NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
REDIFF SEARCH

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

Wield the pen, cunning      not the sword Is Bush cunning      or a simpleton? India is a bad      role model for USA Jaya's latest antics Will India watch as      Hindus perish in       Afghanistan

A wounded civilization

Is there definite proof to show that man not only descends from animals but can also demonstrate animal-like behaviour?

Look at the massacres of Mandai (Tripura: 1980), Nellie and Gohpur (Assam: 1983), Radhabai Chawl (Mumbai, Maharashtra: 1993), a long list of infamy now topped by Godhra in Gujarat.

If the Godhra massacre wounds India, the reaction from the media and politicians rubs salt effectively into the wound. The so-called "right wingers" have challenged the "secular-centrist" faction to condemn the Godhra carnage with the same eloquence as the condemnation of Graham Staines's killing. The secular faction, never at a loss for words, is sounding increasingly pathetic in its attempts to look sympathetic while reiterating old stuff ("Of course, we condemn the miscreants -- our problem is communalism, not Hindu communalism) to the very defiant ("Isn't it true that the 'victims' went to Ayodhya to stir up trouble?").

How ridiculous can the finger-pointing get? In 1998, the aftermath of the Coimbatore bomb blasts saw the most bizarre of theories being propounded -- including some alleging that everything was the work of the BJP in order to gain sympathy. Since the respected The Economist has made subtle allusions to precisely that (in a very understated "upper class" British style), we can only pray that the secularists do not look to 'phoren' theories for internal consumption.

It is important that everybody looks beyond the tragedy and develops a preventive strategy for the future.

The lack of leadership at both the state and central levels is alarming. The BJP-led coalition still has to recover from the shock of losing four states in the assembly elections besides gearing up for the second innings of the contentious Ram Janambhoomi temple construction. The tragedy couldn't have come at a worse time for the beleaguered BJP.

One cannot entertain any illusions about the Gujarat government's efficacy in responding to emergencies given its lacklustre performance after the earthquake of January 26, 2001. Inefficiency, bad planning and the absence of a will to act stymied relief operations, possibly leading to more damage than necessary. The present instance seems no different and all that can be said is that history has the unfortunate tendency to repeat itself.

As it happened with USA post-September 11, 2001, we can only hope that the blood, tears and devastation lead to new determination being fostered to fight communalism and terrorism. May the judiciary have the good sense not to exonerate the culprits, as happened in the case of the Radhabai Chawl judgment in 1998! Since Indians look up to the US for inspiration in so many areas, could our politicians please emulate George Bush, if not Attorney General John Ashcroft?

What else can India do to prevent the occurrence of such violence? Well, a restructuring of government and governance policies may bring about an efficient response to emergencies through prevention.

In order to understand why a restructuring of government is crucial to containing carnages, it is necessary to examine the process of what nucleates riots and sustains them.

Riots are supposedly the results of "spontaneous" actions of violence that lead to passions being inflamed. The chain reaction-like effect it has on the citizenry, it is believed, automatically sustains the violence and results in the destruction of both property and people.

What is often left unsaid is that the "spontaneity" takes months to plan and the chain reaction of violence is sustained because the perpetrators are well-heeled. They often have the backing and blessing of political godfathers in the area and store weapons precisely for such an eventuality. In fact, as Justice V M Tarkunde once pointed out, "No riot can last more than a few hours without political support."

And what is the nexus between politicians and riots? Just as children get attention by throwing tantrums, organising riots gets attention for politicians. Politicians use riots as trump cards; as a means to "get even" with rivals, they are an unmistakable manifestation of flexing muscle and twisting arms -- break a few skulls and you're taken seriously. Not surprisingly, the riots in Godhra have been linked to municipal councillors whose specific motives are unclear but definitely in the realm of creating chaos.

