The Hindu, September 18, 2013
The chilling familiarity of Muzaffarnagar
by Farah Naqvi
Riot follows riot with sickening regularity but there is only a deathly silence on a draft bill to fix accountability for communal violence and guarantee justice and compensation to victims
In communal politics, facts matter less than fiction. The spin and narrative are what make “riots” unique — violence sought to be justified, even warranted, then forgotten. “Riots” are always about the blame-game that follows; the action-reaction theory; the rationalisation for what is indefensible — the taking of human life, the rendering homeless of innocents, and the inevitable polarisation benefiting political parties. With social media, mobile apps, and image morphing software a flick of a button away, the ammunition of spin is handy. But though technology is new, the narrative is frighteningly familiar. Women as commodities (of a piece with land and cattle), and women’s bodies as repositories of patriarchal honour are once again at the epicentre of this narrative.
On the ground
This belt of western Uttar Pradesh is the home turf of the “dis-honor” killings, where the sex ratio is among India’s lowest (Muzaffarnagar has a child sex ratio of 863 in the 2011 census); where the narrative of “women’s honour” can be stirred so easily into the communal cauldron. Even the recent national outrage over increasing violence against women has been appropriated and deployed. One headline in a prominent internet news site screamed “Stalker’s death triggered Muzaffarnagar conflagration,” implicitly justifying the murder of someone the reporter decided to call a “stalker,” though there was no evidence or charge of stalking (a serious crime after the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013) in the incident of August 27. The story opened with, Two brothers kill a man stalking their sister [….] The actions by “the brothers” were in this and many other variations normalised, even tacitly valorised. For that is what “real men” do when family honour is on the line. It is precisely the mindset that applauds the death penalty for rape, knowing it will solve nothing systemic. But who cares, for it satisfies the blood lust.
The mahapanchayat on September 7, in violation of prohibitory orders, is variously reported as Beti Bachao Bahu Bachao mahapanchayat or Beti Bahu Izzat Bachao mahapanchayat. “Izzat (honour”) and “Bachao (protect”) are scary words in the macho lexicon of western U.P. Here, women’s sexuality is a tool to be deployed only in service to community and patriarchy. Sexual autonomy is a threat to the entire edifice, and opposing intercommunity relationships (signalling choice and sexual autonomy) has long been a favourite pastime for the khaps that rule the roost. Many such intercommunity relationships, ending in murder, have been inter-caste. Now with inter-religious romance labelled “love jihad” under the Vishwa Hindu Parishad scanner, we need to be worried and watchful, as this game of izzat plays itself out. The “love jihad” construct of the Hindu right in one stroke raises the spectre of the “violent, enemy other, seducing by force” (Muslim jihadist) and condemns personal choice (i.e. “love”). And when protection and control over “our” women’s bodies are placed at the centre of any blood feud, one must fear the ground that communalists of all hues are preparing in the fertile soil of western U.P.
Gujarat and U.P.
The comparisons between the “narratives” of Gujarat and Muzaffarnagar are telling. In Muzaffarnagar, an alleged attack by the “other community” on the izzat of two brothers (by harassing their sister) turns out to be fake (NDTV, September 14). But it still leads to a mahapanchayat called to protect “the honour of women.” This then spurs the violence (with inflammatory speeches, incendiary video, death and displacement, police inaction, omnibus FIRs, and truckloads of scared people fleeing their homes).
We saw a similar narrative structure in Gujarat 2002, and it was written about in two reports by women’s rights activists — Survivors Speak and Threatened Existence. In addition to the train burning at Godhra, there was a false news report on February 28 in Sandesh (a leading Gujarati daily), saying that Hindu women were dragged from a railway compartment by a fanatic mob. A fake follow-up on March 1, said some women’s bodies were found with breasts cut off. A retraction, published much later by Sandesh, lay buried in a corner of the paper, while the fake news spread like wildfire, and became the justificatory rallying cry for what followed (Survivors Speak, pp 10-11). All of this — from Gujarat to Muzaffarnagar — is of a piece with the existing stock repertoire of the Hindu right — stories and myths about Muslim marauders, raping and defiling Hindu women, and by conflation, attacking the “izzat” of Mother India herself, provide eternal justification for “honorable” retaliation by Hindu men and the Hindu nation (Threatened Existence, p.39).
Protecting rights
Thus far, Muzaffarnagar has taken lives, devastated livelihoods and displaced at last count over 55,000 people. Thus far, women’s bodies are at the centre of the narrative, not the centre of the violence that has been reported. But, at the time of writing, unconfirmed stories are coming in, and fact-finding teams are still digging up “the truth.” So let us not be lulled. It is alarming when the Home Minister says that only 410 communal incidents occurred in the country last year, but this year, already 451 incidents have taken place. What world do we live in where 410 incidents big and small are an “only”? An acceptable number? And yet, amid the pro forma condemnations, calls for peace and the Prime Minister’s announcement of Rs.2 lakh for the next of kin of those killed, there is a deathly silence on the one piece of legislation promised in the United Progressive Alliance’s manifesto — the Communal Violence Bill. A draft Bill, crafted from the experience of victims and survivors of many communal carnages, sits on the back-burner, while we watch one communal incident after another. We hear pleas from survivors. We rail helplessly at loopholes in our statutory frameworks that allow state inaction and dereliction at the cost of lives; that make displaced and violated citizens plead and grovel for justice and compensation from state authorities. So much would have been citizens’ rights by law if such a bill were in place today.
Or, is the intent to simply allow things to go on as they are? One incident to the next, with no learning, with no dent in impunity; no movement towards an architecture of rights for innocents routinely hurt by this violence, and by the threats that women face? Can we afford to persist with this state of denial — imagining that communal violence is a thing of the past; that an aspirational India has moved beyond identity fault-lines? Let us remind ourselves of fearful people running from their homes and confront the reality that they may languish in camps of one kind or another in perpetuity, like scores of victims of communal carnages before them, with no justiciable framework of rights, no justice.
While there is silence on a law to challenge impunity, new slogans of communalism are being crafted everyday, embellishing the core of the “honour” narrative. The latest from Muzaffarnagar according to one news report (HT, Lucknow, September 13), throws cow slaughter and, perhaps predictably, Modi into the fray — “desh, bahu aur gai ko bachana hai toh Narendra Modi ko lana hai.”
(Farah Naqvi, a writer and activist, is a member of the National Advisory Council. The views expressed are personal. E-mail: farah.naqvi64@yahoo.com)
|
Showing posts with label Accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Accountability. Show all posts
September 18, 2013
April 06, 2013
Online Petition to Indian Voters: Hold Chief Minister Narendra Modi accountable for human rights violations
Indian Voters: Hold Chief Minister Narendra Modi accountable for human rights violations
https://www.change.org/petitions/indian-voters-hold-chief-minister-narendra-modi-accountable-for-human-rights-violations-4
November 01, 2012
A Gadkari may be dispensable as a ‘damaged’ politician, but who will hold the RSS accountable
FRom: The Hindustan Times
Stuck in a time warp
Rajdeep Sardesai
November 01, 2012
Nitin Gadkari isn’t quite known to mind his language. A few weeks after he took over as BJP president, he expressed himself with typical candour to a group of journalists: “I know you must be wondering who is this bloody ‘mota’ guy from nowhere. I want to tell all of you I am on a mission, not here for commission!” Three years later, those words may well come to haunt him as he is slowly pushed into exile from the Delhi durbar.
In this open season against corruption, it would be easy to see Gadkari as yet another high-profile ‘target’ of the growing public anger against political corruption. What might have been dismissed as ‘sharp’ business practices in another period is now evidence of yet another politician trying to wink at the law by a mix of recklessness and subterfuge. Why else would a self-proclaimed ‘social entrepreneur’ choose to set up a maze of fictitious shell companies unless he believed he could get away with it using political clout?
And yet, the eclipse of Gadkari is not just about a popular rage against the neta. It also reflects a growing crisis within the country’s premier Opposition party. In the last three years, in the relentless gaze on the wrongdoings of the UPA 2, the BJP has been in soft focus. And yet, the travails of the BJP at times suggest that its future is just as uncertain as the Congress’s.
The Congress is a private limited company tightly controlled by one family. The BJP, on the other hand, is increasingly resembling a shell company where the directors exist on paper, but the real investors have their address in Keshav Kunj in Nagpur. The Gandhi family may have escaped stern scrutiny but at least its top leaders have to face the people during elections. The RSS leadership, on the other hand, remains an extra-constitutional grouping which can determine the fate of the BJP without being tested in electoral waters. It is this conflict between an elected, accountable BJP leadership and an unelected, unaccountable RSS that lies at the heart of the BJP’s present crisis.
Gadkari was appointed president of the party as a result of this conflict within. The 2009 election debacle, LK Advani’s refusal to retire gracefully and the squabbling between the BJP’s Generation Next leadership appeared to have convinced the RSS that the time had come to stage an internal coup. So, disregarding all claimants from its Delhi parliamentary wing or any of its upwardly mobile chief ministers, the RSS anointed an ‘outsider’ as its president, someone whom they hoped would rise above factional politics. As the friendly neighbourhood swayamsevak from Nagpur, Gadkari was ideally placed to restore the RSS’s dominance over the BJP’s decision-making.
While the RSS has tried to sustain the fiction of being distanced from politics, the fact is that there have been only two periods in the Jan Sangh-BJP’s history where the RSS has actually shown signs of a retreat. The first was in the aftermath of the collapse of the Janata Party experiment when a growing disillusionment with the BJP’s so-called Gandhian socialism and an attraction towards Indira Gandhi’s soft Hindu politics saw many Sangh members drift towards supporting the Congress. The second period was when AB Vajpayee asserted his autonomy in the post-1999 NDA. The personality cult that was built around Vajpayee as the ‘Man India Awaits’ clearly appeared to dwarf the RSS.
But as the Advani-Vajpayee era drew to a close, the RSS decided to reassert itself as the pater familias of the saffron brotherhood. The rise of Narendra Modi has only accelerated this process. Modi, in many ways, is the antithesis of the original vision of a swayamsevak. In the RSS worldview, community matters more than self: common rituals, common training and an austere lifestyle are seen to bind swayamsevaks into an organisational whole where ideology matters more than the individual. Modi may have cut his teeth in an RSS shakha, but clearly he has chosen a highly personalised style of functioning where the organisation becomes subservient to the cult of Modi. In the process, an entire generation of RSS loyalists in Gujarat has been edged out by newer, more ambitious political entrants. Even Sangh offshoots like the VHP have been pushed to the margins in Gujarat.
While Modi’s experiment has met with spectacular success in Gujarat, the RSS is worried that the politics of Gandhinagar could now be replicated on a larger stage in Delhi. It is this fear of Modi above all else which prompted the Sangh to prop up Gadkari as their protective armour. In every interview when the BJP president was asked about the BJP’s prime ministerial contenders, he would smile, “We have six to seven people in our party who can be prime ministers. Narendra Modi is one of them.”
By seeking to equate Modi with other BJP leaders, Gadkari was trying to emphasise the notion of a ‘collective’ leadership, a concept which is fiercely patronised by the RSS. Unfortunately, the Sangh is caught in a time warp, its ideas shaped by the past and not by the changing realities. This is an era of presidential- style politics where individuals have to be strongly projected to define a ‘brand’. A Gadkari-style leader could never be a magnet to attract new voters to the BJP nor could he ever really assert his authority over a fractured party.
However, it is now apparent that the RSS will not admit the failure of its Gadkari experiment. Nor will it loosen the umbilical cord with the BJP and allow it to function as an autonomous political outfit. A second term as party president for the beleaguered Gadkari appears unlikely now. A Gadkari may be dispensable as a ‘damaged’ politician, but who will hold the RSS accountable?
