Frontier, Vol. 49, No.1, Jul 10 - 16, 2016
Vishnu Sahai Commission Report: Truth is Still Unknown
Neha Dabhade
A one man Judicial Commission of enquiry chaired by Justice Vishnu Sahai was appointed to look into the Muzafarnagar riots that took place in September 2013. The UP Government tabled Sahai Commission Report in March 2016. The Report squarely blames the local intelligence unit of Muzafarnagar for its negligence in preventing the violence. It holds the administrative officials responsible for their laxity. While this may be the case, the Report astoundingly exonerates all political parties and does not probe their culpability fully (The Hindu, 2016). The ruling Samajwadi Party is also given a clean chit and no strictures passed for not playing a pivotal role in preventing the riots. The Report has nothing to say about the BJP either. The BJP was expecting to benefit electorally during the 16th Lok Sabha elections from the religious polarization resulting from the communal violence and BJP leaders were raising communal passions. The Report has been criticized from many quarters, albeit for different reasons. While the political parties are busy pointing fingers at each other (BJP feels Samajwadi Party was responsible for the violence and vice versa), the survivors of the violence are taken aback with no apportioning of responsibility on any party and truth still unknown.
Though the whole Report is not available to comment on or study all the findings, the media reports state that the report clearly outlines failure of administration including transfers of district magistrate and superintendent of police (SSP) Muzafarnagar as the primary reason for the riots.
If one traces the events which led to the violence in Muzafarnagar, it becomes clear that the Commission has overlooked the role played by political parties and their omissions and commissions that deserve mention in the Report if truth had to be unearthed. On 27th August 2013, in the village of Kawal, a youth called Shahnawaz was killed by two Jat youths, Sachin and Gaurav, the brothers of a girl Shahnawaz was supposedly interested in. Another version available is that a scuffle broke out between Sachin and Gaurav on one hand and Shahnawaz on the other over motorcycle accident. Shahnawaz was brutally attacked by the two brothers from Mallikpura. The two brothers were in turn killed by a Muslim mob that was witness to the attack on Shahnawaz. Infuriated by this, the Jats in the area attacked the Muslims in Kawal on their way back from the cremation of the two Jat boys (Frontline, 2013). A local mosque was attacked. The provocative slogans like Jao Pakistan, warna Kabristan (Go to Pakistan or graveyard), Hindu ekta zindabad (Long live Hindu unity), and Ek ke badle ek 100 (For one life, we will claim 100 lives) rented the air. These are typical slogans raised by Hindu nationalists and the slogan point out their involvement during an impending Lok Sabha election. Muslim shops and houses were looted and vandalized. Many were injured. This was a clear indication that Hindu nationalists were working overtime and capitalizing on the death of Sachin and Gaurav. This was no longer a dispute between two families. The mobilization that was accomplished for this attack should have rung alarm bells and the UP state government should have acted in a decisive manner issuing firm directions to the administration to bring the situation under control.
On 29th August, a video clipping of two youth being lynched was widely circulated through social media allegedly by the BJP MLA Sangeet Som. The video was actually a two year old video shot in Taliban controlled Pakistan. However those circulating the video were insinuating that the clip was regarding Sachin and Gaurav being lynched. Though the Commission noted that this fake video was one of the important reasons of inciting violence amongst Jats it suggests that no further action be taken against Sangeet Som. The reason cited for this was that an FIR is already filed against the BJP leader and the police are probing into the case. As per article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once as it constitutes double jeopardy (Indian Express, 2015). That may be so, however, was it not evidence enough of involvement of Sangeet Som and his Party—the BJP? Sangeet Som is out on bail and one of the most vocal politicians in BJP. In fact, he was also in news for provocative speeches he made in Dadri after the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq over the rumors of consumption and storage of beef. He was booked for violation of section 144 of IPC in the aftermath of the lynching when he was fanning communal sentiments in Dadri as the police and the administration were struggling to establish normalcy (Indian Express, 2015). The fact that the BJP MLAs who were charge-sheeted for their involvement in riots were in fact felicitated by the Party shows that they acted on behalf of their Party or in any case, the Party approved of their actions.
On the speeches of Muslim leaders, the Commission noted that the leaders were giving provocative speeches against Hindus, which were adversely affecting communal harmony and inciting the Muslims against the Hindus. Prima facie, it appears that the speeches of the aforesaid persons were one of the causes for the subsequent communal riots. (Hindustan Times, 2015)
The media had widely reported highly provocative speeches made at the Mahapanchayat. While rightly condemning the Muslim leaders for their hate speeches, the Commission made no efforts to secure video clippings of the speeches made during the Mahapanchayat. Hiding behind the specious ground that the administration failed to record the provocative speeches made during the Maha-panchayat. Hence it lets off the Hindu nationalists and their role in organizing the Mahapanchayat and inciting the mob to communal violence.
On 30th August, a meeting was convened by some Muslim leaders in Muzaffarnagar where ore version claimed inflammatory speeches were given by the Muslim leaders while other claims that Muslim leaders made appeals for peace. It was apparent that tension and distrust prevailed in the district and the administration which is headed by Samajwadi Party should have taken notice and tried to quell the tension (Kafila org, 2013). But its failure to check the tension led to a Maha-panchayat to be held in Nangla Mandaur on 7lh September. This Mahapanchayat was convened over the concern of saving Jat girls by Bharitya Kisan Union (BKU) leaders Naresh Tikait and other BJP leaders like Umesh Malik, Sadhvi Prachi, BJP MLAs Kunwar Bhartendu and Suresh Raja, former BJP MLAs Yograj Singh and Ashok Kansal called the killing of the two brothers an attack on Hindu Samaj. The campaign was called Beti Bachao Sammelan by VHP. The emotions of the Jats were ignited citing the grave peril in which the honor of their women lies and the threat of Muslim community to the Jat women (patriarchy views women as embodying the honor of the family and the community at large). This plank worked and one estimate suggests that around 40,000 Jats assembled for the Mahapanchayat. Other estimates of a number up to a lakh are also available. The Jats were aggressive and armed. They came on tractors trollies wielding swords, lathis, Ballams, country made pistols and traditional weapons. Thus it was not an anonymous mob but a well mobilized and armed collective. The most common slogan chanted was "Musalmano ke do sthan, Kabristan ya Pakistan" (there are only two places for the Muslims—either Pakistan or graveyard). Highly inflammatory speeches were made against Muslims. Dogs were dressed in burkhas and beaten up by slippers. On the dais were BKU leaders Naresh Tikait and Rakesh Tikait, all the Khap panchayats' heads, BJP MLAs Suresh Raja, Sangeet Som, Kunwar Bhartendur, former Lok Dal MP Harender Singh Malik, former BJP MP Sohanvir Singh, Chairman of the District Cooperative Bank Vandana Verma, Sangh Parivar's Sadhavi Prachi and many more making hate speeches and egging on the Jats to extract vengeance (First post, 2013). On the way back, it's alleged that some Muslims attacked the Jats and a riot broke out claiming 60 lives and displacing over 100,000 thereby changing the demographic and cultural landscape of the region. The social ethos of the region prior to such polarization was characterized by composite culture and peaceful coexistence. Muslims are now in relief camps or in ghettos with appalling conditions of living and little if not complete lack of amenities. The displaced are hesitant to return citing the terror their attackers can unleash since they are still roaming free (EPW, 2014).
