The Nagpur violence may have been prevented had the police considered the dangerous potential of the VHP/Bajrang Dal's demonstration; had they immediately stopped the burning of the chaddar and arrested the demonstrators; and had they fanned out to counter the rumours that spread among Muslims, observes Jyoti Punwani.
In an interview after the March 17 Nagpur violence, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis was asked a pointed question about the frequent inflammatory speeches of his cabinet minister. (The minister in question, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane, was not named.)
In reply, Devendra Fadnavis recalled the late prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's advice about 'Raj Dharma', saying: 'I believe that when we hold a ministerial position, we must speak with restraint. As ministers, we have a role to play, and this is something that Atal Bihari Vajpayee once mentioned somewhere -- as ministers, we must adhere to Raj Dharma.'
Why did Fadnavis choose to cite this famous advice of the late PM?
Vajpayee's advice about observing Raj Dharma wasn't some general homily. It made headlines because of the context in which it was made -- at a press conference held at Ahmedabad airport after the Gujarat violence of 2002.
Vajpayee had spent the day visiting relief camps in Ahmedabad where Muslims had sheltered after having been targeted in violence that broke out post the burning of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002. 59 Hindus, most of them returning from Ayodhya, had perished in the fire.
Amid widespread allegations that the Gujarat government was complicit in the violence, the then prime minister, answering questions from the media, advised then Gujarat chief minister Modi to observe Raj Dharma.
Describing it as a 'meaningful term', Vajpayee went on to add: 'A ruler must not distinguish between his subjects on the basis of religion or sect or caste...This is something I am trying to observe.'
Coming from the PM, that too one who was in the same party as the Gujarat CM, this advice became an unforgettable moment in the country's history.
Modi could not have forgotten that embarrassing moment, but it's certainly not one he would ever want to be reminded of. Though the Supreme Court has given him a clean chit, his role in the Gujarat violence continues to dog him; the last time he was asked about it was only last week, by the fawning interviewer Lex Fridman.
Surely Fadnavis knew all this. It is surprising therefore, that he chose this particular reference in a high profile interview, given not to any journalist, but to a political rival, NCP (SP) leader Jayant Patil.
By citing Vajpayee's quote, was Fadnavis trying to aspire to Vajpayee's statesman-like status? If so, it certainly didn't work.
Until now, Fadnavis has never pulled up Rane, not even when Rane has told his Hindu audiences that they can 'wipe out jihadis' and 'slap policemen' who 'mess with them', because 'our boss is sitting in Sagar Bungalow' (Fadnavis' residence at that time).
If the many FIRs against Rane have resulted in no action against him, accountability must lie with Home Minister Fadnavis. Let's not forget, Fadnavis chose to include Rane in his cabinet despite these FIRs.
It's ironic that by quoting Vajpayee's advice on Raj Dharma to show his disapproval of Rane, Fadnavis only showed his own failure to uphold Raj Dharma!
***
Did the Nagpur police uphold Raj Dharma?
8 Bajrang Dal demonstrators 'surrendered' to the police after the violence, and were released within hours on bail. The police, always reluctant to touch Hindutvawadis, were thus spared from taking the hard decision of arresting those who burnt an effigy of Aurangzeb wrapped in a green chaddar, an act that went viral after it was uploaded on an Instagram account, reportedly of a BJP youth wing member.
The video gave rise to two incendiary rumours:
1. That a chaddar inscribed with Quranic verses had been burnt.
2. That the chaddar from the famous Tajbagh Dargah, located around 4 km from the venue of the VHP/Bajrang Dal demonstration, had been burnt. Followers of Hazrat Baba Tajuddin, the Sufi saint in whose memory the dargah has been built, rushed to the protest site in anger.
The police knew well in advance about the VHP/Bajrang Dal demonstration, and a couple of policemen did try to stop the demonstrators from burning the chaddar. But these efforts were half-hearted; the video shows that though the cops hadlathis, they didn't use them.
This reluctance was in keeping with the Maharashtra police's record of inaction against Hindutvawadis. So was their lack of preparation for the demonstration.
Did the police not know this wasn't going to be a routine demonstration? The VHP/Bajrang Dal's capacity to provoke Muslims; the passions currently being aroused over Aurangzeb, after the way the movie Chhaava has been promoted; and finally, the fact that Ramzan was on, when fasting Muslims are even more consumed with thoughts of religion than normal -- all these flashpoints were ignored by the Nagpur police.
However, to give them their due, this time, the Nagpur police did act contrary to tradition in three important aspects.
- First, they actually took down the complaint of Minorities Democratic Party founder Fahim Khan against the demonstrators as an FIR.
- Second, despite vicious attacks on them by Muslims whose passions had been inflamed, in which 34 policemen were injured, the Nagpur police did not fire on them.
- Third, Police Commissioner Ravinder Singal, in an interview broadcast live on TV, debunked the conspiracy theories doing the rounds.
No outsiders were involved, he said. The media had gone berserk wondering how come so many stones were available to the Muslims. The police commissioner explained that there was a Metro construction site nearby.
He also clarified that the tempo heaped with stones, shown on television screens repeatedly, was not brought by the Muslims, but was a Nagpur Municipal Corporation tempo which was taking away stones from the construction site.
So the Nagpur police did uphold Raj Dharma to some extent.
***
What of the media? Did they uphold their Dharma?
News television channels acted as expected:
- They fanned communal feelings by playing out scenes of violence even on the next day, with sensationalist headlines such as 'Kashmir style stone pelting'; 'Bangladeshi link'.
- An unknown aspiring politician Fahim Khan was made the 'mastermind' by the media after police named him as the main accused for the violence, only because the video of his speech blaming the police went viral and brought Muslims on the streets.
- The media used the word 'pradarshankaris' (demonstrators) for the VHP/Bajrang Dal members who burnt the effigy; while the Muslims were called 'dangaai' (rioters). Weren't the former's actions bound to provoke the latter? And what of the Hindus who clashed with Muslims later that night?
Irfan Ansari, 40, attacked in that clash, died on Saturday. His assailants have been arrested. But past experience tells us that the initial classification by the media of Muslims as 'rioters' and Hindus as 'demonstrators' will continue.
- The media brought bulldozers into the Nagpur issue. It was in response to a journalist's question that the CM replied that bulldozers would be used if the law permitted it.
It was only a few journalists both on television and in print who observed their dharma by talking to both Hindu and Muslim victims.
***
The Nagpur violence may have been prevented had the police considered the dangerous potential of the VHP/Bajrang Dal's demonstration; had they immediately stopped the burning of the effigy and chaddar and arrested the demonstrators; and had they fanned out to counter the rumours that spread among Muslims.
It could also have been prevented had Muslims been stopped by their elders and leaders from attacking the police. The fallout of such attacks should by now be well-known to the community.
But for both things to happen, the mindset both of the police and the Muslims have to change.
Meanwhile, will Fadnavis follow Raj Dharma by claiming damages from rioters of both communities?
© 2025