Officials cited “discrimination” by the Gujarat government, which has not included the jail staff in the Rs 550 crore allowance announced for the Gujarat police in August this year

A mass casual leave by the jail police staff from various districts of Gujarat saw a unique protest outside their respective jail premises in the state on September 28 reported The Indian Express. They were demanding an immediate resolution to their demands, which includes an extension of benefits given to the Gujarat police personnel to the jail police staff.

Officials and other staff of both the Vadodara Central Jail and Chhota Udepur sub-jail Wednesday, went on a mass Casual Leave (CL) over the issue of grade pay and old pension scheme among other demands. They cited “discrimination” by the Gujarat government, which has not included the jail staff in the Rs 550 crore allowance announced for the Gujarat police in August this year.

Outside the Vadodara Central jail, the officials held placards stating, “Jail police personnel are included in the 7^th Pay Commission benefits, but the remuneration for forfeiting leaves is given as per the sixth pay commission slabs. This should be rectified immediately… Similarly, all personnel should be given a designated one day off in a week.”

Another protesting personnel from Chhota Udepur sub jail said, “The  state government declared a Rs 550 crore annual package for Gujarat police in October. According to the package, the police constables will get about Rs 5,200 annual salary increment and head constables will get Rs 58,000 (or 5,800) . But these benefits have not been given to the jail police… Why is there discrimination? ”

What makes matters more serious is that in Vadodara, Jail officials threatened a sustained agitation if these demands are not met.

“As per the Gujarat government circular of 2014, the jail personnel are supposed to be given the same benefits received by the city and district police officials. But why has the Gujarat jail police been set aside like it is not required… If that is the case, we will lock all the jails over the next few days if the government fails to correct this injustice. The entire state will suffer if the jail staff decides to go on agitation.”

The post Vadodara Jail police staff on mass leave, seek equal benefits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking incident in Vadodara, a Parsi man from was booked for failing to disclose religion while selling his property to a Muslim man. The charges against him were filed under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable and Provision for protection of Tenants from Eviction of Premises in Disturbed Areas Act.

This Act prohibits the sale of property in a ‘Disturbed Area’ to a person of a different religion without the permission of the District Collector, in a purported bid to maintain communal harmony by preventing changes to demography.

Enacted in 1991 and modified in 2005, the Disturbed Areas Act as it is commonly referred to, says “Where the State Government, having regard to the intensity and duration of riot or violence of mob and such other factors in any area of the State is of opinion that public order in that area was disturbed for a substantial period by reason of riot or violence of mob, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare such area to be a disturbed area.” In order to transfer immovable property in a Disturbed Area, a person must make an application to the District Collector.

The Act applies to communally sensitive areas in Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Himmatnagar, Bharuch, Surat, Godhra, and Kapadvanj. Fresh amendments were passed in July 2019 by the Gujarat Assembly, but held back allegedly by the Ministry of Home Affairs in January 2020. The ministry reportedly sought greater clarification as to the definition of “immovable property” and also sought to know if provisions of the act violate any other law and the Indian Constitution. In February 2020, large swathes of Khambhat town in Anand district were also placed under the Disturbed Areas Act for five years.

The proposed amendments reportedly gave greater power to the District Collectors to gauge whether the sale would lead to ‘polarisation’ or ‘improper clustering’ that had the potential to cause disturbance in future. It also allowed for imprisonment of people violating the act from anywhere between three to five years. The fine amount was also increased from the original Rs 1,000/-  to Rs 1,00,000 or ten percent of the value of the property.  

The entire act may be viewed here: 

In the present case, according to the Times of India, the accused, one Feroze Contractor, a resident of Vasna Road in Vadodara, was booked for cheating and forging documents to sell his plot in Samarpan Society to Feroze Patel and his family.

