Religious Violence in India

In the first few months of 2002, modern India saw its worst religious rioting since partition: the western state of Gujarat saw clashes between Hindus and Muslims. Estimates place the number of dead anywhere between one and two thousand, with the majority being Muslims. Over ten thousand people were affected by the violence that ensued as retaliation for the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims in the town of Godhra. The violence continued for several months and allegations about who was responsible flew around as the death toll mounted. The state government, led by Narendra Modi of the BJP, a political organisation backed by the conservative right-wing Hindu RSS, was widely held responsible for the atrocities committed all over the state. The state was blamed for failing to curb the violence and in fact there were several instances when state machinery was seen as being directly used to spur the rampaging mobs all across the state. Only recently were several people, both Hindus and Muslims, convicted for their actions in 2002. Modi and the BJP continued to stay in power.
Fast-forward to December 2007: state-wide elections were held in Gujarat and many saw this as the end of the rule of Modi, dubbed “the merchant of death” by many. Contrary to all expectations, Modi won convincingly, hailed as the new face of Indian politics, and seen by many as a future prime minister for the country. Modi has always been a controversial figure and has used communal divisions as the primary mode for bagging votes throughout. One cannot deny that Gujarat has done well under his regime – the economic growth rate for Gujarat has been estimated at around ten percent, well over the national average – but at one cost? If the government that lets rioting continue for over three months is allowed to stay in power for ten years after the riots, how can a nation continue to call itself secular or democratic?
Religious fundamentalism of the worst kind has become a grave issue for people all around the world. One can see the wrongdoings of people who use religion as the basis for furthering their cause without caring about the consequences, but often the principles of religion are blamed instead of the people behind such issues. Instead of focusing on how people are using religion in such a way it probably makes more sense to focus on the people who spur others to embrace such extremist views. The responsibility for this does not lie with any one group of people – unless a majority of people responds to such acts in order to force the government to take the required steps it is hard to see changes in the near future. Hiding behind prejudice and bigotry to launch attacks on a faith can only aggravate the problem and allow individuals to continue using religion for violence. We need to take a few steps back and look at the problems within a broader perspective, take a look at history and the way in which religion has created conflicts all around the world, try to realise that most of them were steeped in irrational prejudice and refrain from judging the common person on the basis of his or her faith. And until we can do that, it seems unlikely that world will see a change in the recent trend of growing religious fanaticism.