more sinister motive than merely saving the BJP from embarrassment in front of a foreign guest. Trump is known as an Islamophobe, and seeing such a slaughter must be satisfactory. Trump had one need met in the form of a big rally in Modi’s home state of Gujarat, which was meant to parallel the Houston rally for Modi, which Trump attended, last year when Modi visited for the UN General Assembly.
That means the USA is willing to go to very far, perhaps to any length, to keep India happy. Not only will the USA not exert any influence on India about the anti-CAA protests, but it will also do nothing about another hot-button issue: the annexation of Kashmir. By extension, Trump’s mediation offer to India and Pakistan should be taken within the context of the USA’s fascination with India. Perhaps only Trump could praise Indian multi-faith secularism while the massacres were taking place, but it probably reflects Indian, or at least Hindu-extremist, attitudes.
The riots in Delhi should also put paid to the image of Congress as a secular, somehow pro-Muslim party. About 90 years ago, Congress President Motilal Nehru was dickering with the Hindu Mahasabha. Not only has the BJP absorbed the Mahasabha, but it carries the anti-Muslim politics of that era. Hindu fundamentalism is on the rise, and Aam Admi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal, recently re-elected Delhi CM, in his campaign stressed he was a devout worshipper of Hanuman. The mosque burnt in Ashok Nagar first had a Hanuman flag flown from its minaret before it was burnt down. It is difficult to portray Hanuman as a peaceful character, as he provided Ram the muscle when he destroyed Ravan and Lanka.
With a Hanuman bhakt ruling New Deli, and the god of war made human (Nar-Indra), the Muslims of New Delhi didn’t really have a chance. It’s only now a matter of time, no matter which party is in power. The creation of Pakistan begins to look sensible, because beyond the debate on how far it was to be a ‘laboratory for Islam’, it certainly played a large part in keeping a lot of Muslims of what was India, safe. One only needs to think about having BJP governments in Punjab, Sindh, and KP.
There is only one problem with fuelling Hindu extremism. It will only end up fuelling Muslim militancy. India might learn from Kashmir, its only Muslim-majority state. Muslims will not take to violence in defence of secularism. They will be forced into violence so long as Hindu extremists offers them no space. So far, there has been no backlash, but when the penny drops, and Muslims realise that their religion offers them a militant path, thy will take it.
