Concern over extended time frame to probe communal riots cases

The Hindu
22 March 2008

Concern over extended time frame to probe communal riots cases

‘Protraction of the inquiry keeps tensions simmering and devalues justice’.

— Photo: AP

Asma Jahangir… “The vast majority of Indians respects secular traditions.”

Asma Jahangir , the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief of the United Nations Human Rights Council, made a statement on March 20, 2008 in Delhi at the end of her visit to India. Excerpts:

I wish to thank the Government of India for inviting me here and for giving me this unique opportunity to study the situation with regard to freedom of religion or belief. India is a diverse country, where religions and beliefs are abundant and find respect in a secular framework.

Indeed, due to the religious diversity of India, this country visit has been an enriching experience for the mandate I have been holding since 2004. I will be submitting a detailed report with conclusions and recommendations to the United Nations Human Rights Council, therefore this press statement will only cover some preliminary impressions that I have formed during the past two-and-half weeks.

Many of my interlocutors have pointed to the positive impact of Indian secularism as embodied in the Constitution. By and large, Indians do value secular principles and I was told time and again that the term ‘secularism’ does not necessarily mean the same as in other countries. Historically, there have been believers of a whole range of religions and beliefs living in India. The Central government has developed a comprehensive policy pertaining to minorities, including religious ones. In this context, I would like to compliment various recent reports on religious minorities, for example drafted by the committees headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar in 2006 and by Justice Ranganath Mishra in 2007.

The National Commission for Minorities, too, has taken up several challenges. Their members took prompt action and issued independent reports on incidents of communal violence with concrete recommendations. However, the performance of the various Human Rights Commissions depends very much on the selection of members and the importance governments attach to their mandates. It is vital that members of such commissions have acute sensitivity to human rights issues and must reflect the diversity — particularly in terms of gender — as women are one of the worst sufferers of religious intolerance. At the same time, I noticed that women’s groups across religious lines were the most active and effective human rights advocates in situations of communal tensions.

All individuals I met recognised that a comprehensive legal framework to protect their rights exists, yet many of them — especially from religious minorities — remained dissatisfied with implementation. By and large, Indians respect the diversity of religions and beliefs. At the same time, organised groups based on religious ideologies have unleashed the fear of mob violence in many parts. The law enforcement machinery is often reluctant to take action against individuals or groups that perpetuate violence in the name of religion or belief. This institutionalised impunity for those who exploit religion and impose their religious intolerance on others has made peaceful citizens, particularly the minorities, vulnerable and fearful.

I have received numerous reports of attacks on religious minorities and their places of worship as well as discrimination of disempowered sections of the Hindu community. Concerning the 2002 Gujarat massacre, I have read numerous reports, both of official bodies and civil society organisations, and I met a large number of eyewitnesses and people who visited Gujarat during the trouble. The State government reported that, prior to the Godhra incident, Gujarat had witnessed 443 major communal incidents between 1970 and 2002. As such, the warning was there. However, the massacre that took place after the tragic deaths at Godhra in 2002 is all the more horrifying since by all accounts at least a thousand people were systematically killed. Even worse —there are credible reports — inaction by the authorities was evident and most interlocutors alleged complicity by the State government. In my discussions with victims, I could see their continuing fear which is exacerbated by the distress that justice continues to evade most victims and survivors. Even today there is increasing ghettoisation and isolation of Muslims in certain areas. The assertion of the State government that development by itself will heal the wounds does not seem to be realistic.

I am also concerned at the extended time frame of investigations in cases involving communal riots, violence and massacres such as those which occurred in 1984, 1992 and 2002.

While an inquiry into large-scale communal violence should not be done in indecent haste, it should be accorded the highest priority by the investigation, the judiciary and any commission appointed to study the situation. Unreasonable protraction of the inquiry only keeps tensions simmering and devalues justice. I was astonished to learn that just before I arrived in India, the Liberhan Commission — probing the circumstances that led to the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya — got the 44th extension to conclude its inquiry.

There is today a real risk that similar communal violence might happen again unless incitement to religious hatred and political exploitation of communal tensions are effectively prevented.

It is a challenge for both the government and non-state actors to defuse tensions and address the root causes ahead of time. The sincerity of the Central government in implementing the Sachar Committee report will be seen on the ground because the State governments have been given the direction to follow up on the recommendations of the report. While Kerala has already undertaken the assignment seriously, many States have not even set up the relevant committees.

I was deeply touched to hear of the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990s following a campaign of threats and violence. They remain dislocated to this day despite the fact that de-escalation of violence in Jammu and Kashmir has had a positive impact on religious tolerance. There have been public statements inviting the Hindu Pandits to return to Kashmir. Places of worship are now more accessible and tensions are reducing. At the same time, many interlocutors have confirmed a continuing bias amongst the security forces against Muslims who also face problems in securing passports and security clearances for employment purposes. There are also reports of discrimination against them outside of Jammu and Kashmir, such as the refusal of hotel bookings.

At all places where I met with members of the Muslim community in India, I was informed that a number of them have been arrested on ill-founded suspicions of terrorism. They are disturbed that terrorism is associated with their religion despite various public statements from Muslim leadership denouncing terrorism. There was though recognition of the government’s efforts in ensuring that Indian Muslims’ rights are protected when arrested abroad.

The vast majority of Indians respects secular traditions and keenly follows the teachings of the nation’s founding fathers. There are innumerable examples where individuals have come to each other’s rescue, crossing all religious boundaries. Indeed, in Gujarat, a large number of victims recognised the positive role played by some national media and other courageous individuals who effectively saved lives. It is a crucial — albeit difficult — task for the state and civil society to challenge the forces of intolerance.