Not probing into the happenings of the Mahapanchayat or recording the hate speeches by prominent BJP leaders punches a hole in the Commission's Report. It holds the then Local Intelligence Unit (LID) Inspector Prabal Pratap Singh responsible, citing his failure to give correct intelligence inputs on the Mahapanchayat since he failed to estimate the number of participants correctly. The Mahapanchayat was attended by 40,000-50,000 people, while intelligence inputs claimed that 15,000-20,000 people would be in attendance. The local administration shouldn't have permitted the Mahapanchayat to assemble in the first place knowing fully well the agitated mood of the Jats. The ruling Samajwadi Party can't shirk away its responsibility on this aspect.
In western UP, the BJP has milked the issue of "love jihad" to communally polarize the society efficiently deploying its rumor mongering machinery. This is proving very fruitful for them and paying rich electoral dividends. This has managed to change the riot patterns in India. Riots were mainly an urban phenomenon slowly spreading to rural areas. However, with this strategy, the rural areas are fast coming under the orbit of riots and riots are then spreading to other towns. The Commission instituted to probe into the riots of such staggering proportions missed out the crucial aspect of probing into the mobilization of the Jats on such a large scale, which reflects the process of polarization, by BJP. For instance the trigger point which was Shahnawaz liking a Jat-girl and intervention of the brothers and the infectious "Beti Bahu Bachao" campaign has been exploited to the hilt in western UP and other parts of UP to incite communal violence. This campaign initiated by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) claims that Muslim boys lure Hindu women and marry them. They later convert the girls into Islam and increase Muslim population. This is an outrageous campaign attacking the right of an individual to marry a person from any community of his or her choice. Such unconstitutional and illiberal campaigns must be opposed and condemned. The Report doesn't do so.
The primary aim of the campaign in this region is to demonize the Muslim community and create an imaginary enemy in them by pitting the Muslim community against the "honour" of the Jat community. This has resulted in curtailed interaction and traditional cordial and friendly relationships between the two communities and especially amongst the younger generations. Such a plank is used by the BJP to construct an overarching Hindu identity by rallying all castes including Valmikis in UP against one common enemy. Dalits have a sizeable population in UP and are inclined towards BSP elcctorally. By creating this Hindu identity, the BJP is trying lo enlist the support of the Valmikis in order to cut into the electoral pie of the BSP. As is the case in other parts of the country, the Sangh Parivar tries to pit the Dalits against the Muslims by distorting information or creating an illusion of inclusiveness in an essentially upper caste Sangh Parivar. This kind of polarization has particularly benefited BJP in UP during the general election in May 2014. With the release of this report, it stands to gain also in the upcoming 2017 State Assembly elections in UP. The Samajwadi Party which is a Yadav dominated party expected to benefit from the violence since it was eying to consolidate 40 percentage the Muslim votes in the region. In spite of the communal tensions on a high, the ruling dispensation did not take steps like establishing peace committees or Mohalla committees to reduce rumors and violence (NMC, 20I3).
Keeping the above in mind, an averment must be made to the state to bring out the truth about the riots by credible investigation. The investigation must include examination of the growing communalization of society and recommend ways to decommunalize the state apparatus. This is only possible when it names the responsible parties including the duty bearers in form of government officials and representatives of the people, who swear to uphold the Constitution of India. The Samajwadi Party, which was the ruling party, should not be allowed to surreptitiously escape responsibility either. Administrative machinery is accountable to and subordinate to elected representatives. BJP, the most blatantly aggressive factor in the riots and its role has to be probed impartially. Political parties and elected representatives are accountable to the people of the country and inquiry commissions should ideally ensure this accountability.
|
Showing posts with label commission of enquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commission of enquiry. Show all posts
March 11, 2016
India - 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots: A strategic omission of inquiry (Mohammad Ali)
The March 11, 2016
The Hindu
A file photo of tents at a relief camp for riot victims at Bassi Kalan in Muzaffarnagar.
The Vishnu Sahai Commission serves its political purpose, pinning the blame for the Muzaffarnagar riots on a district officer and exonerating the political leadership
Commissions of inquiry into communal violence in India rarely end up
indicting culprits but there are some like the Srikrishna Commission
report on the Bombay riots of 1992-93 which at least present a surgical
account of the state’s complicity and wilful ignorance by its agencies
in preventing violence. The report of the Justice (retd.) Vishnu Sahai
Inquiry Commission, set up to probe into the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, and tabled in the State Assembly on Sunday, does neither.
If there is one thing the report clearly does though, it is to
completely exonerate the Samajwadi Party (SP) government despite the
failure of the top leadership of the government to prevent and control
the riots, one of the worst episodes of communal violence in recent
memory. The 700-page account of the violence, prepared by the retired
justice of the Allahabad High Court over a period of over two years,
squarely blames intelligence failure and laxity on the part of
administrative officials for the riots which claimed 62 lives and
resulted in the displacement of over 60,000 people in Muzaffarnagar and
Shamli districts of Uttar Pradesh.
The commission scrutinised the actions of 40 officials and names four of
them — then Principal Secretary (Home) R.M. Srivastava, then Circle
Officer Jansath Jagat Ram Joshi, then Muzaffarnagar District Magistrate
Kaushal Raj Sharma and then Muzaffarnagar Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP) Subhash Chandra Dubey. However, it holds the then Local
Intelligence Unit (LIU) Inspector Prabal Pratap Singh responsible,
citing his failure to give correct intelligence inputs on the
mahapanchayat held in Nagla Mandaur on September 7, 2013 which triggered
the violence. The mahapanchayat was attended by 40,000-50,000 people,
while intelligence inputs claimed that 15,000-20,000 people would be in
attendance, the single-member commission said. “The Inquiry Commission
has held that prima facie the main responsibility for the riots goes to
Prabal Pratap Singh. Hence there will be departmental action against
him,” says the 14-page action taken report submitted by the State
government in the Assembly.
Clean chit to politicians
The Justice Sahai report gives the Akhilesh Yadav government a clean chit despite listing the reasons for the riots which directly indicate its abdication of responsibility. Even when the report highlights the laxity on the part of some top officials, it shies away from connecting the last few dots leading to the Chief Minister’s door. For instance, the report lists 14 reasons which led to communal polarisation and riots after the deaths of three young men, Shahnawaz, Gaurav and Sachin, in Kawal village of Muzaffarnagar on August 27, 2013.
The Justice Sahai report gives the Akhilesh Yadav government a clean chit despite listing the reasons for the riots which directly indicate its abdication of responsibility. Even when the report highlights the laxity on the part of some top officials, it shies away from connecting the last few dots leading to the Chief Minister’s door. For instance, the report lists 14 reasons which led to communal polarisation and riots after the deaths of three young men, Shahnawaz, Gaurav and Sachin, in Kawal village of Muzaffarnagar on August 27, 2013.
The second most prominent reason, the report says, was the transfer of
the then District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar Surendra Singh and then
SSP Manzil Saini just before the riots. “Their transfers resulted in
antagonising the Hindu community (specially Jats) against the government
and this antagonism was a major reason for the riots,” says the report,
choosing to gloss over the fact that Mr. Yadav also holds the Home
portfolio. It also says that the release of 14 Muslim youth who were not
named in the FIR relating to the murders of Gaurav and Sachin, was seen
as an attempt by the government to favour the Muslim community.
