‘We belong to Bharat, not Hindustan’

January 31, 2002

Adivasis from south Gujarat assert their their distinct religio-cultural identity and press for their rights

On November 4, 2001 about 400 trucks, mini–trucks, jeeps, cars, and carts made a bee–line for Dev Mogra, off the Dediapada–Sagbara state highway, the holiest of the Adivasi shrines dedicated to Ya Mogi and located in Narmada District, Gujarat. A pandal was erected in the vicinity of the shrine to accommodate about 30,000 people.

The meeting or rally was scheduled for 11.00 a.m. Every inch of the pandal was occupied and there were people standing in the blazing sun too. About 35,000 tribals converged at this holy place from all over the eastern highlands of Gujarat, from southern Rajasthan and northern Maharashtra.

Half a kilometre from the pandal ,about a thousand youth volunteers, both boys and girls, lined up on both sides of the road. Girls were dressed in their traditional dress but the boys wore pants and white T–shirts. The T–shirts had a printed picture of Ya Mogi and the Jai Adivasi (Hail Adivasi) greeting. The volunteers wore a blue head–band that read, Jai Adivasi.

These volunteers directed the incoming vehicles to the parking area, and led people to their seats. The pandal itself was decorated with buntings, flowers and Jai Adivasi slogans. A large picture of Ya Mogi graced the colourful rostrum. On one side of the rostrum chairs were arranged for the press and government, taluka and district level tribal officials. On the other side of the pandal, there was a makeshift kitchen cooking dal bhaat for all those present. Until the official programme began, a group of singers entertained the crowd with songs of tribal asmita (nationalism).

At 11.30 a.m., the function began with tribal MLAs and other key tribal dignitaries taking the stage. They were introduced and garlanded one by one. Then, the key organiser of the rally, Amarsinh Vasava, the MLA of the Dediapada constituency, uncovered a large picture of Ya Mogi and then presented an enlarged photo of Ya Mogi to each of those on the dais. Key persons on the dais included PD Vasava, Raman Chaudhry, Dalpat Vasava, Barjul Patel, Raman Rathod, Nagarbhai Vasava and Amarsinh Vasava, all tribal MLAs. Then there were Professor Valu, Shrimati Jermaben (Narmada district president), the tribal king of Sagbara who is also the trusty of Dev Mogra shrine and so on. Also present was Uttam Parmar, a Dalit leader from neighbouring Surat district.

The speeches over, the volunteers organised the crowd in the mandap into orderly lines and served daal bhaat. The meeting was over by 4.30 p.m. The posse of police had no place there, nor any work. The organisation of the rally was disciplined and impeccable.

The contents of the speeches made on the occasion could be summarised as follows:

1. We are all moolnivasis (original inhabitants) of this land and that is why we are called Adivasis. Indian civilisation is the oldest in the world but ours is older still. We belong to Bharat, not Hindustan. We should call ourselves moolnivasis, Adivasis, Bharatvasis.

2. We have been ousted from fertile plains to the hills and today we are even chased out of these hills. Our land, forests, water and quarries are exploited and on our poverty the non–tribals stand tall. Our land is taken away for industry, dams are built mostly in tribal areas leading to submergence of hundreds of villages, thereby forcing us to migrate to hostile plains. Our forests are classified as reserved and protected and we can’t touch even a branch for fuel without permission. We have no place to live peacefully.

3. Fifty years have passed since Independence but we have not yet tasted the fruits of that Independence. We still do not have educational facilities. We have not had a revolution of intellect and thought. Not many of our Adivasis have become doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats, businessmen. It is only because of missionaries that we have got some education. It is they who found diamonds in the dirt.

4. We are fragmented today by the different religious sects that seek our membership. We have our own religion. We are fragmented by different political parties. We need to become one. Religion is a private matter. We need to come together as Adivasis and not as Hindu or Christian, or Muslim tribals. We should do away with the division between Mota Chaudhry, and Nana Chaudhry, Dhanka Tadvi and Teteria Tadvi, Dungaria and Kathalia Vasava and re– establish our original identity as Bhils and remove the high and low differences that have crept among us of late. It is only through unity that we can break our shackles. If we stand united, those who exploit us will come begging to us. Otherwise we have to go to them as beggars as is now the case.

5. We are still gulam (slaves). We are reduced to the status of casual labourers who have to migrate and look for work in far away plains or cities. We are still made to walk like goats, looking down all the time and have never been able to look up and stand tall. We have in us inner resources to stand up like lions and catch the snakes by their heads. We only need to get organised.

6. The BJP government in Gujarat has minimised our reservations and lifted the eight–kilometre regulation for purchase of land. This has facilitated the alienation of tribal land in Gujarat.

7. The Hindutva forces have misled us. They have not just thrived on our poverty but also sought their own development on the destruction of our resources like land, water and forests. The biggest conspiracy of Hindutva is to hide our real identity by calling us Vanvasis. Those who live in the jungle are Vanvasis, they say. They have made us carry bricks for Ramshilapujan, taken contributions from us, asked us to put tilak, play the garbha, celebrate Diwali and Ganesh festival which are not ours. But, most importantly, they do not pay attention to our real problems of education, unemployment, human rights, culture, transfer of resources, our very existence. Ayodhya is not our problem nor is Ram. The BJP has trapped us like fish in the net by misleading us on Ayodhya. We must greet each other not with ‘Ram, Ram’ or ‘Good Morning’ but with ‘Jai Adivasi’.

8. We have lived here for centuries before non–tribals came here. If non–tribals want to interact with us they should attend to our most important problems and not just sell us their religion. We have our own religion. We worship nature, fields, grain, elders and ancestors and have our own deities. Ram is not ours, Sita is not ours. But our shrines are taken away and Hinduised. Ambaji and Shamlaji in the north were our shrines years ago but they are gone. Today we have only one shrine of Ya Mogi which too was in the process of being taken over by Hindutvavaadis.

9. We have symbolically gathered here at the feet of Ya Mogi, our mother, to begin our revolution: to assert our identity and our rights. This is not a political rally. This is a Jai Adivasi rally. All, whatever be their political or religious affiliation, must come together as Adivasis. We have 75 lakh Adivasis in nine districts making a total of 15 percent of the 50 million population of Gujarat. We have 30 tribal MLAs. Whenever our interests are in danger we must fight as Adivasis.

10. Referring to a tribe called dubla, which means weak/poor the speaker said, "We are not dubla but takatwala (strong)." The outsiders cannot keep us as bonded or casual labourers forever. We are not goats but lions. We can become doctors, lawyers, officers. We have among us people of courage who can stand up to anyone. It is time to stand up and unite. Anyone who attempts to fragment and divide the Adivasis should be defeated. We should identify our enemies and friends.

11. We Adivasis have inner resources. But like rain water, we have let it flow down the drain allowing non–tribals to dominate us. We need to build check–dams and conserve our resources.

After 50 years of Independence a small creamy layer has surfaced among tribals that dabble in politics, corners reservations and developmental schemes. The leaders from this creamy layer have been co–opted by non–tribals; they have ignored their own people. Adivasi self–assertion is not new in Gujarat. There have been leaders from among the masses who have risen from time to time during the last 15 years (See Lobo 1994: 82–83). This kind of leadership was feared by non–tribals and hated by leaders from their own creamy layer. A series of such leaders were murdered by vested interests. Chhotubhai Vasava was one such leader who continued the line of indigenous assertion for tribal identity and nationalism. He was anti-Congress and opposed outside exploiters. He was MLA of the Janata Party for a long time. However, even a leader of Chhotubhai Vasava’s stature was co–opted by the BJP a few years ago. After withstanding all manner of harassment and atrocities on him by the state, he finally succumbed to the vile of the BJP and thereby lost his credibility.

After a lull of two years, Amarsingh Vasava has picked up from where Chhotubhai left off. Amarsingh, with his Jai Adivasi Samiti, has yet again resurrected hope for an indigenous leadership and a movement that may be called their own. Today, the Jai Adivasi slogan is visible in many places and people utter it with pride when they meet each other, in many districts.

This assertion has put the Hindutva clan on the back foot. As the BJP received a big setback in the district panchayat elections in July 2001, the state government postponed the village panchayat elections.

