Tomorrow is Muharram, a significant festival for Muslims. On the eve of this festival, Muslims in the city hold a nighttime parade that starts from various mosques. During the parade, many male participants walk the streets, beating their chests as a symbol of mourning. This act commemorates the death of one of their revered figures. I always observe this parade with respect and appreciation for their traditions, culture, and religion. Each parade features a beautifully decorated horse, adorned with flowers, which people believe brings blessings. I also take one flower every year.
This year, however, I noticed something unusual. Yesterday, I saw municipality workers setting up bamboo barriers around Hindu temples in my neighborhood. When I inquired, they explained that the barriers were meant to protect the temples during the parade. I was perplexed, as I didn’t understand why Hindu temples would need extra security for this event. The workers mentioned that there is a concern that Muslims might harm the temples. While I had heard rumors about such tensions, I never thought they were true. The parade itself, with its intense atmosphere, might give an impression of potential violence.
There is always a heavy police presence, including the Rapid Action Force, to ensure security during the parade. I’ve heard claims that violence has occurred during these events in the past, though I can’t confirm their accuracy. Seeing the barriers around the temples made me question whether the concerns about this festival are justified. Varanasi is known for its Ganga-Jamuni culture, symbolizing the harmony between Hindus (Ganga) and Muslims (Jamuna). This tradition suggests a strong friendship between the two communities, but recent events make me doubt if this harmony still exists. The tension following the destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya seems to persist, though it may be hidden rather than resolved.
It’s disheartening to see Hindu temples being barricaded. While the safety of temples is important, it is troubling that such measures are necessary. It feels as though the government and people are overreacting to protect the temples in a country where over 80% of the population is Hindu. This situation reflects poorly on the state of our societal relations. The government’s actions seem to suggest that Muslims are given undue influence, possibly for electoral reasons, and that this has led to an environment where Muslims feel they can act with impunity, even to the point of potentially damaging temples.
Last year, on December 6th, the anniversary of the Babri Mosque demolition, Muslims closed their shops in Varanasi to protest and demanded the mosque’s reconstruction. Despite the historical context of the mosque being built on the site of a previous temple, many still demand its restoration. This ongoing dispute has been in the Indian Supreme Court for fifteen years, with no resolution in sight. It seems the government avoids making a decision to avoid upsetting the Muslim community. Violence between communities is a recurring issue. I recall an incident from seven or eight years ago when Muslims killed a Hindu man during a protest.
The man, who was newly married, was murdered on the street, leaving his widow to face a lifetime of hardship. Such events are deeply painful and highlight the persistent, unresolved tensions. I believe that the tensions between Hindus and Muslims are exacerbated by government policies that discriminate along religious lines. For example, Muslims receive subsidies for pilgrimages to Mecca, but Hindus receive no such assistance for their pilgrimages. Additionally, Muslims are recognized as a minority group in certain states and receive special benefits, while Hindus are not afforded similar recognition in places like Jammu and Kashmir.
This kind of discrimination only fuels societal divisions. It is more productive to emphasize commonalities rather than differences, yet our government often does the opposite. A figure like Zakir Naik, who organizes lectures that highlight differences between Islam and other religions, contributes to this divide. His speeches, primarily attended by Muslims who cheer his assertions of Islam’s superiority, are reminiscent of how violence can be incited through rhetoric. His influence, though non-violent in method, is damaging in its own way.
It seems the Indian government is more willing to impose restrictions on places of worship rather than addressing the root causes of communal discord. The fact that we need to barricade temples reflects a broader issue of fear and division. It is unfortunate that such measures are seen as necessary, and it suggests that the government’s handling of communal issues has led to a situation where discrimination persists. I now find myself seeing the divine presence in confinement not just once a year, but twice, and while it’s not a major issue for me, it still doesn’t feel right.
