|
|
Gujarat
Communal Ghetto or Global Enterprise?
I
In the alternating rhetoric of justification
and outrage that has characterised the discourse on the Gujarat riots,
there are several questions that still remain unanswered. One of the
most important, and one that appears not to have been prominently addressed
is: In the over two months during which carnage raged across the State,
did anyone who mattered really want to stop the killing?
Despite Narendra Modi’s Newtonian theories
of communal action and reaction1, and the
apparent mass participation and savagery of the riots – at least in
the initial phase – the truth is, once a clear declaration of intent
was visible, the ‘action-reaction cycle’ was very quickly brought and
held under control, even though there was a significant withdrawal of
para-military forces and the Army.2 Crucially,
a semblance of order was restored by the very Police who had been accused
of collapse and complicity in the preceding months, and who the media
had pronounced to be incapable of acting impartially. It is consequently
and abundantly clear, and has been reiterated endlessly in the ‘secular’
critique of the riots, that the Gujarat government, and possibly the
Centre, lacked the ‘political will’ (more crudely, the simple desire)
to end the slaughters, and there is ample evidence to suggest that there
was a strong motive to trade electorally on the communal polarisation
that had been engineered through the violence.
What is unnoticed, however, is the sheer
duplicity of all other political formations in the country – and very
particularly the combined Opposition. Not a single prominent leader
from this Opposition attempted to cool tempers, or chose to visit Gujarat,
at the height of the disorder. For all their noble perorations in Parliament,
not a single political party launched a single initiative to stem the
tide of blood, or to provide some succour and relief to the growing
numbers of terrified survivors huddled in the scruffy, under-provisioned
camps that were set up by what these parties condemned as a biased and
unsympathetic administration.
What could the Opposition do? The power
and the resources of the state and the control of its coercive apparatus
were in the hands of the Modi Government – and that government, the
Opposition argued, was itself a supporter, if not the architect, of
the carnage. There is a fairly simple answer to this question, and it
was provided in the midst of slaughters far worse than Gujarat witnessed,
and by an example that is known even to the most politically naïve
and ill informed in this country. When Partition riots raged in both
the east and the west, Mahatma Gandhi’s obstinate presence in the worst
affected areas of Bengal brought an unexpected peace, at least in this
theatre of communal butchery. Can India’s political leadership have
entirely forgotten Gandhi’s four month long 116 mile walk through East
Bengal? And his fast unto death that later put an end to violence in
Calcutta? For those who speak of Force availability and allocation,
of police and military responses, it is useful to recall Mountbatten’s
words: "In the Punjab, we have 55 thousand soldiers and large scale
rioting on our hands. In Bengal, our forces consist of one man, and
there is no rioting."3
There is, of course, no leader who could
can even stand in Gandhi’s shadow in this present age of the pygmy –
as India’s Defence Minister candidly confessed, there are no tall men
left among India’s leadership.4 But the
collective and extended presence of the highest leadership of the Opposition
parties in the worst affected areas would certainly have had a dampening
effect on the rioters and looters – as on their political sponsors.
Some leaders, both in the ruling coalition and the Opposition at the
Centre made loud protestations of their dissatisfaction with the course
of events in, and desire to go to, Gujarat during the period of violence,
but ‘wisely refrained,’ as they had been advised by the Gujarat government
that this could be a security risk.
But this is precisely what both Sardar Patel and
Jawaharlal Nehru told Gandhi before he embarked on his ‘foolhardy’ enterprise
in Bengal. In any event, if some of these leaders – with their black
cat and NSG security cover backed up even by a comparatively inefficient
local detail – had chosen to base themselves in the riot affected areas,
it is doubtful if they would have, in doing this, exposed themselves
to any significant risk. And yet, Gujarat was singularly divested of
the visible presence of prominent political leaders from outside the
State in its darkest hour. It was, indeed, not just the State and Central
governments that failed the people; it was the entire political leadership.
