By Kashif Umair
Are human beings equal? Are some human beings superior over others? This is a question all societies of all ages have grappled with. Ever since humans settled down as a society, some sections claiming superiority over others in the name of race, religion, caste, ethnicity, language, sex, ideology etc has always been seen. For instance, the caste system in India proclaims that Brahmins are superior and untouchables are inferior. However, in the modern world where democracy and liberalism dominate politics, many individuals and nations espouse these ideals but they continue to live in contradiction. These individuals and nations believe in liberalism and democracy but do not fully apply it in their practice. There are two major examples of this contradiction. One is in 1776, when Thomas Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence dictating equality for the citizens of the United States, however, at the same time, he owned slaves. The second example is when the United Nations General Assembly passed the resolution of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, whose article 1 laid out that, “Every person is born free and equal in rights and dignity.” Among the countries which signed the UDHR were colonizers at that time and some of them continued to colonize some part of the planet even after signing of the UDHR. These countries functioned as a democracy but treated their colonial subjects in very inhuman ways. These two examples reflect a common norm that both colonizer countries and individuals believed in some ways that they have legitimate authority to rule over others whom they considered inferior.
One of the characteristics of ethnic or racial superiority is that it legitimizes violence and oppression. There are two cases of ethnic superiority of two different times which not only claimed to be superior but also legitimized the violence. In these cases, there are some common features which are horrific and scary.
The first case, the superiority of British colonizers over Indians. Like other Europeans, the British also claimed that they had God-given rights to rule the rest of the world. These white colonists considered themselves superior over coloured people. Years of oppression, torture, killing and loot, the British colonial masters reached at the most inhuman and barbaric point when they massacred unarmed Indians at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919.
Martial law was imposed in Amritsar over the protest against the Rowlatt Act. Almost sixteen thousand people had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh to celebrate a festival. General Dyer arrived at the spot where people were gathered. The Bagh was closed from three sides but on one side it was open through which the British armed personnel entered. On the order and presence of General Dyer, 1650 rounds were fired within ten minutes without any warning. The Hunter Commission which was later formed to investigate the massacre estimated that 379 deaths but the eyewitnesses and later studies claimed that the deaths were in thousands. Shameful and barbaric motives of the British Empire did not finish yet. The House of Lords overturned the decision of the House of Commons which was based on the recommendations of the Hunter Commission that General Dyer should resign from his post and leave India. The House of Lords even praised Dyer for saving the Indian Empire. 30 thousand pounds were collected for him. Rudyard Kipling, an imperialist and colonial sympathiser poet, donated 10 pounds for General Dyer.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre revealed the prejudice of so-called ‘white civilized’ people. General Dyer attacked the unarmed Indians without any warning only because they violated martial law. In his views, he questioned how Indians dared to not follow martial law. He proudly defended his shameful act before the Hunter Commission in these words, “I felt, my order was not followed and martial law was violated and it’s my duty to fire bullets.” For the love and support for his inhuman act, General Dyer wrote an open letter to his supporters. He wrote, “I am proud to think that so many of my fellow-countrymen and women approve of my conduct at Amritsar and I accept the token of their approval in the spirit in which it is offered.”
The second case is India witnessing rising intolerance against its largest minority of Muslims. Since the murder of Akhlak Ahmed and its glorification, the lynching of Muslims is celebrated as the victory of Hindutva. Hindutva is a political abuse of Hinduism. Hindutva is a combination of religious superiority and pseudo-nationalism.
A Muslim man, Mohammed Afrazul was lynched by Sambhulal Regar at Rajsamad, Rajasthan in 2017. Sambhulal Regar filmed the lynching with the help of his 14-year old nephew and circulated it on social media. The Indian Express reported that 3 lakh rupees were donated to him in his wife’s bank account, which Rajsamand Police later froze. Apart from financial support, he had the moral support of the government but who were not willing to prevent killing and hatred against Muslims. The moral and political support was reflected for the first time when lynching of Muhammad Akhlaq of Dadri occurred in September 2015 which further legitimized the lynching of Muslims. When one accused died after few weeks by natural causes, Union Minister Mahesh Sharma attended his funeral, his coffin was draped with the Indian national flag and communal speeches were delivered.
The lynching of Muslims is part of the political goal of Hindutva and it is not due to rivalry between two major religions – Hinduism and Islam. The lynching’s of Muslims are labelled with different names – love jihad, Gau Raksha, anti-national, thieves etc – but the propaganda is for the ultimate goal of formation of Hindu Rashtra. The lynching’s of Muslims are inspired by the writing of MS Golwalkar and Savarkar of Hindu superiority over other religions.
What is common between in the case of General Dyer and Sambhu is that both got sympathy and public support for their crimes and both got money by common people as a reward and both are portrayed as the saviour of their so-called superiority over another group. Both celebrated and defended their cruel acts and both had the support of dominant powers. But what is scary is that what Sambhulal did is now a general phenomenon. Lynchings are justified, glorified, rewarded and celebrated. Neither government nor opposition is willingly or unwillingly unable to prevent it. Both are not willing to put on themselves the label of ‘Muslim loving party.’
One major difference between Jallianwala Bagh massacre and lynching of Muslims is that the former event occurred during the alien rule and the latter case is more dangerous and sorrowful because it occurred under the watch of those people who take oath on secular and democratic constitutions and yet failed to perform their duty.
Kashif Umair is an undergraduate student at Aligarh Muslim University.