About Us Contact Us
Home Blog Page 2648

Betrayal by the state

By
-
0

Unchanged: Destroyed house in Shaikh Mohalla, Sardarpura, June 2006
 
Article 21 of the Constitution of India safeguards citizens from the state’s violation of their life and personal liberty. Moreover, the state is also required to prevent such a violation of fundamental rights by private individuals.

The state is duty bound to protect a threatened group or class of citizens from assault. If it fails to do so, it fails to perform its constitutional and statutory obligations. The state is bound to take every precautionary measure and act swiftly to curb riots and mass terror. Inaction or passivity on its part can result in the loss of life, limbs, livelihood, property and liberty, and the negation of Article 21. If the state is unable to do so and especially if its own officials are complicit in the execution of unconstitutional acts, it is liable to compensate for loss of life, limbs, livelihood, shelter and property.

In these circumstances, the state of Gujarat is constitutionally obliged to provide adequate and appropriate compensation to those who have lost their lives, limbs, houses, livelihood and property in the violence of 2002.

As far back as March 2003, legal action group, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Communalism Combat had filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging several questionable acts by the state of Gujarat with regard to compensation for the victim survivors of the genocide.

The total amount earmarked for relief by the government of Gujarat, including compensation for deaths, emergency rations in the relief camps and compensation for destroyed homes, was an abysmally low Rs 205 crore, of which the state received Rs 150 crore from the government of India. In February 2003 the Gujarat government even announced its decision to return Rs 19.10 crore to the central exchequer, stating that adequate compensation had been made.

The CJP petition queried the arbitrary disbursal of compensation, the returning of central funds unused when, in fact, paltry amounts had been paid to victims, and also demanded an enhancement of the compensation scheme. CJP and its team was then authorised by the court to inspect records in all state districts and city collectorates since there were gross discrepancies between amounts claimed by victims and those actually disbursed by the state.

In the course of this inspection as many as 8,358 survey forms were collected from 12 districts of Gujarat between 2003 and 2006. These violence affected households, which suffered losses averaging Rs 1.5 lakh each, were the total number included in the first survey. (CJP is now undertaking phase two, which will provide the complete picture.) Carefully collated by the CJP team, the data reproduced below highlights the extent of the state’s abdication of responsibility. In a mammoth exercise not attempted before, CJP has also undertaken to collate independent data related to about 80,000 families in Gujarat that should be completed a few months from now. This will offer comprehensive material on all issues of criminal justice (legal cases, etc), compensation and reparation for a vast section of the minority population in the state.

Ahmedabad

In Ahmedabad city, where there was maximum destruction, loss of life and property, a total of 1,007 households were surveyed. Of these, 30 per cent have received no compensation at all. Twenty per cent received between Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 20 per cent received between Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 14 per cent received between Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 16 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Anand

In Anand district, where a total of 1,146 households were surveyed, 24 per cent have received no compensation at all (these include victim survivors of some of the worst massacres in the genocide). Ten per cent received between Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 24 per cent received between Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 19 per cent received between Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 23 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Banaskantha

In Banaskantha district, where a total of 105 households were surveyed, 23 per cent have received no compensation at all. Two per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 16 per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 56 per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and three per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Bharuch

In Bharuch district, where a total of 50 households were surveyed, 10 per cent have received no compensation at all. Six per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 30 per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 54 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Bhavnagar

In Bhavnagar district, where a total of 359 households were surveyed, 23 per cent have received no compensation at all. Twenty-three per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 22 per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; nine per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 23 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Dahod

In Dahod district, where a total of 91 households were surveyed, 18 per cent have received no compensation at all. Twelve per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 18 per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 14 per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 38 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Kheda

In Kheda district, where a total of 1,192 households were surveyed, 18 per cent have received no compensation at all while 12.5 per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each in compensation. Thirty-six per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 25.5 per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and eight per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Mehsana

In Mehsana district, where a total of 195 households were surveyed, 72 per cent have received no compensation at all. Two per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each; five per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; four per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 17 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Panchmahal

In Panchmahal district, where a total of 441 households were surveyed, 15 per cent have received no compensation at all. Eight per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 10 per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 14 per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 52 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Patan

None of the 12 households surveyed in Patan district have received any compensation for homes destroyed.

Sabarkantha

In Sabarkantha district, where a total of 2,884 households were surveyed, 48 per cent have received no compensation at all. Six per cent received between Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 16 per cent received between Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 12 per cent received between Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 18 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

Vadodara

In Vadodara district, where a total of 876 households were surveyed, 15 per cent have received no compensation at all. Ten per cent received Rs 1,000-2,000 each; 36 per cent received Rs 2,000-5,000 each; 25 per cent received Rs 5,000-10,000 each and 14 per cent received more than Rs 10,000 each in compensation.

The state of Gujarat’s studied disregard for reparation to victim survivors becomes even more evident from the existing condition of many homes that were attacked in some of the worst massacres of the genocide.

Nineteen homes were destroyed at Shaikh Mohalla in Sardarpura village, Mehsana district. Victim survivors photographed these homes on June 21, 2006. In these photographs, submitted to both the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court in July 2006, the extent of the damage is still clearly visible.

A total of 19 homes were destroyed but a meagre compensation, a sum of Rs 39,050, has been paid to the victims. This for a case involving mass carnage – a case that is currently under scrutiny at the Supreme Court (the trial having been stayed on November 21, 2003). Indeed, the Gujarat government’s attitude to the hapless victims of a monumental tragedy needs no further elucidation.

Similarly, at three locales in Ode village of Anand district – Malu Bhagol, Surivali Bhagol and Piraveli Bhagol, 275 homes were destroyed. The totality of the damage can be seen even today. A total sum of Rs 23,22,750 (including miscellaneous compensation expenses) has been paid to the victims in Ode. Victim survivors photographed these homes on June 22, 2006. Photographs of their homes in their current state alongside photographs taken in 2002 as well as a chart showing the extent of damage and the actual compensation paid have all been placed before the courts.

It is clear from these documents and photographs that the amounts paid as compensation are woefully inadequate where the damage to victim survivors, their homes, is immense. Equally clear is that this is no typical instance of administrative negligence or inadequacy. It appears to be a deliberate attempt by the state of Gujarat to shirk their constitutional obligations and deny citizens their constitutional rights.

Compensation for death

The Gujarat state has paid out a mere Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 90,000 in cash and Rs 60,000 in Narmada Bonds) as compensation to the next of kin of those killed in the violence of 2002.

Detailed memoranda to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government (to the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, the union home minister, Shivraj Patil, minister for minority affairs, AR Antulay, and UPA chairperson, Sonia Gandhi), not to mention three public meetings held by victim survivors, pointed out these glaring inadequacies.

Between 2002 and 2006, CJP had been pursuing the matter legally and through advocacy with the political class. CJP and its team worked out a reasoned basis for the actual amount that should be paid as compensation for death given judicial precedents set after the 1984 anti-Sikh carnage. They argued that the amount declared by the state of Gujarat was inadequate and arbitrary, and amounted to a failure on the part of the state to fulfil its constitutional obligations.

In April 2007, a team of representatives from various districts of Gujarat presented this data to union home minister, Shivraj Patil, and the chairman of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM). The delegation also met the general secretaries of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat, and the Communist Party of India, AB Bardhan.

A significant landmark with regard to compensation for riot victims was a ruling of the Delhi High Court six years prior to the Gujarat violence. In 1996 the Delhi High Court directed the payment of Rs two lakh plus interest from 1984 onwards (amounting to a total of Rs 3.5 lakh) as compensation for those killed in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. On that basis, and allowing for an average seven per cent annual rate of inflation from 1996 to 2002, the amount of compensation for victims of the Gujarat genocide should be approximately Rs three lakh, with the interest on this amount being around Rs one lakh. Thus the amount of compensation for those killed in the Gujarat violence of 2002 would be over Rs four lakh each.

Following this rationale, it was argued that the Gujarat government’s ceiling of Rs 1.5 lakh, and the payment of Rs 60,000 of this in bonds, was wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. CJP and its counsel maintained that the amount should be in consonance with the state’s obligations under Article 14 (guaranteeing equality before the law) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and should therefore be fixed at Rs four lakh as detailed above. Compensation for injuries/disabilities sustained should be pro rata or proportional to this amount.

Sexual violence

One of the many unfortunate characteristics of the post-Godhra violence in Gujarat was the numerous attacks on women and children, including several instances of rape – a fact also acknowledged by the state home department. However, the Gujarat government’s compensation scheme contained no compensation or reparation amounts for women and children victims of violence. This was pointed out to the Supreme Court through the CJP’s detailed analysis of the compensation scheme in August 2004. At the time, the apex court passed an order directing that any suggestions made by the petitioners (CJP) for enhancement of the compensation scheme should be considered in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Gujarat High Court.

By August 2002 the government had itself documented that there had been 185 cases of attacks on women (of which 100 were in Ahmedabad city) and 57 attacks on children (of which 33 were in Ahmedabad). In all, 225 women and 65 children were killed. The government also recorded 11 cases of rape: three cases in Ahmedabad, one in Anand, three in Dahod and four in Panchmahal.

In fact, the rape and sexual abuse of women was far more pervasive and the actual number of rape cases far exceeds the official figures. Many victims were killed and burnt beyond recognition. Others were too terrified to record complaints. At the Shah Alam relief camp in Ahmedabad, where many refugees of the violence took shelter, accounts of victim survivors indicated that a much larger number of rapes in fact took place. The same is true of other areas in Gujarat.

To date, no compensation has been paid to the victims of such heinous attacks. In the PIL before the Gujarat High Court, CJP has argued that constitutional obligations require the state to make full and appropriate compensation, of an amount not less than that made available in the case of death (i.e. Rs four lakh), to such helpless women and children.

Substantive reports on sexual violence by various Indian and international civil rights and women’s rights organisations have highlighted how the government of Gujarat failed to fulfil its obligations, under both national and international law, to protect its citizens. In particular, how the state government failed to protect Muslim women who were the targets of specific gendered forms of sexual violence.

Reports have highlighted how elements of the criminal justice system, including the police and the judiciary, failed in their constitutional duty to objectively record and investigate complaints and prosecute offences. They have also illustrated how the Gujarat government, authorities and trial courts failed to provide medical relief and secure medico-legal evidence from victims who had been sexually abused. Many of these findings also exposed a deficiency long recognised by Indian women’s rights activists and quasi-governmental bodies, including the Law Commission of India. The inadequacy of existing penal provisions relating to rape meant that many of the sexual crimes inflicted on women during the genocide fell outside the existing legislative framework and were thus not registered by the police.

A closer inspection of the handful of cases that have been registered – some of which are at advanced stages of investigation – also reveals the manifold failings of the judiciary in Gujarat. It also emphasises that but for the incessant and dogged efforts by victims and human rights activists to pursue these cases in court, they would never have come this far.

Destruction of homes

The position as regards compensation for houses that were damaged or destroyed is equally adverse. The Gujarat government fixed an arbitrary ceiling of Rs 50,000 as compensation for the destruction of homes and in most cases has paid only a pittance of this inadequate amount.

In its August 2002 report, the women’s parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women (WPC) noted that the Gujarat government had informed the committee that 4,954 houses (2,023 urban and 2,931 rural) had been "completely destroyed" and that the amount of compensation disbursed for the same was Rs 7.62 crore.