Three years ago, there were just seven Hindu shrines in the Dangs, a tribal predominant district. But in the last three years the Hindutvavaadis have built 35 new Hindu shrines, most of them dedicated to Hanuman. During the same period, the Dangs have been subjected to traumatic experience. Churches and Christian prayer halls have been burnt, Christians harassed, Christian tribals have been discriminated against by the state in developmental projects, the state machinery such as the police, district development officers and collectors have been hostile to Christians, presumably at the behest of the BJP government.

In tribal areas, Hindutvavaadis are still demonising Christian missionaries and harassing Tribal Christians. They have now started surveillance of Christians and missionaries in each of the tribal villages. Four educated but unemployed youth from each village have been recruited and each paid an honorarium of Rs 250 per month to tail the missionaries, to take note of their words and deeds and their projects. They are also supposed to identify Christian tribals and local leaders and report this to the group head of 20 villages. These units gather intelligence that is then used to harass missionaries and Christians and haul them to law courts to answer fabricated cases.

Before Christmas every December, they create problems, commit atrocities and create law and order problems. Earlier, the Congress had a strong hold among the tribals. But Rajput politicians who exploited the tribals dominated the leadership. With the people’s sheer disgust for these Congress leaders and the sustained wily propaganda of Hindutva, the BJP managed to wrest a few parliamentary seats in tribal areas in the last elections. But today the BJP stands exposed and the anti-incumbency factor favours the Congress. The mood in the Congress is upbeat. So much so that Amarsinh Chaudhry, who is the Congress president and leader of the opposition in the Assembly, did not turn up for the Jai Adivasi rally despite confirming his participation.

The indigenous assertion of tribals has a history, with Chhotubhai Vasava as its most illustrious star. But then he too has fallen by the wayside. His mantle is now likely to be appropriated by Amarsinh Vasava, a forceful speaker who wants to keep a safe distance from party politics and concentrate on Adivasis and their problems. (But despite the rhetoric one could notice a pro–Congress stance in the speeches made from the rostrum on November 4, 2001. This is partly because the Congress is seen to be on the winning side in the next election).

The MLAs were taken to the Ya Mogi shrine for a darshan to pledge their commitment to the tribal cause. About ten years ago this shrine was in the process of getting Hinduised. A Hindu pujari had taken charge, pictures of Hindu deities had been installed and the location for the blood sacrifice was shifted to just outside the shrine.

But this process was reversed and a pucca shrine has been built by tribals in the last three years. Today, this shrine has become symbolic of tribal identity and nationalism. It is to be hoped that this shrine and the ‘Jai Adivasi’ venture retains its momentum and the never–ending hope of a subjugated people is realised to form the kind of society that they envision for themselves.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Forum

Cry for Justice

January 31, 2002

A grievous case of prolonged sexual violence and exploitation of a minor Dalit girl from the Hanuman Garh district of Rajasthan over eighteen months, her valiant attempts to escape and the failure of the police to further the investigation due to some officials hobnobbing with the accused from influential castes involved in the crime have resulted in a detailed fact-finding investigative report prepared by the Centre for Dalit Human Rights, Jaipur.

Though kumari Bhagwanti Neetu 16 years of age today, was abducted about 20 months ago from Hanuman Garh town by one Rohitash and Krishan Godara resident of Nai Abadi, Hanuman Garh, FIR number 493/2001 under section 363, 376, 342, 323 of 120B of IPC was lodged in the Hanuman Garh police station on October 18, 01, when, after three unsuccessful attempts she managed to escape back to her family.

The victim was subjected to brutal sexual violence under forcible abduction over the past two years. The victim-survivor has testified to the names of 70 accused before the Magistrate under sections 161 and 164 of the CRPC. The police have identified 22 persons as the main accused in this case, including one woman, Smt. Vimla who allegedly ‘sold’ the victim to the influential person for sexual exploitation. To date, the police have managed to arrest only 15 accused persons who are still under judicial custody. Among the accused who have been named are powerful and moneyed persons belonging to the Jat, Bishnoi, Kamad and Brahmin castes.

A fact-finding team consisting of P. L. Mimroth, convenor, Centre for Dalit Human Rights, Jaipur, Than Singh, former MP, Laxmi Narain, Convenor, and. Kamlesh Yadav, visited the areas of incident and met the residents of villages Behlolpur, Makkar, Pucca Sahonara, local social activists and all the concerned officials including the Collector, SP and SHO, Hanumangarh town on December 21 and 22, 2001 to ascertain the status of the investigation. Since then, the team has met highly placed officials in the district administration and even petitioned persons among the political class, including the chief minister of the state, Ashok Gahlot.

The fact-finding team was informed that a case has been registered under relevant sections of the IPC. and section 3 of the S/C and S/T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Pahar Singh SHO also informed the team that the chargesheet in this case has not yet been filed due to a delay in the office of Gurcharan Rai,AdditionalSP, Shriganganagar who is currently investigating this case. Five more main accused, powerful and absconding men, are yet to be arrested.

Despite strenuous efforts, the fact-finding team was not able to establish contact with the victim and her parents. Residents of Behlolpur and many other social activists told the team that the victim and her parents are still in the custody of all those powerful elements who are directly or indirectly involved in this crime.

The Police deny this, saying that since she was a minor she has been handed over to her parents in the presence of upsarpanch (a landlord) of village Behlolpur. However local residents deny having seen her or her parents in the village. Their whereabouts are simply not known. The team members brought this fact to the notice of the Collector as well as the SP police who promised to take steps for rehabilitation of the victim and her parents in the village of Behlolpur itself.

As per the provisions of the Rules of S/C & S/T (Prevention of Atrocity) Act 1995, a victim of sexual exploitation as in this case, is legally entitled to get a sum of Rs. 25,000 as interim relief from the district administration soon after a medical examination is conducted by the medical board. This was conducted on October 19, 01. Independent investigations by the CDHR have revealed however that the compensation amount has not been paid to the victim by the district administration.

The story of the pain and struggle put up by this minor Dalit girl is heroic. After eighteen months of brutal sexual violence, she escaped from the site of the brick kiln and came to Hanuman Garh by bus. With the help of a renowned social worker of the area, Jasvinder Singh, she succeeded in lodging an FIR number 493/2001 on October 18, 01 at the Hanuman Garh police station under sections 363, 376, 342, 323, 120 B of the IPC and section 3 of the S/C & S/T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

Initially, timely intervention by the Collector and the SP led to prompt registration of the complaint by the local police under the relevant sections. The victim-survivor was medically examined by the Medical Board and her statement on video was recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr PC. The Police also immediately nabbed many of the main accused on October 19 and 25 itself.

Subsequent developments and follow–up actions reveal that the initial promptness displayed by the police were diffused as they came under pressure, allegedly from accused persons belonging to dominant and powerful castes. According to investigations made by the CDHR, the attempt appeared to be to destroy all traces of evidence against the accused.

The residents of Behlolpur and many social activists who are fully conversant with the facts of the case clearly narrated to the CDHR, the sectarian role played by Investigating Officer, Jagdish Chander Bishnoi ,who very cleverly allowed a supporter of one of the accused to abduct the victim and her parents. They remain in custody of the accused and hence, today, the outcome of the whole case is in jeopardy.

The role of the police also appears to be dubious in their failure to produce the girl before the High Court at Jodhpur on December 10, 01 in response to the habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the brother of the girl. There were many eyewitnesses present the day the habeas corpus petition was heard. They testified before the fact-finding team and said that the victim survivor was seen in the clutches of the main accused in this case. After the court proceedings, the girl and her parents were taken away under tight security by the same set of accused persons. Yet neither the police nor the Courts intervened.

The fact-finding team has unearthed other controversial facts. On November 10, 01,Gulab Singh Shaktawat, the state home minister had ordered the DIG, Bikaner to transfer the inquiry of the case to the additional SP, Ganganagar. Despite these orders of the home minister, the Director General of Police re-requisitioned the case file and directed the deputy SP, Hanuman Garh police station, the location of the complaint, to conduct the inquiry. The apprehension is that this will enable local dominant caste influences to tamper with the evidence.

Moreover, an all out attempt to malign the local social activists and workers who are pursuing the case is also afoot. The local police have been bandying around statements allegedly obtained from Bhagwanti Devi and her parents making some false and baseless charges against social activists who are pursuing this case against all odds. The fact that the victim survivor and her hapless family, all from poor and marginalised sections have been forcibly kept by powerful persons, also accused in the case, is simply being overlooked.

