As Dalits Plant Flag of Self-Respect under Mevani Leadership, Families Get Back land promised since 1970s: Gujarat
The Battle for the Dalit Base:  From the fields of Gujarat to the floor of Parliament

Its election year in Gujarat and the Dalits though numerically strong like Bengal have a seven per cent vote. Its also the month that NDA II under Modi is likely to install Ram Nath Kovind, a Dalit to the high office of President. In this context and political atmosphere, the Azaadi kooch yatra commemorating one year of the shameful Una public flogging of 5 Dalits assumed great significance. Jignesh Mevani, the lawyer-leader of the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch who led this yatra, planted the flag of self-respect on the land at Lavara in Banaskantha, land promised  to Dalit families since the 1970s.

“If your chest is actually 56 inches, Modiji, then remove the dabang (strongmen)…. If you don’t, your BJP will be finished here…. Your Hindu nationalism is a fraud and it is our duty to expose those who kill peasants, workers and youths in the name of the cow,” Mevani told the cheering crowd at Lavara.

Sabrangindia had been among the first to focus on the land campaign led by Mevani over the years. “Land to the Dalit Tiller, not to Tycoons is our Mission: Jignesh Mevani” was a detailed interview with him on the issue (December 2016).

Keeping Mevani company on July 18, were Kantibhai Solanki, who was supposed to have been given possession of the land in the 1970s, and Dalpat Bhatia, who had taken up the cause of the Dalits in Lavara, a village in Gujarat’s Banaskantha district, 200km from Gandhinagar. Last Saturday, July 15, , Mevani, a 36-year-old lawyer, had issued an ultimatum that if the plots allotted to seven Dalits in Lavara in the 1970s under the Gujarat land ceiling law were not restored, 10,000 protesters would block the highway to Dhanera that branches out to Kandla Port and Rajasthan.
Clearly nervous with the agitation, on July 18, the district administration had restored the plots to two Dalits, one of who was Kantibhai. Today’s “takeover” would have largely been a token gesture devoid of tension but for one factor: Kantibhai complained that he was threatened by Kalusinh Vaghela, from whom the land was taken.

Vaghela belongs to the landed Darbar caste, categorised as part of the Other Backward Classes, while Kantibhai is a Dalit. The latent friction between the two – which need not mean they are openly hostile to each other – represents an undercurrent now at play in Gujarat and some northern Indian states.

As the symbolic march to claim back the promised land took place Mevani received a chit from the police present, in warning. Watched closely by about 2,000 Dalits, communists and Muslims, Mevani read the piece of paper that told him not to carry out a symbolic takeover of the land by planting blue Ambedkarite flags. Mevani, a fiery leader, did so anyway, after limiting the number of those who accompanied him to the plot. A large police force kept watch as Mevani marched through the freshly tilled soil in driving rain and hoisted an indigo blue flag featuring the Ashok Chakra and sporting the words “Jai Bhim”.

An FIR was also lodged against the threats received by the Dalit family prior to the protest event. The FIR was filed at Dhanera where around 2,500 people had gathered at the conclusion of Azadi Kooch, a march to commemorate one year of Una flogging incident. It was after this that the Dalits and rights activists led by Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch leader Jignesh Mewani reached Lavara village, 12 km away, and planted blue flags on the 18-acre land.

“The district administration decided to start the process of returning the land a day before we were planning to forcibly take possession of the land. We take it as a positive sign and now we will make sure that this happens all over Gujarat. On August 15, we will gather at Soneth village in Banaskantha and ensure that Dalits there get their land back,” said Mewani. “We also give the state administration time till December 6, which is Babasaheb Ambedkar’s death anniversary, to make sure that land allotment for Dalits takes place. If not then over 50,000 Dalits will congregate and forcibly take possession of the land,” he added.

The Dalits call it a battle for self-respect – and Mevani is part of a new breed of leaders tapping into the discontent that is also fuelled by rising aspirations. If Mevani makes inroads into the state’s consciousness, a casualty could be the broader “Hindu umbrella” that the Sangh parivar and Narendra Modi are seeking to unfurl.

It was only after the sustained protests under Mevani that these land claims were met. For years, the battle has been within the Courts in Gujarat but there have been no positive gains for Dalits despite Court orders in their favour.