That, however, was not the limit of
the failure. Many high profile ‘peoples’ committees’ swarmed in and
out of Gujarat at this time, writing poorly investigated, inaccurate
and hastily drafted ‘citizens reports’ that, far from documenting the
truth and creating pressure for corrective action, exploited the vast
and recurrent tragedies of the victims’ lives for personal and partisan
projection. Not one of these ‘committees’, whether they belonged to
established or quasi-governmental bodies (such as the National Human
Rights Commission, the National Commission for Women, etc.), or the
many organisations and delegations from the voluntary sector, and the
‘independent fact finding commissions’, camped in the troubled areas
for any length of time. Most of them simply flew in and out within twenty-four
hours, committing less time to their ‘inquiries’ than was either sufficient
to objectively assess what had happened, or to significantly impact
on the course of events. These were just photo-ops or worse, excuses
to push forward a partisan political agenda.
The truth is, hard calculations were
being made on the political outcomes of the killings. And the political
consensus across the board was that no one really stood to gain if they
were brought to an early end. It was only after the political costs
began to appear to outweigh the potential benefits to the ruling party
that action was eventually taken in the form of K.P.S. Gill’s appointment
as advisor to the Chief Minister.
II
One of the recurrent themes in the discourse
on this latest round of riots in Gujarat is that they represent an unprecedented
break with the past; that here, in some sense, for the first time in
India’s history, or at least in post-Partition history, we witnessed
a breakdown of the structures and mechanisms of the state as never before;
that ‘Gandhi’s Gujarat’ had finally and abruptly lost its innocence
to the ravaging march of ‘fascism’; and that the brutality witnessed
here was unique and represented a radical discontinuity with India’s
history of communal violence.
Each of these claims is, mildly put,
contra-factual. More bluntly, this is all arrant nonsense. Despite the
enormous controversy his remarks raised, George Fernandes was absolutely
right in pointing out that there was nothing unique in what happened
this time round in Gujarat; that this orgy of violence lay squarely
along a continuum of recurrent communal confrontations that have been
instigated time and again by vested political interests located in parties
all along the political spectrum. It is equally true that every major
riot in this country has represented a comparable breakdown or collusive
dynamic in the state structure, and it has frequently been remarked
by police professionals that, with a clear mandate, no riot in India
can last beyond 48 hours. It is ludicrous and counter-productive, in
our efforts to project and underline the horrors of this latest outrage,
to deny the reality of India’s disastrous record of recurrent communal
violence since the carnage of Partition. Moradabad, Bhiwandi, Bhagalpur,
Nellie, Delhi in 1984, Bombay… Like the events in Gujarat, the atrocities
and horrors that are associated with these great slaughters have become
iconic in their representation of an evil that manifests itself with
appalling regularity. Worse still, it is an evil that, again and again,
"bears the imprimatur of the state,"5
as parties in power abandon constitutional values and subvert the agencies
of the state, giving free rein to the forces of hatred. To suggest that
state collusion and ‘breakdown’ were something unique to the Modi government
is to deride a long history of savage riots in which the agencies of
the state either stood by as silent witnesses, or in some of which they
actively participated.
As for ‘Gandhi’s Gujarat’ and the Gujratis’
unique proclivity for peace, this blighted State has been the site of
recurrent riots since 1969 – when the official record of fatalities
was acknowledged at over 660. 1969, 1981, 1985, 1990, and 1992-3 were
each marked by major communal bloodletting.6
Another source records 106 ‘major riots’ in the State just between 1987
and 1991.7 Bhiku Parekh similarly notes
Gujarat’s "dubious distinction of having the highest per capita
deaths in such violence in the country and causing the highest number
of casualties in a single cluster of riots."8
As for the savagery of the latest riots,
it was enormous and unforgivable. But it was by no means discontinuous
with many that preceded it. Recall Surat in 1992, when the rioters not
only raped and murdered Muslim girls, but proudly recorded their ‘contributions’
to the ‘greater glory of their Faith’ on videotapes that were, subsequently,
privately circulated among their sympathisers and members of their sponsoring
groups, presumably as an inspiration for the future.9
None of this detracts from the enormity
of what happened in Gujarat after February 27, 2002. It is, however,
necessary to fix unwaveringly on reality, if something constructive
is to emerge from our analyses. Passionate diatribes and flights of
literary fancy about ‘butchers and genocidists’10
have, of course, a certain utility in the discourse on as inhuman an
occurrence as the Gujarat carnage. They arouse our sense of horror,
bind us together in our rejection of the primary actors who engineer
and execute such atrocities, and, in some measure, help create a partial
psychological barrier – however transient – against their recurrence.
