Hindu-Muslim Riots: Who gains and who loses?

Hindu-Muslim riots have been a long-standing and tragic reality in the Indian subcontinent. These communal violences have occurred repeatedly both during British colonial rule and afterward. The reasons behind these riots are historical, political, economic, and social. The British rulers used a "divide and rule" policy to create divisions between Hindus and Muslims. The partition of Bengal in 1905 and the communal clashes of the 1920s and 1930s are prime examples. In 1947, during the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, countless people were killed and displaced.

In 1992, after the destruction of the Babri Masjid, widespread riots broke out in various parts of India, the effects of which reached Bangladesh as well. Millions of people took to the streets, destroying numerous Hindu temples, burning their homes and businesses. Those who took part in these acts of retaliation for the demolition of the Babri Masjid, there is considerable doubt about how many of them regularly visit mosques, observe fasting, give zakat, or follow other Islamic practices. Because here, it was less about religion or religious sentiments and more about the politics of division that had been nurtured for years between Hindus and Muslims. This division created walls of distrust and suspicion, which politicians have taken advantage of, and continue to do so.

Often, discrimination in resources and opportunities between the two communities can also be a cause of riots. Many religious leaders misinterpret and spread false information, fueling conflict. In some cases, the media also plays a role in escalating communal tensions, but the lack of punishment for the rioters allows such violence to persist. The damage caused by riots or communal violence is vast. The most significant damage is human, such as loss of life, humiliation, and displacement. Economic losses include the destruction of businesses, shops, homes, and infrastructure. Riots increase social divisions, and distrust and enmity between communities can persist for a long time. Communal violence also gives rise to political instability.


Bangladesh Context
In 1971, the then West Pakistani rulers carried out a horrific massacre on the people of Bangladesh, using religion as a pretext. Furthermore, some people from Bangladesh, who collaborated with West Pakistan against their own people, did so under the banner of religion. Many believed that the 1971 Liberation War was primarily about creating divisions among Muslims. Even after half a century of independence, there are still people who believe in this idea. Interestingly, many who are considered educated still hold this belief, and it is reflected in their opinions on social media. Particularly after the fall of the Awami League in the face of the mass uprising on August 5, anti-India sentiments have intensified in Bangladesh, and there is a notable rise in pro-Pakistan sentiments as well, where religion plays a significant role.

Although the new constitution of Bangladesh, which was drafted within a few months after the country's birth through the great Liberation War of 1971, included the principle of secularism in its core values, this was done with the realities of communal violence and frequent religious conflicts between the two major religious communities—Muslims and Hindus—in the region in mind. On October 12, 1972, when the constitution bill was presented in the Bangladesh Constituent Assembly, the president of the Drafting Committee, Dr. Kamal Hossain, stated: "We have witnessed the terrible consequences of communalism. We have also seen how power-hungry individuals misuse religion. The constitution guarantees every person the freedom to follow their own religion. Simultaneously, it promises the elimination of all forms of communalism, the granting of political status to any religion by the state, and the misuse of religion for political purposes." (Barrister Md. Abdul Halim, Bangladesh Constituent Assembly Debate, CCB Foundation/2014, p. 75).

After the constitution bill was passed by the Constituent Assembly on November 4 of that year, the then parliament leader, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, explained the reasoning for including "secularism" as a fundamental principle in the constitution. He said, "Secularism does not mean atheism. Muslims will practice their religion—no one in this state has the power to prevent them. Hindus will practice their religion—no one has the right to stop them. Buddhists will practice their religion—no one can prevent them. Christians will practice their religion—no one can hinder them. Our only objection is that religion should not be used as a political tool. For 25 years we have seen gambling in the name of religion, exploitation in the name of religion, treachery in the name of religion, oppression in the name of religion, murder in the name of religion, and immorality in the name of religion—this has happened on the soil of Bangladesh. Religion is a very sacred thing. It cannot be used as a political weapon." (Constituent Assembly Debate, op. cit., p. 963).

However, the harsh reality is that the journey back to religious politics began shortly after the drafting of the 1972 constitution. The concept of secularism was either not fully understood by the ruling politicians or the general public, or there was no process in place to create this understanding in society. There was no discussion or debate in society on the complex and nuanced relationship between religion and politics, or the relationship between the state and religion. In a sense, the way the elite section of society perceived it was presented as the universal truth. Subsequently, military governments, in order to resolve their legitimacy crisis, turned to religion and religion-based politics, making constitutional amendments and expressing sympathy towards religious political parties.

