It was during tea with Zakia appa – where she tussled with her daughter-in-law about how many biscuits she could have – or the little meals we shared, where she would just hold my hand and stroke it, reaching out with empathy and mutual support. These are the memories that coming rushing back. It is as if we both knew and felt the enormity of the task we had jointly undertaken.

When we look back and take stock of the steely support from Tanveer bhai, Duraiappa (Durreshwar), Nargis, Najid bhai, the family and, not to forget, the dedicated team at Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), we couldn’t have known where it would lead – to some cracks in the otherwise hostile and unbreachable walls of accountability and justice? Or a cold rejection of a simple, hitherto unique plea –acknowledgement of the role of state actors as a murderous mob roamed unchecked for days?

February 28, 2002

I had first walked in alone into the charred remains of the Gulbarg society on March 4, 2002, armed with a small tape recorder and a notebook. Shards of broken glass bottles, tiny vials and their lids dotted the ground as I trudged across the eerie expanse where embers still burned.

No fire-brigade had come to its aid either on February 28 or at any point since then. I made my way to house number 19, Ahsan Jafri’s iconic home, heavy with the knowledge of what we knew until then of the man, his family, neighbours and his brutal death.

The home was no home any more, reduced to a haunting shell. It was bleak. Walls blackened with soot of the intense burning caused by flung gas cylinders. Fans gutted, gnarled and twisted. Miraculously, I found a signed postcard stamped with Jafri Sahab’s name, a diya-swastika and ‘Happy Diwali’ message written on it, on the stairwell – my precious memento of that first of dozens of visits.

A purple-pink bougainvillea that still lends defiant colour to the sombre ruins hung that day with barely surviving leaves and some overhanging blossoms. It had survived hours of mass arson. How could the flowers live on after the hell of February 28, 2002, I remember asking myself in some bewilderment.

Ironically, Zakia appa had spent that night of February 28 in the premises of the Shahibaug police station barely two kms away from the Gulbarg society in Chamanpura. She was alone. Only the next day was she shifted to the home of some distant relatives where she met her son Tanveer Jafri two days later.

Chamanpura falls under the Meghaninagar police station. Traumatised and shaken by the events that she witnessed from the terrace of her home, she was unable to sleep, full of anguished questions to which she had to find answers. Zakia appa has recounted that night to me several times over the years.  She had spent the night haunted by cries and screams of a gory bloodshed – in the midst of the very same force who she saw had let her people down.

Eighty-six years, the day before yesterday, when she left us, Zakia appa was 63 in 2002, no age to hear the cries she did, no age to witness what her eyes could not turn away from. Over 69 persons were killed in cold blood that day as a 15,000-strong mob began attacking residents at 11 in the morning. No police help arrived till 6 pm.

Late that night, in the precincts of the Shahibaug police lines, she found several policemen present in their homes on the compound. Perplexed, her simple query to them was, “Why did you not come to my husband, my society, our neighbour’s rescue beta? We made so many calls” she asked. “We were given the day off,” one police officer casually replied.

This reply by one of them has gnawed at her, since. On June 18, 2009, six years later, she recounted this to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court. In her official statement, she said “…No police turned up and the police came only at six in the evening and I was taken to Shahibaug police line. I saw that the police staff were present at home. They told me that they were not called for duty today (that day).”

Who was Ahsan Jafri?

Zakia appa’s husband of several decades, father of their three children, Tanveer, Nargis and Zubair had been the sole target of the mob. He was 72 when he was killed. Formerly with the Communist Party of India (CPI), he was later the city chief of the Indian National Congress in Ahmedabad, and a formerly elected member of parliament. Ahsan Jafri was a lawyer, thinker and poet.

If the ‘Happy Diwali’ postcard I had found offered a glimpse of the man – whose name soars above and beyond the hatred that was unleashed on the streets of Gujarat in 2002 – then Zakia appa’s moistened eyes, quivering smile and warm hands, Tanveer’s stoic clarity amidst pain and Nargis’ powerful articulations over two decades have actualised Jafri’s inviolable moral core and persona. In the Jafris’ resolve to calmly demand accountability from the high and mighty, Zakia appa, Tanveer and Nargis have always echoed Ahsan sahab’s deeply ingrained beliefs, his credo.

I first met Tanveer through his uncle in early March 2002. It had been Tanveer’s task to hold and help his mother heal even as he went back to Gulbarg society, his childhood home, around March 4. He had rushed to Ahmedabad from Surat where he resided. It was Tanveer who lovingly collected the remains of Ahsan sahab from outside their home, more from the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and laid his father to some peace and rest.

Zakia appa now lies there with her husband, friend and guide, after she had come as a young bride to Ahmedabad from Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh. Though there had been nothing peaceful about Jafri’s passing. The utterly stoic and adamant refusal of the Jafris to let go of their belief in the India that Ahsan sahab lived and died for, is special and rare.

Zakia appa and the Jafris turned their back on any bitterness born out of the realisation that even their neighbours had joined the mob on February 28. This is what made Zakia appa stand out with her children, as the stellar human rights defender she was.

She inspired millions, including us, and if there is some consolation today, 22 years after the massacre, it lies in the fact that a complicit media has had no choice but to reflect this in the coverage of her demise. For me personally, as a fellow human rights worker who has stood by the Jafri’s through every legal battle since February 28, 2002 – notwithstanding what it cost me personally and our team at CJP – it has been a rare privilege to embark on this unique journey.

Quiet dignity

Zakia appa had been a young mother, and Tanveer just six years of age, in September 1969, when Gujarat experienced the worst communal violence that the country had seen since Partition. Ahmedabad was the most acutely affected epicentre of the statewide violence.

A vast majority of the nearly 500 persons killed then were also Muslims. Ahsan Jafri lived in Dr Gandhini chawl, a tenement near Gulbarg society with his parents and family. He had already registered the Gulbarg society earlier in 1961 and it was under construction.

As the violence spread, young Tanveer watched in horror as Aiyub bhai’s shop was burned down. Why was this happening, they asked? Soon, there was no time for more questions, they just had to flee. Returning home in panic, Jafri sahab guided his family as they ran two-and-a-half kms down a railway track – the Asarva Udaipur railway line – past the rail crossing. There, some SRP vans came to their rescue and they were taken inside the Relief Camp located inside the police stadium at the same Shahibaug location where Zakia appa was to spend that fateful night of February 28, 2002, 33 years later.

Tanveer remembers playing out in the open and queuing up for tea which they drank in brightly coloured plastic glasses, a novelty at the time. “We lived there for a month, then for another month inside Ubair Shaikh’s Dunlop agency-cycle shop and after that moved into the barely constructed House No. 19 of Gulbarg society. There were no doors and windows, we used sheets to cover sight and sound. Despite this displacement and tragedy, even the fact that all our belongings had been burned and destroyed, Abba just did not let this mean anything to us, did not allow this loss to eat at us,” Tanveer recalls.

“How we lived, how he lived (Ahsan sahab) after the 1969 displacement, is how we have tried to regroup ourselves and live after the unforgettable tragedy of 2002,” says Tanveer. “Dangai hamaaree soch nahin badal sakte hai. Agar aisa hoga to dangaeeon kee jeet hai. Hamaara nuksaan hamen badal nahin sakta. (Rioters cannot change our way of thinking. If that happens, they win. Our losses cannot change us.) They cannot change our choices, the way we are or how we we think. It is this conviction that has ensured that the tragedy of 2002 does not change us,” he adds.

This profound resolve and dignity in the face of unspeakable loss is what epitomises Zakia appa and her family. It is this dignity that she brought to her battle for justice and accountability.

22 years in grief

Zakia appa lived for 22 years after her husband’s brutal killing in deep personal grief, battling sleepless nights and guilt – the guilt of surviving. Her beloved Ahsan sahab had sent her to the top storey of her home to safety, where dozens with her were saved, while many others perished. Those who stood by Ahsan till he finally gave himself up to the mob, just after he said his last prayer, were witness to his calm fortitude, his determined and desperate efforts to make calls (including to the high and mighty) and even his willingness to offer himself to the mob if other lives could be saved.

For the blood-thirsty and determined mob, that was not to be. Apart from the particularly brute way of his killing, young women were subject to gendered violence. To repeat, 69 persons lost their lives at just one location in Gujarat that day. The total number of the post Godhra killings – if we peruse official charge sheets – is close to 2,000.

Zakia appa’s guilt of being alive is evident in an unrelated incident that Nargis recounted in a letter, ‘Bless Us Abba’, in 2016.

“Ammi is never tired of recounting the incident when in the bedroom of your old house while you were sleeping, the small kerosene lamp on the side of the bed fell off and the curtain caught fire. You were sleeping on the side of the fire and Ammi was next to you. As the heat woke you up and you saw the fire, instead of jumping out of the bed immediately, you first woke Ammi up and asked her to get to safety. But when she woke up and saw the fire, she thinks she quickly jumped out of bed and ran to the door without even knowing where you were or what you were trying to tell her. It is more than 40 years since, but she still remembers and regrets that incident and feels guilty of putting herself first that day and not grabbing your hand as she ran to the door.”

I met Nargis for the first time in 2002 in the United States, as I deposed before the International Commission on Religious Freedom. I had that copy of Communalism Combat with me, a testimony of all the eye-witness accounts and FIRs. With swollen eyes, this young woman had only one question to ask me, was the killing of her darling Abba as brutal as she had heard? Lowering my head in shame, I half shook, half nodded, trying to conceal both the documents and facts. It was not to be.

Bearing witness carries an unbearable load. I have often wondered, even as Nargis and I spoke, laughed and squabbled over the years, “Has she ever forgiven me?”

