Hindu-Muslim Violence Imperils India
Ayodhya dispute over a temple and a mosque threatens to derail Vajpayee's government
By TONY KARON (Thursday, Feb. 28, 2002)

A decade ago, Hindu-Muslim strife over the disputed holy site at Ayodhya helped propel India's current ruling party from the political margins to the corridors of power. Now that same strife threatens to topple the government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

Seventy people were killed in Gujarat province on Thursday, as Hindu mobs attacked Muslims and torched a mosque and other Islamic facilities. The violence came as retaliation for Wednesday's firebombing by Muslims of a train carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya. Fifty-eight people, many of them women and children, died in that attack, fueling outrage that threatens to spark a new wave of communal bloodletting throughout India.

The military moved in late Thursday and imposed a curfew in 26 cities around Gujarat, but more trouble is on the way — Thursday's violence came during a state-wide general strike called by local Hindu nationalists; the strike call has been extended nationwide for Friday. Observers believe the only way for the authorities to avoid further bloodletting will be via firm action to prevent the organization of mobs.

Ayodhya is at the epicent of communal hostility stoked by Hindu nationalists in defiance of modern India's founding tradition of secular tolerance. In 1992, the city became the focus of the worst communal violence since India's partition 45 years earlier, when 2,000 people died in clashes after Hindu nationalists — including members of what is now the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — tore down the 16th century Babri mosque. Hindus claim the mosque had originally been built on the site of a temple marking the birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Rama. Ever since then, the Hindu nationalist movement has been pushing to build a new Hindu temple where the mosque once stood.

The passions aroused by the temple movement helped propel the BJP into the political mainstream. In the first election following the Ayodhya violence, its parliamentary representation jumped from 2 seats to 86. Still, Vajpayee has to govern the world's biggest democracy, a self-consciously secular nation with some 150 million Muslim citizens, and as a result has always been careful to distance himself from the more extremist elements of Hindu nationalism. Today he rules by dint of a broad coalition of regional parties whose governing accord expressly precludes him from promoting the Ayodhya issue. Unless he's seen as coming down hard on any provocation over the temple issue, his coalition partners could bolt and remove him from power. And Vajpayee's international efforts to project the differences between secular, tolerant India and the more unstable and often extremist politics of neighboring Pakistan are challenged by the upsurge in communal violence.

After the train attack, Vajpayee lost no time in both condemning the violence and warning more extreme elements in the Hindu nationalist movement to call off plans to build a new temple over the ruins of the Babri mosque. Besides the obvious political concerns, India's courts have ruled any such construction illegal, and the prime minister has vowed to uphold the law.

But the more Vajpayee emphasizes moderation and restraint, the more he comes into conflict with much of his party's core support base. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an organization with close ties to his own party, openly rejected Vajpayee's exhortation to call off the temple construction plan and vowed to proceed on March 15. More than 15,000 Hindu activists have moved into Ayodhya for the job, and the site is now guarded by hundreds of Indian security personnel. The train massacre has only deepened the VHP's determination to force a confrontation on the temple issue. With communal tensions already past boiling point, Ayodhya threatens once again to spark nationwide bloodletting.

The Prime Minister's difficulties navigating the Ayodhya issue are compounded by recent setbacks at the polls — his party was badly beaten in three recent regional elections, including in the key state of Uttar Pradesh, which includes Ayodhya. Hindu nationalists charge that Vajpayee's moderation on the temple issue cost him the local election. Now, that issue has put him on a collision course with an activist core constituency of his own party. It may be easier, right now, for a government with Hindu nationalist credentials to crack down on extremists than for one with no connection to the movement. But whether or not India can avoid a new round of violence that challenges its very identity may now depend on the extent to which Vajpayee is prepared to stand up to the movement that helped carry him to power.

—With reporting by Meenakshi Ganguly/New Delhi

There have been repeated attempts by militant Hindus connected with the rightwing BJP and VHP to prevent films about this issue being shown. It is shocking to hear that a film festival in London is now also being threatened.


For examples, see articles below...

-----------

August 2002 : A PRIVATE screening of Anand Patwardhan's significant documentary "War and Peace" is cancelled. A meeting on peace and communal harmony is denied police permission at the last minute. A poster exhibition on the Gujarat violence is disallowed. The local police stop a screening of two documentary films on Gujarat and the films are temporarily confiscated. All these incidents have taken place in Mumbai in the last three months, in the capital of Maharashtra, which is ruled by a Congress Government.

If you look at them separately, they might appear isolated incidents. But seen together, they add up to a disturbing pattern of state intervention that disallows legitimate and democratic discourse on important developments in the country. Even though the Bharatiya Janata Party does not rule Maharashtra, the long-arm of the Sangh Parivar seems to be ensuring that even here criticism of its actions in Gujarat is not voiced.

