Social Situation

Communal riots were practically nil in the Modi regime, but there is a clear perception that the activities of a number of Rightist Hindu nationalist organisations increased and occupied centre stage after Modi became prime minister, and

it seemed with the tacit support of the government. A programme for Hindu religious reconversion (Ghar Wapasi), a campaign against the alleged Islamic practice of what was termed ‘love jihad’, and sporadic praise for Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, were some activities that adversely affected the social fabric. The anti-Romeo squads in Uttar Pradesh were raised ostensibly to protect women from harassment, but indulged in moral policing. Campaigns against so called love jihad, though short lived, were an infringement on the freedom of choice.

Individual Muslims were increasingly targeted for violent attacks for alleged cow slaughter in the main, but also for other reasons. Non-Muslims–especially Dalits and tribals– were also attacked on flimsy charges. A disturbing aspect of these attacks was that sympathetic observers videoed the lynching and uploaded it on social media. Some rightist fringe elements certainly assumed that they had the tacit support of the government in this violence. But in-depth historical research is needed before one can categorically assert that lynching increased under the Modi dispensation. If society was polarised between Hindus and Muslims by the BJP, only Muslims should have been lynched and only for cow slaughter. But one cannot then explain the rise of lynching of individuals on charges such as ‘child-theft’ and witchcraft.

The stupendous increase in the internet use coincided with the rise of BJP to power. The ubiquitous use of the smartphone and cheap internet connections became a common phenomenon only after 2010. In some cases, it appeared as if the entire episode of lynching was being played out for an audience. As, indeed, it was, because a video would be uploaded for everyone’s edification. Before the era of hand held mobiles, it would take hours, if not days, for messages to spread about ‘wrong-doings’ of any person. However, post- mobile revolution, in just a few minutes the message gets spread. Hence, mobilisation is quicker. WhatsApp was made

use of in the most deplorable way to spread such messages. The proliferation of ‘fake news’ also became common.

Hyper-nationalism seemed very visible. On the social media, trolling and rise of vigilante groups with little regard for human life were evident. Vigilante groups mushroomed with political agendas to attack minorities.

The Supreme Court intervened and directed the government to take firm action on lynching and give guidelines to the authorities on steps to take to prevent it, and what to do when such incidents took place. It called for accountability from the officials.

Amidst all this, the prime minister remained silent for too long. Maybe things would have been different if he had reined in the fringe elements and reassured those facing violence at the first sign of trouble. Some political commentators have suggested, however, that the violence by some radical Hindu nationalists was aimed at undermining Modi’s authority.

In spite of stricter laws, greater awareness and even campaigns, violence against women was unabated. Cases of child rape shocked the nation. The government responded by introducing the death penalty for rape of minors below 12 years, and provided for all rape cases under the stringent POCSO Act to be fast-tracked. However, law can only do so much in cases of rape and violence against women and children; attitudes of people and society in general need to change. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies need to be sensitised.

Several socially important legislations were passed under the NDA government, such as that on juvenile justice, child and adolescent labour, and mental health which decriminalised attempt to commit suicide.

Another landmark was the decision by the Supreme Court constitutional bench marking the first step in the struggle by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

(LGBTQ+) community to gain social legitimacy. Homosexuality, as embodied in Article 377, much of which was a relic of Victorian British times, was decriminalised by the court. It was in 2001, that the issue of constitutional legality of Article 377 was first raised by the Naz Foundation in the Delhi High Court, which held the penal provision to be illegal in 2009, but that judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013. In 2018, the apex court overturned its own earlier stance. An August 2017 judgement of the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy, and this laid the legal ground for a fresh interpretation of Article 377 in the matter of decriminalising homosexuality. However, other issues such as same sex marriage, inheritance of property, and civil rights were not considered. Surprisingly, most political groups welcomed the decision, which marked a change from earlier times.

The judgement of Supreme Court in the Sabarimala Temple case got a mixed response. The decision allowed women of all ages to go on the pilgrimage. While this certainly supported the constitutional principle of equality, it went against age-old traditions. Opposition to the judgement was vocal and led to widespread protests in Kerala.

The Supreme Court also decided that the practice of triple talaq among Muslims was not to be allowed. While women generally welcomed this, conservative elements opposed it. The government’s effort to legislate on it to make the practice unlawful did not succeed, and it took the ordinance route.

All this shows the Indian society in transition.

On another level, the Modi government disappointed. In the matter of job creation, there was little progress. A large proportion of India’s labour force continued to be unskilled and poor. Unemployment rate was reported to have reached a very high level. The government did not succeed in rejuvenating the manufacturing sector in industry to create

jobs in spite of the Make in India initiative. But here too, like in agriculture, the reasons were many and complex. The low levels of skills among India’s workers, available jobs being low paid, poor infrastructure, and India’s antiquated labour laws were some factors.