‘Nothing Provocative About Jai Shri Ram’: Adityanath Shifts Blame in Sambhal, Bahraich Violence

New Delhi: Denials, diversionary tactics and divisiveness – these three themes come to mind if we disassemble Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath’s response in the state assembly on the Opposition’s charge against him regarding the recent violence in Bahraich and Sambhal districts.

The Opposition demanded that the government discuss the two communally-linked incidents, in which half-a dozen persons were killed, cumulatively. However, instead of acknowledging the state’s responsibility in the failure of law and order, Adityanath took on a combative stance with the intent of consolidating his party’s Hindutva agenda.

A communal flare-up during a procession for Durga idol immersion and the subsequent rioting and arson against Muslims in Bahraich in October caused a massive dent to Adityanath’s tall claims of a “danga-mukt (riot-free)” state.

The Sambhal incident last month, in which five Muslims (official records say four) were killed during clashes with police during a controversial survey of a Mughal-era mosque, further crushed the credibility of the Adityanath administration and raised questions about its high-handedness.

Iqbal Mehmood, Samajwadi Party (SP) MLA from Sambhal, brought up the issue of provocative ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans raised by the entourage of Hindutva activists accompanying the lawyers who represented the Hindu plaintiffs on whose application a second survey was being carried out at the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 24.

“They raise slogans to instigate us. but we don’t get instigated,” he told the House.

Mehmood, a senior Muslim leader from western UP, said that Muslims were targeted in Sambhal from all corners. First, their mosque was under threat. Then, they were killed in police action, and now they were facing arbitrary arrests and harassment from police, he said.

Mata Prasad Pandey, the leader of opposition in UP assembly, cornered the Adityanath government on both incidents.

Was the Bahraich communal violence a “result of a conspiracy by the police and the administration or their apathy,” he asked, demanding fair investigation.

Pandey also questioned why a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid was allowed to be carried out when The Places of Worship Act, 1991, barred the alteration of the religious character of any place of worship. 

“What’s the point of a survey when a masjid can’t become a mandir and a mandir, a masjid? The survey was intended to hurt religious sentiments and spoil our harmony,” he said.

Opposition party leaders questioned the role of the administration in the two incidents, while also asking why they were not allowed to visit the affected areas.

‘No riots since 2017’

Adityanath’s response to the incidents was an exercise in omissions and diversions. Rather than acknowledging the communally-targeted violence that took place in Bahraich, for instance, Adityanath stuck to his guns and maintained his earlier position that no communal riot had taken place in UP ever since he took over as the head of state.

In the same breath, quoting National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, he said that there had been a 97-99% drop in communal riots in Uttar Pradesh since 2017. On the other hand, he said 815 riots had taken place under SP rule from 2012 to 2017 and 192 persons were killed.

“What you actually refer to as riots, they haven’t taken place in UP since 2017,” he said.

Adityanath also went to lengths to justify the provocation that led to the violence in Bahraich.

Before he was killed, Ram Gopal Mishra, a Hindu youth, was seen atop a Muslim house, where he uprooted a railing while removing a green-coloured Islamic flag, and waved a saffron flag in the name of Hindu god Ram. Loud cheers of “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrang Bali” came from his associates gathered below.

‘What’s wrong with saffron flag?’

Adityanath found nothing objectionable about the saffron flag.

“Can we not hoist a saffron flag on Indian soil,” he asked. He also blamed Muslims for not allowing Hindu yatras to pass through their localities peacefully.

“If a Muslim procession can be taken through a Hindu locality and in front of a Hindu temple, why can a Hindu shobha yatra not be taken out in a Muslim locality and in front of a mosque? Where is it written in the constitution that a Hindu shobha yatra cannot be taken out in a Muslim majority area? And when you stop [the Hindu procession], there is a reaction from the Hindu side who insist that they will also not allow [Muslims to take out their procession]. Why won’t they allow the procession outside a mosque? Does someone own the road or what,” asked Adityanath.

The chief minister also claimed that be it Muharram or any other Muslim festival, the processions pass through Hindu localities safely.

“There is no problem. It even passes in front of a temple and there is no problem. Why does this problem only arise when a Hindu shobha yatra passes through a Muslim dominated area or in front of a masjid? Why does this tension get created then,” he asked.

Adityanath referred to the killing of “innocent” Mishra and stressed that there was no riot outside the mosque as the bullet that hit him was fired from inside a house. However, he made no mention of the large-scale vandalism and arson that Muslims were subjected to for two days after Mishra’s death.