The last of the above-mentioned incidents, in particular, is worth noting. A private college in a Mumbai suburb had agreed to screen two recent documentaries on Gujarat — Gauhar Raza's "In Dark Times" and "Junoon Ke Badte Kadam" — for its students. A student group, the Satyashodhak Vidhyarthi Sangathan, was also bringing along a poster exhibition on the Gujarat violence. The principal of the college knew about the screening and had agreed to it. Incidentally, these films have already been shown in many parts of the country and in fact the Congress used them as part of its election campaign against the BJP in the recent Goa elections.

When the organisers of the film show arrived at the college in a taxi, the police were waiting for them. The films were confiscated, and the organisers and the taxi driver were asked to go to the police station. Here a senior police officer told them that he would have to view the films before they could be shown and that the entire process could take up to three to four days. He also told them that he was doing this because "in the State of Maharashtra, we have decided not to have any riots".

This intervention was not the work of an overzealous police officer. It was prompted by a complaint registered by the student wing of the BJP, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, that had got wind of the plan to screen these films. And the police, because they had been instructed by the Government not to allow any situation that could result in a conflict, decided to stop the screening altogether. It is extraordinary that it did not occur to the police that the students were not committing a crime and that the job of the police in this instance should have been to ensure that the screening of the film went through without any disturbance.

What this incident illustrates is that the Sangh Parivar's strategy of scotching efforts to expose its communal character is working beautifully in Maharashtra thanks to the police and the State Government. All they need to do is to be alert, raise objections and register complaints, and their job will be done. No one can blame them. The ire of the organisers of such events will necessarily have to be focussed on the police and the Congress Government.

A similar strategy was used to have Mr. Patwardhan's film cancelled. Someone from the BJP alerted the Censor Board that the film was being shown. It had not yet received a censor certificate but as the showing was for a private, invited audience, it did not need to have a certificate.

In any case, Mr. Patwardhan's film had been screened publicly and had already collected two awards, including at the Mumbai International Film Festival. Despite this, the Censor Board called those who managed the hall where it was being screened, and said that it could not be shown. And the film was cancelled.

In Kerala, too, a showing of Mr. Patwardhan's earlier film, "Ram ke Naam" which deals far more explicitly with communalism than "War and Peace" was also stopped from being shown by the Collector of Malappuram district. However, in this instance, the local people who demonstrated were vociferous in voicing their objections to the ban, did street plays on the "Ram ke Naam" theme and ultimately succeeded in getting the film screened. This film, incidentally, has a censor certificate, has won a national award and after a court battle, was finally screened on Doordarshan.

In the case of "War and Peace", Mr. Patwardhan is still fighting to get a censor certificate. The first examining committee demanded six cuts while the second screening committee demanded 22 cuts. Mr. Patwardhan has not agreed to any of these. So the film now goes before a tribunal. In the meantime, a new chairperson has taken over the Censor Board. He is a former BJP MP from Gujarat, Arvind Trivedi Lankesh, who incidentally played the role of Ravana in the TV serial "Ramayan".

In the past, too, the threat of creating trouble has often worked in favour of the Sangh Parivar and in Mumbai, the Shiv Sena. People in Mumbai have not forgotten the hesitation on the part of the Congress Government to arrest the Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray, during the 1992-93 riots because they were told that if this was done "Bombay would burn". No one in the Government was prepared to test out the proposition.

In fact, giving in to the Shiv Sena has become the norm in Mumbai. As a result, successive Congress Governments have contributed directly to the strength of the Shiv Sena, at least in its ability to bring the city to a standstill.

Unfortunately, once again the Maharashtra Government led by Vilasrao Deshmukh appears to be allowing the Sangh Parivar to get its way. Gujarat has a close relationship in particular with Mumbai. Something that happens there is bound to have repercussions in the Maharashtra capital. But the desire to prevent the communal virus from spreading southwards from Gujarat does not mean the Government should stop all discussion on communalism and suppress the voices calling for harmony and peace. On the contrary, these voices need to be encouraged and heard.

The task of a Government is to uphold the values in the Constitution, and support those who also believe in these values. Instead, the Maharashtra Government and the police seem to be inadvertently encouraging those who go against the spirit of the Constitution. It is also setting a dangerous precedent by equating legitimate democratic activity with actions aimed at inciting communal hatred.

Is it not ironic that in Ahmedabad, the entire police force is called out to ensure that the annual Rath Yatra, a constant source of tension between communities, is allowed to go through peacefully while in Mumbai the police will not permit people to organise meetings calling for communal harmony? It is time members of the ruling party in Maharashtra realised that if this State follows in Gujarat's footsteps, a good part of the blame will rest on their shoulders.