Politicians specialise in stirring up riots, not quelling them. While some are careful enough to lend covert support, others are openly involved with the air and attitude of heroes leading a crusade. Sounds surprising? Not if you examine the following:

Consider the mayhem in Delhi after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. It is widely alleged that Congress MPs H K L Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar demonstrated considerable enthusiasm in stirring up trouble against the Sikh community amidst a very ineffectual response from the highest echelons of government ("When a tree falls, the ground shakes"). Contrast this with the lack of violence directed at the Tamil community in 1991 after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. There was no politician baying for Tamil blood and the administration proactively moved police into areas with significant Tamil concentrations.

The covert form of support consists of not deploying police forces, refusal to declare curfews, interfering with police officers who arrest miscreants -- in other words, making every effort to stall progress. While this method now has found "universal acceptance" throughout India, its origins arguably go back to the infamous "Direct Action Day" in Calcutta (August 16, 1946). The Muslim League, under Hassan Suhrawardy, then chief minister of Bengal, planned and promoted a bloodbath on the streets of Calcutta by stirring up riots while encouraging the police to refrain from taking any action. The lethalness of this method is best illustrated by West Bengal being brought to the brink of disaster by Jyoti Basu's attempts to stop the police from "interfering" with the "people expressing their anger at the judicial process" by gheraoing (obstructing) judges. The chief justice of the Calcutta high court threatened to adjourn courts in Bengal sine die -- a public expression of the dissolution of a democratic process.

Since politicians hardly think twice about reducing the nation to rubble through manipulation for petty gains, it would be necessary to find a different authority to vest powers in for prevention and control of damage.

Administrators have a decidedly different perspective on governance. Administrators are there to keep things moving, not stall them, and are trained to prevent trouble, not create it. While efficiency and speed may not be their plus points, the job is certainly accomplished in a slow and unspectacular style.

Take, for example, the efforts of K P S Gill and Julio F Ribeiro, the former directors-general of police in Punjab who helped break the back of the terrorist movement. The meddling of Indira Gandhi and Zail Singh created the Punjab problem in the early 1980s and resulted in the storming of the Golden Temple, a major stain on India's secular credentials. The problem that took close to a decade to "nurture" under the watchful eyes of Zail Singh and Company was resolved by Ribeiro and Gill by the early 1990s. While their methods didn't earn them the approbation of human rights activists, it is their efforts that prevented Punjab from becoming a bigger version of Kashmir.

It would be evident that administrators have a better grasp of trouble-shooting techniques and containing trouble. Would it therefore not be logical to include them in the governance structure when a crisis looms on the horizon? At present, their duties consist of advising politicians and implementing policies drawn up by the government. This precludes their participation in formulating policies or undertaking measures that would successfully defuse trouble.

In the case of the recent Godhra carnage, an administrator on the council would have been able to recognise the build-up of tension, the preparations by the councillors towards the "spontaneous" riot, and passing on word to the higher authorities could have prevented the mayhem that was witnessed.

The Government of India should strongly consider the idea of reconfiguring local governments to include administrators on the council in a participatory role. Politicians will be reluctant to share their cake with administrators, so how can the GoI bring about the inclusion of administrators? Because politicians are just as reluctant to take responsibility for disasters, the central government can experiment with the idea of bringing administrators on the governing body when a crisis looms on the horizon.

The government should be able to define "estimators" indicating the development of a political crisis (eg, rioting) or a social crisis (eg, famines, a common feature in Orissa). This triggers a process which should allow for "nominated members" consisting of administrators joining the government in a participatory capacity complementing elected members.

The idea is not new; nominated members have been an integral part of the political process for a long time. As examples, we have the nominations of members from the Anglo-Indian community in the Lok Sabha and the inclusion of two nominated women members in the Kashmir assembly. The representation of such nominated members is meant to assure an addressing of special concerns that may not otherwise be brought to the table.

By extending this structure to include administrators, the GoI should be able to nip trouble in the bud instead of wasting millions of rupees offering relief to the victims. Should the concept work, we have a tool to prevent disturbances. At worst, the attempt can't hurt -- governance has hit rock bottom with Godhra and can only go upward since it is impossible to descend any further.

S Gopikrishna