In a sharp and succinct order passed on February 15, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has sharply pulled up the Indian government for its unconcern and tardiness in appointment of doctors and staff to the hospital set up for the permamnent care and rehabilitation of Survivors of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
 
In Writ petition 15658-2012 filed by the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghatan versus Union of India, acting chief justice, Rajendra Menon and Anjuli Palo passed strong orders and posted the matter for March 15, 2017. The court moreoever came down heavily on the government for seeking a year’s time to formulate the rules and said that a month was enough.
 
The Court, in response to activist Jayprakash’s arguments has also commented adversely on the fact that the central government has done little to implement the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and bring the Hospital under the administrative and finance control of the government of India. A copy of the 9th Quarterly Report of the Monitoring Committee was made available to the Survivors by the Court.
 
 
The Order may be read here:
 
“This matter is pending since 2012. We are constrained to note that even after repeated adjournments being granted and dates being fixed since more than a year, that is from 10.2.2016, Union of India has not come out with the Rules for appointment of Doctors and Staff to the Institute in question that is the BMHRC.

The Rules pertaining to Appointment of Nurses have been finalized andthe Nurses Association has given an application before this Court to say that they accept the Rules in toto and agree for Notification of the Rules; to proceed to finalize the same and to take steps for filling up of the vacancies, and regulating the terms and conditions of the service of the Nurses.

Inspite thereof, nothing has been done in the matter of finalization of these Rules.That apart, for the purpose of formulating the Rules for appointment of Doctors, Specialists and other Staff members, except for contending that the Draft Rules have been notified on the Website of the Department and objections are invited, no concrete steps have been taken for finalization of the Rules; and, an assertion is made in the counter affidavit submitted that it would take atleast a year’s time to
finalize the Rules and thereafter to make appointments in pursuance to the Rules.

We are surprised that for formulating Rules of Appointment under Article 309 of the Constitution or the Statute, for a Hospital, the Unionof India requires a year’s time. In our considered view, such a Rule, after consultation with all stake holders, can be formulated within a period of 30 days and for the said purpose granting a year’s time is not called for.

Once Rules are finalized, it should not take more than three monthstime to complete the process of advertisement; calling for applications; conducting the interview process and thereafter for making appointments; and, taking note of all these factors, we are satisfied that the Union of India is delaying the matter and is not taking proper steps for formulation of Rules and taking steps for recruitment of Doctors and other staffs for manning the hospital. That apart, we have also taken note of the 9th Quarterly Report and recommendations submitted by the Monitoring Committee headed by Justice (Retd) Shri V.K. Agrawal, and we find that various recommendations made by the said Committee, particularly the recommendations pertaining to Computerization of Gas Rahat Hospitals and the BMHRC; Framing of Service Rules as already indicated hereinabove; Common Referral System; Development of Infrastructure in the matter of providing Equipments and Gadgets such
as Ventilators, CT Scan etc; Prompt Release of Funds for purchase of Equipments; and, various other aspects indicated in the Monitoring Committee’s Report, which includes the Renewal of AMC of the Medical Equipments in the Hospital, have not been addressed to and nothing has been said by the Union of India in the matter.
 
That apart, Shri Jayaprakash made a serious objection to say that inspite of recommendations made by BMHRC, Union of India has not taken any steps for bringing the Hospital under their administrative control, to monitor its functions and make it a Hospital functioning under the administrative and financial control of Union of India.
 
We find that the Ministry concerned in the Union of India, namely the Health Research and Family Welfare, has not taken adequate steps for implementing the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee, as contained in its 9th Quarterly Report, particularly with regard to recruitment and various other aspects as detailed hereinabove.
 
The time limit sought for to complete the process by one year, in our considered view is very much on the higher side and we cannot grant more than three months time to the Union of India the complete the entire process, and to implement the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee, as are indicated its 9th Quarterly Report.
Accordingly, we direct for forwarding a copy of this order through the Assistant Solicitor General to the Secretary, in the Ministry of Health Research and Family Welfare, and direct the Incharge of the Department concerned to file an affidavit before us within 15 days, indicating what steps he proposes to take to implement the directions as are indicated hereinabove; and, to submit a Report to this with regard to the same.”
 
 

The post HC Rap: GOI’s Tardiness in Making Hospital for Bhopal Gas Survivors Functional appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Credit: AFP

​Rafia Afsar , an alumna of the American International School of Dhaka (AISD) writes in the aftermath of her schoolmate Tarishi Jain ’s death:

Dear World,

Several horrible atrocities are taking place in our time, one of which occurred in our loving city of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Many people unfortunately died and many fingers were pointed but this letter isn’t about the killings.

This letter is to celebrate the lives of three of our beloved friends who we will never see again – this is to celebrate love.

Our community, the Tigers of AISD share a deep connection full of passion, love, devotion and loyalty. We aren’t just a collection of batch mates of years past from a school, we are a family that comes together to celebrate our school’s events, its students and their success, the victories of our sports teams, the graduation of each batch that passes out and so much more. But for the first time we came together, that too in stronger numbers than we’ve ever gathered, for something other than celebrating. We came together to mourn.

Abinta Kabir, Tarishi Jain and Faraaz Hossain are names that you heard for the first time on Saturday morning. For us, they are the names of our basketball star athlete, our designated choreographer and our executive council’s president. Our entire school only consisted of a little over 700 tightly-knitted students, hence everyone knew everyone.