This would mean that an average of around Rs 15,000 was paid for each completely destroyed house. The construction of a house costs approximately Rs one lakh in rural areas and approximately Rs two to three lakh in the urban areas. As a result, nearly 5,000 families have been unable to rebuild their houses or make alternative provisions for their shelter or accommodation.

The committee recorded that it had been informed by the Gujarat government that 18,294 houses had been partially damaged (11,199 urban and 7,095 rural), for which Rs 15.55 crore had been paid as compensation. This works out to an average of a mere Rs 8,500 per house. The committee in fact noted that a number of recipients had shown them cheques made out by the state for as little as Rs 40 to Rs 200. The detailed survey conducted by CJP now corroborates this pathetic reality.

Moreover, the state government has refused to accept even those estimates of losses contained in panchnamas prepared by its own officers. In the PIL before the Gujarat High Court, CJP has argued that the ceiling of Rs 50,000 is entirely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the amount should, in consonance with the state’s obligations under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, be fixed at Rs 1.5 lakh in rural areas and Rs three lakh in the urban areas. Compensation as per losses indicated in the official panchnamas (subject to the above ceilings) should also be paid.

In August 2002, the WPC report had recorded that as many as 1,32,532 persons had been displaced or forced to leave their houses and were living in 121 riot relief camps of which 58 were in Ahmedabad city.

By June 1, 2002, as mentioned earlier, there had been 4,954 cases (2,023 urban and 2,931 rural) of residential houses having been completely destroyed. There were a further 18,294 cases of partially damaged houses (11,199 urban and 7,095 rural) – i.e. more than 23,000 houses had been destroyed or damaged by the rioters. In addition to this, approximately 5,000 urban houses and approximately 1,000 rural houses were destroyed or damaged after June 2002.

And yet, despite the facts on the ground, the state of Gujarat continues with the false propaganda that adequate compensation has been paid. Unaffected by a genocide that claimed thousands of lives, the state’s attitude has remained unabashedly unrepentant. In July 2002 the Gujarat government announced that the relief camps which sheltered thousands of displaced refugees had been voluntarily closed down by camp organisers. This was yet another example of the state’s manipulation of the truth. Even documents prepared by the state establish that the camps were forcibly closed down following threats and coercion by officers of the state. (In August 2002, the chief minister callously dubbed the relief camps "baby-making factories".) In fact, the camps were forcibly closed down in anticipation of a visit from the Chief Election Commission, in an attempt to establish that ‘normalcy’ had been restored.

Another item on the state’s long list of misdeeds was its refusal to acknowledge official documents detailing losses suffered by victims of the violence. Initial losses were recorded in panchnamas prepared by state officials after site visits or inspections. Although recorded by government officials in the presence of panchas, or witnesses, these panchnamas were later rejected by the state. After the panchnamas had been collected by local police stations at various relief camps in the normal course, the state asked district collectors to appoint teams that conducted their own surveys. Predictably, the losses and damage shown in these survey results were drastically reduced to protect the state’s interests and public image.

More often than not, the state’s so-called technical teams carried out ex parte visits (in the absence of victim survivors) to sundry business establishments. Their reports were never made available for public scrutiny. The compensation amounts paid on the basis of these reports are so niggardly and inadequate as to confer further insult or injury upon those who had already lost their livelihoods and property. Ignoring the earlier panchnamas, during the course of the PIL the Gujarat government also demanded that the victims prove their losses "conclusively" and by adopting "proceedings in civil courts".

Apart from the panchnamas, some first information reports (FIRs) by victim complainants and the police statements recorded therein also contain details of actual losses suffered.

The Gujarat government’s denial of the panchnamas, its response to victims’ losses, only exemplifies its overall approach to a people who had suffered so grievously. It negates, yet again, the Gujarat government’s claims that it had fulfilled its constitutional obligations of compensation. On the contrary, it highlights the government’s continuing reluctance to provide just and fair compensation to those who had already lost so much.

The state’s complicity in influencing records and policy in Gujarat vis-à-vis the genocide, its aftermath, the payment of compensation and reparation, and its obstruction to the path of justice continues even today. Five years later, attitudes have not changed.

By the state’s own admissions to various national bodies, it is evident that the Gujarat government has spent a total of Rs 55 crore for compensation. The balance of funds came from a central government grant of Rs 150 crore, of which the sum of Rs 19.10 crore was returned unused.

Apart from the obvious lacunae in compensation awarded to victims of the genocide, which have been detailed above, the aggregate figures themselves illustrate a glaring discrepancy. While the government estimated that the total loss to property alone was well over Rs 600 crore, the total amount awarded as compensation, including compensation for deaths, rations to relief camps, etc, was in fact only Rs 185.90 crore (including Rs 119 crore spent on providing rations at refugee camps and Rs 17.90 crore awarded as compensation for those killed). The numbers speak for themselves.

There is a pattern of behaviour that establishes that the government of Gujarat intends to deny dignified compensation to the victims of the mass carnage of 2002. What is required is an independent comparison between the discrepancies in the official records, the losses recorded in the FIRs, police statements and panchnamas, and thereafter by the technical survey team. Significantly, the government informed the WPC in August 2002 that almost 5,000 houses had been completely destroyed. In the same breath, the Gujarat government defends the ceiling of Rs 50,000 per home when far greater losses have been suffered.

In effect, the compensation paid is pitiful even where FIRs and panchnamas were dutifully recorded. Whereas ration in the relief camps was given to 1,60,753 persons as per the Gujarat government’s own records, relief money and money for rehabilitation were given to a far reduced number. This is a gross discrepancy that appears to victimise the inmates of relief camps who were and in some cases still are internally displaced persons or refugees. And given their refugee status, it would be reasonable to assume that each one of them should have been entitled to rehabilitation or compensation.

Constitutional obligations require that compensation of at least Rs three lakh plus interest from 2002 be paid to the relatives of those killed and proportional amounts be paid as compensation for disabilities and serious injuries. Women who were raped or sexually abused must be given compensation equal to that awarded for persons who were killed. The ceiling amount for house compensation must be raised to Rs 1.5 lakh in the rural areas and Rs three lakh in the urban areas, and compensation based on a fair assessment of data and records, including the panchnamas contemporaneously recorded, must be paid along with the interest amount accruing from 2002.

Activists have also argued that when communal violence takes place, the state should be duty bound to provide adequate reparation rather than capriciously handing out arbitrary sums of money to victims. Given these recommendations, the government of India is reported to be considering a review of existing policies governing the payment of compensation to victims of communal violence. (India, including Gujarat, has witnessed a series of communal conflicts since independence and rates of compensation awarded to victims of these conflicts have varied greatly.) Furthermore, in light of the paltry amounts given by the Gujarat government to the families of those killed in the violence, the government of India awarded a compensation amount of Rs 3.5 to four lakh to these individuals in November 2006.

Many activists have however highlighted that the compensation needs to encompass those victims who weren’t killed during the violence but nevertheless suffered serious harm and injury – including victims of sexual violence, victims of serious injuries and those who suffered significant damage to their property but were not properly recompensed under the state government’s disbursement.

After visiting Gujarat in October 2006, the NCM has further recommended that this policy – in addition to providing mandatory sums agreed for immediate compensation – should also include money for rehabilitation. The NCM has highlighted that a specific policy dealing with internally displaced persons in the context of communal violence is important, especially in situations where the threat against minorities is perceived to be continuing, where the criminal justice system – as in Gujarat – appears not to be working and there is ongoing discrimination and exclusion. The NCM has argued that the policy must further include provisions for those wishing to return home as well as provisions to facilitate their return and restore the displaced families to their original conditions of living. All these remain in the form of recommendations alone.

Existing camps not regularised by the state government

Ahmedabad (Rehabilitation Camps)
Islamic Relief Committee (IRC) – Houses Rehabilitated, 2002
Allama Ali Takiya – 60 houses
Khanwadi Mitthan Shahid – 156 houses
Ekta Nagar, Vatwa – 108 houses
Naroda Patiya – 125 houses
Ekta Complex, Juhapura – 37 houses
Javed Park, Juhapura – 14 houses
Millat Colony, Gupta Nagar – 317 houses
Mohalatwad, Paldi – 22 houses
Viramgam – 82 houses
Mandal – 4 houses
IRCG Colony, Asim Park – 35 houses
Gujarat Sarvojanik Relief Committee
Sidhikabad, Juhapura – 180 houses
Vandvad, Vatwa – 84 houses
Satnagar, Nr. Ambica Mill, Kakarakia – 240 houses
Parmanand Patel ni Chawl – 79 houses
Arsh Colony, Vatwa – 50 houses
Viramgam – 112 houses
 
Anand district
Ode – 25 houses
Kheda Anand Relief Committee built 34 houses in Anand
 
Dahod district
Sanjeli, Jhalod – 18 houses
Sukhsar, Fatehpura – 39 houses
Piplod, Devgadhbaria – 3 houses

Gandhinagar district
Adalaj – 11 houses
Nardipur – 17 houses
Por – 12 houses
 
Kheda district
Shewala – 14 houses
Gothaj, Kapadvanj – 13 houses
Anjuman-e-Tamir-e-Millat built 20 houses
Majlis Dawatul Haq built 20 houses
 
Mehsana district (Kadi Rehabilitation Camps)
Satnagar (Taluka Vijapur) – 20 houses
Nandasan – 35 houses
Abolgaon – 82 houses & 49 houses
 
Panchmahal District
Shahra – 50 houses
Della – 60 houses
Pandharwada (Khanpur) – 100 houses
Vanjiakhunt (Santrampur) – 5 houses
Eral and Malav (Kalol) – 34 houses
Halol – 53 houses

Sabarkantha district
Vadali – 61 houses
Modasa – 68 houses
Tajpur Camp, Prantij – 21 houses
Chhanapur – 15 houses
Dolapur, Malpur – 22 houses
Himmatnagar – 25 houses

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Compensation

Mass graves and missing lives

By
-
0


 
The challenges thrown up for India, post-Godhra 2002, are fundamental. Are the politically powerful, even if they are organisers of mass murder and rape, immune from the law? The acknowledgement of a crime is the essential foundation on which victims begin the process of healing. In Gujarat, victims have been denied even that recognition.

The absence of any signs of remorse from the perpetrators has reduced what was a premeditated and gruesome carnage into a sorry spectacle. Every few months we are jolted by newspaper headlines and "breaking news" on television screens. For a few hours or a few days we are reminded once again of the carnage that was, but the neo-fascist functionary remains unrelenting, unrepentant. Gujarat continues to function as if it lives outside the writ and mandate of the Indian Constitution.

Official figures and police records reveal that of the 413 persons who were classified as ‘missing’ (bodies untraceable) after the 2002 carnage, the remains of 228 are still ‘not traced’. Victim survivors of the mass massacres, who filed missing person complaints with the local police in Anand, Mehsana, Ahmedabad and Panchmahal in 2002 and 2003, have said on oath that the remains of their lost relatives lie buried in illegal dumps or mass graves. Those mercilessly butchered were even denied the dignity of a decent burial.

Panchmahal was one of Gujarat’s many districts targeted by armed mobs between February 28 and March 3, 2002. Muslims of Pandharwada village were targeted for slaughter at two different locations on March 1, 2002 (CC, "Genocide-Gujarat 2002", was the first to document this massacre). Between March 2002 and December 2005, victim survivors of Pandharwada made oral and written applications to the deputy inspector general (DIG), Vadodara, the collector, Panchmahal, the deputy superintendent (DySP), Godhra, the deputy collector, Lunawada and the mamlatdar, Khanpur, urging that the remains of their lost ones be traced and returned. In December 2005, after nearly four years of frigid silence, they went digging for the remains themselves. They sought the media as an ally and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) for moral and legal support.