But their utility in approaching the tasks of reconstruction and long-term
prevention is limited. Indeed, they tend to act upon a narrow audience,
preaching largely to the already converted, and can often contribute
directly to further polarisation and isolation of the communities.
The point is, the outrage of the Gujarat
riots this year must not simply be limited to the evil of what was done
in the two months of orchestrated murder that followed Godhra. To treat
this sequence of events as an abrupt, unprecedented and unimagined horror
is to deny the logic of events, the rising tide of a cynical communal
politics that is not just restricted to the visibly communal parties,
and the continuous undermining of social, political and administrative
institutions over extended periods of time that lead up both to Godhara
and to the riots that followed. It is to deny, equally, the history
of neglect and collusion that has succeeded each of the riots in the
past, both in Gujarat and in other parts of the country. It is, of course,
a simple matter to blame and abuse the Gujarat police for their criminal
failure to prevent what happened. But who, in the preceding decades,
has protested or resisted the continuous undermining of this Force by
the political leadership in the State? Who has remarked on the tattered,
tented police posts that were set up in ‘sensitive areas’ after the
riots of 1969, and that have undergone a continuous decline in facilities
and functions since?11 The limited crisis
management that follows each wave of bloodletting is hardly any part
of an abiding solution to the problem. Managing the peace is, perhaps,
even more important than managing the "cessation of violence;"12
and there has regrettably been little evidence of any social, political,
judicial or even administrative movement in such a direction in the
wake of any of the riots in the past. Nor does it appear that appropriate
processes are being set in motion to this end at present. The cold truth
is, in the absence of a concerted effort on the part of a wide coalition
of forces from each of these spheres of activity – social, political,
judicial and administrative – another round of riots in Gujarat is inevitable.
This may occur within the cycle of 4-7 years that has been the case
since 1969; or it may fructify much earlier, given the unique circumstances
that have emerged in the recent past, including the activities and natural
interests of our neighbourhood exporter of terrorism.
III
It is crucial, within this context,
to notice the strengthening tendencies to cycles of communal carnage
as "rival religious fundamentalisms and nationalisms feed upon
each other"13, and with the rising
right wing mobilisation and what at least some describe as the consolidation
of the ‘Fascist’ forces of Hindutva. It is equally important to recognise,
however, that "Facism’s firm footprint"14
is yet to destroy the vibrancy of India’s democratic credentials. As
Saeed Naqvi rightly observes,
I refuse to accept the proposition that the
brutalities perpetrated by a lumpen mob in Gujarat, admittedly led by
politicians, was somehow a precursor to a takeover of India by the Hindu
right. How are we going to gauge the Hindu’s political preferences?
By his behaviour in Gujarat or by the electoral verdict meted out by
him in UP, Uttaranchal, Punjab, Manipur and the two state assembly seats
in the very citadel of the BJP, Gujarat?15
The fact is that democracy – even as
imperfect a democracy as the one that prevails in India – is a system
where patterns emerge out of apparent chaos. The communal riots in Gujarat
appear to suggest a complete breakdown of democracy and constitutional
governance. It is increasingly evident that the Bhartiya Janata Party
(BJP)-led State government and a compromised State police force were
substantially subverted, and sided with the majority community through
acts both of omission and commission. The Central government also appeared,
in the initial phases, unwilling to take any action to bring the situation
under control, beyond issuing a number of ‘strong statements’ – many
of which were ambivalent. But talk of the dangers of a Fascist take-over
by the forces of Hinduva is premature. Even as the toll of the Gujarat
tragedy was mounting – and though those who lost their lives, and others
who continue to suffer, can never be adequately compensated – correctives
were already being administered, despite the obduracy and obstructive
attitude of governments both in the State and at the Centre. The secular
spine of India is strong, and has responded vigorously to the subversion
of justice in Gujarat. It is true that most of the guilty will never
be punished – this record is consistent with that of all major riots
in India in the past – but political readjustments and a range of independent
institutional responses are already transforming the structures of power.