Speaking to the media, Solankibhai, who got the land back, said: “My father had fought for this land since the 1970s. The Darbars wouldn’t part with it. Now we are better off and my brother is a postman. We are not ignorant of our rights. Last year, I complained to the tehsildar. Not a single official came until Jigneshbhai’s Azadi Kooch started. Yesterday the tehsildar came, made us sign some paper and gave us possession of the land. Kalubhai challenged me that he would never allow me to farm here.” Before this moment of empowerment, the Solankis were mere sharecroppers on the same land, growing jowar and bajra and giving Vaghela a fourth of the produce as rent.

Dalits are the most populous in this village, with about 100 households, followed by the dominant Darbars who have 80 families.

The Vaghela household, spread over more than an acre in several concrete dwellings, overlooks the fields. A worker loading grain in Vaghela’s godown said he wasn’t home.Kalusinh’s brother Brahmarsinh Vaghela, a former sarpanch, said: “Yes, my brother held the land but the Dalits were the sharecroppers. There is no question of any conflict. But it is sad that the police had to come to our village for the first time in my memory. There has never been any caste clash here.”

What makes Mevani strike a chord with young Dalits? Vipul Parmar, a computer operator who was part of the land takeover, said: “I had not heard of Jigneshbhai until a week back and was attracted by the posts on social media. He seems to be the only leader in Gujarat who is talking about the Dalits. I am in this land movement not because I want to do farming but because it is about self-respect. Even if Ram Nath Kovind (the NDA candidate) becomes President and comes here, the Thakurs will make him sit in a corner. Dalits who watch the news now know that the BJP is a Manuvadi party that silently hates us and makes us clash with Muslims.”

For Lakshmiben Maharia who came all the way from Ahmedabad to support the Azadi Kooch march it was the gender issue that found resonance. “I joined Jigneshbhai when he came to our village and explained that wearing a ghunghat (veil) is outdated and an unhealthy tradition. Despite anger from elders, all of us women stopped wearing the ghunghat. Land is important but we educate families with drunkard husbands (despite prohibition in the state) not to waste money they will gain from land on liquor. We won’t allow any man from our community to beat his wife if he is drunk.”
The agitation will not end here. In Banaskantha’s Sonheth village, Mevani has announced an agitation to help 63 Dalit families whose allotted land has been under the occupation of of dominant castes. There is some potential for conflict as claims and counter-claims ensue.

Related Articles:

1. If the Cow is Your Mother, You Bury Her: Gujarat Dalits Cry Liberation
2.  The Nation Does Not Need the Gujarat Model: Jignesh Mevani

The post Dalits Claim Back ‘Promised Land’ under Mevani’s Leadership: Gujarat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Dalit family, including a pregnant woman, was assaulted in Banaskantha district’s Amirgadh on Saturday for refusing to remove the carcass of a cow. Six persons have been arrested for the alleged assault.

The accused belonged to the dominant upper caste community in Mota Karja village. Banaskantha SP Niraj Badgujar, who visited the village, told the Indian Express that the victims have been admitted to the civil hospital and provided police protection.

According to reports, the accused asked the family to take away the carcass on Friday night, but the victims said they would dispose it the next morning.

Following the refusal, the accused entered the house of the Dalits and assaulted them. The pregnant woman was hit on the abdomen.

Describing the incident, the FIR stated that “the accused… entered the home (of the victims) and while asking why they were not disposing of the dead cow, uttered casteist remarks, beat them with wooden sticks and assaulted them physically while threatening to kill them”.

“We lodged the FIR immediately after the victims approached police and arrested the six accused. We have booked the accused under section 315 of the Indian Penal Code (act done with intent to prevent child being born alive) along with other sections and under the Atrocity Act,” said SP Badgujar.

The FIR identified the accused as Natvarsinh Chauhan, Maknusinh Chauhan, Narendrasinh Chauhan, Yogisinh Chauhan, Babarsinh Chauhan and Dilgarsinh Chauhan.
 

