The lack of response and the status quo-ist attitude of the Delhi Chief Minister led to further spread of violence.
It is understandable we should be at a loss for words. It should not be surprising if the brazenness with which the violence in Delhi was instigated, then perpetrated, and the involvement—active or passive—of those who are sworn to protect us were struck dumb by ordinary citizens.
There is little explanation, however, for the verbal caution exercised by those claiming to represent citizens — MLAs and MPs, most notably Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
It was, after all, on the strength of the word that they rode into power. They have given tongue to promises to fight corruption. They know how to frame services as a matter of rights-water, electricity, education, women's safety. They do not know what ails us, or what the remedies could be. So how should we interpret the lassitude of Delhi's political response?
How they failed to act
Mr. Kejriwal could have prevented or minimized the loss of life and property in Delhi, on the strength of the same tongue. When rival-party politicians made threats, he might have activated his cadre and motivated them to stand up. Burning parts of northeast Delhi have been reported hours after goons,
He'd kept quiet. He might have stepped in, with the security that as chief minister is due to him. The violence would inevitably recede. His ministers might have organized citizen patrols if the police refused to listen. They have the backing of millions, after all.
If even one percent of these supporters had been encouraged to organize into patrol groups, it would have contained the violence.
If he couldn't even do this, Mr. Kejriwal could have made a speech at any public spot that wasn't on fire— maybe during that infamous visit to the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi? He might have said that citizens are entitled to work hard to improve their own economic status without having their homes set on fire merely because they have followed a religion.
He could have said peaceful protest is an inalienable right to democracy. If he had said it before, or even after winning the State Assembly, millions of people might have been paused to hear repeatedly that protesters deserved to be attacked simply for opposing the Central Government's policies. When all is said and done In the past Mr Kejriwal himself did everything in his power to overthrow those elected to Parliament.
When he saw footage of CCTV cameras being smashed to prevent evidence from being recorded while students were being attacked in libraries, he might have said that his government would, anyhow, ensure the guilty were punished. He might have said that his government will ensure the rebuilding of mosques and that interfaith meetings will take place every day until the community finds its way.
Revert back to harmony. Even now, he could say we must resist the ghettoisation, because it can only lead to a greater gulf between communities. He could say that ghettoisation is not only the result but the purpose of such violence, that it is venom in our republic's body.
He could say to doctors: treat the victims of riots gently, and do honest post mortems. He could say to teachers: advise kids so they won't be drawn to future acts of violence, and learn not to discriminate.
He could tell residents ' welfare associations members: Stop discriminating for India's sake. He could even ask for meetings to be held in each colony to discuss the citizenship imperative, and to understand why so many Indians feel vulnerable.
Comentarios