Abinta was someone who always made us laugh with her stories and left us in awe with how effortlessly she shot hoops while playing for our basketball team.

Tarishi was someone who inspired us with her ideas, work ethic and flawlessness and always came to the rescue whenever any of us would be lost at ideas for cultural events. She brought us joy in being Tigers.

Faraaz was someone we all looked up to. He showed us what a good leader is with everything he did, and was modest. He taught us to care about the world around us and made us believe that we can make a difference.

All three of them were great friends to each other and this was evident in their last moments. We feel so fortunate to have had them as a part of our family. We can only hope that we carry out lives that will make them smile in pride of what their fellow Tigers have achieved. They will always be there in the memories and hearts of us all.

We can only hope that you never have to experience the loss that we have felt, and will continue to feel so. We encourage everyone to face the outcomes of incidents like these with love, the way we Tigers have been doing. Let’s hope that we, the world, are able to celebrate life and celebrate love.

The post Face the Fallout with Love, pleads Classmate of Tarishi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Photo Credit: http://cancerincytes.scienceblog.com/

The currently pending Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2016, which has been put out by the Ministry of Women and Child Development for discussion must include all stake holders

  
On June 22, 2016, HAQ and the Campaign against Child Trafficking (CACT) released a report on child trafficking in India.  At this event a public hearing was organised in which child survivors (some of whom are now adults) deposed before an eminent jury.
 
The Jury Members were Lushin Dubey, Siddharth Luthra and Om Thanvi. A detailed report on Child Trafikking was also released. It can be read here
  
A succinct Verdict was prepared by the Jury. This is what it says:
 
On hearing the depositions and reading the stories of those who are unable to depose due to emotional reasons, which we respect, the jury has the following observations to make:
 

1. The issue is complex and not limited to just the legal aspect but also relates to social and economic issues.
2. The issue of child tracfficking has to be tackled at its root and there has to be an environment created to prevent trafficking by empowering urban/rural communities, creating awareness and providing education to families and children. Moreover, as an act of preventive measure, providing opportunities of employment and security within the community in collaboration with the local government, NGOs and the police seems to be the need of the hour to act as a preventive measure.
3. The next stage is of community response which must be calibrated with necessary and relevant education and training to act both as a preventive measure, and to enable adequate rehabilitation measures and acceptance of children as victims of crime, needing special care within the community. This requires proactive efforts at both the state and local government level as well as on a social level.
4. These are different categories of trafficking – whether through coercion, kidnapping or with the consent of the parents – all of which need to be dealt with, in their distinct forms. The legal framework also needs to be reviewed to ensure complete coverage. This review must happen on a 5/10 yearly basis by viewing the impact of legal and administrative changes on the menance.
5. Reporting of crime is an issue which has to be dealt with by the law enforcement agencies. Perhaps units akin to economic crime/crime against women (CAW) which carry out pre-investigative enquiries need to be set up. This would ensure that from the time of reporting, even if an FIR is to be deferred, the police machinery begins their work immediately.
6. Lack of coordination between state police agencies, anti-human trafficking units (AHTUs) and other agencies tasked with child care has to be legislatively and administratively streamlined.
7. The investigation has to be specialized, made efficacious and standardized protocols need to be adopted throughout the country to avoid state-wise variations despite the presence of central substantive and procedural laws.
8. Investigation must be comprehensive as it often has inter-state ramifications and cannot be limited to one or the other aspect alone merely because of the convenience of the police.
9. Integrity of police investigation and efforts need to be provided for and improved. A review mechanism should be created within each state since police is a state subject.
10. Special prosecution efforts have to be taken keeping in view the nature of crime. The judicial process needs to be expedited and there should be timely review by the High Court.
11. Post investigation and prosecution, there have to be adequate standardization measures for rehabilitation and compensation, including medical treatment, to ensure that all victims are provided proper relief and assistance at state cost for their rehabilitation first within the community and then in the society at large. The victims should also be able to access their right to education, including vocational training, as part of the rehabilitation program.
12. The jury that all the concerned stakeholders, including NGOs and particularly survivors, should be properly consulted before the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2016, which has been put out by the Ministry of Women and Child Development for inviting suggestions, is given a final shape.
13. The jury appreciates the work done by the organizations supporting the victims of child trafficking and the cause.

Cover Photo credit: cseindiaportal.wordpress.com

The post Children for Sale Rampant, Solutions to Trafikking must involve Survivors: Citizen’s Jury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Credit:AFP, Sam Panthaky

UPDATE:

Today, June 17 is the day that final judgement will be delivered in the Gulberg Society Massacre. Witness Survivors have filed detailed Written Arguments making a strong case for life sentence. The advocates for the survivors, backed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have also ,ade out a strong case for Compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After June 2, when Judge PB Desai first declared that a total of 24 persons have been convicted and that the charge of conspiracy not accepted, there were three further dates when detailed arguments, largely on behalf of the accused (for reduction of sentence) took place. SM Vohra with Salim Shaikh argued strongly for a strong life term for all accused and also submitted written arguments.
 

Despite falling into the Rarest of the Rare Category, Victim Survivors, in written arguments to be submitted in Court on June 6, press for complete Life Imprisonment and also make out a strong Case for Compensation

Asked by Special Judge, P.B. Desai to make written submissions on quantum of punishment to be given to the accused, advocates for the victim survivors of the Gulberg carnage have argued for a full life term imprisonment for all accused and compensation awards under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A copy of the written submissions can be read here.