The report virtually gives a clean chit to politicians of all hues,
including saffron. It talks extensively about the role of Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) MLA Sangeet Som
in uploading a video on social media — showing some youth being
brutally killed in Afghanistan — and falsely linking it to the death of
two Jat men, but does not recommend more charges against him than have
already been pressed. The intention, it appears, is to deny any fresh
ammunition to the BJP to bring Muzaffarnagar back into the political
discourse. This, after ruling party realised that its strategy of
playing along with the BJP in polarising western U.P. has not helped
much, its candidate having lost in the recent Muzaffarnagar bypoll.
The government’s pre-emptive ploy seems to have worked somewhat. BJP
leaders in Muzaffarnagar this reporter spoke to didn’t quite know how to
react to the report’s findings. One of the main organisers of the Nagla
Mandaur mahapanchayat called it a “bakwaas (nonsensical)” report.
With acquittals already happening in the riot-related cases amid
allegations of pressure on witnesses to turn hostile, the victims were
not expecting any radical justice from the report. But its denial of
what thousands of men and women witnessed — the political ambition
behind the incitement of violence — still shocked many.
Why table the report?
Uttar Pradesh, and its western belt in particular, has been witness to a long history of communal violence — and of inquiry reports into such outbreaks being given a quiet burial, be it the report of the Gyan Prakash Committee constituted to probe the Hashimpura massacre of 1987, in which 42 Muslims were killed by Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel; that of the Ghulam Mohammad Committee that investigated the killing of more than 60 people in Maliyana in 1987; or the report of the Ram Asrey Mishra Committee probing into the killing of 25 men in unprovoked police firing on an unarmed crowd of protesting Muslims in Muzaffarnagar in 1976. Why, then, was the Sahai report tabled? Perhaps because this once, it’s politically convenient for the ruling dispensation to do so, with a year to go for the Assembly elections. Not only because it takes the sting out of the BJP’s polarisation plans but also because, as some local-level SP leaders averred, it will dent the BJP narrative of the ruling party being “pro-Muslim”. The report thus has a political purpose to serve, much like the communal violence it was tasked to probe into did.
Uttar Pradesh, and its western belt in particular, has been witness to a long history of communal violence — and of inquiry reports into such outbreaks being given a quiet burial, be it the report of the Gyan Prakash Committee constituted to probe the Hashimpura massacre of 1987, in which 42 Muslims were killed by Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel; that of the Ghulam Mohammad Committee that investigated the killing of more than 60 people in Maliyana in 1987; or the report of the Ram Asrey Mishra Committee probing into the killing of 25 men in unprovoked police firing on an unarmed crowd of protesting Muslims in Muzaffarnagar in 1976. Why, then, was the Sahai report tabled? Perhaps because this once, it’s politically convenient for the ruling dispensation to do so, with a year to go for the Assembly elections. Not only because it takes the sting out of the BJP’s polarisation plans but also because, as some local-level SP leaders averred, it will dent the BJP narrative of the ruling party being “pro-Muslim”. The report thus has a political purpose to serve, much like the communal violence it was tasked to probe into did.
mohammad.ali@thehindu.co.in
November 19, 2014
India: The Nanavati commission report finds no Gujarat state govt role in 2002 riots; the same Nanavati had similarly found no state complicity in 1984 riots
The Times of India
No government role on 2002 riots: Godhra panel
TNN | Nov 19, 2014, 03.39 AM IST
AHMEDABAD: More than 12 years and 25 extensions later, the Nanavati commission on Tuesday submitted its final report on post-Godhra riots, including 4,160 cases of violence between February 27 and May 31, 2002.
"The commission has concluded that there was no direct involvement of the state government in cases of rioting, but it felt that there was a scope for improvement in police department to control the violence," top sources said.
The commission comprises retired Supreme Court Justice G T Nanavati and retired high court Justice Akshay Mehta. They handed over the report, running into more than 2,000 pages, to CM Anandiben Patel. "It is up to the state government to make it public," said Justice Nanavati, who refused to comment on content of the report.
On delay in completing the inquiry, he said, "We would have submitted the report earlier. There was a delay of more than two years because SIT refused to share investigation papers with us. Also, because of (IPS) Sanjiv Bhatt who frequently moved HC."
The commission had submitted its first report on the burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express in Godhra in September 2008, where it said that the attack was a planned conspiracy.
For inquiry into post-Godhra riots, the commission perused more than 50,000 affidavits submitted by riot victims. It also examined hundreds of witnesses including IPS officers P C Pande, R B Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma, Sanjiv Bhatt, former home minister Gordhan Zadafia and others.
Despite the elaborated scope for examining ministers and the chief minister, the probe panel did not question then CM Narendra Modi, who faced severe criticism for not being able to control the riots that witnessed 1,169 deaths in three months. The commission had said there was not enough evidence showing Modi's involvement and hence his presence and questioning was not required.
Not questioning Modi indicates that there is no indictment of him in this inquiry. When asked, the judges said, "No comments, please." The investigation by Supreme Court-appointed SIT has also given Modi a clean chit. The SIT went on to praise riots control measures taken by the Modi government.
On March 3, 2002, Justice K G Shah was appointed as a one-member inquiry commission to probe the Godhra carnage case. But later, Justice Nanavati was appointed as chairman and the probe was expanded to post-Godhra violence also. In 2004, the commission's scope of inquiry was further expanded to question the CM also. In 2009, Justice Shah died and Justice Mehta was appointed as member in his place.
No government role on 2002 riots: Godhra panel
TNN | Nov 19, 2014, 03.39 AM IST
AHMEDABAD: More than 12 years and 25 extensions later, the Nanavati commission on Tuesday submitted its final report on post-Godhra riots, including 4,160 cases of violence between February 27 and May 31, 2002.
"The commission has concluded that there was no direct involvement of the state government in cases of rioting, but it felt that there was a scope for improvement in police department to control the violence," top sources said.
The commission comprises retired Supreme Court Justice G T Nanavati and retired high court Justice Akshay Mehta. They handed over the report, running into more than 2,000 pages, to CM Anandiben Patel. "It is up to the state government to make it public," said Justice Nanavati, who refused to comment on content of the report.
On delay in completing the inquiry, he said, "We would have submitted the report earlier. There was a delay of more than two years because SIT refused to share investigation papers with us. Also, because of (IPS) Sanjiv Bhatt who frequently moved HC."
The commission had submitted its first report on the burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express in Godhra in September 2008, where it said that the attack was a planned conspiracy.
For inquiry into post-Godhra riots, the commission perused more than 50,000 affidavits submitted by riot victims. It also examined hundreds of witnesses including IPS officers P C Pande, R B Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma, Sanjiv Bhatt, former home minister Gordhan Zadafia and others.
Despite the elaborated scope for examining ministers and the chief minister, the probe panel did not question then CM Narendra Modi, who faced severe criticism for not being able to control the riots that witnessed 1,169 deaths in three months. The commission had said there was not enough evidence showing Modi's involvement and hence his presence and questioning was not required.
Not questioning Modi indicates that there is no indictment of him in this inquiry. When asked, the judges said, "No comments, please." The investigation by Supreme Court-appointed SIT has also given Modi a clean chit. The SIT went on to praise riots control measures taken by the Modi government.
On March 3, 2002, Justice K G Shah was appointed as a one-member inquiry commission to probe the Godhra carnage case. But later, Justice Nanavati was appointed as chairman and the probe was expanded to post-Godhra violence also. In 2004, the commission's scope of inquiry was further expanded to question the CM also. In 2009, Justice Shah died and Justice Mehta was appointed as member in his place.