Kalpana Sharma
August 2002

Kalpana Sharma is Deputy Editor with The Hindu, and a regular contributor to India Together. Her opinions, which appear in a regular column with The Hindu, are concurrently published on India Together with permission.


-----------
Indians won't get to see film on clashes
By Harbaksh Singh Nanda

New Delhi, India, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- India's film censor board has clamped down in a way the country's police couldn't. While police in western Gujarat state failed to quickly rein in the 2002 Hindu-Muslim rioting, the country's film censor board has swiftly banned a movie on the clashes.

The government-appointed panel says "Final Solution" may spark hatred between Hindus and Muslims.

"Final Solution" is based on the February 2002 clashes in Gujarat, which left more than 1,200 people dead.

After four months of negotiations, the censor board says the film is highly "provocative and may trigger unrest."

Director Rakesh Sharma, outraged at the ban, is knocking at the door of Bombay's High Court. "I will fight it out. People who makes speeches that spread hatred should be banned -- and not a film which records it all," Sharma said.

"The (censor) board says that the film will affect friendly relations with some neighboring countries, and the film attacked the basic principle of the Indian constitution, which is national integration," director Sharma said.

The movie follows the riots, which broke out after 59 Hindus were killed in an arson attack on a train, blamed on a Muslim mob. Hundreds of Muslims were raped, and 1,100 were killed by Hindu arsonists in response to the train massacre.

"Final Solution" won the documentary and critics awards at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, and the Wolfgang Staudte and Special Jury awards at the Berlin International Film Festival.

The documentary ran into trouble four months ago, when Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ruled India. The BJP lost power in elections, a defeat many blame on the government's lax action in containing rioting.

Since then, the government has changed in New Delhi, but not the censor board. Of the 53 members of the board, at least 17 have direct affiliation with the BJP.

Sharma, a distinguished documentary maker who has worked on various documentaries like "Democracy in Crisis" and "Seeds of Sorrow," says the board has not suggested any cuts in the film but banned it altogether.

The censor board feels the film is highly provocative and promotes communal disharmony between Hindu and Muslim groups. Certain dialogues involve defamation of individuals.

The media and leading film stars have angrily protested the ban.

India's famed actor Preity Zinta Tuesday blasted the Censor Board for acting strangely and not maintaining a balance while editing objectionable scenes in films and television.

"It is strange, really, the way they censor the scenes," she said on the sidelines of a news conference of Proctor & Gamble.

"They will do crazy things. They may allow scenes of domestic violence, but leave out scenes like a guy smoking. There should be sensible censoring of films," she said.

"Who needs film censorship?" The Hindustan Times opined. "The Central Board of Film Certification is a complete redundancy in a diverse nation of 1 billion people that churns out and consumes over 800 films a year. Surely, India's moviegoers can be trusted to decide for themselves what is good for them and what is not."

"The (censor board) verdict undermines the right to freedom of expression that the Constitution of India guarantees for every citizen, every filmmaker, and every artist," the daily said. "Final Solution is, of course, a difficult film to stomach, especially for those accustomed to pat, smug, pre-digested storylines."

"Final Solution" will open in more than 35 cinemas across Germany in September, but Indian audiences will not be able to watch it -- at least for now.



------------
Movie on Guj riots 'Final Solution' gets censor nod
Thursday, October 7 2004

New Delhi: Documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma's 'Final Solution', an internationally-acclaimed film on the Gujarat riots in 2002, finally got the Censor Board clearance, the Board's chairman Anupam Kher said today (Oct 7, 2004).

The movie, which uses interviews and archive footage to recount the violence in Gujarat following the Godhra train carnage, was mired in controversy after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) initially denied it clearance.

"The film had been rejected by the examining committee of the CBFC. However, the revising committee of the board took up the matter and gave clearance to it," Kher said from Mumbai.

The CBFC chief said the movie, which won two awards at the Berlin film Festival earlier this year, was awarded a U/A certificate (under parental guidance). Asked about the contents of the movie, he said, "It is a testament of truth and shows what happened in the past."

Kher was part of the 11-member revising committee of the CBFC, which reviewed the movie. The committee also included renowned filmmakers Shyam Benegal and Ashok Pandit whose debut feature film "Sheen" portraying the predicament of Kashmiri Pandits was released recently.

Kher denied there were any political reasons behind the denial of approval to 'Final Solution' when the director had approached the board for the first time in April.

"Government has nothing to do with this whole affair," he said, rejecting accusations that CBFC members appointed by the erstwhile BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party)-led NDA (National Democratic Alliance) members were behind the rejection.

