Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Raj Thackeray’s goondaism is legitimized by the Indian state’s acquiescence to violence 
 
In his column published in the Indian Express, Raj Thackeray’s justifies in vitriolic campaign citing examples of past political struggles invoking everyone from the Mahatama to Narendra Modi,

 I will start with the one on violence…Isn’t the outbreak of spontaneous outrage in a people’s movement understood? Can anyone avoid the violence or damage to property even if it does not bring happiness? Wasn’t Gandhiji forced to withdraw his agitation when a chowkie was burnt at Chauri Chaura?Besides, even after all this, was the violence and damage to public property avoided in the 1942 agitation? When people become furious, their response is the same, whether it is the Congress or the African National Congress.Besides, do political movements need to obey the law? Political history learnt by me tells me that breaking the law, getting arrested, braving lathis and getting jailed are symbols of a principled agitation.In recent times, the rulers and opposition parties indulged in movements of political compromise, in which morchas are taken out, the share of benefits of the government and opposition parties are decided. Then the protesters and their companions go home and sleep peacefully! This is called todbazi (compromise). The word political movement is an equivalent word for breaking the law!Tell me, Sudheendraji, was Bihari MP Rajiv Pratap Rudy not aware of Advaniji’s Rath Yatra when he chose to criticise me on the grounds that my agitation was unconstitutional, destabilising for the nation, sectarian? How many people died then? How much was the violence?But didn’t Advani pursue his campaign to make his point? The Bihari babu in Rudy seems to have woken up. I don’t remember Rudy mustering courage to register his protest during the Rath Yatra or with Narendrabhai Modiji when our Gujarati brethren were outraged after the Godhra incident.(emphasis added)[link]     

 The Acorn quite correctly points out, citing no less than Dr B.R. Ambedkar that this is constitutionally untenable and would only lead to anarchy. Nevertheless, Thackeray’s argument deserves consideration not so much for their intrinsic merit but because they point to a fundamental malaise in Indian polity: The legitimization of violence as a tool for political discourse.In a country where one chief minister orchestrates violence against a hapless minority (in anger as Thackeray helpfully points out) and another justifies the violence of his cadres against villagers who had dared to challenge his party’s hegemony,  is it surprising that Thackeray need not look far to justify the deliberate violence of his fanatic followers? Every time the Indian state crumbles in front of mob violence and allows it to disturb the status quo, it creates space for leaders like Thackeray. What moral authority it can wield when people who have used violence in the past continue to occupy high constitutional post?

Equally, this malaise is spreading to the Indian society. Witness  the latest outrage in Bihar where a thief was lynched while the police looked on. It is just the latest manifestation of a worrying trend where the state’s failures of governance and its reluctance to tackle violent tendencies is increasing leading to a situation where private retribution is replacing constitutional justice.  The demoralized and intensely politicized police has shown little inclination to tackle mob violence except as an extension of the party of power. 

India recently came out with a zero-tolerance policy for hijackers. This welcome initiative needs to be extended to the realm of mob violence.  Anyone who favors violence must be tackled ruthlessly. Only then the state can hope to counter the likes of Thackeray and the politics they represent.