January 18, 2014
India - Gujarat riots 2002:: Twelve Years And Counting: Nanavaty panel on 2002 riots gets another pass | R.K. Misra
Outlook Magazine 27 January 2014
gujarat: 2002 riots
Twelve Years And Counting: Nanavaty panel on 2002 riots gets another pass
by R.K. Misra
The Nanavaty judicial inquiry commission, set up on March 3, ’02, by the Narendra Modi-led BJP government in Gujarat to probe the Godhra train carnage and the subsequent communal riots, was mandated to submit its report within three months. One hundred and forty-two months or almost 12 years later, it’s just got its 21st extension, till June 30, 2014.
Dr Mukul Sinha, whose Jan Sangharsh Manch has been fighting the cause of the riot victims before the commission, is candid when he states that so much time’s elapsed that people may have well forgotten the very incidents that the panel was meant to inquire into. “The 2002 violence saw Modi turn into a Hindutva icon. Now the man aspires to lead the country in the general elections of 2014. Yet the question as to who was responsible for the death of some one thousand people still awaits an answer,” he says.
Initially headed by high court judge K.G. Shah, the state government later decided to appoint retired Supreme Court judge G.T. Nanavaty as commission chairman while widening its scope to cover the post-Godhra communal riots and again in 2004 to bring the role of the CM and the administration into the ambit of the probe. Justice Shah passed away in 2008 and was replaced by another retired judge of the high court, Justice Akshay Mehta.
The commission has also been mired in controversy. Justice Mehta was outed in a sting operation on 2002 Naroda Patiya massacre accused Babu Bajrangi. There’s also the small matter of Justice Nanavaty’s son Maulik taking over as additional public prosecutor at the Gujarat HC as also the fact of his brother Dhaval becoming an empanelled lawyer of the BJP-controlled Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
The state Congress’s Manish Doshi calls the commissions appointed so far the “Modi Bachao Commissions”.
The commission’s first report in 2008, on the burning of the Sabarmati Express in 2008, called it a pre-planned conspiracy and gave a clean chit to the state government. Former Gujarat top cop R.B. Sreekumar, who was the state intelligence bureau chief around the time but later fell foul of Modi when he refused to comply with ‘illegal’ orders, points to the timing of that report. “The first report giving a clean chit to the Modi government was submitted in September 2008, just in time for the LS polls in early 2009. The second report providing a similar clean chit should come timed before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections,” he says adding that he has submitted nine affidavits to the commission, two of them from the time when he was in service, that “provides enough corroboratory evidence but to little avail”.
State Congress spokesperson Dr Manish Doshi calls all the commissions appointed by the Gujarat government “Modi Bachao Commissions”. “Has any of these commissions indicted the government on any count? They are all whitewash jobs,” he says. Mukul Sinha finds it “strange that the main person against whom allegations were made for responsibility of the 2002 riots has never been examined by the panel set up to find out how it happened!” All this while, according to an RTI application, the state government had spent Rs 6.32 crore on the panel till 2011.
There have been contradictions galore as well. While the Nanavaty Commission held that the Godhra train carnage was a well-hatched conspiracy, the U.C. Banerjee panel appointed by the UPA’s then rail minister Laloo Yadav found no evidence to suggest such a thing. The Nanavaty Commission held Maulana Umarji as the key Godhra conspirator while the special court trying him acquitted him.
Incidentally, the POTA review panel headed by retired Allahabad HC judge S.C. Jain had on May 16, 2005, recommended the removal of POTA provisions from the Godhra train carnage case as the burning of the compartment was “certainly not part of the conspiracy as envisaged under POTA provisions”.
Ironically, in March 2010, then home minister Amit Shah had stated in the Gujarat Vidhan Sabha that the Nanavaty Commission would submit the second part of its report by June end of the year. But it’s been extension piled up on weary extension and the report is still awaited, 40 months later.
By R.K. Misra in Ahmedabad
gujarat: 2002 riots
Twelve Years And Counting: Nanavaty panel on 2002 riots gets another pass
by R.K. Misra
The Nanavaty judicial inquiry commission, set up on March 3, ’02, by the Narendra Modi-led BJP government in Gujarat to probe the Godhra train carnage and the subsequent communal riots, was mandated to submit its report within three months. One hundred and forty-two months or almost 12 years later, it’s just got its 21st extension, till June 30, 2014.
Dr Mukul Sinha, whose Jan Sangharsh Manch has been fighting the cause of the riot victims before the commission, is candid when he states that so much time’s elapsed that people may have well forgotten the very incidents that the panel was meant to inquire into. “The 2002 violence saw Modi turn into a Hindutva icon. Now the man aspires to lead the country in the general elections of 2014. Yet the question as to who was responsible for the death of some one thousand people still awaits an answer,” he says.
Initially headed by high court judge K.G. Shah, the state government later decided to appoint retired Supreme Court judge G.T. Nanavaty as commission chairman while widening its scope to cover the post-Godhra communal riots and again in 2004 to bring the role of the CM and the administration into the ambit of the probe. Justice Shah passed away in 2008 and was replaced by another retired judge of the high court, Justice Akshay Mehta.
The commission has also been mired in controversy. Justice Mehta was outed in a sting operation on 2002 Naroda Patiya massacre accused Babu Bajrangi. There’s also the small matter of Justice Nanavaty’s son Maulik taking over as additional public prosecutor at the Gujarat HC as also the fact of his brother Dhaval becoming an empanelled lawyer of the BJP-controlled Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
The state Congress’s Manish Doshi calls the commissions appointed so far the “Modi Bachao Commissions”.
The commission’s first report in 2008, on the burning of the Sabarmati Express in 2008, called it a pre-planned conspiracy and gave a clean chit to the state government. Former Gujarat top cop R.B. Sreekumar, who was the state intelligence bureau chief around the time but later fell foul of Modi when he refused to comply with ‘illegal’ orders, points to the timing of that report. “The first report giving a clean chit to the Modi government was submitted in September 2008, just in time for the LS polls in early 2009. The second report providing a similar clean chit should come timed before the 2014 Lok Sabha elections,” he says adding that he has submitted nine affidavits to the commission, two of them from the time when he was in service, that “provides enough corroboratory evidence but to little avail”.
State Congress spokesperson Dr Manish Doshi calls all the commissions appointed by the Gujarat government “Modi Bachao Commissions”. “Has any of these commissions indicted the government on any count? They are all whitewash jobs,” he says. Mukul Sinha finds it “strange that the main person against whom allegations were made for responsibility of the 2002 riots has never been examined by the panel set up to find out how it happened!” All this while, according to an RTI application, the state government had spent Rs 6.32 crore on the panel till 2011.
There have been contradictions galore as well. While the Nanavaty Commission held that the Godhra train carnage was a well-hatched conspiracy, the U.C. Banerjee panel appointed by the UPA’s then rail minister Laloo Yadav found no evidence to suggest such a thing. The Nanavaty Commission held Maulana Umarji as the key Godhra conspirator while the special court trying him acquitted him.
Incidentally, the POTA review panel headed by retired Allahabad HC judge S.C. Jain had on May 16, 2005, recommended the removal of POTA provisions from the Godhra train carnage case as the burning of the compartment was “certainly not part of the conspiracy as envisaged under POTA provisions”.