The police is also avoiding the arrest of several remaining main accused including Shakti Punia, presumably because they are well-connected. Finally, the most critical issue today is that the chargesheet in this case is required to be filed in a court of law within the limitation period of 90 days and the deadline is due shortly. The failure of the police to file the same may result in the bailing out of all the accused who are in judicial custody.

Among the demands being made by the CDHR and to which solidarity from all human rights groups is sought are:

An inquiry into the allegedly partisan and illegal role of Jagdish Chander Bishnoi, the inquiry officer must be undertaken forthwith, before this suspect behaviour affects the outcome of the case
The arrest of the remaining accused persons from dominant castes and their prompt, day to day trial in a Court of law in accordance with provisions of IPC and SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must be undertaken.
The statutory compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim (Norms of the relief amount as per Rule 12(4) S/C & S/T Rule 1995) and provision of legal aid and assistance for the conduct of the case in court must be undertaken
Adequate security must be provided to the victim and her family after rehabilitating her in her village and support provided for the conclusion of the case
The family and child welfare and social welfare department of the government should the directed to see that the victim and her parents/relatives are not harassed by accused persons or any other persons including elected representatives.

We urge all human rights groups and right thinking individuals to join the campaign to get this Dalit Minor Girl Justice.

P.L.Mimroth, Than Singh, Laxminarain, Kamlesh Yadav, Centre for Dalit Human Rights

sharad@jp1.dot.net.in

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Campaign 1

Condemn lathi-charge on earthquake survivors

January 31, 2002

Reproduced here is the English translation of the memorandum submitted jointly to the chief minister of Gujarat by several Gujarat-based NGOs on January 29. The NGOs request that you/ your organisation endorse the memorandum and send the same on your own letterheads through fax or by e-mail to the chief minister of Gujarat at the following contact number and address.

cm@narendramodi.com
Fax office: 3222101, 3223467

Fax residence: 3243726

January 29, 2002

To,
Chief Minister
State of Gujarat
Gandhinagar

On January 26, members of several organisations in Gujarat — volunteers, activists and intelligentsia concerned about the rehabilitation of quake–affected people — gathered at Gandhi Ashram, Ahmedabad to observe a day–long fast and also held a dharna. The chief object was to register protest against the state authorities’ oppressive treatment towards the Lok Adhikar Manch and SUCI activists in Anjar, Bhachau and Rapar.

In the last 15 days, the Lok Adhikar Manch has organised peaceful rallies for people’s fundamental right to rehabilitation. On January 25, the government authorities began the shameful task of removing huts of the quake-affected victims living in and around Bhatt-Padia and Vagad Welfare Society. As a spontaneous response to this, many people joined a rasta–roko. The police ordered a merciless lathi–charge on unarmed citizens, especially helpless women.

We strongly condemn this undemocratic step against the activists and volunteers coordinated by the Lok Adhikar Manch to fight for a common citizen’s fundamental right to food, shelter and livelihood.

For the past 10 days at least, government officials have been destroying temporary tents and accommodation of these marginalised citizens asking for perfectly democratic rights. In a region suffering from paucity of water, their water has been thrown away and there have been blatant attempts to break Kutch’s confidence and self–respect. This is led by Mr. Chhibbar, the district collector of Kutch. Several government officers willing to do their duties have been thwarted by this collector.

It seems to us that Gujarat’s year-end attempt to present a rosy picture of rehabilitation is politically motivated. With this end in view, the government seems to be making a well–planned effort to silence the voice of the people. The government must abandon this anti–democratic approach and must adopt a pro–people, constructive approach and must complete the work of rehabilitation, keeping social justice as the central concern.

1. This meeting condemns the fascist, repressive and undemocratic approach adopted by the government in Bhachau on the 25th of this month and honours the fundamental right of the people of quake–affected areas to protest democratically against injustice. The government has struck a deadly blow on the democratic spirit by thwarting the constitutional right to self–expression. We demand that this right is respected in future.

2. The police have falsely charged the seven social activists arrested on January 25 with extremely shameful crimes of spreading terror, rioting, misleading people and attempted murder of government officers. We condemn this despotic attitude of the government and demand that all these false and fabricated cases be withdrawn immediately.

3. This meeting strongly condemns the despicable, anti–people and dictatorial attitude adopted by the District Collector of Bhuj during the meeting with media and leaders of this popular movement. The collector, who tries to depict the tragedy of the earthquake as a celebration, who disdains and threatens common citizens of this country has lost the right to be on a public position. Therefore, this meeting demands that the democratic spirit of this country be saved by the immediate suspension and punitive action against Mr. Chhibbar.

4. This meeting takes serious note of the fact that a number of problems related to assistance to the quake–affected people remain unsolved. Besides, the government approach of red–tapist officialdom keeps reducing the chances of justice for the people. Therefore, this meeting asks that the government appoint with immediate effect a taskforce in each of the talukas. This taskforce should comprise an equal number of representatives of quake affected citizens, of the Lok Adhikar Manch and of the government and that they be empowered to settle the problems at the village level.

We are convinced that such a system will reduce the suffering of the quake–affected people and bring under control the rampant corruption.
Signatories:

Achyut Yagnik, SETU James C. Dabhi, Behavioural Science Centre; Francis Parmar, St. Xavier’s College; Sonal Mehta, PUHR; Prakash Shah, MSD; Girish Patel, Lok Adhikar Sangh;
Sukhdev Patel, Janpath Lalji Desai, MARAG, Cedric Prakash, Prashant Neeta Desai, MARAG;
Victor Moses, XSSS; Javed Ameer, SEED; Indukmar Jani, Naya Marg; Ashim Roy, Sophiya Khan, INSAAF; Ishwarbhai, AVSC; Daheda Dhulabhai, MVS; Dhandhuka Reshmabhai Rahabhai, SVS, Hadad, Danta Hiren Gandhi, Darshan.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Campaign 2

Resist the blackout!

January 31, 2002

The screenings of films by noted filmmaker Anand Patwardhan have yet again come under attack by right–wing Hindu organisations and individuals based in the US. Most recently, a letter–writing campaign has been launched to dissuade the organisers of an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York from screening two of Patwardhan’s films: We are not your Monkeys and In the Name of God.

The objective of this petition is to counter such efforts and to advocate the continued screening of films by Anand Patwardhan in the US and abroad. Although the initial recipients of this petition will be the American Museum of Natural History in New York, this petition will continue to be used whenever the screenings of films by Anand Patwardhan come under attack by those who seek to prevent public debate regarding these issues.

We, the undersigned, express our support and solidarity for documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan and his attempts to raise issues of vital concern for those within and outside South Asia. Patwardhan has been making socio–political documentaries for nearly three decades and has received numerous awards worldwide. His films have addressed a vast array of issues affecting peace and prosperity within South Asia — nuclear proliferation, communal politics, religious fanaticism, globalisation, environmental degradation, and caste oppression — and have served to facilitate further public debate and scrutiny regarding these issues.

In this regard, it has come to our attention that various groups and organisations claiming to represent the interests of the Hindu community have launched a campaign to oppose the screening of Patwardhan’s films in the US and abroad as several of his films are very critical of the right- wing Hindu movement in India. We believe that religion and politics should remain open to public debate and scrutiny, and that Patwardhan’s films serve a valuable function in fostering that debate and deserve to be screened.

We, therefore, urge institutions and organizers of film screenings in the US and abroad to resist the efforts by those who wish to silence the debate and to carry on in their efforts to make the films of Anand Patwardhan accessible to the public.

PLEASE SIGN NOW IN SUPPORT OF ANAND PATWARDHAN!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/783684768

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Campaign 3

A new Azaadi Andolan

January 31, 2002

You are right. We need to have people out in their thousands, not in hundreds. Is it that people are so immune to war and violence that we just don’t care anymore? Is it that people couldn’t care anymore about much else except their own immediate needs and survival? Are they scared to be seen in any kind of opposition to the inflexible and non-negotiable positions and postures adopted by our sarkar? And what has happened to the freedom of the press — have they become so subservient to this notion of so–called national interest as promoted by the government in power that there is scarcely any independent thinking or writing any more — at least in mainstream media?

Our recent experiences in our own little backwoods here around Alibag, interacting with village youth and young men in small towns, have thrown up several thought provoking incidents and reflections which must be very similar to those elsewhere in the country. It adds up to a frightening saga of how our education systems, the media — in a nexus with business and politicians — have so thoroughly brainwashed people that the only alternatives they can think of in terms of ‘desh seva’ and a meaningful occupation is to join the army to fight against terrorism "Yahaan marne se accha hai ki Hum vahaan, border mein, Kashmir mein, jaakar shahid ban jayen."