The post Gau Rakshaks target Dalit Family, including Pregnant Woman, for refusing to remove Carcass appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

The post Betrayal by the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Extensive evidence recorded by the Tribunal points to the devastating loss of property by the Muslim community in the state. Relying on detailed tabulation of losses computed by community leaders at the village, city and district levels, independent groups estimated the total loss to the Muslim community at not less than Rs. 3,800 crore. (Except where otherwise stated, the figures for losses given below have been computed by business representatives of the community and  social activists). The pre-planning, precision and scale of destruction calls for massive reparation by the Gujarat state.

The Muslim community in Gujarat was one of the most prosperous in the country and its contribution to the economy of the state, pivotal. The fact that the economy of this section of the population has been crippled suggests a sinister motive behind the destruction.

Evidence provided by prominent businessmen belonging to both the Muslim and Hindu communities point to the systematic destruction. The destruction of two establishments on CG Road — Pantaloon Showroom and the Hero Honda Showroom — in a posh area in Ahmedabad, is illuminating. The Pantaloon Showroom is a partnership of Hindus and Muslims, with the Muslim partner owning only a 10 per cent share. The Copper Chimney restaurant, though owned by a Hindu Punjabi, was targeted. Those instigating the attack were obviously well-informed,  for very few people knew that the owner had recently signed a deal with a Sheikh in the Gulf.

Information was gathered from the Registrar of Companies, the Revenue and the Sales Tax departments. Significantly, several months prior to the carnage, the widely circulated local Gujarati daily, Sandesh, had published a list of all Muslim-owned establishments in Ahmedabad with ‘Hindu’ names. Was there some unstated purpose behind the publishing of this list? Was it used as a ready reckoner by those who destroyed these establishments later?
According to Shri Narendra Brahmbutt, president of the Ahmedabad Hotel and Residents Association, the hotel sector alone has suffered a staggering loss of Rs. 260 crore. Suppliers to the hotel industry suffered losses to the extent of Rs. 60 crore. As many as 6,700 workers belonging to the majority community have been rendered jobless due to the burning and arson by the fanatic militia.

Details of losses
Muslims estimate losses due to the prolonged closure of shops, industries and commercial establishments in the state to be no less at Rs. 3,000 crore. (The Gujarat Chambers of Commerce and Industry puts the figure at Rs. 2,000 crore).

Hotel Industry
Approximately 1,150 hotels were burnt or looted on the National Highway from Vapi to Vadodara and on to Palanpur. The total estimated loss to property and investment in looting and damage alone, across the state, is Rs. 760 crore.

• A Rs. 600 crore business loss for the hotel industry in Gujarat.
• At least 20,000 workers in the hotel industry were rendered jobless and many are missing. Ironically, many of those who lost their jobs were non-Muslims, indicative of the long–term impact of destruction and terror on all sections of society, not just the 10 per cent strong Muslim minority that is the immediate target. Nearly 7,000–8,000 Rabari boys were rendered jobless in Gujarat because Muslim hotels were burnt and destroyed, according to the evidence of Tejabhai, a Rabari leader recorded by an expert witness.

    
Transport industry
The transport godowns on the National Highway have suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 12 crore. In addition, losses suffered due to the burning down of over 1,000 trucks are estimated by transport operators belonging to Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara Godhra and Himmatnagar, at Rs. 60 crore. The truck operators’ insurance claims for the cumulative damage amounted to Rs. 830 crore.

• More than Rs. 10 crore lost due to the burning down of 60 Opel Astras parked outside the GM Motors unit at Halol.
• Rs. 4 crore lost due to the torching of the Honda City and Accord fleet of cars at the Landmark Honda showroom at Thaltej, Gandhinagar.
• The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation estimated a loss of Rs. 12.50 crore and transport companies have lost business amounting to Rs. 70 crore.

Though overt violence has ended, ethnic cleansing continues in the form of the economic decimation of the minority in Gujarat. The Tribunal is particularly disturbed by the fact that it is not just the ordinary worker of the Sangh Parivar, even ministers and other Hindutva leaders are involved in instigating the economic boycott of Muslims from behind the scenes.