Rajdeep Sardesai is editor-in-chief, IBN 18 network
The views expressed by the author are personal
Stuck in a time warp
Rajdeep Sardesai
November 01, 2012
Nitin Gadkari isn’t quite known to mind his language. A few weeks after he took over as BJP president, he expressed himself with typical candour to a group of journalists: “I know you must be wondering who is this bloody ‘mota’ guy from nowhere. I want to tell all of you I am on a mission, not here for commission!” Three years later, those words may well come to haunt him as he is slowly pushed into exile from the Delhi durbar.
In this open season against corruption, it would be easy to see Gadkari as yet another high-profile ‘target’ of the growing public anger against political corruption. What might have been dismissed as ‘sharp’ business practices in another period is now evidence of yet another politician trying to wink at the law by a mix of recklessness and subterfuge. Why else would a self-proclaimed ‘social entrepreneur’ choose to set up a maze of fictitious shell companies unless he believed he could get away with it using political clout?
And yet, the eclipse of Gadkari is not just about a popular rage against the neta. It also reflects a growing crisis within the country’s premier Opposition party. In the last three years, in the relentless gaze on the wrongdoings of the UPA 2, the BJP has been in soft focus. And yet, the travails of the BJP at times suggest that its future is just as uncertain as the Congress’s.
The Congress is a private limited company tightly controlled by one family. The BJP, on the other hand, is increasingly resembling a shell company where the directors exist on paper, but the real investors have their address in Keshav Kunj in Nagpur. The Gandhi family may have escaped stern scrutiny but at least its top leaders have to face the people during elections. The RSS leadership, on the other hand, remains an extra-constitutional grouping which can determine the fate of the BJP without being tested in electoral waters. It is this conflict between an elected, accountable BJP leadership and an unelected, unaccountable RSS that lies at the heart of the BJP’s present crisis.
Gadkari was appointed president of the party as a result of this conflict within. The 2009 election debacle, LK Advani’s refusal to retire gracefully and the squabbling between the BJP’s Generation Next leadership appeared to have convinced the RSS that the time had come to stage an internal coup. So, disregarding all claimants from its Delhi parliamentary wing or any of its upwardly mobile chief ministers, the RSS anointed an ‘outsider’ as its president, someone whom they hoped would rise above factional politics. As the friendly neighbourhood swayamsevak from Nagpur, Gadkari was ideally placed to restore the RSS’s dominance over the BJP’s decision-making.
While the RSS has tried to sustain the fiction of being distanced from politics, the fact is that there have been only two periods in the Jan Sangh-BJP’s history where the RSS has actually shown signs of a retreat. The first was in the aftermath of the collapse of the Janata Party experiment when a growing disillusionment with the BJP’s so-called Gandhian socialism and an attraction towards Indira Gandhi’s soft Hindu politics saw many Sangh members drift towards supporting the Congress. The second period was when AB Vajpayee asserted his autonomy in the post-1999 NDA. The personality cult that was built around Vajpayee as the ‘Man India Awaits’ clearly appeared to dwarf the RSS.
But as the Advani-Vajpayee era drew to a close, the RSS decided to reassert itself as the pater familias of the saffron brotherhood. The rise of Narendra Modi has only accelerated this process. Modi, in many ways, is the antithesis of the original vision of a swayamsevak. In the RSS worldview, community matters more than self: common rituals, common training and an austere lifestyle are seen to bind swayamsevaks into an organisational whole where ideology matters more than the individual. Modi may have cut his teeth in an RSS shakha, but clearly he has chosen a highly personalised style of functioning where the organisation becomes subservient to the cult of Modi. In the process, an entire generation of RSS loyalists in Gujarat has been edged out by newer, more ambitious political entrants. Even Sangh offshoots like the VHP have been pushed to the margins in Gujarat.
While Modi’s experiment has met with spectacular success in Gujarat, the RSS is worried that the politics of Gandhinagar could now be replicated on a larger stage in Delhi. It is this fear of Modi above all else which prompted the Sangh to prop up Gadkari as their protective armour. In every interview when the BJP president was asked about the BJP’s prime ministerial contenders, he would smile, “We have six to seven people in our party who can be prime ministers. Narendra Modi is one of them.”
By seeking to equate Modi with other BJP leaders, Gadkari was trying to emphasise the notion of a ‘collective’ leadership, a concept which is fiercely patronised by the RSS. Unfortunately, the Sangh is caught in a time warp, its ideas shaped by the past and not by the changing realities. This is an era of presidential- style politics where individuals have to be strongly projected to define a ‘brand’. A Gadkari-style leader could never be a magnet to attract new voters to the BJP nor could he ever really assert his authority over a fractured party.
However, it is now apparent that the RSS will not admit the failure of its Gadkari experiment. Nor will it loosen the umbilical cord with the BJP and allow it to function as an autonomous political outfit. A second term as party president for the beleaguered Gadkari appears unlikely now. A Gadkari may be dispensable as a ‘damaged’ politician, but who will hold the RSS accountable?
Rajdeep Sardesai is editor-in-chief, IBN 18 network
The views expressed by the author are personal
October 02, 2012
The SIMI scare - Indian Express series by by Muzamil Jaleel (The case against UAPA)
When ISI became a ‘front for SIMI’
by Muzamil Jaleel (1 October2012)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/when-isi-became-a--front-for-simi-/1010126/
The posters that landed retired SIMI secy in jail
by Muzamil Jaleel (28 September 2012
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-posters-that-landed-retired-simi-secy-in-jail/1008884/
Over a month, four ‘terror’ arrests in Indore for ‘shouting slogans’
by Muzamil Jaleel (27 September 2012)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/over-a-month-four--terror--arrests-in-indore-for--shouting-slogans-/1008344/
2 years, 5 cities, 6 cases – and ‘proof’ everywhere is the same magazine
by Muzamil Jaleel (26 September 2012)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/2-years-5-cities-6-cases---and--proof--everywhere-is-the-same-magazine/1007920/
A children’s magazine, newspaper, Urdu poetry – anything can land you in jail
by Muzamil Jaleel (25 September '12)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-children-s-magazine-newspaper-urdu-poetry---anything-can-land-you-in-jail/1007411/
by Muzamil Jaleel (1 October2012)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/when-isi-became-a--front-for-simi-/1010126/
The posters that landed retired SIMI secy in jail
by Muzamil Jaleel (28 September 2012
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-posters-that-landed-retired-simi-secy-in-jail/1008884/
Over a month, four ‘terror’ arrests in Indore for ‘shouting slogans’
by Muzamil Jaleel (27 September 2012)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/over-a-month-four--terror--arrests-in-indore-for--shouting-slogans-/1008344/
2 years, 5 cities, 6 cases – and ‘proof’ everywhere is the same magazine
by Muzamil Jaleel (26 September 2012)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/2-years-5-cities-6-cases---and--proof--everywhere-is-the-same-magazine/1007920/
A children’s magazine, newspaper, Urdu poetry – anything can land you in jail
by Muzamil Jaleel (25 September '12)
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-children-s-magazine-newspaper-urdu-poetry---anything-can-land-you-in-jail/1007411/
April 19, 2012
Ranbir Sena killers who orchestrated 1996 Bihar Dalit carnage acquitted
All accused in 1996 Bihar Dalit carnage acquitted
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3321368.ece
For residents of Bathani, it is a horror they cannot forget - The Hindu
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article3329111.ece
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3321368.ece
For residents of Bathani, it is a horror they cannot forget - The Hindu
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article3329111.ece
February 27, 2012
Communalisation of Indian police : Press Release following film screening of 'After the Storm'
Press release
Today on 27th February on the eve of Gujarat carnage New Stream Media along with Indian Social action Forum organised a press premier of documentary film 'After the Storm' here at the Press Club of India. After the screening Advocate Prashant Bhushan and director of After the Storm addressed the media.
Advocate Prashant said that communalisation of Indian police force is a big problem and the root cause of such fabricated cases which destroyed many innocent lives across India. In fact in many cases Hindu terror groups were behind but due to lack of proper investigation innocent Muslims had suffered. He also added by saying that by making such fabricated cases police are actually creating ground for making real terrorists from Muslim community.
Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty said in his submission that while making this documentary he had realised that such cases are not unique to one or two Indian states but similar cases are happening all over the country. He also raised the question of compensation to such acquitted persons and financial help to them by the state and the community to build their lives all over again.
Shubhradeep Chakravorty
New Stream Media,
674, Kamal Vihar Apartments,
Plot number 5, Sector 7,
Dwarika, New Delhi 110075, India.
Tel-91-9868226579, 91-11-25086613,
E-mails- shubhradeep@gmail.com
After the Storm
68 minutes
2012, India
Executive Producer: Jawad Khan
Director: Shubhradeep Chakravorty
Camera: Mohammad Ali
Editor: M. K. Shreenivas
Documentary After the Storm narrates stories of seven former terror accused set free by various law courts across India. Mukhtar Ahmed, Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed, Umar Farooque, Umar Farooque, Moutasim Billah, Harith Ansari, Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ and Shaik Abdul Kaleem are among thousands of Muslim youth arrested, falsely accused and then acquitted in terror cases. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
Documentary strongly advocates for they must be compensated, cases against them withdrawn and an unconditional public apology should be made by the authorities to keep faith in democracy and democratic institutions.
Forty-nine years old Mukhtar Ahmed from Bangalore was in retail business of readymade garments when he was picked by Central Bureau of Investigation on 3 September 1993 under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and then framed in the Chennai RSS (Hindu rightwing organisation) regional headquarters blast case. In all 17 persons were arrested in this case. He was acquitted by all the court and final judgement came from Supreme Court on 6 December 2010. In all he spent 6 years in jail and remained in Chennai on conditional bail for 8 years away from his family and business. Though he achieved some success in re-establishing his business but still his struggle for survival is on.
Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed from Hyderabad was doing his graduation when he was picked on 1 September, 2007 by Hyderabad police as a suspect in the blast at Gokul chat and Lumbini Park. Ironically his cousin died in one of the blasts. He was shown arrested on 5 September, 2007. He spent 6 months in jail and finally secured his acquittal in February 2008. Though he finished his graduation somehow but mental trauma and fear still continues.
Twenty-eight years old Umar Farooque was picked by Ahemdabad police on 11 May, 2oo6 in the conspiracy case to kill the rightwing Hindutva leaders. He was shown arrested on 9June, 2006 along with 5 others. After spending four and half years in jail he finally secured the acquittal on 29 July, 2010 but his life stand ruined today. Currently he is unemployed and his family is debt ridden.
On 5 March, 2008 engineering student Moutasim Billah was sitting in front of his house in old Hyderabad when he was picked by the police and then along with 20 others he was framed in Hyderabad conspiracy case. He spent 6 month in jail and then got the acquittal on 31 December 2008. Though he spent relatively shorter time in the jail but his education got ruined and he is yet to finish his engineering and marriages of his sisters are not fixed due to his social image.
Harith Ansari is son of Dr. Shakeel Ahmed; a prominent Ahmedabad based social activist and politician. Harith was in the profession of medical transcription and was doing well. He was picked on 7 Dec, 2003 from his home and his arrest was shown 11 Dec, 2003. Harith along with 5 others were framed in Conspiracy to conduct bomb blast in prominent buildings of Ahmadabad. After remaining 6 years in jail he finally got acquitted on 12 Dec, 2009. Currently he is unemployed and struggling in life.
Thirty-five years old Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ was working in a printing press when he was picked on 5 March 2002 and shown arrested on 7 March 2002 under the charge of firing and killing policemen at American Centre, Kolkata. He spent 8 years in jail and remained on death row for 5 years. Finally Kolkata High Court acquitted him on 7 Feb 2010. His family is in bad shape and he along with his two daughters and wife took shelter in the house of his father-in-law.
Shaik Abdul Kaleem is the person who was credited to influence Swami Aseemanand by his behaviour and prompted him to confess the Hindu terror plots. He was a paramedical student when he was picked first time by the police on 1 June 2007 but his arrest was shown on 7 June 2007. He was framed in Macca Masjid blast case and fake SIM cards case. After spending one and half years in jail he secured acquittal on 20 Sep 2008(SIM cards case) and 22 Jan 2009(RDX case). Currently he is studying law.