A team of lawyers for the Mumbai-based Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) spent the entire weekend preparing the written arguments based on recent jurisprudences into the issue. A slew of judgements of India’s Supreme Court has deliberated in detail the question, holding in several cases that even in the rarest of the rate, most gruesome and pre-meditated crimes, death penalty should not be the automatic choice.

On June 2, Special Judge PB Desai had convicted 25 persons out of the total 66 accused; 11 for offences related to murder (section 302), 436 (arson) and illegal assembly (149) and another 14 for attempt to murder (Section 307) and other offences. Four of the accused convicted have been in custody for 14 years, another four for 12 and 8 years each while 17 of the accused have been out of bail. A Table on with details on this can be read here: 

Gulberg Case: Details of Accused Held Guilty by Judge PB Desai

In the application the victim survivors have argued that:
“The accused who have been convicted of offences other than under S. 302 also need to be imposed punishment which is the maximum under the provisions under which they have been convicted.

The accused were part of a mob which admittedly was carrying out mayhem, well armed and with pre-determination to cause harm, injury and death, for more than 5 hours. They are bound to have known that an attack on the Society will, in all likelihood lead to murder(s).

They have also been found guilty of burning and destroying houses (Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code) the normal consequence of which would be death of persons who were residing there or who tried to run out. Therefore in view of the judgments in (please cite the above three cases) these are aggravating circumstances and deserve to be dealt with no leniency whatsoever. 

Besides, in the application the witness survivors have argued that even for offences under Section 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) there are provisions in the law for punishment of imprisonment for life. As far as being convicted under Section 149 (illegal assembly) is concerned the Supreme Court has often held that the very act and common intent of being in such an illegal assembly, armed and with criminal intent is sufficient to be considered a grave offence.

Section 357 of the CRPC, reads:
(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855 ), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
(2) If the fine is imposed in a case

The argument that even though the crime falls under rarest of the rare, punishment should be life was dealt with in detail in this judgement in 2015. For example in para 53 of the recent 2015 Judgement, (Vishal Yadav v/s State of UP, the Court has held that:
“53. The Supreme Court observed that principles of deterrence and retribution are the cornerstones of sentencing in (1994) 2 SCC 220, Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and (1996) 6 SCC 241, Gentela Vijayavandhan Rao v. State of Andhara Pradesh. It was also observed that these principles also cannot be categorised as right or wrong as much depends upon the belief of the judges. The court extracted the following portion of the decision of the Supreme Court in (2006) 2 SCC 359, Shailash Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat :

―7. xxx xxx Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order"should meet the challenges confronting the society. xxx xxx Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 30 attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.‖ (Underlining by us) Death sentence jurisprudence – divergence in views The discussion on this subject is being considered under the following sub-headings:

63. In this evaluation of the jurisprudence, it is essential to note the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported at (2013) 5 SCC 546, Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra in which the appellant, a man of 52 years, had been convicted for murder and strangulation of an 11 year old minor girl with intellectual disability after repeated rape and sodomy. Despite the satisfaction of the crime test, the criminal test and the rarest of rare case test, the court was of the view that the extreme sentence of death penalty was not warranted. The court therefore, directed the life sentence awarded for rape and murder to run consecutively.”

The post Gulberg Sentence: Survivors say Life over Death appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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 post Gujarat Genocide Victims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The burning alive of 59 passengers in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002 was used to justify genocidal violence against Gujarat’s Muslims. Now, 19 months later, families of the victims of the gruesome tragedy in Godhra complain that they, too, were taken for a nasty ride by the very leaders who pretended to be their saviours
 

It was on Dussera day, October 5, 2003, that four families who had lost their wives and mothers in the mass burning inside coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27 last year, made their pilgrimage for justice to Mumbai. Addressing a packed press conference in the metropolis the same evening, they told the country of the cynical way in which they had been made unwitting pawns in the politics of hatred. (On being approached by family members of the Godhra victims, the Mumbai-based Citizens for Justice and Peace had promised legal help to them, just as it had earlier extended support to Zahira Shaikh and her family in the Best Bakery massacre case).
 

Suddenly, the images of the charred and burnt bodies of the passengers in that hapless coach, images that have been played and re-played over the past 19 months, became real and approachable once again, as grief-stricken and broken families spoke out bravely against their political manipulation. Their determination to risk the wrath of the political masters in Gujarat, to take such a stand even while they would continue to live in Ahmedabad, above all, to petition the Supreme Court of India for a transfer of the Godhra trial along with the retrial/trial of the Best Bakery and other key cases outside the state is itself a measure of the strength of their convictions.
 

Their demand for a trial of the Godhra case also outside the state became stronger after some of them had been physically prevented from giving an honest testimony before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on September 18-19. Before their travel to Mumbai, local members of the VHP had tried to threaten and cajole them against their decision to seek the CJP’s help. But they were determined to come. And courageous too.
 

Through the mass media, they also appealed for an immediate end to yatra politics, cautioned their country men and women against being drawn to such programmes and demanded an inquiry into the collection of huge funds in the name of the Godhra victims by the sangh combine.
 