Ramu, I and a group of us local friends working in Pratham, Raigad, are seeking to engage these youth – telling them of other ways they can serve the country and the people – but it is tough, hard work. At the same time it has also demonstrated to us that this is actually what is needed desperately across this country, our region, to engage with these frightened, lost and frustrated young people — especially the young men and boys — talk to them, be with them, build their own self–image and confidence — and help create livelihoods and work. Can we ever hope to find a government that will have the guts and integrity to just concentrate on true human resource development for a decade — and abandon all the posturing and gung-ho rhetoric which feeds into the most negative of human emotions.

And you just have to scratch the surface and the anti–Muslim feelings emerge — frightening and raw. R– Bhai, a motor mechanic from UP, settled here for two generations, is one of our local life lines, a good friend and a decent, devout human being. Last week his daughter came home weeping from her school — a private, English medium institution. On investigating, she told them that a child had pulled away her close friend from the seat next to her saying, ‘Chhi, Chhi, Chhi — tum Mussalman ke saath kyon baith rahi ho?’ ("Goodness, why are you sitting next to a Muslim?’)

I remember many of us sitting together and exploring the formation of a political platform immediately after Oct 31, 1984. It seems to me that we have lost/wasted 16 years – and the country and people have paid a heavy price for it. Ultimately the decisions as to whether we will truly walk a path of peace and non–violence, truth and justice, will be a political one — and I am clearer by the day — that neither this present lot, nor, alas, the Congress, is in any position to project that alternative vision.

At the same time, I am convinced that this country has the leadership and potential. But they are scattered, immersed in a myriad issues and causes and struggles. It is these forces that need to be catalysed, persuaded to synergise their efforts and energies in the political forums.

And maybe that is the job for a group of us post–retirement wallas and wallis — just to help build those synergies. Turn into a kind of travelling task force — move around the country from one end to another for 3 to 6 months — seeking out the young leaders — bringing them together — and finding a way to challenge the present lot.

And the other thing that this rag tag, but still pretty large bunch of liberal, progressive, activists, intellectuals, academics, social workers, students need to do is to evolve constructive and practical strategies on how to work closely in programmes of creative intervention in the school system — at all levels — public/private/municipal and Zilla Parishad – in a broad programme of what some of us had termed ‘Development Education’ over two decades ago!!

Am I nuts? Maybe! But to me this seems to be the right moment to begin to think, talk, plan and work towards this. Sorry for this diatribe. But I have come to a point where I don’t want to see a newspaper or another email, a news broadcast or other information.

But yes, tell each one who marches to also come up with a plan for what they will personally commit themselves to doing for a new Azaadi Andolan — for the next two weeks, two months, two years, etc. Let that become the programme for the Coalition for Peace. Maybe this is also an appropriate time for mass action across the country, a huge padyatra of people from North, South, East and West who can also then counter the vicious messages of the renewed Rath Yatra type of movements which are going to be taking off all round in a spiralling crescendo leading to March 2002 and the Ayodhya construction. And yes, maybe we march with thousands to Wagah and beyond, to work in the refugee camps on the Afghanistan border? And one final thought — this time it must be women who must take the lead, women and children.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Readers Forum
.

Ayodhya and beyond

January 31, 2002

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, does not symbolise the extinction or abridgment of the right of Muslims to freedom of worship, which they have continued to enjoy before, during and after the event, even in Ayodhya. Rather, the event exposed the fragile state of rule of law in the country, wherein the majoritarian composition and attitudes of the police and security forces, whose subservience to the political executive made it function as a partisan force in the service of kar sevaks.

Earlier in 1990, under direction from the then chief minister, the same PAC used excessive force against kar sevaks in the process of protecting the mosque. This illustrates the observation made by the Dharam Vir National Police Commission (1978–81) that the police in India is not organised for impartial law enforcement; it is, rather, a subordinate body for enforcement of the policy of the government of the day, which is generally based on cynical calculations by players of the game of power.

It is a great pity that the district administration perceives its role in terms of providing maximum satisfaction to the political executive even during inter–group conflict situations, making it function on occasions in a partisan manner disregarding law, as happened in Ayodhya. Because of this lack of independence of the police and the district administration from the politically motivated directions of the government, the pious resolution of the National Integration Council of the 1960s (reiterated in the Prime Minister’s Fifteen–Point Programme For Minorities 1983), that the district magistrate and the superintendent of police should be held responsible for prevention and timely control of riots can never be implemented.

The judiciary, which is the only source of hope for the weak and vulnerable groups, has failed miserably to come to the rescue of the victim group, ever since Dec. 1949–Jan. 1950, when a one–sided attachment order was passed without removing the "idols of Shri Ramchandraj… surreptitiously and wrongly put inside the (Babri Masjid)" as reported by constable Mata Prasad and testified by the deputy commissioner of Faizabad, JN Ugra, in the written statement filed in the Court on April 24, 1950 on behalf of the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Muslim worship however came to a stop, and their dispossession was legally sanctified under the plea of apprehension of breach of the peace under Section 145 of the Cr PC and Hindu parties were allowed limited right of worship under a subjectively defined status quo.

On this judicial activism, the BJP’s White Paper on Ayodhya (1) makes the following observation: "the law could not help the Hindus for more than 60 years, from 1885 to 1949. But when they physically occupied the structure after the idols of Sri Rama appeared on 22–23 December, 1949, the same law okayed it, and the same law enforcing court – the District Court in 1950 and later in 1955 the High Court — granted to the Hindus the right to worship and injuncted against removing the idols."

The following critique of the Supreme Court judgement in the Ayodhya case in 1994 by Soli J Sorabjee also needs attention. Referring to the legal sanction given in the majority judgement to the post–demolition makeshift temple with limited rights, on the ground that (for whatever reason) the worship in the mosque had come to a stop since December 1949, Sorabjee notes with distress that "The majority judgment overlooks that the reason why the worship in the mosque had come to a standstill was the surreptitious entry into the mosque and placing of idols there in a clandestine manner. Indeed that was the unequivocal admission of the state of UP in its written statement solemnly affirmed in the suit." Sorabjee, the present attorney general, concludes thus: "The distressing part is that the majority judgment countenances a situation which was the outcome of an act of national shame. The minority community is understandably disappointed with the majority judgment." (2).

Regarding the court order for opening the locks of the gate in 1986, the BJP’s White Paper on Ayodhya notes with satisfaction that "within three days of the Munsif Court order, the District Court passed an order directing the government of Uttar Pradesh to unlock the gate…." and that "within hours of passing of the above order, the temple was unlocked and even the Doordarshan cameramen were present to cover the occasion which was widely telecast all over India."

The White Paper raises the question: "How did this case move at this speed? How did the government acquiesce in this case? How did the Faizabad District Court allow the appeal ordering the opening of locks in a matter of two days when the Hindus had been pleading for nearly 37 years? How did the Doordarshan cameras click the opening of the locks within an hour of the court orders? All these questions have only one answer — when the government is not against, such things can, and do, happen. Even the courts respond." (3).

The impression that the course of law in Ayodhya in 1986 was not an independent act of the judiciary based on merits of the case gets further strengthened by Swaroop-ananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dwarka and Jyotishpeeth, claiming during the Kumbh Mela, that it was at his behest that PM Rajiv Gandhi got the lock opened for political considerations. (4).

The statements, which are based on the perceived complicity of the judiciary with the executive and its acting under pressure, have not so far attracted the penal provisions under the law of contempt of court. This perception of the role of the judiciary has contributed to the climate of impunity so much so that VHP leaders have proclaimed their intention of enforcing their majoritarian will by force, disregarding the law and constructing the temple according to a schedule prepared by the Dharam Sansad (Religious Parliament) held during the Mahakumbh in Allahabad in January 2001.

The forcible entry of VHP leaders into the prohibited area in Ayodhya on October 17, 2001 marks the beginning of the schedule which is planned to reach a climax on March 12, 2001. The parivar feels confident that since nothing happened when the structure was demolished with the active connivance of the executive, nothing will happen again, if the Ram Temple is built. They have been reassured in this regard by no less a person than Justice (Retd.) Devki Nandan Agarwal, a VHP stalwart. (5).