On Saturday (February 1), as I stood inside Saraspur Roza in Ahmedabad, Nargis said, as she held my hand, “She is free now, my Ma. Free of the pain.” Then together we cried.

Journey for justice

Mass media, especially one that has become fearful and complicit, is selective in its coverage and often responsible for erasure of history. But Zakia Appa and Ahsan sahab’s sheer moral worth and the grit of her battle just could not be ignored. This is evidenced from the vast coverage of her demise. But what of the fact that the same coverage is de-fanged and de-contextualised? Especially when it chooses to ignore the venality of the state and the attempted decimation of a principled legal battle. From the start, attempts were made to dilute and erase the scale of the violence, not just across Gujarat after Godhra in 2002, but especially the targeted violence at the Gulberg Society and against Ahsan Jafri on February 28, 2002.

The journey for justice and accountability for the survivors of 2002 has seen its up and downs and as I take stock two days after Zakia appa left us, I wonder if  the glass half empty or half full? Was it all worth it? In all, we, at CJP,  collectively managed 172 convictions, 124 to life imprisonment. Never mind that higher courts often reversed decisions. On principle, we stood against death penalty.

Evidence of state complicity, absence of fire brigades and police response, documentary evidence on intelligence and police control records, was ignored by investigating agencies, and unfortunately, even our courts. Yet, the exemplary efforts put in by our band of dedicated human rights workers and lawyers, we managed to put all this substantive investigations on public record, all this evidence for history to judge.

While the Zakia Jafri case has seen its end, the trial in the Gulbarg society massacre is pending appeal in the Gujarat high court. On June 17, 2016, the trial court judge had convicted 11 persons to life while 13 other accused received sentences up to ten years. All charges of conspiracy were rejected, as was the evidence of three police witnesses, fire brigade records and those from the police control room. As Tanveer, in his own special way says it, “Victory in the courts is only half the story. In the annals of people’s recall and history, that we fought, that Ahsan sahab and Zakia appa are an inspiration to millions, that our collective battle has given others the confidence to fight; that we could through CJP put all this wealth of evidentiary material on record, that is our victory.”

In sum, as I said in tribute to Zakia appa, the day before yesterday, “You graced the courts, our homes and hearts. You did so with unwavering fortitude. Theirs is the loss who could not recognise the scale and magnitude of the loss for just what it was.” For the Jaffris and us, at CJP, who handed over 68 cases concerning the Gujarat carnage, despite all efforts, the state has never fully succeeded in curtailing some substantive successes of the wider battle.

As a footnote, I would like to record here what Zakia Appa, Tanveer, and I often discussed over the years: how high the costs have been, especially for some. For us at CJP, the stellar legal aid provided by our teams epitomises a constitutional right under Article 39-A, and at significant cost, we undertook this battle. Our trustees stood in staunch support. Alongside a committed group of High Court and Supreme Court counsel, we owe a special debt to advocate Suhel Tirmizi of the Gujarat High Court. His sacrifice, commitment, and services were invaluable – not only in being the guiding force behind setting up multiple legal teams of senior and junior lawyers to handle various trials, but specifically in the Zakia Jafri case. From 2006 to 2011, when the case first reached the Supreme Court, his contribution has been immense, and the personal costs he paid, heavy. We pay our tributes to him. There are too many lawyers – at the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court – to mention here, but their efforts have been equally vital.

I end with this powerful poem penned by Farahdeen Khan and sent to be my dear friend Rukmini, who recognised how personal this loss was for me.

The Betrayal of Fire

She stood, a woman forged in the furnace of grief,

a widow not of one, but of a thousand souls,

each name etched in ash, in silence, in the acrid smoke

that curled from the pyres of justice undone.

Zakia, they left you among ruins, among bones

that the earth itself shuddered to cradle.

They call this nation a mother, but what mother devours

her daughters and spits their bones to the wind?

The gavel did not fall—it was hurled,

a cudgel masquerading as law.

Each robed man who turned his back

added another brick to the mausoleum of truth.

And what of the one who stood beside her?

Teesta, shackled for daring to bear witness,

for daring to say what history chokes on,

for dragging the carcass of conscience into the light.

What price for remembrance, for defiance?

A cell, a charge, a silence enforced—

For in this land, to fight for the fallen

is to fall yourself, and fall alone.

Tell me, you who avert your gaze—

what use is your silk, your scented wealth,

when the very soil beneath your feet

stinks of the unburied dead?

You recoil now, do you not?

Once, you drank with me, laughed with me,

shared in the hollow spoils of comfort.

But truth is a bitter draught, and you spit it out.

Yet I will stand, though my voice be drowned

by the thunder of cowardice and complicity.

For to be silent is to wield the knife,

to be neutral is to be an accomplice.

And so, when the reckoning comes—

not in the courts of men, but in the halls of time—

she will rise, they will rise,

and those who failed them will find no name to call their own.

Teesta Setalvad is a rights activist and journalist.

This article was first published on The Wire

The post Zakia Jaffri, with her compassion and resilience inspired millions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In India, public memory is notoriously short. Jagran was among the first media groups Prime Minister Modi had chosen to speak to after becoming the prime minister. And the links of sections of the Indian, read Hindi media to the supremacist Hindutva right has been historic.

Not so long ago, in September 2016, the newspaper’s questionable reportage of the outbreak of intra-community (read Hindu-Muslim) tensions in UP was widely criticised.

As is not uncommon, an incident of eve teasing of girls became the cause of group violence. But it was the fashion of reportage of this incident that has come into question. Dainik Jagran wrote,

“A distance from Bijnor town, when some girl students, who catch the school bus every day face eve-teadsing. Youth from the minority community have been indulging in eve-teasing for some days now. Last Friday, again conflict broke out over eve teasing and as the conflict escalated, there was stone throwing and even gun shots were fired. Ahsan (32) died of gun shots while Aneesuddin (50) and Sarfaraz (22) died on the way to hospital.” (All names of males who died are Muslim names, easily identifiable).

The newspaper Jagran was clearly being the spokesperson of only one section of citizens, the Hindus. It wrote further, relying on ‘sources from the police,’ that, in fact, “ it was two girls, standard ten student from the minority, who were harassed and stalked by the youth and family members of one Sansar Singh that led to the conflict. The conflict resulted in three dead and 12 injured.” This manner of partisan reporting has been the bane of Indian journalism that has gone unchecked even before and during times of acute anti-minority pogroms. We have in India a Press Council of India that is mandated to act, but does so extremely sparingly.

As the ‘story’ unfolded one thing became clear: two Muslim girls were teased by Hindu Jat boys on September 17, 2016, while on their way to school. The boys are said to belong to the family of a Jat hegemon in the village. When the girl's family went to the Jat hegemon's home to complain about the eve-teasing, they were fired upon from the roof of the fortified house, in a brazen display of power. One member of the girls' family was killed on the spot.

The assault did not end there. The next morning, a mob of around 100 people attacked the girls' home and as many as 17 members of the Muslim family were badly injured in the violence. Three of the injured died later and a fourth, Rizwan, who works in a hair cutting saloon in Delhi and who was injured severely with bullet injuries in his neck, and thereafter succumbed to his injuries. In all, four people, including a woman, were killed in the violence, all Muslims. The fact that all the deceased and the injured belong to one family is proof that the girls' family had only gone to beseech the elders of the deviant boys to rein them in, rather than express any community driven sentiment.
 
Clearly fair reportage was not the newspaper’s aim. The tendencies in large circulating newspapers to play the sinister political tune of the Hindutva right goes back decades, heightened during the aggressive mobilisation of the majoritarian right in the mid 1980s.

 These observations by the late media analyst Praful Bidwai, in Communalism Combat, August 1997, bear recall. The article was in an issue of the journal that was assessing 50 Years of Indian Secularism, titled, “Media in Service of Communalism”

Bidwai writes, “One of the most important— and yet among the saddest-changes to have occurred in the Indian media over the past 50 years is its communalisation, or at least, its opening up to communal influences as never before. The respectability that Hindutva has acquired among the upper and middle class elite of the despicable Ram temple campaign culminating in the destruction of the Babri mosque in December 1992, and in horrific pogroms and riots the following month, would have been quite inconceivable without the media’s complicity with and soft line on the sangh combine.

“ It is also a fact of no mean consequence that the top journalists and columnists of India’s largest-circulation English-language magazine are not just BJP sympathisers, but hardcore RSS supporters, no less. Today, in most English-language newspapers and magazines-to a discussion of which this article is largely confined-pro-BJP articles, stories and leaders far out-number those that are strongly secular or liberal and left-wing in character.

“This is a far cry from the early years of independence when the mainstream English-language press would treat the Jana Sangh, and in particular the RSS, as politically unacceptable, and as part of the lunatic fringe, far beyond the secular-democratic pale. This was only partly because of the trauma of Partition which witnessed the unfolding of the horrible consequences of communalism (of which the BJP is a legatee) and the assassination of Gandhi (the work, clearly and self-confessedly, of Hindutva).

It was also because the RSS Jana Sangh was seen as a fundamentally intolerant parochial force that threatened unity, social cohesion and nation-building much in the way casteism or linguistic-regional chauvinism did.”

It is this trend, that has crept in which is today sharp and heightened with aggressive corporate control. Under Modi, there has been an effort for ultra-hegemonisation of an already emasculated reality.

The post Dainik Jagran, UP Elections, Bijnor and More appeared first on SabrangIndia.