About the Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty
I did my post graduation in Political Science and International Relations and work as a journalist and documentary filmmaker. I work independently. I am interest in current affairs based documentary film making.
My Work:
So far I only made four documentaries and currently getting involved in another one.
My first independent documentary film was Godhra Tak: The Terror Trail. It is an investigative documentation of the barbaric incident of 27 Feb 2002, in which coach S6 of Sabermati Express was burnt down at Godhra railway station in Gujarat, India. Fifty-nine passengers including several Karsevaks died in that fire. The film tries to find out what actually happened at Godhra railway station on that day and how far the allegation of a conspiracy is true. This incident was used to start anti Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002.
In 2008 I finished my second documentary film 'Encountered on Saffron Agenda?'; a film based on investigative documentation of encounters of Sameer Khan Pathan (22 October, 2002), Sadik Jamal (13 January, 2003), Ishrat Jahan-Javed Seikh (16 June, 2004) and Shorabuddin Seikh (26 November, 2005), all happened in Gujarat. Those killed in them were said to have on a mission to kill the Chief Minister Narendra Modi who had allegedly organised the 2002 genocide of Muslims in the state after Godhra train burning incident. Film tries to find out the truth behind Police stories and politics of encounters in Gujarat.
The third one is 'After the Storm' based on stories of seven former terror accused who secured acquittal through various law courts in past few years. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
The forth one is 'Out of Court Settlement.' It is based on the tales of killings, beating up and intimidation of several defense lawyers across the country who were appearing in terror related cases. This documentary tries to put forth the ensuing danger to rule of law in the country because of such incidents.
Today on 27th February on the eve of Gujarat carnage New Stream Media along with Indian Social action Forum organised a press premier of documentary film 'After the Storm' here at the Press Club of India. After the screening Advocate Prashant Bhushan and director of After the Storm addressed the media.
Advocate Prashant said that communalisation of Indian police force is a big problem and the root cause of such fabricated cases which destroyed many innocent lives across India. In fact in many cases Hindu terror groups were behind but due to lack of proper investigation innocent Muslims had suffered. He also added by saying that by making such fabricated cases police are actually creating ground for making real terrorists from Muslim community.
Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty said in his submission that while making this documentary he had realised that such cases are not unique to one or two Indian states but similar cases are happening all over the country. He also raised the question of compensation to such acquitted persons and financial help to them by the state and the community to build their lives all over again.
Shubhradeep Chakravorty
New Stream Media,
674, Kamal Vihar Apartments,
Plot number 5, Sector 7,
Dwarika, New Delhi 110075, India.
Tel-91-9868226579, 91-11-25086613,
E-mails- shubhradeep@gmail.com
After the Storm
68 minutes
2012, India
Executive Producer: Jawad Khan
Director: Shubhradeep Chakravorty
Camera: Mohammad Ali
Editor: M. K. Shreenivas
Documentary After the Storm narrates stories of seven former terror accused set free by various law courts across India. Mukhtar Ahmed, Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed, Umar Farooque, Umar Farooque, Moutasim Billah, Harith Ansari, Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ and Shaik Abdul Kaleem are among thousands of Muslim youth arrested, falsely accused and then acquitted in terror cases. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
Documentary strongly advocates for they must be compensated, cases against them withdrawn and an unconditional public apology should be made by the authorities to keep faith in democracy and democratic institutions.
Forty-nine years old Mukhtar Ahmed from Bangalore was in retail business of readymade garments when he was picked by Central Bureau of Investigation on 3 September 1993 under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and then framed in the Chennai RSS (Hindu rightwing organisation) regional headquarters blast case. In all 17 persons were arrested in this case. He was acquitted by all the court and final judgement came from Supreme Court on 6 December 2010. In all he spent 6 years in jail and remained in Chennai on conditional bail for 8 years away from his family and business. Though he achieved some success in re-establishing his business but still his struggle for survival is on.
Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed from Hyderabad was doing his graduation when he was picked on 1 September, 2007 by Hyderabad police as a suspect in the blast at Gokul chat and Lumbini Park. Ironically his cousin died in one of the blasts. He was shown arrested on 5 September, 2007. He spent 6 months in jail and finally secured his acquittal in February 2008. Though he finished his graduation somehow but mental trauma and fear still continues.
Twenty-eight years old Umar Farooque was picked by Ahemdabad police on 11 May, 2oo6 in the conspiracy case to kill the rightwing Hindutva leaders. He was shown arrested on 9June, 2006 along with 5 others. After spending four and half years in jail he finally secured the acquittal on 29 July, 2010 but his life stand ruined today. Currently he is unemployed and his family is debt ridden.
On 5 March, 2008 engineering student Moutasim Billah was sitting in front of his house in old Hyderabad when he was picked by the police and then along with 20 others he was framed in Hyderabad conspiracy case. He spent 6 month in jail and then got the acquittal on 31 December 2008. Though he spent relatively shorter time in the jail but his education got ruined and he is yet to finish his engineering and marriages of his sisters are not fixed due to his social image.
Harith Ansari is son of Dr. Shakeel Ahmed; a prominent Ahmedabad based social activist and politician. Harith was in the profession of medical transcription and was doing well. He was picked on 7 Dec, 2003 from his home and his arrest was shown 11 Dec, 2003. Harith along with 5 others were framed in Conspiracy to conduct bomb blast in prominent buildings of Ahmadabad. After remaining 6 years in jail he finally got acquitted on 12 Dec, 2009. Currently he is unemployed and struggling in life.
Thirty-five years old Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ was working in a printing press when he was picked on 5 March 2002 and shown arrested on 7 March 2002 under the charge of firing and killing policemen at American Centre, Kolkata. He spent 8 years in jail and remained on death row for 5 years. Finally Kolkata High Court acquitted him on 7 Feb 2010. His family is in bad shape and he along with his two daughters and wife took shelter in the house of his father-in-law.
Shaik Abdul Kaleem is the person who was credited to influence Swami Aseemanand by his behaviour and prompted him to confess the Hindu terror plots. He was a paramedical student when he was picked first time by the police on 1 June 2007 but his arrest was shown on 7 June 2007. He was framed in Macca Masjid blast case and fake SIM cards case. After spending one and half years in jail he secured acquittal on 20 Sep 2008(SIM cards case) and 22 Jan 2009(RDX case). Currently he is studying law.
About the Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty
I did my post graduation in Political Science and International Relations and work as a journalist and documentary filmmaker. I work independently. I am interest in current affairs based documentary film making.
My Work:
So far I only made four documentaries and currently getting involved in another one.
My first independent documentary film was Godhra Tak: The Terror Trail. It is an investigative documentation of the barbaric incident of 27 Feb 2002, in which coach S6 of Sabermati Express was burnt down at Godhra railway station in Gujarat, India. Fifty-nine passengers including several Karsevaks died in that fire. The film tries to find out what actually happened at Godhra railway station on that day and how far the allegation of a conspiracy is true. This incident was used to start anti Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002.
In 2008 I finished my second documentary film 'Encountered on Saffron Agenda?'; a film based on investigative documentation of encounters of Sameer Khan Pathan (22 October, 2002), Sadik Jamal (13 January, 2003), Ishrat Jahan-Javed Seikh (16 June, 2004) and Shorabuddin Seikh (26 November, 2005), all happened in Gujarat. Those killed in them were said to have on a mission to kill the Chief Minister Narendra Modi who had allegedly organised the 2002 genocide of Muslims in the state after Godhra train burning incident. Film tries to find out the truth behind Police stories and politics of encounters in Gujarat.
The third one is 'After the Storm' based on stories of seven former terror accused who secured acquittal through various law courts in past few years. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
The forth one is 'Out of Court Settlement.' It is based on the tales of killings, beating up and intimidation of several defense lawyers across the country who were appearing in terror related cases. This documentary tries to put forth the ensuing danger to rule of law in the country because of such incidents.
February 21, 2012
Kandhamal: The law must change course ensure accountability for mass crimes (edited by Vrinda Grover)
KANDHAMAL: The Law must change its course [PDF]
Edited by Vrinda Grover
Published by Multiple Action Research Group
2010, 205 pages
http://www.sacw.net/article2545.html
Edited by Vrinda Grover
Published by Multiple Action Research Group
2010, 205 pages
http://www.sacw.net/article2545.html
February 08, 2012
Is the Raghavan SIT in Undue Haste for a Closure? - Open letter by concrned citizens
sacw.net - 8 February 2012
We, the undersigned members of civil society, were aghast to learn from newspaper reports that RK Raghavan, the head of the Special Investigative Team (SIT), is planning to file a closure report, and has no intention of filing charges against Narendra Modi and his co-conspirators for being allegedly complicit in the horrific massacre in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the death of over a thousand innocent citizens and extensive destruction of private and public property.
[. . .]
The proposed closure, if it happens, will add insult to injury for the victims of the massacre and their families and will exacerbate inter-community tensions. People will lose faith in our judicial system. The ability of the powerful to manipulate the course of justice will do serious harm to people’s faith in the system. It is obvious to many of us that an attempt at a massive cover-up is at work. It would be better if Modi answered the charges against him so that the matter is cleared and the issue of the accountability of a chief minister is addressed.
People must speak out against such gross abuse of our judicial system. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. [. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article2533.html
We, the undersigned members of civil society, were aghast to learn from newspaper reports that RK Raghavan, the head of the Special Investigative Team (SIT), is planning to file a closure report, and has no intention of filing charges against Narendra Modi and his co-conspirators for being allegedly complicit in the horrific massacre in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the death of over a thousand innocent citizens and extensive destruction of private and public property.
[. . .]
The proposed closure, if it happens, will add insult to injury for the victims of the massacre and their families and will exacerbate inter-community tensions. People will lose faith in our judicial system. The ability of the powerful to manipulate the course of justice will do serious harm to people’s faith in the system. It is obvious to many of us that an attempt at a massive cover-up is at work. It would be better if Modi answered the charges against him so that the matter is cleared and the issue of the accountability of a chief minister is addressed.
People must speak out against such gross abuse of our judicial system. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. [. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article2533.html
September 15, 2011
Granting bail or even acquittal does not mean resolution of the crimes
by Mustafa Khan
Milli Gazette Correspondent, Malegaon
Human intelligence is the most resourceful as well as helpful in
solving the mystery of a crime. In the case of Malegaon 2006 it was
preposterous to accept the police charge sheet that Muslims would use
the pious occasion of Shab-e-barat and kill fellow Muslims in order to
create a Hindu Muslim riot. The night of the festival is the occasion
when their life is judged and future is shaped for them as well as
their dead are forgiven their sins. All this hinges on their
prayerfulness. So the question does not arise of causing terror.
Compare this with the carnage at Hashimpura, Meerut, on such a similar
night on May 22, 1987 when Provincial Armed Constabulary had killed 42
Muslim youths at point blank and let their bodies flow down the river.
Writing on Malegaon has been extremely delicate and dangerous. There
are cases of adultery, homosexuality, rackets, illegal activities of
police informants, in which politicians, policemen (by no means all)
and their informers are involved. There was a typical case reported by
The Milli Gazette (1-15 May 2008): “April 2008. The Malegaon police
raided a pathological laboratory situated in the basement of a private
hospital and recovered five live RDX explosives, three used RDX
explosives, one pistol, a laptop, a scanner, two mobile phones, four
fake currency notes of Rs one thousand each and Rs 5000 in cash and
arrested three persons, viz., Nitish Ashire, Sahebrao Dhurve and
Jitendra Khema belonging to some unknown organization.” The case made
headlines for several days in Marathi newspapers like Lokmat and then
the matter simply disappeared from the paper and also the minds of the
people. Students Islamic Movement of India has been so much etched in
the minds that people do not bother about the ‘unknown organizations’
to which the three belonged.