On December 27, 2005 the relatives uncovered bodies of lost ones that had been dumped in the forest wasteland near the Paanam river outside Lunawada town. They approached the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court ordered the human remains to be sent for DNA testing and analysis to an independent laboratory in Hyderabad under strict supervision of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice CK Buch’s order observed that if after analysis even a single body remained unidentified, a fresh case existed and scope for a de novo qua or fresh investigation was made out.

The CBI submitted the analysis to the Gujarat High Court in May 2006. Victim survivors were denied a copy of this report despite repeated pleas while the Gujarat state accessed a copy immediately. On December 6, 2006, the state appeared to be in an unholy hurry to get the matter disposed of. The victim survivors, who had approached the court in the first place, were not given the report and hence had no chance to reply. Despite this, the report did become public. Samples from eight body remains appeared to match the DNA samples taken from relatives of the Pandharwada massacre victims while 11 body remains were still unidentified. The matter was taken up for final hearing just two days later.

Given the findings of the Hyderabad laboratory, there was clear scope for a fresh CBI investigation as observed by Justice Buch earlier. Predictably, the Gujarat government adamantly opposed the court’s ruling of December 29, 2005 while counsel for the CBI remained unmoved by the pleas of victim survivors a year later. Instead, the CBI indirectly supported the Gujarat government’s stand, a fact recorded by the judge in his oral order.

The advocate for the victim survivors argued cogently and at length that the entire matter of illegally dumping these bodies needed to be investigated afresh by the CBI.

In the year since the mass grave was found, the victim survivors and co-petitioners had filed 600 pages of affidavits to substantiate their claims. For example, it was pointed out that the skeletal remains of the son of petitioner, Ameenabehn Rasool, were found bearing tattered bits of the same clothes in which he had been killed. This indicated that the police had not followed post-mortem and other routine procedures. It was also pointed out that the Gujarat government’s bias was evident from the fact that while the unidentified remains of Godhra arson survivors were kept in the public morgue for five months (and public notices for identification sent out repeatedly), these victims from the Muslim minority were unceremoniously dumped in wastelands near the Paanam river within three days of their killing. A 250-acre Muslim graveyard in Lunawada town lies barely a few kilometres away.

State officials could have handed over the bodies, even if unidentified, to local clergy to perform the last rites. Not only was this not done, victim survivors and human rights defenders who have assisted the legal struggle since December 2005 have been hounded by the local police, with a false FIR (first information report) being made out against them. They have all had to seek anticipatory bail. The case is pending against them even today although the Gujarat High Court has stayed registration of the FIR.

Even after the DNA sampling has confirmed that eight of the body remains of the dead matched the survivors of the mass carnage in Pandharwada, the victims have been denied dignified burial rites.

Sadly, the struggle for justice in Gujarat has been reduced to a legal battle for constitutional governance by victim survivors and some civil society actors. The political class that chants the secularism mantra to win elections has not merely kept a discreet distance. When it comes to punishment of the guilty of 2002, the United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre has chosen to forget its 2004 electoral promise. Do political considerations make it uncomfortable for them to play a part in the struggle for justice? Or, with the blood of past carnages on their own hands, do they sleep easier if the perpetrators remain unchallenged?

Pandharwada mass graves case: A brief

March 1, 2002
Mass massacre in Pandharwada in Panchmahal district, registered as CR 11/2002. Over 40 persons were massacred in two brutal incidents in this village. The accused were acquitted in October 2002. After this hasty acquittal and following rebukes by the Supreme Court in the Best Bakery case, the state government has made token attempts to reopen the investigation and trial.

March 2002-December 2005
Victim survivors of the Pandharwada massacre make repeated oral and written applications addressed to the DIG, Vadodara, the collector, Panchmahal district, the DySP, Godhra, the deputy collector, Lunawada and the mamlatdar, Khanpur. They even approach the medical officer, Panchal, for recovery of dead bodies. All their efforts are in vain.

December 27, 2005
In the third or fourth desperate search for the remains of their loved ones, relatives unearth skulls and bones in a ravine near Paanam river, outside Lunawada town. TV channels present do a live telecast of the entire episode. Contacted by victims for legal support, Rais Khan, Gujarat field coordinator of CJP, is present at the spot, while CJP secretary, Teesta Setalvad informs the Gujarat police about the discovery of the bodies.

December 28, 2005
Police inspector Puwar from the Lunawada police station goes to the house of Gulam Kharadi to threaten and abuse him. His wife, Jebunissa Gulam Kharadi files a complaint at the Lunawada police station against the inspector.

December 28, 2005
Ameenabehn Habib Rasool, a victim survivor who lost her son in the bloody massacre, files a petition along with CJP (Spl. Crim. Appln. 1875/2005) praying for the transfer of the entire investigation to the CBI.

In the affidavit annexed to the petition and dated December 29, 2005, Ameenabehn Habib Rasool, who saw her 24-year-old son being slaughtered in front of her eyes, states that she was shocked to find that when confronted with the mass graves issue, DGP AK Bhargava of the Gujarat police threatened penal action against victim survivors instead of showing concern and remorse over the appalling developments.
 

Present status of  the Mass Graves case

  • Survivors and CJP have filed an SLP appealing against the      odies matching the survivors of the Pandharwada mass carnage, the survivors are even today denied the right to a dignified burial of their relatives.
  • The UPA government and the Centre’s counsel in the Gujarat High Court have been silent on the survivors’ demand for a CBI investigation. Why?
  • A CBI/independent investigation needs to be ordered pertaining to the 228 missing persons from all over Gujarat. According to the Gujarat government’s own report, 228 bodies are yet to be found.
  • The DNA test report exposes the Gujarat government’s collusion with the accused because they contended that the skeletal remains were in no way connected to the Pandharwada massacre.
  • In all carnage related matters within the state of Gujarat there is a subversion of justice by the state of Gujarat and even sections of the judiciary in that state.
  • Prosecutors in the Gujarat carnage cases continue to function at the behest of the chief minister, Narendra Modi, ignoring their legal and constitutional obligations.
  • The Gujarat government is still holding its threat of an FIR against the survivors and human rights defenders.

Collector DH Brahmbhatt had a similar response, saying that ‘the anguished search of relatives for the remains of their lost ones was an illegal act". There were, however, several contradictions in the administration’s stance. On December 27, Bhargava told the media that the bodies could be related to the Pandharwada massacre; on the very next day he contradicted himself, saying the bodies could be related to an incident that took place prior to February 28, 2002. But on the same day the collector and the SP of the district, JK Bhatt, were categorical that the bodies were related to the Pandharwada massacre.

Expressing loss of faith in the Gujarat police, the petition also pointed out that Lunawada, a town only a few kilometres from Pandharwada (where all the survivors of the Pandharwada massacre are rehabilitated), had a 250-acre burial ground, large portions of which are unused. Why were those killed not given a dignified burial at the Lunawada graveyard? Why were they dumped surreptitiously into a mass grave?

Despite the fact that the post-mortem reports in most of the cases contained names of the deceased in detail, the state had the gall to claim that no family member had ever claimed the bodies.

Further proof of the state government’s lies comes from the inquest panchnamas and post-mortem reports. In identifying the dead, the police were clearly concerned with little other than observing the formalities. The dead bodies were shown to have been identified by Mukundbhai Bhikhabhai Sheikh, Shankar R. Harijan, etc, persons who were not even distant relatives of any of the deceased.

The body remains unearthed on December 27, 2005 were found bearing traces of the same clothes that the victims were wearing at the time of the assault. This is what made it easier for close relatives i.e. witnesses to identify the bodies, a process that was telecast by the electronic media in real time. This can only mean that the dead bodies did not undergo proper post-mortem procedures. If post-mortem procedures had been properly followed, the bodies would then have been wrapped in white cloth and the clothes worn by the deceased would have been collected and recorded through a separate panchnama. The post-mortem reports produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet were apparently manipulated so that the weapons used by the accused persons could not be matched to the injuries of the deceased.

December 29, 2005
The Gujarat High Court passes an order transferring the investigation to CBI.

December 30-31, 2005
The CBI issues summons to the victim survivors to be present at the Godhra Circuit House for blood samples to be taken so that DNA tests may then be carried out. CJP provided the CBI with a list of the victim survivors and their relationship with the deceased. Summons were received and signed by victims before January 1, 2006.

January 2, 2006
At 1.30 a.m., the Lunawada police file an FIR (CR No. 1 3/2006 with Khanpur police station) against the victim survivors and representatives of CJP under sections 192, 193, 201, 120 B, 295 A and 297 of the Indian Penal Code. The team from the TV news channel, Sahara Samay, which was present throughout and telecast, live, the entire incident of digging and recovery of bodies, was deliberately excluded from the list of ‘offenders to alleged offences named in the FIR’. Interestingly, the FIR, which was lodged by a sanitation inspector, invokes sections that in normal circumstances require state government sanction. And the victim survivors who were forced to resort to a desperate search for the remains of their near and dear ones by a callous administration now stand accused of hurting religious sentiments. Whose religious sentiments?

January 5-7, 2006
A piquant situation arises when victim survivors come to the Godhra Circuit House, terrified because the state of Gujarat has accused them of committing serious crimes when all they were "guilty" of was an agonised search for the remains of their lost ones. CJP seeks and receives assurances from the collector and the SP of Panchmahal that the victim survivors would not be arrested when they arrived to give blood samples.

January 9, 2006
The state government affidavit contradicts itself. Para 4 of its affidavit dated January 9 states that some bodies were unidentified. (In another sworn affidavit filed later, it claims that all the dead bodies were identified.) The state government also claims that relatives and others had identified bodies and then let them remain in a pit without the dignity of last rites. The Gujarat government obviously has no qualms stating falsehood upon falsehood in sworn affidavits. Later, in para 8 of the affidavit the government claims that the bodies were buried because nobody had come forward to claim them!

January 10, 2006
Mehboobbhai Rasoolbhai Chauhan, a victim survivor, and all others accused in the FIR along with CJP representatives (Rais Khan and Teesta Setalvad), approach the Sessions Court, Panchmahal, situated at Godhra, for anticipatory bail. Bail is granted. What’s more, in his order the judge observes that the said FIR was, prima facie, filed to pre-empt the order of the high court and deter the CBI from investigating the offence pertaining to the skeletons. The judge also observes that the Lunawada police’s action in registering an FIR was clearly "a counterblast" to the matters pending before the Gujarat High Court.

Thereafter, the ‘accused’ in the FIR approach the police several times (as is the norm in Gujarat) but the police does not formally arrest and then release them on regular bail as is required under the law. This is a deliberate act so as not to complete the formalities necessitated by the court order of January 10. The state police thus keeps a sword hanging over the heads of Pandharwada’s victim survivors.

January 12, 2006
Some 40 persons from the local unit of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) stage a ‘morcha’ to the collector’s office, asserting that ‘Hindu’ sentiments have been hurt and therefore Rais Khan and Teesta Setalvad should not be allowed inside Lunawada. The CJP secretary visits Lunawada and Pandharwada anyway, to stand by the survivors.