Ironically, in March 2010, then home minister Amit Shah had stated in the Gujarat Vidhan Sabha that the Nanavaty Commission would submit the second part of its report by June end of the year. But it’s been extension piled up on weary extension and the report is still awaited, 40 months later.
By R.K. Misra in Ahmedabad
March 29, 2012
text of the 1969 report of Commission of Inquiry in to Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi
Full text of the report of Commission of Inquiry in to Conspiracy to Murder Mahatma Gandhi 1965 - 1969. Published in 1970 by India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, the report is now not so widely known since its has been out of print. This two part report has been now been digitised and uploaded on the internet in public interest with the intent to permanently keep it in the public domain. - sacw.net
http://www.sacw.net/article2611.htmljavascript:void(0)
http://www.sacw.net/article2611.htmljavascript:void(0)
October 31, 2011
The 1984 Pogrom and calls for justice of ‘other' victims of similar massacres (Ravinder Kaur)
We must not allow the pain and suffering of the Sikh victims to be transformed into a political instrument to mute calls for justice for the ‘other' victims of similarly orchestrated massacres.
More than a quarter century on, not much remains of ‘1984' — shorthand for one of the largest pogroms in India's postcolonial history when thousands of Sikhs were massacred in retribution for Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination — in the public memory. The voices of victims and eyewitnesses one often heard in courtrooms have almost retired in exhaustion. The names of state-appointed serial commissions to establish the facts on ground have by now joined footnotes of history in a long line of ineffective judicial commissions of similar nature. And more remarkably, the miscarriage of justice through long-winded judicial processes where eyewitnesses routinely turn hostile due to threats, incentives, pressures exerted by fixers, or because of plain weariness has ceased evoking any mass outrage.
[. . .]
Full text here
More than a quarter century on, not much remains of ‘1984' — shorthand for one of the largest pogroms in India's postcolonial history when thousands of Sikhs were massacred in retribution for Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination — in the public memory. The voices of victims and eyewitnesses one often heard in courtrooms have almost retired in exhaustion. The names of state-appointed serial commissions to establish the facts on ground have by now joined footnotes of history in a long line of ineffective judicial commissions of similar nature. And more remarkably, the miscarriage of justice through long-winded judicial processes where eyewitnesses routinely turn hostile due to threats, incentives, pressures exerted by fixers, or because of plain weariness has ceased evoking any mass outrage.
[. . .]
Full text here
July 15, 2011
Gujarat danseuse activist moves plea to question police officers re 2002 riots
Daily News and Analysis
2002 riots: Social activist moves plea to question IPS officer
Published: Thursday, Jul 14, 2011, 17:29 IST
By DNA Correspondent | Place: Ahmedabad | Agency: DNA
The Nanavati and Mehta enquiry commission will, in a few days, decide on the plea moved by renowned danseuse and social activist, Mallika Sarabhai, seeking permission to cross-examination IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and retired DGP, RB Sreekumar.
Sarabhai, on Wednesday, moved the plea for permission to question both Bhatt and Sreekumar about chief minister Narendra Modi's alleged intention to 'undermine' the petition she had filed in the Supreme court in 2002 seeking justice for the riot victims.
She was the first to file a petition in the Apex court after the riots. She had demanded that the alleged role of the state government and chief minister Narendra Modi in the communal violence be investigated. She had also sought compensation for the riot victims in her petition that was filed in the Supreme Court on March 31, 2002.
Sarabhai wants to question Bhatt as he had recently stated before the commission that the state government's highest functionary had tried to undermine the petition that she had filed in the Apex court. According to reports, Bhatt had also told the commission that Sreekumar, who was then chief of the state intelligence bureau, was aware of this fact.
Talking to DNA, Sarabhai said: "I had come to the commission to file a petition seeking permission to cross-examine Bhatt and Sreekumar. The commission has told me that it would decide on my plea in a couple of days."
She further said that it was clear from Bhatt's statement that Modi had tried to derail proceedings in the Supreme Court to undermine her petition and had also requested Sreekumar to file an affidavit and clear Modi's name. "I will wait for the commission's order on my petition," she said.
Sanjiv Bhatt had recently filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that on the night of February 27, 2002, Modi had held a meeting of top officers of the state and had instructed them to let Hindus vent their anger and teach Muslims a lesson.
Bhatt was then summoned by the Nanavati commission where he was cross-examined by various parties, including the state government.
2002 riots: Social activist moves plea to question IPS officer
Published: Thursday, Jul 14, 2011, 17:29 IST
By DNA Correspondent | Place: Ahmedabad | Agency: DNA
The Nanavati and Mehta enquiry commission will, in a few days, decide on the plea moved by renowned danseuse and social activist, Mallika Sarabhai, seeking permission to cross-examination IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and retired DGP, RB Sreekumar.
Sarabhai, on Wednesday, moved the plea for permission to question both Bhatt and Sreekumar about chief minister Narendra Modi's alleged intention to 'undermine' the petition she had filed in the Supreme court in 2002 seeking justice for the riot victims.
She was the first to file a petition in the Apex court after the riots. She had demanded that the alleged role of the state government and chief minister Narendra Modi in the communal violence be investigated. She had also sought compensation for the riot victims in her petition that was filed in the Supreme Court on March 31, 2002.
Sarabhai wants to question Bhatt as he had recently stated before the commission that the state government's highest functionary had tried to undermine the petition that she had filed in the Apex court. According to reports, Bhatt had also told the commission that Sreekumar, who was then chief of the state intelligence bureau, was aware of this fact.
Talking to DNA, Sarabhai said: "I had come to the commission to file a petition seeking permission to cross-examine Bhatt and Sreekumar. The commission has told me that it would decide on my plea in a couple of days."
She further said that it was clear from Bhatt's statement that Modi had tried to derail proceedings in the Supreme Court to undermine her petition and had also requested Sreekumar to file an affidavit and clear Modi's name. "I will wait for the commission's order on my petition," she said.
Sanjiv Bhatt had recently filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that on the night of February 27, 2002, Modi had held a meeting of top officers of the state and had instructed them to let Hindus vent their anger and teach Muslims a lesson.
Bhatt was then summoned by the Nanavati commission where he was cross-examined by various parties, including the state government.
April 14, 2011
Truth Behind the Fire in Sabarmati Express (Godhra, February 27, 2002) : KS Subramanian
From Mainstream Weekly, 9 April 2011
Truth Behind the Fire in Sabarmati Express (Godhra, February 27, 2002)
The special fast-track court judge, P.R. Patel, has pronounced his verdict on the mystery behind the fire incident in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002. The conspiracy theory put forward by the Gujarat Police has been upheld. A volley of protests has followed pointing to the many contradictions in the judgement, which will surely be contested before higher judicial authorities.
In this context, it is necessary to examine the verdict on the Sabarmati Express fire episode put forward by the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal (CCT) on Gujarat 2002, led by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and consisting of former judges, P.B. Sawant (Supreme Court) and H. Suresh (Bombay High Court); civil rights lawyer K.G. Kannabiran; social activist Aruna Roy; scholars Tanika Sarkar and Ghanshyam Shah; and the present writer. The tribunal produced painstaking and massive three-volume documentation on the Gujarat carnage, 2002, titled “Crime against Humanity”.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by R.K. Raghavan, was tasked by the Supreme Court of India to supervise the Gujarat Police’s investi-gation of the case. While the SIT chief has expressed his ‘professional’ satisfaction over the ‘success’ of the prosecution case, his role has come in for criticism. He is alleged to have failed to take an objective and detached view of the evidence collected by the Gujarat Police with some in the IPS fraternity holding that he acted as the ‘B team’ of the Gujarat Police. Others say that he is involved in a clear case of conflict of interest: being a well-paid cyber security consultant for the Tatas who have massive investments in Gujarat, he has nevertheless associated himself with a major criminal investigation to help the controversial Gujarat Chief Minister win a crucial political battle against his opponents.
