The attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra and the subsequent carnage in Gujarat necessitates a reassessment of concepts like pluralism, secularism and their impact on national security.
The traditional understanding of national security was confined to territorial security but ignored the well being of citizens as an essential component of national security. In other words, national security required the safeguarding of national goals. In the Indian scenario, where secularism is a core value in our national goals, they have been severely eroded by the events in Gujarat. The most disconcerting fact is the role of the state in colluding with the marauders and, thereafter, retreating from the site of communal strife.
The history of communal polarization in Gujarat has been a post independence phenomenon, and the riots of 1969 are believed to be their earliest precursor. Three decades ago, the then Chief Minister, Madhav Singh Solanki, formed a coalition of various communities (Kshatriyas, Harijans, Adivasis and Muslims) called KHAM. This was thought to be politically correct, but it ended in the polarization of the society. Its impact can be assessed from the fact that it transformed the 1985 agitation against reservation into a communal (Hindu-Muslim) conflict. The present crisis reflects a conflict between the ethos of a pluralist society vis--vis the bigotry of a homogenizing project.
The events of Gujarat have far reaching implications for our national security and our foreign relations: -
• It could generate minority vs. majority conflicts in other parts of the country.
• If the guilty are not punished after speedy trials, it could alienate a vast section of the people and lead to fostering the jihadi cause across the border.
• The failure to control the communal carnage could blemish India's standing in the international system in terms of its moral leadership of the Third world and its quest to carve a larger role for itself in South Asia.
• India will be assessed by its own standards, regarding its adherence to the path of secularism, hence, the tactics of evasion by brushing aside international opinion/attention as interference in its internal affairs and continual stress on sovereignty could boomerang.
In a heterogeneous society, the role of the state is significant. The complicity of the state in communal conflicts robs it of its neutrality and legitimacy, resulting in communities settling their disputes by extra constitutional means. This would inevitably generate civil war conditions. The communal strife in Gujarat has raised doubts about the ability of the state to safeguard the lives of its citizens in the wake of a spurt in identity-based politics seeking recognition/exclusion on divisive grounds.
The timely intervention of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Election Commission has brought some glimmer of hope. This is reassuring and belies the heightened fear and apprehensions about India heading towards majoritarian/ authoritarian rule. The NHRC released its findings on 31 May 2002 and expressed its dissatisfaction with the state governments response to its earlier interventions. It stated that the state is accountable for the acts of its organs and non-state players within its jurisdiction and for all their actions that lead to violation of human rights. It gave a broad list of recommendations ranging from fixing time frames for the resolution of cases and the rehabilitation of riot victims to the involvement of NGOss in the distribution of relief to reforms in the police force.
In another significant development, the three-member Election Commission expressed its inability to hold elections in the present situation, after having visited the riot-affected regions between 8-11 August. These developments, followed by the Supreme Courts endorsement (following the Presidential reference on Gujarat) of the Election Commissions decision to postpone the elections have retrieved the situation. This has been complemented by the role of the media and social organizations by restoring hope in the ravaged civil society.
In this age of globalization, which is witnessing a communications revolution and economic integration, human rights and basic freedoms are gaining universal acceptance. It is in this context that we should assess the demarche issued by Spain, which is holding the EU presidency at present, to India in the wake of the Gujarat riots. This raises the possibility of India coming under pressure from the major western and Islamic countries.
India is still a nation in the making; hence, its responses need to be based on civic and constitutional lines, involving the active participation of civil society and the development of a culture of negotiation, tolerance and accommodation.
The traditional understanding of national security was confined to territorial security but ignored the well being of citizens as an essential component of national security. In other words, national security required the safeguarding of national goals. In the Indian scenario, where secularism is a core value in our national goals, they have been severely eroded by the events in Gujarat. The most disconcerting fact is the role of the state in colluding with the marauders and, thereafter, retreating from the site of communal strife.
The history of communal polarization in Gujarat has been a post independence phenomenon, and the riots of 1969 are believed to be their earliest precursor. Three decades ago, the then Chief Minister, Madhav Singh Solanki, formed a coalition of various communities (Kshatriyas, Harijans, Adivasis and Muslims) called KHAM. This was thought to be politically correct, but it ended in the polarization of the society. Its impact can be assessed from the fact that it transformed the 1985 agitation against reservation into a communal (Hindu-Muslim) conflict. The present crisis reflects a conflict between the ethos of a pluralist society vis--vis the bigotry of a homogenizing project.
The events of Gujarat have far reaching implications for our national security and our foreign relations: -
• It could generate minority vs. majority conflicts in other parts of the country.
• If the guilty are not punished after speedy trials, it could alienate a vast section of the people and lead to fostering the jihadi cause across the border.
• The failure to control the communal carnage could blemish India's standing in the international system in terms of its moral leadership of the Third world and its quest to carve a larger role for itself in South Asia.
• India will be assessed by its own standards, regarding its adherence to the path of secularism, hence, the tactics of evasion by brushing aside international opinion/attention as interference in its internal affairs and continual stress on sovereignty could boomerang.
In a heterogeneous society, the role of the state is significant. The complicity of the state in communal conflicts robs it of its neutrality and legitimacy, resulting in communities settling their disputes by extra constitutional means. This would inevitably generate civil war conditions. The communal strife in Gujarat has raised doubts about the ability of the state to safeguard the lives of its citizens in the wake of a spurt in identity-based politics seeking recognition/exclusion on divisive grounds.
The timely intervention of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Election Commission has brought some glimmer of hope. This is reassuring and belies the heightened fear and apprehensions about India heading towards majoritarian/ authoritarian rule. The NHRC released its findings on 31 May 2002 and expressed its dissatisfaction with the state governments response to its earlier interventions. It stated that the state is accountable for the acts of its organs and non-state players within its jurisdiction and for all their actions that lead to violation of human rights. It gave a broad list of recommendations ranging from fixing time frames for the resolution of cases and the rehabilitation of riot victims to the involvement of NGOss in the distribution of relief to reforms in the police force.
In another significant development, the three-member Election Commission expressed its inability to hold elections in the present situation, after having visited the riot-affected regions between 8-11 August. These developments, followed by the Supreme Courts endorsement (following the Presidential reference on Gujarat) of the Election Commissions decision to postpone the elections have retrieved the situation. This has been complemented by the role of the media and social organizations by restoring hope in the ravaged civil society.
In this age of globalization, which is witnessing a communications revolution and economic integration, human rights and basic freedoms are gaining universal acceptance. It is in this context that we should assess the demarche issued by Spain, which is holding the EU presidency at present, to India in the wake of the Gujarat riots. This raises the possibility of India coming under pressure from the major western and Islamic countries.
India is still a nation in the making; hence, its responses need to be based on civic and constitutional lines, involving the active participation of civil society and the development of a culture of negotiation, tolerance and accommodation.
Published on 12 September 2002, Institute of peace and Conflict Studies.
URL:
No comments:
Post a Comment