When confronted with the mass graves issue, DGP AK Bhargava of the Gujarat police threatened penal action against victim survivors instead of showing concern and remorse over the appalling developments

February 1, 2006
Maksudabehn Yusufbhai Shaikh, widow of murdered Yusufbhai Ahmedbhai Shaikh, files an application before the police sub-inspector, Khanpur police station, stating that she has information that her husband’s body has been buried illegally and without last rites at Lavanagam. She therefore appeals that the body be exhumed in the presence of her advocate and panchas (witnesses), and she be allowed to bury the body in accordance with Muslim rites. The same police that was screaming itself hoarse about the ‘illegal’ act committed on December 27, 2005, simply ignores her application. Copies of the said application were given to the DySP, Panchmahal, the collector and even the CBI, but to no avail.

February 7, 2006
CJP files an affidavit (in Spl. Crim. Appln. 1875/2005) pointing out that in the course of arguments before the Gujarat High Court on December 29, 2005, none of the so-called offences made out in CR No 1 3/2006 by the Lunawada police station had been committed. This clearly showed that the FIR was a desperate afterthought meant to adversely influence investigations. The affidavit also details the repeated harassment of Rais Khan by the police in Ahmedabad.

February 7, 2006
The state of Gujarat files an application (Misc. Crim. Appln. 1613/2006) for cancellation of bail of those named in FIR CR 1 3/2006. The court rejects this application.

February 10, 2006
Affidavits are submitted by petitioner Ameenabehn Rasool and CJP that include details of the procedure for burial of unidentified and missing persons as per the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the police norms and rules as stated by them in their earlier affidavit. None of this has been countered by the state of Gujarat.

Victim survivors have made it plain that the game plan of the state of Gujarat is to target them, and other eyewitnesses and citizens groups whom they have approached for legal help. Rather than showing any compassion or remorse, the administration and the government’s sole aim is to treat aggrieved citizens as criminals. The spectre of non-bailable arrest warrants continues to hang over them even today. Video recordings of the events of December 27, 2005, which have been placed before the court, substantively prove the petitioners’ contention that there was no instigation by outsiders when the mass grave was dug up. It was a spontaneous act by anguished relatives.

February 21, 2006
In its rejoinder affidavit the state government indulges in further falsehoods and claims that Maksudabehn Yusufbhai Shaikh had refused to allow the exhuming of her husband’s body.

March 2, 2006
Maksudabehn Shaikh files an affidavit in the main Pandharwada matter (Spl. Crim. Appln. 1875/2005) pointing out shocking attempts by the Gujarat police to doctor records. She charges the Gujarat police with fabricating evidence. This justifies the petitioners’ claim that the Gujarat state police simply cannot be trusted to handle an investigation against itself in a fair and impartial manner.

In her affidavit, Maksudabehn states that:

  • She made applications on February 1 and 6, 2006 to the pranth officer, Lunawada, the collector, Panchmahal at Godhra, the SP, Panchmahal, the DySP, Lunawada, the PI, Lunawada, etc asking that her husband’s body be exhumed. The application requested that after following legal procedure, the same should be handed over to the CBI for samples for DNA analysis after which the dead body should be handed over to her for a proper burial as per Muslim law.
  • The dead body of her husband, Yusufbhai Ahmedbhai Shaikh, was not handed over either to her or her mother-in-law, either on March 5, 2002 or on any other day, by any police, and she had not affixed her thumb impression acknowledging receipt of the body, as claimed by the state. She also states that the police was trying to make out a false case against her and was refusing to process her application to exhume her deceased husband’s body.
  • The police claim that they handed over the dead body of her husband to her on March 5, 2002 is absolutely false and an irresponsible statement. Had the body been handed over to her as claimed, it would have been buried according to proper religious rites, in the Muslim graveyard, by Muslim men from the local community. It is very clear that nothing of this sort has happened. It appears therefore that the police was suppressing the truth.
  • If her husband’s body had been handed over to her on March 5, 2002, then where was the need for her mother-in-law to make a written application for the same on March 19, 2002? (This was reported in the Gujarati daily, Gujarat Today, at the time.) Moreover, if the body had been obtained and buried, why would the family make repeated applications to the collectors of Godhra and neighbouring districts after March 5, 2002, inquiring whether Yusufbhai was alive or dead. Why did the police not respond to her applications at the relevant time?
  • When the police carried out the inquest panchnama as claimed on March 5, 2002, she was not called to the site nor was she present. However, her name and presence has been falsely recorded therein. No thumb impression or signature of hers can be seen on this inquest panchnama. The police inquest panchnama is said to have been carried out between 4.00 and 4.45 p.m. on March 5, 2002. It has also been stated that the police had seen the dead body at 2.30 p.m. on the same day, after which they sent it to the medical officer in Pandharwada.
  • If the so-called inquest panchnama was carried out between 4.00 and 4.45 p.m. on March 5, 2002, how does that tally with the police’s claim that the post-mortem was performed on the same day, at virtually the same time i.e. 4.30 p.m.?

From the material and facts mentioned above, Maksudabehn Shaikh concludes that the police’s claim that they had handed over her husband’s dead body to her on March 5, 2002, or any other day, was a total lie.

March, 2006
Victim survivors and CJP file 600 pages of detailed affidavits contradicting, point by point, all claims made by the state of Gujarat in their affidavits. Ameenabehn Habib Rasool in her rejoinder to rejoinder affidavit dated March 2006 states that:

  • The dead bodies were buried on the banks of the river ‘Paanam’.
  • Through their own investigations, the petitioners learnt that the said land has been classified as ‘forest land’ in village records. This proves that the local administration ought not to have buried the dead bodies there. Instead, they should have been handed over to the survivors of the deceased.
  • Having learnt of the illegal dumping site from the sanitation inspector, victim survivors then informed other villagers and soon thereafter the skeletons were unearthed, in the presence of the electronic media. It was only because of the electronic media’s exposure that the police could not tamper with the skeletons, the evidence. The local administration was caught on the wrong foot, especially because the skeletons were unearthed from forest land. Thus the family members took a wise decision in not providing prior information to the relevant authorities, all of which are controlled by the state government.
  • The CBI should be asked to immediately seize or take charge of the case diaries and the weekly diaries of the police so that the role of the state police and the local administration can be scrutinised. As it is, the state police has had enough opportunity to ‘tamper’ with the evidence.
  • The role of the state government in not protecting its citizens and in defending the accused has repeatedly come to light in this and several other instances.

 

Justice CK Buch, Gujarat High Court
Order dated December 29, 2005
“..It is true that the CBI can be said to be a third agency but ultimately it is yet to be traced whether the dead bodies that have been found out are of the persons who were named deceased in earlier incidents and disposed of in accordance with the norms and scheme under the Municipality Act and other norms that are being adopted by the state, but if it is found that (the) dead bodies or any one of such dead bodies is not accounted for in connection (with) any of two earlier incidents, then it may lead to (a) new case and, therefore, the scope to investigate the crime de novo qua that is there. I am told that relatives of the persons who are declared missing have been paid compensation but that by itself would not be sufficient to resolve the situation that has come to light by the act of digging out the dead bodies already buried earlier by the state machinery or the municipality concerned. The CBI, on receipt of the report from the laboratory, after approaching this court, positively can take appropriate further steps if required…”

March 2006
Petitioners Mehboobbhai Rasoolbhai Chauhan and Rasoolbhai Ashrafbhai Sheikh pray for a transfer of the entire investigation of the alleged offences to the CBI.

April 5, 2006
The Gujarat High Court refuses to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to victim survivors and CJP representatives by the sessions court at Godhra earlier.

April 17, 2006
Despite the Gujarat High Court order of April 5, 2006, the Gujarat police illegally obtains non-bailable warrants against victim survivors and representatives of CJP by misleading the court.

April 20, 2006
The Gujarat High Court issues notice to the Gujarat government on the petitioners’ plea for stay and transfer of the FIR-related investigations to the CBI, and posts the case for urgent hearing on April 28, 2006. Meanwhile, no action can be taken by the Gujarat police in respect of the investigation.

The case now proceeds in the district sessions court, slowly.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Mass Graves

 

The charge sheet

By
-
0

On June 8, 2006, Zakiya Jaffri, widow of the late member of parliament, Ahsan Jaffri, sought to register a first information report (FIR) against Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 62 others, including cabinet ministers, senior bureaucrats and policemen, under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Needless to say, the Gujarat police had failed to register such an FIR though cognisable offences have been made out therein. Therefore, on March 1, 2007 the complainant and Citizens for Justice and Peace jointly filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court asking the court to issue orders so that such an FIR may be registered. Moreover, given the state complicity at the highest level, they have demanded that the entire investigation is handed over to an independent agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

We list below the details of the criminal charges made out in the complaint and the petition. Due to constraints of space, some of these charges have been condensed here. Full details can be accessed at www.cjponline.org.

Details of offences with applicable sections of law

1. Criminal conspiracy and abetment to commit multiple offences of murder (Section 120 B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) read with (r/w) Section 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed) r/w Section 302 (Punishment for murder), Indian Penal Code (IPC)).

2. Furnishing false information (Section 177, IPC).

3. False statement made in declaration, which is by law receivable as evidence (Section 199, IPC).

4. Punishment for false evidence (Section 193, IPC r/w Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952).

5. Giving false information about an offence committed (Section 203, IPC).

6. Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class (Section 295, IPC); Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs (Section 295 A, IPC).

7. Uttering, words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings (Section 298, IPC).

8. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions (Section 186, IPC).

9. Omission to assist a public servant when bound by law to give assistance (Section 187, IPC).

10. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (Section 153 A, IPC).

11. Criminal intimidation (Section 506, IPC).

12. Mischief causing damage to public property (Section 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984).

13. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person (Section 166, IPC).

 

Accused No. 1: Narendra D. Modi, in 2002 and currently Chief Minister of Gujarat.

Evidence in support of the charges

1. Instructions to the director general of police (DGP), the chief secretary and other senior officials to give vent to the Hindu anger against minority Muslims in the wake of the Godhra incident. Meeting held in Gandhinagar on the evening of February 27, 2002, as testified in Affidavit No. 4 dated October 27, 2005 of additional director general of police (ADGP), RB Sreekumar, before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

2. The chief minister (CM)’s decision to bring dead bodies of those killed in the Godhra train fire to Ahmedabad and parade them in Ahmedabad city, as testified by Ashok Narayan, former addl. chief secretary, home department, in his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

3. Numerous illegal instructions given verbally to officials as detailed in Affidavit No. 3 dated April 9, 2005 of RB Sreekumar before the Nanavati-Shah Commission (Annexure F).

4. Evidence contained in Crime Against Humanity, Concerned Citizens Tribunal report, Gujarat 2002, by a panel of judges, Justices VR Krishna Iyer, PB Sawant and others, which included testimonies of officials and a cabinet minister of the state of Gujarat.

5. Positioning cabinet ministers, IK Jadeja and Ashok Bhatt, in the DGP’s office and Ahmedabad city control room respectively. DGP Chakravarti was critical of the minister, IK Jadeja, remaining in his office, as testified by RB Sreekumar in para 85 of his fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

6. Transfer of officers from field executive posts in the thick of the riots in 2002 despite the DGP’s objections (as per media reports), to facilitate placement of those who were willing to subvert the system for political and electoral benefits.

7. Rewarding of senior officials with undue benefits even while their conduct is under scrutiny at the Nanavati-Shah Commission. The latest instance was the six-month extension as state vigilance commissioner awarded to Ashok Narayan, who has already completed two years in the above post-retirement placement. The orders were issued on July 28, 2006.