However, there is very serious angle to this. Were the three used RDX
explosives remains of the three bombs that went off at the graveyard
on September 8, 2006? And, was the bomb that went off at Bhiku chowk
on September 29, 2008 from the five live ones seized? In the absence
of the resolution of the case of seizure it would be logical to ask
what happened to the arms cache.
The police had also seized arms and ammunition from Malegaon in the
second week May, 2006 and some of the accused were also arrested in
the bomb explosions three months later. The police allegedly recorded
statements on phone in which one who planted the bomb speaks of
difficulty in bringing ‘material’ into the town. Was this a reference
to the RDX seized? In another failed attempt to record phone
conversation, a witness Hamid Iqbal is asked to issue ominous threat
that betraying Muslims would result in bloody revenge. Was this made
out to be a threat of a terrorist group? Un/fortunately, Hamid Iqbal
refused to oblige the police or their informer. He wrote all this in
affidavit and submitted to the court. Today, September 13, 2011 I ran
across him on his way to meet National Investigation Agency (NIA). He
had the same clear determination that he would depose the same truth
to the officer.
Another instance of human intelligence is that of the retired teacher
Sadique Ansari whom the police had especially taken to Nasik from
Malegaon to depose before the chief of CBI Kandasamy. He had said that
he had heard a colleague in the Home Guard making frequently calls on
his two mobiles to Nagpur. One of them has the number 9422253996. He
was retailing information of the explosions. His house is in Satana
naka where Tulsi lodge is located, a place where the alleged
terrorists may have stayed. When NIA officer Pradeep Mani called me to
discuss some points I argued with him that if the bombers had bought
cycles from Pangrapole shopping complex then it would be in the
fitness of things that they started from the west at Satana naka and
came to the shopping complex and then went straight to Super market
near Juna Faran hospital and turned into the Ghalib road that first
reaches the Mushawarat chowk and leads to the adjoining graveyard.
One of the cycles was assembled by quarter to one by one employee
Iqbal who gave a trial by riding to the post office a couple of shops
in the south. It was past 12. 45 mid day, that is, less than 40
minutes before the explosions. Then the buyer rode it towards the
Shivaji statue and disappeared. It would be unimaginable for him to
ride all the way to the workshop of Shabbir Masiullah and have the
bombs fitted and then return to the graveyard environs.
Afterwards the investigation agencies and the Home Minister
Chidamrbrum claimed that they had got the addresses where the bombers
had stayed. This is another example of human intelligence whose
absence in the case of 13/7 has created a vacuum.
Even so having said all this is not to say that the guilt has been
proved. The named persons, Aseemanand, Sunil Joshi, or organizations,
like Abhinav Bharat, have every right to enjoy the benefit of doubt.
They can also be innocent unless proved guilty. Earlier this day NDTV
reported that the agencies have given a clean chit to the 9 Muslims
accused and under detention for the last five years. How wonderful it
would have been if the agencies had done an honest job much earlier or
do the same in the case of the newly alleged right wing extremists,
from outside and within the town!
Today also saw a meeting of the brother of one of the nine accused
with Gangurde, Shaikh Rafiq and Ghatkoper crime branch officer Rathor.
The brother asked havaldar Shaikh Rafiq who had taken away the accused
assuring the scared family that he would return with the accused
within fifteen minutes. The brother asked the havaldar why he has
taken away five years of his brother’s life!
There was no answer.
Sometimes back I accompanied Sanjoy Majumdar, India Representative of
BBC, to the house of that accused there sat the woebegone wife of his.
The grief had aged her and changed the contour of her face. She had
spent just a month with him after their marriage and then her husband
was snatched away. Destiny had played such a cruel joke. What for?
There was no answer.
--------
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/nine-muslim-men-in-jail-for-malegaon-blasts-are-innocent-concludes-nia-sources-133209&cp
Milli Gazette Correspondent, Malegaon
Human intelligence is the most resourceful as well as helpful in
solving the mystery of a crime. In the case of Malegaon 2006 it was
preposterous to accept the police charge sheet that Muslims would use
the pious occasion of Shab-e-barat and kill fellow Muslims in order to
create a Hindu Muslim riot. The night of the festival is the occasion
when their life is judged and future is shaped for them as well as
their dead are forgiven their sins. All this hinges on their
prayerfulness. So the question does not arise of causing terror.
Compare this with the carnage at Hashimpura, Meerut, on such a similar
night on May 22, 1987 when Provincial Armed Constabulary had killed 42
Muslim youths at point blank and let their bodies flow down the river.
Writing on Malegaon has been extremely delicate and dangerous. There
are cases of adultery, homosexuality, rackets, illegal activities of
police informants, in which politicians, policemen (by no means all)
and their informers are involved. There was a typical case reported by
The Milli Gazette (1-15 May 2008): “April 2008. The Malegaon police
raided a pathological laboratory situated in the basement of a private
hospital and recovered five live RDX explosives, three used RDX
explosives, one pistol, a laptop, a scanner, two mobile phones, four
fake currency notes of Rs one thousand each and Rs 5000 in cash and
arrested three persons, viz., Nitish Ashire, Sahebrao Dhurve and
Jitendra Khema belonging to some unknown organization.” The case made
headlines for several days in Marathi newspapers like Lokmat and then
the matter simply disappeared from the paper and also the minds of the
people. Students Islamic Movement of India has been so much etched in
the minds that people do not bother about the ‘unknown organizations’
to which the three belonged.
However, there is very serious angle to this. Were the three used RDX
explosives remains of the three bombs that went off at the graveyard
on September 8, 2006? And, was the bomb that went off at Bhiku chowk
on September 29, 2008 from the five live ones seized? In the absence
of the resolution of the case of seizure it would be logical to ask
what happened to the arms cache.
The police had also seized arms and ammunition from Malegaon in the
second week May, 2006 and some of the accused were also arrested in
the bomb explosions three months later. The police allegedly recorded
statements on phone in which one who planted the bomb speaks of
difficulty in bringing ‘material’ into the town. Was this a reference
to the RDX seized? In another failed attempt to record phone
conversation, a witness Hamid Iqbal is asked to issue ominous threat
that betraying Muslims would result in bloody revenge. Was this made
out to be a threat of a terrorist group? Un/fortunately, Hamid Iqbal
refused to oblige the police or their informer. He wrote all this in
affidavit and submitted to the court. Today, September 13, 2011 I ran
across him on his way to meet National Investigation Agency (NIA). He
had the same clear determination that he would depose the same truth
to the officer.
Another instance of human intelligence is that of the retired teacher
Sadique Ansari whom the police had especially taken to Nasik from
Malegaon to depose before the chief of CBI Kandasamy. He had said that
he had heard a colleague in the Home Guard making frequently calls on
his two mobiles to Nagpur. One of them has the number 9422253996. He
was retailing information of the explosions. His house is in Satana
naka where Tulsi lodge is located, a place where the alleged
terrorists may have stayed. When NIA officer Pradeep Mani called me to
discuss some points I argued with him that if the bombers had bought
cycles from Pangrapole shopping complex then it would be in the
fitness of things that they started from the west at Satana naka and
came to the shopping complex and then went straight to Super market
near Juna Faran hospital and turned into the Ghalib road that first
reaches the Mushawarat chowk and leads to the adjoining graveyard.
One of the cycles was assembled by quarter to one by one employee
Iqbal who gave a trial by riding to the post office a couple of shops
in the south. It was past 12. 45 mid day, that is, less than 40
minutes before the explosions. Then the buyer rode it towards the
Shivaji statue and disappeared. It would be unimaginable for him to
ride all the way to the workshop of Shabbir Masiullah and have the
bombs fitted and then return to the graveyard environs.
Afterwards the investigation agencies and the Home Minister
Chidamrbrum claimed that they had got the addresses where the bombers
had stayed. This is another example of human intelligence whose
absence in the case of 13/7 has created a vacuum.
Even so having said all this is not to say that the guilt has been
proved. The named persons, Aseemanand, Sunil Joshi, or organizations,
like Abhinav Bharat, have every right to enjoy the benefit of doubt.
They can also be innocent unless proved guilty. Earlier this day NDTV
reported that the agencies have given a clean chit to the 9 Muslims
accused and under detention for the last five years. How wonderful it
would have been if the agencies had done an honest job much earlier or
do the same in the case of the newly alleged right wing extremists,
from outside and within the town!
Today also saw a meeting of the brother of one of the nine accused
with Gangurde, Shaikh Rafiq and Ghatkoper crime branch officer Rathor.
The brother asked havaldar Shaikh Rafiq who had taken away the accused
assuring the scared family that he would return with the accused
within fifteen minutes. The brother asked the havaldar why he has
taken away five years of his brother’s life!
There was no answer.
Sometimes back I accompanied Sanjoy Majumdar, India Representative of
BBC, to the house of that accused there sat the woebegone wife of his.
The grief had aged her and changed the contour of her face. She had
spent just a month with him after their marriage and then her husband
was snatched away. Destiny had played such a cruel joke. What for?
There was no answer.
--------
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/nine-muslim-men-in-jail-for-malegaon-blasts-are-innocent-concludes-nia-sources-133209&cp
September 13, 2011
Lessons from Malegaon: Police investigation or a communal witch-hunt
Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association
13th September 2011
Lessons from Malegaon:
Punish those guilty of misleading probes
Compensate the victims NOW!
The NIA has finally put the official seal on what many activists, the families of the accused and the people of Malegaon had been saying for long: that the arrest of nine Muslim men for the 2008 Malegaon blast was a result of a communal witch-hunt, which passes for investigations into terror charges. As a consequence of the investigating agencies' hubris and prejudice, nine innocent men had to spend five long years in jail, while their families suffered and they were stigmatized.
Malegaon sadly is hardly an exception but more a norm. Remember Mecca Masjid bombings, where scores of young men were tortured and incarcerated. Or the CBI enquiry report in Delhi, which established that Special Cell had kidnapped and framed two Kahsmiris, both IB informers, as operatives of a terrorist group, Al Badar. Or more recently, the acquittal of five Kashmiris by a trial court in Delhi, where the court demonstrated that the encounter in which these men were allegedly involved, was a product of the Delhi police’s creative minds. It did not occur at all! From Maharahstra to Delhi, from states ruled by BJP to those presided over the Congress regimes, the story is the same.
First, let us be clear that these are not minor or technical problems, where police and investigative agencies have followed wrong leads or conducted erroneous investigations in good faith. These were investigations which were deliberately diverted on a wrong track because it was convenient to produce someone as SIMI activist; or where false confessions were manufactured through torture knowingly—as in Hyderabad; or innocents were rounded up deliberately with knowledge of their innocence simply because no one asked questions about police claims. These are not matters that can be ignored as well-intentioned but inefficient investigations—they were cynical and communal targeting of innocents in the name of national security.
Second, this acknowledgment has not led to either compensation for victims or prosecution of erring police officers. The Andhra Pradesh government shamelessly challenges the claims for damages filed by the young men who were brutally tortured by the AP police. Judge Virendra Bhatt’s verdict earlier this year seeking the filing of FIR against those officers of the Delhi police—included the decorated hero of Special Cell, Ravinder Tyagi—who faked an encounter in 2005, and a departmental enquiry is being contested by the Delhi police department.
For all the tears that the PM may shed about the minorities’ perception of being unfairly targeted, till such time that the government actually stops defending those who indulged in frame-ups and punishes them, the faith in the fairness of the investigating agencies—and the government’s intent—is unlikely to be restored.
Sd/-
Manisha sethi, Ahmed Sohaib, Adil Mehdi, Sanghamitra Misra, Ghazi Shahnawaz, Anwar Alam, Tanweer Fazal, Farah Farooqi, Azra Razzack, Arshad Alam, M.S. Bhatt, Ambarien Al Qadar, Shakeb Ahmed, Haris Ul Haq
13th September 2011
Lessons from Malegaon:
Punish those guilty of misleading probes
Compensate the victims NOW!