मुस्लिम उम्मीदवारों के खिलाफ मुस्लिम उम्मीदवार उतारने की रणनीति में मुख्यधारा की राजनीतिक पार्टियां माहिर रही हैं। भाजपा अध्यक्ष अमित शाह और उनकी पार्टी मुस्लिम वोटों में बंटवारे के जरिये अपने वोट बैंक को मजबूत कर रही है। दलितों और आदिवासियों के एक वर्ग के साथ तालमेल बिठाना एक अन्य रणनीति है।

यह पहली दफा नहीं है कि बीजेपी ने मुस्लिमों के प्रति सांप्रदायिक और घृणा की राजनीति की रणनीति अपनाई है। 2014 के लोकसभा चुनाव में मीडिया भाजपा की सबका साथ, सबका विकास की रणनीति को जोर-शोर से पेश करता रहा। पूरे देश में भाजपा इस नारे के साथ वोटरों के पास गई। लेकिन यूपी में घृणा और सांप्रदायिकता की भाषा बोली जाती रही। बेजीपी के स्टार प्रचारक अमित शाह और गोरखपुर के सांसद आदित्यनाथ घृणा की भाषा बोलते रहे। इस तरह बहुसंख्यक वोटरों की गोलबंदी होती रही।

बीजेपी का एक बार फिर इस पुरानी रणनीति पर लौटना उसकी हताशा और घबराहट को जाहिर करता है। यूपी चुनाव की जमीनी हकीकत ने उसकी पतली हालत जाहिर कर दी है।

28 जनवरी को बीजेपी ने अपना चुनावी घोषणापत्र जारी (released) किया। इसमें लोकलुभावन योजनाओं और विकास के वादों के साथ नफरत भरी बातें हैं। पार्टी ने एक बार फिर पश्चिम उत्तर प्रदेश के कैराना (exodus of Hindus ) से हिंदुओं के कथित पलायन का मुद्दा उठाया था। 2013 के मुजफ्फरनगर दंगों की वजह पूरे पश्चिमी उत्तर प्रदेश का जबरदस्त सांप्रदायिक ध्रुवीकरण हो चुका है। मुजफ्फरनगर के दंगों के बाद हजारों मुस्लिमों का पलायन हुआ लेकिन भाजपा के चुनाव घोषणापत्र में इस मामले पर बिल्कुल चुप्पी है।
हां, बूचड़खानों पर रोक लगाने, हिंदू तीर्थों के लिए हेलीकॉप्टर सेवा और अयोध्या में राम मंदिर बनाने का वादा जरूर किया गया है। यह कहते हुए कि मंदिर बनाने का काम संवैधानिक ढांचे के तहत किया जाएगा। घोषणापत्र जारी होने के तुरंत बाद अमित शाह ने  ( followed ) एक इंटरव्यू में कहा कि लड़कियों को लुभाने वालों से बचाने के लिए वह एंटी रोमियो स्कवाड बनाएंगे। (गुजरात में बाबू बजरंगी 1990 से 2008 और इसके बाद बेधड़क होकर यह काम करता रहा है)।

कइयों का मानना है बीजेपी ने एंटी रोमियो स्कवाड बनाने की बात कर उन मुस्लिम युवाओं के ‘लव जेहाद’ के खिलाफ अभियान चलाने की बात की है जो हिंदू लड़कियों को कथित तौर पर लुभाने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं। इसके बाद बीजेपी के ही विधायक सुरेश राना ने दावा ( claimed ) किया कि अगर वह जीते तो कैराना और मुरादाबाद जैसे मुस्लिम इलाकों में कर्फ्यू लग जाएगा।

क्या यूपी में बीजेपी को कुछ नहीं सूझ रहा है? यूपी के चुनावी परिदृश्य पर नजर रखने वालों  (observers )का कहना है कि जमीनी हकीकत तो यह है तमाम बहादुरी दिखाने और बड़ी-बड़ी बातों के बावजूद नोटबंदी ने बीजेपी के जनाधार पर करारी चोट की है। हाल में हुई एक सभा में शाहजहांपुर ( कॉमर्शियल मीडिया ने यह खबर दबा दी) में जब बीजेपी के स्टार प्रचारक ने नोटबंदी को सही ठहराना शुरू किया तो गुस्साए गांव वालों ने उनकी पिटाई कर दी। नोटबंदी का जो तांडव किया गया और इससे लोगों को जो दिक्कत हुई उसने लोगों को गुस्से से भर दिया है। बीजेपी का दूसरा ट्रंप कार्ड यानी पाकिस्तान पर सर्जिकल अटैक और अति राष्ट्रवाद का नारा भी लोगों के गम और गुस्से का मुकाबला करने में सक्षम नहीं लगता।

 बीजेपी जाति के गणित, पीएम नरेंद्र की निजी अपील और जाहिर है हिंदुत्व की रणनीति पर भरोसा कर रही है। लेकिन क्या किसी सकारात्मक एजेंडे के अभाव में पार्टी की हिंदुत्व की रणनीति कामयाब हो सकेगी।

मीडिया रिपोर्टों के मुताबिक ‘योगी’ आदित्यनाथ बीजेपी के खिलाफ अपने उम्मीदवार उतारेंगे। 31 जनवरी को उन्होंने भड़काऊ भाषण में कहा कि भारत को ट्रंप की तरह मुस्लिमों पर बैन का आदेश जारी कर देना चाहिए। आदित्यनाथ के इस भाषण से भारत की सबसे बड़ी अल्पसंख्यक आबादी के खिलाफ बीजेपी की महिलाओं और पुरुषों की यह नफरत खुल कर सामने आ जाती है। देश के सामाजिक तान-बाने के लिहाज से इस तरह की नफरत कितनी खतरनाक है, यह समझना मुश्किल नहीं है।

सिर्फ चुनावी नजिरये से ही नहीं, भारत के वंचित तबकों यानी ऐसे लोगों के बीच संबंध काफी मजबूत होने चाहिए जो आर्थिक, सामाजिक और राजनीतिक ताकत में काफी पिछड़े हुए हैं। जब भी समाज में संघर्ष होता है सबसे ज्यादा नुकसान आदिवासियों, दलितों और मुसलमान जैसे वंचित तबकों को उठाना पड़ता है। यूपी इन वंचित तबकों के बीच की एकता की प्रयोग भूमि है। अगर इन वंचित तबकों ने सही तरीके से वोट दिया और इन सामाजिक गठबंधनों का नेतृत्व करने वाली राजनीतिक पार्टियों को जीत मिली तो ऐसे वंचित तबकों के लिए सकारात्मक कार्यक्रम होंगे और इससे इनके बीच मजबूती बढ़ेगी।

इस बीच यह पता चल रहा है कि अमित शाह और मोदी के लिए यूपी कितना बड़ा दांव है। जिस तरह से ये मीडिया के साथ खेल रहे हैं उससे साफ पता चल जाता है कि क्या हो रहा है। पिछले दिनों कुछ छात्रों ने दैनिक भास्कर ( एक प्रभावशाली हिंदी अखबार, जिसकी प्रसार संख्या 3,812,599) की ओर से यूपी में लगाए जाने वाले होर्डिंगों की ओर हमारा ध्यान खींचा। यह साफ तौर पर भाजपा का पक्ष लेने वाला और दूसरे राजनीतिक दलों की अवमानना करने वाला लग रहा था।

इसने चुनाव के इस मौसम में लोकतंत्र का चौथा खंभा माने जाने वाले प्रेस और राजनीतिक दलों के अंदरखाने गठजोड़ की कलई भी खोल दी है। साफ है कि इसका एक वर्ग मोदी ब्रिगेड के साथ मिल चुका  है।

क्या प्रेस काउंसिल और चुनाव आयोग इसका संज्ञान लेगा। यहां तक ओपिनियन पोल्स भी राज्य में बीजेपी की चुनाव में जीत का हवा फैलाने में लग गए हैं। साफ है कि चुनाव आयोग की नहीं चल रही। एक पार्टी के पक्ष में इस तरह के अभियान सचमुच भारत के लोकतंत्र के लिए एक नई चुनौती है।

यह तस्वीर लखनऊ के लोहिया पथ पर लगे एक होर्डिंग की है। इसने मायावती और अखिलेश को विलेन की तरह दिखाया है। वोटरों को इससे ज्यादा कहने की कोई जरूरत नहीं है। 2014 के लोकसभा चुनाव में भी मीडिया का ऐसा ही व्यवहार दिखा था। कॉरपोरेट घरानों के नियंत्रण वाला मीडिया मोदी का बड़ा प्रचारक बन कर उभरा था।
 

The post समझ-बूझ भरी रणनीति के साथ वोट डालेगा यूपी का वोटर appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
सबरंग ट्रस्ट के सभी लोग खास कर मैं निजी तौर पर उन जहरीले आरोपों के जाल का जोरदार खंडन करती हूं, जो हम सब या मेरे इर्द-गिर्द बुना जा रहा है। मेरे ऊपर सत्ता के ऊपरी स्तर की ओर से जो आरोप झोंके जा रहे हैं मैं उनका भी जोरदार खंडन करती हूं। पत्रकार और चैनल जिस तरह से सत्ताधारी लोगों के हाथ कठपुतली बन कर नाच रहे हैं, उस देख कर भी हमें तरस आता है।

 वर्ष 1990 से खोज प्रोजेक्ट के तहत जो काम चल रहा है उसका संबंध भारतीय संविधान के दृष्टिकोण से जुड़े अहम मुद्दों से है। स्कूली पाठ्यक्रमों और टीचर ट्रेनिंग मैनुअल के जरिये संविधान के इन दृष्टिकोण का प्रसार ही इस कार्यक्रम का उद्देश्य है। यह काम मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय की ओर से 2010-2014 के बीच जारी किए गए अनुदान के जरिये संभव हुआ है। यह काम प्रख्यात इतिहासकारों से मिलकर की जा रही ‘खोज’ की कोशिश का ही विस्तार है।

