Mode of Production and Reproduction of Anti-Muslim Violence in India | Arup Kumar Sen

Violence against the Muslim community in diverse forms has become an organic part of statecraft in BJP-ruled India. The genealogy of such violence is a long one. A classic case is the Bhagalpur riots in Bihar in 1989. Very recently, Tanweer Fazal has narrated and analyzed the mode of production and reproduction of this anti-Muslim violence in his book, Practices of the State: Muslims, Law and Violence in India. (Three Essays Collective, 2024)
While narrating the roots of such violence, Fazal stated: “On 24th October 1989, as part of its all India drive to build the Ram temple at Ayodhya, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad-organised Ramshila…procession made its way through the villages of Bhagalpur before converging in the town…It insisted on passing through Muslim-dominated Tatarpur, a route not sanctioned by the authorities.” Macabre incidents of violence took place centred around this event. On December 8, 1989, a state government notification appointed Justice R N Prasad, retired judge of the Patna High Court, as head of a single member Commission of Inquiry to probe the incidents between October 22 and the date of notification. Significant developments took place in the wake of it. Fazal informed, “Though the Commission was bound to submit its report within three months, it sought multiple extensions, which were readily granted. However, in October 1991, the change of the government in the state prompted its reconstitution…”.

What were the findings of the Inquiry Commission? – “In the course of its inquiry, the Commission…estimated that nearly 900 Muslims and about a 100 Hindus had been killed during the riots.” What is noteworthy is that the “dissenting report of Chairman Prasad” differed significantly from the “majority report authored by the members.” Fazal narrated the findings of both the reports submitted by the Commission in 1995. To put it in the words of Fazal: “Chairman Prasad’s report seemed inclined towards absolving the processionists and apportioning culpability solely on the Muslims. The procession, in his conclusion, was utterly peaceful and primarily religious in nature…The Chairman was effusive in his praise for the District Magistrate (DM) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) for ensuring that the curfew was clamped down as soon as the violence broke out in Tatarpur.” On the other hand – “The majority report authored by the members took an outrightly contrary view on the subject. While agreeing that the procession comprised primarily the devotees, it did not rule out the eventuality of a section of them being armed and raising exceptionally provocative slogans. As a result, it soon lost its purely religious character…The members were convinced that the processionists had targeted Muslim shops and establishments, and, also indulged in killing of Muslims at Parbatti, while a section of them entered into a conflagration at Tatarpur…The majority report of the members was unsparing and stringent in its criticism of the administrative machinery in Bhagalpur. Senior officers as well as those on ground were admonished for their callousness, ineptness as well as for their collusion with the perpetrators of violence.”

What happened in the wake of publication of the Inquiry Commission report is more dramatic. Again, to quote at length Tanweer Fazal: “The dissenting report of Chairman Prasad did not amuse the government, and the members’ report, on account of representing the majority view of the Commission, came to be tabled in the Bihar Assembly. The government of the day led by Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav promised on the floor of the house that his government would spare none, not a single person whom the Commission found guilty. Eleven months later, the civil liberties group PUDR expressed its discontentment that the government had failed to present memorandum of action taken on the recommendations of the Commission. More than 15 years after the submission of the Report and nearly 20 years since the massacre was enacted, the Bihar government continues to refuse to share any information regarding action taken. In 2006, as the government in the state changed hands, the new dispensation led by Nitish Kumar instituted a new Commission of Inquiry on the Bhagalpur riots…The Commission was palpably set up in the context of widespread belief that the previous regime had shielded some of the chief accused in the riots. For instance, Kameshwar Yadav, a local thug and activist of the VHP, witnessed to have led mobs and executed killings, was able to evade punitive action allegedly on account of his proximity to Lalu Yadav, the former Chief Minister. Again, the N N Singh Commission sought innumerable extensions to finally submit its report in 2015, almost 10 years after its institution…Three years down the line, no action had been taken against the erring officers. Instead, K S Dwivedi, the then S P indicted by the Inquiry Commission, was recommended by the state government for a police medal and later appointed the head of the state’s police force.”

The above narrative of Bhagalpur riots in Bihar enlightens us about how anti-Muslim violence is produced through mobilizations as well as ratified/legitimized through state action/inaction in India.