The NIA has finally put the official seal on what many activists, the families of the accused and the people of Malegaon had been saying for long: that the arrest of nine Muslim men for the 2008 Malegaon blast was a result of a communal witch-hunt, which passes for investigations into terror charges. As a consequence of the investigating agencies' hubris and prejudice, nine innocent men had to spend five long years in jail, while their families suffered and they were stigmatized.
Malegaon sadly is hardly an exception but more a norm. Remember Mecca Masjid bombings, where scores of young men were tortured and incarcerated. Or the CBI enquiry report in Delhi, which established that Special Cell had kidnapped and framed two Kahsmiris, both IB informers, as operatives of a terrorist group, Al Badar. Or more recently, the acquittal of five Kashmiris by a trial court in Delhi, where the court demonstrated that the encounter in which these men were allegedly involved, was a product of the Delhi police’s creative minds. It did not occur at all! From Maharahstra to Delhi, from states ruled by BJP to those presided over the Congress regimes, the story is the same.
First, let us be clear that these are not minor or technical problems, where police and investigative agencies have followed wrong leads or conducted erroneous investigations in good faith. These were investigations which were deliberately diverted on a wrong track because it was convenient to produce someone as SIMI activist; or where false confessions were manufactured through torture knowingly—as in Hyderabad; or innocents were rounded up deliberately with knowledge of their innocence simply because no one asked questions about police claims. These are not matters that can be ignored as well-intentioned but inefficient investigations—they were cynical and communal targeting of innocents in the name of national security.
Second, this acknowledgment has not led to either compensation for victims or prosecution of erring police officers. The Andhra Pradesh government shamelessly challenges the claims for damages filed by the young men who were brutally tortured by the AP police. Judge Virendra Bhatt’s verdict earlier this year seeking the filing of FIR against those officers of the Delhi police—included the decorated hero of Special Cell, Ravinder Tyagi—who faked an encounter in 2005, and a departmental enquiry is being contested by the Delhi police department.
For all the tears that the PM may shed about the minorities’ perception of being unfairly targeted, till such time that the government actually stops defending those who indulged in frame-ups and punishes them, the faith in the fairness of the investigating agencies—and the government’s intent—is unlikely to be restored.
Sd/-
Manisha sethi, Ahmed Sohaib, Adil Mehdi, Sanghamitra Misra, Ghazi Shahnawaz, Anwar Alam, Tanweer Fazal, Farah Farooqi, Azra Razzack, Arshad Alam, M.S. Bhatt, Ambarien Al Qadar, Shakeb Ahmed, Haris Ul Haq
November 14, 2009
October 01, 2009
Journalists and spies, laced with insidious religio-nationalist ideology
Dawn, 01 Oct, 2009
Fourth pillar, fifth column
by Jawed Naqvi
A healthy trend is perceptible in Pakistani journalism of late to question the ISI’s role in and hold over the fate of the country. In India though institutions such as RAW and IB are still largely treated as holy cows and remain undiscussed and uncritiqued.—AP/File Photo
QUEEN Victoria cancelled her £500 subscription with a leading British wire agency for giving spurious intelligence in the Crimean War.
Kim Philby worked as a journalist both before and after becoming a spy for Britain, even as he earned part of his keep from Moscow.
In an era of embedded journalism the collusion between spies and journalists has not vanished; it has, in fact, become legitimate. An American reporter single-handedly created the much-needed mythology against Saddam Hussein to legitimise the US invasion of Iraq and of its subsequent occupation.
Assassins too have posed as journalists. Rajiv Gandhi and Ahmed Shah Masood were victims of killers who found access to their quarries with the help of accreditation cards. Iranian leader Ali Khamenei lost a hand to a bomb hidden in a journalist’s tape recorder. Last week, plainclothes policemen pretending to be journalists trapped an alleged Maoist leader in West Bengal. A few have expressed anguish over this underhand method of catching a fugitive since it undermines the credibility of the media. The problem is more entrenched.
It is tempting to suspect Pakistani journalists who scream inanities about India on television and in newspapers as being influenced or at least encouraged by the espionage agency there. The same suspicion is legitimately aroused when Indian journalists rant, almost always on cue, against Pakistan. They equally quickly shut up when the prompt is given to do so.
In the Orwellian nightmare the brainwashed sheep chant ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ at the start of their revolution against man’s exploitation of fellow animals. After the revolution dissipates and animal icons acquire the mannerisms of their foe – man – the sheep switch to chanting ‘two legs good, four legs bad’. In the Murdochian nightmare of today no need is felt to change the sheep’s tune. It is far easier to change the subject and the headline.
Journalists who struggle to remain upright against the daily body blows to their profession are, therefore, truly courageous. I eagerly await a matching triumph of journalism from an Indian TV channel to its Pakistani counterparts who frontally took on their state and the government recently to establish a vital fact.
The Pakistanis defied their oft-lethal establishment to prove to the world that the sole living terrorist from the Mumbai massacre was indeed their own fellow citizen. The family of Ajmal Kasab was skilfully brought into the frame to defy Islamabad’s fiat, which had initially decried claims of Kasab’s Pakistani citizenship.
The Tehelka exposés of shady defence deals and more recently of fascistic methods of carrying out religious massacres could be considered India’s contribution to courageous journalism.
It is not easy to take on the might of the state, of course, which includes the police, the army, the judiciary and lawmakers among its key props. Increasingly, business houses are becoming important ancillaries of the state. Government officials and ministers are fired or appointed at their bidding.
American journalism has been more robust in several crucial ways than many others in exploiting the chinks in the armour of the secretive state. The CIA, the FBI and other state outfits are, wherever possible, kept accountable to the people by the legislature. They are kept subjected to incessant media scrutiny too. A healthy trend is perceptible in Pakistani journalism of late to question the ISI’s role in and hold over the fate of the country. In India though institutions such as RAW and IB are still largely treated as holy cows and remain undiscussed and uncritiqued.
It is another matter that one or two former officers from these outfits chose to vent their anguish at the state of play through autobiographical books. Maloy Krishna Dhar’s account of his days as the additional chief of India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) is noteworthy.
In his survey of the Mumbai bombings of 1993 he reveals a few interesting facts, which may be of particular use to journalists. He describes how he infiltrated the underworld led by Dawood Ibrahim to track people and maritime landing points involved in the act of terror.
‘I kept the director (of IB) informed, without going through the official channel of the Bombay unit of the IB,’ he writes in his book Open Secrets: India’s Intelligence Unveiled. ‘I was, in fact, freelancing in Bombay at my own risk, as a journalist from a reputed English daily. I had in my possession at least three faked identity cards of the leading papers, and one identity card of a TV channel. Obviously, our boys in the technical wing of the IB had manufactured these.’
Dhar openly confessed to his sympathy with the Hindu right. He names senior RSS leaders as his personal friends whose homes he would visit for discussions and meals. He says he was opposed to the demolition of the Babri mosque, however, lest he is accused of approving an illegal act.
In this strange mélange between journalism and intelligence, laced with a particularly insidious religio-nationalist ideology, Dhar says the second person he contacted during that assignment in Mumbai was Dhirubhai Ambani, the late billionaire tycoon.
‘Ambani was amazed to see a comparatively junior officer approaching him on mundane matters like opening the roadblock to my meeting with Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena supremo, Keshu Bhai Patel, the BJP leader from Gujarat and Chhabil Das Mehta, the chief minister of Gujarat.’
Ambani was ‘acclimatised to the officials in Delhi in matters of money, business and transactions,’ Dhar notes encouragingly. ‘To my amazement the much adored and vilified tycoon was more than cooperative. I found him to be highly patriotic and concerned about the stability of the western region of the country where most of his major ventures were located.’
Bal Thackeray ‘minus his standard behavioural peculiarities’ received Dhar well. Thackeray introduced Dhar to members of ‘XXX Rajan and YYY Gawli’ gangs. These men drove him ‘to the deeper niches of the Bombay underworld’. There he met people who knew of certain youths who had gone to Pakistan for subversive training.
It is not clear whether Dhar met the underworld in his avatar as a journalist or as a sleuth. He says he was ‘impressed’ by Bal Thackeray’s ‘firm commitment to narrow Maharashtrian cause, Hindu nationalism and his sway over sizeable sections of the underworld and organised groups of criminals. However, I did not like tinges of intolerance in him’.
Dhar may not be alone – as a sleuth or as a journalist – in his affection for the religious right. There is a certain gentleman from the Indian army intelligence being currently investigated for plotting bomb blasts to trigger communal violence. Indian journalists – once a true blue fourth pillar of its democracy – are heirs to a lofty tradition started by Gandhi and Nehru. They are best equipped to confront the fifth column within.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
Fourth pillar, fifth column
by Jawed Naqvi
A healthy trend is perceptible in Pakistani journalism of late to question the ISI’s role in and hold over the fate of the country. In India though institutions such as RAW and IB are still largely treated as holy cows and remain undiscussed and uncritiqued.—AP/File Photo
QUEEN Victoria cancelled her £500 subscription with a leading British wire agency for giving spurious intelligence in the Crimean War.
Kim Philby worked as a journalist both before and after becoming a spy for Britain, even as he earned part of his keep from Moscow.
In an era of embedded journalism the collusion between spies and journalists has not vanished; it has, in fact, become legitimate. An American reporter single-handedly created the much-needed mythology against Saddam Hussein to legitimise the US invasion of Iraq and of its subsequent occupation.
Assassins too have posed as journalists. Rajiv Gandhi and Ahmed Shah Masood were victims of killers who found access to their quarries with the help of accreditation cards. Iranian leader Ali Khamenei lost a hand to a bomb hidden in a journalist’s tape recorder. Last week, plainclothes policemen pretending to be journalists trapped an alleged Maoist leader in West Bengal. A few have expressed anguish over this underhand method of catching a fugitive since it undermines the credibility of the media. The problem is more entrenched.
It is tempting to suspect Pakistani journalists who scream inanities about India on television and in newspapers as being influenced or at least encouraged by the espionage agency there. The same suspicion is legitimately aroused when Indian journalists rant, almost always on cue, against Pakistan. They equally quickly shut up when the prompt is given to do so.
In the Orwellian nightmare the brainwashed sheep chant ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ at the start of their revolution against man’s exploitation of fellow animals. After the revolution dissipates and animal icons acquire the mannerisms of their foe – man – the sheep switch to chanting ‘two legs good, four legs bad’. In the Murdochian nightmare of today no need is felt to change the sheep’s tune. It is far easier to change the subject and the headline.
Journalists who struggle to remain upright against the daily body blows to their profession are, therefore, truly courageous. I eagerly await a matching triumph of journalism from an Indian TV channel to its Pakistani counterparts who frontally took on their state and the government recently to establish a vital fact.
The Pakistanis defied their oft-lethal establishment to prove to the world that the sole living terrorist from the Mumbai massacre was indeed their own fellow citizen. The family of Ajmal Kasab was skilfully brought into the frame to defy Islamabad’s fiat, which had initially decried claims of Kasab’s Pakistani citizenship.
The Tehelka exposés of shady defence deals and more recently of fascistic methods of carrying out religious massacres could be considered India’s contribution to courageous journalism.
It is not easy to take on the might of the state, of course, which includes the police, the army, the judiciary and lawmakers among its key props. Increasingly, business houses are becoming important ancillaries of the state. Government officials and ministers are fired or appointed at their bidding.
American journalism has been more robust in several crucial ways than many others in exploiting the chinks in the armour of the secretive state. The CIA, the FBI and other state outfits are, wherever possible, kept accountable to the people by the legislature. They are kept subjected to incessant media scrutiny too. A healthy trend is perceptible in Pakistani journalism of late to question the ISI’s role in and hold over the fate of the country. In India though institutions such as RAW and IB are still largely treated as holy cows and remain undiscussed and uncritiqued.