The forcible entry by VHP leaders into the prohibited area in Ayodhya on October 17, 2001 also violated the law, in spite of the firm resolve of his government expressed by the Prime Minister in his Musings From Kumarakum on January 1, 2001, when he urged "not to remain silent spectators or adopt delaying tactics but to uphold the rule of law, should any organisation attempt to disturb the status quo".

This incident cannot be taken as an isolated case of a mere lapse by the security personnel on duty; it falls rather neatly into the pattern of political blessing, official connivance and police partisanship and impunity from 1949 to 1992.

The Prime Minister, who might well be feeling let down, as well as all other players of the political game who are making an issue of the incident on October 17, should realise that irrespective of pious intentions, the institutional machinery for impartial, effective and humane law enforcement for prevention and speedy control of any inter–community violent conflicts simply does not exist in the country.

The fragility and malfunctioning of institutions of law and order in India, has led to a denial of equal protection by law to all poor citizens and weak and vulnerable groups. It has been, however, most blatantly denied to Muslims, especially in Ayodhya and related cases from 1949 till date, including during major riots in the 1980s and 1990s that have occurred since the Meenakshipuram conversions, which provided an impetus to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other wings of the Sangh Parivar to mobilise Hindu solidarity, to all of which Indira Gandhi lent a helping hand.

In his deposition before the Liberhan Commission, LK Advani has admitted that their (the BJP’s) late entry into the Ram Temple campaign was thanks to their realisation of its potential for the mobilisation of Hindu nationalism, which until then the Congress had capitalised on. (6).

This phase of competitive Hindu nationalism within the Hindu ruling spectrum of varying shades, has brought untold misery to minorities, and has been further aggravated by the absence of an independent and competent, impartial law–enforcement institutional mechanism.

It is distressing to note that during the last two decades while one finds human rights groups and individuals committed to secular humanist values taking pains to document and expose the failure of the police and the political executive, the bureaucracy and the media during communal conflicts and violence, no sustained effort has been made by them to reform the system — setting attainable goals.

Legal–administrative measures and policies that need to be adopted for prevention and control of communal conflicts have been suggested by the National Integration Council (1961), the National Police Commission (1978-81), the Prime Minister’s Fifteen Point Programme on Minorities (1983), the IOS 1993, Citizens For Democracy & the Centre For the Study of Society & Secularism (1994), by the Minorities Council (1996) and by the National Commission For Minorities, (1999) and in studies by NC Saxena (1983) and VN Rai. Human Rights Watch/Asia and the Amnesty International have also been publishing reports and recommendations. (7).

Two common recommendations of all these studies and reports relate to adequate numerical representation of minorities in the police & paramilitary forces and all wings of law–enforcement machinery (such as collection of intelligence and prosecution of cases) and training of the officers and personnel of the police to include a component on eradication of communal prejudices. The third area of reform relates to humane methods of prevention and control, not using lethal weapons for controlling any unarmed mob at the initial stage for deterrence and for teaching people a lesson, as is being done under the Riot Control Schemes in most of the states.

At present Muslims continue to be underrepresented at all levels and ranks of the police. In spite of periodic official directions for special recruitment of minorities, no appreciable progress has been made in this regard. VN Rai (IG, BSF) and Justice Tarkunde (8) hold the opinion that the objective of adequate representation of minorities in the present circumstances cannot be achieved without fixing a quota.

It needs to be kept in view that in certain states like Uttar Pradesh, the numerical ratio of Muslims in the police was reduced under unstated official policy. (Nikhil Chakravarty once told me that the PAC, notorious for its anti-Muslim bias, was designed by chief minister GB Pant to deal with the Muslims from whom he apprehended trouble after Partition).

The issue of adequate presence of minorities, especially Muslims, in the law–enforcement machinery has not been addressed by the human rights movement, nor by the secular political class, because of a "secular-communal" fixation. Whatever opinion one may hold about how to ensure a fair share of minorities in other sectors of public life, their presence in the police is required to enable it to enforce law more impartially by neutralising its own biases, and by inspiring greater confidence in the communities that it wants to serve.

It needs to be noted that in the UK, without fixing any ethnic quota, government departments, especially those involved in policing, have been given targets spread over periods of three, five and ten years, for adequate recruitment of ethnic minorities.

It needs to be noted that one of the thrusts of the recent Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, is for states to create a diverse police force free from discrimination and intolerance, recruiting personnel from all groups including minorities in the entire criminal justice system.

The issue of quota reservation for minorities in the police and other wings of the law–enforcement system should be addressed as part of the broader issue of democratic governance and rule of law to ensure minorities the security of life, property and places of worship, delinking it from what is perceived as "communal reservation in public services", though such reservation may have legitimacy for integrating backward minorities like Muslims into the national mainstream and for their modernisation, by expanding the space available to them in the common national domain. The greater the opportunities for participation of Muslims in the common national domain, the greater their sense of belonging and stakes in its stability.

The other human rights issue that needs attention is that of ending the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of massacres, which is universally acknowledged as a reason for the recurrence of violence, making victims seek desperate remedies, taking, on occasion, recourse to terrorism. This chain of violence and counter–violence has been affirmed by Justice Sri Krishna in his definitive opinion about the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in March 1993 as a reaction to the totality of events in December 1992 & January 1993 in Ayodhya and Mumbai "by angry, frustrated and desperate young Muslims keen to seek revenge for the perceived injustice done to and atrocities perpetrated on them or to others of their community."

Justice Sri Krishna noted that "the Muslims perhaps felt that the government and the police, instead of protecting their interests, had actually acted against their interests by joining hands with communal elements which took a lead in the riots. A large number of Muslim youths came to entertain this firm belief". (9).

The issue of impunity being enjoyed by perpetrators of communal violence cannot be delinked from the general issue of the reform of the criminal justice system and the rule of law. However, the course of law in Ayodhya from December 1949 till date deserves to be reviewed as a case apart. It is not only a case of delay but of perception of distortion and lack of fairness and even of will to deliver speedy justice, which has caused what the apex court itself called an act of national shame.

Human rights groups like the PUCL, the PUDR and the People’s Human Rights Commission, which have thoroughly documented the failure of the political, administrative and police departments of the law-enforcement system, need to scrutinise the role of the judiciary collectively in the Ayodhya related cases, to ascertain what has made the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and the Shiv Sena bold enough to claim that they can defy law with impunity.

Human rights groups need to scrutinise the role of the judiciary collectively in the Ayodhya related cases to ascertain what has made the VHP, the Bajrang Dal and the Shiv Sena bold enough to claim that they can defy law with impunity

If the issue is not urgently addressed, the threat of the sangh parivar to arm millions of kar sevaks and gradually build pressure through periodic celebratory Hindu mass mobilisations is likely to be countered by terrorist acts from desperate, frustrated and misguided youths from among the victim minority groups.

Having taken note of the failure of the law–enforcement and justice delivery system, and having pointed out what needs to be done to get the system repaired, it needs to be affirmed that communities in a traditional society do not live by law alone. They need to evolve a code of conduct and a mechanism for the prevention of conflicts, especially when there is likelihood of periodic conflict causing feuds and blood letting.

What is the nature of the issue/issues in Ayodhya and who are the parties? The conflict in Ayodhya is avowedly over competitive political Hindu nationalism as testified by LK Advani, the greatest beneficiary of the Ram Mandir movement, before the Liberhan Commission. But the symbol of Ram is widely shared by non–political Hindus.

Ram could easily have acquired the status of an Indian national hero, if he was treated only as an ideal king or a hero of the Indian classical epic, and not as an incarnation of God whose idol is to be ritually worshipped. If a temple is to be built with his idol for devotees, it cannot be treated as the fulfilment of even Hindu nationalist aspirations, less so of the Indian nationalist urge, because there are large sections of Hindus who do not worship idols or are not his devotees.

Among the worshippers of Ram, there are Gandhi and Gandhians, and large sections of non–political Sanatan Dharmis whose reading of history does not make them hate Muslims and seek revenge for the supposed sins of their supposed fathers. Then there is the sangh parivar which has politically appropriated Ram — envisioned as a warrior king — to avenge its sense of historical hurt and humiliation from the supposed descendants of Babar. Muslims cannot be expected to enter into any dialogue with a group of political Hindus who are not ready to treat them — their history, religion and culture — with respect.

