.JPG)
The Nuances of Democracy
For the past few weeks, trouble has been brewing in Orissa, where some miscreants have attacked churches, killed and beaten up Christians. I fully and unequivocally condemn these attacks, and for that matter any sort of violence.
But what I say here today is not about the violence, but the politics of violence. No doubt it is in the interest of some groups to stoke communal passions, but what shocks me is that the Central government is supposedly considering imposing article 356 and dismissing a duly elected government. The home ministry has also sent various advisories to the state, to reign in the rowdies. I agree that the state has been lax, and that it needs to pull up its socks to provide a sense of security to all the people. The state has obviously failed to do its duty, to prevent flare-ups and to prevent loss of 'sense of security' among the minorities.
Now, look at the case of West Bengal, through all of 2007. Nandigram burned for most part of the year, and there were reports of police atrocities. Villagers were driven out of their homes, tens killed in police firing, and media was barred from going anywhere close, possibly to prevent the true state of affairs from ever coming to light. Such was the extent of the breakdown, that bloody gun battles were fought for control of villages, and the victory of the ruling party over the opposition in one such battle led the CM to comment "paying them back in their own coin" , effectively approving violence sponsored by his party. The state intelligentsia was up in arms against the Chief Minister, and there were protests nation-wide.
Now one may say, was West Bengal in 2007 not a fit case for the dismissal of the state government, which had, for the sake of development, forgotten the human factor involved, and where, the party cadres ran amok, killing, looting and burning. The only difference that I see between Orissa now, and WB then : now the violence is targeted against a particular community. Back then, anybody who stood by the villagers was attacked. The other very convenient fact: Then, the ruling party of WB was a major partner in the Central government, whereas the Orissa ruling party today is a steadfast opposition house.
So, I humbly ask, just because the present crisis has a communal shade to it, it is OK to impose President's rule, but last year, when the state itself terrorized its people, was it OK, because people of all religions were being targeted equally..
But what I say here today is not about the violence, but the politics of violence. No doubt it is in the interest of some groups to stoke communal passions, but what shocks me is that the Central government is supposedly considering imposing article 356 and dismissing a duly elected government. The home ministry has also sent various advisories to the state, to reign in the rowdies. I agree that the state has been lax, and that it needs to pull up its socks to provide a sense of security to all the people. The state has obviously failed to do its duty, to prevent flare-ups and to prevent loss of 'sense of security' among the minorities.
Now, look at the case of West Bengal, through all of 2007. Nandigram burned for most part of the year, and there were reports of police atrocities. Villagers were driven out of their homes, tens killed in police firing, and media was barred from going anywhere close, possibly to prevent the true state of affairs from ever coming to light. Such was the extent of the breakdown, that bloody gun battles were fought for control of villages, and the victory of the ruling party over the opposition in one such battle led the CM to comment "paying them back in their own coin" , effectively approving violence sponsored by his party. The state intelligentsia was up in arms against the Chief Minister, and there were protests nation-wide.
Now one may say, was West Bengal in 2007 not a fit case for the dismissal of the state government, which had, for the sake of development, forgotten the human factor involved, and where, the party cadres ran amok, killing, looting and burning. The only difference that I see between Orissa now, and WB then : now the violence is targeted against a particular community. Back then, anybody who stood by the villagers was attacked. The other very convenient fact: Then, the ruling party of WB was a major partner in the Central government, whereas the Orissa ruling party today is a steadfast opposition house.
So, I humbly ask, just because the present crisis has a communal shade to it, it is OK to impose President's rule, but last year, when the state itself terrorized its people, was it OK, because people of all religions were being targeted equally..
0 comments:
Post a Comment