8. No follow-up action on the reports sent by RB Sreekumar on April 24, 2002, June 15, 2002, August 20, 2002 and August 28, 2002 about the administration’s anti-minority stance. Copies of these reports are appended in Affidavit No. 2 dated October 6, 2004 of RB Sreekumar before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

9. Indictment by the Supreme Court about the injustices carried out against the minority community and riot victims in the investigation of riot cases in respect of 1) the Bilkees Bano case, 2) the Best Bakery case.

10. Partisan investigations betraying prejudice against riot victims belonging to the minority community, as indicated by Rahul Sharma, the then superintendent of police (SP), Bhavnagar district, and now SP (CBI), Gandhinagar, during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

11. The CM, Narendra Modi, did not visit the riot affected areas during the initial days of the violence though he visited the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002 itself.

12. The press statement by Narendra Modi that the reaction against the Muslim community was the operation of Newton’s law of action and reaction.

13. No direction from Narendra Modi to Hindu organisations against the observance of a bandh on February 28, 2002. (In 1997 and subsequently, the Kerala High Court has declared forced bandhs illegal; the 1997 verdict was even upheld by the Supreme Court.)

14. Delay in the requisition and deployment of the army although anti-minority violence had broken out on the afternoon of February 27, 2002 itself, in the cities of Vadodara, Ahmedabad, etc.

15. Appointment of pro-VHP advocates as public prosecutors in riot cases though as home minister (cabinet rank) the CM had the necessary means at his disposal to verify the credentials and integrity of these advocates.

16. Refusal to transfer officers from the grass root level, as per the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB)’s recommendation, until the arrival of KPS Gill as security adviser to the CM in May 2002. Gill ensured the above transfers and this led to a dramatic improvement in the situation, as indicated in RB Sreekumar’s second affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

17. No action taken against the print media carrying communally inflammatory reports although the SIB and some field officers had recommended such action, as noted in Affidavit No. 1 of RB Sreekumar dated July 6, 2002 and during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on August 31, 2004. (It is the state home department that is empowered to give clearance for initiating action against the print media.)

18. The state home department provided misleading reports about normalcy in the state to the Chief Election Commission (CEC) so as to ensure early assembly elections. The home department’s assessment was adjudged as false by the CEC in its open order dated August 16, 2002. As per the register recording verbal instructions from higher echelons of government (the CM and others) maintained by RB Sreekumar, in his third affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission it is noted that he was directed by home department officials to give favourable reports about the law and order situation so as to facilitate the holding of early elections.

19. State secretary, home department, GC Murmu, was presumably specially assigned to tutor, cajole and even intimidate officials deposing before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, to prevent them from telling the truth and harming the interests of the CM and the ruling party, as noted in RB Sreekumar’s third affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

20. GC Murmu’s mission was to try and ensure that officials did not file affidavits relating to the second term of reference of the Nanavati-Shah Commission, in particular, the role of the CM and other ministers in the riots.

21. Initiating no action against senior police officers, whose work is administered by the home department, for their grave dereliction of duty in the supervision of the investigation of serious offences as envisaged in Rules 24, 134, 135 and 240 of the Gujarat Police Manual-Vol. III, as noted in para 94 of RB Sreekumar’s fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

22. Did not initiate departmental action against the then SP of Dahod district, SP Jadeja, for his gross misconduct and negligence during investigations into the Bilkees Bano case despite recommendations to that effect by the CBI which reinvestigated the case as per the directions of the Supreme Court.

23. Investigating officers in the Naroda Patiya and the Gulberg Society cases did not investigate the compact disc (CD) containing records of important telephone calls made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and police officers during the riots. Rahul Sharma, SP (CBI), had submitted this CD to the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2004. In May 2007 the commission ordered an inquiry into this matter, as per media reports.

24. A situation conducive to the rehabilitation of riot victims has not been created, contrary to the claims made by the state administration in its reports to the National Human Rights Commission. Instead, riot victims were pressurised into compromising with the perpetrators of the violence as a condition precedent for their safe return to their homes and their rehabilitation.

25. Police inaction on investigating the roots and extent of the criminal conspiracy, linked to their participation in it.

26. No minutes or written notes of the meetings held by the CM and senior bureaucrats were issued, and instructions were mainly conveyed on the telephone. The non-issuance of such minutes/notes served the twin objectives of 1) Field officers carrying out the conspiracy of a pogrom against the minority and 2) Avoidance of subsequent monitoring of actions by jurisdictional officers in the field.

27. No action has been taken against officers like K. Chakravarti, then DGP; PC Pande, then commissioner of police (CP), Ahmedabad city; Ashok Narayan, then addl. chief secretary, and a large number of senior government functionaries who filed incomplete, inaccurate, vague and inadequate affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. Virtually no officer provided important documents relevant to the terms of reference of the commission as exhibits either in affidavits or during their cross-examination.

28. Slack review of post-riot cases, a review ordered by the Supreme Court in 2004. This was achieved by entrusting the work to those senior officers who were willing or constrained to act according to the political interests of the CM and the BJP.

29. Nepotism practised in postings, transfers, promotions, etc despite mounting vacancies in police departments so as to facilitate the ongoing subversion of the criminal justice system.

30. The fact that the main victims of the riots were Muslims, and the violence and police firing were targeted predominantly at the Muslim community will establish that rioters, the administration, cohorts of the ruling party (BJP), were working in collaboration to achieve the vile objectives of the CM. Statistics in this respect may be seen in RB Sreekumar’s second affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, particularly in para 3 of Appendix V therein.

The nature of offences detailed and the quantum of evidence delineated above categorically establish that the accused No. 1, Chief Minister Narendra Modi, had violated and has been violating his oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India. Further, through a series of preconceived, and pre-planned illegal actions, he carried out and has been pursuing actions challenging, violating and subverting the letter, spirit and ethos of the Constitution. This sinister design has been implemented by means of the malevolent use of the human and material resources under his command, by virtue of his position as chief minister. Activists, collaborators and supporters of the ruling party – BJP – and its feeder and sister organisations have been motivated, equipped and directed by the accused for the perpetration of crimes as listed above. In other words, the accused has been waging a war against the true sovereignty of the Indian nation, "We, the people", as etched in the first line of the Preamble to the Constitution of India. The deliberate acts of omission and commission by the accused, individually and through his active collaborators in the state administration and the BJP’s party bodies, violate the basic and inviolable structure of Indian polity as envisioned in the preamble to the Constitution.

From this perspective, the accused had and has been committing seditious acts, which had and will have a divisive, degenerative and debilitative impact on Indian society and on the unity and integrity of the Indian nation in the long term.

Acc. No. 2: Ashok Bhatt, in 2002, Minister for Health, currently Minister for Law and Justice, Health and Family Welfare, Legislative & Parliamentary Affairs, NGOs, etc.

Acc. No. 3: Indravijaysinh K. Jadeja, in 2002, Minister for Urban Development, currently Minister for Roads & Buildings, Capital Projects, Urban Development and Urban Housing.

Acc. No. 4: Prabhatsinh P. Chauhan, in 2002, Minister for Transport, currently Minister (MoS) for Tribal Development and MLA from Kalol, Gandhinagar district.

Acc. No. 5: Gordhan Zadaphiya, in 2002 an MLA and Minister for Home, currently an MLA from Rakhial, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 6: Ranjitsingh N. Chawda, in 2002 an MLA and Minister for Cottage Industries and Shri Vajpayee Swarojgar Yojna.

Acc. No. 7: Kaushikkumar J. Patel, in 2002, Minister for Energy and MLA from Shahpur, Ahmedabad, currently Minister for Revenue and Disaster Management.

Acc. No. 8: CD Patel, in 2002 an MLA from Petlad, Anand district, currently Minister (MoS) for Tourism, Holy Places & Pilgrimage Development (Ind. Charge), etc.

Acc. No. 9: Nitin R. Patel, in 2002 an MLA from Kadi, Mehsana and Minister for Finance.

Acc. No. 10: Amit A. Shah, currently Minister (MoS) for Home, Police Housing, Border Security, Jails, Prohibition, Excise (Ind. Charge) and Transport, and MLA from Sarkhej, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 11: Anil T. Patel, (of the Apollo Group) currently Minister (MoS) for Civil Aviation, Cottage and Salt Industry (Ind. Charge), Industry, Mines and Minerals, and MLA from Mehsana.

Acc. No. 12: Narayan L. Patel, in 2002, Minister for Transport (Ind. Charge), currently an MLA from Unjha, Mehsana district.

Acc. No. 13: Kalu H. Maliwad, in 2002 an MLA from Lunawada, former taluka Panchayat Pramukh, currently an MLA from Lunawada, Panchmahal district.

Acc. No. 14: Dilip M. Patel, in 2002 an MLA, currently an MLA from Anand Vidhyanagar, Anand district.

Acc. No. 15: Madhu B. Srivastava, in 2002 an MLA and currently an MLA from Waghodiya, Vadodara.

Acc. No. 16: Dr (Ms) Maya Kodnani, in 2002 and currently an MLA from Naroda, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 17: Nalin K. Bhatt, former General Secretary, BJP. Author of the party’s affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

Acc. No. 18: Rajendra Singh Rana, in 2002 and currently MP from Bhavnagar. Spokesperson of the BJP.

Acc. No. 19: Dr Kaushik J. Mehta, Joint Secretary, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Gujarat.

Acc. No. 20: Dr Praveen Togadia, in 2002 and currently, International General Secretary, VHP.

Acc. No. 21: Dr Jaideep Patel, Gujarat Secretary, VHP.

Acc. No. 22: Babu Bajrangi Patel, Member, Bajrang Dal and VHP, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 23: Prof KK Shastri, Chairman, VHP, Gujarat unit, and Editor, Viswa Hindu Samachar.

Acc. No. 24: Babu Rajput, BJP worker, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 25: K. Chakravarti, in 2002, DGP, Gujarat, now retired.

Acc. No. 26: AK Bhargava, former DGP, Gujarat, currently Managing Director (MD), Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd.

Acc. No. 27: G. Subbarao, in 2002, Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, currently Chairman, Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.

Acc. No. 28: Ashok Narayan, in 2002, Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat, currently Gujarat State Vigilance Commissioner.

Acc. No. 29: PC Pande, in 2002, CP, Ahmedabad, later transferred on deputation to the CBI, New Delhi, currently DGP, Gujarat.

Acc. No. 30: K. Srinivas, in 2002, Collector, Ahmedabad district.

Acc. No. 31: Dr PK Mishra, in 2002, Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and Chief Executive Officer, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, currently Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Gujarat Government.

Acc. No. 32: Kuldeep Sharma, in 2002, Range In-charge, Ahmedabad Range, currently ADGP (Training).

Acc. No. 33: MK Tandon, in 2002, Addl. CP, Ahmedabad, currently Range Inspector General (IG), Surat Range.

Acc. No. 34: K. Nityanandam, in 2002, Home Secretary, currently, CP, Rajkot city.

Acc. No. 35: Rakesh Asthana, on deputation in 2002, from April 2002, Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CID-Crime, currently IG, Vadodara Range. Head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Godhra train fire.

Acc. No. 36: AK Sharma, in 2002, SP, Mehsana, currently IG, Ahmedabad Range.

Acc. No. 37: GC Murmu, Secretary, Home Department (Law & Home), Government of Gujarat.

Acc. No. 38: Shivanand Jha, Secretary, Home, Government of Gujarat.