The very reason for their insistence on building the Ram temple at the very site where the Babri Masjid stood, lies in their basic motivation for revenge. There is, therefore, no chance of any dialogue over Ayodhya with any credible Muslim section if the Hindu religio–cultural space continues to be wrongly monopolised by the sangh parivar. The problem with non–Sangh Hindus has been that they do not seem to know their mind, or at least are not ready to clearly spell out what they would like Muslims to do.

The only time one such Hindu, ie, Rajmohan Gandhi, advised Muslims to relocate the masjid, Muslims did not respond — the reason being that "secular" politicians had developed a stake in Muslims taking a hard line. The only time three senior Muslim intellectuals offered to talk to Advani over Ayodhya, the latter backed out of his call for dialogue over only one temple, instead of three (A letter was sent to Advani in this regard by Badr–ud–din Tyabji, Col. BH Zaidi and Saiyid Hamid on August 23, 1990 which remained unanswered.) (10).

Any Ayodhya cell in the cabinet secretariat, or secret talks with stray Muslim individuals or even groups is not going to yield any result. The solution lies in non–Sangh Hindu community leaders and intellectuals and enlightened Muslims — from among the ulema as well as intellectuals – taking the initiative for dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill.

Both groups should be so intellectually equipped as to be aware of the history of Hindu–Muslim discord over ethno–religious issues, and its adverse impact on community relations. They should also have the right vision of harmonious Hindu–Muslim relations in a plural cultural set–up wherein legitimate communitarian values are accommodated and civilisation aspirations of the two are fulfilled without a clash.

I am sure this lies within the realm of the possible. Those taking the initiative for such a dialogue should be men and women with the courage of conviction to be able to take apparently unpopular decisions over all contentious issues including the issues of cow slaughter and Vande Matram in the larger interest of the communities and the country.

The government, especially the present one led by the BJP, cannot assume the role of the promoter of dialogue. It can and should take measures for reform of the system, as pointed out above, with a view to assuring the minorities that their security would not be under threat. It should also make minorities, especially Muslims, develop a greater sense of belonging by expanding avenues and opportunities for their participation in national life.

Such ‘appeasement’ of minorities is a necessary condition for creating an atmosphere conducive to a fruitful dialogue over Ayodhya and other issues. Enlightened sections of the sangh parivar should have the vision and insight to understand that such confidence building measures (CBMs), like the Urdu script getting due recognition and the community’s right to separate family laws, cannot undermine the ‘Hindu interest’ that they are seeking to protect and promote.

A necessary component of the CBMs is the de–stigmatisation of Muslims for imagined sins of the past, including Partition, and their consequent negative stereotyping and treatment as a suspect community to be replaced by their treatment as normal Indians. This would require a commitment to educate and sensitise the average Hindu for inculcation of positive humanist attitudes.

Muslims will have to reciprocate by de–stereotyping the kafir, treating Hindus as normal humans and fellow countrymen, with whom the best of relations are recommended by Islam, ruling out any perpetual confrontation including armed struggle, howsoever desperate they might feel on occasions.

The role of facilitators and promoters of dialogue has to be played by the statutorily empowered Community Relations Commission (CRC) as proposed in the NCM Report on Communal Riots: Prevention and Control (1999), which has found acceptance of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. The CRC is envisaged as a body comprising eminent social scientists, jurists, and experts in community relations and conflict resolution along with distinguished publicists entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and resolution of all inter–community conflicts through dialogue.

In the event of failure of dialogue, the CRC will be empowered to initiate legal action against all hate speech and actions. The CRC will function in liaison with civil society’s organisations at the district, state & national level.

One such organisation named Inter–Community Peace Initiative (ICPI) has already been constituted, whose Mission Statement includes commitment to cultural pluralism, upholding rule of law and promoting dialogue between communities on divisive ethno–religious issues.

Let the CRC be established with such eminent members whose integrity and sagacity is unquestionable, and who enjoy the confidence of minorities. The CRC, along with bodies like the ICPI may be in a position to bring about conciliation of the communities without any sense of humiliation or unfairness to either party.

The role of facilitators and promoters of dialogue has to be played by the statutorily empowered Community Relations Commission (CRC) as proposed

Those involved in law and law-enforcement will not be abdicating their role. There may be a complementarity of roles on an issue like Ayodhya. A tribunal or arbitration council could be appointed with the consent of the parties concerned.

It all depends on whether the political parties in the government and the opposition and the non–Sangh Hindus and non–political Muslims, especially the enlightened ulema and intellectuals feel the urge to take bold initiatives for a peaceful and just order in India wherein the correctly prioritised interests of all communities may be protected.

It is rather depressing to see non–Sangh Hindus, especially Gandhians, not playing an organised active role. It is no less depressing to see the Muslim community obsessed with ‘legalism’ of a variety that will not yield any positive results in terms of their cultural and religious rights or their economic, social and political rights even if they win the legal battle in the long run (very, very long run).

Will those who stand for genuine Hindu religious values and civilisation aspirations, as creatively interpreted by Vivekananda and others, become active? Will Muslims develop a better sense of history and correctly prioritise their own collective goals and interests? Can they be inspired by a more inclusive vision of their own future in India than mere legalists are capable of?

Notes

1. BJP’s White Paper on Ayodhya And The Rama Temple Movement, BJP, April 1993, p.152.

2. Readings on Minorities: Perspectives & Documents, Vol. I, ed., Iqbal A. Ansari, IOS, New Delhi, 1996, pp. 174–75.

3. BJP’s White Paper On Ayodhya, op.cit., p. 155.

4. Times of India, New Delhi, 22 Jan. 2001.

5. Times of India, New Delhi, 19 Jan. 2000.

6. Times of India, New Delhi, 15-16 May 2001.

7. i). Second & Sixth Reports of the National Police Commission, Govt. of India, August 1979-81.

ii). Prime Minister’s 15-Point Programme on Minorities, 1983 (PM’s letter dated 11 May 1983 to the Home Minister and Other Members of the Council of Ministers regarding problems of Minorities).

iii). NC Saxena’s Inquiry Report on Meerut Riots, September — October, 1982

iv) VN Rai, Combating communal Conflicts: Perceptions of Police Neutrality During Hindu–Muslim Riots in India, LBS National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, 1996.

v). NCM study by N.C. Saxena, 1983.

vi). Amnesty International’s Report On Allegations of Extra–Judicial Killings By The PAC In And Around Meerut, 22–23 May, 1987, AI Index: ASA 20/06/87/Distr:SC/PO/CD/GR.

vii) Iqbal A. Ansari, Ayodhya: The Failure of The System of Law – Enforcement, I.O.S, Seminar "Beyond Ayodhya" January 1993.

viii). Report of the Seminar on "Communal Riots and the Role of Law – Enforcement Agencies" organised by CFD & CSSS, Bombay, January 1994.

ix). Amnesty International’s Memorandum on The Police Procedures & Practices in India And The Bombay Riots, 1992–93, January 1994, AI Index: ASA 20/29/94

x). Human Rights Watch/Asia Report, Communal Violence and Denial of Justice In India, 1996.

xi). Communal Riots, the State & Law In India, Minorities Council, I.O.S, New Delhi 1997.

xii). NCM Report, Communal Riots: Prevention & Control, Minorities Council, New Delhi, 1997.

8. Tarkunde, VM: "Communal Harmony: A multi–pronged Approach" in Communal Riots, the State and Law In India, ed. Iqbal A. Ansari, I.O.S, New Delhi, 1997 pp.35-38.

9. Report of the Sri Krishna Commission, Vol. I Ch. VI, p. 45.

10. From Conflict to Conciliation, Inter–Community Peace Initiative, New Delhi, p. 17. I

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Special Report 4

Sunshine in Shekhawat

January 31, 2002

A multi-religious, multi-caste, youth group from a small town in Rajasthan dares to take the plunge. And triggers a cavalcade of protest against the latest hate campaign that Hindutva has launched against ‘anti-national’ Muslims

The slightest pretext is needed in Rajasthan by the Hindutva forces to communalise any incident of vandalism and crime. The latest issue to ignite the communal cauldron is the name of Osama–bin–Laden. While most of the countryside is oblivious of who this person is, Bin-Laden’s name on wall writings even in interior villages and mofussil towns have provoked communal tension in three places that I personally know of in the state.