It is another matter that one or two former officers from these outfits chose to vent their anguish at the state of play through autobiographical books. Maloy Krishna Dhar’s account of his days as the additional chief of India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) is noteworthy.
In his survey of the Mumbai bombings of 1993 he reveals a few interesting facts, which may be of particular use to journalists. He describes how he infiltrated the underworld led by Dawood Ibrahim to track people and maritime landing points involved in the act of terror.
‘I kept the director (of IB) informed, without going through the official channel of the Bombay unit of the IB,’ he writes in his book Open Secrets: India’s Intelligence Unveiled. ‘I was, in fact, freelancing in Bombay at my own risk, as a journalist from a reputed English daily. I had in my possession at least three faked identity cards of the leading papers, and one identity card of a TV channel. Obviously, our boys in the technical wing of the IB had manufactured these.’
Dhar openly confessed to his sympathy with the Hindu right. He names senior RSS leaders as his personal friends whose homes he would visit for discussions and meals. He says he was opposed to the demolition of the Babri mosque, however, lest he is accused of approving an illegal act.
In this strange mélange between journalism and intelligence, laced with a particularly insidious religio-nationalist ideology, Dhar says the second person he contacted during that assignment in Mumbai was Dhirubhai Ambani, the late billionaire tycoon.
‘Ambani was amazed to see a comparatively junior officer approaching him on mundane matters like opening the roadblock to my meeting with Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena supremo, Keshu Bhai Patel, the BJP leader from Gujarat and Chhabil Das Mehta, the chief minister of Gujarat.’
Ambani was ‘acclimatised to the officials in Delhi in matters of money, business and transactions,’ Dhar notes encouragingly. ‘To my amazement the much adored and vilified tycoon was more than cooperative. I found him to be highly patriotic and concerned about the stability of the western region of the country where most of his major ventures were located.’
Bal Thackeray ‘minus his standard behavioural peculiarities’ received Dhar well. Thackeray introduced Dhar to members of ‘XXX Rajan and YYY Gawli’ gangs. These men drove him ‘to the deeper niches of the Bombay underworld’. There he met people who knew of certain youths who had gone to Pakistan for subversive training.
It is not clear whether Dhar met the underworld in his avatar as a journalist or as a sleuth. He says he was ‘impressed’ by Bal Thackeray’s ‘firm commitment to narrow Maharashtrian cause, Hindu nationalism and his sway over sizeable sections of the underworld and organised groups of criminals. However, I did not like tinges of intolerance in him’.
Dhar may not be alone – as a sleuth or as a journalist – in his affection for the religious right. There is a certain gentleman from the Indian army intelligence being currently investigated for plotting bomb blasts to trigger communal violence. Indian journalists – once a true blue fourth pillar of its democracy – are heirs to a lofty tradition started by Gandhi and Nehru. They are best equipped to confront the fifth column within.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
May 24, 2007
Why Narayanan's correspondence with Vajpayee on Gujarat riots needs to be disclosed
(Hindustan Times
May 23, 2007)
Dear Atalji...
by AG Noorani
At stake in the case on the disclosure of the correspondence between former President KR Narayanan and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee from February 28 to March 15, 2002 on the Gujarat pogrom is not only the people’s right to know but also the fundamentals of the parliamentary system — the relationship between the President and the PM and the latter’s accountability to Parliament and the nation.
The legal issues are narrow, if not irrelevant, and were ably disposed of by a bench of the Central Information Commission headed by Wajahat Habibullah. Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 says that it will have effect notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act “and any other law” in force. That includes Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act commonly invoked to keep records of “affairs of State” and “official communications” secret.
Articles 74(2), 78 and 361 of the Constitution are, together, based on the maxim of the British Constitution that the Crown can do no wrong. It acts on the advice of the Cabinet which is answerable to Parliament and the courts for the actions it takes in the name of the Crown. BR Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, “The President occupies the same position as the King under the English Constitution.” The Supreme Court has not only endorsed this view but endorsed also the application of Britain’s ‘conventions’.
Article 361 exempts the President from answerability ‘to any court’ for the exercise of his powers and performance of his duties. Art. 74(2) says “The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any court.” The Supreme Court has ruled that while the ‘advice’ remains secret, the material on which it is based is not. If action is taken to the detriment of anyone’s rights — imposition of President’s Rule — the court can ask whether there was material to justify it.
But ‘advice’ does not exhaust the totality of the President’s sphere of activity. The President is not a cipher. Ambedkar told the assembly on December 30, 1948, that “there is a vast deal of difference between prerogatives and functions as such”. Functions are performed on “advice”; prerogatives are exercised in the President’s discretion, however few they may be. Walter Bagehot famously wrote that the Crown has “three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn”. Article 78 imposes on the PM the duties of consultant and empowers the President to demand from him “information” on the “affairs of the Union”. As the Supreme Court summed up the result, the President is kept “in close touch” with the PM and “the imprint of his personality may chasten and correct the political government”.
President Narayanan’s letters fell in this realm. The PM offered no “advice” to which Art. 74(2) could possibly apply. The President in his discretion exhorted the PM to quell the pogrom. Parliament and the nation are entitled to see that record. Ambedkar’s authoritative exposition puts it beyond doubt. He said on 31 December, 1948 that there were two ways of enforcing the conventions of the parliamentary system embodied in the draft instrument of Instructions to the President. “One way is to permit the court to enquire and to adjudicate upon the validity of the thing. The other is to leave the matter to the legislature itself: so that it could, by a censure motion, ‘compel the ministry to give proper advice to the President’.”
That is why Art.74(2) bars the courts from inquiring into the advice, while leaving it open to Parliament and the nation to probe into this matter. The Instrument was dropped and the matter left entirely to convention. But the substance is not affected. The courts are barred; Parliament and the nation are not. They have a right to know whether the President is kept informed and correspondingly, whether he has remonstrated to the PM on a grave crisis. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, S.K. Kharava’s reproachful letter to Chief Minister MGR dated 20 May, 1986 was published in July 1986.
During the abdication crisis in the Britain in 1936, “discussions between the monarch and the Prime Minister were shared with the British Parliament”. On 20 July, 1986, the Sunday Times reported that “sources close to the Queen” said that she is dismayed by many of Mrs Thatcher’s policies”. Questions were asked on this in the House of Commons on 22 July. The Speaker, Bernard Weatherill did not rule them out of order.
Narayanan’s letters were read by a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel, Harjot Kaur. Her letter of 28 November, 2005 refusing disclosure, mechanically recited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, “The disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State etc. (sic). In these circumstances copies cannot be provided.”
The CIC rightly remarked that “it is difficult to understand as to on what grounds the information has been denied. It is also difficult to comprehend as to how the disclosure of the information is going to affect the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State. It appears that the denial has been communicated in a mechanical manner... the only relevant ground for denial could be that the disclosure could prejudicially affect the security of the nation and not on other grounds like the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State etc”.
The CIC felt it should examine the documents to decide “whether larger public interest would require disclosure of the documents” and directed their production. The government-moved ‘National Security’ was not affected by the pogrom so as to attract a Proclamation of Emergency under Art. 352. It was a grave “internal disturbance” which it was the Centre’s duty to curb, under Art.355; whether by imposing President’s Rule or deployment of the army. Richard Crossman’s diaries recorded Cabinet proceedings. But the court refused to grant an injunction against their publication. There is no rule that “once a confidence, always a confidence”. The court must “ensure that restrictions are not imposed beyond the strict requirement of public need”. There must be “a limit in time after which the confidential character of the information, and the duty of the court to restrain publication, will lapse”.
Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. and Andrew Nicol Q.C point out in their work Media Law: “Information cannot be protected from disclosure if it can be gleaned (sic) from public sources or if its originator has already circulated it to a number of outsiders.” A lot was ‘gleaned’ by the media. Narayanan himself disclosed it all in a press interview in March 2005: “There was governmental and administrative support for the communal riots in Gujarat. I gave several letters to Prime Minister Vajpayee in this regard on this issue. I met him personally and talked to him directly. But Vajpayee did not do anything effective... Had the military been given powers to shoot, the carnage in Gujarat could have been avoided to a great extent. I feel there was a conspiracy involving the state and central governments behind the Gujarat riots.”
Now five years later, the public interest in disclosure of the correspondence on this sorry episode is incontestable.
May 23, 2007)
Dear Atalji...
by AG Noorani
At stake in the case on the disclosure of the correspondence between former President KR Narayanan and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee from February 28 to March 15, 2002 on the Gujarat pogrom is not only the people’s right to know but also the fundamentals of the parliamentary system — the relationship between the President and the PM and the latter’s accountability to Parliament and the nation.
The legal issues are narrow, if not irrelevant, and were ably disposed of by a bench of the Central Information Commission headed by Wajahat Habibullah. Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 says that it will have effect notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act “and any other law” in force. That includes Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act commonly invoked to keep records of “affairs of State” and “official communications” secret.
Articles 74(2), 78 and 361 of the Constitution are, together, based on the maxim of the British Constitution that the Crown can do no wrong. It acts on the advice of the Cabinet which is answerable to Parliament and the courts for the actions it takes in the name of the Crown. BR Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, “The President occupies the same position as the King under the English Constitution.” The Supreme Court has not only endorsed this view but endorsed also the application of Britain’s ‘conventions’.
Article 361 exempts the President from answerability ‘to any court’ for the exercise of his powers and performance of his duties. Art. 74(2) says “The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any court.” The Supreme Court has ruled that while the ‘advice’ remains secret, the material on which it is based is not. If action is taken to the detriment of anyone’s rights — imposition of President’s Rule — the court can ask whether there was material to justify it.
But ‘advice’ does not exhaust the totality of the President’s sphere of activity. The President is not a cipher. Ambedkar told the assembly on December 30, 1948, that “there is a vast deal of difference between prerogatives and functions as such”. Functions are performed on “advice”; prerogatives are exercised in the President’s discretion, however few they may be. Walter Bagehot famously wrote that the Crown has “three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn”. Article 78 imposes on the PM the duties of consultant and empowers the President to demand from him “information” on the “affairs of the Union”. As the Supreme Court summed up the result, the President is kept “in close touch” with the PM and “the imprint of his personality may chasten and correct the political government”.
President Narayanan’s letters fell in this realm. The PM offered no “advice” to which Art. 74(2) could possibly apply. The President in his discretion exhorted the PM to quell the pogrom. Parliament and the nation are entitled to see that record. Ambedkar’s authoritative exposition puts it beyond doubt. He said on 31 December, 1948 that there were two ways of enforcing the conventions of the parliamentary system embodied in the draft instrument of Instructions to the President. “One way is to permit the court to enquire and to adjudicate upon the validity of the thing. The other is to leave the matter to the legislature itself: so that it could, by a censure motion, ‘compel the ministry to give proper advice to the President’.”
That is why Art.74(2) bars the courts from inquiring into the advice, while leaving it open to Parliament and the nation to probe into this matter. The Instrument was dropped and the matter left entirely to convention. But the substance is not affected. The courts are barred; Parliament and the nation are not. They have a right to know whether the President is kept informed and correspondingly, whether he has remonstrated to the PM on a grave crisis. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, S.K. Kharava’s reproachful letter to Chief Minister MGR dated 20 May, 1986 was published in July 1986.
During the abdication crisis in the Britain in 1936, “discussions between the monarch and the Prime Minister were shared with the British Parliament”. On 20 July, 1986, the Sunday Times reported that “sources close to the Queen” said that she is dismayed by many of Mrs Thatcher’s policies”. Questions were asked on this in the House of Commons on 22 July. The Speaker, Bernard Weatherill did not rule them out of order.
Narayanan’s letters were read by a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel, Harjot Kaur. Her letter of 28 November, 2005 refusing disclosure, mechanically recited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, “The disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State etc. (sic). In these circumstances copies cannot be provided.”