As one among the hundreds of critical articles that have appeared in
the Press noted:
…even as Gujarat, and India, copes with the
communal outburst, what may be of interest to political observers is
to note how fascism is constrained – albeit with great difficulty
– by a democratic country. This is not something which has been witnessed
before since Hitler had strangled democracy soon after assuming power.
There is reason to believe, however, that democratic India will strangle
fascism before it can do much damage… the elaborate paraphernalia of
a free society – the judiciary, human rights and minority commissions,
the media, NGOs, etc., – ensured that the fire did not burn out of control.16
This is a tentative, uncertain process.
Its costs are high and it will leave behind a lingering sense of injustice
that will inflict its own evils upon the future. Compare it, nevertheless,
with the enormity of what happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, where
an estimated 7,000 unarmed civilians were slaughtered, and another 20,000
injured, by the Chinese Army17 – with no
impact whatsoever on the political structure of the state; and this,
despite the immense international reaction to the state’s barbarity
towards its own people.
India’s democracy is responding – no
doubt in conflicting ways18 – to the events
in Gujarat, and there will, over time, be an approximation towards the
larger and pluralistic sentiment that remains the essence of this nation.
This approximation will be the greater and the more efficient if active
and imaginative interventions are forthcoming from the liberal, secular,
democratic elements within the social and political system – beyond
the continuous Babel of self-serving voices that are projected through
the mass media (though these may serve a limited constructive purpose).
The rise of fundamentalist forces of all hues has, in fact, been a direct
consequence of the absence of such interventions in the past, and of
a continuos chain of betrayals by the political formations that have
projected themselves under the secular-liberal ideological umbrella,
and who progressively allowed secularism to become "equal license
for both fundamentalisms."19 It has
also been, in part, the result of a shrill, uninspired and rhetoric-dominated
voluntary sector that has failed to establish emotional connections
with the larger mass of people; and of an alienated ‘ivory tower’ intelligentsia
and isolated ‘intellectual’ movements in the upper echelons of the social
structure that lack a command over the language and idiom of the popular
discourse, and the ability to capture the public imagination.
IV
The resistance to the ‘fundamentalisation’
of the political discourse, and to the patterns of communal violence
that most recently manifested themselves in Gujarat, would have to comprehend,
but simultaneously go well beyond, the local communities where such
violence has been witnessed. The sequence of events that led up to the
Godhara incident, the pattern of communal mobilisation that enveloped
much of the State thereafter, and the subsequent political manoeuvres
of the RSS-BJP combine, as well as of its lumpen affiliates, inexorably
link this latest round of violence to the Ayodhya – Ram Janmabhoomi
issue. On this issue, regrettably, we have consistently been missing
the wood for the trees, and the fundamentalists have been entirely allowed
to define the agenda.20 There has been
a persistent and exclusive focus on precisely what they sought to bring
into focus – an apparent quarrel over a piece of land. The ‘solutions’
that are being explored, consequently, are various ‘deals’ on the allocation
of this land. ‘Land for peace’ is a ‘formula’ that has recently been
bandied about in an unfortuitous choice of words that calls to mind
the disastrous quest for a false peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
But quibbling over property rights or defining some concessions to appease
one or the other extremist faction cannot succeed, and must not, indeed,
even be considered as a realistic solution.
This is particularly true at this moment
in time, when any conciliation of the Hindutva lobby would only constitute
a reward for the savagery unleashed in Gujarat. Gujarat was a victory
for those who seek to divide the communities into exclusionary ghettos
across the country. The Indian state cannot and must not negotiate a
‘solution’ with the most loutish, intolerant and criminalised elements
of a community, and in the shadow of brutal massacres. Any such negotiations
would strengthen the very forces that engineered this barbarism.
A substantial part of the current discourse
on Ayodhya is based on denial and a delusionary conviction that a neat
legal or political solution can be arrived at through an engineered
‘consensus’, irrespective of the nature of the conflicting parties.