While it is important for the law and order machinery to identify those responsible for these wall writings, the reaction and capital made out of it by individuals representing the BJP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and the VHP needs to be monitored.

A few shops in that kasba are forcibly shut down by the vandals, Muslim traders terrorised, the Muslim community isolated, madrassas regarded with suspicion and a spate of cases lodged against Muslims. A recent incident in Daulatgarh (Bhilwara district) illustrates the trend. An investigation carried out by PUCL members, Bhanwar Meghwanshi, Raju Jangid, Allaudin Bedal, Ganga Singh Rathore and Abdul Hamid Bagwaan, all from Bhilwara, who visited Daulatgarh on December 29, 2001 and again on January 9, 2002 to study and also initiate a process of peace in the kasba is worth recording:

Daulatgarh was a sleepy kasba town in Asind tehsil with the local Thakurs controlling the politics of the region. In the month of August and September last year (see CC, August Sept 2001) after the demolition of the Kalindri masjid, Sawai Bhoj Temple complex in Asind in July, 2001, representatives of the BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena and the Bajrang Dal first carried out a trishul diksha samaroh and then a jal abhishek ceremony in September and October (CC, November 01).

Against the backdrop of what had happened at Asind, these programmes of aggressive mobilisation were enough to terrorise the seventy odd Muslim families in a village of over five hundred families. The arrival of a 28-year-old Maulana, Anwar Hussein in the village, became reason enough for the representatives of the local BJP, VHP and SS forces to launch their propaganda, claiming that they felt threatened.

The Muslim community especially called down Anwar Husein from Jodhpur, after collecting contributions from local families, so that he could educate their children in the madrassa. This fuelled rumours that the maulana was conspiring with the youth and talibanising them.

The month of Ramzan saw unease in this kasba for the first time. According to one sympathiser of the Hindutva lobby, villager Bharat Singh, "…. it was the loud calling of the azaan and other "Quran bhajans" every morning at the time of sehri that caused tension. Since half-yearly exams were taking place, the blaring mike disturbed school students.

The villagers got the police to intervene, who ordered that mikes could not be used. Two days later, on December 16, at about 9 am, a rumour spread through the village that someone had written pro-Osama-Bin-Laden slogans on the temple wall. According to one Shanti Lal, the wall writing said, "Mike bandh karane wale teri jagah jehannum mein – O B Laden"(Those responsible for stopping use of the microphone in the mosque shall burn in hell – O B Laden). As a result of this, villagers were up in arms and blamed the maulana for provoking the youth to write it.

The police who were close by, intervened and promptly erased the writing on the temple wall. The Muslim community told the PUCL fact-finding team that though by the time they reached the temple the alleged writing had been erased, they were willing to believe the account and were willing to punish those who did it.

The Muslim community then did what the Hindutva forces wanted them to do. Reacting under pressure, they promptly sent away the maulana. They did not want to be labelled "Laden samarthak" ("Supporters of Laden") which people in that area including the local police started calling them. They feared that the police would keep an extra watch on them.

On January 9, Muslims of Daulatgarh were declared "worshippers of Laden" by the over ten thousand strong assembly that had gathered at Sawai Bhoj Temple to hear Sadhvi Ritambhara. The erstwhile Daulatgarh Thakur, who complained that Talibanis had found their way even into the backwaters of Rajasthan, was chairing the meeting. Speaker after speaker at the public meeting condemned Daulatgarh Muslims for being Laden worshippers and demanded that strong action be taken against them. Sadhvi Ritambhara, known for spreading poison, led the attack. Her speech continued uninterrupted by the police for well over an hour.

Muslims of Daulatgarh live in great fear today. Even dispatching the maulana back to Jodhpur has not changed of people’s opinion towards them.

Shekhavati youth challenge communal forces

From January 1 to January 10 last month, more than 50 kasbas and villages in the Shekhavati region of Rajasthan, which covers the districts of Churu, Jhunjhunu and Sikar witnessed communal vandalism of a kind that the region had not witnessed before. The state home department list classifies three cities of Sikar district as "communally highly sensitive cities" and three others as just "sensitive."

In the past, riots have not erupted in this region. Even at the height of the Babri masjid demolition movement there was no violence here. According to local residents, tension did prevail in some towns but never got out of hand. The region, like other parts of Rajasthan, has also produced kar sevaks who were responsible for demolishing the Babri Masjid, but who could never indulge in similar criminal activities in their own areas.

On the night of January 1, a drunken criminal belonging to the Muslim community broke three idols of the Ram Darbar Mandir in Rolsabsar and threw them by the roadside. Rolsabsar village has a population of eight hundred families, half being kayam khani Muslims and the other half Hindus belonging to various castes. Fearing great tension, the very next morning the family of the accused Ghulam Nabi alias Rasgulla promptly handed him over to the panchayat who in turn handed him to the police.

According to the young sarpanch, Aijaz Ali, they also handed over two other notorious Muslim boys, who everybody knew were not directly involved, in a bid to demonstrate that Muslims did not encourage such acts. Ali told the fact-finding team that local Muslims did all they could to demonstrate their condemnation of this solitary act, saying that the culprits deserved the harshest punishment.

In Rolsabsar, local Muslims initiated such sensitive and salutary measures for peace, as did local Hindus in Sangarwa a few days later.

According to the deputy sarpanch, Puran Singh, and the temple priest, they, along with the entire Hindu community in the village, were satisfied by the prompt response of the Muslim community and the police. The idols were replaced and further action was left to the police. The matter was closed as far as they were concerned.

But while the people of Rolsabsar had settled the matter amicably, it became a useful rallying point for the BJP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and the VHP to mobilise the entire Shekhavati region. Capitalising on the prevalent heightened passions of nationalism, with the country’s borders less than 100 kilometres away, the act of breaking the idols was described as "anti-national" by these communal groups.

Over the next ten days, more than fifty villages and kasbas of that region saw schools, colleges, bazaars, courts and even offices of professionals like lawyers and doctors, forcibly shut down by these groups. But the law and order machinery did not intervene.

Three mosques were desecrated in the region during this period. A pig was thrown into one, the gate of another was burnt and the third was also damaged. Violence followed in some kasbas.

In Churu, police lathi-charged people when prohibitory orders were violated. In Laxmangarh town, during a bandh on January 2, a mosque was desecrated and tension followed. The Muslim community protesting the mosque desecration was dubbed anti-national by the BJP leadership. Laxmangarh remained forcibly closed for the next three days by the forces exerting pressure on the local administration to arrest the "anti-national miscreants".

Interestingly, in the sleepy village of Sangarwa, where very poor Muslims reside — and who were oblivious to any of the disturbances in the region — the door of the local mosque set on fire on the night of January 6. Members of the local Hindu community, with the help of the police, promptly replaced the door and re-painted the wall to prevent escalation of tension.

The vernacular press described these bandhs and violations as "spontaneous" and as "expression of public anger."

On the January 4, the BJP sent a high-powered team, led by former education minister and senior RSS leader, Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi, along with Gulab Chand Kataria, a former state party president. They justified the retaliation of their cadres to the anti-national incidents at Rolsabsar. They condemned the Muslim community for trying to provoke religious sentiments especially when the country was on the verge of war. Hate speech and vilification was dished out in large measures.

Where were the progressive forces? Neither the CPI(M) – who had mobilised one lakh people to protest the dismantling of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in October 2000 — and a party that has a strong presence in Sikar (the only MLA comes from the Dhond constituency in this district) – nor the Congress — which has won a majority of MLA and MLC seats from the region — stepped forward, barring stray statements that made no impact.

Incidentally, of the 14 municipalities in the Shekhawati region, Muslims chair eight and locals speculate that the BJP is really concerned with snatching away this political control.

The first strong voice of protest against the mobilisation based on division and venom typified here by the RSS and BJP leadership, came from a group of about a hundred and fifty young boys from Ratangarh, one of the important towns of Churu. Ratangarh had a protest bandh on January 2 itself.

Mobilised under the banner of Srijan, these young men belonging mainly to the poorer and vulnerable sections of society decided that they had had enough. They would challenge the politics of lies and manipulation as epitomised in the posturings of the sangh parivar.

This was not the first time that they had been mobilised. But this time the issues were dramatically different. From relief for the Orissa cyclone victims in 1999 — (under the leadership of Rajeev Upadhaya, who hails from a family that subscribes to Gandhian values) they had raised more than fifty lakh rupees which helped in buying more than three lakh clothes for the cyclone victims — to drought relief for the residents of Barmer, to a head-on battle against the politics of venom and hatred today.

