著者

岡山 誠子

出版者

一般財団法人 アジア政経学会

雑誌

アジア研究 (ISSN:00449237)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.63, no.1, pp.27-45, 2017-01-31 (Released:2017-03-24)

参考文献数

64

---

The massive anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat state in 2002 gathered considerable attention both in India and internationally. This paper demonstrates that the incident was caused by the locally spread riot systems (Brass, 2003) and challenges the theories that attribute the violence to ‘fragmented civil society’ (Varshney, 2002). It is argued that the ‘riot systems’ supported by the daily patronage networks (Berenschot, 2011) played a significant role, not only in the 2002 event but also in the past riots in Ahmedabad, the core city of the state. Varshney (2002) argues the Hindu–Muslim violence is a city-specific phenomenon related to the anonymous relationships in the urban society. This is why ‘associational civic engagement’ connecting unknown people are needed there. However, in the Gujarat state in 2002, the urban–rural division based on different levels of anonymity was not valid, if one considers how perpetrators were well organised logistically, regardless of cities like Ahmedabad or villages in Panchmahal district. It was evident from the victims’ remarks that the attackers were not necessarily unknown to them, even in the cities. The problem with Varshney’s (2002) hypothesis leads to his insufficient account of the post-independence history of the state. He regards it as the process of the decline of the ‘civic structures of peace’, with very limited references to the top-down mobilisation of the violence. It is this point that Brass’s (2003) theory of ‘institutionalised riot systems’ surpasses as an explanation, spelling out the ‘trigger’ (Kondo, 2015) of the events directly. He argues that party politics repeatedly motivate the dynamics of the riot systems in which people play various roles to prepare, activate and explain the brutality. Certainly Brass (2003) shares the weakness of the institutionalist perspective, which dismisses the agencies of the mobilised individuals by emphasising the roles of the elites producing the violence. However, if one considers the patronage networks spread in the poor areas, one can obtain some clues on the background situation of the participants. Their patronage connections with state officials, politicians and criminals were the solid basis of the riot systems that worked in the 2002 event. The official reports, the latest interviews and the existent literature on the 1969 and 1985 violence show the riot systems based on patronage relations developed historically in the city of Ahmedabad. This paper argues that it is the crucial context of the 2002 violence and that the fragmentation of civil society is a by-product of it.