Industry (general):

• Halol:17-18 factories destroyed.
• Vatwa: All Muslim-owned factories in GIDC area destroyed.
• Mehsana: All Muslim-owned factories destroyed.
• Dahod–Godhra: Large factories destroyed.
• Naroda Fruit Market: Muslim-owned fruit shops destroyed.
• Kabadi Market, Ahmedabad: Destroyed.
• Bharuch: Muslim-owned shops and showrooms destroyed in Bharuch city.
• Ankleshwar: All Muslim–owned factories in GIDC area destroyed.
• Sabarkantha/Chhotaudaipur/Banaskantha: Muslim–owned shops, hotels and commercial establishments destroyed.
• Factories which had insurance cover have lodged claims worth Rs. 400 crore.
• On National Highway No. 8, about 90 per cent of the commercial establishments, including small shops, godowns and factories, have been completely wiped out.

Agriculture

• Standing crops in Panchmahal, Mehsana, Dahod, Sabrakantha, Banaskantha and Kheda districts were burnt by the miscreants.
• Motors installed in the fields for drawing water were stolen.
• Borewells in the fields, which cost anywhere from Rs. 50,000 to Rs 1.5 lakh, were damaged beyond repair. At least 7,000 such borewells of Muslim agriculturists from all over Gujarat were destroyed.
• Large and small agricultural landholdings of Muslims in Gujarat where economic and social boycott still continues have been taken over by powerful interests dominated by the BJP/RSS/VHP and BD.

Miscellaneous

• More than Rs. 2 crore lost in damage to the Lucky Film Studio.
• Hundreds of crores lost due to the arson of thousands of houses and buildings. At least 75,000 homes were seriously damaged in the destruction, of which 10, 204  were burnt down completely. At least 10,000 shops were targeted, of which over 2,100 were completely ransacked.
• A Handloom Expo was on in Ahmedabad when the Godhra tragedy took place. All the Muslim artisans from Kashmir and West Bengal were attacked and their displays destroyed.
• It is abundantly clear that the economic destruction took place mainly because of inaction on the part of the state government. Hence, the responsibility for rehabilitation need lie squarely with it. But the government has not even assessed the damages, nor laid down any guidelines for payment of compensation. Unfortunately, even the insurance companies, such as the New India Insurance and others, have not even considered the legitimate insurance claims of businessmen in many areas.

While ignoring the genuine and pressing relief and rehabilitation needs of the survivors, the sponsors of the carnage and their cadre have now resorted to a crippling economic boycott against Muslims in many parts of Gujarat. In Gandhi-nagar, Mehsana and Sabarkantha districts, truck and auto drivers are facing a severe economic boycott thanks to the machinations of politicians like Gujarat ministers, Shri Nitin Patel and Shri Narayan Lalludas Patel.

In Vadodara, there have been, at least, over two dozen instances of Muslims being told by their Hindu employers not to come to work. In Por and Paliyad villages in Gandhinagar district, villagers who had returned were facing the severe impact of hunger and loss of livelihood due to the refusal by village Patels (who dominate the panchayat and who are politically associated with the BJP) to buy milk (from milch cattle) or to hire Muslim women as farm labour on the land belonging to the majority community.
Though overt violence has ended, ethnic cleansing continues in the form of the economic decimation of the minority in Gujarat.

The Tribunal is particularly disturbed by the fact that it is not just the ordinary worker of the Sangh Parivar, even ministers and other Hindutva leaders are involved in instigating the economic boycott of Muslims from behind the scenes. Home minister Shri Gordhan Zadaphiya and revenue minister Shri Haren Pandya, ministers Shri Narayan Lalludas Patel, Shri Niteen Patel, forest minister Shri Prabhatsinh Chauhan, minister for cottage industries, Shri Ranjitsinh Chawda, BJP MLAs Sushri Amita Patel and Sushri Maya Kotdani and Dr. Jaideep Patel (Gujarat VHP’s vice–president), among many others, have been named by the eyewitnesses, in this context.        

Archived from Communalism Combat, November-December 2002 Year 9  No. 81-82, Economic Destruction         
                     

The post Economic Destruction/Desecration in Gujarat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

By March 1, a similar situation was observed in over one dozen districts of Gujarat. Independent sources show that outside Ahmedabad, as many as 76,000 refugees were housed in camps all over the state. Official figures put this amount at about 25,000. In any event, even by the state government’s own assessment, at least 91,000  persons were displaced as a direct result of the carnage. Independent assessments put these at closer to 1,74,000 refugees in the state of Gujarat after the first flush of brutal violence; a staggering figure by any standards.  Besides, not all the survivors moved into camps — many went to the homes of their relatives and so on. Including them in the calculation, independent estimates put the total number of displaced Muslims in Gujarat at not less that 2,50,000. 

