India, the world’s largest democracy, has long projected itself as a secular republic committed to pluralism and rule of law. Yet, beneath this democratic façade, patterns of communal violence have periodically erupted — violence often marked by a troubling degree of state complicity. Two such tragic episodes — the 2002 Gujarat riots and the ongoing ethnic strife in Manipur — raise grave questions about the role of the state, its institutions, and its ideological commitments. While separated by geography and time, both crises reveal an alarming pattern: the state’s failure, or perhaps refusal, to protect its own citizens, particularly those from minority or marginalized communities.
Gujarat 2002: The Original Blueprint
The 2002 Gujarat riots remain one of the darkest chapters in modern Indian history. Sparked by the burning of a train in Godhra that killed 59 Hindu pilgrims, the incident triggered widespread retaliatory violence against the Muslim community across Gujarat. In the weeks that followed, over 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed. Women were raped, children were burned alive, and entire neighborhoods were reduced to rubble.
Role of the State
What made Gujarat 2002 particularly shocking wasn’t just the scale of the violence but the active role of state machinery in enabling it. Numerous independent inquiries, journalistic investigations, and testimonies pointed to the involvement — or at the very least, the acquiescence — of the state government led by then Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
Senior police officers were accused of inaction. In many cases, the police either looked the other way or actively aided mobs. Phone records later revealed that politicians and rioters were in direct contact during the violence. Eyewitness accounts suggested that relief was deliberately delayed and FIRs were not registered.
The Supreme Court of India, in a rare rebuke, termed the state government as “modern-day Nero who looked the other way while innocent children and women were burning.” Despite national and international condemnation, the political careers of those in power not only survived but thrived, setting a disturbing precedent.
Manipur 2023–2025: Ethnic Conflict Unleashed
Fast forward to Manipur — a northeastern state that, for decades, remained on the periphery of mainstream Indian political discourse. In May 2023, violence broke out between the majority Meitei community and the tribal Kuki-Zo communities. The trigger was a court order proposing Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for Meiteis, which Kukis feared would threaten their land and rights.
What followed was a descent into anarchy: over 200 people killed, more than 60,000 displaced, hundreds of churches and homes destroyed, and entire towns rendered unrecognizable. The internet was shut down for months, making it difficult for information to reach the rest of the country.
State Complicity Revisited
Just like in Gujarat, the role of the state in Manipur has come under intense scrutiny. Reports suggest that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state government, helmed by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, not only failed to stop the violence but actively perpetuated divisions. Security forces were accused of partisanship, with Meitei-dominated forces allegedly providing cover to armed mobs.
Multiple testimonies from survivors and human rights groups indicate that the police and paramilitary forces stood by as Kukis were attacked. Some reports even suggested that arms were selectively distributed among Meitei groups under the guise of "village defense." Meanwhile, Kukis were forced into overcrowded relief camps with little assistance.
The central government, also led by the BJP, remained curiously silent for weeks. Prime Minister Modi did not publicly comment on the violence until much later, and his brief remarks were widely criticized as insufficient. This inaction echoes the same pattern seen in Gujarat two decades earlier.
Media Silence and Complicity
Another striking similarity between Gujarat and Manipur is the role of the media. In 2002, the mainstream media played a dual role — some outlets courageously reported the truth, while others amplified state narratives or remained silent. In Manipur, however, media coverage was disturbingly limited. National channels rarely covered the ethnic cleansing-like conditions unfolding in the northeast.
The absence of media outrage is partly due to the central government's increasing control over newsrooms. Self-censorship, fear of legal retribution, and pressure from state authorities have led to a muted response. In Gujarat, the international media filled the void. In Manipur, even that global attention was scarce — reflecting a deeper indifference towards India’s northeast.
Patterns of Polarization
What connects Gujarat and Manipur is not just administrative failure but ideological motivations rooted in Hindutva, the Hindu nationalist ideology championed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political arm, the BJP. Hindutva’s core philosophy envisions India as a Hindu Rashtra, marginalizing religious and ethnic minorities.
In Gujarat, this translated into a systematic vilification of Muslims as "terrorists" and "anti-national." In Manipur, Kukis were portrayed as "outsiders" or even "illegal immigrants" from Myanmar, despite their Indian citizenship. The aim in both cases appears to be demographic re-engineering: strengthening the political and cultural dominance of one group at the expense of others.
Such ideological positioning helps consolidate the Hindu vote bank while suppressing dissent. The state becomes not an impartial arbiter of justice, but an active participant in communal polarization.
Judicial Delays and Limited Accountability
Despite mountains of evidence, justice has remained elusive in both Gujarat and Manipur. In Gujarat, some convictions did occur after intense legal battles — most notably the case of Bilkis Bano, a gang-rape survivor whose attackers were convicted years later. However, many accused, including politicians, walked free or were never charged.
In Manipur, legal proceedings have been sluggish. While the Supreme Court did intervene and set up a committee to investigate the violence, tangible results are limited. A handful of arrests have been made, but the masterminds and enablers remain untouched. The culture of impunity continues.
Human Cost and Trauma
Both crises have left deep psychological scars. Survivors of Gujarat 2002 still grapple with displacement, social ostracism, and trauma. In Manipur, the situation is even more dire. Families remain separated, women have faced sexual violence, and children have grown up in relief camps. Trust between communities is shattered.
Yet, rather than healing, the government’s approach seems focused on denial. Reconciliation requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing — something that has been glaringly absent in both cases.
Civil Society Resistance
Despite state hostility, civil society has played a crucial role in documenting, resisting, and demanding justice. In Gujarat, organizations like the Citizens for Justice and Peace led by Teesta Setalvad fought long legal battles. In Manipur, tribal bodies, women's groups, and church networks have tried to provide relief and internationalize the issue.
However, activists face increasing threats. Teesta Setalvad was jailed briefly in 2022. Journalists covering Manipur have faced arrests and intimidation. The democratic space is shrinking, making resistance ever more dangerous — and more necessary.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent
From Gujarat to Manipur, a disturbing continuity is evident: the use of state machinery to enable or ignore violence against minorities. Whether driven by ideology, electoral calculations, or sheer apathy, the consequences are devastating — not just for the victims but for the fabric of Indian democracy.
The normalization of state complicity threatens the very principles on which India was founded: secularism, pluralism, and rule of law. Unless these patterns are confronted and accountability is ensured, such crises will recur — and each time, the cost will be higher.
In a nation as diverse as India, the state’s role must be to protect all its citizens, not just the dominant group. The legacy of Gujarat and the tragedy of Manipur stand as grim reminders of what happens when the state chooses otherwise.
References
1. Human Rights Watch. (2002). We Have No Orders to Save You.
2. Supreme Court of India judgments and observations on Gujarat.
3. Fact-finding reports on Manipur by Human Rights organizations (2023–2025).
4. News reports from The Wire, Scroll, The Hindu, Al Jazeera, and BBC.
5. Testimonies from survivors and human rights defenders.
Comments
Post a Comment