The CIC rightly remarked that “it is difficult to understand as to on what grounds the information has been denied. It is also difficult to comprehend as to how the disclosure of the information is going to affect the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State. It appears that the denial has been communicated in a mechanical manner... the only relevant ground for denial could be that the disclosure could prejudicially affect the security of the nation and not on other grounds like the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State etc”.
The CIC felt it should examine the documents to decide “whether larger public interest would require disclosure of the documents” and directed their production. The government-moved ‘National Security’ was not affected by the pogrom so as to attract a Proclamation of Emergency under Art. 352. It was a grave “internal disturbance” which it was the Centre’s duty to curb, under Art.355; whether by imposing President’s Rule or deployment of the army. Richard Crossman’s diaries recorded Cabinet proceedings. But the court refused to grant an injunction against their publication. There is no rule that “once a confidence, always a confidence”. The court must “ensure that restrictions are not imposed beyond the strict requirement of public need”. There must be “a limit in time after which the confidential character of the information, and the duty of the court to restrain publication, will lapse”.
Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. and Andrew Nicol Q.C point out in their work Media Law: “Information cannot be protected from disclosure if it can be gleaned (sic) from public sources or if its originator has already circulated it to a number of outsiders.” A lot was ‘gleaned’ by the media. Narayanan himself disclosed it all in a press interview in March 2005: “There was governmental and administrative support for the communal riots in Gujarat. I gave several letters to Prime Minister Vajpayee in this regard on this issue. I met him personally and talked to him directly. But Vajpayee did not do anything effective... Had the military been given powers to shoot, the carnage in Gujarat could have been avoided to a great extent. I feel there was a conspiracy involving the state and central governments behind the Gujarat riots.”
Now five years later, the public interest in disclosure of the correspondence on this sorry episode is incontestable.
March 01, 2007
Conference on transitional justice in Southasia
Special Report
Exhuming Accountability
Conference on transitional justice in Southasia
23-25 January, Kathmandu | Hosted by Himal Southasian and the International Center for Transitional Justice
Nellie massacre, 1982
Across Southasia, social movements have worked to demand justice and accountability during the region’s darkest hours – involving pogroms against minorities; human-rights abuse in the context of armed conflict; abuse and impunity by entrenched economic elites; violence against Dalits, indigenous communities and migrants; violence against women; militaries operating with state-sanctioned impunity within and across borders; violations by armed opposition groups with little accountability to local communities; the global ‘war on terror’ and its perverse dynamics in the region; and forced evictions of communities by dams and mines, urban real-estate mafia, or feudal landlords.
The demand for justice is a persistent feature of the Southasian public realm. In Bangladesh, families of those killed in the Liberation War still call for acknowledgment and ‘memorialisation’. The struggle against the impunity enjoyed by the masterminds of the Gujarat carnage of 2002 continues in courts in Ahmedabad and Bombay. Victims of the excesses of the long sequence of autocratic regimes in Pakistan have been calling for fundamental institutional reform of the state. Survivors of the anti-Tamil pogrom of 1983 in Sri Lanka continue to demand accountability and reparation. At the same time, there have been atrocities which have been neglected, such as the killing of thousands in the Assamese hamlet of Nellie in 1983.
On 23-25 January, Himal Southasian organised a conference on the issue of accountability for mass atrocities carried out against citizens in the various countries and sub-regions of Southasia. Scholars and rights defenders gathered in Kathmandu to share their experiences and insights, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that excesses be investigated and addressed for the sake of justice and reconciliation, as well as to prevent future abuse. The conference was co-hosted by the International Center for Transitional Justice, supported by the International Development Research Centre, and convened by Vasuki Nesiah and Kanak Mani Dixit.
Here we present an abridged version of the presentations made at the conference by some of the participants, who are among the foremost scholars and activists dealing with accountability and impunity in the countries of Southasia. A complete transcript of the presentations and discussions will be published as a further follow-up to the “Exhuming Accountability” conference.
The pan-regional problem
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Strengthening prosecution mechanisms
by Vrinda Grover
Political consensus on impunity
by Sara Hossain
Structural issues in Nepal
by Mandira Sharma
Communalism and the courts
by Teesta Setalvad
The Nellie massacre
by Makiko Kumura
Mass crimes and gender
by Farah Naqvi
Reparations and redressal
by Nitya Ramakrishnan
Fractured region, divided people
by Nighat Sayeed Khan
The psychosocial dimension
by Gameela Samarasinghe
Human-rights commissions
by Suhas Chakma
Exhuming Accountability
Conference on transitional justice in Southasia
23-25 January, Kathmandu | Hosted by Himal Southasian and the International Center for Transitional Justice
Nellie massacre, 1982
Across Southasia, social movements have worked to demand justice and accountability during the region’s darkest hours – involving pogroms against minorities; human-rights abuse in the context of armed conflict; abuse and impunity by entrenched economic elites; violence against Dalits, indigenous communities and migrants; violence against women; militaries operating with state-sanctioned impunity within and across borders; violations by armed opposition groups with little accountability to local communities; the global ‘war on terror’ and its perverse dynamics in the region; and forced evictions of communities by dams and mines, urban real-estate mafia, or feudal landlords.
The demand for justice is a persistent feature of the Southasian public realm. In Bangladesh, families of those killed in the Liberation War still call for acknowledgment and ‘memorialisation’. The struggle against the impunity enjoyed by the masterminds of the Gujarat carnage of 2002 continues in courts in Ahmedabad and Bombay. Victims of the excesses of the long sequence of autocratic regimes in Pakistan have been calling for fundamental institutional reform of the state. Survivors of the anti-Tamil pogrom of 1983 in Sri Lanka continue to demand accountability and reparation. At the same time, there have been atrocities which have been neglected, such as the killing of thousands in the Assamese hamlet of Nellie in 1983.
On 23-25 January, Himal Southasian organised a conference on the issue of accountability for mass atrocities carried out against citizens in the various countries and sub-regions of Southasia. Scholars and rights defenders gathered in Kathmandu to share their experiences and insights, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that excesses be investigated and addressed for the sake of justice and reconciliation, as well as to prevent future abuse. The conference was co-hosted by the International Center for Transitional Justice, supported by the International Development Research Centre, and convened by Vasuki Nesiah and Kanak Mani Dixit.
Here we present an abridged version of the presentations made at the conference by some of the participants, who are among the foremost scholars and activists dealing with accountability and impunity in the countries of Southasia. A complete transcript of the presentations and discussions will be published as a further follow-up to the “Exhuming Accountability” conference.
The pan-regional problem
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Strengthening prosecution mechanisms
by Vrinda Grover
Political consensus on impunity
by Sara Hossain
Structural issues in Nepal
by Mandira Sharma
Communalism and the courts
by Teesta Setalvad
The Nellie massacre
by Makiko Kumura
Mass crimes and gender
by Farah Naqvi
Reparations and redressal
by Nitya Ramakrishnan
Fractured region, divided people
by Nighat Sayeed Khan
The psychosocial dimension
by Gameela Samarasinghe
Human-rights commissions
by Suhas Chakma
October 05, 2006
Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa
INDIAN PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL (IPT)
On Environment and Human Rights
4 October 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa releases its report, revealing alarming levels of sectarian organising in the state.
Bhubaneswar, Orissa, and New Delhi: The Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa [IPTCO] released its report on the role of majoritarian communal groups in perpetrating communal violence, criminal activity, and human rights violations across the state. The Tribunal was constituted in response to concerns voiced by citizens over the growth of communalism and increased aggression throughout Orissa particularly since the Gujarat 2002 genocide. In June 2005, the IPTCO commissioned its inquiry to gage the strength, reach, and impact of fundamentalist groups in the state. The report is the culmination of nearly twenty months of investigative work and research. Lead by Justice K.K. Usha (Former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court), the Tribunal was convened by Dr. Angana Chatterji (Associate Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies) and Advocate Mihir Desai (Mumbai High Court).
The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights was constituted by a people's mandate in 1993 to investigate into human rights violations and cases of environmental degradation. The IPT is particularly concerned about cases that affect the lives and livelihood of a vast majority of urban and rural poor. The IPT process endeavours to inquire into the exact nature of a problem, and provide a true picture by providing a space for all the concerned parties to present their views.
Edited by Dr. Chatterji and Advocate Desai, the 80-page report of the Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa is entitled 'Communalism in Orissa'. IPTCO's report describes the formidable extent of mobilization by the majoritarian communalist group of organisations in Orissa. According to the report, the Sangh Parivar group of Hindutva, Hindu supremacist, organisations has a visible presence in twenty-five of thirty districts in Orissa. The Sangh Parivar's cadre in Orissa currently numbers several million, and constitutes the largest voluntary effort in the state.
Justice Usha said: “As elsewhere in India, these groups legitimise their actions against minorities by invoking specific and fabricated threats to Hindus from Muslims and Christians”.
Dr. Chatterji stated: “In Orissa, the Sangh Parivar has successfully established centres at every level of civic life, ranging from villages to cities. The Sangh Parivar operates through thirty-five primary organizations, including ideological, service, and charitable institutions, militant and educational groups, trade unions and student unions, political and women's organizations”.
Advocate Desai stated: “IPTCO's findings reveal that majoritarian communal organizations have consolidated their power, using violence to target women, religious and sexual minorities, along with disenfranchised caste, class, ethnic, and other social groups”.
The Tribunal's report documents in considerable detail how the cadre of majoritarian communal organisations is recruited and indoctrinated in hatred and violence against other communities that it has defined as inherently “inferior”. Of particular concern, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has set up developmental centres across the state, establishing training camps where military exercises are performed as public display, as well as a network of educational institutions promoting right-wing ideologies. Prioritizing areas where the government has failed to provide functioning public schools, these groups have capitalised on the acute desire for accessible state institutions and accountability among the populace. This cadre, according to the IPTCO report, uses coercion and force to promote Hindu supremacy and hegemony. Dr. Chatterji added: “Forcible conversions to dominant Hinduism, social and economic boycotts, tonsuring, physical intimidation and violence, arson, and even murder are the weapons that Sangh Parivar cadre wields to intimidate and target disenfranchised groups and religious minorities such as Adivasis, Dalits, Christians, and Muslims”.
Given the dire situation in the state, the IPTCO recommends that the Government of India and Government of Orissa treat communalism in the state as an emergency and accord it immediate attention to prevent further violations and injustices.
Justice Usha added: “IPTCO understands its mandate to investigate communalism as being a constitutional one, delineated in Article 51A, Clause E which specifies the fundamental responsibilities of citizens”. Article 51A, Clause E states that: “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities” and “to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” (IPTCO, pages 3). This obligation, their report notes, is reinforced by the Indian Penal Code-specifically provisions in Section 152A, 153B, 295-298, and 505-which prescribe criminal prosecution for persons promoting enmity on sectarian or economic grounds, who are, thus, undermining national integration. Indeed, the report warns that if the communalisation of Orissa is “indicative of the future of the nation, then the signs are truly ominous for India's democratic future” (IPTCO, pages 70).
Advocate Desai stated: “In addition to documenting communalism's reach in Orissa, IPTCO was launched as an injunctive mechanism to help formulate remedial and preventive action for human rights abuses in the future”. The primary investigations consisted of meeting with persons and communities, targeted by majoritarian communal groups and those who have suffered abuse in the context of majoritarian communalism such as public lynching, rape, tonsuring, economic boycotts, segregation and discrimination. These meetings were held across Orissa in the Bhadrak District, Jagatsinghpur District, Keonjhar District, Phulbani District, and Bhubaneswar, and included, in addition to Justice Usha, Dr. Chatterji, and Advocate Desai, Dr. Asha Hans (former Professor at Utkal University), Ms. Lalita Missal (National Alliance of Women, Orissa chapter), Dr. Ram Puniyani (Ekta, Committee for Communal Amity), and scholar-activists Dr. Shaheen Nilofer and Mr. Sudhir Pattnaik. The Tribunal also interviewed members of the state government and other state agencies, opposition leaders, police and political parties, individuals associated with educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, Dalit and Adivasi leaders, rights groups, activists, academics, journalists, and local religious leaders from Christian, Muslim, Hindu groups, as well as communal groups. IPTCO culled its evidence from a variety of sources including official documents, depositions, affidavits, signed statements, visual documentation, sworn personal and group testimonies, and expert witnesses. Claims by individuals and groups were scrutinized by the Tribunal and corroborated through other sources such as conducting additional interviews and securing further documentary evidence.