After Mishra died of a gunshot injury, targeted attacks took place on Muslims and their property in the area. Rioting mobs unleashed a wave of violence against Muslims and torched and vandalised their homes, shops, bikes, tractors and cars. They also looted mundane household possessions such as gas cylinders, food grains and goats, in both rural and urban pockets of at least two police station areas of Bahraich.

Adityanath’s own police force recorded this in more than a dozen FIRs.

‘Jai Shri Ram not provocative’

Adityanath also strongly defended the Jai Shri Ram slogan, which was raised in both incidents, Bahraich and Sambhal, and was found to be provocative by the Muslim community.

“Jai Shri Ram slogan is not provocative. It is a slogan of our reverence. It is a symbol of our faith,” said Adityanath.

Targeting Mehmood, he further said, “In West UP, everyone says ‘Ram Ram’ to greet each other.  Maybe even your ancestors in daily address. How is Jai Shri Ram a communal address? If someone says Jai Shri Ram and you get provoked, then you must understand the intentions [of those getting provoked].”

Past violences and claims of a temple

Adityanath attempted to shift attention from the two incidents by referring to the past riots in Sambhal and other districts in the state, going as far back as 1947.

“Since 1947, 209 Hindus have been brutally murdered there but nobody said a word for those Hindus or expressed sympathy towards their families. These people talk about cordiality. Don’t they have any shame, they talk about cordiality,” Adityanath said in response to the Opposition’s concerns over the threat to communal harmony caused by the violence.

In 1978, he claimed, 184 Hindus were killed in Sambhal and that many of them were burned alive.

Local Hindus in Sambhal have debunked the administration’s theory that an old temple was lying dormant in a Muslim locality for the past few years due to communal stress.

However, Adityanath brought it up. He claimed that the temple had been forced shut after the communal violence in 1978.

Local Hindus in Sambhal have told media that they were under no pressure or coercion of the Muslims and could simply not maintain the temple because they no longer lived in the locality.

In fact, even Adityanath acknowledged in the House that Muslims had protected the temple all these years even as no Hindu lived in the locality.

SP leader Pandey tried to settle the matter by stating that contrary to the narrative peddled by the administration with help of the media, no new temple was ‘discovered’. 

“The temple was already there. They just got it reopened and installed a pujari. What new temple? They are making such noise claiming that they have discovered a new temple. The temple was always there, what have they found,” asked Pandey.

More communal references

Adityanath also made communal and divisive references to Muslim voters as well as Muslim MLAs. Referring to the recent Kundarki by-poll, where the BJP has manufactured a narrative that a division of Muslim voters on the basis of caste led to their win, Adityanath said the victory was a “win of sanatan and a real victory for India.”

Through this, he pushed the narrative that Indian Muslims had converted to Islam from Hinduism and were now realising their “roots”. Kundarki is in Moradabad, adjoining Sambhal.

Adityanath also propped up the ‘Turk versus Pathan’ propaganda to pit Muslims against Muslims.

“People have started to remember their roots. They are screaming and saying that they want to rid their ancestry from these foreigners. The day Iqbal Mehmood remembers his roots, he will also speak what members on this side (ruling side) are saying,” said Adityanath.

As reported earlier by The Wire, to divert attention from its lapses in Sambhal, the Adityanath government tried to pitch the violence of November 24 as a fight for political relevance between the local Pathans and Turk Muslims. Mehmood is a Pathan while the Sambhal MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, who is under the fire of the administration, is a Turk.

Adityanath repeated this theory in the House, even though it has no evidence on ground and appears to be a diversionary tactic. 

“The Pathan and Sheikh there say, ‘Our ancestors were Hindu.’ Is that not true? This is a clash between desi and videshi (native and foreign) Muslims, which is a part of their fight for dominance,” said Adityanath.

Directing his attack at Mehmood, Adityanath asked him to choose among Ram, Krishna and Buddha, or the “invaders” as his ideal.

“In India, only the tradition of Ram, Krishna and Buddha will work. The tradition of Babur and Aurangzeb will not be accepted,” said Adityanath.

Although he did not make any direct comments on the Sambhal mosque and its survey, he referred to Baburnama many times in his speech to stress that “Mir Baqi has destroyed the Hari Har temple.” 

When Pandey questioned the government what purpose the survey of the mosque served when it could not be altered into a temple, Adityanath pressed his point that a temple had been demolished to build a mosque.

“Even Baburnama says Hari Har mandir was demolished and a dancha (structure) was erected in its place.  Our puranas also say that Bhagwan Shri Hari Vishnu’s 10th avatar would be in Sambhal,” said Adityanath.

Courtesy: The Wire

Note: This news is originally published on  thewire.in and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially for human rights.