Acc. No. 39: DH Brahmbhatt, Collector, Panchmahal district.

Acc. No. 40: Deepak Swaroop, in 2002, IG, Vadodara Range, currently, CP, Vadodara.

Acc. No. 41: Sudhir Sinha, in 2004, CP Vadodara, currently CP, Surat.

Acc. No. 42: K. Kumarswami, former Addl. CP, Vadodara, currently IGP (Intelligence), Gujarat.

Acc. No. 43: BS Jabaliya, District Police Chief, Anand.

Acc. No. 44: DG Vanzara, former Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Ahmedabad Crime Branch, (May 2002 to July 2005), former DIG (Border Range) and head of the Anti-Terrorism Squad. He was suspended and is currently in jail for his involvement in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

Acc. No. 45: Rahul Sharma, in 2002, SP, Bhavnagar, and thereafter, DCP, Control Room, currently SP (CBI), Gandhinagar.

Acc. No. 46: Raju Bhargava, in 2002, SP, Panchmahal district, currently SP, Sabarkantha.

Acc. No. 47: (Ms) Anju Sharma, in 2002, Collector, Bharuch district.

Acc. No. 48: DD Tuteja, in 2002, CP, Vadodara city, now retired.

Acc. No. 49: Bhagyesh Jha, former Collector, Vadodara, currently Director of Information, I & B Department, Government of Gujarat.

Acc. No. 50: Nitiraj Solanki, in 2002, SP, Sabarkantha district.

Acc. No. 51: Amrutlal Patel, in 2002, Collector, Mehsana district, currently Collector of Administration, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 52: Upendra Singh, in 2002, CP, Rakjot.

Acc. No. 53: PN Patel, in 2002, Collector, Rajkot district.

Acc. No. 54: VM Pargi, in 2002, DCP, Ellis Bridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, currently Addl. CP, Surat.

Acc. No. 55: KG Erda, in 2002, Police Inspector (PI), Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, former PI-CID Intelligence, Viramgam, currently PI (Local Crime Branch), Valsad.

Acc. No. 56: KK Mysorewala, in 2002, PI, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, currently, Reader to DIGP, Gandhinagar Range.

Acc. No. 57: MT Rana, Asst. Police Commissioner, G-Division, Ahmedabad city.

Acc. No. 58: Tarun Barot, PI, Ahmedabad Crime Branch.

Acc. No. 59: Narendra Amin, currently Asst. CP, Ahmedabad Crime Branch.

Acc. No. 60: GC Raiger, in 2002, ADGP (Intelligence).

Acc. No. 61: KR Kaushik, in 2002, ADGP (Crime) and later CP, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 62: Amitabh Pathak, in 2002, IG, Gandhinagar Range.

Acc. No. 63: Satish Verma, in 2002, DIG (Border Range), Kutch, currently with the SRP Training Centre, Junagadh.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Crime and Punishment

Pockets of resistance

By
-
0

The Maharaja Sayajirao University (MSU) in Vadodara, Gujarat, is amongst the top universities in the country with a global reputation. MSU’s Fine Arts College is reputed nationally and internationally for upholding the highest standards of creative and critical practice. It is also reputed for its commitment to the freedom of expression. Last month, however, this prestigious institute hit the headlines as one more target of police-supported Hindutva hooligans in Modi state where the rule of law is an alien concept.

On May 9, 2007 the saffron brigade, led by an advocate, Niraj Jain, stormed the university premises. The cause of their misplaced rage was a painting by Chandra Mohan, a student from the graphics department of the fine arts college in Vadodara, which was part of a collection of students’ paintings displayed for assessment by examiners for a master’s degree in fine arts. Mohan’s painting, depicting nude figures with some religious motifs, allegedly hurt "Hindu religious sentiments". This was enough for the self-appointed moral police to barge into the campus, disrupt the annual examinations in progress and beat Mohan up.

What is even more shocking is the role of the police. Instead of taking action against the lawbreakers, the police promptly arrested the unfortunate student and charged him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (section 153 – Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc, section 114 – Abettor present when offence is committed, section 295 A – Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs). They opposed his being given bail and had him locked up in Vadodara’s Central Jail for five days. As if that was not enough, the vice chancellor (VC) of MSU, Dr Manoj Soni, was party to the ugly episode. Instead of upholding the dignity of his university, speaking up for Chandra Mohan and demanding police action against Niraj Jain and his hoodlums, Soni chose to suspend the dean of the fine arts faculty, Prof Shivaji Panikkar.

Freedom of the arts and literature are vital in any democracy. There may be divergent views on this sensitive issue. Accredited artists of high calibre, refinement and culture are those fit to comment on works of art. What constitutes beauty and what is obscenity cannot be decided by a self-constituted moral brigade. The way the exhibition was displayed by students of the fine arts faculty establishes that it was clearly meant for academic evaluation in the annual examination.

The exhibition was ransacked by the saffron brigade with the help of the police armed with a magistrate’s order. Such an action within the precincts of an academic institution of high repute, under the nose of the VC and the university’s administrative authority, is unthinkable. Right-thinking persons across the country have been appalled by this fascist act and have come out openly in solidarity with the protesting students and faculty of the MSU. Within Gujarat and, in particular, amongst teachers and students of MSU, the latest incident is being seen as part of a concerted attempt by the sangh parivar to subvert the autonomy of institutes of higher learning and to bring them under saffron sway.

The process, started when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assumed power in the state some 10 years ago, only accelerated after the 2002 carnage. Though a similar communalisation of the campus has been under way in other universities in Gujarat, a vibrant struggle has emerged within the MSU to challenge it. Against all odds, both teachers and students at MSU are resisting the nefarious plan to destroy their powers of resistance and to trample on the autonomy of MSU and thus pave the way for absolute control of the university by the Hindutva brigade.

In a way, this phenomenon is part of the two-decade old effort by different political parties across the country to undermine the autonomy of universities following the National Policy of Education, 1986 coupled with directives of GATT and the WTO. Be it the Congress party in states where they are in power, or the CPI (M)-led Left government in West Bengal and Kerala, most political parties, ‘national’ or ‘regional’, are uncomfortable with genuine autonomy for universities.

Far from being the exception, the previous National Democratic Alliance government at the Centre and the Modi-led BJP government in Gujarat have aggressively intensified the process. They have not only appointed puppets as vice chancellors but taken the exercise many steps further by actively choosing those committed to the sangh parivar’s hate politics for these critical and prestigious posts.

The result of such blatant attempts at academic control by politicians and political parties has resulted in syllabi being redesigned with a view to shun the rational and scientific outlook and doctor young minds. In a nutshell, the democratisation of education has been severely arrested.

The unchallenged practice by all political parties to control institutions has made the BJP’s job even easier. Whenever it comes to power the BJP uses these unhealthy precedents, albeit more aggressively. Wherever it is in control of state governments, the sangh parivar, in its bid to universalise Hindutva ideology, is going for all out saffronisation even as it destroys the very fabric of democratic, secular and scientific education.

 

Pre-planned vandalism of May 2007

The marauders chose examination time for their assault on the Fine Arts College with the objective of rousing communal passions in Vadodara. The faculty was targeted because its students and teachers had dared to stand up to the puppet vice chancellor, Manoj Soni. The backdrop to the incident was the earlier uncalled for thrashing of a student from the arts faculty by a security guard at the instance of a hostel warden. Strong protests from students of the faculty, backed by their dean, Prof Shivaji Panikkar, left the atmosphere within MSU smouldering. Clearly the VC is out to teach this independent faculty a lesson.

 

Systematic saffronisation

Following the 2002 carnage, the MSU was brought totally under the control of the BJP and its mentor group, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In 2003 the University Syndicate, the highest decision-making body which formulates rules and regulations in the university, was completely in the grip of the sangh parivar. For the first time in the history of MSU, there was no voice of dissent at any of the syndicate meetings. Many non-academics and persons of low calibre were made senate members by the Gujarat government. The academic year 2003-04 sounded the death knell for MSU as various anti-student, anti-education measures were taken by university authorities.

Only those with unflinching loyalty to sangh ideology could climb the ladder of academic success. After the 2002 carnage, most of the VCs appointed to various universities in Gujarat owed their allegiance to the ruling party. The current VC, Dr Soni was rewarded with this post for praising Modi and eulogising the carnage. The university magazine of the arts faculty was not allowed to publish a resolution condemning the communal carnage. Nor was there was any official condemnation on the murderous attack on Prof Jussar Bandukwala, a senior faculty member of the MSU, during the 2002 violence.

The atmosphere of free debate, discussion and democratic dissent has been vitiated by the saffron brigade for some time now. In 2003, activists of the BJP’s youth wing, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), destroyed placards against the US invasion of Iraq put up by the all-India Democratic Students’ Organisation (DSO). In September 2002, RSS syndicate members and ABVP activists stalled a seminar sponsored by the University Grants Commission and organised by the department of history, where Islamic scholar, Asghar Ali Engineer, was scheduled to be the main speaker.

In 2003, DSO was denied permission to organise a cultural festival in the fine arts faculty hall even though non-university related organisations, including religious bodies, are regularly permitted to hold their functions there. The DSO was being thwarted because it had led two successful student agitations resulting in the emergence of a genuine students’ movement in MSU.

The ‘hostel movement’ in 2004 was a big blow to saffron forces. In June 2004, when students were leaving after exams were over, the University Syndicate arbitrarily decided to close down two boys’ hostels: Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS) Hall and Manubhai Mehta (MM) Hall. It also introduced some major changes in the hostel administration, including the centralisation of power in the hands of the chief warden. Being a residential university, MSU has 12 boys’ hostels and four girls’ hostels. These hostels can accommodate only 3,500 students, which is inadequate for the existing strength of students.

DSO launched a movement against the closure of the hostels. The authorities had to give in to students’ demands after students’ gheraoed the VC for about eight hours on August 15, 2004. This was the first time in years that the BJP/RSS syndicate was compelled to bend before a democratic movement.

Intrusion of intolerance

This meeting of the executive council of Jadavpur University notes with deep concern and shock the recent events at the MS University of Baroda which included the arrest of a student without any FIR or warrant, disruption of regular academic activities by police and hooligans, the suspension of the dean of the faculty of fine arts by the vice chancellor.

This meeting strongly condemns the intrusion of intolerance in one of the most important institutes of the teaching of the arts in India, in the name of protecting some misguided notion of tradition. We record our support of the courageous stand of the dean of the faculty of fine arts, Professor Shivaji Panikkar.

We condemn this and other similar events, which have tried to vitiate the traditions of plurality, enquiry and experimentation on academic campuses in India. We urge all academics, students, artists and intellectuals to take an active role in ensuring that certain fundamentalist individuals and groups
do not succeed in their efforts to stifle values enshrined in democratic, artistic, academic and constitutional systems.

— Text of a resolution adopted by the executive council of Jadavpur University at a meeting held on May 16, 2007

Condemn repression

The closure of the exhibition of students’ paintings in the fine arts department of MS University, Baroda, by so-called activists and the university authorities is highly condemnable. A university is the promoter and torch bearer of freedom of thought and expression. The vice chancellor of the university has committed dereliction of his primary duty. India, all through the ages, has been nurturing divergence of ideas, faith and actions. The actions of these so-called Hindu activists are truly un-Indian. I express my solidarity and support to the group which is spearheading the protest. Let us keep on protesting till the authorities rescind their heinous actions.