Dr. Girishbhai Rawal, 82-years-old, is a singularly brave man. Sudhabehn (76), his wife died a horrible death in Godhra, by burning and asphyxiation. "When you are young, there is romance and desire," he told me, "but when you reach our age there is something more precious. There is harmony and sharing. I have lost the harmony of my existence," he said, as tears rolled down his weathered cheeks for the first time.
 

Girishbhai faced a second tragedy soon after losing his precious Sudhabehn. On April 16, 2002, he lost his 42 year old son Ashwinbhai Rawal. Ashwinbhai, the local Bajrang Dal chief, was stabbed to death in a communal killing in Ramol. Repeated appeals by local residents to the state and city police to put up an effective police chowkey in the area had gone unheeded.
 

Before her tragic death, Sudhabehn was associated with the Khoja Council of the Aga Khan Foundation, working with children of all faiths. Neither she, nor her husband, nor her 18-year-old grand-daughter, Khushboo, nor her widowed daughter-in-law, Belabehn, ever shared the hatred and venom that the VHP-BJP-RSS-BD brand of politics espouses.
 

Khushboo brought tears to many eyes during the press meet in Mumbai when she said without a trace of artifice, "My father was drawn to the politics of Hindutva. But none of the rest of our family is enamoured of it. The building of the Ram temple is not as important as communal harmony and peace. The coming yatra must be stopped. People must realise that there is only death, destruction and violence after such activities."
 

Dr Rawal, in his cogent and articulate affidavit filed in the Supreme Court of India, has clearly stated that the failure of the VHP-BJP to bring back the yatris safely had to do with the intemperate and abusive behaviour of the kar sevaks on their way to, and while returning from, Faizabad-Ayodhya. He has also clearly stated that under the current regime in Gujarat, the chances of free and fair investigation and trial are remote; unless the trials are shifted outside of Gujarat, justice will not be done.
 

No honest inquiry into the tragedy is taking place, the reports of forensic experts who have stated that 60 litres of inflammable liquid simply could not have been flung from outside into the compartment given the topography of the area, are being buried and denied, the affidavit has said. "We have been used; Godhra has been used to justify violence against our own people in every nook and corner. Is this Hinduism? It is not. I feel ashamed."

From Left to Right: Bharatbhai Panchal with daughter Shefali in front; Belabehn Rawal, Dr. Girishbhai Rawal; Khushboo Rawal with Prakashbhai Chodagar behind; Sharadbhai Mhatre. In front row, Dhawal and Harsh

The families of Dr Girishbhai Rawal, Sharadbhai Mhatre, Bharatbhai Panchal and Prakashbhai Chodagar all lived in Janata Nagar, Ramol, a communally sensitive area of Ahmedabad city. Each family has lost a female member.
 

Sudhabehn, Malabehn, Jyotibehn and Nilimabehn (Amibehn) were religious-minded, mutual friends. None was a member of the VHP-BD or the BJP. They had simply been attending the VHP-organised satsanghs every Saturday in their housing society and who felt that the VHP’s plan to take people to Ayodhya offered them the chance of a free religious pilgrimage; that too in each other’s company. Neetabehn Panchal, a leader of the Durga Vahini, was instrumental in enthusing them for the yatra from which they never returned. In all, 10 women from Janata Nagar died in the mass arson.
 

Sharadbhai had been reluctant to let his wife undertake the journey to Ayodhya. But with a chance to make a religious pilgrimage, that too with close friends like Jyotibehn and Amibehn, she was adamant. He now has two children to raise without a mother.
 

"We realise now how we and others have been made pawns in the VHP and BJP game. They say things, use abusive and offensive language. This upsets the tranquillity of local areas and people get fooled and drawn to this. I have plied rickshaws for a living for years but never thought about the religion of my passengers. They say such things to trap people into joining them. That is all," says an angry Bharatbhai, who now faces the task of bringing up 16-year-old Shefali and his younger son, Dhawal, all alone. Bharatbhai is suspicious about why none of the leaders of the BJP and VHP, who had encouraged innocent believers to make the yatra and accompanied them, suffered any injury on that fateful day.
 

"For years, Hindu and Muslim children, as also little ones of other faiths, have always been ferried by us in our rickshaws to and from school. This was true about Ahmedabad and the rest of Gujarat. But today’s Gujarat is no longer the Gujarat we had known and lived in. Never before has Gujarat been so demeaned as by this regime. There is distance and hatred everywhere. Is this the way to treat our own people? Cutting up people, burning and killing them? As Gujaratis, how can we be proud of what happened to young girls and women in Gulberg society, in Naroda Pattiya?" These are the words of Prakashbhai, simple and reticent, but clear and firm in his convictions.
 

The clear-cut prayers of these families in their appeals to the Supreme Court are:

• A ban on future Ayodhya yatras, especially the one planned from October 15, 2003. (The appeal was filed before that date);
• Adequate reparation and compensation – material, psychological and physical – to all victims of the Godhra and post-Godhra violence, from the VHP, BJP, Gujarat government and railway ministry, irrespective of caste, creed and community and with total impartiality;
• Investigation into the source of funds and their utilisation by the VHP and the BJP received in the name of the Godhra victims;
• The immediate transfer of the Godhra inquiry, as also inquiries into the Naroda Pattiya, Gulberg and other major massacres, outside Gujarat and conducted in the immediate vicinity of the Supreme Court.

