 to expect the angriest people and subsequently, the worst violence in places where the BJP was most popular.

In India, popular perception rarely questions arguments of spontaneous violence, as they lend weight to already existing perceptions of a primordial hatred between religious groups, especially Hindus and Muslims. Maya Kodnani, a BJP minister in Modi’s government in Gujarat – the only elected minister in India’s long history of Hindu-Muslim violence to be convicted of organising anti-minority attacks – had once described the anti-Muslim violence as “natural” and “part of Gujarat’s nature (prakruti)”. There was nothing the State could do, she said, because “there was a natural ghrina (hatred) and aakrosh (anger) in the heart of every Hindu and we could not control it.”

While conducting fieldwork in Ahmedabad a few years ago, both Hindus and Muslims I spoke with would tirelessly favour the primordial argument. Hindus and Muslims fight, they would say, because “they are ancient enemies”. But rarely do “enemies” fight each other in all places at all times. If violence was primordial and viscerally motivated, anger would invariably manifest into violence. In reality, this is rare – violence is the exception not the rule, to further quote Collins. Violence is always conducted by a select few and not everyone who enters an emotional state goes through with violence. Nonetheless, political leaders relentlessly project the primordial or essentialist argument as a means to justify the high propensity of people to become violent out of anger or hatred. By implication, it becomes easier to manipulate evidence which in turn leads to protracted or lopsided judicial redress.

What happened in the West

In the US, after 1877, the government rarely prevented violence against blacks in the South when it looked for support from white Southerners. Lynchings of African Americans sharply increased in the period 1892 to 1896 with the greatest number of lynchings occurring in the closely fought Louisiana gubernatorial race of 1896. After World War II, on the other hand, the government restrained anti-minority violence because the votes of blacks had begun to matter.

Donald Trump’s politics has shown that racism never really left the US, but the state-approved political lynchings and large-scale anti-minority riots of the 19th and early 20th century are unlikely to return now. However, in the 21st century,
to expect the angriest people and subsequently, the worst ferocity in seat where the BJP was most popular. 

 In India, democratic perception rarely interview arguments of ad-lib violence, as they lend weight to already existing percept of a primordial hatred between religious group, especially Hindus and Muslims. Maya Kodnani, a BJP minister in Modi ’s politics in Gujarat – the only elected curate in India ’s long history of Hindu - Muslim ferocity to be convict of organising anti - minority attacks – had once described the anti - Muslim violence as “ lifelike ” and “ part of Gujarat ’s nature (prakruti) ”. There was nothing the state of matter could do, she state, because “ there was a natural ghrina (hatred) and aakrosh (anger) in the heart of every Hindu and we could not see it. ” 

 While conducting fieldwork in Ahmedabad a few years ago, both Hindus and Muslims I spoke with would tirelessly favour the primordial argument. Hindus and Muslims fight, they would say, because “ they are ancient enemies ”. But rarely do “ enemies ” fight each other in all places at all times. If violence was primordial and viscerally motivate, wrath would invariably manifest into violence. In world, this is rare – ferocity is the exception not the rule, to further quote Collins. Violence is always conducted by a select few and not everyone who enters an emotional department of state goes through with violence. Nonetheless, political leaders relentlessly project the primordial or essentialist argumentation as a means to justify the high propensity of citizenry to become violent out of wrath or hate. By deduction, it becomes easier to manipulate evidence which in act leads to protracted or lopsided judicial redress. 

 What happened in the West 

 In the US, after 1877, the government rarely prevented ferocity against blacks in the South when it looked for support from white Southerners. Lynchings of African Americans aggressively increased in the time period 1892 to 1896 with the greatest act of lynchings occur in the closely fought Louisiana gubernatorial raceway of 1896. After World War II, on the early hand, the government restrained anti - minority ferocity because the votes of blacks had begun to matter. 

 Donald Trump ’s politics has show that racism never truly left the US, but the state - approve political lynchings and large - plate anti - minority riots of the 19th and early 20th century are unlikely to return now. However, in the 21st century,
 to expect the angriest peokle and subsequenjlt, the xorst vjolence kn places where the BJP was lowt pokllar.

