How we should respond to Delhi riots as citizens

It’s imperative to talk of constitutional values at every available forum; demand peace guarantees from leaders and accountability from institutions; and incentivise the constitutional path with voting choices if things have to change

The first official display of any intent to restore calm and normalcy in Delhi took three days. In that period, the national capital saw violent mobs riot and maim with impunity, unmindful of police and media presence.

That other parts of the country and indeed the national capital itself have seen such mayhem before does not and should not make the visuals Delhi recently offered any less disturbing. Viewing the evil that unspooled as one of those unfortunate things that happen in life only speaks of a brutalised society, of corroded ethical cores. Such desensitisation needs reversal before it inures us to worse.

Hopefully, the belated slew of political appeals and the judicial nudge to the Delhi Police will put a lid on the violence and permit resumption of daily life. The relief, if it materialises, will be welcome but won’t achieve closure. Closure, even a semblance of it, will be tougher. Grief, betrayal, and mistrust are not easily overcome. The lasting scars they inflict and embitterments they feed – among both perpetrators and victims of violence – can make for increasingly flammable new normals.

As many wonder how responsible citizens should respond in these testing times and the still testier times they augur, it is useful to reflect on who our allies could be going forward.

A fundamental question would be whether our politicians and organs of state, the leaders and institutions we have empowered to carry out the business of governance on our behalf, have the will, incentive, and space to defuse spiralling, politically-charged situations. It is in responses to such situations, and not in the observance of administrative routines, that respect or lack thereof for the nation, its people, and its Constitution are manifested and true colours are revealed.

An outbreak of violence was certainly not unforeseeable given what Delhi had seen in the last couple of months. False narratives about the seditious character and violent intent of the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests had been peddled. Incendiary calls were made for punishing the protesters. The lack of political counter-mobilisation and insufficient signalling from the courts and the police sent a message, whether accurate or not only time will tell, that riotous conduct would not invite any serious penalty. If this concoction of dog-whistling and negligence smells of déjà vu, it only means that the lessons from Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, and other dark chapters of our history remain callously ignored.

Analysing how those charged with protecting citizen’s lives and rights conducted themselves in Delhi 2020 presents a predictably disappointing picture. Clearly, there was little incentive for several key stakeholders to nip the problem in the bud. Suggesting that it all owes to an unanticipated turn of events, gaps in risk assessment, or intelligence failure does not explain things. Not fully at least, given how bold the prognosis on the wall was.

Political calculi were at play. Political parties would have acted with greater alacrity and sagacity if they felt escalation would damage their interests. What they saw instead was an opportunity to cater to Hindutva sentiment. Either by allowing it to flex muscle and vent itself in the backdrop of resolute anti-CAA protests and a humiliating electoral loss, or by waffling designed to humour it before an election and embarrassing a rival outfit responsible for Delhi’s law and order after it.

As for the police and courts, it is worth imagining how the situation could have been avoided had they had taken cognisance of the brewing toxicity earlier. Structural issues, biases, and patronage politics -- issues several high-level committees and enquiry reports of the past have highlighted -- appear to have stymied the police and courts once again.

Not everyone has disappointed though. A surprise personally has been the SOSs to media-persons from individuals under threat. It suggests that trust in the media is not entirely frayed, that sections of the media are still trusted to amplify the voice of the vulnerable despite the rich contributions of several star anchors and columnists to poisoning the well.

Most heartwarming have been tales of Hindus who have sheltered Muslim neighbours, Muslims who have stood up for Hindu neighbours, Sikhs who have opened their doors and places of worship for victims, and ordinary people who have ventured forth on burning streets to keep vigils, extend medical help and create safe movement passages.

These are individuals who have risen above religious identities and risked personal well-being to express their solidarity as human beings and citizens. In the process, they have emerged inspiring batters for peace and conveyed that hate isn’t seeded in every Indian heart. It is a comforting thought but not one that should lull us.

The strongest allies peace-loving citizens have are other peace-loving citizens, a section of the media, and heroic individuals in the police and judiciary. Sustaining and nourishing this collective goodness for the struggles ahead will require more allies.

The most influential of them, the politicians and public institutions, alas, aren’t willing to commit to the good fight against bigotry and lawlessness, and it is in using the citizen’s collective leverage to persuade them to sign-up that the best chances of dispelling the growing darkness around lies.

So, we need to talk of peace, amity, and constitutional values more often and at every available forum, demand peace guarantees from our leaders and accountability from our institutions, and incentivise the constitutional path with our voting choices. The in-currency narrative has signalled to our leaders and institutions that the nation is comfortable with rabid rhetoric, forgiving of violence, and incapable of rising above communal identity. It is time to change that.

(Manish Dubey is a policy analyst and writer)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.