Selective targeting

The signboards barring the entry of ‘non-Hindus’ and hawkers in Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand, have stirred controversy and created a sense of unease among the authorities. Shockingly, rather than being a sole incident of display of communal targeting, the signboards were found on a scattered scale throughout the region. Such actions represent a troubling shift towards exclusionary rhetoric, particularly targeting Muslim communities. The signboards, which are claimed to be a part of directives from local gram sabhas, showcase a broader political and social environment that is enabling discrimination. Communal politics has apparently peaked in the country, with even the most prominent political parties and figures, with significant influence, not shying away from courting communal votes, often at the cost of polarising the population. The ruling party at the Centre has been adamant enough to openly assert its aim of making India a Hindu Rashtra, which, by extension, implies ostracisation of other communities, particularly Muslims.

The right-wing parties have successfully managed to sell the idea of ‘Hindus in danger’, forcing all other parties to choose one end of the spectrum or the other. Politics and society are so intricately interrelated that the fallout of one on the other cannot be avoided. The manufactured—and adequately marketed—communal hatred, driven by a sense of insecurity, has seeped from political circles to society, and the results are here to see. One of the signboards read: “It is prohibited for non-Hindus/Rohingya Muslims and hawkers to do business or roam around in the village. If found anywhere in the village, punitive action will be taken.” This rationale provided by the villagers is to prevent hawkers and ‘outsiders’ from entering villages without proper identification or police verification. Local leaders have stated that these measures are meant to ensure the safety of women left alone when men migrate to work during the pilgrimage season. They argue that this move is a preventive measure to mitigate crime, especially following incidents such as temple thefts. However, many argue that concerns are being disproportionately focused on one particular community, namely Muslims, under the pretext of crime prevention. The tendency to commit crime is purely individual in nature. To ascribe it to any particular religion or community is an erroneous, unjustifiable act. More importantly, it disregards the Constitution of India by going against its secular credentials. Such acts should be dealt with a firm hand. Quite reasonably, the authorities have sprung into action and assured to carry out a thorough investigation into the matter and take actions accordingly.

Uttarakhand has witnessed several tensions in recent years. In Nandanagar, for instance, the recent violence following the alleged sexual misconduct by a Muslim man led to an escalation of protests that resulted in attacks on Muslim-owned shops and properties. Despite the arrest of the accused, the communal tensions continued, forcing many Muslim families to flee the area. It is possible that the influx of Rohingyas and so-called outsiders may have created a security situation for the locals, given low levels of education and financial stability among the accused communities. However, the problem must be dealt with within the existing legal-constitutional framework. Whatever be the political dividends at stake, politicians must refrain from capitalising on communally divided electorates, as it could have long-lasting impact on society, in a negative way, of course.