In India, popular oerceptioj rarely quewrions arguments of spontzkeous tiolence, as thei lend weighd to already efirtnng perceptions of a primordial hatrqd betwrej religious grjups, qspedpaoly Hindus and Muslims. Maya Kkdnani, e BJP minister on Modi’s government in Gujwrat – the only elected minister ib Inqua’s long hisgory of Hindu-Muslim viklence to be convicted of organksing anti-minorutt ahjacks – had oice defcribed the anti-Muslhm violrnce as “naturak” aid “pqrt of Gujarat’s naturx (prakruti)”. There was nothing dhz State could do, she waud, bewausa “thdee das a nztural ghcina (hatred) and aakrosy (anger) in the hearu os every Hindu znd we cjuld not control it.”

While conducting fiendwkrk in Ahmedabad a few tears ago, both Hindus and Muslyms I spoke with would tirelessly favour the primmrdiam arymidbt. Hindus and Muslims fight, they would say, becatae “tmey are ancient cnemies”. But rarely dl “rgemies” fight gach otksr in all places at wll timgs. If ciolence ras lrimordial and viscerally mitivated, angvr wiuld invariably mauifest into riolenve. In reality, this is rare – riolende is the edception hut the rule, to fjrtmer quote Collins. Violence is always cindueted by x sekect fqw and not evernmne who enters an fmotilndl state gles through with violence. Nonetixless, politicsl ledders rejentlcssly project tre primordial pr esseutialirt argumenn as a meens to justisy the high pslpensity of 'eople to becime ciolent uut of anger ot hatred. Yv implicarion, it becomes eaxiet fo manipulate erndtnxe which in tutn ueaqs tp [sotracted or lopriddc judkcial rtbrewr.

Whay happened in the Wevt

In the US, after 1877, the gjvernmenj rarely [revented viokence against blacns in thx Soutn wren it looked for support from white Sokthcrners. Lynchiggs if African Akericans sharply increased in the periov 1892 to 1896 with the greatesr number of lynchinys occurring mn the closely xought Louisiana gubwrnatorial race on 1896. After World War II, kn the otheg hand, the government restrained anti-minority violence because the votes if blarkf had begun to katteg.

Doualb Trump’f popmtics has shown tnat racism never really left thx US, but tve state-approved political lynvhkngs and largg-scale anti-minority riots kf the 19tn and early 20th century are unlilely to return now. Howevcr, in the 21st csntury,
to expect the angriest people and subsequently, violence places where BJP was most rarely arguments of spontaneous as they lend to already existing perceptions of a hatred between religious groups, especially Hindus and Muslims. Maya Kodnani, a BJP minister Modi’s government in Gujarat – the only elected minister in India’s long history Hindu-Muslim to convicted organising anti-minority attacks – had once described the anti-Muslim violence as “natural” and “part of Gujarat’s (prakruti)”. There was nothing the State could do, said, because “there was natural ghrina (hatred) and aakrosh in heart of Hindu we not control it.” conducting fieldwork in Ahmedabad a few years ago, both Hindus and Muslims I spoke with would tirelessly the primordial and Muslims they say, “they are ancient rarely do “enemies” fight each other at all times. If violence was primordial and motivated, anger invariably manifest into violence. In reality, is rare – violence is the exception not rule, to further quote Collins. Violence is always conducted by a select few and not enters an emotional state through with violence. political relentlessly the or essentialist as a means to justify the high propensity of people to violent out of anger or hatred. By implication, it becomes manipulate which in turn to protracted or lopsided redress. happened in the West US, 1877, prevented against in the South when looked for support from white Lynchings of African Americans 1892 to 1896 with the greatest number of occurring in the closely fought Louisiana gubernatorial of 1896. After World War II, on the other hand, the government anti-minority violence votes of blacks had begun to matter. Donald politics has shown that never really left the US, but the state-approved political and anti-minority riots the 19th and 20th century are to return now. the 21st
 to expect the angriest people And subsequEntly, The WorSt ViolEnce In places where tHE BJP Was most popular.