The offense was registered at the JP Road police station on Sunday, on a complaint filed by the society president Manish Malhotra who alleged that Contractor did not disclose that he was Parsi while applying for permission from the District Collector to sell his plot. He also alleged that Contractor had failed to disclose that the sale deed was signed between Contractor and Patel in June last year. It was only when Patel started construction on the plot that residents discovered it had changed hands.

Related:

After communal violence Gujarat’s Khambhat put under Disturbed Areas Act for 5 years

The post Vadodara man booked for not disclosing religion during sale of property appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sample taken from the spot where channel “releases” effluents 

In a letter to senior Government of India and Gujarat government officials, with copies to the Prime Minister and the state chief minister as also concerned citizens, PSS in its letter signed by Rohit Prajapati and Krishna Kant insist not to renew Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CC&A) order dated January 6, 2015, and implement the closure order dated December 13, 2018 of GPCB under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
 

Text:

It is utterly shocking that Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) letter, dated September 5, 2019, maintains complete silence on the principle and fundamental issue that, “Now, there is no dispute among concerned authorities, industries, and VECL that at ‘J Point’ of Effluent Channel of VECL the effluent is consistently not able to meet the prescribed GPCB norms”, mentioned in all our letter since 2000.

Surprisingly same letter also states, “Thus Board is taking action against as and when any industry (is) found not complying (with) the norms.” We would like to again put on record that the VECL is also an industry, in the business of safely conveying treated industrial effluents but is not able to meet the prescribed norms since its inception. We request GPCB to clarify this in writing. A copy of the letter is attached herewith.

We had taken a sample of the effluent on September 6, 2019 at 1.26 pm at ‘J Point’ and submitted the sample to GPCB, Vadodara Office. The result reveals that COD at ‘J Point’ is 1976. Investigations from July 31, 2019 onwards were able to reveal and expose that VECL’s pipeline, at many points, was and is still leaking. Even the monsoon rains on July 31, 2019 onwards have moved the soil above the pipeline inside the ECP and expose the reasons for the leakage.

Even the monsoon rains on August 2 and 3, 2019 were also able to reveal and expose that leakage of pipeline in the last stretch of ECP. The VECL’s carelessness has led to filling up of two ponds of Nodhana Village with industrial effluent. Industrial effluent also entered into agriculture land of Uber, Valipur, Nodhana, Samoj, and Sarod villages.

The Vadodara Enviro Channel Limited (VECL) knowingly and openly decided not to respect the Environment Laws of India and Order, dated February 22, 2017, of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No 375 of 2012 (Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anrs V/s Union of India & Ors) and National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, Order, dated August 3, 2018 and February 19, 2019, in the Original Application No 593 of 2017, (Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anrs V/s Union of India & Ors).

We are extremely disturbed that the Chief Secretary, Gujarat State; and the Chairman & Member Secretary of the GPCB are openly allowing the VECL to consistently and admittedly violate the environment laws of the land.

They are also turning a blind eye to the known and admitted violation of the Order, dated February 22, 2017, of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 375 of 2012 (Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anrs V/s Union of India & Ors) and National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi Order, dated 03.08.2018 and 19.02.2019, in Original Application No. 593 of 2017, (Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Anrs V/s Union of India & Ors). These amount to Contempt of the Supreme Court Order and exemplary punishment needs to be ordered by the concerned authorities.
 

A spot where effluent is oozing out of the pipeline

There have been several such letters written by PSS and Farmers’ Action Group (FAG) and repeated investigations conducted by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), and various agencies appointed by the concerned authorities.

These efforts and track record clearly demonstrates that the groundwater of the villages, ponds, and agricultural areas along and around the ECP are critically contaminated and need immediate intervention by the concerned authorities to stop further pollution of any kind.

They must also demarcate and analyze the pollution-affected areas scientifically and then implement well-devised, short-term and long-term plans to completely remediate the surface water and land as well as the groundwater of the affected area.