This is folly. The issue here is not a piece of land. It is not a mosque
or a temple. The real issue is an ideology of hatred and exclusion and
the violent strategies and tactics it adopts for its realisation. This
ideology – irrespective of its claimed religious affiliation – is indistinguishable
from the ideologies that led to India’s Partition, and that, even today,
inspire ‘jihad factories’ and armies of terrorists beyond our
borders. There is, indeed, no difference between the political groupings
that exploit primordial and irrational sentiments constructed around
the ‘Hindu’ identity, and those who have been mobilised by Pakistan’s
ruling elite to serve the Islamist ‘jihad’. The herd that has
been formed through the ideology of ‘Hindutva’ is politically, socially
and psychologically indistinguishable from the herd that has been created
through the ideology of extremist Islam. Nor, in fact, despite differences
in outward symbols and practices linked to their ‘religious’ identity,
are there any real differences in their belief systems. What we have
here is lunatic Hindutva vs. lunatic Islam; a mirror image of the Taliban
is being created among sections of the Hindus in India, and both these,
equally, "embody a lethal combination: a primitive tribal creed,
a fierce religious ideology, and the sheer incompetence, naivete, and
cruelty that are begot by isolation from the outside world…"21
These fanatical groups – as we argue
constantly in the context of the ‘jihadists’ in Kashmir – cannot
be bought over, and are in fact encouraged, by concessions.22
The VHP-Bajrang Dal combine derives its power – and a large proportion
of its revenues – by projecting and pursuing maximalist sectarian goals.
A concession on Ayodhya will commit them to revive their demands on
Mathura and Varanasi – as also the ‘not three, but three thousand’ other
sites that recur in their rhetoric. Even if, for a moment, it is assumed
that the extremist Hindutva combine does strike a deal – in improbable
good faith – and withdraws its demands on the other sites for a settlement
on Ayodhya, this will not bring peace. It would only vacate the extremist
space, and this would inevitably be filled by other opportunistic factions
or breakaways from the present formations themselves. And the success
in wrenching concessions on Ayodhya would then be the model and inspiration
for these ‘inheritors’ of the extremist Hindu mantle.
If the state continues to make every
action or movement that claims a ‘religious’ or ‘political’ motive an
exception to the imperatives of the rule of law, there will be no escape
from the rising anarchy that is sweeping across India. There is, now,
no alternative to the demobilisation of these formations. As for their
proclaimed nationalist pretensions these are easily dismissed in view
of overwhelming evidence. Those who spoke of ‘rashtriya gaurav’ (‘national’
pride), have brought nothing but contempt and revulsion on the nation
by their actions in Gujarat. Those who spoke of a strong India have,
in fact, immensely weakened the country’s case at a crucial time in
India’s strategic history. These organisations constitute a grave and
imminent danger to the survival of the nation and it is necessary that
they be proscribed and disbanded.
As for a ‘solution to Ayodhya’ and the
umbilically linked ‘not three, but three thousand’, this will follow
only when these become politically irrelevant. Then, and only then,
can more rational and discerning elements from each community confront
the transgressions of their own history, and accept correctives in a
spirit of sobriety and magnanimity.
Till this happens, evil must be confronted
and defeated. If you negotiate with evil, it will prevail.
V
Gujarat after the Godhra incident of
February 27, 2002, and the protracted communal carnage that followed,
has become a place of deep communal polarisation. Incidents of communal
violence were subsequently contained by the reintroduction of professional
policing initiatives, and some measure of security of life and property
was certainly restored. The fabric of communal harmony and the tradition
of coexistence, however, have been torn asunder by the rage and excesses
of months of carnage, and an abiding suspicion and deep hostility continue
to prevail between the communities. These fissures are deepened further
by the continuance of large numbers of victim families quartered in
makeshift relief camps, unable to return home and to their places of
work; by the destruction of the economic assets of the riot victims;
and often by the destruction or usurpation of their economic and social
roles in their original places of residence.
The extended violence also did enormous
damage to the economy and work culture of the State, to international
perceptions of its dynamism as one of the primary centres of industry
in India, and to investor confidence at large. This is crucial for a
number of reasons relating not only to the future of the State alone,
but of the country at large.
