Two Main Theories of Communal Violence

ssc preparation, important competetion questions, current affairs of india, latest question asked in competetion papers,
\

Two Main Theories of Communal Violence!

Communal violence is collective violence. When large sections of people in a community fail to achieve their collective goals, or feel that they are being discriminated against and deprived of equal opportunities, they feel frustrated and disillusioned and this collective frustration (or what Feiera- bends and Nesvold have called ‘systematic frustration’) leads to collective violence. However, it is not the whole community which launches a vio­lent protest.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In fact, the action planned by the discontented people against the ruling group or the power elite (against whose ways they protest) is often non-violent. It is only a small band of protesters who consider non­violence ineffective and violence essential for the success of their struggle, and who snatch every precipitating opportunity to use violence to assert the strength of their ideology.

This sub-group indulging in violent behav­iour does not represent the whole community or the total group of the discontented people. The behaviour of this sub-group, by and large, is not equivocally supported by the rest of the community. My contention, thus, comes close to the old ‘riffraff theory’ of violent riot behaviour which holds that the majority of the people disowns and opposes the vio­lent/delinquent behaviour of the sub-group by describing it as ‘irresponsible’ behaviour.

The question is, what causes the ‘group of individuals’ to be violent.

Two of the important theoretical propositions on collective violence are:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(i) It is normal response to provocation, and

(ii) It is a response that is con­sistent with norms supporting its use.

This calls for analysis of some of the important existing theories. Excluding the psycho-pathological theories (because they focus on the aggressors’ psychological personality characteristics and pathological disorders as the chief determinants of violence, and I consider these im­portant for explaining individual violence but not collective violence), other theories may be classified into two categories:

(a) At the level of the socio-psychological analysis, and

(b) At the level of the sociocultural or sociological analysis.

In the first group, theories like Frustration-Aggression Theory, Perversion Theory, Motive Attribution Theory and Self-Attitude Theory may be included, while in the second group theories like Social Tension Theory, Anomie Theory, Theory of Subculture of Violence, and Social Learning Theory may be included. My contention is that all these theories fail to explain the phenomenon of collective vio­lence in communal riots. My theoretical approach (called Social Barriers Approach) concentrates on the sociological analysis of social structural conditions.

1. Social Barriers Theory:

The conditions which lead to collective communal violence are: stress, status frustration, and crises of various kind. My thesis is that aggressors use violence because they suffer from insecurity and anxiety. The origin of these feelings and anxieties in an individual can be traced to social barri­ers created by the oppressive social systems, the power elite, as well as the individual’s background and upbringing which have probably put up hur­dles for him and which serve to aggravate his tendency to irrational and unrealistic attitudes to social norms and social institutions.

My theory also takes into account three factors in aggressors’ behaviour, namely, ad­justment (in status), attachment (to community) and commitment (to values), as well as the social environment (in which individuals/aggressors live) and the socialised personalities of the individuals (aggressors). My theoretical model, thus, gives importance to the social system, the person­ality structure of individual aggressors, and sub-cultural patterns of the society in which individuals use violence.

In social system, I include strains and frustrations which are the result of functioning of social struc­tures in society; in personality structure, I include adjustment, attachment and commitment of the individual aggressors and in sub-cultural pat­terns, I include the values which operate as a means of social control.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

My thesis is that maladjustment, non-attachment, and non-commit­ment of an individual lead to his feeling of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is the perceived discrepancy between groups’ expectations and their capabilities (conditions of life individuals/groups think they are capable of attaining or maintaining, given the proper opportunities and legitimate means).Here the important term is ‘perceived’ (by the mem­bers of the groups); hence different variations in behaviour or relative deprivations do not always lead to violent behaviour.

Relative deprivation (of a group) occurs when:

(i) Expectations in­crease while capabilities remain the same or decline, or

(ii) When expecta­tions remain the same while capabilities decline.