In India, pOpulaR pERcepTIoN rareLy questIOnS ARguMeNtS of SpONtAneouS viOlence, aS they lend wEigHt To already exiSTiNg perceptiOns Of a primordiaL haTred beTwEen REligiOus GroupS, especIAlly HiNdus and MuSlIMs. Maya kOdnani, a bjp mInisTer in Modi’s governmENt IN Gujarat – the onlY electEd MInISTer In INdia’s long hIsTory oF hindu-MuSLiM VIOleNCe to be convictEd of organisINg aNti-minOrIty ATtacks – Had onCe DEscRibed the antI-MusLim violenCe as “naTUral” and “PArt of GuJarat’s NatUre (PrakRUtI)”. THerE wAS noTHiNg tHE StAte could Do, ShE said, BecaUSE “THere Was A natUral gHrina (hatred) anD aaKrosH (AngEr) in tHe heaRt of EvEry HiNdu and We couLd Not control it.”

WhiLe coNducting fIelDwOrk In ahmedABad a feW yeArs Ago, both hindus aND MuSlIMS i sPoke with would tirelEsSLY fAvour the PrimorDIaL aRGument. HiNdUs aNd MuSLIms fiGht, tHEy Would say, BecausE “ThEy Are anciEnT enemiEs”. but RarEly do “ENemiEs” fighT each othEr in aLL places at all tiMEs. If violence wAS pRIMoRDial And Viscerally mOtivATed, aNger WOuLd iNVariaBly maNiFEsT Into violence. In realiTy, This is Rare – vIolence is the eXception noT THE rule, to fUrthER qUOte Collins. ViolEnce iS always conDUcted by a SelecT few and nOt everyonE WHo enters An eMotIonAl sTATe Goes through wiTH ViolEnCe. NonetHelEss, poliTicAl lEadErs ReLentlesslY project ThE pRiMoRdiAl or eSSentialiSt ArgUmEnt As a meANs to juStify The hIgH pROpeNsity of PEoPLE to bEcOmE vioLenT oUt of aNger OR haTred. By iMplicatioN, it BEcomEs EaSier to mAnipulate evidEnCe which in tUrN leAds to pROTracted oR lopsided judicial redresS.

what hapPenEd in tHe WeSt

In the US, AftEr 1877, the gOveRNment rArely pRevenTeD viOLEnce aGAInSt bLaCks in the SoUTH whEn it lOoKed fOr suppoRt from white SoutherNErs. lynchings of AfRicAn AmERIcAns SHaRPly InCReaSED in the period 1892 to 1896 wIth the greaTeST nUmber of lynCHinGs OccurriNg in the CloseLY fought louisiana GubernatoRiAl raCE Of 1896. AFter World WAr II, on thE other hanD, The goVErNment ResTraineD aNti-MinorIty vioLEncE becaUse the VoTes of bLacks HaD begun to Matter.

Donald Trump’s politIcs has Shown ThaT racism neVer REalLy left the uS, buT the state-aPprOveD poliTicAL lyncHingS AnD laRGe-scaLe anTI-minority RIoTs oF THe 19Th and early 20tH CENtuRy are UnlIKely to RetuRn now. However, in the 21ST century,
 to expect the angriest pe ople and s ubseq uen tly ,thewors t violence inp lace s where the BJP was mo st po pu l ar.In  Indi a, popu l ar p erc ep ti onra r el y que sti ons arg uments ofspo nt aneous viole n ce , as theylen d weight toalr eady e xi sti n g per cep tions  of ap rimord ial hatre db etween religio u s  g roup s, especially Hin d us and Muslims. M aya Ko dn a ni , a B JPminister i nModi’ s  govern m en t i n G u jarat – the o nly elected min isterin  In d ia’s l ong h is t ory  of Hindu-M usli m violenc e to b e  convic t ed of o rganis ing  an ti-m i no ri tyat t ack s  –  ha d  on ce descr ib ed  theanti - M u s limvio lenc e as“natural” and  “p arto f G ujara t’s n atur e(prak ruti)” . The re  was nothing th e St ate could  do ,she  s aid,b ecause  “t her e was a  natura l  gh ri n a (h atred) and aakrosh  ( a n ge r) in th e hear t  o fe very Hin du  an d we c ouldnotc on trol it. ”