We may here briefly examine the findings of the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal (CCT) on the issue of the Sabarmati Express fire incident on February 27, 2002 and put forward a counter- case, which needs consideration.
The Sabarmati Express, on its return journey from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad, reached Godhra on the morning of February 27, 2002. It was full of activists armed with trishuls and lathis, who got down at every passing station shouting Hindutva slogans. Many passengers felt harassed by this misbehaviour but kept quiet since the slogan-shouters had captured all the reserved seats in the train, which was packed to capacity.
The train arrived at the Godhra railway station at 7.30 am (three hours late). There were certain unsavoury incidents on the platform. A Muslim girl was molested and an attempt made to pull her into the train. A Muslim tea vendor, who boarded coach S-6, was insulted and sent out of the coach by the rowdy elements some of whom climbed onto the roof of the train and made obscene gestures at Muslim women living opposite the railway station. There was some stone-throwing, from both inside and outside the train.
The train left the platform at 7.48 am but was soon stopped by chain-pulling by some to enable some young men on the platform to get into the train, which was again stopped a kilometre ahead at Singal Falia. The engine driver saw some people outside pelting stones at the train. Soon thereafter, coach S-6 was on fire. How did the fire start?
The State Government has held that the Ghanchi Muslims residing near the railway station gathered in large numbers and attacked the kar sevaks by throwing fireballs into the train, which caused the fire. The full capacity of the train was about 1100 but it was actually carrying about 2000 passengers, mainly kar sevaks spread all over the train and not just in coach S-6.
Why did anyone target coach S-6 alone? If 2000 Muslims, as alleged, had gathered on the spot, why did they not attack the other coaches as well? Again, did anyone try to come out from the other coaches? If some of the passengers, including kar sevaks, rushed out, did anyone attack them?
After the fire, 58 dead bodies were found in coach S-6 (26 women, 12 children and 20 men). 43 persons had sustained injuries. The bodies were charred badly preventing easy recognition. The Collector of Godhra informed the Tribunal that five bodies could be identified. One was that of the local railway station master’s wife. No one could assert that all the dead bodies were those of kar sevaks.
Mystery of the Fire
Significantly, only one coach, S-6, had been burnt and the fire had not spread to the other coaches. It was not clear whether the train was stopped because of the fire or whether the coach was set on fire after the train had stopped. If the latter was correct, why was the train stopped at all? It could be that because of the fire, someone pulled the chain.
As the train left the Godhra station, all the windows and doors of coach S-6, as well as those of the other coaches, remained closed because of the stone throwing. When the train was stopped, nobody from the outside could identify any particular person from any particular coach as a kar sevak, though they were overwhelmingly present in the train. The fact that the fire did not spread to the remaining coaches clearly indicated that it originated within S-6. This also explains why only persons in that coach died. In all probability, as the fire broke out, extreme panic resulted. Many men managed to escape through the vestibules to the other coaches, leaving mostly women and children behind, who succumbed to the fire. The evidence suggested that the passengers had had their belongings stacked against the doors making it impossible for anyone to easily get out of or get into coach S-6.
The Tribunal inspected the burnt coach S-6 on May 7, 2002. The sloping site where the train had stopped is an elevated bund. From the ground level, the height of the bund could be about 12-15 feet high. At the top, there was no space for 2000 persons to assemble on both sides of the track. If so many had actually gathered there, the crowd would have spread over a much larger area than the stretch of coach S-6. If the government version were true, the other coaches should have been targeted as much as coach S-6. Taking into account the height of the bund and the height at which the train stood, no fire-balls could have been lobbed in; the outside of the coach did not show signs of charring. The Tribunal found no marks below the coach windows; the charred marks were to be seen only at or above the window level, clearly indicating that the fire had actually started inside the coach and its leaping flames had singed the outside of the compartment, above the window level. Even to the naked eye, it was clear that the fire was from within, not from outside.
The findings of the Tribunal were later confirmed by the reports of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The relevant section of the Forensic Science Laboratory report (State of Gujarat, New Mental Corner, Ahmedabad-16, Spot Investigation Report No. 2 regarding CR No. 9/2002, Godhra Railway Police Station), filed by Assistant Director Dr M.S. Dahiya, clearly stated:
”It was found that the height of the window of the coach was around 7 ft. from the ground at the place. Under this circumstance, it was not possible to throw any inflammable fluid inside from outside the coach from any bucket or carboy, because by doing this, most of the fluid was getting thrown outside. At the place of the incidents, there was one heap of grit, of three feet height at a distance of around 14-ft, in the southern side of the coach. Water was thrown on the windows of the coach with the help of bucket standing on the top of the said heap, in that case only about 10 to 15 per cent of the water went inside and the rest of the quantity was spilled outside itself. Thus, if the inflammable fluid is thrown from outside, then a major part of it would fall around the track outside and catch fire and cause damage to the outer part of bottom side of the coach. But after examination of the coach and the track, no effect was found of the fire on bottom side below the windows of the coach. By taking into consideration this fact, and also the burning pattern of the outer side of the coach, a conclusion can be drawn that no inflammable fluid had been thrown inside from outside the coach.
“There also appears to be no possibility that any inflammable liquid was thrown through the door of the bogie. By observing the condition of the frames of the windows of the coach, it appears that all the windows of the coach were closed during the time of the fire.”
The Tribunal was convinced that the fire came from inside. This was seen from the inner side of the coach. The intensity of the fire was such that even the iron rods, the seats, the fans were all burnt to such an extent that we found them twisted and molten out of shape. The Tribunal found rice and wheat partly burnt and scattered all across the floor of compartment S-6. Some of the Tribunal witnesses stated that kar sevaks had stoves in the train. The FSL report showed that for such an intensity of fire, 60 litres of inflammable liquid had to be poured into the coach, “by using a wide mouthed container”. The question arose: where was this container? There is no evidence of anyone carrying 60 litres of inflammable liquid. At what point of time was the liquid taken inside the coach, or into the passage? Who was travelling in the train? If such a large number of kar sevaks, armed with trishuls and in an aggressive mood, were inside the train, how could the Ghanchi Muslims enter the train? And how could they have carried so much petrol openly or even clandestinely without being discovered by the passengers?
So, the mystery of the fire remained, the only thing certain being the fact that it came from within.
Was Godhra Pre-Planned?
The evidence analysed above clearly indicated that the incident was not pre-planned by the Muslims, as alleged by the State Government. In this connection, The Times of India on March 29, 2002 reported a statement made by the IGP, Railways, P.P. Agja, to the effect that there was no evidence of a pre-planned conspiracy behind the Godhra incident. He added: “The case is still being investigated and if there was some deep conspiracy, then we are yet to find it.’’ He further told The Times of India, standing in front of the railway police station on the platform where the trouble had began:
“According to the sequence of events as found by the police, all was not well in coach S-6 of the Ahmedabad-bound Sabarmati Express on that day. A group of unruly Ram sevaks had boarded the train at Lucknow without reser-vations and had put to discomfort the 66 genuine passengers of the coach. Some of the ticket-paying passengers had to sleep on the floor; so overcrowded had the compartment become that the ticket collector who came aboard the train at Ratlam (two stations before Godhra) was not allowed to enter the coach.