In the days following the first bout of brutal violence, agents of the state, notably the collectors/district magistrates of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Mehsana, Himmatnagar, Anand, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha, Bharuch and Ankleshwar districts, as also the officials of some police stations, obstructed truckloads of privately mobilised relief material — milk, foodgrains, etc. —  from reaching the camps. Thereafter, the same officials harassed and penalised the refugees by, among other things, not giving them sufficient food. The conduct of these IAS and IPS officials calls for strong penal action.

The Tribunal is greatly concerned and outraged by the fact that only the leadership of the Muslim community was involved in the running of the relief camps because others did not come forward. Though some non–Muslim NGOs did contribute substantial amounts of aid to these relief camps right until August, the vast bulk of relief assistance to the refugees came from the community itself. 

For days and weeks, the Gujarat government adamantly refused to register the relief camps and denied relief assistance from state coffers. In blatant and brazen contrast to the Gujarat state’s attitude to the earthquake victims just one year earlier, when the ghastly earthquake of January 26, 2001 rocked the state, this time neither the Gujarat government nor the government of India applied to the UN and other international agencies for relief and rehabilitation measures. 

Equally, the Tribunal notes with concern and anguish that an insignificant number of international aid agencies came forward in the case of the Gujarat carnage, to help the victims. Given the scale of the state-perpetrated violence and given the response of international aid agencies to such carnages in other areas in the past, it was incumbent on them to provide relief and rehabilitation assistance to all those displaced and dispossessed by the communal carnage in Gujarat, without discrimination. 

Similarly, the fact that major national newspapers which, during such calamities in the past, have always set up independent relief funds, did not do so in the context of Gujarat 2002, speaks for the silence and complicity that surrounds relief and rehabilitation of the survivors of the Gujarat carnage. 

Six relief camps had to approach the Gujarat High Court (special civil applications 3773 of 2002) through a writ petition — supported by the Citizens for Justice and Peace — and a senior advocate had to be flown down from Mumbai for arguments, before the Gujarat government gave an assurance in court that it assumes responsibility for providing adequate relief to the camps. Justice Pradeep PB Majmudar delivered the order on this writ petition on April 22, 2002. 

‘‘What should we do? Run relief camps for them? Do we want to open baby producing centres?’’ — Chief Minister Narendra Modi

The first time that the Shri Modi condescended to visit the Shah–e–Alam Relief Camp in Ahmedabad city was a full month after the carnage broke out, on April 4. As recently as September 9, at Becharaji, Mehsana, during his Gujarat Gaurav Yatra, none other than the chief minister made a shocking public declaration: ‘‘What should we do? Run relief camps for them? Do we want to open baby producing centres?’’ 

Again on May 31, a public interest litigation (special civil application number 5311 of 2002) had to be filed in the Gujarat High Court by the Citizens for Justice and Peace and Communalism Combat to elicit an assurance from the state that relief camps would not be forcibly closed down. On June 4, the petitioners obtained an oral assurance from the government pleader that there would be no closure of the camps at least until June 30, 2002. It was on this precise date, that the state government began exerting pressure on camps and threatened penal measures against camp managers, if they did not ‘voluntarily’ sign a statement saying they wished to close down their camps. On June 26, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioners, several camp managers and refugees filed 25 affidavits, detailing the extent of abdication of primary duty by the state and shocking instances of coercion and pressure being used against refugees and camp managers.

The writ petition pertaining to relief is still alive before the Gujarat High Court. 

Compensation
The Gujarat government showed itself in a crudely partisan and anti–constitutional light when it initially announced discriminatory amounts of compensation for the survivors of the Godhra tragedy and the post–Godhra carnage. Abdicating its primary role as protector and provider of all its citizenry, it has made no efforts to compute the extent of the loss of lives, the quantum of the destruction of homes, belongings, businesses and agricultural properties to date.