For over five-six months before the press conference in Mumbai, I, as a CJP representative, had met members of the aggrieved families to share their pain and sorrow. In the process, I developed an understanding of how simple and religious-minded Hindus were mobilized and how thereafter the tragedy itself and the trauma of the families of the deceased was cynically manipulated by the VHP-BJP-BD-RSS combine to justify the ‘retaliatory’ carnage that was orchestrated in Gujarat last year.
 

Listening to each one of them accounts reveals a tale of the cynical manipulation of basically good and honest people for a sinister political scheme that feeds on their individual loss, pain and suffering to conjure up an imagery of the perpetual victim (Hindu) of (Muslim) violence. The testimonies of the aggrieved families of the Godhra burning, contrast sharply with the utterances of saffron leaders on Godhra. There was pain, grief and sorrow in their accounts over the deaths of their near and dear ones. But there was no trace of hatred, no suggestion of ‘revenge’ against the entire community of Muslims. In fact they were categorical that the torching of the train at Godhra was the work of anti-socials who must be caught and severely punished but for which all Muslims must not be blamed.

This in sharp contrast to what VHP leader Togadia said in an interview to the Gujarati weekly, Hotline on March 2: "This has never happened in the history of independent India. Hindu society will avenge the Godhra killings. Muslims should accept the fact that Hindus are not wearing bangles. We will respond vigorously to all such incidents". It even stands in sharp contrast to Vajpayee’s speech in Goa in April: "Wherever there are Muslims, they do not want to live with others (who practise different faiths). Instead of living peacefully, they want to preach and propagate their religion by creating fear and terror in the minds of others.’’

The tragedy took place between 8 and 8.20 a.m. on February 27. The official version until 7 p.m. that day called the tragedy an "accident". In his official statement on the incident in Parliament at 2 p.m., Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee also described the tragedy as an accident. The collector of Panchmahal district, Ms Jayanti Ravi had maintained the same view throughout the day.

It was only after 7 p.m. that evening that Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi, began looking at the ‘ISI-conspiracy in Godhra’ theory. This was all that was needed to launch what was obviously a carefully orchestrated genocide in at least 16 of the 24 districts of the state. Thereafter, the image of the burnt S-6 coach and the bodies within were used and reused for mass mobilization, especially to harvest votes in the Gujarat state elections.

The way the Godhra inquiry is being conducted is in itself reason for the apex court to intervene and examine events. Dozens of people are arrested under POTA which was not even in force on the day of the tragedy. The Act, notified for Gujarat only the day after the tragedy, cannot be invoked against the Godhra accused.

Blatantly illegal methods of detention and injection of serum for questioning have been used by the authorities investigating the Godhra incident. Instead of keeping aloof from the investigation, the prosecution (the state of Gujarat) appears to be dictating the conduct of investigations (see accompanying story).

The family members of the Godhra victims are today openly challenging the calculated manipulation of the death of their near and dear ones to justify the massacre of a few thousand innocents. Their voices force us to re-visit Godhra and reflect on the tragedy that not only took 59 innocent lives, but was also used to butcher another 2,500 innocents. In the seemingly pointless cycles of violence and counter-violence that threaten peace today, voices such as these, if heeded, may help us reverse this cycle. For that to happen, however, enough of us have to be listening. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2003. Year 10, No. 92, Cover Story 1
 

The post Godhra revisited appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The interventions of the Supreme Court in the Best Bakery case so far have rejuvenated faith in the institutions of Indian democracy. But reparations for the genocide in Gujarat, punishment of the perpetrators and masterminds of mass violence and the putting in place of institutional safeguards against future crimes against humanity are not yet in sight
 

Nearly 19 months after the genocidal violence that rocked the western Indian state of Gujarat, searing questions that the tragedies have raised related to justice and rehabilitation remain completely unanswered. Issues of state accountability in instances of mass violence, independent policing, adequate reparation and the response of democratic institutions such as the judiciary to such crimes hang suspended in mid-air, as the proverbial shortness of public memory hampers the best efforts to keep some of these issues alive.
 

What happened after Gujarat 2002? The voluminous report of a Concerned Citizens Tribunal comprising of senior jurists and other prominent citizens recommended, among other things, the establishment of a Statutory National Crimes Tribunal that must evolve a new jurisprudence drawn from the International Law on genocide.1  It also argued for urgent reforms in the Indian police force. Drastic reforms in the Indian police system that included independence of the law and order machinery, and ensured representation and diversity had also been recommended as far back as 1981 by the officially-appointed National Police Commission.² 
 

Today, judicial matters related to the genocidal violence in Gujarat have been brought centre-stage through two pivotal cases currently being heard in the Supreme Court. The fact that this has happened at all is due in large measure to the initiatives taken by the statutory National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) since the justice process in the state was systematically de-railed.³  This has been backed by a gritty Mumbai-based citizens group, Citizens for Justice and Peace, that has set for itself the task of continuing the struggle for justice and reparation for the victim survivors, however tough or tortuous this effort may be.
 

Efforts are alive through these judicial interventions to move the criminal trials of the worst carnages outside the state of Gujarat.⁴  The argument for turning over both the investigation and conduct of the criminal inquiries to an area outside the control of chief minister Narendra Modi and the state administration under him has been made since the start of the carnage last year, both by the NHRC (April 2002), as also through several public interest litigations filed in the Supreme Court in April 2002 itself.⁵  If these had been heard judiciously and promptly by the apex court when it was first approached last year, concerns related to the utterly subverted and paralysed local atmosphere in the state of Gujarat would have been met and more promptly answered.
 