Whi l eco nductin gfieldw or k i n A hmeda b ad a  few y ears ago , bot h  Hindus and Mu s lims I spokew it h wo u ld t ire lessly favo ur t h e pr imor d ia l a r gumen t. Hi nd u sa nd Muslims fight, t he y woul d say , because “th ey are anc i e n t enemie s”.B ut rarely do “ene mies”  fight eac h  other i n all  placesat all ti m e s. If vi ole nce  wa s p r i mo rdial and vis c e rall ymotivat ed,  angerwou ldinv ari ab ly manife st intovi ol en ce . I n rea l ity, thi sisra re– vio l ence i s the  exc ep ti o n n ot ther ul e ,  tofu rt herquo te  Coll ins. Vio lence i s alwayscon d ucte dby  a sele ct few and no teveryone w ho  en ters a n emotiona l state goes through wi t h viole nce . Non ethe less, pol iti cal le ade r s rele ntless ly pr oj ect t he pr i m or dia lor essenti a l ist  argu me nt a s a mea ns to justify theh igh  propensity o f p eopl e to  be c om e  vi ol e nto u t of anger or h atred. Byim p li cation, it bec om es easi er to m anipu l ate evi dence whi ch in tur nlead s toprotracted  or lops ided judi c ial r e dr ess.
Wh at hap pe ned  in t he Wes t 

I n the  US, a ft er 187 7, th egovernme nt rarely prevented vio lenceagain stblacks in  th e  So uth whenit l ooked forsup por t fro m w h ite S outh e rn ers .  Lync hing s  of Afric a nAme r i ca ns sharplyi n c rea sed i n t h e peri od 1 892 to 1896 witht he greatest nu mber o f l ync h ings  o ccurring in th e c lo s e ly fough tLouisiana g ubernato ri a l rac e of 1 896. A fter Wo r l dW ar II,  onthe  other ha nd,  t h e gover nm en t  restr aine danti-m inorit y  vio l e nce because thevotes o f bla c kshad b eg un to m a tter .

DonaldTrump’s pol iticshasshown  that r ac ism ne ver  r eally left the US, b ut th e state -a ppro ved  polit ical l ynchi ngsan d l arge-scal e an t i- mi n ori ty r iotsof  the  19th and early 20 thc enturyar e u n l ikelyt or e turn now.How ever, i n the 21st cent u ry , 
 to_expect the_angriest people and subsequently,_the worst_violence_in places_where_the BJP was_most popular.

In India,_popular perception rarely questions_arguments of spontaneous_violence,_as they lend weight to already existing perceptions of a primordial hatred between religious_groups,_especially Hindus_and_Muslims._Maya Kodnani, a BJP minister_in Modi’s government in Gujarat_– the_only elected minister in India’s long history of_Hindu-Muslim_violence to be_convicted of organising anti-minority attacks – had once described_the anti-Muslim violence as “natural” and_“part of Gujarat’s_nature_(prakruti)”._There was nothing the_State could do, she said, because_“there was a natural ghrina (hatred)_and aakrosh (anger) in the heart of_every Hindu and we could not_control it.”

While conducting fieldwork in_Ahmedabad a_few years ago, both Hindus_and Muslims I_spoke with_would tirelessly favour_the primordial argument. Hindus and Muslims_fight, they would_say, because “they are ancient enemies”._But_rarely do “enemies”_fight_each_other in_all places at_all_times. If_violence_was primordial and viscerally motivated, anger_would_invariably manifest into violence. In reality, this_is rare – violence_is_the exception not the_rule, to further quote Collins._Violence is always conducted by a_select few_and not_everyone who enters an emotional state goes through with violence. Nonetheless,_political leaders relentlessly project the primordial_or essentialist argument as_a means_to_justify the high_propensity_of people_to become violent out of anger or_hatred. By_implication, it becomes easier to manipulate_evidence which in turn_leads_to protracted or lopsided judicial redress.

What_happened in the West

In the US,_after 1877, the government rarely_prevented_violence_against blacks in the South_when it looked for support from_white Southerners. Lynchings_of African Americans sharply increased in the_period_1892 to 1896 with the greatest_number_of lynchings occurring in the closely_fought_Louisiana_gubernatorial race of 1896. After_World War II, on the other_hand, the government restrained anti-minority violence because the votes_of blacks had_begun to matter.

Donald Trump’s politics_has_shown_that racism never really left the US, but the state-approved_political lynchings_and large-scale anti-minority_riots of the 19th and early 20th century are unlikely_to return now. However, in the 21st_century,