Adityanath says Hindus must fight back: What is BJP trying to tell Parliament?

Debate over the Communal Violence Bill in Lok Sabha on Wednesday witnessed fiery speeches and political parties blaming each other but ironically none of the outfits could provide any concrete solution on how to behave maturely when religious sentiments run dangerously high. The debate was held on the insistence of the Congress who have been making an issue about the rising instances of communal violence in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Making the opening remarks on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Gorakhpur MP Yogi Adityanath delivered a controversial speech confronting the opposition Congress on various fronts and even accused them of ‘working at Pakistan’s behest’. Not stopping at that, the vitriolic Adityanath went on to say that “Hindus, when threatened, must be prepared to organize themselves and fight back”. [caption id=“attachment_1663153” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  BJP’s Yogi Adityanath and Congress’s Mallikarjun Kharge. PTI[/caption] The choice of Adityanath as the BJP’s opening speaker surprised many, given that he is facing charges for allegedly inciting communal tension in Gorakhpur in 2007. In fact the Supreme Court in 2012, had upheld a Allahabad High Court judgement ordering the Gorakhpur police to lodge an FIR against Adityanath for his alleged involvement in spreading communal violence in nearly a dozen districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh in 2007. The Supreme Court order noted that “Adityanath Yogi provoked Hindus to kill Muslims and rob and set afire their houses and shops and to destruct their religious places and Tazias for the reason of the murder of Raj Kumar Agrahari (incident of 26/27th January, 2007 Gorakhpur Town) and the alleged incidents happening since 24th January, 2007 and also provoked Muslims not to celebrate Muharram which was a conspiracy hatched by him on the basis of his maligned thought and to fulfil which, he was looking for an appropriate situation. Under this very conspiracy, criminal incidents were carried out in the Gorakhpur and Basti Divisions, which caused disruption of Law and Order.” Taking part in a debate on NDTV, Samajwadi Party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia expressed dismay both in the choice of the states concerned and the first BJP speaker. “Communal incidents are also happening in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Why is the focus only on Uttar Pradesh and Haryana? And what is the BJP trying to convey by allowing Yogi Adityanath to speak in such a fashion in the House? He is the same person who had incited communal violence in Gorakhpur. Even the Supreme Court of India wants him to face trial.Had the BJP been so concerned about communal violence it would not have made riots accused Muzaffarnagar MP Sanjeev Balyan an Union minister,” said Samajwadi Party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia. Not only the choice of words by Adityanath, which were highly unparliamentary, the very basis of the debate was at stake at first, given that law and order happens to be a state subject. However, the debate was positioned under the framework that being the supreme law-making body in the country, Parliament had the right to give its opinion on the ongoing religious intolerance often resulting in loss of life and property. After surpassing that technical impediment, the blame game in Parliament also led to confusion regarding the actual number of communal incidents that took place in the last two months in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. While the Centre maintained that there were 56 incidents of communal violence in the last six months, the Congress came out with an astounding figure of 600 such incidents in the last two months. Senior journalist Sharat Pradhan doubted both the veracity of the Congress claim and the intent of the BJP. “If a trivial fight between a Hindu and Muslim on a personal matter is termed as a communal incident it is grossly unfair. There is no mechanism yet to check whether the clash is actually communal or not. The Congress figure of 600 is crazy. I believe just because polls are around in some states all political parties want to make hay. Rather than raising a high pitch they should find a method to prevent it. Some political parties do it blatantly and some discreetly. Either way it is very shameful. Adityanath should not have been allowed to make such a rabid speech,” Pradhan said. Senior journalist Arati Jerath shared similar views. “Adityanath made the BJP agenda very clear right from the start. His speech is not an answer for minority appeasement. How can the majority be insecure? They have the numbers on their side,” she said. Despite insisting on a debate on increasing violence, the sincerity of the Congress party was also questioned as members lacked a clear plan on what they wanted to do about the situation. “I really don’t know why the Congress made such a song and dance. Ideally Rahul Gandhi should have led the debate. Now he is not even listed as a speaker. I have no idea if he is going to speak tomorrow. But my question is since the Congress did not make a mechanism in the last 10 years why are they asking the BJP to make one? Why should the BJP even oblige?“Jerath said. Rajya Sabha MP and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi did not find merit in the argument that Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi should have started the debate on behalf of the Congress. “Whether Rahul Gandhi speaks or not, whether he speaks first, in the middle or last does not matter. The issue is communal violence. BJP paralysed Parliament when we tried to pass the bill. The BJP style is to start a very low conflagration and the government acts as if there is no communal clash,” the Congress leader said, adding that “When you discuss murder you don’t encourage murder. So this discussion on communal violence is warranted. Communal violence is too serious an issue to not be discussed” “Is it not true that there has been a remarkable spurt in communal violence since 16 May? It is a tactic by the BJP and its allied organisations to insinuate violence indirectly,” Singhvi said. Cornered because of Adityanath’s speech in Parliament, BJP MP Bharatendra Singh had little to offer in defence. “If there are communal people from the minority community how will there be peace? If imams are paid why not sants? Why go against the majority in an attempt to appease the minority? We need to look into the minority psyche but cannot go on bashing the majority,” Singh said.