A measly Rs. 2,500 was given as dole to persons for loss of household goods (ghar vakhari) and, though the Prime Minister had announced that Rs. 50,000 would be given for loss of homes, less than 10 per cent of those who have obtained home compensation from the Gujarat government (at least 25 per cent of the total affected have not received anything at all) have got more than Rs. 30,000 each. For most of the survivors of the Gujarat carnage, the state government has rubbed salt on the wounds already suffered, by giving them paltry amounts of Rs. 1,200-2,500 each or less.

Rehabilitation
The Gujarat government has shown a similar callous indifference to the rehabilitation of the victims of continued violence. Barely a year ago, when a devastating earthquake struck the same state, the Gujarat government evolved an elaborate Earthquake-2001 Rehabilitation Package No. 1 for the earthquake affected and similar Packages No. 2, 3, 4, 4a, 4b, 5 followed. 

The Tribunal has closely examined these packages. Details of these seven-eight packages announced by the government of Gujarat, run by the same party, just over a year before the carnage, clearly establish how deeply discriminatory, callous and objectionable the conduct of the Gujarat government is in the context of the carnage.

By its behaviour and action, the government has made it clear that it wishes to have nothing to do with the physical and psychological rehabilitation of its own people, the Muslims of Gujarat. Shri Modi has made public pronouncements, stating that there was no question of his government either buying land to re-house survivors, for whom returning to a threatening environment is an impossibility, or of repairing or rebuilding mosques, dargahs and shrines that have been damaged.

Situation of Muslims in Gujarat
The Tribunal notes with concern and dismay, the continuing misery of the victim Muslim community in Gujarat. In areas where the most brutal incidents of mass killing, quartering and killings (often after sexual crimes against women and girls were committed) took place, statewide surveys by independent groups show that there is no question of the victimised section of residents returning to their original place of residence. 

These include survivors of Ghodasar, Sardarpura, Pandharwada, Ode, Sanjeli, Randhikpur and Chanasma massacres, as also residents of villages in Gandhinagar district itself, where Muslims were in a small and hopeless minority. They also include areas like Gulberg society, Ahmedabad. Though many residents of Naroda Gaon and Patiya have returned, this has been under duress, after the forced closure of the refugee camps where they had sought shelter. Many others have been rehabilitated by Muslim NGOs in different parts of Ahmedabad, while a significant number have migrated to other states.Agricultural land holdings owned by Muslims in districts are being callously taken over by miscreants and dominant interests.

In many villages, especially in Mehsana, Gandhinagar, Panchmahal and Dahod districts,  Muslims who have returned to their battered homes were facing a strictly enforced economic boycott by the dominant castes and communities through their refusal to buy milk products from them, to hire them as labour on their fields, etc. A near permanent loss of livelihood, and therefore a reduction to penury, was an imminent and serious likelihood. 

In welcome contrast to the above, in many regions of Sabarkantha and Banaskantha districts, it appears that a sincere effort was being made by members from the dominant community to isolate those in their midst who have led and fomented trouble, and to take a stand against violence in the future. In Chhotaudaipur, where sections of the Adivasi population have been misled and misused by dominant sections of their own and other castes, there has been a genuine expression of remorse, too, about the incident.

It is shocking and unfortunate that while the situation on the ground remains grim in the state, where no remorse has been expressed, no justice is in sight, where relief has only grudgingly been given and rehabilitation measures have been meagre, the sole desire of the government appeared to be to proclaim ‘normalcy’ before the country and the world. At no time was this babble of normalcy exposed more effectively than during the visit of the two teams of the Chief Election Commission to the state in August 2002. 

The story of Gujarat today, especially of cities like Ahmedabad, is one of brutally enforced ghettoisation of the Muslim minority in their residential colonies as much as in their business and trade enterprises. In parts of Ahmedabad, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Muslim minority to live, inhabit and move freely in areas that are now seen as “Hindu”. This state of affairs should be unacceptable in any part of Constitution–bound India.

For the religious minorities, the state of affairs in Gujarat is blatantly discriminatory and in violation of the Indian Constitution. The Tribunal regrets to record that with the connivance of the state, they have already been reduced to the status of second–class citizens. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, November-December 2002 Year 9  No. 81-82, Relief and Rehabilitation

The post Relief and Rehabilitation, Gujarat 2002 appeared first on SabrangIndia.