हमारे इस काम को नफरत फैलाने वाला करार देना सचमुच दयनीय है। खास कर वैसे दौर में जब सरकार, कैबिनेट और पार्लियामेंट के सदस्य देश के लोगों के बांटने के लिए नफरत भरे भाषणों और लेखन को हथियार के तौर पर इस्तेमाल कर रहे हों। 2014 के बाद ऐसा करने वाले लोग सरकार और संसद में अहम जगहों पर बैठे हुए हैं।

सबरंग ट्रस्ट / तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ के खिलाफ लगाए गए आरोपों के जवाब देने की जिस तरह से की मांग की जा रही है, उसे लेकर हमारी बेहद गंभीर चिंताएं हैं। ये आरोप केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय के एक पैनल की ओर से तैयार एक रिपोर्ट के आधार पर लगाए गए हैं। इस रिपोर्ट (बारी कमेटी रिपोर्ट) को हमने अभी देखा भी नहीं है।

हम मीडिया के एक वर्ग की ओर से अपनाए जा रहे पत्रकारीय आचारसंहिता पर सवाल उठा रहे हैं। मीडिया का यह वर्ग इस कथित रिपोर्ट के आधार पर लगाए गए आरोपों का जवाब तो हमसे चाहता है लेकिन यह हमारे साथ पूरी रिपोर्ट साझा करने के भी तैयार नहीं है।
  

Also read: Niira Radia tapes capture Navika Kumar’s role in 2G scam

And listen (audio): The Navika Kumar, Timesnow (Times of India) reporter & Nira Radia Tape below::

अक्टूबर, 2016 में एक और न्यूज चैनल, न्यूज एक्स भी हमारे खिलाफ ऐसे ही आरोप लेकर मैदान में कूद पड़ा था। उस दौरान न्यूज एक्स ने भी टाइम्स नाऊ की तरह ही आरोप लगाने शुरू किए थे। दोनों इलेक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया चैनलों के पास यह रिपोर्ट है। लेकिन विडंबना देखिये कि  पब्लिक डोमेन से यह नदारद है।

लगातार और धमकाने वाली मीडिया रिपोर्टों से ऐसा लगता है कि मेरे खिलाफ एक और झूठी आपराधिक शिकायत चस्पा करने का माहौल तैयार किया जा रहा है। इस बार यह सरकार में ऊंचे पदों पर बैठे लोगों के इशारे पर हो रहा है। मीडिया के इन हमलों के बाद मैंने (तीस्ता सीतलवाड़) ने केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्री प्रकाश जावड़ेकर को चिट्ठी ( इस चिट्ठी की स्कैन कॉपी यहां संलग्न है) लिखी है। अफसोस कि जिन अखबारों ने मेरे खिलाफ आपराधिक शिकायत दर्ज करने की संभावना जताते हुए एक्सक्लूसिव रिपोर्ट छापी थी, उन्होंने भी बारी कमेटी की रिपोर्ट की मांग करती हुई हमारी चिट्ठी को छापने की जरूरत नहीं समझी ( अखबारों के लिंक यहां मौजूद हैं)।

 
In October 2016 another news channel, NewsX indulged in a similar exercise, today it is Times Now. Both electronic channels had copies of the report which ironically is not available in the public domain.
 
Following intermittent and threatening media reports of the possibility of yet another false criminal complaint against me, this time instigated by senior echelons of the government, I, Teesta Setalvad had written to the Minister for Human Resources Development (MHRD) Mr Prakash Javdekar, on the issue (attached here is a scanned copy of the letter). Unfortunately even the newspapers that had carried ‘exclusives’ about the possibility of a criminal complaint did not see it fit to carry our request to the minister for a copy of the said report (see links of newspapers)
 

Email to Minister MHRD:
 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Teesta Setalvad<teestateesta@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Communication (28.12.2016) to Hon Minister Prakash Javdekar from Teesta Setalvad
To: minister.hrd@gov.in

Dear Sir,
Good Morning. Attached is a letter for Hon MHRD Minister, Mr Prakash Javdekar which I would request is placed before him at the earliest.
The letter (scanned and attached) has been dispatched in the original by registered post and also faxed to the Ministry.

Yours Sincerely,
Teesta Setalvad
Activist, Journalist & Educationist

फर्जी आरोपों के जवाब

हम पर जो फर्जी और झूठे आरोप हैं, उनके जवाब यहां पेश हैं –

– सबरंग ट्रस्ट की ओर से जब केंद्रीय मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय में अनुदान के लिए आवेदन किया गया था तो उसे ट्रस्ट की एक डीड की एक कॉपी सौंपी गई थी। सबरंग ट्रस्ट के ट्रस्टी लगातार अपने इस विचार पर कायम रहे हैं कि इसके लक्ष्य और उद्देश्यों में शैक्षणिक गतिविधियां शामिल हैं, लिहाजा यह अनुदान के लिए आवेदन करने की योग्यता रखता है।

• अनुदान जारी किए जाने से पहले मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय की एक मूल्यांकन टीम ने खोज प्रोजेक्ट का मूल्यांकन किया। इस टीम में केंद्र और महाराष्ट्र सरकार के शिक्षा विभाग के एक-एक अधिकारी शामिल थे। जिस दौरान खोज को अनुदान जारी था, उस दौरान यानी जनवरी, 2012 में ऐसी  ही एक संयुक्त मूल्यांकन टीम (जेईटी) ने इसका मध्यावधि मूल्यांकन किया था। जेईटी ने अन्य टिप्पणी के अलावा जो अहम टिप्पणी दर्ज की उसके मुताबिक – खोज प्रोजेक्ट के तहत किए जा रहे कार्य और अपनाई जा रही गतिविधियां निश्चित तौर पर तारीफ के लायक हैं। इनका काम इसलिए भी महत्वपूर्ण है क्योंकि इस परियोजना के तहत धर्मनिरपेक्षता और शांति की शिक्षा के प्रसार (जो बेहद जरूरी है) की जैसी कोशिश हो रही है वैसी पहल मुख्यधारा के स्कूलों में शायद ही हो रही हो। मुख्यधारा के स्कूलों में दी जा रही शिक्षा में धर्मनिरपेक्षता के मूल्यों और उद्देश्यों को बढ़ावा देने का काम दुर्लभ दिख रहा है। खोज के शिक्षकों ने इन मूल्यों और उद्देश्यों की सीख देने के दौरान जो अनुभव जेईटी के साथ साझा कि उनसे शहरों के गरीब इलाकों में रहने वाले बच्चों के लिए इसकी अहमियत का पता चलता है। ट्रेनिंग के दौरान के कुछ उदाहरणों से इनके महत्व का पता चलता है। 
• यहां इस बात का उल्लेख जरूरी है कि बहुलतावादी भारत को बढ़ावा देने के लिए शुरू की गई खोज परियोजना को मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ने ‘स्कीम्स ऑफ असिसस्टेंस फॉर इनोवेटिव एंड एक्सपेरिमेंटल एजुकेशनल प्रोग्राम्स’ के तहत अनुदान दिया था। यह अनुदान सर्वशिक्षा अभियान के तहत स्वैच्छिक संगठनों को दिए जाने  वाले फंड के तहत आता है। 
• कहा जा रहा है कि अनुदान एनसीईआरटी के विरोध में जारी किया गया। हम इस बारे में हम कोई टिप्पणी नहीं कर सकते क्योंकि इस बारे में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय और एनसीईआरटी के बीच अगर कोई संवाद हुआ हो तो हमें इसकी जानकारी नहीं है।
• यह आरोप लगाया जा रहा है कि तीस्ता के ट्रस्ट की ओर से प्रकाशित की गई ट्रेनिंग और अध्ययन सामग्री आपत्तिजनक है। यह नफरत फैलाती है और सामाजिक एकता और शांति के लिहाज से जहर फैलाने वाली है। लेकिन हम इस आरोप का पुरजोर खंडन करते हैं। हमने ऐसी कोई सामग्री प्रकाशित नहीं की है जिससे समाज में नफरत फैले या जिससे माहौल जहरीला हो। 
• इन सवालों के मद्देनजर तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ के खिलाफ आईपीसी की धारा 153 ए और 153 बी, के तहत जो प्रथम दृष्टया आरोप लगाए गए हैं, वे राजनीति से प्रेरित होने के अलावा और कुछ नहीं हैं।

The post तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ के खिलाफ फिर मीडिया ट्रायल – बदला लेने के लिए चलाई जा रही नफरत की आंधी appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
All of us at Sabrang Trust and I personally would like to emphatically refute the bilious allegations that we believe are being spun or flung from the very highest echelons of the government at me/us. We also find it pitiable that journalists and channels are playing the role of echo masters of the regime.
 
The work that the KHOJ project has been involved in, since the 1990s, deals with the crucial issues of incorporating the Indian constitutional vision into the school curriculum and through teacher training manuals and workshops. The work that was possible through the grant from the MHRD between 2010-2014 was but an extension of the dedicated work being undertaken by the KHOJ team, with eminent historians, for close to three decades. To label our work as ‘hate mongering’ is pathetic, given especially that senior and prominent persons in this government, cabinet and also Members of Parliament have used hate speech and hate writing as tools to divide the Indian population while occupying prominent positions in government and Parliament since 2014.
 
At the outset, we would like to state that we express our serious concern over being asked to respond to allegations against Sabrang Trust/Teesta Setalvad supposedly based on a report prepared by an MHRD panel which we have yet to see (The Bari Committee Report).
 