— MS Thimmappa, Former vice chancellor, Bangalore University

www.fineartsfaculty.blogspot.com

 

MSU under Soni

MSU’s current VC, Manoj Soni, is a former student of the university. Previously a reader in the political science department of Sardar Patel University, Anand, he took over as VC of MSU on April 17, 2005. What surprised many was the appointment of such an inexperienced person to manage such a prestigious institution. Ironically, he would have been content with the post of reader in the political science department at MSU.

Soni’s proximity to Modi was one of the factors responsible in catapulting him to the top post. He is understood to be the brain behind the draft of the Common University Act, an enactment intended to destroy the autonomy of universities. He is the youngest VC that MSU has had. While the BJP/RSS lobby loves him, those who oppose the Common University Act see him as a man specially brought in by the Modi government to prepare the ground for the implementation of the Common University Act.

After taking over as VC in April 2005, Soni briefly tried to cultivate the image of a popular student-friendly VC. But the pretence did not last long. Barely three months later, he sat on hunger strike in the company of BJP/RSS leaders opposing a students’ agitation. What came as a shock to many in the MSU was the brutal use of force against agitating students on July 18, 2005 in the VC’s presence. Instead of intervening, Dr Soni said, "They were shouting for justice, and justice has been given to them."

The Common University Act (CUA) was a draconian move by the state government to bring all universities in the state under tighter political and bureaucratic government control. A successful agitation launched jointly by teachers and students prevented the Act’s implementation. However, Soni is already imposing provisions of the CUA indirectly – by victimising students, punishing members of the teaching faculty and interfering in the day-to-day academic affairs of various faculties. He is trampling on academic freedom and the autonomy of the university, blatantly trying to let university affairs be run from Gandhinagar. This was evident during the recent incident at the fine arts faculty of MSU and especially given the antecedents of many who stormed its gates.

The student community has played an important role in various movements to safeguard university autonomy and oppose the anti-education polices of university authorities and the state government. To gag this rising students’ voice, MSU authorities banned the students’ election in 2005-06. A Students’ Action Committee then launched a movement against this step. Elections were held a year later, in 2006, in an extremely tense and repressive atmosphere.

That year, the VC’s anti-student attitude was once again on display, this time during the agitation for admissions to the master of arts’ history course when some female students lay down in protest outside the VC’s office. Instead of hearing their pleas, Soni simply walked over the agitating students! Ultimately, the protest movement succeeded but the VC’s arrogance shocked all right-thinking persons in Vadodara.

As with students, so with the teaching staff. University teachers are routinely tempted by the lure of postings, promotions and positions if they toe the saffron line. Hostel wardens are also selected on the basis of their pro-RSS leanings. RSS shakhas (branch meetings) are freely allowed on the university campus.

A woman teacher in the home science faculty was denied a promotion because of the growing communalism in MSU’s administration. She has since filed a case in the Gujarat High court stating that because she, a Hindu, is married to a Muslim, she was made a victim of communal bias. Prof Bharat Mehta, a reader in the department of Gujarati literature, has also been denied promotion because of his secular credentials. Mehta has screened films on the Gujarat carnage and been active in debunking saffron propaganda about the Godhra incident and the post-Godhra genocide.

Today the autonomy of MSU is in grave danger. The VC, Soni, is out to saffronise it. The saffron brigade wants to generate a controversy around Chandra Mohan’s paintings and never mind the question of artistic freedom. "Hurting religious sentiments" is but a clever ploy used to divert attention from their true object: the issue of autonomy. Arousing people’s religious passions would of course fulfil a dual purpose and reap rich political dividends before assembly elections in the state.

Hence all efforts need to be concentrated on supporting the struggle by students and teachers to ensure the autonomy of MSU. The saffron brigade and the ABVP are out to confuse and divide the university’s students. While Congress (I)’s student wing, the National Students Union of India, is also playing a short-sighted and divisive role.
 

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Hindu Taliban 1

 

 

Cultural fascism

By
-
0

On May 1 and 2, 2006 the illegal attack on a dargah in Vadodara city by well known rowdies of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal (BD) created communal tension. The torching alive of young Rafik Vohra on the second day showed us that hate that is still simmering thanks to some political outfits in Gujarat. The timely intervention by the union home ministry after Rafik Vohra had been attacked helped contain the situation.

But as the controversy detailed below shows, deep-rooted intolerance has now become legitimate in Modi’s vibrant Gujarat. On May 20, 2006, Dr Ganesh Devy expressed his views in Tehelka on the prevalent atmosphere in the state. His words created a literary storm with Gujarati writers of repute hurling personal abuse and even venom. In his article, tracing the source of the growing violence in Gujarat, Ganesh Devy told Tehelka that there was a relationship between a society’s acquisitive tendency and the emergence of violence. He also talked about the role of the ‘decent’ people in breeding hatred.

Dr Devy founded the Bhasha Tribal Academy in Tejgadh, 92 km from Vadodara. He was instrumental in publishing Dhol, a magazine brought out simultaneously in ten tribal languages. Through his writing, he explains to non-tribals why we should get rid of our obsession with the mission of bringing tribals into the mainstream.

Ironically, though Tehelka is not read widely in Gujarat, alert eyes were quick to remedy this. Photocopies of the piece were circulated and nearly everybody who is anybody in Gujarati literature reacted angrily to Devy’s comments. Articles that appeared in newspapers and writers made statements demanding that Devy tender a public apology. Angry and vicious views expressed by litterateurs Shirish Panchal, Ranjana Argade and Sitanshu Yashashchandra confirmed what Devy had been brave enough to say.

An imminent meet of the Gujarat Sahitya Academy was scheduled to be held at the Tejgadh institute. Following the outbreak of intolerance, Dr Devy was threatened; apologise or the venue would be shifted. Finally, the meeting was held at Mandvi in Kutch. Author and activist Mahasweta Devi declined to attend the meet at the new venue. Devy wanted to avoid any campaign in his solidarity. He, like many others, leads a precarious life in Gujarat.

June 2002: At a meeting at the Gujarati Sahitya Parishad in Ahmedabad in June 2002, ostensibly to discuss the aftermath of the genocide, speaker after speaker sang praises of the tolerance religion preaches but none wanted to support a proposal for the restoration of Sufi poet, Wali Dakhani or Wali Gujarati’s tomb, flattened in the dark hours of the night on March 1, 2002 by bulldozers of the Congress-dominated Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Suddenly, rationalist writers began claiming that the tomb was an encroachment and angry voices asked those who had made the proposal whether they were concerned about earthquake victims or only the delay of relief to Muslims. The faces of the very people who had been singing paeans to tolerance were now distorted by hatred.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Hindu Taliban 3

Hating Muslims is a natural thing in Gujarat

By
-
0


 
Gujarat has become an intolerable place; at least that is how I find it. Today, there are very few people I can talk to in Gujarat because they simply do not understand basic things or don’t want to, I can make myself a very comfortable citizen of Vadodara. But the problem is, I cannot talk to the people of this city; it is like walking in the desert; I find the popular myth of Gujaratis being peace-loving people impossible to believe. How could all the riots, so many of them since 1969, have happened if this were true? I have thought about this deeply and my sense is that violence is an attribute of their acquisitive nature, Gujaratis are extremely acquisitive people. They will do anything to acquire. The most decent people here, people I would otherwise respect, would do anything to get a visa to the United States, even resort to cheating and dishonesty. They are hungry to acquire. Even Gujarati devotion is about acquiring. They have an exchange relationship with God – I give you devotion, you give me riches.

The Muslim hatred practised here is not conscious or learnt. It is just somehow normal, as nature would have meant it to be. There is no bitterness of partition here, as is the case with Punjab. There is only the deep, almost genetic, knowledge of Somnath and the invasions and an accumulation of prejudices. Then there is a huge void in their memory until Gandhi arrives.

I often wonder how it must feel to be a Muslim in Gujarat. I shudder to think what it must require to live at the wrong end of so much hatred, contempt and threat. Do they have a strategy of reaction?
Is something in the process of evolving?

Gandhi, I have to say, is not a popular man in Gujarat; they merely pay him lip service. You do not become a bad man in Gujarat if you hate Muslims, you are normal. Decent people hate Muslims. And it is not a city phenomenon alone; this is true of villages as well. If a Muslim is traumatised, it is a normal thing. Just to give a sense of how Gujarati Hindus relate to Muslims, I will come to the Narmada issue. Gujarat is extremely pro-dam and, therefore, extremely anti-Medha Patkar. Gujaratis will call all pro-Medha people Muslims. Intolerance in Gujarat is unanimous. If Muslims are hated, entire Gujarat will hate them. If Medha is seen as an ‘enemy’, all of Gujarat will look at her as an enemy. In that sense, Gujarat has treated Medha as much as an ‘enemy’ or a ‘fundamentalist’ as Muslims are treated. The minds have got locked here. The culture of disagreement and dissent is pervasively shunned. This is so even when Gujarat is not a feudal state in terms of its economic make-up.

Some years ago, Habib Tanvir wanted to come and stay and work in Vadodara. He did not find a house for six months. Eventually, he went back. Some of us tried to find him a place to stay but nobody was willing (to give him accommodation). My own landlord at the time, a perfectly decent man otherwise, refused. Rauf Valiullah, an honest and purposeful Congress MP (member of parliament) was killed by gangsters in the centre of Ahmedabad a few years ago. Not even the Congress party made a noise about it. I think because Rauf was a Muslim. There was no sense of loss or outrage when Ahsan Jaffri was killed. There is no political or ideological divide in Gujarat on the Muslim question; even the Congress hates Muslims.

I have a young Muslim associate who has been pursuing postgraduate studies. After the 2002 violence, I suddenly noticed that he was having a problem trying to form his sentences while speaking. He used to write clearly but I saw that his writing too was breaking up. In fact, he wasn’t able to write. This was a typical case of aphasia, which is a condition of loss of speech and articulation caused by external trauma. Gujarat is probably the only state that has a sizeable Muslim population but no Urdu paper. I wonder if there is something to it, a state of collective aphasia. I often wonder how it must feel to be a Muslim in Gujarat. I shudder to think what it must require to live at the wrong end of so much hatred, contempt and threat. Do they have a strategy of reaction? Is something in the process of evolving? I do not know. n

— Tehelka News, Vol.3 May 20, 2006

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007  Year 13  No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Hindu Taliban 4

Shadows and silences

By
-
0

It was a deluge of reactions from the Gujarati writers who felt it necessary to defend the Gujarati cultural and social space as tolerant and inclusive, contrary to Devy’s assertion. Both do not surprise, they are rather predictable, for there are two world views at play here. And as in rest of Gujarat, even in her literature, there is no meeting ground for them. And these raise some questions about Gujarati literature and her mainstream litterateurs.

While working on a research project, I had to read history of Gujarati literature. Like any non-Gujarati speaking, Gujarat domicile student, I opted for the standard books, and it was a Sahitya Akademi publication that Mansukhlal Jhaveri authored, History of Gujarati Literature, that was one such. I also checked on similar books, quite a few in Gujarati, for the history of Gujarati journalism. Though the purpose at the time was to deal with my ignorance, two things struck me after a preliminary read on the subject.

First is the singular absence of any Muslim writer in the list of history of Gujarati literature. Similarly, barring a couple of names like that of Haji Mohammed Allarakha Shivji, or now, Amin Qureshi, Yasin Dalal or previously, the Matari brothers, there are very few Muslim names to be found even among prominent Gujarati journalists.

