Avoidable violence in UP election

The apprehension was always there. And it has happened all the same. When the decision on holding union parishad (UP) election on political party lines was recommended, the seed of violence was actually sown. Politics need not be so intrusive at all.
Reports have it that violence in the second phase of the UP election has been more widespread than in the first phase. Is it likely to be worse and worse in the third, fourth and fifth phase then? On the election day, eight people were killed and scores injured in clashes and post-election violence has left more than a hundred wounded. Houses were either set on fire or ransacked in several places.
This is indication enough that rural society where neighbours with allegiance to different political parties have lived peacefully for ages have turned on each other simply because of polls that used be fought apolitically in the past. True, unwritten intervention of politics in such polls was making an increasing inroad but still it did not get the better of the tolerable ambience. In fact, when the need was to keep politics at bay, its formal introduction has helped its arrival with all the attendant ills, violence leading the way.
The fact that members of parliament or other party leaders are increasingly throwing their weight behind their party candidates at all levels and forms of election -be it mayoral, municipal or other local government at the lower tiers -is symptomatic of random politicisation of society. Politicisation in its wake brings division in society if it is not on a healthy footing.
In developed societies, local boroughs organise their respective political campaigns where citizens of all hues and political supporters are welcome. Also there are people who with no allegiance to any particular party, attend because the polls are all about issues, not about mud-slinging and partisan support. The US presidential political campaign is turning nastier now but still there is not a single incident where supporters have flung themselves at each other's throat.
There is no harm in injecting certain amount of politics into local government race as long as it does not become overbearing. What is proving most dangerous is the violent attitude. This is no indication of a civilised society. This should have been taken into consideration when the decision on polls on party lines was taken. Society need to progress a long way before they start hating to be violent.
Intolerance in any system of governance is pernicious. There are valid reasons for people to be intolerant if irregularities in polls become an order of the day. The Election Commission surely has a tough job at hand to manage an election of such order. Musclemanry constitutes a large part of politics in this country. Instead of brain, brawn is allowed to rule the root. It is because of this, things go out of hand and violence takes its toll.
Why should someone consider it a must win or if there is any doubt go for any means to ensure that the rivals are defeated. Intrigues, thuggery and ill ploys are resorted to ensure win in polls. If only this mentality could be avoided, election at this level would be free of violence. Introduction of politics has only worsened the situation.
There is no knowing how this single decision will transform rural society in this country. If the rivalry becomes permanent between communities over political allegiance, the future will be fraught with more bloodshed and violence. No sane person can expect a Bangldesh riven by politics. Rural communities could do well without the poisonous politics. Its introduction will make neighbours hostile to each other although they subscribe to politics of intrigues on little understanding of the same.