We question the professional ethics of a section of the media which expects responses from us to the report's alleged findings but is unwilling to share the full report with us.

Also read: Niira Radia tapes capture Navika Kumar’s role in 2G scam

And listen (audio): The Navika Kumar, Timesnow (Times of India) reporter & Nira Radia Tape below::

 
In October 2016 another news channel, NewsX indulged in a similar exercise, today it is Times Now. Both electronic channels had copies of the report which ironically is not available in the public domain.
 
Following intermittent and threatening media reports of the possibility of yet another false criminal complaint against me, this time instigated by senior echelons of the government, I, Teesta Setalvad had written to the Minister for Human Resources Development (MHRD) Mr Prakash Javdekar, on the issue (attached here is a scanned copy of the letter). Unfortunately even the newspapers that had carried ‘exclusives’ about the possibility of a criminal complaint did not see it fit to carry our request to the minister for a copy of the said report (see links of newspapers)
 

Email to Minister MHRD:
 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Teesta Setalvad<teestateesta@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Communication (28.12.2016) to Hon Minister Prakash Javdekar from Teesta Setalvad
To: minister.hrd@gov.in

Dear Sir,
Good Morning. Attached is a letter for Hon MHRD Minister, Mr Prakash Javdekar which I would request is placed before him at the earliest.
The letter (scanned and attached) has been dispatched in the original by registered post and also faxed to the Ministry.

Yours Sincerely,
Teesta Setalvad
Activist, Journalist & Educationist

Response to False Charges

In response to the ‘charges’, the facts are as follows:

• A copy of the Trust Deed of Sabrang Trust was submitted to the MHRD Ministry while applying for the grant. The Trustees of Sabrang Trust continue to hold the view that the Trust’s aims and objects included educational activity and was therefore qualified to apply for the grant.
• An HRD Joint Evaluation team, comprising of an official each from the Centre and Maharashtra's education department, evaluated the KHOJ project before the grant was sanctioned. Another similar Joint Evaluation Team (JET) reviewed the progress of the project mid-way through the grant in February 2012. The JET concluded among other things: "Overall, the objectives and efforts under the KHOJ project are undoubtedly laudable since not only do they cater to the need to promote secularism and peace education, which should be a priority, but also since there is hardly any effort otherwise in mainstream schools to address these aspects. How crucial it is to reach out to the children especially of the urban poor from the slum areas comes across very strongly in the anecdotes shared by KHOJ teachers with the JET…"
• It may also be noted that the KHOJ-Education for a Plural India project was funded by MHRD under its "Scheme of Assistance under Innovative and Experimental Education Programmes — Grants to Voluntary agencies under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.  
• As to the allegation about the grant having been sanctioned despite objection from NCERT we are unable to comment on this as we are not privy to such communication, if any between MHRD and NCERT.
• As to allegation regarding “MATERIAL PUBLISHED BY TEESTA TRUST CONTAINS EXPLOSIVE LITERATURE WHICH REFLECTS HATRED AND VENOM” we vehemently deny her having produced any such material.
• In view of the above the question of “PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTS UNDER SECTION 153 A, 153 B OF IPC AGAINST TEESTA SETELVAD” is nothing but a politically motivated charge.  

Background:

This is close to a two-year old story. In March 2015, around the time that the bid of the Gujarat government to have us arrested failed (over yet another false criminal case where Javed Anand and I were both sought to be implicated), the overzealous Smriti Irani announced an MHRD probe against a project that Sabrang Trust had received for the KHOJ Education for Plural India programme. This project ran between 2010-2014 after receiving one extension. In typical proto-fascist style allegations have covered the infamous 'misappropriation of funds' to now spreading hatred. The charge of misappropriation obviously could not be proven and so it is now down to Teesta Setalvad 's views on the RSS and Murli Manohar Joshi according to the Indian Express!

What has also conveniently (and quietly) escaped public comment or notice that each and every false criminal complaint against me (Teesta Setalvad) after the Zakia Jafri case began to get traction (2010, 2011, 2013, 2015), were instigated by a former disgruntled employee of CJP, Raees Khan who has since been rewarded by the Modi regime with a position on the Central Wakf Board.
 
(In February 2016, in her inimitably inaccurate style the minister Irani even said that a Teacher's Reader authored by Teesta Setalvad and used in 2001 should be put down to the MHRD project under Mr Kapil Sibal when in fact the MHRD project only began in 2010!)
 
In any case, the KHOJ rendering of Shivaji, Jyotiba Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar is one that has been inspired by India's best historians that have traced Shivaji’s non-Brahmanical origins especially the hostility Shivaji faced when he could not be coronated due to his birth into the peasant castes.
 
1. Can book Teesta Setalvad for spreading hatred via writings: HRD panel
2. Kapil Sibal pressured officials, pushed for Teesta NGO funds: Report
3. Setalvad to face fresh probe by new panel
 
Motive
It seems apparent that with the Gujarat police having failed to substantiate its allegations of misappropriation of trust funds by Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand, despite our having submitted over 20,000 pages of documentary evidence, and with the Union Home Ministry having instigated a 22-hour raid on the office and residence of the above mentioned by the CBI, yet another ministry has been tasked with maligning Sabrang Trust and hounding Teesta Setalvad on bogus charges.

There have been three sets of vindictive actions emanating from Delhi since the Modi regime acquired power. Before that Teesta Setalvad faced vindictive criminal cases within the state of Gujarat. First is the false criminal case by the Gujarat Crime Branch; second is the vindictive hounding by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the subsequent revocation of the FCRA renewal after it was first granted to both CJP and Sabrang trusts), the third is the criminal prosecution by the CBI on false charges of violation of FCR Act by Sabrang Communications (few are ever prosecuted on what, even if true is a civil charge and it is not irrelevant that the CBI is directly under the PMO) and now this.

(The earlier false cases and harassment of Teesta Setalvad by the Gujarat Police also continue, especially related to the twitter case despite an immediate apology by her within forty minutes of the tweet).
 
 

The post Media Trial: Stooges of the Establishment target Teesta Setalvad yet again, peddle canards in the name of Debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Flagging, yet again, the crucial issue of witness protection to ensure substantive justice, the Supreme Court has exhorted governments to be pro-active on the issue of witness protection, PTI reports.

The State needs to play a definite role in coming out with witness-protection programme, at least in sensitive cases involving those having political patronage, muscle and money power so that trial does not get "tainted and derailed", the Supreme Court has said. Observing that threat and intimidation were major causes for witnesses turning hostile, it said when the witnesses are not able to depose correctly before the court, it results in low conviction rate and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction."It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system," a bench of justices A K Sikri and Amitava Roy said.

"It is for this reason there has been a lot of discussion on witness protection and from various quarters demand is made for the state to play a definite role in coming out with witness-protection programme, at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty," it said.

The bench noted in its verdict that it has become a common phenomenon and almost a regular feature that in criminal cases witnesses turn hostile.

The court's observation came while dismissing an appeal filed by four persons, who were convicted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the offences of murder and subjecting a married woman to cruelty. They were initially acquitted by a trial court but the high court had overturned the judgement and convicted them while relying on the dying declaration of the woman, who was set ablaze by the accused persons in 1999.

The husband and in-laws of the deceased woman had moved the apex court challenging the high court's judgement, saying there was no reason to rely on the dying declaration as there were certain infirmities in it. Police had registered the case against them based on the statement given by the woman, who was admitted to a hospital with 100 per cent burn injuries and had died during treatment.

Witness Protection, the Real Issue
The issue of witness protection has been high-lighted most recently in the cases related to the 2002 Gujarat genocidal killings. The famed Best Bakery Case, in which the  Supreme Court intervened and transferred the case out of Gujarat as also ordered re-trial of the case in Mumbai, the Court had flagged the issue critically.  Thereafter the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, 2011—an aborted promise of the UPA Government made in the Common Minimum Programme(CMP) of 2004- also specifically introduced victimology and witness protection as a statutory responsibility of the state.
 
In November 2005, then chairperson of the Law Commission, Justice M Jagannadha Rao had in his keynote address at a national conference in the capital, detailed the rights, needs and benefits of witnesses required to ensure effective victim testimony.
 
In this keynote address that may be read here he had said that:

“The victim of a crime is an important player in the administration of justice both as a complainant/informant and as a witness for the prosecution/state. His or her role is vital both at the stage of investigation and at the trial stage. Without the victim’s active support, the investigation of a crime may not come to a logical end. At the same time, the victim’s testimony in court, especially if the crime is a violent one, can be said to be the best piece of evidence that can be used against the accused. But despite being an important component of the criminal justice system, much attention has not been paid to the rights of victims.

“The word ‘victim’ has not been defined either in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The General Assembly of the United Nations in its 96th plenary meeting on November 29, 1985 made a Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. The declaration defines victims as "persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are violations of criminal laws operative within member states, including those laws prescribing criminal abuse of power".

“We can say that the word ‘victim’ means the person or persons who have suffered physical, financial, social or psychological harm as a result of an offence and in some cases it includes an appropriate member of the immediate family of such a person."

Judicial Precedents
There have been significant judicial pronouncements on Witness Protection by the Supreme Court and yet little has been done by successive governments to ensure an effective and sensitive Witness Protection Programme.
For example,

The Supreme Court of India in Zahira Habibulla Sheikh vs State of Gujarat, 2004 (4 SCC 158) has stated the importance of victims in the following words:
"Right from the inception of (the) judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth is the main accepted underlying existence of courts of justice. The operating principles for a fair trial permeate the common law in both civil and criminal contexts. Application of these principles involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests in a criminal trial, the interests of the accused and the public and to a great extent that of (the) victim have to be weighed not losing sight of the public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences".

