<p>The death of Chandru, 22, who was stabbed during a road rage altercation is tragic and condemnable. The guilty must be brought to book. But Karnataka Home Minister Araga Jnanendra’s bid to evoke passions by giving the incident a communal twist is dangerous and must be condemned. The minister made a statement suggesting that Chandru’s assailants had stabbed him because he had refused to speak in Urdu as they had demanded. The minister claimed that he had “gathered information” on the incident and went on to suggest that it was a Hindu-Muslim fight. The facts of the incident are otherwise. The minister should be held accountable for prejudging an incident, distorting facts and making a public statement that had the potential to inflame communal passions, that too when the communal temperature is already high in the state, thanks to the minister’s party and Parivar. Ministers, who have taken oath on the Constitution, are expected to act and talk with the utmost sense of responsibility. </p>.<p>The Home Minister later retracted the statement and said that his earlier version had been wrong, but by that time, much damage had been done, with other members of the BJP, led by its national general secretary C T Ravi, stoking communal frenzy over the incident. Why did the Home Minister choose to make a statement based on information he had apparently gathered from “sources”, rather than going by the version of the Police Commissioner? Were his “sources” Hindutva groups and their social media accounts? Police Commissioner Kamal Pant had already issued a detailed clarification: “Simon Raj and Chandru…Christian by community, had gone to an eatery on Mysuru Road…they collided with another bike ridden by one Shahid. It led to a quarrel. During the fight, Shahid stabbed Chandru on his right thigh and the assailants fled the spot. Chandru…succumbed to injury. All three accused are arrested.” Did the minister’s own biases and prejudice convince him that what he had heard and read from his “sources” must be true? It is this danger — of one’s own biases and prejudices affecting one’s public work — that those in high office must guard against. The Home Minister will do well to remember this. </p>.<p>Recent incidents and deliberate communal campaigns have made it clear that the state government is unwilling to act on its own to correct course and bring the communal temperature down. It may be time for Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to convey to the Chief Minister and the government to act strictly in accord with the Constitution and to uphold rule of law. Communal amity must be restored at the earliest, and this cannot be achieved as long as people in high offices keep stoking the fire. </p>
<p>The death of Chandru, 22, who was stabbed during a road rage altercation is tragic and condemnable. The guilty must be brought to book. But Karnataka Home Minister Araga Jnanendra’s bid to evoke passions by giving the incident a communal twist is dangerous and must be condemned. The minister made a statement suggesting that Chandru’s assailants had stabbed him because he had refused to speak in Urdu as they had demanded. The minister claimed that he had “gathered information” on the incident and went on to suggest that it was a Hindu-Muslim fight. The facts of the incident are otherwise. The minister should be held accountable for prejudging an incident, distorting facts and making a public statement that had the potential to inflame communal passions, that too when the communal temperature is already high in the state, thanks to the minister’s party and Parivar. Ministers, who have taken oath on the Constitution, are expected to act and talk with the utmost sense of responsibility. </p>.<p>The Home Minister later retracted the statement and said that his earlier version had been wrong, but by that time, much damage had been done, with other members of the BJP, led by its national general secretary C T Ravi, stoking communal frenzy over the incident. Why did the Home Minister choose to make a statement based on information he had apparently gathered from “sources”, rather than going by the version of the Police Commissioner? Were his “sources” Hindutva groups and their social media accounts? Police Commissioner Kamal Pant had already issued a detailed clarification: “Simon Raj and Chandru…Christian by community, had gone to an eatery on Mysuru Road…they collided with another bike ridden by one Shahid. It led to a quarrel. During the fight, Shahid stabbed Chandru on his right thigh and the assailants fled the spot. Chandru…succumbed to injury. All three accused are arrested.” Did the minister’s own biases and prejudice convince him that what he had heard and read from his “sources” must be true? It is this danger — of one’s own biases and prejudices affecting one’s public work — that those in high office must guard against. The Home Minister will do well to remember this. </p>.<p>Recent incidents and deliberate communal campaigns have made it clear that the state government is unwilling to act on its own to correct course and bring the communal temperature down. It may be time for Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to convey to the Chief Minister and the government to act strictly in accord with the Constitution and to uphold rule of law. Communal amity must be restored at the earliest, and this cannot be achieved as long as people in high offices keep stoking the fire. </p>