Unfortunately, the judicial record in dealing with such mass community-driven carnages remains pathetic. Sikh widow survivors of the 1984 pogrom against their community in the country’s capital following the assassination of former prime minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards continue the battle in vain for justice that evades them even 19 years later⁶ .
 

Similarly, Muslim family members of the 53 young males shot dead in cold blood in Meerut-Hashimpura, a town in western Uttar Pradesh, in 1989 still hope that justice will be done⁷ .
 

The recent conviction of Dara Singh and associates for the burning alive of Christian pastor Graham Staines and his two sons in January 1999 in Orissa is a rare case of a sessions court punishing those guilty of communally driven crimes.
 

Most pertinently, the attempts of these and many more such survivors to see justice done decades after the crime are living testimonies to the fact that human beings need to believe and find justice for unspeakable crimes before peace and reconciliation can be brought about. A failure to respond to this cry for justice renders a system vulnerable; torn from within by festering wounds and hurts that do not heal but in fact create their attendant aberrations. This is the unfortunate reality in India today.
 

The sensation created by young Zahira Shaikh’s brave admissions at a press conference in Mumbai (July 7, 2003) recounting the threats, intimidation and manipulation that she and her family was subjected to and that resulted in the witnesses lying in court and the acquittal of all the accused, propelled the NHRC into appealing to the Supreme Court of India for a retrial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat. This was a rare step taken by the NHRC. (see CC, July 2003).
 

Though fact-finding reports and media exposures had dealt with political manipulation by the Modi government in its dealings with the police and the appointment of pliant public prosecutors, it was only after the Best Bakery issue brought matters centre-stage that their conduct has begun to be closely scrutinised.
 

In another related matter taken up by the NHRC, Bilkees Yakoob Rasool, a victim of sexual violence, was given special legal assistance when the NHRC referred her case to prominent lawyer Harish Salve. Here, too, the SC issued notice to the Gujarat government, pulling up the state police for improper investigations. This is one of the rare cases of an FIR being registered in the matter of sexual assault and violence in Gujarat. Over 150 such cases have been reported but these crimes do not even figure in police records.
 

Not merely that. Nine other ongoing investigations and trials, including the Godhra investigation, are also marked by similar threats and intimidation of witnesses and subversion of evidence. In the Ode (Anand district) trial where over 23 persons were massacred, key eye-witnesses have not been examined.

The Best Bakery case apart, in the nine other major carnages where the judicial process is still on, the subversive manner of investigation and the continuing threats and intimidation of witnesses bode ill for the process of justice. 
 

In the Gulberg society massacre, it was only after the outrage generated by the Best Bakery case that the repeated complaints of eye-witnesses about threats and intimidation by the Ahmedabad city crime branch have been taken seriously.⁸ 

Since November 2002, witnesses in the Gulberg case have been petitioning and making written applications for proper investigations, also complaining that proper statements have not been recorded. There is no response from the authorities and the matter keeps getting adjourned.
 

In short, the Best Bakery case apart, in the nine other major carnages where the judicial process is still on, the subversive manner of investigation and the continuing threats and intimidation of witnesses bode ill for the process of justice.9  These issues were comprehensively brought up before the apex court during the last hearing on October 17, 2003 and the Gujarat government has finally been forced to respond to them substantially.
 

Despite being severely exposed in the public eye in the Best Bakery incident, the Gujarat government waited until after the NHRC had moved the Supreme Court of India (August 1, 2003) before it filed an appeal against the acquittals in the sessions court in Vadodara (August 7, 2003). In between, on August 5, 2003, the Gujarat Bar Association passed a unanimous requisition against the NHRC’s moving the SC and demanded that the former withdraw its special leave petition! The frivolous nature of the appeal that did not even make the prayer for a re-trial led Chief Justice VN Khare to pass severe oral strictures against the government on September 12. Clearly this appeal in the High Court was being used as a tactical ploy to limit the SC’s interventions. During the hearing on October 9, the SC appointed senior counsel and former solicitor general of India, Harish Salve, as amicus curae (friend of the court) to assist the court on the points that had arisen.
 

During this ongoing battle two affidavits were filed by the Teesta Setalvad of the CJP. The astounding facts contained in them made Salve point these out to the court on October 17. While one related to the highly suspect nature of the ongoing investigations in nine major massacres, the other related to three major carnages in which acquittals had taken place in October 2002 and yet the state of Gujarat had not even appealed against these judgements.
 

In what were clearly three of the worst carnages—87 persons were burnt alive in the Limadiya Chowkey, Kidiad, incident, while over 70 persons were butchered and burned in two separate carnages in Pandharwada village, Panchmahal district—the Gujarat government effectively ensured acquittals of all the accused, through the appointment of public prosecutors with questionable political backgrounds and wilfully negligent investigations.
 

In all three instances, senior and elected functionaries of the BJP are indicted as accused. (In the Kidiad incident, the elected BJP MLA, Kalubhai Hirabhai Maliwad has been named as the main mastermind of the massacre).10  The malafide intent of the state can be gauged from the fact that no appeals have been filed by the Gujarat government for over a year.
 