The Supreme Court of India in Gaurav Jain vs Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 3021) gave various directions for the rehabilitation and other welfare of victims of such crimes. The Court said that three C’s, viz. counselling, cajoling by persuasion and coercion as the last resort are necessary for effective enforcement of rescue and rehabilitation of the victims of such trafficking. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deal with these aspects.

The apex court in Vishal Jeet vs Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1412) had also issued directions on the subject.
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh,1996 (2 SCC 384) while dealing with a case of rape has said, "The courts should, as far as possible, avoid disclosing the name of the prosecutrix in their orders to save further embarrassment to the victim of (a) sex crime. The anonymity of the victim of the crime must be maintained, as far as possible, throughout". Though in some cases the identity of the victim is known to the accused, this is not so in all cases. Where the identity and all details of the victim are not known to the accused, maintaining anonymity would be quite helpful.[[ Anonymity of victim – Names and addresses of victims may be kept secret in criminal proceedings. Even in supplying copies of charge sheets to the accused, the identity of victims may be withheld.]]

In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs Union of India, 1995 (1 SCC 14), the Supreme Court while indicating the broad parameters that can assist the victims of rape, emphasised that in all rape trials ‘anonymity’ of the victims must be maintained as far as necessary so that the name is shielded from the media and public. The court also observed that the victims invariably find the trial of an offence of rape a traumatic experience. The experience of giving evidence in court has been negative and destructive and the victims often expressed that they considered the ordeal of facing cross-examination in the criminal trial to be even worse than the rape itself.

Section 13 of TADA, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 30 of POTA, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (now repealed) provides that the court may take such measures as it deems fit to keep the identity and address of witnesses secret.

Despite these consistent and repeated judicial pronouncements, across the political spectrum—despite different parties with ideological variants being in power—restoration of faith in the criminal justice system, is obviously a low priority for all. Regardless of where and on which side you claim to be on the ideological metre.

The post Yet Again, the Supreme Court Raps the Indian State on Witness Protection, But Is Anyone Listening appeared first on SabrangIndia.

ज्यादातर अख़बारों की हेडलाइन से लगता है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने हिंदुत्व को जीवनशैली बताने वाले 1995 को बरक़रार रखा है जबकि अदालत ने एक मौखिक टिप्पणी करते हुए बस इतना कहा था कि वह फिलहाल राजनीति में धर्म के इस्तेमाल को लेकर विचार कर रहा है। अगर मूल याचिका में हिंदुत्व का प्रश्न होगा तो आगे सुनवाई की जाएगी।

यानी मामला खारिज नहीं हुआ है बल्कि पुनर्विचार की पूरी संभावना बनी हुई है। यह बात इसलिए भी महत्वपूर्ण है क्योंकि कोर्ट ने हस्तक्षेप याचिका को खारिज न करते हुए स्वीकार कर लिया है। 1995 के फैसले पर पुनर्विचार करने के लिए यह याचिका तीस्ता सीतलवाड़, शम्शुल इस्लाम और दिलीप मंडल की ओर से दायर की गई है।

‘’हिंदुत्व की नई व्याख्या करने से सुप्रीम को इंकार’’ या फिर ‘’हिंदुत्व की व्याख्या पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट नहीं करेगा विचार’’ जैसी हेडलाइन भ्रम पैदा करती हैं। यह हिंदुत्व के राजनीतिक इस्तेमाल के पक्ष में संपादको के उत्साह का भी नतीजा हो सकता है। 

दरअसल, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 1995 में रमेश यशवंत प्रभु बनाम प्रभाकर काशीनाथ कुंते मामले की सुनवाई के दौरान हिंदुत्व को जीवनशैली बताते हुए चुनावी भाषणों में इसके इस्तेमाल को जनप्रतिनिधित्व कानून सेक्शन 123 (3) या (3A) के तहत कार्रवाई लायक़ नहीं माना था। अब यह मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट में है। तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ ने हस्तक्षेप याचिका दायर करके माँग की है कि हिंदुत्व को जीवनशैली बताने वाली व्याख्या पर अदालत पुनर्विचार करे। ऐसा नहीं करने पर राममंदिर जैसे मुद्दों को घोषणापत्र का हिस्सा बनाने वाले राजनीतिक फायदा उठाते रहेंगे।

बहरहाल, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सात सदस्यीय पीठ ने साफ़ कर दिया है कि इस मोड़ पर वह हिंदुत्व की व्याख्या पर पुनर्विचार नहीं करेगा। लेकिन भविष्य में यह संभावना खुली हुई है। अख़बारों की हेडिंग में इस महीन बात को नज़रअंदाज़ किय गया है जो उनकी मंशा पर सवाल उठाता है।

इस मसले पर तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ का बयान पढ़िये जो मीडिया विजिल को मिला–

"This is a Seven Judge Constitutional Bench looking at the crucial issue of Section 123(3) of the Representation of People’s Act which is-at election time-the section of the law to create a wall of separation between Religion and Politics and enforce and ensure the Constitutional Mandate of Secularism. One of the aspects of the Reference being heard is that of the wrong interpretation in our view that an appeal to Hindutva is not an appeal to religion. Yesterday the CJI/Bench passed an oral observation saying two things. One that Religion in Politics is the ultimate evil in a secular state and that they may not go into the Hindutva not being Religion in this reference. No where was my IA discussed. The media is unfortunately irresponsibly collapsing the issue. Our IA stands and we will be heard as Intervenor’s. Today or Tomorrow. Indira Jaisingh appears for us."- Teesta Setalvad
 

The post हिंदुत्व मामले में मीडिया का अर्धसत्य और तीस्ता का बयान ! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Confirmed: Teesta Setalvad spoke @ IIMB. Trolls lie and abuse Human Rights Activist again appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Communal Violence in Gujarat

ICF speaks to Teesta Setalvad

It has been said time and again that the Indian courts, police, administration and law are not equipped to prevent communal riots. Many years after Gujarat, just before the BJP government came to power at the centre, we had similar kinds of “orchestrated sentiments” at play, in Muzaffarnagar for instance, where the Kisan Union was radicalised into a “Hindu outfit”, given a Hindu identity, with Amit Shah coming and other VHP leaders on the ground – we know what happened afterwards. How can we better equip the administration to prevent this, and deal with it effectively if it occurs?
You are right in saying Gujarat was not the only time we have had this kind of pogrom-like, targeted communal violence. I believe this began in the mid-1980s. Before that you would have communal violence where the bias of the police showed – in Bhiwandi in the 70s, to take one example, which the Justice Madan Commission report commented on. But since the mid-80s, with the start of the so called Ram Janmabhoomi movement , and L.K. Advani’s rath yatra, there was a series of bouts of communal violence, including in Hashimpura . Bhagalpur 1989, Aligarh, Moradabad, Bhopal, Ahmedabad 1992: these were, discernibly, pogroms against the minority in which the police took on a majoritarian, mob role; seemed to take on a Hindu identity.

Gujarat 2002 transgressed even these bounds, because of the complete involvement of the state. In 1984 in Delhi, during the anti-Sikh pogrom, you had select members of the Congress party inciting mobs, and senior police officers were also involved, but not the whole government. The Congress party was certainly involved, but not the entire government machinery.

Now, one of the things that came up after Gujarat 2002, as a result of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal report brought out by Justice Krishna Iyer and others, the recommendation was that there should be a law against mass crimes. This was one of the specific long-term recommendations of the tribunal. We need a prevention of mass crimes law which recognises the entrenched institutional bias and prejudice against minorities, comparable to the recently amended Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It was a promise made in the Common Minimum Programme of the first United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, where the Left was an ally: a similar law where religious minorities are also protected, hence the entire movement for prevention of communal violence, and justice and reparations. Several attempts were made – Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had at least 20 consultations on it, as part of the National Advisory Council group on preparing the draft, but there was huge reluctance by the time the second UPA government assumed power.

After four or five drafts the National Advisory Council under Sonia Gandhi finally forwarded a draft to the Home Ministry for their consideration. But there was great hesitation, from the very party that promised it, to even table the bill and let future parliaments take it forward, as with the Lokpal Bill. We know it took forty years before we had an anti-corruption law, so this was not going to happen overnight. But if it had at least been tabled, it would have been possible to pick it up at a later stage. So far even that hasn't happened.

Is there a possibility it will happen?
Under this government?

Or in future…
If you think about the history of specific legislative moves, I suppose there will be a time when it is picked up again. But I can't see this government, which is a government of the perpetrators, being essentially interested in trying to further a law like that. In fact they openly opposed it at that earlier stage. It was opposed by both the RSS and the Gujarat government.

The Hindu Archives
 
On one hand, in 2011 amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran told the Supreme Court that there was enough evidence for Modi to at least face trial, but this was disregarded. On the other hand, former minister Maya Kodnani – promoted by Modi after the riots – was convicted by a special court in the Naroda Patiya case. In light of this, what kind of statutory mechanism would a draft bill propose, perhaps instituting procedures that would reduce discretion and kick in automatically?
The Zakia Jafri case was attempted to be filed in 2006; then you had the Supreme Court transfer it to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in 2009. The SIT had already been constituted a year before to investigate the ten other cases we were handling – Gulberg, Naroda Patiya, Sardarpura, Mehsa, Ode and others. By 2010 they submit a report on the Zakia Jafri case saying there is no evidence. We contest that in the Supreme Court – Zakia Jafri and CJP were co-petitioners – saying no, there is enough evidence to prosecute.