In 1978, secularism was removed from the constitution, and in 1988, Islam was declared the state religion. Islamist parties also participated in the anti-Ershad movement. Even in the democratic phase post-1991, both the ruling and opposition alliances made alliances with the Islamist parties in their struggle to secure and seize power; it is undeniable that the violent animosity between the Awami League and the BNP contributed to the rise and empowerment of Islamist parties.

In the past few decades, just as the government and political parties have brought religion into political discourse and legitimized religious players, Islamist organizations and movements have increased the influence of religion in society. The national identity of the people of Bangladesh has been so intertwined with the concept of religion that it has been presented as if there is a contradiction between the ethnic Bengali identity and the practice of Islam. However, the long history of the Bengali people attests to their multi-dimensional identity (Ali Riaz & Symeum Parvez, Prothom Alo, March 20, 2021).

Who Benefits from Religious Division?

Recently, some unfortunate incidents have occurred, which raised concerns about the possibility of Hindu-Muslim riots. The question is, in such situations, who benefits and who suffers?
Religious division and violence bring no benefit to the people. However, some politicians, political parties, and extremist organizations benefit, as they use religion as a tool for their beliefs and electoral advantage. These groups seek to rule the country by exploiting religious sentiments and establishing control over the people. By instilling fear and desire for the afterlife, they weaken people’s resolve. They aim to establish their religion over others, not to maintain mutual peace and harmony, but to fulfill their long-term political and economic interests. Hence, whenever an opportunity arises, they provoke communal violence. Instead of spreading the message of peace from religion, they add fuel to the fire of tension. This tendency is evident in both Bangladesh and India. In India, the ruling party BJP does this, and similarly, in Bangladesh, several religious parties, organizations, and even some religious leaders who influence social media play a role in this.

What is the Solution?

Let me share a personal incident. One day, while walking on the street with my daughter, we met one of her teachers. My daughter did not greet her teacher. When we got home, I asked her, "Why didn't you greet your teacher?" She replied, "Miss is Christian."
Both my wife and I felt ashamed and faced some important questions, such as:
How did a child in class three develop an awareness of Hindu-Muslim-Christian distinctions?
To what extent are we as parents responsible for this mindset?
Has the school not taught anything about how to address or greet a teacher, or how to show respect in some other way when meeting a teacher on the street?
How does the influence of smartphones affect children's mindset? What kind of beliefs about religion are they forming by consuming content on these devices?
In such a situation, several steps need to be taken:
Establish a secular education system and foster a mindset in children from an early age that transcends religious divisions.
Promote communal harmony.

Ensure quick and exemplary punishment for those who provoke communal violence, disrupt religious harmony, or engage in riots.
Create constitutional and legal frameworks to keep religion separate from the state and politics.

Ensure a responsible role of the media, ensuring they do not spread or encourage rumors in such situations. Strict punishment should be enforced if rumors are spread.
Encourage active involvement of respected members of civil society to foster dialogue and empathy among different communities. Regular writing and discussions on this topic should be carried out.

Emphasize the importance of communal harmony in all religious institutions and ceremonies, including mosques, temples, etc., and encourage people not to be incited by anyone’s words to attack any individual or institution of another religion.

In conclusion, communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in this region is a complex issue, which can be resolved not only through legal measures but also through political will, social awareness, and civic engagement. It requires the collective efforts of all communities to solve this problem. We must remember that when communal harmony is destroyed, only certain religious fundamentalist and extremist political parties, like BJP in India and some in Bangladesh, benefit from it—ultimately, no one, Hindu or Muslim, gains anything. Instead, such incidents create lasting wounds in the hearts of ordinary people of all religions, fostering mistrust and disbelief among them. This mistrust and disbelief, both within a country and between neighboring countries, only serves to increase division among people.

Renowned Indian singer Kabir Suman recently wrote on Facebook about the current situation between Bangladesh and India: "You fight and quarrel over religion and politics. I am in love, and I will remain in love."
Let’s end with a line from Kabir Suman’s song: “I want the BJP leader's Salma Khatun daughter-in-law, I want people to understand that religion means just human beings.”

Ameen Al Rashid: Journalist and Writer