The politics surrounding the violent upheaval in Haryana and Punjab following the conviction of the chief of the Dera Sachcha Sauda sect Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh for rape brings forth some key issues that lie at the heart of Indian democracy. On the one hand are those who were baying for Ram Rahim’s conviction, insisted that the rule of law must be maintained and violence mobs contained, and then, when that did not happen, squarely blamed the Haryana government and, specifically, Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar for the failure to stop the marauding mobs.
On the other are those — primarily the representatives of the BJP, including Sakshi Maharaj — who continued to stand by the convicted Ram Rahim “because crores of people have faith in him and only two women had complained that he had raped them”. Similarly, Haryana minister Manish Grover said that “anger is natural on the part of Ram Rahim’s followers as they continue to be devoted to him”.
The media, on its part, has been crying hoarse against the BJP for both taking Ram Rahim’s support for electoral gains and for deliberately allowing his followers to congregate and unleash violence following his conviction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, too, was of the view that the Haryana government let Panchkula burn for “political gains”. Amidst all this, we have tweets from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Ram Nath Kovind and Vice President Venkaiah Naidu appealing for peace, without going into who was responsible for it all. The BJP has made it clear that it’s not going to dismiss Khattar as it believes that he did the best he could in the situation.
The issue gets complicated if one were to consider the fact that the majority of Ram Rahim’s followers are Dalits, while those in the media, the judiciary and others calling out for strict action against the violent mob belong to the upper castes and class. There seems to be a vertical divide between those supporting and those opposing Ram Rahim along caste and class lines. This divide raises a few serious issues. What do we do with the continued, unabated faith in the magical powers of Ram Rahim and the fact that there is still a large section of marginalised people that believes that he has done no wrong?
Yet another issue that needs to be put on table is whether or not the caste following of Ram Rahim mattered in the way the media, and also perhaps the judiciary, went about dealing with the case, including ordering seizure of the Dera’s property to pay for the costs of the damage caused by its followers? Is there a hidden or an assumed bias against a section of society, notwithstanding the crime committed by Ram Rahim?
Would it not be true to state that other godmen have not been dealt with in a similar manner — for instance, Sri Sri Ravishankar when he encroached the banks of Yamuna river? Or previously, the Puttaparthi Sai Baba in Andhra Pradesh, who had cases of murder lodged against him but no action was taken?
Politically, not long ago, the Jats were responsible for far worse mayhem in Haryana, when they came out demanding OBC status for the community. The violent mobs then had raped many women travelling on the highway. But neither were those cases investigated, nor were there any convictions. The media, although it did raise the issue, did not pursue it to its logical conclusion. Since not many cases of corruption or violation of law, like that of Salman Khan in the hit-and-run case, reach their logical conclusion, would there be no truth in believing that in the Dera violence case, the proactive role of the media and the judiciary had something to do with the caste factor?
It is a different matter that it is the same BJP government that allowed the Jats to go scot free then, and has now allowed the Dalit followers of Ram Rahim to run riot. Street violence has been a consistent mode of political mobilisation by the BJP since the days of the Rath Yatra in the 1990s to the Gujarat riots of 2002. Now, in Haryana, the BJP allowed the situation to go out of control partly to placate the Dalit constituency.
Would it not be legitimate for the BJP, even as we critique the street violence and loss of lives, to represent the faith, devotion and concerns of the followers as a party involved in popular mobilisation? Does not democracy compel them to carry and represent the voices of those who still refuse to believe that Ram Rahim has committed no wrong? Would a mass political party be wrong in representing their concerns, excluding the violence that was allowed to occur?
Rendered voiceless
Finally, in all of this, the missing question has been that of the women who filed the cases, who must have taken tremendous personal risk to come out and fight it out over more than 10 years. Who would be speaking on behalf of these women? Neither the BJP nor the Dalit followers who have reposed their faith in Ram Rahim intend to pause to ask, who are these women who were assaulted, what might their caste and class be.
In competing representations, the victims seem to have become voiceless. Those two women must be again faced with the same mortal fear that they did all these years. Why has the issue of gender violence taken a backseat in all of this? Why are we not debating as to how and why women fall prey to Ram Rahims?
Electoral and popular politics come with sectarian mobilisation, and in a highly stigmatised and hierarchical society like India, this sectarianism turns into violent indifference towards those that we imagine do not belong to our immediate identity. Political parties like the BJP continue to mobilise and stoke this violent indifference that has struck all sections of society. Without raising this central issue, there is little point in being selective in our critique and moral posturing.
(The writer is with the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)