When the courts see some sense in this, they ask Raju Ramachandran to give his independent assessment: the order says to bypass the SIT and independently evaluate whether there is indeed any material. On July 25 2011, he files a report saying there is enough material to prosecute Modi. Now, the SIT filed a closure report despite Raju Ramachandran's response, so we went back to the magistrate and filed a protest petition, arguing for six months, before it was finally dismissed by the magistrate in December 2013.

This is the decision we have appealled. Since then it is the SIT that has been delaying the appeal in the high court.  But the case is still open.

Coming to your question about future institutional mechanisms, the idea behind the proposed law is that in case of a breakdown of law and order of this magnitude, you need to have the district administration and the Superintendent of Police (SP) automatically held responsible. Vibhuti Narayan Rai , a senior police officer now better known for his book on Hashimpura, wrote his first book Sheher Mein Curfew on the Allahabad riots in the 1980s, when the rath yatra was at its height. He is one of the 10-15 senior police officers in India who have been saying repeatedly that a certain majoritarian communalism has crept into the police, misguiding its functioning. One section of the population is treated differently from the other, whereas in uniform you are not supposed to discriminate. A well-known line from the book is, “If within 24 hours a state riot is not controlled, it is because the state does not want it to be controlled.”

If you use that as a benchmark, then the SP or the District Magistrate (DM) – the SP being the police head and the DM head of the IAS – need to be held responsible if communal violence is not controlled: that is the presumption of such a law. These authorities would have to answer to the court as to why they didn't take certain steps which they were constitutionally obliged to.

Then there are issues about compensation: automatic compensation as a matter of statutory right, not given at the discretion of a particular government: this much to Sikhs, this much to Christians, this much to Muslims or this much to Dalits, or this much to Kashmiri Pandits – even they deserve it. The point is, if I am dispossessed of my property because of a breakdown of the rule of law, under a government duty-bound by the constitution to protect both my life and my property, then I must be compensated. That is the principle. So compensation is also sought to be statutorily granted under this law.
 

Embed from Getty Images

 

 

It is a question of administrative culpability, of holding the administration, police and political representatives responsible for their actions. So it could even be an elected member of the government. Maya Kodnani’s conviction is one of the biggest achievements after the Gujarat genocide, because for the first time in the history of communal violence in independent India we have managed, collectively, including in the faulty Gulberg verdict, to get 130 people convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

This is unprecedented: it never happened in 1984, it didn't happen in Bombay 1992-93, it didn't happen in Gujarat 1969, nor in the Nellie massacre in 1983. This tells you a few things; for one, that a robust citizen's group like the CJP, actually trying to push the envelope, can go by National Human Rights Council recommendations, approach the Supreme Court and ask that orders be issued.

[Also see Truth of Gujarat , a website set up by members of the Jan Sangharsh Manch .]
If the Supreme Court is persuaded to monitor trials, which in this case they did; if reasonably independent prosecutors are appointed – they were not, completely, because even the SIT became compromised at some point – then to some extent pressure can be maintained on the government. We managed these convictions: if none of these other factors had worked, even this much would not have happened.

Very few people know that since April-May 2004, I have had Central Industrial Security Force protection and guards – but 570 survivors living in Gujarat also have the same protection. So for the first time there is judicial acknowledgement that in the struggle for justice, survivors and witnesses need protection. We need a witness protection programme. This was also built into the proposed law, that once you have a mass crime of this magnitude you need to protect witnesses, because otherwise they are vulnerable, to threats, inducements, all sorts of things.

To turn to the cultural desecration that was a key part of the Gujarat genocide. Many mosques, dargahs and madrassas/madarsas were destroyed. One of us studied in a madrassa, and a senior there wrote a poem, “Kya tumne Gujarat ka manzar dekha hai / Kya tumne ek zakhmi kabootar dekha hai” [Have you seen Gujarat’s face? / Have you seen a wounded dove?]. There were riot survivors in some of the hostels, who had lost their families. The situation was such that only people at the madarsa would take care of them; they didn’t have anyone else. And afterwards, I no longer knew where they were, or what they were doing; they had no voice… When I was in Gujarat in 2015 – it was my first time there – I asked some locals about the city plan: what it looked like before 2002, and after. In some localities they said, “Jo tha woh kuchh bhi nahin hai” [Nothing that was there remains]. The lines were redrawn such that even those who wanted to see what it used to be like, couldn't. The city has been transformed, maybe to hide the pain, or maybe to increase the pangs. Could you comment?
As regards religious monuments and desecration, there is ample material. In fact there has also been a legal petition on this, both in the high court and the Supreme Court. The high court actually came out with a very sharp judgement, holding the government of Gujarat responsible for failing to protect religious and cultural shrines; all the details of the destroyed shrines are available there, if anyone wants to study this aspect. This judgement was then challenged by the Gujarat state government, because this was the time Modi was on his way to becoming prime minister. He was very hostile at the time. His basic stand was that the government would not repair the structures.
Now, in the Supreme Court there have been at least 13 hearings on the matter, and the government is vacillating, because Modi now wants to try presenting a different image. The day [in August 2015] he went to that mosque in Abu Dhabi, I remember writing, But what about this mosque? And we put up pictures of them; all the pictures are available in the public domain.

I personally believe that whether it is art historians or photographers – artists in general – they have also abandoned Gujarat. For the simple reason that they are all scared. Or in effect they are complicit, because they would much rather let these events be erased from our memories than confront a force we know to be vindictive. After Haren Pandya was killed , you have a litany of stuff happening. Then there’s Rahul Sharma , there’s R.B. Sreekumar and myself. So then people say, “Let’s lay off, let’s not get into this territory.”

So I think creative, academic, literary energies have been hugely compromised. All the questions are posed to those of us who are already doing too much. These are questions you need to ask your colleagues in the art fraternity: what have they done? How have senior Indian artists or art historians dealt with conflict zones? What have they done about Manipur? Nothing. What have they done about Kashmir? Besides Nilima Sheikh and a few other artists , nothing.

Art historians are themselves just as cowardly as any other academic in this country. They don’t really delve into conflict zones and “problem” areas. Vasudha Thozhur and maybe a few others have done work on Gujarat, but they are very few. And the questions do need to be asked, to the right quarters. Instead, it’s the same activists, the same academics and writers who are doing the work we’re doing, which is legal activism and journalism.

Even your second point, about surviving in different institutions: this is a fallout of any conflict situation. The deadline recently passed for admitted students to come and register themselves at five institutes in Delhi. Students from Kashmir, who had already secured admission, could not come. Despite the ongoing curfew, imposed by the government, under the RSS-BJP regime these enrolment deadlines were not extended. So it’s not just a question of Gujarat: we need to ask just how our institutions respond, if at all, to young people who are victims of a conflict.

There are not enough journalists going out there and posing such questions to the relevant authorities. We have an extremely compromised public discourse in India today, and a very compromised commercial media. Not to mention an “alternate media” which is really quite comfortable, and doesn’t ask these questions directly, where they should be asked – not just the government but also these institutions, these supposedly public spaces.

About the city plan: there is a law in operation in Ahmedabad which says that Hindus can’t sell properties to Muslims and vice versa. This is the Disturbed Areas Act, amended by the Gujarat government in 2009. Again, how many urban planners discuss it? Why should it be a question only for anti-communal activists? Shouldn't it be the concern of anybody committed to our composite, plural, secular culture? But which big names in architecture or urban planning, or in research institutions, are examining the issue or even talking about it? Nobody. I think a huge compromise has been made by our so-called intellectuals.

The concluding part of our interview with the longstanding civil rights activist and journalist.  You can read the first part here .

 

 

Embed from Getty Images

 

Courtesy: NewsClick

The post “A huge compromise has been made by our so-called intellectuals.” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The first part of our extended interview with the civil rights activist and journalist, who has been a key part of the struggle for justice and reparations for survivors of the pogrom in Gujarat in 2002.

 

Ahmedabad, 2002 / AFP via Livemint
 
To begin with the special court's verdict, in June, on the Gulberg Society massacre. Could you outline the consequences of the judgement, and of the conspiracy angle not being upheld?
 
This was one of a spate of judgements related to Gujarat 2002; the last in a long line of judgements. What happened in Gujarat related to some 300 incidents all over the state. Gulberg was the second-worst in terms of the loss of life, with 69 deaths. So it is an incredible argument for the court not to accept that there was a conspiracy – we will challenge this in an appeal. We believe one of the reasons the court refrained from accepting it is that the SIT – the Special Investigative Team appointed by the Supreme Court – did not press it very hard.
 
Linked to this is the Zakia Jafri case, pending in the high court, where the issues of command responsibility and wider political, administrative culpability for the crimes of 2002 are to be adjudicated on. So, while arguing the Zakia Jafri case we already had the Naroda Patiya judgement behind us, relating to the worst incident in Gujarat – according to us 124 people were massacred, and the chargesheet says 96 were killed. There, not only was the conspiracy claim upheld but the sting operation by Tehelka, Operation Kalank, was also held to be corroborative evidence, and a wider conspiracy – a wider political conspiracy – was mentioned.
 
If the argument that there was a conspiracy had been upheld in the Gulberg Society case as well, it would have made the Zakia Jafri case that much easier for us to prosecute – to insist on a chargesheet, etc. We believe this is of a piece with the designs of the prosecuting agency, not to allow that chargesheet to be filed.
 
Is the pending Zakia Jafri case the only avenue for pushing this kind of administrative or command responsibility?
 
It is the only case. Before it, nobody has ever made a case for the administrative or culpable responsibility of police officers, administrators and politicians including the chief minister. We've had one rejection at the magistrate level, the protest petition that was rejected; the appeal against this in in the high court is pending.
 
What about the role of the central government at the time: for instance there were a number of letters exchanged between President Narayanan and Prime Minister Vajpayee. Have court proceedings shed any light on this aspect?
 
