Communalism and the Use of State Power

Learning Outcomes:

1. Analyze the role of political parties in communal tensions.
2. Understand how communal ideologies influence state power.
3. Explore the impact of educational reforms on communalism.
4. Examine the influence of communal forces on public consciousness.

The assumption of political power by a communal party for the first time at the national level in 1998 marked a significant moment for the Indian people. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which emerged from its Jan Sangh roots, had shed its mask of Gandhian socialism by the time the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. The communal violence that followed, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives, intensified the communalization of popular consciousness. When the BJP assumed power as the leader of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the public waited to see whether power would moderate its extreme elements or strengthen its ideological roots.

1. Communal Forces and State Power

1. The VHP, Bajrang Dal, and RSS, key components of the Hindutva movement, used state power to advance their long-standing goal of creating a Hindu Rashtra.
2. Murli Manohar Joshi, the HRD Minister, actively promoted communal ideology in education, reflecting his strong RSS affiliations.
3. Despite the BJP’s claims of sidelining its communal agenda, the Ram Temple agitation peaked in 2002, coinciding with the rise in communal tensions in Gujarat.
4. The Supreme Court’s refusal to allow construction on the disputed Ayodhya site did little to stem the agitation.
5. Communal violence erupted in Gujarat in February 2002, with what many termed a genocide, lasting nearly three months.

2. Communalization of Education

The RSS and its affiliated bodies, such as the BJP, consistently sought to rewrite India’s history to fit a sectarian narrative, especially after gaining power at the national level.

1. State governments led by the BJP, including those in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, incorporated textbooks that demonized minorities and glorified Hindu civilization.
2. In 2000, the NCERT, under BJP rule, introduced a new National Curriculum Framework (NCF), without wide consultation, signaling the centralization of communal ideology in education.
3. Secular historians such as Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma, and Bipan Chandra faced attacks on their works, which were deemed anti-Hindu by the RSS and BJP sympathizers.
4. Significant deletions were made from textbooks written by secular historians without consulting the authors, violating copyright norms.
5. The introduction of religious vetting for textbooks was proposed by the government, leading to widespread criticism from academics.

Important Note:
The government’s move to involve religious leaders in deciding educational content marked a dangerous precedent in a multi-religious society like India.

3. Genocide in Gujarat

The Gujarat violence of 2002, referred to by many as a genocide, was a critical point in the use of state power for communal ends.

1. On 27 February 2002, a train coach carrying Hindu volunteers from Ayodhya was set on fire in Godhra, killing 58 people, including women and children.
2. The BJP government in Gujarat, led by Narendra Modi, facilitated the communal carnage that followed, with mobs targeting Muslim communities across the state.
3. The state administration and police were accused of conniving with the attackers, as large-scale violence spread from cities to villages.
4. Unlike previous communal riots, the 2002 violence was one-sided, with Hindu mobs systematically attacking Muslims.
5. The term “ethnic cleansing” was frequently used to describe the scale and nature of the violence in Gujarat.

4. Communal Ideologies in Governance

The BJP’s governance in Gujarat was marked by overt support for Hindutva ideology, using the state machinery to support communal violence and control the narrative.

1. State funerals were arranged for the Godhra victims, heightening communal tensions.
2. The VHP and RSS utilized the media to depict the Muslim community as aggressors, inciting further violence.
3. The Narendra Modi administration faced severe criticism for failing to prevent the violence and, in some cases, allegedly encouraging it.
4. Efforts to seek legal justice were hampered by biased law enforcement and reluctance to file FIRs against the perpetrators.
5. Ghettoization of Muslims became more pronounced as they moved into mono-religious neighborhoods for safety, deepening communal divides.

5. Civil Society and Resistance

Despite the overwhelming influence of communal forces, several civil society groups and activists emerged to resist the communalization of Gujarat and seek justice for the victims.

1. Organizations such as Citizens for Justice and Peace and Anhad played key roles in collecting evidence and advocating for victims’ rights.
2. Prominent individuals like Teesta Setalvad and Harsh Mander tirelessly campaigned for justice, despite threats and intimidation.
3. Film directors and journalists raised awareness about the atrocities through documentaries and investigative reports.
4. The NHRC and Supreme Court intervened, ordering the reopening of closed cases and protection of witnesses.
5. The Best Bakery case and the Bilkis Bano case were landmark judgments that highlighted the systemic failures in Gujarat and the pursuit of justice.

Important Note:
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Gujarat cases marked a turning point in recognizing the failure of the state in protecting minority rights and ensuring justice.

6. Political Fallout

The events in Gujarat had wide-ranging implications for Indian politics, as the BJP’s communal policies faced scrutiny at the national and international levels.

1. In 2004, the Congress-led UPA defeated the NDA, with analysts attributing the defeat to the Gujarat riots and the BJP’s loss of legitimacy.
2. Narendra Modi’s refusal of a visa by the U.S. and the U.K. following the Gujarat violence further isolated the BJP on the global stage.
3. Despite these setbacks, the BJP continued to rule Gujarat, and Modi was re-elected as chief minister in 2007, signaling the deep communal divide in the state.
4. Tehelka’s sting operation in 2007 revealed disturbing details of the involvement of Hindutva politicians in the 2002 violence, further tainting the BJP’s image.
5. The communal divide in Gujarat became entrenched, as Hindu nationalist rhetoric continued to dominate the state’s political landscape.

7. Repercussions in Education

The communalization of education was a significant feature of BJP rule, with long-term effects on the psyche of students, particularly in Gujarat.

1. Textbooks in Gujarat portrayed minorities, especially Muslims, as foreigners, and glorified Hitler and Nazism.
2. The eulogizing of fascism in textbooks normalized a violent approach to dealing with minorities, setting the stage for future conflicts.
3. The long-term impact of such indoctrination became evident in the ease with which communal violence was instigated, particularly among the youth.
4. The role of the NCERT in centralizing communal narratives in education was highlighted as a dangerous precedent for secular education.
5. The reform of education remained a critical demand by secular forces, who recognized the need to de-communalize the curriculum.

Important Note:
The communalization of textbooks has far-reaching consequences, influencing not just current societal dynamics but shaping the future attitudes of generations.

8. Conclusion: The Persistent Divide

The Gujarat riots and the communalization of education exemplified how state power could be harnessed to further divisive ideologies. The legacy of these events continues to shape India’s political landscape, with Hindutva forces neither repentant nor fully defeated, despite strong resistance from civil society

and legal interventions. The path to secularism and reconciliation remains fraught with challenges, yet vital for India’s future.

MCQ:

What was a significant consequence of the communalization of education under BJP rule in Gujarat?

a. Increased employment opportunities for minorities
b. Glorification of fascism and demonization of minorities
c. Decrease in communal tensions
d. Promotion of secular values

Answer: b. Glorification of fascism and demonization of minorities