Last August, the group had protested the sale of a minor girl and ensured her rehabilitation. Their success in this case got the culprits arrested and even helped them organise a public hearing on violence against adolescent girls.

Concerned over how their region was being held victim to communal poison, these young men organised a 28-kilometre march from Ratangarh to Rolsabsar to demonstrate that both towns wanted peace. Most were unemployed youth while some were involved in small entrepreneurships. They were young boys from all communities, Muslims, Bodh, Harijans (Mehtars), as well as Brahmin, Bania, Jat, Malli and Rajput. The rally, which took six hours to cover 28 kilometres was unprecedented. It provided a platform for ordinary people to voice their views on peace and harmony.

The traders of Ratangarh expressed anger that they had been forced to close the market on January 2. They showered flowers on the marchers and made speeches. The people of the villages that were located on the way also expressed their solidarity with the rally and small sabhas were held on the way.

The rally received an emotional welcome before it reached Rolsabsar, when more than a thousand people of the panchayat, including Bhanwru Khan, the local MLA, the Zilla Pramukh, Bhagwan Singh Dhaka, the pradhan, sarpanch and upsarpanch and several administrative officials of the region joined the last kilometre of the peace march. Women joined the march when the rally went around the village and it finally culminated in a sabha in the temple compound of Jamwaya Mataji ka Mandir.

In the speeches that followed, villagers remembered how young Shahid Mohammed Ikram of their village had laid down his life in Kargil and how today they were proud that the local high school was named after him.

They said that since World War II, the village had produced soldiers who laid their lives fighting for their country. In the 1965 and 1971 wars, more than 250 soldiers from all communities, including Harijans and kayam khanis (Muslims), had fought on the border and today, more than forty of their village boys were on the border facing the Pakistani forces.

Could this village be termed anti-national, the MLA asked? He said he appreciated that stringent punishment, even capital punishment, must be given to the boys who committed a heinous crime like breaking idols of Ram and Sita. He thanked the villagers of Rolsabsar for handing over the guilty Muslim youth to the police.

Other interventions made during the rally also appreciated the no-nonsense attitude displayed by the Muslim community in handing over the guilty persons but lamented that society was unable to deal with mistakes, even crimes, in a just and humane fashion.

Several young boys denounced the role of the media, which had inflamed passions but had ignored coverage of their peace march. Some said the best reply to Pakistan was for Hindus and Muslims to live peacefully together in India.

The youth from Ratangarh announced the holding of a sadbhavna mushaira as part of their next move to promote peace and harmony. The villagers of Rolsabsar arranged buses to take back the youth to Ratangarh as a gesture of gratitude.

It was only after this dynamic local initiative by village youth that the CPI (M) took out a huge peace march in Sikar and after that several other organisations were motivated to hold peace meetings in different kasbas. For the time being, at least, thanks to this local and dynamic intervention, expressions of peace are finding a platform in the Shekhawati region of Rajasthan.

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Breaking Barriers 1

Kashmir: The moral dimension

January 31, 2002

Civil society in India needs to awaken to the colossal dimension of the humanitarian crisis that confronts tens of thousands of young widows and orphans in the violence-hit Valley

Over the past two years, through regular visits that I have made to Kashmir, the abandonment of the ordinary Kashmiri, caught in the crossfire between militants and security forces, has come starkly to me. Each visit has made me guilty, when I see the absence of any involvement by Indian civil society in the plight of the ordinary Kashmiri.

The present conflict has gone on for almost 13 years now. The consequences of violence in Kashmir are enormous in terms of human and social costs. Look at the staggering figures — 50,000 dead, several hundred missing, around 30-40,000 young widows and about the same number of orphans. No one really has any authentic figures since proper, independent surveys of all the districts in the Valley as well as Jammu region have not been made.

Having been involved in the relief and rehabilitation process following the Mumbai riots and the serial bomb-blasts in December ’92–January ’93 and March 1993, I was keen to find out how rehabilitation work, if any, had been handled in J&K.

About 16 months ago, a visit to five villages in Baramulla district proved shattering. Of the 35 widows whom we actually met, only two had received the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, an amount the family of a victim is entitled to. In response to our inquiries we were told that many of them had made several visits to the concerned authorities, spending a lot of time and money. In the end they were informed that there were 8,000 applications pending in the file and there was no money to pay them.

However, at another level, the chief secretary denied that the families of victims were not paid compensation or that there was no fund for this purpose. Some time ago, the state’s Rehabilitation Council was set up to address all these issues. However, the Council, strapped as it is for funds, has not made any significant interventions.

Following my repeated queries, the chief secretary arranged a meeting with the district commissioner of Baramulla. It was at this meeting that I understood the root cause of the frequent complaints. Under the government scheme, families of militants killed are not entitled to receive any compensation. This excludes a large number of widows right away. As for the others, the procedure is so complicated and cumbersome that a lot of people simply give up pursuing it.

The Divisional Commissioner of Baramulla explained the procedure involved in giving compensation to victims of militancy-related violence as described below –

Families of those killed in crossfire are entitled to full compensation of rupees one lakh.
Owners of houses destroyed during the action are entitled to receive 50% value of the house. This should not exceed the amount of rupees one lakh.
For those injured during encounters, the compensation is: Rs. 75,000 for those with permanent disability, Rs 10,000 for those with grave injury, Rs 1,000 for those with light injury.
A widow intending to remarry can receive Rs 10,000. This is apart from whatever other compensation she may receive. This provision has been made with a view to socially rehabilitate the widows.
The families of the militants are not entitled to receive any compensation.
Ø Those who harbour militants are not entitled to receive any compensation.

Twice a month, in each district, the District Level Coordinating committee (DLCC) holds a meeting. The district commissioner is the chairman of this committee. Other members include a brigadier or colonel from the army, a brigadier or a colonel from the Rashtriya Rifles, a DIG or local commandant of the BSF and the SSP of the J&K police.

The committee reviews, discusses and takes decisions regarding different issues –

1. The number of dead or injured during militancy-related violence and private or public property damaged during the month. The local units of the specific security agency operating in that area, as well as the police who have to register every incident, each give separate reports to the DLCC. Only after these agencies give no objection and the DLCC approves, do the district authorities give compensation money through a bank draft to the victims or their families.

2. Location issues – If government buildings such as schools or colleges are occupied, they are gradually to be handed back.

3. If security forces are occupying vacant houses of migrants, this is discussed at DLCC meetings and rent is fixed.

4. Civic Action – Organising medical camps, setting up of community centres, addressing drinking water and irrigation problems.

The rupees one-lakh compensation to the victim’s family does not automatically go to the widow. This is distributed according to Mohammedan law. It means one eighth going to the father of the victim, another eighth to the mother while the rest is divided between the widow and her children. If the victim has a dependant brother or sister they too get their share.

The division of compensation money is carried out by the administration according to how many members in a family are claimants. This money is put into a fixed deposit. However, this is not a fixed term deposit as is the case elsewhere in the country. In the case of the families of victims during Mumbai riots, they were not allowed to touch the fixed deposits for ten years.

In Bombay or elsewhere in the country, the compensation money was not divided amongst the family members. In Kashmir, this division has been unfair to the widows since as the amount they finally receive is very small. The widow also loses out on the interest that could have been earned, had the entire amount been put into a fixed deposit in her name.

Members of civil society from within and outside Kashmir could help the families of survivors to access rehabilitation and compensation. Today, widows and other members of survivor families are victims of terror and trauma, which prevents them from responding adequately to the humanitarian crisis they face.

In 1993, the National Foundation for Communal Harmony was set up by the then Union home minister, SB Chavan. It gives scholarships for the education of children who are orphaned during communal riots. Unfortunately, orphans of the Kashmir conflict are not included under this scheme. If we want to decontaminate the future from the poison of hate, anger and revenge, do we not need to invest in these orphans? Would our neglect and indifference not lead them to become future militants?

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8 No. 75-76, Special Report 1

1...2,6702,6712,672...2,697 Page 2,671 of 2,697

‘We belong to Bharat, not Hindustan’

Cry for Justice

Condemn lathi-charge on earthquake survivors

Resist the blackout!

A new Azaadi Andolan

Ayodhya and beyond

Sunshine in Shekhawat

Kashmir: The moral dimension

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT