Gujarat 2002-Punish the Perpetrators

The Best Bakery Case

Where things stand today

Nine months after charges were framed in the famed Best Bakery case, the penultimate stage of the re-trial has been reached. As we go to press, a total of 75 prosecution witnesses have been examined of which only seven have turned hostile. Currently, the cross-examination of the investigating officer (IO), PP Kannani by the defence counsel, is on.
 

Barely one month after the trial began on October 4, 2004 at the Mazgaon Court in South-Central Mumbai, serious attempts to derail the due process of law were made when key star witness in the trial, Zahira Sheikh turned hostile for a second time and hurled allegations against us (see CC, November 1984). Six months after those unfortunate developments, where does this trial stand today?
 

With 75 witnesses and evidence running into a few thousand pages, a genuine appreciation of evidence would only be possible after defence witnesses have been called and arguments have been made by both the prosecution and the defence. Until that stage is reached, which looks to be a few months away, an appraisal of the proceedings so far will help bring our readers up to date.
 

One of the key issues raised by the Supreme Court in its historic verdict of April 12, 2004 (see CC, April 2004) was about the conduct of the prosecution during the trial in the fast track court in Vadodara. Some key witnesses, bakery workers who were all eye-witnesses, were not examined in the Vadodara court and surprisingly, relatives of the accused were called in as defence witnesses. Of the 74 witnesses, 34 turned hostile in Vadodara.
 

Apart from the fact that four independent eye-witnesses, three bakery workers and Yasmin Sheikh, Zahira Sheikh’s sister-in-law, identified key accused by face and name, the prosecution in the re-trial has managed to bring a host of documented material on record as evidence.
 

For example, the fact that the police as the investigating agency in the Best Bakery trial treated Zahira Sheikh’s statement made before senior officials and the IO on March 2, 2002 as the First Information Report (FIR) in the case. And that there is clear evidence to show that she had named nine accused in the first instance and five more later, is also a case in point. The fact that this statement was treated as the FIR and given a Case Report – CR number has been brought as evidence through documents in the re-trial. Moreover, this FIR was filed before the magistrate as required under law, and a Special Report on the Best Bakery case also faxed from the Control Room at Vadodara on March 3, 2002. There are detailed ledger entries of this fax having been sent through the appropriate channels on that date.
 

What this evidence establishes is that in the mass and compounded crimes committed by the mob gathered at Best Bakery on the night of March 1, 2002 right until the next morning, Zahira Sheikh was treated as the chief complainant by the investigating authorities. While the evidence of Yasmin Sheikh was being recorded, she stated that the police were recording a video of the events on the morning of March 2. This was, in fact, an official video recording of the rescue operations being conducted by the police at Best Bakery. This video, which was brought in as evidence after the videographer was also examined, gives a graphic view of the tragedy that unfolded. Zahira Sheikh and her family are shown in a traumatised condition, including her maternal grandmother who was on the terrace and is shown in the video being helped down by fire brigade personnel. A distraught Yasmin is seen with her little daughter beside husband Nafitullah, who has been brutally attacked. As it played, the video image of a baby whose leg had been ripped off chilled the courtroom.
 

A stir was created during the re-trial when former freelance filmmaker Pankaj Shankar (now with Doordarshan) offered to give testimony before the re-trial court because he had interviewed Zahira and her family in April 2002, a month after the tragedy. Examined as a prosecution witness, Shankar’s testimony could also provide a valuable insight into events since it depicts Zahira looking straight into the camera and naming the accused, and her brother Nafitullah stating, "Sab ko jaanta hoon, sab ko pahachanta hoon (I know and recognise all of them)."

Apart from the fact that four independent eye-witnesses, three bakery workers and Yasmin Sheikh, Zahira Sheikh’s sister-in-law, identified key accused by face and name, the prosecution in the re-trial has managed to bring a host of documented material on record as evidence

Documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution includes detailed medical entries made regarding the victims and those who survived with doctors, firemen, policemen, panch witnesses, etc. all being examined.
 

The prosecution led its case in the Mumbai re-trial court with the evidence of key eye-witnesses who had not received summons or who did not appear in Vadodara. Tufel Ahmed Sheikh stepped into the box as the first prosecution witness and identified seven accused by face. Tufel, who was injured by a sword on the back of his head, both sides of his chest, left arm, right leg (with burns) and left leg, identified the persons who assaulted him on the morning of March 2, 2002 as: Sanjay R. Thakkar, as forcing the victims down from the terrace, tying their legs and hands; Ravi Rajaram Chavan, also making them get down; Dinesh P. Rajbar as seen with a mashaal (flame torch) on the night of March 1, 2002 shouting slogans; Bahadur Singh alias Jitu Chavan running towards Best Bakery with a mashaal and sword in hand; Suresh Vasava, seen running towards the Bakery with a sword and a mashaal; Sanabai Baria, on the next morning, making victims get down, tying their legs and hands and assaulting them; and Kamlesh Tadvi, in the morning, seen standing with those gathered.
 

Following Tufel, Raees Khan Pathan, Shehzad Khan, Yasmin Sheikh, and Shailun also identified some of the accused and gave an insight into how the attacks had unfolded that fateful night.
 

Shehzad Khan, another worker at the Best Bakery had appeared before the fast track court in Vadodara. He was traumatised by the atmosphere in the court with the huge presence of persons from Hanuman Tekri and their leaders. Without giving him a fair chance to testify, the judge declared him of unsound mind, a fact that drew mention from the apex court in its famous judgement. In the special leave petition filed by Zahira Sheikh with the CJP in the Supreme Court, Shehzad’s affidavit recording events as he remembered them had also been filed.
 

Ironically, this bakery worker was in the box on November 3, 2004, the day of Zahira Sheikh’s infamous press conference in Vadodara. The same afternoon, Shehzad identified 12 accused by face and name including: Raju Baria, Mahendra V. Jadhav, Pankaj V. Gosai, Jagdish C. Rajput, Shailesh A. Tadvi, Kamlesh B. Tadvi and Ravi Rajaram Chavan. In addition, he identified accused Dinesh Rajbar as assaulting him with a sword, Sanjay Thakkar as extorting money from him before attacking him, Jitu Chavan with a sword, Sanabhai with a sword and Suresh Vasava with a sword. Similarly, five accused were identified by Raees Khan, another bakery worker, and another five by Yasmin Sheikh.
 

Apart from identification of the accused, witnesses have identified the presence of other surviving and dead victims at the site of the incident as well as the weapons used in some of the attacks.
 

When the Supreme Court ordered the re-trial on a day-to-day basis, the Mumbai court was directed to conclude the trial by December 31, 2004. The unfortunate developments related to Zahira Sheikh and her family resulted in their cross-examination stretching over two months. The Mumbai court, which had earlier requested an extension until December, has since asked for and been granted a second extension until September 31, 2005. It is to be hoped that by then at the latest this historic trial, a re-trial, will conclude.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2005 Year 11    No.108, Cover Story 3


Pay up!

Both State and non-State actors are culpable

In two or three distinct legal actions arising out of the Gujarat carnage of 2002, the state of Gujarat, its chief minister, Narendra Modi and outfits like the BJP, the RSS and the VHP have been asked to accept financial liability for the death and destruction, injury and loss of livelihood caused during the carnage of 2002.
 

In the first major writ petition on the issue of compensation, (Special Civil Application No. 3217 of 2003) Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Communalism Combat helped prepare over 700 affidavits from affected victims who had not got compensation even as per the state and Centre’s scheme. The petition filed in the Gujarat high court in February 2003 also challenged the low rates of compensation laid out in the Gujarat government scheme as hopelessly inadequate. (By a circular dated March 20, 2002 the state of Gujarat fixed an outer limit of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for those whose homes and property were destroyed in the riots).
 

The petition also points out, with detailed documentary evidence, that although the nature and quantum of losses suffered by the minority community in the riots have in most cases been listed and substantiated in the panchnamas recorded by officials, the Gujarat government paid pathetically low sums ranging from Rs. 1,000 to 10,000. In other words, only a fraction of the total damages suffered. Besides, in a large number of cases no compensation whatever has been paid despite the losses being acknowledged and recorded in the panchnamas. The petitioners have challenged the upper limit of Rs. 50,000 and have sought that it be raised to at least Rs. 2,00,000. The petitioners have pointed out that the State was liable to compensate the persons whose homes and property were destroyed, as the government of Gujarat and its officers had totally failed to protect the lives and property of citizens. They were responsible for the total breakdown of public order, for the consequent loss of lives and property, and the deprivation of the peoples’ right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
 

The Gujarat high court, hearing this petition in April 2003, gave locus standi to representative teams of both petitioners to conduct statewide surveys of victim-survivors and collate these with state claims in the collector’s office. A statewide survey was thus launched by these organisations from 2003 onwards and is expected to be completed by the end of July 2005. There are substantive discrepancies between state claims and the claims documented by us (petitioners). The extensive documentation, it is hoped, would result in fairer compensation to those affected.
 

Meanwhile, as other petitions on issues related to the Gujarat carnage were being heard by the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae, Harish Salve asked for some directions on the issue of compensation. At that point, CJP brought its Gujarat high court petition to the notice of the apex court. On August 17, 2004, the Supreme Court directed that since the matters were already pending before the Gujarat high court, groups like CJP could ask for a modification of the compensation/reparation package at the Gujarat high court level. This was because we had argued that the compensation package did not reflect the needs of victims who were injured and affected.
 

"It is however pointed out to us by the learned amicus curiae and the petitioners (CJP) that while the high court is monitoring the implementation of the scheme framed by the state government for payment of compensation to the victims, the scheme itself is questionable in that many aspects of the scheme are deficient. For example, it is submitted, the scheme does not provide for a realistic compensation in respect of damage to property. It is also submitted that the scheme limits the compensation payable only to death or permanent disablement while excluding cases where the victim may have otherwise suffered grievously, for example by burning, etc. It is also submitted that the victims of sexual offences have not been brought within the purview of the scheme at all…" (Supreme Court order).
 

In May 2004, two widows of British citizens, Shirin and Shamima had, through a court in Himmatnagar, filed for damages worth around Rs. 22 crore against chief minister Narendra Modi and 14 others for failing to protect the lives of citizens, specifically, the killing of two British nationals of Indian origin during the post-Godhra violence in 2002. Judge MM Kayasth served notices on the respondents. In September 2004, in identical written statements before the court, Modi and former state home minister Gordhan Zadaphia said they could not be held responsible for the killing of two UK-based NRIs in the post-Godhra violence in the state. The government said "an attempt is being made to project Modi, the then minister of state for home Zadaphia and six others as anti-Muslim," and urged that the Rs. 22 crore compensation suit for the killing of Saeed Safid Dawood and Shakeel Abdul Haid on February 28, 2002 be dismissed. The matter is still pending.

Three years later, a day prior to the three-year anniversary of the Godhra arson, 21 victim families of the Gulberg massacre, residents of the Gulberg Society in Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad, including Zakiabehn Jaffri, wife of the former Member of Parliament, Ahsan Jaffri, served notice on representatives of the VHP, RSS and the BJP claiming damages of approximately Rs. 6.4 crore in all for the attack on Gulberg Society that claimed more than 68 persons lives (official figures admit to less than this number) on February 28, 2002. Damages have been claimed for loss of life, property, torture, pain and trauma caused to them when mobs unleashed terror due to the bandh call given by the VHP and supported by the RSS and the BJP on February 28, 2002 during which mayhem and carnage resulted. Three months earlier notices had been served on the respondents to which no response had been filed. This legal initiative is being supported by CJP.

Far-reaching verdict

Justice delayed may be justice denied but the Sikh victims of the November 1984 carnage will financially benefit from the verdict of Judge Gita Mittal delivered in May 2005. The extensive judgement makes inroads into the jurisprudence related to compensation for loss of life and injury in communal riots.

Excerpts

"…While considering the question of grant of compensation or ex-gratia payment to the petitioner and families of the victims killed during the riots, all the aforesaid aspects have to be kept in view. It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh to Rs.7.5 lakh for illegal curtailment of life as indicated in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, obviously the compensation or ex-gratia payment as a measure of immediate relief to the victim’s family should be more than Rs. 50,000 and between Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 7.5 lakh…

"…It has been brought to my notice by Mr. Adarsh Goel, learned counsel for the respondent – Govt. of NCT of Delhi, that widows of riot victims are being paid Rs. 1,000 per month as pension. Learned counsel has produced on record a copy of letter No. F 9 (38)/R-1/DC/88/648 dated May 17, 1996, from the deputy director (Relief-1), office of the deputy commissioner, Delhi, to the desk officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi, along with a report regarding progress of relief and rehabilitation measures in regard to riot victims of 1984. According to the report, 195 widows are getting pension. Be that as it may, the financial assistance of Rs. 20,000, which was to ameliorate the immediate effect and the long term effect of the killing of an earning hand, was highly inadequate and unfair.

"…Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and also keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been paid at least a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation. Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 20,000 the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000 to the petitioner with interest from October 1984 to the date of payment, which is quantified at Rs. 1.50 lakh. The respondent will make the payment of Rs. 3.30 lakh to the petitioner within one month.

"…This direction to pay enhanced compensation would be applicable to similar cases in order to secure parity and to alleviate the sufferings of the families of the victims who lost their lives during the Delhi riots of 1984. Accordingly, it is directed that the widows and families of the victims who lost their lives in the 1984 Delhi riots be paid a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakh (Rs. 2 lakh with interest quantified at Rs. 1.50 lakh). The payment would be made to them by the respondent after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to them as ex-gratia grant of compensation. It will also be open to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Union of India to consider the grant of compensation over and above the aforesaid amount depending upon the circumstances of the families of the riot victims. I would also direct the State to constitute a committee to disburse the amount of compensation quantified as above to the families of those who were killed in riots after their proper identification. I order accordingly. The exercise should be completed within a period of four months.

"…Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts and the nature of claim made on behalf of the petitioner and the conduct of the respondents in 1984 and thereafter, I am of the view that the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 2,000 is by no means adequate compensation for the failure to protect the limb and property of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that he has been an advocate by profession. On account of extreme trauma suffered by him, he has not been able to recoup his profession and suffered a lot.

"There is no reason to disbelieve such a statement. Different individuals may react differently in the same situation. There can possibly be no scale to measure the depth of the emotional wounds and trauma as a result of undergoing the experiences of the petitioner. He bore the brunt of the attack by the mob and barely escaped death. Scars so left may never heal.

"…Keeping in view the amount awarded by this court in the Bhajan Kaur case for the loss of life, in my view, the petitioner ought to be compensated by a sum of Rs. 75,000 for the injuries suffered by him and deprivation of his property on account of the riots on 2nd November, 2004.

"Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 2,000, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 73,000 to the petitioner with interest from October, 1984 to the date of payment. The interest is quantified at Rs.50,000. The respondents will therefore make payment of Rs. 1,23,000 to the petitioner within one month.

"…This court in the judgement dated 5th July, 1996 reported at 1996 III AD Delhi 333 entitled Bhajan Kaur vs. Delhi Administration, directed the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation awarded to all similar cases. In order to secure parity to all persons who suffered injuries, the respondents shall pay the enhanced compensation awarded herein to all such persons to whom the respondents had disbursed the amount of Rs. 2,000 as ex gratia on account of the injuries received in the 1984 riots."

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2005 Year 11    No.108, Cover Story 2


Gujarat Genocide Victims

 

Waiting for justice

“Aaj bhi ham hamare mukkam par nahi ja ke rah sakte (Even today we cannot go back to where we belong).”

Aiyubmiya, eye-witness to the massacre where 33 persons from Sardarpura village, Mehsana were killed in 2002. The village his family had lived in for decades is no more their home.

Jab ham bach ke nikle, aath ghante ke baad, aur laash aur laash hamare ghar ke chabootre par giri hui thi; jakar kaanpte kaanpte ham police van me baithe, toh policewale ne kaha, ‘kya itne log bach gaye hai, kya? Hamne socha sab khatm hue!’ (When we escaped with our lives after eight hours of brutal targeting, there was a row of corpses outside our house. Trembling, we got into the waiting police van when a policeman in uniform said, ‘What! So many saved! We thought all would be finished!’).”

Zakiabehn Jaffri, wife of former parliamentarian Ahsan Jaffri.

“Mere bees saal ke bacche ko police ne nanga kar ke bithaya, peeth mod kar, goliyan mar mar kar police ne khatm kiya… Maine socha tha ki badle mein bandook uthaoon magar phir socha ke nirdosh ko maar kar kya phayda? Aaj bhi hamara case waise hee pada hai, sessions court mein. (My 20-year-old boy was made to strip. The police bent him over and then pumped bullets into him… I thought of picking up the gun in revenge but then I thought what good would killing innocents bring? My case still drags on in the sessions court).”

Zahid Kadri, a father.

(Survivors’ Speak, meeting organised by Communalism Combat, Citizens for Justice and Peace and SAHMAT, New Delhi, April 16, 2005).

The criminal trial in six major massacres were stayed by the Supreme Court on November 21, 2003 after about 60 victims who are also eye-witnesses filed affidavits in the apex court of India detailing how the investigation into this massacre was being consciously subverted by the Gujarat police and witnesses continually threatened. Though 18 months have passed since the stay and several dates of hearing come and gone, the plea for reinvestigation and transfer is still pending before the apex court.

On May 2, 2002, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a petition through citizens of Gujarat in the Supreme Court of India requesting that the CBI, not the Gujarat police, investigate the major massacres. This was also a key recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its reports, March-July 2002, on the genocide. Three years later, this petition too is pending disposal before the apex court. With due respect, the three major acquittals – including the Best Bakery (in Vadodara), the Kidiad (where 61 persons were burnt alive in two tempos at Limbadiya Chowki in Sabarkantha district), and Pandharwada (where over 45 persons were massacred in two separate incidents in a village in Panchmahal district) massacre cases – may not have resulted if key recommendations made by the NHRC, which included investigation by the CBI into major carnage cases and trials by special courts, had been followed in these cases.

A detailed report, ‘Gujarat –Three Years Later’ is currently being compiled by Communalism Combat. Our preliminary investigations reveal that on a rough estimate about 61,000 persons continue to be internally displaced within the state.

Included among them are key witnesses of the major massacres, who even today cannot go back to their villages or localities simply because they have chosen to fight for justice. Many are both victims of the massacre and key eye-witnesses.

The large majority of the internally displaced were small minority groups scattered across many of Gujarat’s 18,000 villages. They have had to surrender their homes and petty landholdings in return for a life of penury-struck refugees. This is the stark and shameful reality of Gujarat, where even the political Opposition has stopped addressing issues arising out of a State-sponsored pogrom and where the perpetrators continue in seats of power and influence.


The large majority of the internally displaced have had to surrender their homes and petty landholdings in return for a life of penury-struck refugees. This is the stark and shameful reality of Gujarat, where even the political Opposition has stopped addressing issues arising out of a State-sponsored pogrom and where the perpetrators continue in seats of power and influence

Eye-witnesses who are also victims include survivors of the Gulberg massacre (February 28, 2002) where 68 persons were slaughtered including former MP Ahsan Jaffri and 10-15 girls and women subjected to brutal sexual violence; Naroda Gaon and Patiya (February 28, 2002) where over 120 persons were similarly ravaged while a complicit police and elected representatives watched and led mobs respectively; Sardarpura (March 1-3, 2002) where 33 persons were brutally killed in one incident while 14 were burnt alive in the second); and the Ode killings in Anand district (March 1-3, 2002) in which a total of 27 persons were killed. All of them continue to suffer and sacrifice for their decision to struggle for justice. Many eye-witnesses, like a key witness from Naroda Gaon and his family members, have been penalised three or four times with false criminal cases being slapped against them. The attempt is clearly to intimidate all those who stand for the struggle for justice. Recent reports highlighting attempts to target citizens and human rights defenders who support the struggle only underline the state of affairs in Gujarat today.

If there is one thing that the onerous struggle for justice has shown, it is this: For justice to be finally ensured at least in case of the major incidents of carnage let alone the hundreds of crimes that took place in Gujarat in 2002, the struggle for justice needs strong support from State agencies. But in reality, three years after the horrors in which they lost their near and dear ones, key witnesses of the major incidents of violence cannot even step into their villages or localities simply because they have chosen the path of justice.

Further, the conduct of the state of Gujarat through the ongoing Best Bakery re-trial being conducted in Mumbai (see accompanying story) is far removed from that of a prosecutor state committed to ensuring justice. Apart from the questionable role of the Gujarat state in the Best Bakery case, the sheer brazenness of its conduct can be gauged from its decision to reappoint the controversial public prosecutor in the Best Bakery case, Raghuvir Pandya, allegedly a VHP sympathiser, as Vadodara’s district government pleader. Pandya, who was indicted by the Supreme Court for acting “more as a defence counsel than a public prosecutor” in its historic verdict transferring the Best Bakery case to Maharashtra on April 12, 2003 (see Communalism Combat, April 2005), is now back as state counsel and will again plead the government’s case if any of the communal riot cases are reopened!

Clearly undeterred by the spotlight of the apex court, the Gujarat government has appointed another allegedly active BJP member, MD Pandya, as special public prosecutor in a case related to Radhanpur town of Patan district where many BJP heavyweights like Radhanpur BJP MLA Shankar Chaudhary, former president of Radhanpur municipal council Pravin Thakkar, president of Radhanpur municipal borough Prakash Kumar Thakkar and member of the district BJP medical cell Dr. Jyotindra Raval were all implicated as accused in the case.

The attitude of the Gujarat state headed by chief minister Narendra Modi who was re-elected by 51 per cent of the Gujarati electorate in December 2002, nine months after masterminding the pogrom, has been understood and absorbed nationwide. What escapes public attention is the realisation that even three years later there is absolutely no remorse or regret for what had been orchestrated in February/March-May 2002. If Modi is relatively silent today, it is only because of the legal battles in which his state is embroiled despite his best efforts.

At the ground level his brigands carry on unashamed. At Desar village of Vadodara district on April 10, 2005, as hundreds of villagers watched in the presence of BJP MP Jayaben Thakkar, local MLA Upendrasinh Gohil and VHP leaders, two Swaminarayan sadhus unveiled the bust of Vakhatsinh Ramansinh Parmar. The inscription on the marble plaque under the bust read: “This memorial is to honour Ram Sevak Vakhatsinh Ramansinh Parmar who laid down his life in the attacks in retaliation to the killing of 58 karsevaks on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002. Parmar was killed in police firing on March 1, 2002, third Friday, Vikram Samvat, 2058”. Parmar was, according to police records, part of a mob that torched Muslim properties and attacked the police when the police was trying to save properties from being torched. He was named as an accused in the case. This is the first time that a riot accused has been publicly felicitated in Gujarat albeit posthumously. The function was organised by the VHP. The local MLA and MP did not find anything wrong in erecting a memorial for a mob leader in a village where Muslims form 30 per cent of the population. “This is a fitting tribute to the youth for his sacrifices for the cause of Hindutva,” Thakkar told The Deccan Herald. Asked about the incident, minister of state for Home Amit Shah said: “One is always innocent till he is convicted.”

An apt illustration of the perversion of values within the political class in Gujarat.

Political campaign

If justice is to prevail, a necessary condition for this must be created through the dismissal of the Modi government under Article 356 of the Constitution, say constitutional experts like Shanti Bhushan.

There is legitimate apprehension among many about the use of Article 356, lest it set a precedent for the Centre to get rid of governments in Opposition-ruled states. But the Gujarat case is an exceptional one in so much as the state government has been seriously implicated by the NHRC and even the Supreme Court, in what are perhaps the most inhuman, horrendous and unconstitutional acts in the history of post-Independence India. In the past few months, courageous statements by serving police officers have echoed the outrage earlier expressed by these apex institutions and hundreds of groups and individuals. Statements by serving policemen that have been made public clearly show that orders were issued by none less than the present chief minister Narendra Modi that minorities who resist or protest be exterminated. Put together, the imposition of Article 356 in Gujarat is warranted not only on grounds of humanity and constitutional propriety, but also for the maintenance of the country’s unity, integrity and secular fabric.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2005 Year 11    No.108, Cover Story 1


The Best Bakery Case

Where things stand today

Nine months after charges were framed in the famed Best Bakery case, the penultimate stage of the re-trial has been reached. As we go to press, a total of 75 prosecution witnesses have been examined of which only seven have turned hostile. Currently, the cross-examination of the investigating officer (IO), PP Kannani by the defence counsel, is on.
 

Barely one month after the trial began on October 4, 2004 at the Mazgaon Court in South-Central Mumbai, serious attempts to derail the due process of law were made when key star witness in the trial, Zahira Sheikh turned hostile for a second time and hurled allegations against us (see CC, November 1984). Six months after those unfortunate developments, where does this trial stand today?
 

With 75 witnesses and evidence running into a few thousand pages, a genuine appreciation of evidence would only be possible after defence witnesses have been called and arguments have been made by both the prosecution and the defence. Until that stage is reached, which looks to be a few months away, an appraisal of the proceedings so far will help bring our readers up to date.
 

One of the key issues raised by the Supreme Court in its historic verdict of April 12, 2004 (see CC, April 2004) was about the conduct of the prosecution during the trial in the fast track court in Vadodara. Some key witnesses, bakery workers who were all eye-witnesses, were not examined in the Vadodara court and surprisingly, relatives of the accused were called in as defence witnesses. Of the 74 witnesses, 34 turned hostile in Vadodara.
 

Apart from the fact that four independent eye-witnesses, three bakery workers and Yasmin Sheikh, Zahira Sheikh’s sister-in-law, identified key accused by face and name, the prosecution in the re-trial has managed to bring a host of documented material on record as evidence.
 

For example, the fact that the police as the investigating agency in the Best Bakery trial treated Zahira Sheikh’s statement made before senior officials and the IO on March 2, 2002 as the First Information Report (FIR) in the case. And that there is clear evidence to show that she had named nine accused in the first instance and five more later, is also a case in point. The fact that this statement was treated as the FIR and given a Case Report – CR number has been brought as evidence through documents in the re-trial. Moreover, this FIR was filed before the magistrate as required under law, and a Special Report on the Best Bakery case also faxed from the Control Room at Vadodara on March 3, 2002. There are detailed ledger entries of this fax having been sent through the appropriate channels on that date.
 

What this evidence establishes is that in the mass and compounded crimes committed by the mob gathered at Best Bakery on the night of March 1, 2002 right until the next morning, Zahira Sheikh was treated as the chief complainant by the investigating authorities. While the evidence of Yasmin Sheikh was being recorded, she stated that the police were recording a video of the events on the morning of March 2. This was, in fact, an official video recording of the rescue operations being conducted by the police at Best Bakery. This video, which was brought in as evidence after the videographer was also examined, gives a graphic view of the tragedy that unfolded. Zahira Sheikh and her family are shown in a traumatised condition, including her maternal grandmother who was on the terrace and is shown in the video being helped down by fire brigade personnel. A distraught Yasmin is seen with her little daughter beside husband Nafitullah, who has been brutally attacked. As it played, the video image of a baby whose leg had been ripped off chilled the courtroom.
 

A stir was created during the re-trial when former freelance filmmaker Pankaj Shankar (now with Doordarshan) offered to give testimony before the re-trial court because he had interviewed Zahira and her family in April 2002, a month after the tragedy. Examined as a prosecution witness, Shankar’s testimony could also provide a valuable insight into events since it depicts Zahira looking straight into the camera and naming the accused, and her brother Nafitullah stating, "Sab ko jaanta hoon, sab ko pahachanta hoon (I know and recognise all of them)."

Apart from the fact that four independent eye-witnesses, three bakery workers and Yasmin Sheikh, Zahira Sheikh’s sister-in-law, identified key accused by face and name, the prosecution in the re-trial has managed to bring a host of documented material on record as evidence

Documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution includes detailed medical entries made regarding the victims and those who survived with doctors, firemen, policemen, panch witnesses, etc. all being examined.
 

The prosecution led its case in the Mumbai re-trial court with the evidence of key eye-witnesses who had not received summons or who did not appear in Vadodara. Tufel Ahmed Sheikh stepped into the box as the first prosecution witness and identified seven accused by face. Tufel, who was injured by a sword on the back of his head, both sides of his chest, left arm, right leg (with burns) and left leg, identified the persons who assaulted him on the morning of March 2, 2002 as: Sanjay R. Thakkar, as forcing the victims down from the terrace, tying their legs and hands; Ravi Rajaram Chavan, also making them get down; Dinesh P. Rajbar as seen with a mashaal (flame torch) on the night of March 1, 2002 shouting slogans; Bahadur Singh alias Jitu Chavan running towards Best Bakery with a mashaal and sword in hand; Suresh Vasava, seen running towards the Bakery with a sword and a mashaal; Sanabai Baria, on the next morning, making victims get down, tying their legs and hands and assaulting them; and Kamlesh Tadvi, in the morning, seen standing with those gathered.
 

Following Tufel, Raees Khan Pathan, Shehzad Khan, Yasmin Sheikh, and Shailun also identified some of the accused and gave an insight into how the attacks had unfolded that fateful night.
 

Shehzad Khan, another worker at the Best Bakery had appeared before the fast track court in Vadodara. He was traumatised by the atmosphere in the court with the huge presence of persons from Hanuman Tekri and their leaders. Without giving him a fair chance to testify, the judge declared him of unsound mind, a fact that drew mention from the apex court in its famous judgement. In the special leave petition filed by Zahira Sheikh with the CJP in the Supreme Court, Shehzad’s affidavit recording events as he remembered them had also been filed.
 

Ironically, this bakery worker was in the box on November 3, 2004, the day of Zahira Sheikh’s infamous press conference in Vadodara. The same afternoon, Shehzad identified 12 accused by face and name including: Raju Baria, Mahendra V. Jadhav, Pankaj V. Gosai, Jagdish C. Rajput, Shailesh A. Tadvi, Kamlesh B. Tadvi and Ravi Rajaram Chavan. In addition, he identified accused Dinesh Rajbar as assaulting him with a sword, Sanjay Thakkar as extorting money from him before attacking him, Jitu Chavan with a sword, Sanabhai with a sword and Suresh Vasava with a sword. Similarly, five accused were identified by Raees Khan, another bakery worker, and another five by Yasmin Sheikh.
 

Apart from identification of the accused, witnesses have identified the presence of other surviving and dead victims at the site of the incident as well as the weapons used in some of the attacks.
 

When the Supreme Court ordered the re-trial on a day-to-day basis, the Mumbai court was directed to conclude the trial by December 31, 2004. The unfortunate developments related to Zahira Sheikh and her family resulted in their cross-examination stretching over two months. The Mumbai court, which had earlier requested an extension until December, has since asked for and been granted a second extension until September 31, 2005. It is to be hoped that by then at the latest this historic trial, a re-trial, will conclude.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2005 Year 11    No.108, Cover Story 3


Pay up!

Both State and non-State actors are culpable

In two or three distinct legal actions arising out of the Gujarat carnage of 2002, the state of Gujarat, its chief minister, Narendra Modi and outfits like the BJP, the RSS and the VHP have been asked to accept financial liability for the death and destruction, injury and loss of livelihood caused during the carnage of 2002.
 

In the first major writ petition on the issue of compensation, (Special Civil Application No. 3217 of 2003) Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Communalism Combat helped prepare over 700 affidavits from affected victims who had not got compensation even as per the state and Centre’s scheme. The petition filed in the Gujarat high court in February 2003 also challenged the low rates of compensation laid out in the Gujarat government scheme as hopelessly inadequate. (By a circular dated March 20, 2002 the state of Gujarat fixed an outer limit of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for those whose homes and property were destroyed in the riots).
 

The petition also points out, with detailed documentary evidence, that although the nature and quantum of losses suffered by the minority community in the riots have in most cases been listed and substantiated in the panchnamas recorded by officials, the Gujarat government paid pathetically low sums ranging from Rs. 1,000 to 10,000. In other words, only a fraction of the total damages suffered. Besides, in a large number of cases no compensation whatever has been paid despite the losses being acknowledged and recorded in the panchnamas. The petitioners have challenged the upper limit of Rs. 50,000 and have sought that it be raised to at least Rs. 2,00,000. The petitioners have pointed out that the State was liable to compensate the persons whose homes and property were destroyed, as the government of Gujarat and its officers had totally failed to protect the lives and property of citizens. They were responsible for the total breakdown of public order, for the consequent loss of lives and property, and the deprivation of the peoples’ right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
 

The Gujarat high court, hearing this petition in April 2003, gave locus standi to representative teams of both petitioners to conduct statewide surveys of victim-survivors and collate these with state claims in the collector’s office. A statewide survey was thus launched by these organisations from 2003 onwards and is expected to be completed by the end of July 2005. There are substantive discrepancies between state claims and the claims documented by us (petitioners). The extensive documentation, it is hoped, would result in fairer compensation to those affected.
 

Meanwhile, as other petitions on issues related to the Gujarat carnage were being heard by the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae, Harish Salve asked for some directions on the issue of compensation. At that point, CJP brought its Gujarat high court petition to the notice of the apex court. On August 17, 2004, the Supreme Court directed that since the matters were already pending before the Gujarat high court, groups like CJP could ask for a modification of the compensation/reparation package at the Gujarat high court level. This was because we had argued that the compensation package did not reflect the needs of victims who were injured and affected.
 

"It is however pointed out to us by the learned amicus curiae and the petitioners (CJP) that while the high court is monitoring the implementation of the scheme framed by the state government for payment of compensation to the victims, the scheme itself is questionable in that many aspects of the scheme are deficient. For example, it is submitted, the scheme does not provide for a realistic compensation in respect of damage to property. It is also submitted that the scheme limits the compensation payable only to death or permanent disablement while excluding cases where the victim may have otherwise suffered grievously, for example by burning, etc. It is also submitted that the victims of sexual offences have not been brought within the purview of the scheme at all…" (Supreme Court order).
 

In May 2004, two widows of British citizens, Shirin and Shamima had, through a court in Himmatnagar, filed for damages worth around Rs. 22 crore against chief minister Narendra Modi and 14 others for failing to protect the lives of citizens, specifically, the killing of two British nationals of Indian origin during the post-Godhra violence in 2002. Judge MM Kayasth served notices on the respondents. In September 2004, in identical written statements before the court, Modi and former state home minister Gordhan Zadaphia said they could not be held responsible for the killing of two UK-based NRIs in the post-Godhra violence in the state. The government said "an attempt is being made to project Modi, the then minister of state for home Zadaphia and six others as anti-Muslim," and urged that the Rs. 22 crore compensation suit for the killing of Saeed Safid Dawood and Shakeel Abdul Haid on February 28, 2002 be dismissed. The matter is still pending.

Three years later, a day prior to the three-year anniversary of the Godhra arson, 21 victim families of the Gulberg massacre, residents of the Gulberg Society in Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad, including Zakiabehn Jaffri, wife of the former Member of Parliament, Ahsan Jaffri, served notice on representatives of the VHP, RSS and the BJP claiming damages of approximately Rs. 6.4 crore in all for the attack on Gulberg Society that claimed more than 68 persons lives (official figures admit to less than this number) on February 28, 2002. Damages have been claimed for loss of life, property, torture, pain and trauma caused to them when mobs unleashed terror due to the bandh call given by the VHP and supported by the RSS and the BJP on February 28, 2002 during which mayhem and carnage resulted. Three months earlier notices had been served on the respondents to which no response had been filed. This legal initiative is being supported by CJP.

Far-reaching verdict

Justice delayed may be justice denied but the Sikh victims of the November 1984 carnage will financially benefit from the verdict of Judge Gita Mittal delivered in May 2005. The extensive judgement makes inroads into the jurisprudence related to compensation for loss of life and injury in communal riots.

Excerpts

"…While considering the question of grant of compensation or ex-gratia payment to the petitioner and families of the victims killed during the riots, all the aforesaid aspects have to be kept in view. It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh to Rs.7.5 lakh for illegal curtailment of life as indicated in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, obviously the compensation or ex-gratia payment as a measure of immediate relief to the victim’s family should be more than Rs. 50,000 and between Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 7.5 lakh…

"…It has been brought to my notice by Mr. Adarsh Goel, learned counsel for the respondent – Govt. of NCT of Delhi, that widows of riot victims are being paid Rs. 1,000 per month as pension. Learned counsel has produced on record a copy of letter No. F 9 (38)/R-1/DC/88/648 dated May 17, 1996, from the deputy director (Relief-1), office of the deputy commissioner, Delhi, to the desk officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi, along with a report regarding progress of relief and rehabilitation measures in regard to riot victims of 1984. According to the report, 195 widows are getting pension. Be that as it may, the financial assistance of Rs. 20,000, which was to ameliorate the immediate effect and the long term effect of the killing of an earning hand, was highly inadequate and unfair.

"…Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and also keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been paid at least a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation. Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 20,000 the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000 to the petitioner with interest from October 1984 to the date of payment, which is quantified at Rs. 1.50 lakh. The respondent will make the payment of Rs. 3.30 lakh to the petitioner within one month.

"…This direction to pay enhanced compensation would be applicable to similar cases in order to secure parity and to alleviate the sufferings of the families of the victims who lost their lives during the Delhi riots of 1984. Accordingly, it is directed that the widows and families of the victims who lost their lives in the 1984 Delhi riots be paid a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakh (Rs. 2 lakh with interest quantified at Rs. 1.50 lakh). The payment would be made to them by the respondent after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to them as ex-gratia grant of compensation. It will also be open to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Union of India to consider the grant of compensation over and above the aforesaid amount depending upon the circumstances of the families of the riot victims. I would also direct the State to constitute a committee to disburse the amount of compensation quantified as above to the families of those who were killed in riots after their proper identification. I order accordingly. The exercise should be completed within a period of four months.

"…Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts and the nature of claim made on behalf of the petitioner and the conduct of the respondents in 1984 and thereafter, I am of the view that the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 2,000 is by no means adequate compensation for the failure to protect the limb and property of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that he has been an advocate by profession. On account of extreme trauma suffered by him, he has not been able to recoup his profession and suffered a lot.

"There is no reason to disbelieve such a statement. Different individuals may react differently in the same situation. There can possibly be no scale to measure the depth of the emotional wounds and trauma as a result of undergoing the experiences of the petitioner. He bore the brunt of the attack by the mob and barely escaped death. Scars so left may never heal.

"…Keeping in view the amount awarded by this court in the Bhajan Kaur case for the loss of life, in my view, the petitioner ought to be compensated by a sum of Rs. 75,000 for the injuries suffered by him and deprivation of his property on account of the riots on 2nd November, 2004.

"Since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 2,000, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 73,000 to the petitioner with interest from October, 1984 to the date of payment. The interest is quantified at Rs.50,000. The respondents will therefore make payment of Rs. 1,23,000 to the petitioner within one month.

"…This court in the judgement dated 5th July, 1996 reported at 1996 III AD Delhi 333 entitled Bhajan Kaur vs. Delhi Administration, directed the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation awarded to all similar cases. In order to secure parity to all persons who suffered injuries, the respondents shall pay the enhanced compensation awarded herein to all such persons to whom the respondents had disbursed the amount of Rs. 2,000 as ex gratia on account of the injuries received in the 1984 riots."

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2005 Year 11    No.108, Cover Story 2


Gujarat Genocide Victims

 

Waiting for justice

“Aaj bhi ham hamare mukkam par nahi ja ke rah sakte (Even today we cannot go back to where we belong).”

Aiyubmiya, eye-witness to the massacre where 33 persons from Sardarpura village, Mehsana were killed in 2002. The village his family had lived in for decades is no more their home.

Jab ham bach ke nikle, aath ghante ke baad, aur laash aur laash hamare ghar ke chabootre par giri hui thi; jakar kaanpte kaanpte ham police van me baithe, toh policewale ne kaha, ‘kya itne log bach gaye hai, kya? Hamne socha sab khatm hue!’ (When we escaped with our lives after eight hours of brutal targeting, there was a row of corpses outside our house. Trembling, we got into the waiting police van when a policeman in uniform said, ‘What! So many saved! We thought all would be finished!’).”

Zakiabehn Jaffri, wife of former parliamentarian Ahsan Jaffri.

“Mere bees saal ke bacche ko police ne nanga kar ke bithaya, peeth mod kar, goliyan mar mar kar police ne khatm kiya… Maine socha tha ki badle mein bandook uthaoon magar phir socha ke nirdosh ko maar kar kya phayda? Aaj bhi hamara case waise hee pada hai, sessions court mein. (My 20-year-old boy was made to strip. The police bent him over and then pumped bullets into him… I thought of picking up the gun in revenge but then I thought what good would killing innocents bring? My case still drags on in the sessions court).”

Zahid Kadri, a father.

(Survivors’ Speak, meeting organised by Communalism Combat, Citizens for Justice and Peace and SAHMAT, New Delhi, April 16, 2005).

The criminal trial in six major massacres were stayed by the Supreme Court on November 21, 2003 after about 60 victims who are also eye-witnesses filed affidavits in the apex court of India detailing how the investigation into this massacre was being consciously subverted by the Gujarat police and witnesses continually threatened. Though 18 months have passed since the stay and several dates of hearing come and gone, the plea for reinvestigation and transfer is still pending before the apex court.

On May 2, 2002, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a petition through citizens of Gujarat in the Supreme Court of India requesting that the CBI, not the Gujarat police, investigate the major massacres. This was also a key recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its reports, March-July 2002, on the genocide. Three years later, this petition too is pending disposal before the apex court. With due respect, the three major acquittals – including the Best Bakery (in Vadodara), the Kidiad (where 61 persons were burnt alive in two tempos at Limbadiya Chowki in Sabarkantha district), and Pandharwada (where over 45 persons were massacred in two separate incidents in a village in Panchmahal district) massacre cases – may not have resulted if key recommendations made by the NHRC, which included investigation by the CBI into major carnage cases and trials by special courts, had been followed in these cases.

A detailed report, ‘Gujarat –Three Years Later’ is currently being compiled by Communalism Combat. Our preliminary investigations reveal that on a rough estimate about 61,000 persons continue to be internally displaced within the state.

Included among them are key witnesses of the major massacres, who even today cannot go back to their villages or localities simply because they have chosen to fight for justice. Many are both victims of the massacre and key eye-witnesses.

The large majority of the internally displaced were small minority groups scattered across many of Gujarat’s 18,000 villages. They have had to surrender their homes and petty landholdings in return for a life of penury-struck refugees. This is the stark and shameful reality of Gujarat, where even the political Opposition has stopped addressing issues arising out of a State-sponsored pogrom and where the perpetrators continue in seats of power and influence.


The large majority of the internally displaced have had to surrender their homes and petty landholdings in return for a life of penury-struck refugees. This is the stark and shameful reality of Gujarat, where even the political Opposition has stopped addressing issues arising out of a State-sponsored pogrom and where the perpetrators continue in seats of power and influence

Eye-witnesses who are also victims include survivors of the Gulberg massacre (February 28, 2002) where 68 persons were slaughtered including former MP Ahsan Jaffri and 10-15 girls and women subjected to brutal sexual violence; Naroda Gaon and Patiya (February 28, 2002) where over 120 persons were similarly ravaged while a complicit police and elected representatives watched and led mobs respectively; Sardarpura (March 1-3, 2002) where 33 persons were brutally killed in one incident while 14 were burnt alive in the second); and the Ode killings in Anand district (March 1-3, 2002) in which a total of 27 persons were killed. All of them continue to suffer and sacrifice for their decision to struggle for justice. Many eye-witnesses, like a key witness from Naroda Gaon and his family members, have been penalised three or four times with false criminal cases being slapped against them. The attempt is clearly to intimidate all those who stand for the struggle for justice. Recent reports highlighting attempts to target citizens and human rights defenders who support the struggle only underline the state of affairs in Gujarat today.

If there is one thing that the onerous struggle for justice has shown, it is this: For justice to be finally ensured at least in case of the major incidents of carnage let alone the hundreds of crimes that took place in Gujarat in 2002, the struggle for justice needs strong support from State agencies. But in reality, three years after the horrors in which they lost their near and dear ones, key witnesses of the major incidents of violence cannot even step into their villages or localities simply because they have chosen the path of justice.

Further, the conduct of the state of Gujarat through the ongoing Best Bakery re-trial being conducted in Mumbai (see accompanying story) is far removed from that of a prosecutor state committed to ensuring justice. Apart from the questionable role of the Gujarat state in the Best Bakery case, the sheer brazenness of its conduct can be gauged from its decision to reappoint the controversial public prosecutor in the Best Bakery case, Raghuvir Pandya, allegedly a VHP sympathiser, as Vadodara’s district government pleader. Pandya, who was indicted by the Supreme Court for acting “more as a defence counsel than a public prosecutor” in its historic verdict transferring the Best Bakery case to Maharashtra on April 12, 2003 (see Communalism Combat, April 2005), is now back as state counsel and will again plead the government’s case if any of the communal riot cases are reopened!

Clearly undeterred by the spotlight of the apex court, the Gujarat government has appointed another allegedly active BJP member, MD Pandya, as special public prosecutor in a case related to Radhanpur town of Patan district where many BJP heavyweights like Radhanpur BJP MLA Shankar Chaudhary, former president of Radhanpur municipal council Pravin Thakkar, president of Radhanpur municipal borough Prakash Kumar Thakkar and member of the district BJP medical cell Dr. Jyotindra Raval were all implicated as accused in the case.

The attitude of the Gujarat state headed by chief minister Narendra Modi who was re-elected by 51 per cent of the Gujarati electorate in December 2002, nine months after masterminding the pogrom, has been understood and absorbed nationwide. What escapes public attention is the realisation that even three years later there is absolutely no remorse or regret for what had been orchestrated in February/March-May 2002. If Modi is relatively silent today, it is only because of the legal battles in which his state is embroiled despite his best efforts.

At the ground level his brigands carry on unashamed. At Desar village of Vadodara district on April 10, 2005, as hundreds of villagers watched in the presence of BJP MP Jayaben Thakkar, local MLA Upendrasinh Gohil and VHP leaders, two Swaminarayan sadhus unveiled the bust of Vakhatsinh Ramansinh Parmar. The inscription on the marble plaque under the bust read: “This memorial is to honour Ram Sevak Vakhatsinh Ramansinh Parmar who laid down his life in the attacks in retaliation to the killing of 58 karsevaks on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002. Parmar was killed in police firing on March 1, 2002, third Friday, Vikram Samvat, 2058”. Parmar was, according to police records, part of a mob that torched Muslim properties and attacked the police when the police was trying to save properties from being torched. He was named as an accused in the case. This is the first time that a riot accused has been publicly felicitated in Gujarat albeit posthumously. The function was organised by the VHP. The local MLA and MP did not find anything wrong in erecting a memorial for a mob leader in a village where Muslims form 30 per cent of the population. “This is a fitting tribute to the youth for his sacrifices for the cause of Hindutva,” Thakkar told The Deccan Herald. Asked about the incident, minister of state for Home Amit Shah said: “One is always innocent till he is convicted.”

An apt illustration of the perversion of values within the political class in Gujarat.

Political campaign

If justice is to prevail, a necessary condition for this must be created through the dismissal of the Modi government under Article 356 of the Constitution, say constitutional experts like Shanti Bhushan.

There is legitimate apprehension among many about the use of Article 356, lest it set a precedent for the Centre to get rid of governments in Opposition-ruled states. But the Gujarat case is an exceptional one in so much as the state government has been seriously implicated by the NHRC and even the Supreme Court, in what are perhaps the most inhuman, horrendous and unconstitutional acts in the history of post-Independence India. In the past few months, courageous statements by serving police officers have echoed the outrage earlier expressed by these apex institutions and hundreds of groups and individuals. Statements by serving policemen that have been made public clearly show that orders were issued by none less than the present chief minister Narendra Modi that minorities who resist or protest be exterminated. Put together, the imposition of Article 356 in Gujarat is warranted not only on grounds of humanity and constitutional propriety, but also for the maintenance of the country’s unity, integrity and secular fabric.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2005 Year 11    No.108, Cover Story 1


Related Themes