The Tribunal's report delineates recommendations for procedures and mechanisms to determine state and collective responsibility and accountability. Some of the general recommendations include:
1. A call for the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the activities of the Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and RSS under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. To establish a review panel appointed by the Government of Orissa, in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission, the National Minorities Commission, and other independent bodies such as the People's Union for Democratic Rights and the People's Union for Civil Liberties, to identify and investigate the actions and finances of communal groups.
3. That communal groups be investigated and monitored. When appropriate, requisite action should be taken to safeguard minorities against the actions of these groups, and reparations should be made retroactively to communities and individuals who have suffered as a consequence of the actions of these groups.
4. The Government of Orissa and the Central Government should make a concerted effort to investigate and eradicate paramilitary hate camps operated by the communal groups.
5. The charitable status and privileges of certain organizations such as the VHP and Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, which are registered as charities, should be reviewed given the nature of their activities.
6. The disparagement, demonisation, and vilification of any religion should be statutorily prohibited and punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
7. The repeal of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which has been used by communal groups to target and prohibit voluntary conversion within minority communities.
8. That the Government of India and the Government of Orissa safeguard the right of individuals who convert voluntarily to practice their religion.
9. That the police and courts act immediately and authoritatively to stop communalists from forcibly converting or reconverting individuals to Hinduism. The police should be required to submit regular and public reports on their work.
10. That the police establish a special desk for registering minority grievances and filing First Information Reports.
11. That the Government of Orissa appoint Special Public Prosecutors to conduct proceedings as necessary.
12. That the trishul (trident) be categorised as a weapon and its mass distribution be prohibited under the Arms Act of 1959.
13. That the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 -- which has been used against minorities and the economically disenfranchised in the cattle trade--should be reviewed.
Finally, while the Tribunal affirms the view that the “state is accountable for safeguarding human rights”, it also urges individual citizens to recognize their duty to respond to violations and “to challenge the existing culture of impunity that generally protects perpetrators of communal violence from prosecution” (IPTCO, pages 69-70), cautioning that it will take the combined efforts of both to dismantle the formidable infrastructure of fear and intimidation erected by these groups.
Contacts:
Convenors of the Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa:
Dr. Angana Chatterji at 00-91-99377 70819 [until 4 October pm]; 001-415-640 4013 or 415-575 6119; or achatterji@ciis.edu
Advocate Mihir Desai at iptindia@vsnl.net
IPT Secretariat:
Ms. Deepika D'Souza at 00-91-22-22677385/22676680 or iptindia@vsnl.net
Links:
Indian Express: http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20060930005034&Page=Q&Title=ORISSA&Topic=0
The Statesman: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=9&theme=&usrsess=1&id=131519
Asian Age: http://www.asianage.com/viewarticle2.asp?newsid=174423
Pioneer: http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=BHUBANESWAR&file_name=bhub3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Indian People's Tribunal and Environment and Human Rights
Engineers House, Floor #4, 86, Bombay Samachar Marg, Near Stock Exchange, Mumbai - 400023, India
On Environment and Human Rights
4 October 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa releases its report, revealing alarming levels of sectarian organising in the state.
Bhubaneswar, Orissa, and New Delhi: The Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa [IPTCO] released its report on the role of majoritarian communal groups in perpetrating communal violence, criminal activity, and human rights violations across the state. The Tribunal was constituted in response to concerns voiced by citizens over the growth of communalism and increased aggression throughout Orissa particularly since the Gujarat 2002 genocide. In June 2005, the IPTCO commissioned its inquiry to gage the strength, reach, and impact of fundamentalist groups in the state. The report is the culmination of nearly twenty months of investigative work and research. Lead by Justice K.K. Usha (Former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court), the Tribunal was convened by Dr. Angana Chatterji (Associate Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies) and Advocate Mihir Desai (Mumbai High Court).
The Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights was constituted by a people's mandate in 1993 to investigate into human rights violations and cases of environmental degradation. The IPT is particularly concerned about cases that affect the lives and livelihood of a vast majority of urban and rural poor. The IPT process endeavours to inquire into the exact nature of a problem, and provide a true picture by providing a space for all the concerned parties to present their views.
Edited by Dr. Chatterji and Advocate Desai, the 80-page report of the Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa is entitled 'Communalism in Orissa'. IPTCO's report describes the formidable extent of mobilization by the majoritarian communalist group of organisations in Orissa. According to the report, the Sangh Parivar group of Hindutva, Hindu supremacist, organisations has a visible presence in twenty-five of thirty districts in Orissa. The Sangh Parivar's cadre in Orissa currently numbers several million, and constitutes the largest voluntary effort in the state.
Justice Usha said: “As elsewhere in India, these groups legitimise their actions against minorities by invoking specific and fabricated threats to Hindus from Muslims and Christians”.
Dr. Chatterji stated: “In Orissa, the Sangh Parivar has successfully established centres at every level of civic life, ranging from villages to cities. The Sangh Parivar operates through thirty-five primary organizations, including ideological, service, and charitable institutions, militant and educational groups, trade unions and student unions, political and women's organizations”.
Advocate Desai stated: “IPTCO's findings reveal that majoritarian communal organizations have consolidated their power, using violence to target women, religious and sexual minorities, along with disenfranchised caste, class, ethnic, and other social groups”.
The Tribunal's report documents in considerable detail how the cadre of majoritarian communal organisations is recruited and indoctrinated in hatred and violence against other communities that it has defined as inherently “inferior”. Of particular concern, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has set up developmental centres across the state, establishing training camps where military exercises are performed as public display, as well as a network of educational institutions promoting right-wing ideologies. Prioritizing areas where the government has failed to provide functioning public schools, these groups have capitalised on the acute desire for accessible state institutions and accountability among the populace. This cadre, according to the IPTCO report, uses coercion and force to promote Hindu supremacy and hegemony. Dr. Chatterji added: “Forcible conversions to dominant Hinduism, social and economic boycotts, tonsuring, physical intimidation and violence, arson, and even murder are the weapons that Sangh Parivar cadre wields to intimidate and target disenfranchised groups and religious minorities such as Adivasis, Dalits, Christians, and Muslims”.
Given the dire situation in the state, the IPTCO recommends that the Government of India and Government of Orissa treat communalism in the state as an emergency and accord it immediate attention to prevent further violations and injustices.
Justice Usha added: “IPTCO understands its mandate to investigate communalism as being a constitutional one, delineated in Article 51A, Clause E which specifies the fundamental responsibilities of citizens”. Article 51A, Clause E states that: “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities” and “to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” (IPTCO, pages 3). This obligation, their report notes, is reinforced by the Indian Penal Code-specifically provisions in Section 152A, 153B, 295-298, and 505-which prescribe criminal prosecution for persons promoting enmity on sectarian or economic grounds, who are, thus, undermining national integration. Indeed, the report warns that if the communalisation of Orissa is “indicative of the future of the nation, then the signs are truly ominous for India's democratic future” (IPTCO, pages 70).
Advocate Desai stated: “In addition to documenting communalism's reach in Orissa, IPTCO was launched as an injunctive mechanism to help formulate remedial and preventive action for human rights abuses in the future”. The primary investigations consisted of meeting with persons and communities, targeted by majoritarian communal groups and those who have suffered abuse in the context of majoritarian communalism such as public lynching, rape, tonsuring, economic boycotts, segregation and discrimination. These meetings were held across Orissa in the Bhadrak District, Jagatsinghpur District, Keonjhar District, Phulbani District, and Bhubaneswar, and included, in addition to Justice Usha, Dr. Chatterji, and Advocate Desai, Dr. Asha Hans (former Professor at Utkal University), Ms. Lalita Missal (National Alliance of Women, Orissa chapter), Dr. Ram Puniyani (Ekta, Committee for Communal Amity), and scholar-activists Dr. Shaheen Nilofer and Mr. Sudhir Pattnaik. The Tribunal also interviewed members of the state government and other state agencies, opposition leaders, police and political parties, individuals associated with educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, Dalit and Adivasi leaders, rights groups, activists, academics, journalists, and local religious leaders from Christian, Muslim, Hindu groups, as well as communal groups. IPTCO culled its evidence from a variety of sources including official documents, depositions, affidavits, signed statements, visual documentation, sworn personal and group testimonies, and expert witnesses. Claims by individuals and groups were scrutinized by the Tribunal and corroborated through other sources such as conducting additional interviews and securing further documentary evidence.
The Tribunal's report delineates recommendations for procedures and mechanisms to determine state and collective responsibility and accountability. Some of the general recommendations include:
1. A call for the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the activities of the Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and RSS under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. To establish a review panel appointed by the Government of Orissa, in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission, the National Minorities Commission, and other independent bodies such as the People's Union for Democratic Rights and the People's Union for Civil Liberties, to identify and investigate the actions and finances of communal groups.
3. That communal groups be investigated and monitored. When appropriate, requisite action should be taken to safeguard minorities against the actions of these groups, and reparations should be made retroactively to communities and individuals who have suffered as a consequence of the actions of these groups.
4. The Government of Orissa and the Central Government should make a concerted effort to investigate and eradicate paramilitary hate camps operated by the communal groups.
5. The charitable status and privileges of certain organizations such as the VHP and Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, which are registered as charities, should be reviewed given the nature of their activities.
6. The disparagement, demonisation, and vilification of any religion should be statutorily prohibited and punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
7. The repeal of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which has been used by communal groups to target and prohibit voluntary conversion within minority communities.
8. That the Government of India and the Government of Orissa safeguard the right of individuals who convert voluntarily to practice their religion.
9. That the police and courts act immediately and authoritatively to stop communalists from forcibly converting or reconverting individuals to Hinduism. The police should be required to submit regular and public reports on their work.
10. That the police establish a special desk for registering minority grievances and filing First Information Reports.
11. That the Government of Orissa appoint Special Public Prosecutors to conduct proceedings as necessary.
12. That the trishul (trident) be categorised as a weapon and its mass distribution be prohibited under the Arms Act of 1959.
13. That the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 -- which has been used against minorities and the economically disenfranchised in the cattle trade--should be reviewed.
Finally, while the Tribunal affirms the view that the “state is accountable for safeguarding human rights”, it also urges individual citizens to recognize their duty to respond to violations and “to challenge the existing culture of impunity that generally protects perpetrators of communal violence from prosecution” (IPTCO, pages 69-70), cautioning that it will take the combined efforts of both to dismantle the formidable infrastructure of fear and intimidation erected by these groups.
Contacts:
Convenors of the Indian People's Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa:
Dr. Angana Chatterji at 00-91-99377 70819 [until 4 October pm]; 001-415-640 4013 or 415-575 6119; or achatterji@ciis.edu
Advocate Mihir Desai at iptindia@vsnl.net
IPT Secretariat:
Ms. Deepika D'Souza at 00-91-22-22677385/22676680 or iptindia@vsnl.net
Links:
Indian Express: http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20060930005034&Page=Q&Title=ORISSA&Topic=0
The Statesman: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=9&theme=&usrsess=1&id=131519
Asian Age: http://www.asianage.com/viewarticle2.asp?newsid=174423
Pioneer: http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=BHUBANESWAR&file_name=bhub3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Indian People's Tribunal and Environment and Human Rights
Engineers House, Floor #4, 86, Bombay Samachar Marg, Near Stock Exchange, Mumbai - 400023, India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