“At Godhra station, the hawkers on the platform started stoning the train after an unsavoury incident, especially targeting coach S-6, because some occupants of the coach had given offence. At any point of time, there are some 250 hawkers on the station. Some of them carry stoves with kerosene in them. All of them live in the slum called Signal Falia, next to the station.
“This means it is not surprising that a crowd could collect at the station so fast. The people, who live cheek by jowl in the slums next to the station, include a fair share of criminals indulging in railway crimes like looting, pick-pocketing and stealing of goods of passengers and also railway property. All of them are Ghanchi Muslims and they are uneducated, without any jobs and poor.”
It was thus clear that the attack on S-6 coach was not pre-meditated. From 8.30 am, just after the fire on the Sabarmati Express took place, until 7.30 pm that evening, repeated statements by the Godhra District Collector, Smt Jayanthi Ravi, relayed on Doordarshan and Akashwani (radio) stated that “the incident was not pre-planned, it was an accident”.
As is evident from the voluminous evidence recorded by the Tribunal, and substantive other evidence made available to it, investigating officials did not find any proof of the Godhra atrocity being pre-planned.
However, by the evening of February 27, a well-thought-out scheme to extract maximum political capital out of Godhra had been launched. As part of this scheme, at around 2.30 am, the bodies of the kar sevaks were brought to Ahmedabad in a provocative procession. Around 500 people were waiting outside the Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad for the charred bodies to arrive from Godhra. By 3.35 am on February 28, a convoy of five trucks led by a pilot Gypsy entered the hospital compound. The State Government and the administration, instead of appealing for restraint and peace, became the agents of a well-planned action against innocent Muslims of the State that was in fact projected as a ‘reaction’. The corpses of the unfortunate victims of the Godhra train fire were used to launch a Statewide pogrom.
Was ‘Godhra’ Allowed to Happen?
During the period, Gujarat and the country was on red alert due to the aggressive mobilisation by the VHP on the issue of the projected temple at Ayodhya. While the Mumbai Police had made preventive arrest of as many as 8000 persons in the first week of March, in Gujarat, even after the Godhra fire incident, the State Police arrested only two persons in Ahmedabad, both Muslims.
A major administrative lapse in the antici-pation and handling of the violence was the blatant ignoring of the basic principles of law and order maintenance and governance. In 1965, when disturbances erupted in Godhra, the then Collector promptly arrested both Muslims and Hindus whose names appeared in FIRs. In a couple of days, the disturbances were curbed. After the October 1980 disturbances, the then Collector immediately put the miscreants behind bars. If a similar non-partisan approach had been followed in Godhra after the fire incident of February 27, 2002, the prevailing tension would have been contained and the chances of a vengeful and highly-organised spree of retaliatory killings demonstrating every element of ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been pre-empted. That this did not happen suggests a lack of intent, on the part of those in government, to take prompt preventive measures in order to de-escalate the situation.
On February 27, 2002, the Tribunal recorded the evidence of both the Collector and DSP of the Panchmahal district at Godhra. The evidence showed that though the Central Government’s Rapid Action Force (RAF) had been called in, adequate powers were not given to it. Despite the curfew, the RAF men were made to sit in the officers’ mess, helpless, unable to do anything. Though the Fire Brigade Station was only five minutes away from the railway station, it took a while for the fire brigade to reach the torched S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express.
Conclusion
Four official reports and at least three non-official reports on the Gujarat violence have rejected the thesis of a conspiracy behind the fire incident in the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002. Only the Nanavati Commission and the recent special court judgement have intriguingly opted for the theory. A prolonged legal battle appears to be in store for the affected people.
The author is a former IPS officer who is currently an ICSSR Senior Fellow at the Council for Social Development, New Delhi.
Truth Behind the Fire in Sabarmati Express (Godhra, February 27, 2002)
The special fast-track court judge, P.R. Patel, has pronounced his verdict on the mystery behind the fire incident in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002. The conspiracy theory put forward by the Gujarat Police has been upheld. A volley of protests has followed pointing to the many contradictions in the judgement, which will surely be contested before higher judicial authorities.
In this context, it is necessary to examine the verdict on the Sabarmati Express fire episode put forward by the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal (CCT) on Gujarat 2002, led by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and consisting of former judges, P.B. Sawant (Supreme Court) and H. Suresh (Bombay High Court); civil rights lawyer K.G. Kannabiran; social activist Aruna Roy; scholars Tanika Sarkar and Ghanshyam Shah; and the present writer. The tribunal produced painstaking and massive three-volume documentation on the Gujarat carnage, 2002, titled “Crime against Humanity”.
A Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by R.K. Raghavan, was tasked by the Supreme Court of India to supervise the Gujarat Police’s investi-gation of the case. While the SIT chief has expressed his ‘professional’ satisfaction over the ‘success’ of the prosecution case, his role has come in for criticism. He is alleged to have failed to take an objective and detached view of the evidence collected by the Gujarat Police with some in the IPS fraternity holding that he acted as the ‘B team’ of the Gujarat Police. Others say that he is involved in a clear case of conflict of interest: being a well-paid cyber security consultant for the Tatas who have massive investments in Gujarat, he has nevertheless associated himself with a major criminal investigation to help the controversial Gujarat Chief Minister win a crucial political battle against his opponents.
We may here briefly examine the findings of the Concerned Citizens’ Tribunal (CCT) on the issue of the Sabarmati Express fire incident on February 27, 2002 and put forward a counter- case, which needs consideration.
The Sabarmati Express, on its return journey from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad, reached Godhra on the morning of February 27, 2002. It was full of activists armed with trishuls and lathis, who got down at every passing station shouting Hindutva slogans. Many passengers felt harassed by this misbehaviour but kept quiet since the slogan-shouters had captured all the reserved seats in the train, which was packed to capacity.
The train arrived at the Godhra railway station at 7.30 am (three hours late). There were certain unsavoury incidents on the platform. A Muslim girl was molested and an attempt made to pull her into the train. A Muslim tea vendor, who boarded coach S-6, was insulted and sent out of the coach by the rowdy elements some of whom climbed onto the roof of the train and made obscene gestures at Muslim women living opposite the railway station. There was some stone-throwing, from both inside and outside the train.
The train left the platform at 7.48 am but was soon stopped by chain-pulling by some to enable some young men on the platform to get into the train, which was again stopped a kilometre ahead at Singal Falia. The engine driver saw some people outside pelting stones at the train. Soon thereafter, coach S-6 was on fire. How did the fire start?
The State Government has held that the Ghanchi Muslims residing near the railway station gathered in large numbers and attacked the kar sevaks by throwing fireballs into the train, which caused the fire. The full capacity of the train was about 1100 but it was actually carrying about 2000 passengers, mainly kar sevaks spread all over the train and not just in coach S-6.
Why did anyone target coach S-6 alone? If 2000 Muslims, as alleged, had gathered on the spot, why did they not attack the other coaches as well? Again, did anyone try to come out from the other coaches? If some of the passengers, including kar sevaks, rushed out, did anyone attack them?