No, the judicial proceedings have taken no note of it, because they have dealt with individual cases, not the overall case. Only the Zakia Jafri case deals with that. Attempts to release the Narayanan–Vajpayee correspondence in the public domain through the right to information have been denied. Nevertheless, there are some documents in the public domain which are quite indicting, for instance Vajpayee's letter to Narendra Modi in that period. It was even released by former National Human Rights Commission chairperson and former Chief Justice J.S. Verma. There are also K. R. Narayanan’s statements about Gujarat, reported by the press, about his sense of helplessness during the pogrom because the central government was not responsive to what he was saying.
 
We also have, in the Zakia Jafri case, correspondence between the Union Home Ministry and the Home Ministry of Gujarat, which are official documents. Not all of these documents are in the public domain – though some are – and those annexed to our petition show that from February 10, 2002, right up to August 2002, the state government was actually misleading the central government on figures related to the number of casualties, amount of damage, destruction, etc.

Nearly 15 years have passed since the pogrom. What support have survivors received from the administration, in terms of compensating their losses, or ensuring those who were displaced could return or be rehabilitated? Many of the camps are still open, and in a miserable condition.
 
Yes, that's quite well known; it's reported every year in the newspapers when the anniversary approaches. It is becoming less and less important after Modi became prime minister. You have, even now, about 18 or 19 transit camps which have been around for close to 15 years. These were supposed to be temporary accommodations, till you were rehabilitated by the government. The “iconic” camp is the one near Bombay Hotel, just outside Ahmedabad, near the area’s largest rubbish dump, where all the toxic waste of Ahmedabad city is dumped. This camp – called Citizen Nagar, ironically – is less than a kilometre from the waste dump. It would be impossible for people like us to stand there for even a few minutes, the stench is so bad. The camp’s water source also runs very close by the toxic waste dump, and we have repeatedly had to take this issue up also, actually showing that kidney ailments and so on were afflicting younger people. A 13- or 15-year-old boy died there around 2007, simply from drinking the water, but it's as if the survivors don't exist anymore in the public imagination or public memory.
 
The media has a lot to do with it, this collective amnesia, because we saw a complete shift in the “national” media – I prefer to call it the commercial media. On television and even in newspapers, you find that around the time of Modi’s second electoral victory as chief minister, in 2007, that's when he was hyped up worldwide. It was a public relations agency, paid $25,000 a month – this was documented by Christophe Jaffrelot. Nobody asked the question, where did this money come from, who was paying? The whole idea was to have an image makeover, from a man who presided over a massacre to a man who is urbane and promotes development, a mover and shaker. And the nation bought it. People bought it, and the media had a big role to play.
 
Coming to the question of compensation: in terms of monetary compensation for loss of life there was a decent package. You had the Sikh riots principle – obtained after 20 years’ struggle – actually applied to Gujarat when the first UPA government came to power. It was one of the positive things UPA I did, that the 1.5 lakhs the state government very reluctantly gave to the post-Godhra victims— Remember, when Modi first declared a compensation package he announced a larger amount for the families of Godhra victims and less for those of the post-Godhra victims, claiming that the former were victims of terror and the latter did not face mob terror. There was a national outrage, after which he equalised the amounts.

We are talking about a person with an entrenched discriminatory mindset. Not only him but his government too. Former Food and Civil Supplies Minister Bharat Barot, who was also caught rioting and extorting from minorities’ shops – there is an FIR against him – actually returned 119 crores out of the 150 crore package given by the Vajpayee government at the time, saying they didn't need it.
 
So this was the attitude of the state government as regards reparation and compensation. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a petition against that as well, and in the detailed affidavit we filed in the high court we reasoned why compensation should at least be commensurate with what the Sikh victims of 1984 got, thanks to Justice Dhingra's judgement. The figure came to about Rs 5 lakh, and on the basis of our affidavit filed in the high court the central government increased the package.
 
Relatively speaking, in terms of loss of life the compensation wasn’t bad, but where survivors have really lost out is in housing compensation. They got hardly Rs 5000, 10,000, maximum 40 to 50,000, when the damage was 2-3 lakhs. We computed this for the CJP petition, and there was complete, adamant refusal from the state to accept it. It was the same with small businesses. The bigger ones are insured, so they get the money, but the tiny, middle ones really suffer – they were never compensated.
 
Finally, survivors of rape. A women’s group has said that there were 300-400 instances of mass rape of girls and women. The Gujarat government has admitted – there are FIRs for these – that 199 women were victims of gender violence. So even if you go by government figures you don’t have rape compensation paid at all, which is now the norm for higher courts in the country. I believe it’s a marker of the lack of acknowledgment of the gravity of the tragedy that took place. Gujarat is just one more marker of that.
 
Isn’t there also the problem of compensation and reparation being looked at only as a monetary affair? What about structural support for the survivors, from the courts and elsewhere?
 
99% of the victims of gender violence were killed afterwards. So there are hardly 6 or 7 women who survived that violence, who need the kind of structural support you’re talking about, which is of course also important. But I don’t think one should underestimate monetary support either: nowhere in the civilised world does this happen, and it’s important to talk about the economic losses suffered. The human tragedy was so great that people tend to say, Let’s not talk about money. But money helps survivors get back on their feet. For people who are daily wage earners, the money matters. If you’ve lost so many working days’ living wages, that should be used in computing compensation.
 
Psychological disorders, people find ways to cope with, but it’s the structured injustices already existing in society, in terms of economics, that need looking at. A person who is middle or upper middle class will find it a lot easier to be up and about, because they’ll be supported in a million ways. We as a society tend to speak for the survivors when we say compensation is not important. I don’t think we should underestimate monetary or economic support at all.

Much of what we have discussed with reference to Gujarat has recurred in many riots in independent India: economic dispossession, dishousing people, destroying businesses, and the action-reaction narrative, which then Chief Minister Modi offered soon after the pogrom. Could you comment on this, and on the conclusions reached by the various commissions of inquiry into Godhra and after?
 
When we brought out a special issue of Communalism Combat in March-April 2002, we very consciously used the word genocide. Look at the UN Convention on Genocide: what happened in Gujarat matches every metric and criterion described in it. Genocide doesn’t necessarily depend on the number of deaths. It doesn’t have to be a Rwanda-like figure of 8 lakhs or 12 lakhs. From day one we were talking about an approximate figure of 2000-2500 casualties. Now that we have a list of FIRs, the names of all the missing and the dead, we have a list of 1,956 – at least.
 
The fact is, not only were lives lost and brutalised in a highly targeted manner, but gender violence was also used to target girls and women of the community, because they are held up as symbols of the community’s honour. Also, there was cultural and religious desecration – 217 mosques and dargahs were destroyed – and there was economic destruction of a high order. There are 7 or 8 criteria to be fulfilled when you use the term “crimes against humanity”, and a few more if it is to be termed genocide. This is not to say there haven’t been genocidal killings during spates of communal violence before Gujarat 2002 – but this was full-blown, so to speak, because you had the entirety of state and non-state actors acting in tandem to make it happen.
 
There is no doubt whatsoever in our minds what this was. More and more evidence came out – something unique about Gujarat was that for the first time you had very brave, upright police officers, serving at the time, who through their official depositions to the [Nanavati-Shah, later Nanavati-Mehta] Commission made available material on which we could build our cases. So it was not just the human rights narrative, or the activists’ narrative relying on press reports or fact-findings, but also affidavits and documents provided by serving officers, who were of course subsequently victimised by the administration. For instance it was Rahul Sharma’s affidavit, where he made cellphone call data records for 5 lakh calls available publicly, that enabled all of us to sit and put together the call records.
 
The first call Modi made after he received a fax from District Magistrate Jayanti Ravi telling him about Godhra was not to DGP Chakravarti, nor to Commissioner Pandey, but to Jaideep Patel, general secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad – which is not a normal thing for a chief minister to do. Then, Jaideep Patel is dispatched to Godhra, post mortems are conducted in the open, sentiments are allowed to run riot, and a whole buildup is facilitated by the government. It was an engineered sentiment. Given the history of communal violence in this country, if you have an incident like Godhra happen, you will have 2-3 bouts of communal violence here and there, because that’s the way communal narratives, rumours, sentiments work. You would have had bouts of “retaliatory” violence. But 300 incidents in 19 districts of the state, perfectly orchestrated? That’s unlikely to have been spontaneous.
 
Coming to your other point, about inquiry commissions, there has been only one official commission of inquiry, the Nanavati Commission. The funny thing about it is, for the third assembly election Modi won, he managed to persuade the judges sitting on the commission to release a “partial report”, which is unheard of. So Nanavati-Shah released a “Godhra report”, calling it an ISI conspiracy. The post-Godhra Nanavati report is still under wraps. We don’t have it. It has been tabled in the state assembly, but has not been made public. And that’s a real question mark, as to why it hasn’t been made public.
 
If you’re talking about the Concerned Citizens Tribunal report, which was headed by Justice Krishna, Justice Sawant, Justice Suresh, and of which I was also a convenor, it came to the very clear finding that what happened in Gujarat post Godhra was a pogrom, a state-sponsored genocide, and that Narendra Modi was the architect of that genocide. Those are the words of that report.
 
To be continued.
 
See here for an account of Narendra Modi's deposition to the Special Investigation Team, and this excerpt from Rakesh Sharma's documentary Final Solution (2004) detailing the attack on the Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad.

This article was first published in Indian Cultural Forum
 

Gulberg Society / Indian Express

The post “99% of the victims of gender violence were killed afterwards.” appeared first on SabrangIndia.