The conduct, or misconduct, of the Gujarat government has been brought centre-stage before the Supreme Court, through the NHRC’s writ petition and transfer petition, and the special leave petition and impleadment applications filed by the CJP. It is to be hoped that when the apex court begins to deal with the issues raised in these and related matters, a comprehensive look and intervention of the consequences of the state-wide genocide becomes possible.
 

Without this, the struggle for justice to the victim-survivors of the Gujarat genocide remains narrowed down today. The weight of the system being battled against places the painful choice before the petitioners of picking and choosing the cases even in their struggle for justice. With the magnitude of what happened in Gujarat receding from public memory; the legal battles being waged today are constrained to be limited to getting justice for only those victim-survivors of the carnage where over a dozen persons were butchered and slaughtered.
 

What of the individual innocent victims, such as minors who were shot dead by an unaccountable police? What of the girls and women who were killed after brutal sexual violence? What about those who somehow survived and are now forced to live in the same villages where the crimes were committed?¹¹ 

^{Courtesy: indiatoday.in}
 

What of the 10,000-odd homes that were destroyed so thoroughly that the pathetic Rs 5,000–Rs 40,000 paid in compensation – that too, only to a fortunate few – is barely enough to pick up the threads and start living again? What about the reparation for the businesses destroyed and the agricultural lands seized? Despite the fact that the Prime Minister had announced Rs 150 crore in central aid for victim survivors, the Gujarat government remains adamant in not even disbursing the available, though highly insufficient funds.¹² 
 

No less than 1,16,000 persons were internal refugees, thrown out of home and hearth, living in relief camps for over seven months last year. During this period, the Gujarat government refused to give them food, water and medicines despite their constitutional obligation to bear the cost of this internal displacement. Here again, it took legal interventions in the Gujarat High Court before the government was forced to act. Two writ petitions were supported by CJP, which included flying down a senior lawyer from Mumbai since the atmosphere was so communally surcharged in the state that few wanted to appear in defence of victims from the minority community!¹³  As a result of this legal intervention, at least Rs 10 crore had to be paid out from the State government coffers to the relief camp organisers.
 

It was the incident of the mass burning of 58 passengers on board the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express, returning from the temple town of Ayodhya, which was used to justify the mass crimes committed in the state-wide carnage that claimed no less than 2,500 lives and economically and culturally crippled the Muslim minority. (The economic loss to the community was estimated at no less than Rs 4,000 crore and this did not include irreparable damage to or loss of homes and agricultural lands that have been usurped after Muslims fled the villages where they were a small minority).
 

The reason that the well-tested term genocide was used by us¹⁴  and later the Concerned Citizens Tribunal to sum up what happened in Gujarat was because these and other jurisprudentially tested criteria for genocide were evident in the crimes against humanity in Gujarat. No less than 200-300 Muslim women were subjected to brutal sexual violence and no less that 270 mosques and durgahs (religious and religio-cultural shrines) were desecrated and then destroyed.
 

The calculated and state-sponsored attempt to ravage the dignity of a community was evident. Article 2 c) of the UN convention on genocide specifies – "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Therefore, the fact that every single Muslim was not forced to flee for threat of slaughter (sic) is no defence against the genocide charge, as attempted both by the Gujarat chief minister and his close supporters among the top echelons of the BJP leadership in New Delhi that leads the National Democratic Alliance government.
 

Hate speech and hate writing not merely preceded the carnage but actually made the carnage possible. The violence in Gujarat in 2002 was preceded for some months by the systematic distribution of poisonous material, some anonymous, that systematically spewed hatred and venom against the Muslim minority in the state. Even during the orgy of violence, thousands of these pamphlets could be found. Some advocating systematic economic boycott of Muslims even carried the address of an office of the VHP15 . Others that were even more graphic and vicious advocated mutilation and rape.¹⁶ 

The issue of hate speech and its intent, and the non-prosecution of offenders, is the subject matter of one of the writ petitions filed in the apex court. Speeches made by Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi and the VHP’s working president, Ashok Singhal, were brought to the attention of the court. As is only to be expected, no FIRs have been registered or investigations launched against either of the two personalities. The attitude of our authorities and democratic institutions to the abuse of freedom and perpetration of hate speech has become pivotal in the struggle for a peaceful and sane polity.¹⁷ 
 

Many of these issues will remain alive as the battle continues in the Supreme Court for justice. The petitioners will try their best to ensure that various aspects of the state-sponsored genocide get addressed by the Supreme Court of India. Many hopes have been raised by the proceedings so far. It is to be hoped that the institutions of democratic India will live up to them.

Refrences

 1 Crimes Against Humanity, Volume II, Long Term Recommendations – Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report; Tribunal headed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer and with members like Justice PB Sawant, Justice Hosbet Suresh, KG Kannabiran, KS Subramaniam, Aruna Roy, Tanika Sarkar, and Ghanshyam Shah.

 2 Ibid; section on Recommendations—Police

 3 NHRC Report and Recommendations during and after last year’s carnage in Gujarat proved particularly embarrassing for the State

 4 Plea in the SLP filed by the NHRC, dated August 1, 2003 and the SLP(Criminal) filed by CJP, Teesta Setalvad and Zahira Shaikh dated August 8, 2003 in the Supreme Court of India

 5 Two petitions filed by DN Pathak and others and Mallika Sarabhai and others prayed for the transfer of key cases to the CBI and Investigations in these through this Independent agency

 6 Darpan Kaur, a Sikh widow who lost 12 family members and even filed a First Information Report with the police against former Congress minister HKL Bhagat was first offered a bribe of Rs 25 lakhs and when she refused, was even beaten brutally. She has refused to give in.

