Delhi-NCR witness rain on Sunday morning

Mumbai, Feb 26: Observing that the violence in Delhi is akin to a "horror film" depicting the grim reality of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Shiv Sena on Wednesday said the "bloodbath" has brought disrepute to the national capital like never before while US President Donald Trump was in India with the "message of love".

The editorial in party mouthpiece 'Saamana' lamented that Trump was welcomed in Delhi while there was bloodbath on the streets.

It further said that the violence could potentially spread the message that the Central government has failed to maintain the law and order situation in Delhi.

"Violence has erupted in Delhi. People are on the streets equipped with canes, swords, revolvers, blood is being spilled on the roads. Some horror film-like situation is being witnessed in Delhi, which depicts the grim reality of the 1984 riots," the Sena said.

It further said the BJP was still blaming the Congress for the deaths of hundreds of Sikhs in the violence that was erupted after assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

It needs to be unravelled who is responsible for the current riots in Delhi, the Sena said while referring to the "language of threats and warning used by some BJP leaders".

"The national capital was burning at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi and visiting US President Trump were holding talks.

"It does not augur well that Trump was welcomed in Delhi with the horror film of violence, bloodbath on the streets, screams of people, and tear gases. Trump saheb came to Delhi with a message of love, but what unfolded before him? 'Namaste' in Ahmedabad and violence in Delhi. Never before Delhi was defamed like this," the editorial said.

Trump had begun his February 24-25 India visit from Ahmedabad in Gujarat.

Seventeen people have died so far and over hundred were injured in the violence that has gripped several parts of north east Delhi over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) since Sunday.

Attacking the Central government over reports that the violence was timed with Trump's visit, Sena said, "the Union Home Ministry has alleged that a conspiracy was hatched to defame India internationally by triggering the violence during Trump's visit to the national capital.

"The Home Ministry not knowing about the conspiracy behind the violence over the CAA is detrimental to national security. There is no problem in controlling the riots with the same courage with which Article 370 and 35A were scrapped," the editorial said.

It further said the anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi was yet to be called off yet despite the Supreme Court appointing mediators.

"It is being said that the violence sparked off after some BJP leaders talked the language of threats and warning. So, did someone want the peaceful agitation (at Shaheen Bagh) to acquire the present form of riots? (They) could have waited for at least Trump to leave the country," the Sena said.

The Uddhav Thackeray-led party also questioned the timing of the riots, which are occurring days after the results of the Delhi assembly polls.

"It is mysterious that the violence broke out days after the BJP lost the Delhi assembly elections. The BJP lost and now this is the condition of Delhi," the Sena said.

The Uddhav Thackeray-led party, a former ally of the BJP, now shares power in Maharashtra with the NCP and the Congress.

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.