It is anarchists who are the biggest threat of violence, as every single anarchist big event like the J18 day of anti-capitalist action in the City and the Mayday events have ended in mass violence and rioting. Anarchism has hidden agenda which is the violent overthrow of parliamentary democracy and its replacement with a Khmer Rouge style anti-capitalist society. Anarchists want to destroy everything about modern society.

for wilful disinformationist of the year.

Hurrah!!!!

Brilliant! "Anarchist are the biggest threat of violence". Lets see, J18, N30, Mayday etc.. big bad rioting fundimentalist anarchist militants kill thousands of capitalists going about their peaceful business in the city.. yes I remember it well.

Hang on, wasn't it the cops that ran two people over on J18? Wasn't it just a few banks and McDonald's that got smashed up during these 'anarchist' riots?

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that putting a brick through a window is a bigger threat of violence then the mass murder and rape of thousands of people?

Pacifist, you are a prat!

This account from a survivor of the Gujarat massacre describes real violence...

"They had swords, pipes, soda-lemon bottles, sharp weapons, petrol, kerosene, and gas cylinders. They began shouting, "Maro, kato," ["Kill them, cut them"] and "Mian ko maro." ["Kill the Muslims"]. I hid on the third floor.

When they entered the hall we had lost our spirit, we had no weapons, we couldn't fight back. Other people also came there for safety. When the gas cylinder exploded I jumped from the third floor. This was around 1:30 p.m.

At 3:30 p.m. they started cutting people up, and by 4:30 p.m. it was game over. Ehsan Jaffrey was also killed. He was holding the door closed. Then the door broke down. They pulled him out and hit him with a sword across the forehead, then across the stomach, then on his legs.... They then took him on the road, poured kerosene on him and burned him.

Eighteen people from my family died. All the women died. My brother, my three sons, one girl, my wife's mother, they all died. My boys were aged ten, eight, and six. My girl was twelve years old. The bodies were piled up. I recognized them from parts of their clothes used for identification. They first cut them and then burned them. Other girls were raped, cut, and burned. First they took their jewelry, I was watching from upstairs. I saw it with my own eyes. If I had come outside, I would also have been killed. Four or five girls were treated this way. Two married women also were raped and cut. Some on the hand, some on the neck. "

You want to compare anarchist 'riots' with this? You need to get out more.

...shammanic' trip that is the BJP.

...a false trip riding on race hate. Thank God the people in India voted this nasty spikey trip out of office!

Om Shiva

..I think most people these days accept and understand that anrchy means a state of free consciousness (not agitation) rather than the masked man with the fused ball like bomba. Obviously there a practical lifestyle/action element to this cosncsiousness...but this doesn't mean violent attacks! The opposite! People are using the word to describe different things. Maybe 'free floating anarchists' should forget the word, and leave it to describe the drongo's (hey there a better word!) that enter in fights with the police using petrol bombs and things in totally manic and doomed way...you know 'the london mob sir'.

Peace!

A few years back, right wing Hindu groups in Britain agreed to join the BNP in their attacks on Muslims. I don't have the source material at hand now, but it was well documented at the time. The radical right can always find time to discriminate against new groups.

1. Fact:- The last major riot in London was between fox hunting toffs and the metropolitian police outside the House of Commons, or were they really all anarchists in disguise?

2. Fact:- The most violent recent riot in terms of police-casualty rate was two years ago a few days after Mayday. On the Mayday 1000's of Anarchists managed to slightly injure 3 police officers, two days later Millwall hospitalised 48 of them, or are Millwall all anarchists in disguise?

3. Fact:- There are no known examples of a petrol bomb being thrown, at any demo in London, by anybody, in the last 5 years, including by these mysterious masked anarchists as claimed by King Ambo?

4. Fact:- NEVER TRUST A HIPPY OR A PACIFIST

5. How long do we have to put up with spooks and nutters posting dis-information and state propoganda - I might as well buy the Sun or the Guardian. Ed can you please cut out these insane posts by shit stirrers in future?

Why the sweeping judgement of pacifists that seems to be endemic among many in the anarchist movement? So we don't like violence? Brilliant, we could do with a lot less violence in this world! Just because we don't wish to be invloved with violent protests, and just because a few of us are extremely critical of violent protests, why does everyone have to lay into us?

Everyone is free to do their own thing, and say their own thing, and IMO we could all do with LESS violence in the world.

the pacifists that helped the police to arrest black bloc anarchos at Genoa? Funny how you might not trust such a pious ideology after that, innit?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for starting fights, but some pacifists need a reality check.

I once heard a traitor defined as "someone who doesn't know who the enemy is". Not someone evil, but someone that thinks they have more to fear from their allies than from their enemies. Some pacifists need to think about who they condemn.