 7 The FIR in this crime was filed by a police officer of the rank of SP in his own name, Vibhuti Narain Rai who today is the IG of Uttar Pradesh

 8 Affidavits filed by witnesses in the Supreme Court give details of this

 9 Second affidavit filed in the SC by Teesta Setalvad on October 17, 2003 enlists the details

 10 Teesta Setalvad’s affidavit, as Secretary CJP, in the Supreme Court of India which was mentioned by amicus curae, Harish Salve and to which the Gujarat government have been directed to file a reply by October 31, 2003

 11 CCT, Volume II, Short Term Recommendations of Reparation, Relief and Rehabilitation

 12 A pending PIL filed by Vijay Tendulkar of the CJP demands an account of the fund disbursal and the establishment of a joint committee to monitor funds and their distribution. This is still pending.

 13 Aspi Chinoy along with Suhel Tirmizi argued the matter for over five hours before the Judge actually appointed a committee and thereafter passed orders that made the state government liable to make good the damages to the organisers of relief camps.

 14 Communalism Combat’s special issue was entitled Gujarat genocide 2002, March-April 2002

 15 Pamphlet Poison, Gujarat Genocide 2002, Communalism Combat March-April 2002

 16 Ibid

 17 The criminal writ petition against Narendra Modi and Ashok Singhal has been filed by Alyque Padamsee, Valjibhai Patel, BG Verghese and Teesta Setalvad and is still pending.

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2003. Year 10, No. 92, Cover Story 2
 

The post The Long road to justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shubradeep Chakrovarty
 
Why is the VHP so disturbed by my film Godhra Tak—The Terror Trail? asks independent film-maker Shubradeep Chakrovarty, who had to face saffron wrath when he organised a press screening of his film in Ahmedabad recently.

"There is no previous video documentation of the trail of terror, of the behaviour of the kar sevaks to and from Faizabad. In this documentary, I tried to follow the entire route of the first batch of kar sevaks from Gujarat to Ayodhya and back. We documented the terror unleashed by them en route and also the incidents at Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002.
 

"In fact, one of the kar sevaks, Maheshbhai Jayantilal Shah, admits on camera that kar sevaks misbehaved at Rudauli and that their subsequent behaviour at Godhra was provocative. Maheshbhai is not any kar sevak. His name is in the list of witnesses produced by the prosecution and therefore he cannot be disowned. The kar sevaks’ misconduct is all documented in the video format, including the stabbings by kar sevaks at Vadodara after the Godhra tragedy. Visual documentation cannot be denied, it has its own power and reach and this is what disturbs the VHP.
 

"The Godhra incident itself has been scientifically de-constructed in the film. Dr VN Sehgal, who was professionally engaged by me to investigate the topography, build-up, scientific details of the Godhra incident, is a top-rate professional. He is former director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi and a member of Interpol. In the film, I explored with him the merits of the conspiracy theory given by the prosecution and VHP alike.
 

"Dr Sehgal demonstrates in elaborate detail how it was physically impossible for 60 litres of inflammable liquid, necessary for a fire of this intensity, to have been flung by the crowd of Muslims gathered around Signal Falia where the train had stopped. (Incidentally, the Ahmedabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory had also reached a similar conclusion earlier). He also explains that the nature of the fire suggested that it was caused by petrol and that this petrol was stored between seats 46 and 72 of the compartment since that portion of the compartment floor is badly gutted. Why petrol was being transported at all is a question that remains unanswered".
 

Incidentally, the one-hour film also has interviews with Praveen Togadia, (international general secretary, VHP), Vinay Katiyar (BJP president, UP) and Dr. Jaydeep Patel (general secretary, VHP Gujarat) and kar sevaks.
 

After completing the film, Chakrovarty held private screenings in Delhi and also at the recent South Asia Film Festival in Kathmandu. On October 20, 2003 a similar private screening, planned at Hotel Nalanda on Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad was prevented after the hotel owners received threats from the VHP. The venue was then shifted to Khet Bhavan where a group of 10 VHP activists also sat through the screening. But immediately thereafter, led by a VHP activist who is a doctor by profession, they abused and threatened the film-maker. The film-makers ordeal continued for over half-an-hour in front of the press. He was then forcibly made to speak to a senior VHP leader in Ahmedabad who fortunately asked that Chakrovarty be allowed to go. But over the next days attempts were made through various channels in Ahmedabad to seize the tapes and CDs of the film. Chakrovarty had to escape to Mumbai where Communalism Combat organised a press screening of his film on October 23, 2003.
 

Interestingly, thousands of cassettes depicting the sangh parivar’s version of the truth behind Godhra have been shown around in Gujarat and across the country to justify the post-Godhra violence. They were also used to garner electoral support in the Assembly polls in Gujarat last year. These cassettes not only depict unsubstantiated versions but also generate ill-will between communities. But in no part of the country have they attracted the long-arm of the law.
 

Copies of the film are now available on VHS. Inquiries can be made at shubhradeep@rediffmail.com, or at sabang@vsnl.com

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2003. Year 10, No. 92, Cover Story 3
.

The post Godhra: Who’s afraid of facing facts? appeared first on SabrangIndia.