Since the year 2000, we have been continuously communicating about the above issues and about the non-compliance of Effluent Channel Project (ECP) of Vadodara Enviro Channel Limited, with the concerned authorities. There has been no response from the authorities in terms of definitive actions on the ground. Our continuous appeals have been responded with undeniable display of their nonchalance and lack of commitment to the environment and law of the land.

The Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CC&A), dated January 6, 2015, of VECL clearly mentions: “VECL have only one outlet for the discharge of its effluent and no effluent shall be discharged without requisite treatment & without meeting with the GPCB norms.”

There are many more such terms and conditions mentioned in the said CC&A but the concerned authorities have failed to look into the compliance of these crucial terms and conditions of CC&A.

Neither the GPCB nor the industrialists have denied that the groundwater is severely contaminated, that the contamination is spreading in different areas, and it has reached irreversible / irreparable levels because of incessant industrial activities.

There are number farmers who had been practicing organic farming but because of the groundwater pollution, they are no longer considered organic. Affected farmers with small landholding and villagers often have no choice but to use this contaminated water for farming and their livelihood, including in their own households, and for their cows and buffaloes.

The farmers who are affected by groundwater contamination and pollution have not been compensated in terms of money or in kind. This is despite the fact that nobody disputes the fact that the problem of contamination of groundwater and air pollution is because of the polluting industries located around the villages and areas vis-à-vis the ECP.
 

Alarming  that industries located in Central Gujarat are releasing untreated effluents, which has grave consequences, and may force government to declare  chemical emergency

Polluters need to pay. Industries need to be categorized as polluters. There are too many loopholes for polluters to get away from responsibility to pay. Polluters need to pay if it is externalized from their respective compounds. There has to be a system to assess and pay the affected in time.

 There must be a serious and concerted effort made to change the way we process and manufacture industrial products. A mid-course correction towards more ecologically and socially responsible practices must be studied and adapted for a new kind of regenerative economy, healthier ecosystems, and happier and productive people.

As far as industrial clusters around ECP are concerned, they are located in the vegetable basket of Gujarat, on fertile land, which is prima facie contradictory and illegal. Majority of the industries located in this cluster do not even have the required buffer zone as per the stipulated condition in the environmental clearance.

The main purpose of the buffer zone is to avert the effect of negative impact of pollution on the surrounding rural residential and agricultural areas. No action has been taken against these defaulting industries even after repeated letters from us about the violations.

Keeping in mind the above stated alarming facts and undisputed realities even accepted by CPCB, GPCB, Vadodara Enviro Channel Limited, and the industries located in this area, we can surely declare this grave situation as a major chemical emergency. In order to reduce further harm to the people and the environment, we demand that:
 

• Concerned authorities should not renew Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CC&A) dated January 6, 2015 of Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd.
• Concerned authorities should immediately implement the Closure Order dated December 13, 2018 of GPCB under section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
• File criminal cases against VECL and defaulting polluting industries of ECP Industrial Cluster. The cases may please be heard in a Special Court on day-to-day basis.

If authorities fail to do so, it will convey a wrong message to all the polluting industries that the concerned authorities are not serious about implementing the Supreme Court order dated February 22, 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 375 of 2012.

We expect your prompt and positive response in the interest of life, livelihoods, and the environment. If this doesn’t happen, we may take action as may be advised.

Courtesy: Counter View

The post New sample suggests high pollution off Vadodara effluent channel, ‘requires’ action appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmedabad

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

Anand

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

Banaskantha

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

Bharuch

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

Bhavnagar

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

Dahod

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

Kheda

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

Mehsana

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

Panchmahal

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

Patan

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

Sabarkantha

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

Vadodara

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation for death

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Destruction of homes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Existing camps not regularised by the state government

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

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

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

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

The post Betrayal by the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandharwada mass graves case: A brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

Present status of  the Mass Graves case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her affidavit, Maksudabehn states that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Mass graves and missing lives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry (general):

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

Agriculture

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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