CAA Riots: Failed Direct Action 2.0: Due to Krishna Niti that was not practised during Direct Action 1.0
Direct Action Day on 16th August 1946, 17 Ramzan 1365 Hijri, was a seminal event in the history of the Indian sub-continent. Till that point, Pakistan was a remote possibility, in spite of the resurgence of Muslim League in the 1945–46 Provincial Elections. The Direct Action Day riots so unnerved the Congress leadership, in the hands of the idealistic Jawaharlal Nehru at that time, that it conceded Pakistan to Jinnah as if under duress. The British were always comfortable with the idea of partition anyway. Had the Congress leadership acted resolutely and faced up to the bully that was Muslim League, the denouement may have been different. A civil war may have ensued, but my hunch is that a civil war would probably have killed far less people than the so called ‘peaceful transfer of power’ eventually did. A civil war would probably have finished the Islamic swagger forever, but it did not come to pass.
What would a Krishna done in the situation? In my book ‘Krishna Yogeshvara’, I have discussed a similar situation that faced Krishna when Kauravas had become totally intransigent and Yudhishthira baulked at the thought of war. Yet, the war looked inevitable. Krishna then said that he wanted to try his hands at reconciliation one more time. The narration goes like this:
“In Upaplavya, Krishna suggested that he wanted to have one more attempt at reconciliation. When Draupadi learnt of this, she went on a hunger strike. Krishna went to assuage her.
Draupadi threw a fit, ‘Do you remember, Keshava, what you had promised me at the time of my humiliation at the hands of Dushasana?’
Krishna kept smiling, ‘Of course, I do. How can you even think that I would forget my promise to you?’
‘And yet you are going to Hastinapura as an envoy to talk peace with those brutes. Have they repented even once on the excesses that they have committed against us? Yet, you have given your army to them, strengthened them and discounted all the possibility of an easy victory. I do not understand your ways, Achyuta. Are you a friend, or a foe?’
Krishna patted Draupadi softly on her head. ‘I solemnly swear on your head, Krishnā, that I will avenge your humiliation. Yet, it has to be avenged in a way that it sets an example. As far as possible, our processes should be commensurate with the nobility of the objectives they set to achieve. Objectives, however, are greater than the process. I will do right by you but let me at least make an attempt to try a great process to achieve a great objective. The objective will always be uppermost in my vision. Be absolutely sure and be absolutely assured.’”
Our leaders, by contrast, kept harping on the purity of process, even to the complete obfuscation of objectives. Ahimsa of the Gandhian kind became more important than a clear vision for an independent country. Dr. BR Ambedkar understood the nature of Islamic politics better than everyone else. He is on record in his seminal book, ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India’ that ‘Muslim politics is gangsters’ politics…….acrimony, accusations, complaints, demands, denunciations and street rioting’. This is followed by playing victim. It is a practised routine. Yet, Congress always sought to dissemble, appease, bend, and surrender. This had become their hallmark right from the days of Khilafat movement.
In Direct Action 1.0, only Muslim League had a clear vision. It had a clear Islamic doctrine that was put out as the ‘two-nation theory’, in terms of the Islamic Ummat being one trans-border nation, and non-Muslims being the 2nd nation. Jinnah articulated it in the terms ‘you will have either a divided India or a destroyed India’. Congress leadership, had no clear vision except getting the British out. They were not prepared to stake their all for a strong India. The result was, therefore, a foregone conclusion. We finally got an India that was both divided and destroyed. The destruction did not remain limited to the immediate aftermath of the partition, but has stretched right into today with a hazy idea of nationhood that kept wallowing in self-loathing and appeasement of the same intransigent forces that had caused the partition.
Let us now examine the post-Citizenship Amendment Act rioting. It was clearly done with an intent to overawe the national leadership, under Narendra Modi. The cause was clear. The BJP leadership was intent on pursuing the cultural agenda for which it had received a massive mandate. The opposition was used to a perpetual subversion of the Indic values that had sustained a status quo for over 70 years. Narendra Modi had a clear vision of a strong and unified India proud of its ancient culture and history. The opposition was stuck in the namby-pamby world of a local variant of secularism that had got distorted into anti-Hinduism at most times, and positive Hindu bashing quite often. It sustained a mutant of the Muslim League’s two-nation theory in Article 370 for 70 years. It halted the population exchange in the name of the Nehru-Liaquat Pact, 1950. It conceded virtual recognition of PoK as Pakistan’s territory with the Indus Waters Treaty. It handed over 93,000 PoWs without anything significant in return. It did not even try the Pakistani generals for war crimes in the then East Pakistan, and it bent over backwards to appease a new country by conceding 1971 as the cut-off date in an Indira-Mujeeb Pact that allowed illegal East Pakistanis to stay back in India. Each of these actions display muddled thinking. It had to culminate in the Assam agitation, and an increasingly strident Indian Muslim population coupled with an increasingly militant Pakistan.
Narendra Modi has displayed remarkable resoluteness in the matters of national security and national interests. So a series of actions, starting with surgical strike 1.0 and Balakot strike that called the Pakistani nuclear bluff, to legislations on Triple Talaq, Art. 370, and resolution of Ram Temple issue destroyed the Muslim veto completely. CAA was only a trigger to unleash a last-ditch attempt in the manner and style of Direct Action 2.0.
This Direct Action had many factors missing. there was Jinnah to lead it. There was no British Indian Government to shield it, and there was no weak kneed leadership that would let matters drift. The riots were carefully orchestrated in BJP ruled States. They were handled in an exemplary fashion. The leadership refused to give in and all the action petered out within a week without even causing any Hindu-Muslim confrontation. It remained Police v. rioters for the most part and some innovative actions like confiscation pf properties on the basis of videography brought it under control in no time. So the most effective Muslim veto, street rioting, was neutralised with steely will power and there is little to fall back upon.
To me, Direct Action 2.0 is likely to be another seminal event in the annals of the Indian nation. The ultimate weapon of what Dr. Ambedkar called gangsters’ politics is street rioting, and it has not just spectacularly failed, but the failure has had a hugely demoralising effect on the street thugs. The future of Muslim politics has come on a crossroads, which leads in many different directions. The future of incendiary politics has also come to a crossroads, from where the Cultural Marxism and Activism routes look perpetually doomed. Failed Direct Action 2.0 has given India a trial by fire from which it has come out more strong willed and ready for a strong future. The very recipè that got Muslims a divided nation may have landed us a united nation — the only difference being the leadership of the two warring sides.