First, Gujarat has an extraordinary
place in the national economy, accounting for nearly a seventh of India’s
industrial output, and a fifth of its industrial investments.23
It is an area of high efficiency of use of these resources, virtually
doubling its industrial and services sectors every five to six years.24
But, as has been noted in the wake of the riots in the State, "Economies
need stability and confidence in their future to attract investment,"25
and protracted violence, instability and the failure or lack of efficacy
and impartiality in governance would necessarily undermine such stability
and confidence.
Second, Gujarat is a border State, with
the highest levels of urbanisation in the country. This pattern of development
implies that the greatest proportion of its wealth and economic resources
is concentrated in a few urban centres which become extraordinarily
vulnerable to destabilisation and disruption, especially in view of
the intent and activities of a hostile neighbour. The security implications
of economic uncertainty and political instability in this State are
consequently of immense national significance.
Third, the patterns of economic activity
and growth that have been experienced in Gujarat in the past cannot
be sustained unless there is free and extensive interaction between
people, unencumbered by the suspicions and bias that have crept into
relations as a result of the communal violence. Gujarat’s growth is
based on the high levels of integration the State’s economy has achieved
with the globalised economy. It is, however, not possible to simultaneously
sustain a thrust towards international globalisation and regional or
local ‘ghettoisation’.
Finally, the sum of the preceding considerations
is that any significant injury to the future of Gujarat would directly
hurt the national interest itself. To this extent, the violence in Gujarat
was not anti-Muslim alone; it was anti-national.
The restoration of order, the containment
of all incidents of communal violence, and the registration of FIRs
against some of those who were responsible for the carnage, have gone
some way in creating an atmosphere of greater confidence among the people
at large, and the minorities in particular. The polarisation of the
communities, however, remains at a high level, and external perceptions
of the State remain substantially negative, as attention continues to
be focused exclusively on the causation, dynamics and excesses of the
communal conflagration, and particularly on the role of various political
formations. While such a focus cannot be ignored or dismissed as unjustified,
the prevailing atmosphere is a significant obstacle to the tasks of
normalisation, of rebuilding confidence and of re-establishing the dynamic
character of the State’s economy and society. These are imperatives
if the future conflict potential in the State is to be contained. At
such a time, consequently, it is important to take initiatives that
would expand the discourse beyond partisan and communal politics, and
help define a constructive, positive vision and agenda for the people
of Gujarat, and for various social, educational, business and voluntary
institutions and organisations operating in the State. Such an exercise
would directly contribute to the objectives of de-escalation of tensions,
focusing attention on practical and productive avenues of action, and
catalysing a discourse within the more progressive, forward looking
and dynamic elements of the community.
Critically, however, attention needs
to be turned to the long term imperatives of ‘managing the peace’ in
a manner that would preclude the possibility of a recurrence of the
nightmare to which the State has been periodically subjected. This is
a gigantic task, and one that will go against the very grain of the
character of politics, of social interaction and of governance that
has embedded itself in Gujarat, as also against the currently prevailing
psyche, both of its ruling elite and large segments of the general population.
But it is these factors, precisely, that make the task of reconstruction
and reform the more urgent. If these tasks are, moreover, to meet with
a sufficient success to prevent future violence, they will have to comprehend
far more than has ever been envisaged as a corrective to communal violence
in the past, and must certainly include harsh legislation to punish
individuals and groups who engineer or engage in such violence.26
It is improbable that the requisite measures will come spontaneously
from the existing political formations in the State, in the absence
of substantial pressure from the public, the media and, most importantly,
the electorate. In this, the results of the impending elections in Gujarat
will prove crucial, though not necessarily conclusive. Eventually, the
questions that will be decisive are whether the progressive ‘closing
of the Indian mind’ can be reversed; whether the political leadership
can be brought to attend to the larger enterprise of democratic governance
in an increasingly globalised world order; whether we will allow our
national destiny to be defined by groupings – psychologically indistinguishable
from the Pakistani jehadis – that seek "smaller worlds within
borders that will seal them off from modernity";27and
whether our leaders are going to be allowed to continue to squander
the enormous resources and virtually unlimited potential for development
in this country in the fractious, polarised and fruitless politics of
the past.
FOOTNOTES
- See "'Newton' Modi
has a lot to answer," The Times of India, New Delhi , March 02,
2002.