Since both expectations and capabilities rest on perception, value orientations of a group have an important bearing on:

(a) The way the group will perceive deprivation,

(b) The target to which it (relative deprivation) will be directed, and

(c) The form in which it will be expressed. Since each group/individual is sub­jected to different forces, each group/individual will respond differently in terms of violence or participation in collective communal violence.

The Social Barriers Theory is not essentially an elitist theory of vio­lence where a small group, ideologically superior, takes the initiative to spread violence and decides to use it ‘for the good’ of the whole frustrated group on whose behalf it violently vocalises its protest. Further, the small group does not depend upon the widespread collective action of the frus­trated masses. In this context, my explanation is opposed to the orthodox Marxist theory because Marx did not envisage this kind of uprising and mass revolution.

2. Theory of Polarisation and Cluster Effect:

Recently, a new conceptual paradigm has been developed to explain the inter and intra-community violence in India (Singh, 1990). The paradigm is based on three concepts—polarity, cleavage, and cluster. The paradigm has been built up on the basis of the facts in ‘pre-riot’, ‘riot’ and ‘post-riot’ situations and the analysis of group behaviour of individuals belonging to different social groups (polarities) in animosity with each other. Since the communal disturbances involve two antagonistic social groups, it necessi­tates a careful analysis of animosity (state of mind and psyche), structural conduciveness (physical situation), and prejudices.

The individual in isolation is weak and insecure. The strength lies in assemblies, collectivities and groups. The individual joins them for his gain and security. Various polarities exist in society at all times. To each individual, these polarities are of two types—permanent and temporary. To the former category belong ideology, religion, language, caste, region and sex. These polarities constitute individual’s basic identity which lasts with the individual.

To the second category belong occupation, profes­sion, functions based on vested interests. Though normally the polarities are not mutually exclusive yet they become exclusive when society under­goes a cleavage phenomenon due to perceived difference and division of population as a consequence of polarisation. When masses in general as­sign the same closeness to single polarity, it becomes a dominating polarity at that time at that particular place for that particular population.

This dominant polarity sects the pattern of inhibitions of the population (cluster formation), that is, the polarity-based clusters determine the demographic living pattern. Such clusters in old cities and towns are based on religion, caste and sect, but in modern cities these are more class-based.

When such clustering takes place because of two different polarities (say, of religion or religious sects), there is a clash. The social dynamics of liv­ing in clusters is that these prove highly conducive to the emergence of a riot-prone situation, as interpersonal relationships deteriorate and build irritants which are often perceived as deliberate insult, deprivation and in­jury by one to the other. The incidents affect most people in the clusters due to physical proximity. This prompts people to build contacts among one’s own polarity population and also facilitates the building of mass in­surrection.

The communal call given at the level of leadership also accelerates the process of polarisation. For example, Shahi Immam Bukhari’s inflamma­tory speech in Meerut city to the Muslim population in 1982 sparked off a great reaction among Hindus to polarise against Muslims to safeguard their interest which ultimately resulted in communal riots in the city.

He gave a similar provocative speech in Anantnag, Kashmir in April 1988, in­citing Kashmiri Muslims by claiming that they have been enslaved since the partition. He asserted that the centre had not created better economic conditions for them, they were being deprived of their rights, and their problems were not looked into.

The nature of polarity dominance depends upon five factors:

(1) Time and space (that is, period, area, location and situation or geographical lim­its),

(2) Social structure (that is, caste, community and social group),

(3) Education (that is awareness of interest),

(4) Economic interests, and

(5) Leadership (that is, emotional speeches, promises and policies of the leaders).

On the basis of the above analysis, V.V. Singh describes the riot- prone (communal) structure as follows:

(1) Bi-polarity population in identifiable clusters;

(2) Close proximity;

(3) Common interest and resul­tant animosity;

(4) Potency of polarised population. Potency is based on numerical strength, economic prosperity, state of possession of arms, co­hesion, type of leadership, and the strength of activity; and

(5) Administrative expediency and inefficiency of district police and public administration.