Second, with the exception of more recent times and that too for those with some activist sensibilities, there is a singular absence of tribals, Dalits or Christians making it to the ranks of mainstream Gujarati columnists, senior journalists, writers or poets, This is in no way suggests that there are no significant Dalit, Christian, Muslims or other writers, poets, or even journalists in the state. Neither is this to emphasise their religious or ethnic identity, as a senior writer and poet once pointed out, it being contrary, and perhaps insulting to their creative sensibilities.

But literature does draw inspiration, as well as reflection, from a writer or poet’s background, environment and social realities. This then makes it stranger still because Muslims in the state have Gujarati, not Urdu, as their mother tongue, as do Dalits, tribals and others though dialects might differ. While the absence of literacy amongst tribals and Dalits in the early period of Gujarati journalism and even its literature can explain the lack of their ‘mainstream contribution’, it does not stand as a valid reason for the Muslims in the state, for they have not been "poor" or "backward" traditionally as in other parts of India.

As a lay reader I could interpret my findings in only two ways. Either that Muslims and the rest actually did not participate or make any significant contribution to Gujarati literature. Or their contribution does not fit the parameters or literary/journalistic standards of the time or that of the elite. If the former is true, the present scenario is easier to understand as it only highlights the historic isolation or rather lack of social exchange between the two major communities in the state.

The second scenario is more interesting. While not adept at commenting on literary nuances of Gujarati or for that matter any language, I am basing my comments on the basis of popular contributions made by writers in different languages. And then, this is how I understand the absence or lack of a Kazi Nazrul Islam maybe or even a Vaikom Mohammed Bashir in Gujarat. Even as I write this, I admit that I take no cognisance of the folk literature or forms, the oral traditions, the Persian/Arabic influence, the most notable being that of the constantly evolving Gujarati ghazal form.

The questions therefore: Is it that there has been a conscious/unconscious non-acknowledgement of those who did not come from the social elite – that is the Vaishya/Brahmin/ Bania-Jain or now the Patels – by the dominant Gujarati literary clique? Or why is it that other sections of society have not been able to evolve in terms of popularly accepted literature? How is it that the ghazal format in Gujarati poetry found popularity? Who forms the standards of "acceptable" merit in Gujarati literature and what are they? How inclusive or exclusive are the formal bodies of literature, poetry, and who patronises them in Gujarat?

Why does Gujarati literature, barring few exceptions, not reflect the social realities of the time? Barring very few exceptions, where are the woes of partition, where is the literature that might have been inspired by Chhapaniyo Dukal (the drought of 1956), or even the riotous decades of the seventies and eighties in Ahmedabad and Vadodara? Where is the fiction or poetry that has gripped a common Gujarati as does a Manto, Premchand or even, say, a PL Deshpande? True, as Gujaratis we have our KM Munshi, whose blend and interpretation of history and folk interpretation has never faced the rigour of academic criticism. We have our Saraswati Chandra, we have our Sat Pagla Akash Ma (Seven Steps to the Universe).

But where can one read about undivided Gujarat, and of Karachi, more specifically, Kutch, as you can in Punjabi and Bengali literature? Why are the Gujarati mainstream literary elite so cagey of talking about contemporary times and social realities? Why does the rhyme-metre, the classical tradition drawn from religion and history, matter more than the evolved experimental format? In this context, writer Rajendra Shah’s disdainful reply to questions about his lack of response to the 2002 violence and even the razing of Wali Gujarati’s tomb (who, incidentally, is considered the father of modern Urdu poetry), is understandable. It did shake Mahasweta Devi to a response, but not Gujarati writers.

(Excerpts from Ayesha Khan’s research. The writer is a former journalist with The Indian Express, Vadodara.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Hindu Taliban 5

Shadows & silence

By
-
0

The Indian media turns a deaf ear to issues of caste and mass mobilisation
​

The Indian media has been by history and tradition a fairly independent voice, linked prior to independence to core struggles of emancipation and mobilistion. Today, with the advent and impact of television, it enjoys an influence that must lend itself to some rigorous rational scrutiny. During the past decade we have seen television (and private television channels where there was only government controlled Doordarshan earlier) enter our homes and dominate public discourse. We have also seen the burgeoning growth of Hindi journalism (which today enjoys the largest readership or viewership) as also a large number of alternate publications.

A restlessness with the direction the media is taking, coupled with an acknowledgement of its influence and role, forces us to ask some serious questions. In this issue of Communalism Combat we attempt to look at some of these ticklish questions. Has, for instance, the national ‘mainstream’ media turned its back on fair and adequate coverage of the lives and concerns of the large majority of the country and does this exclusion amount to a mere increasing elitism or something harsher, such as bias? And is this bias driven by class or does it also have a caste and communal tinge?

Rajdeep Sardesai, editor-in-chief, CNN-IBN and IBN 7, in an interview with CC admits that there has been a big shift in the media becoming "metro-centric" but denies anything more active at work than simply an urban bias. "The fact of the matter is that the media is metro-centric and as a result we do lose out on the less shining parts of the country. The reason for this however is much more the tyranny of distance than any bias."

The relative or complete absence of media coverage of issues arising out of Adivasi struggles in the states of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, or even the seven states located in the north-eastern part of the country, is matched by the dominance of frivolous and titillating coverage of ‘happenings’ in metros. Worse, the distinctly upper caste tilt and twist to the manner in which developments are viewed and interpreted can be gleaned, for instance, from the epithets that were used for a whole decade against a politician like Laloo Prasad Yadav. A survey conducted by the Delhi-based Media Study Group points to a distinct absence of caste diversity and a predominance of the ‘upper’ castes within the upper echelons of the Indian media (see "Media pundits", CC, July-August 2006).

Only last month India lost a politician who – like him or hate him – changed the course of this country’s politics decisively. The death of Kanshi Ram and the ensuing coverage by the media (barring a few exceptions) reflected a dismissive upper caste bias. The first quarter of 2006 saw the dramatic story of the shooting (and subsequent death) of BJP leader Pramod Mahajan by his brother and, a few months later, the unsavoury conduct of his son, Rahul Mahajan. Excessive and disproportionately wide coverage of the first episodes and later, a delicate dismissal of the son’s involvement with drugs by an otherwise vigilante media, do leave some questions unanswered.

Following the July 11 bomb blasts in Mumbai the media, especially television, came in for sharp criticism. Repeated images of police round-ups of youth in minority dominated areas created the public impression that dozens of Muslim suspects were being interrogated. The subsequent release of all these persons, save one or two, did not attract comparative coverage. This raised questions about the ethics of television channels that actively contributed to creating a public image of who the guilty are but then remained silent when the answer proved indecisive. A specific case related to a prominent Hindi television channel. The channel broadcast an inaccurate report relaying that after the bomb blasts firecrackers were burst at Padgah village, off Mumbai. The fact that the village is minority dominated and that it is home to persons allegedly accused of participating in earlier terror attacks, added spice if not truth to the broadcast. Agitated residents protested this coverage to the village sarpanch and registered an oral complaint with the police (who refused to register a first information report, FIR). A meeting was thereafter held with various members of the mohalla committee condemning the coverage. Several sarpanches and gram panchayat chiefs attended the meeting. However, the said channel carried no correction in its subsequent telecasts. Similarly, an accompanying story reveals local and national media coverage of the recent violence in Mangalore where the role of the police has also escaped any media scrutiny.

"If properties are sealed in Delhi I will have four OB (Outside Broadcast) vans stationed there to capture the story but if a much more serious issue arising out of farm labourers’ struggles erupts in Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand or the North-east, I am limited by the fact that I just do not have an OB van located there," says Sardesai. "How do I telecast a protest in Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand when I do not have an OB van stationed there? Therefore a protest in Chhattisgarh or Adivasis being shot at in Kalinga won’t make news the same way as workers being beaten in Gurgaon, just out of Delhi. It is the tyranny of distance at work here."

Barkha Dutt, managing editor of NDTV, strongly disagrees with the contention that the media suffers from any negative tendencies except an urban tilt or bias. "Whether it’s farmer suicides, judicial mistrials, corruption and government accountability, television in particular has been unsparing and relentless in its scrutiny. I would concede to a certain degree of urban bias – perhaps language and identification issues tend to make us highlight urban issues in a more focused way than rural stories. But this does not diminish the validity of either set of stories."

She adds, "I don’t think there is any motive or any necessary blackout. Several reports have been done on the mining controversy in Jharkhand. The cola issue is a perfect example where big corporates have been taken on in the media in the backdrop of the pesticide controversy. I do not buy the argument that some hidden relation with corporates defines editorial choices. Absences may go back to the one bias we are guilty of – urban oriented reporting. "

Increasing space given to religio-ritualistic stories is also a relatively recent phenomenon. It is not only the channels but also pages of the print media that are lending more and more space to festivals like Holi and Diwali and even customs like Karva Chauth! On October 2 this year, Dussehra day, 16 lakh persons (at the minimum – the outside figure is 20 lakh) converged at Nagpur to celebrate the golden jubilee of the mass conversion of Dalits, under the leadership of Dr Ambedkar, to Buddhism. While the local Marathi press did cover the event, providing its own colour and interpretation, the national media and television channels simply skipped the story.


Ignored by the media: Dhamma Deeksha, Nagpur, October 2006
 

"CNN/IBN did a forty-seconder on the event but it is true we did not carry the pictures. We did however follow this up with a panel discussion on the contribution of Ambedkar. There is a point there in the absence of coverage but it is the geographical factor – Delhi is easier but it is true that we must introspect on the issue. Maybe we are making excuses," reflects Sardesai. "I am not however convinced that there is a caste bias actively at work. There is a high degree of ignorance. Maybe ignorance and bias can often converge."

Besides these stark exclusions, celebrity and the glamorous lifestyle – page three journalism – have also eaten into public space. "Both media and society are also trapped in the celebrity fame game. We seem to be interested in titillating rather than informing," admits Sardesai, adding that this excessive coverage of parties or fashion shows in society prevent rational thinking. "They do not go beyond being titillating."

Dutt differs. "Page three was the invention of newspapers before it became an event on television. I think all of this stuff has its own place as long as it doesn’t diminish the core values of news gathering, as long as it remains the equivalent of the back pages of a magazine."

On September 29 a ghastly gang rape and mass murder at Kherlanji in Maharashtra’s Bhandara district left four members of a Dalit family brutally massacred with Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange, the father, being the lone survivor. The Maharashtra police and administration have continuously been making irresponsible statements (see accompanying story) and events so far already suggest a clear attempt to suppress evidence of the crime during the primary stage of investigations itself. The post-mortem report is a travesty of a document and despite the gory conditions in which the mother and daughter’s bodies were found, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (which is applicable for the offence of rape) has not even been applied. Can or will the Kherlanji case become a Jessica Lal or Priyadarshini Mattoo case for the media? Will it symbolise the fight for justice or the need to critically revamp our criminal justice system?

Both Sardesai and Dutt agree that this could be a test case for the Indian media. "Justice for Jessica/Priyadarshini and the recent brutal killings in rural India is a test case for us. Will we run a sustained national campaign on it? Will there be sustained interest?" Sardesai asks. Adds Dutt, "We need to cross the glaring rural urban divide… and, more importantly, move our viewers out of that disconnect as well."

 

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2006. Year 13, No.120, Cover Story 1

.

1...2,6472,6482,649...2,698Page 2,648 of 2,698

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved