By Talyeen Singh
A more serious illustration of the same worrying. phenomenon was the murder of Congress (1) rioting in Vijaywada and the Telugu Desam home minister resigned over the issue. But when Ranga Rao’s murder was examined more closely it was found to have occurred as a direct result of enmity between his gang and that of a Telugu Deasm MLA, Devinini Rajasekhar Nehru, whose brother’s murder Ranga Rao was charged with.
In view of this, regrettable though Ranga Rao’s murder was, it was hardly necessary for the Prime Minister to describe him as a Congress (I) hero. Said Gandhi: “He (Ranga Rao) was deeply dedicated to the values and ideals of the Congress Party …. Shri Ranga Rao’s sacrifices and commitment to freedom and human dignity will inspire all those who cherish his ideals. In his death, we have lost a dynamic and dedicated colleague.”
In Uttar Pradesh this kind of Congress (I) patronage of known criminals has caused trouble within the party itself and several MLAs have begun to worry seriously about whether they will be able to survive at all in politics if the trend continues, One MLA who wished to remain anonymous, said that in his own constituency he found himself up against Congress (1) supported criminals and mafia leaders who were pushed into positions of importance and could often be found seated ‘on the dais when senior party leaders addressed public meetings.
India’s sharp rural urban divide does not help either, since most of our political analysts and policy makers come from urban, middle class India whereas most of those caught up in the circle of violence and counter violence come from rural underprivileged India. The basic problem is that middle class India has long believed largely on account of Gandhiji, that Indians (or at least Hindus) are an inherently nonviolent people who react violently only when pushed against a wall. In rural India, however, no such myths exist and violence, particularly that of the caste variety is very much an accepted part of life. Except that traditionally in rural India violence has been viewed as a one way thing with the dominant upper castes being the perpetrators and the Harijans (scheduled castes and scheduled tribes) being the victims. The minute there are signs, in any state, that this equation is beginning to change, panic sets in and the violence instantly takes on a new and more menacing form since it appears to threaten the established order.
The best example of this is the Jehanabad district of Bihar where virtually every caste now has its own private army to protect its interests. The upper castes naturally also have the police on their side and the result has been a series of brutal massacres in which the victims have inevitably been Harijans.
Jehanabad is a good example to begin with when discussing violence in Indian politics because it illustrates perfectly how even the simplest demands for basic human rights can be interpreted by the establishment as threatening the security of the state, Violence which has now become endemic in this area began approximately ten years ago with a demand by landless, agricultural Labour that they be given minimum wages. This may sound like a fair enough demand except when seen in the context of rural Bihar where the upper castes tend’ to think of landless peasants as being under control only when they are bonded Labour. So the early, demands were met with firm, violent reprisals by landlords, which led inevitably to a more revolutionary approach on the part of the landless,
In stepped Naxalite and other extreme left wing groups and the upper castes responded by forming themselves into private armies to defend themselves. Last year after a couple of particularly brutal massacres of Harijans when the centre was forced to sit up and take Notice it responded by increasing the number of CRPF personnel in the area but to date nothing has been done to alleviate the social inequalities in the region which have created the problems in the first place.
The centre has also in several statements made it clear that it believes that the violence is the result of Naxalite activity in the area but has been unable to explain why, if that happens to be the case, it is generally only the lower castes who get killed since the Naxalites are on their side.
Whether mainstream politicians belong to the Congress (I) or the opposition, when it comes to violence most are on the side of upper caste violence. In Andhra Pradesh for instance, NTR’s sudden desire to aim “villagers” to defend themselves against Naxalities Comes from the fact that his daughter’s father in law, DChenchuramaiah a powerful landlord of the Katamchedu area was murdered allegedly by Naxalities. But listen to what led to the murder.
According to a report in the Indian Express on May 4, “Karamchedu has hardly been free from tension in the last few years. In 1985 six poor Harijans were done to death after a quarrel at a water tank, Local Kamma landlords were implicated in the murder.
The entire scheduled caste population left Karamched in panic and settled in the newly constructed colony neat Chirala.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 14, 1989
