(The Quint brings to you 'Khairiyat', a column by award-winning author Tabish Khair, where he talks about the politics of race, the experiences of diasporas, Europe-India dynamics and the interplay of culture, history and society, among other issues of global significance.)
As many will recall, in late June, prohibitory orders were imposed in Rajasthan for a month after two men hacked a tailor, identified as Kanhaiya Lal, to death inside his shop in Udaipur and posted a gory video online of the incident. They claimed that it was in retaliation for the victim supporting the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Nupur Sharma and her insulting remarks about the Prophet of Islam. A few days later, a court also passed the opinion that the entire tragic mess was due to the reportedly insulting remarks made by Sharma.
The murder was intentionally brutal and all the Muslims I know, in person and online, felt compelled to post immediate and unequivocal condemnations of the atrocity. I did so, too. I did that with deep sadness, not just for the human loss but also because sadness is inevitable when decent human beings are forced by circumstances to condemn acts that are totally alien to their natures, be it a Hindu condemning a saffron lynching or a Muslim condemning an Islamist murder.
For the Udaipur killing, is only one BJP spokesperson to blame, especially as we know that similar statements have been made and are being made by many other Hindutva ‘warriors’?
The 'silent', decent minority is constantly put in the dock by the angry, the suspicious and the essentially indecent sections, who shout for endless proofs of decency.
There is obviously a link leading from the poor and marginal victims and perpetrators to people who hold positions of authority.
To what extent were these Muslim men, marginal like the Hindu tailor, driven by angry and vehement statements made by social superiors?
And this, it appears, is what we have come to: the silent decent minority – or is it still a majority, as was once rumoured? – is constantly put in the dock by the angry, the suspicious and the essentially indecent sections, who, across various divides, shout for endless proofs of decency. No one can even dare ask what right such indecently accusative and indecently angry people have to demand the decency of others.
On Having to 'Prove' Decency
Let’s face it: there is something extremely indecent in any violent and generalised demand to prove decency in public, just as there is something inhuman about the call to constantly prove your basic humanity. More than that, such demands seem to shift the focus from the groups – loud, angry, self-righteous, xenophobic – that should be brought to book, and instead smear a kind of vague guilt or suspicion over people who are, in most cases, simply tired, shattered, confused, timid, bewildered.
When there is an Islamist or a Hindutva terror act, our primary focus needs to be on the perpetrators and those who directly and clearly enabled the perpetrators. It should not be on all Muslims or all Hindus. It should not even be on all religious Muslims or all BJP supporters. By endlessly expanding the scope of our suspicion, we evade and confuse the causes and roots of the atrocity. We also create exactly the kind of scenario and enable exactly the mindsets that enable such atrocities to recur; it is a war-of-civilisations situation, a them-versus-us mindset.
Does the Buck Stop With Nupur Sharma Alone?
This, however, does not mean that larger questions need not be asked. For instance, when poorly educated and not affluent people from one community behead or lynch a poorly educated and not affluent person from another community, we are entitled to ask whether the blame pertains only to the men involved. What about religious or political leaders on both sides who made fiery and divisive statements? What about media coverage that might have provoked and incited people? These and other such questions ought to be asked.
It is in this context that the respected court’s opinion, putting much of the blame for the tragic mess on Sharma’s insulting remarks, needs to be examined in general.
Is it really true that one BJP spokesperson is to blame, especially as we know that similar statements have been made and are being made by many other Hindutva ‘warriors’?
As a politician and an ex-spokesperson, Sharma could have been expected to exercise more restraint than ordinary people. But when have politicians exercised restraint in India? Even ministers have frequently made statements of dubious provenance.
Ordinary People Pay the Biggest Price
At the heart of this tragedy, there are three losses: a poor tailor who, having read or heard others more privileged than himself, said or posted or reportedly posted some opinions. Whether or not those opinions were insulting, no one had the right to threaten, let alone murder, him. But it happened: two angry Muslim men, probably Islamic, and perhaps not particularly educated, decided to kill the poor tailor. Once again, to what extent were these Muslim men, poor and marginal like the Hindu tailor, driven by angry and vehement statements made by social superiors?
There is obviously a link leading from the poor and marginal victims and perpetrators to people who hold positions of authority. Perhaps Sharma was one of the latter, as the court suggested. But the buck cannot stop with her. It seems pointless to put the blame only or largely on her.
Beyond Easy Excuses
There is a bitter stream of accusations and acrimony flowing across ‘communal’ lines in India: social media is full of it, but so are ordinary statements by petty and not-so-petty politicians. There is an endless stream of hate being directed at aspects of the common past. There is great resentment, not just among Hindus but, increasingly, among Muslims, too. There are reasons for some of the resentment, and, above all, there are many Hindu and Muslim ‘spokespersons’ who try to profit from it.
A single legal finger pointed at a single political leader is not going to change this scenario. It will, at best, be an easy excuse offered to those who do not really want to change anything. A fig leaf. As a nation, we seem far too willing to hide our larger flaws behind easy excuses.
(Tabish Khair, is PhD, DPhil, Associate Professor, Aarhus University, Denmark. He tweets @KhairTabish. This is an opinion article and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)