- "Army withdrawn from
Gujarat, being deployed at border", The Deccan Herald, Bangalore,
May 21, 2002.
- A widely quoted statement
made by the last Viceroy of India, Louis Mountbatten in his telegram
message to Mahatma Gandhi in Calcutta on August 26, 1947. Gandhi was
then working tirelessly to maintain peace in Bengal.
- See George Fernandes,
"'No tall men around, only struggle for power'", Times of
India, March 3, 2002.
- Neera Chandoke, "The
new tribalism", The Hindu, April 4, 2002.
- Asghal Ali Engineer,
"Gujarat: Laboratory of Hindutva," Progressive Dawoodi Bohras,
March 2002, http://wwww.dawoodi-bohras.com/spotlight/riots.htm.
- K.M. Chenoy, S.P. Shukla,
K.S. Subramanian & Achin Vanaik, Gujarat Carnage 2002 – A Report
to the Nation by an Independent Fact Finding Mission, April 10, 2002,
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/GujCarnage.html.
- Bhiku Parekh, "Making
sense of Gujarat," Society Under Seige, Seminar 513, May 2002,
p. 26.
- See M J Akbar, "Ruling
by riots", http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/india_ayodhya/viewpoint.html.
Also, Sumit Sarkar , "The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar",
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/sSARKARonSANGHPARIVAR.html.
- Arundhati Roy, "Democracy:
Who is she when she’s at home?" Outlook India, New Delhi, April
28, 2002.
- Sheela Bhatt, "There
is a realisation there should be peace in Gujarat," Rediff Interview
with K.P.S. Gill, May 20, 2002, http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/20inter.htm.
- See, Praveen Swami,
"Towards cessation of violence", interview with K.P.S. Gill,
Frontline, Volume 19 - Issue 11, May 25 - June 07, 2002.
- Paul R. Brass &
Achin Vanaik, Competing Nationalisms in South Asia, New Delhi: Orient
Longman, 2002, p. 4.
- Arundhati Roy, "Democracy:
Who is she when she’s at home?" Outlook India, April 28, 2002.
- Saeed Naqvi, "Introduction",
in Amrita Kumar & Prashun Bhaumik, Lest We Forget: Gujarat 2002,
New Delhi: World Report & Rupa, 2002, p. 9.
- Amulya Ganguli, "Fascists
in open society," New Delhi: The Hindustan Times, April 22, 2002.
- James Conachy, "Ten
years since the Tiananmen Square massacre," World Socialist Website,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/tian-j04.shtml.
- There are, for instance,
indications that the BJP-RSS combine is hardening its stance to consolidate
the ‘Hindu vote’. See "Katiyar faces tough UP test", The
Indian Express, New Delhi, June 26, 2002; "Familiar rant",
Indian Express, July 1, 2002.
- Meghnad Desai, "Gujarat
and its bhasmita," Society under Seige, Seminar 513, May 2002,
p. 57.
- The arguments in this
section are substantially an elaboration of views expressed in Ajai
Sahni, "Ayodhya: Any Solutions?" Economic Times, March 12,
2002.
- Robert D. Kaplan, "The
Lawless Frontier," The Atlantic Monthly, September 2000, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan2.htm.
- K.P.S. Gill & Ajai
Sahni, "The J&K ‘Peace Process’: Chasing the Chimera,"
Faultlines: Writings on Conflict & Resolution, Volume 8, New Delhi:
ICM-Bulwark Books, April 2001, pp. 1 – 40.
- Yoginder K. Alagh,
"The powerhouse and its nemesis," Society under Seige, Seminar
513, May 2002, p. 74.
- Ibid.
- Cyrus Guzder, "Is
secularism good for business," Society under Seige, Seminar 513,
May 2002, p. 70.
- Bhiku Parekh notes,
"If we can have POTA, there is no reason why we cannot enact
a far more relevant Prevention of Communal Violence Act." Bhiku
Parekh, op. cit., p. 30.
- Benjamin R. Barber,
"Jihad vs. McWorld", The Atlantic Monthly, March 1992, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/barberf.htm.
(Edited version
published in Black Book of Gujarat, Edited by Prof. M.L. Sondhi & Apratim
Mukherjee, Manak Books, 2002..)
|