After the fire, 58 dead bodies were found in coach S-6 (26 women, 12 children and 20 men). 43 persons had sustained injuries. The bodies were charred badly preventing easy recognition. The Collector of Godhra informed the Tribunal that five bodies could be identified. One was that of the local railway station master’s wife. No one could assert that all the dead bodies were those of kar sevaks.
Mystery of the Fire
Significantly, only one coach, S-6, had been burnt and the fire had not spread to the other coaches. It was not clear whether the train was stopped because of the fire or whether the coach was set on fire after the train had stopped. If the latter was correct, why was the train stopped at all? It could be that because of the fire, someone pulled the chain.
As the train left the Godhra station, all the windows and doors of coach S-6, as well as those of the other coaches, remained closed because of the stone throwing. When the train was stopped, nobody from the outside could identify any particular person from any particular coach as a kar sevak, though they were overwhelmingly present in the train. The fact that the fire did not spread to the remaining coaches clearly indicated that it originated within S-6. This also explains why only persons in that coach died. In all probability, as the fire broke out, extreme panic resulted. Many men managed to escape through the vestibules to the other coaches, leaving mostly women and children behind, who succumbed to the fire. The evidence suggested that the passengers had had their belongings stacked against the doors making it impossible for anyone to easily get out of or get into coach S-6.
The Tribunal inspected the burnt coach S-6 on May 7, 2002. The sloping site where the train had stopped is an elevated bund. From the ground level, the height of the bund could be about 12-15 feet high. At the top, there was no space for 2000 persons to assemble on both sides of the track. If so many had actually gathered there, the crowd would have spread over a much larger area than the stretch of coach S-6. If the government version were true, the other coaches should have been targeted as much as coach S-6. Taking into account the height of the bund and the height at which the train stood, no fire-balls could have been lobbed in; the outside of the coach did not show signs of charring. The Tribunal found no marks below the coach windows; the charred marks were to be seen only at or above the window level, clearly indicating that the fire had actually started inside the coach and its leaping flames had singed the outside of the compartment, above the window level. Even to the naked eye, it was clear that the fire was from within, not from outside.
The findings of the Tribunal were later confirmed by the reports of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The relevant section of the Forensic Science Laboratory report (State of Gujarat, New Mental Corner, Ahmedabad-16, Spot Investigation Report No. 2 regarding CR No. 9/2002, Godhra Railway Police Station), filed by Assistant Director Dr M.S. Dahiya, clearly stated:
”It was found that the height of the window of the coach was around 7 ft. from the ground at the place. Under this circumstance, it was not possible to throw any inflammable fluid inside from outside the coach from any bucket or carboy, because by doing this, most of the fluid was getting thrown outside. At the place of the incidents, there was one heap of grit, of three feet height at a distance of around 14-ft, in the southern side of the coach. Water was thrown on the windows of the coach with the help of bucket standing on the top of the said heap, in that case only about 10 to 15 per cent of the water went inside and the rest of the quantity was spilled outside itself. Thus, if the inflammable fluid is thrown from outside, then a major part of it would fall around the track outside and catch fire and cause damage to the outer part of bottom side of the coach. But after examination of the coach and the track, no effect was found of the fire on bottom side below the windows of the coach. By taking into consideration this fact, and also the burning pattern of the outer side of the coach, a conclusion can be drawn that no inflammable fluid had been thrown inside from outside the coach.
“There also appears to be no possibility that any inflammable liquid was thrown through the door of the bogie. By observing the condition of the frames of the windows of the coach, it appears that all the windows of the coach were closed during the time of the fire.”
The Tribunal was convinced that the fire came from inside. This was seen from the inner side of the coach. The intensity of the fire was such that even the iron rods, the seats, the fans were all burnt to such an extent that we found them twisted and molten out of shape. The Tribunal found rice and wheat partly burnt and scattered all across the floor of compartment S-6. Some of the Tribunal witnesses stated that kar sevaks had stoves in the train. The FSL report showed that for such an intensity of fire, 60 litres of inflammable liquid had to be poured into the coach, “by using a wide mouthed container”. The question arose: where was this container? There is no evidence of anyone carrying 60 litres of inflammable liquid. At what point of time was the liquid taken inside the coach, or into the passage? Who was travelling in the train? If such a large number of kar sevaks, armed with trishuls and in an aggressive mood, were inside the train, how could the Ghanchi Muslims enter the train? And how could they have carried so much petrol openly or even clandestinely without being discovered by the passengers?
So, the mystery of the fire remained, the only thing certain being the fact that it came from within.
Was Godhra Pre-Planned?
The evidence analysed above clearly indicated that the incident was not pre-planned by the Muslims, as alleged by the State Government. In this connection, The Times of India on March 29, 2002 reported a statement made by the IGP, Railways, P.P. Agja, to the effect that there was no evidence of a pre-planned conspiracy behind the Godhra incident. He added: “The case is still being investigated and if there was some deep conspiracy, then we are yet to find it.’’ He further told The Times of India, standing in front of the railway police station on the platform where the trouble had began:
“According to the sequence of events as found by the police, all was not well in coach S-6 of the Ahmedabad-bound Sabarmati Express on that day. A group of unruly Ram sevaks had boarded the train at Lucknow without reser-vations and had put to discomfort the 66 genuine passengers of the coach. Some of the ticket-paying passengers had to sleep on the floor; so overcrowded had the compartment become that the ticket collector who came aboard the train at Ratlam (two stations before Godhra) was not allowed to enter the coach.
“At Godhra station, the hawkers on the platform started stoning the train after an unsavoury incident, especially targeting coach S-6, because some occupants of the coach had given offence. At any point of time, there are some 250 hawkers on the station. Some of them carry stoves with kerosene in them. All of them live in the slum called Signal Falia, next to the station.
“This means it is not surprising that a crowd could collect at the station so fast. The people, who live cheek by jowl in the slums next to the station, include a fair share of criminals indulging in railway crimes like looting, pick-pocketing and stealing of goods of passengers and also railway property. All of them are Ghanchi Muslims and they are uneducated, without any jobs and poor.”
It was thus clear that the attack on S-6 coach was not pre-meditated. From 8.30 am, just after the fire on the Sabarmati Express took place, until 7.30 pm that evening, repeated statements by the Godhra District Collector, Smt Jayanthi Ravi, relayed on Doordarshan and Akashwani (radio) stated that “the incident was not pre-planned, it was an accident”.
As is evident from the voluminous evidence recorded by the Tribunal, and substantive other evidence made available to it, investigating officials did not find any proof of the Godhra atrocity being pre-planned.
However, by the evening of February 27, a well-thought-out scheme to extract maximum political capital out of Godhra had been launched. As part of this scheme, at around 2.30 am, the bodies of the kar sevaks were brought to Ahmedabad in a provocative procession. Around 500 people were waiting outside the Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad for the charred bodies to arrive from Godhra. By 3.35 am on February 28, a convoy of five trucks led by a pilot Gypsy entered the hospital compound. The State Government and the administration, instead of appealing for restraint and peace, became the agents of a well-planned action against innocent Muslims of the State that was in fact projected as a ‘reaction’. The corpses of the unfortunate victims of the Godhra train fire were used to launch a Statewide pogrom.
Was ‘Godhra’ Allowed to Happen?
During the period, Gujarat and the country was on red alert due to the aggressive mobilisation by the VHP on the issue of the projected temple at Ayodhya. While the Mumbai Police had made preventive arrest of as many as 8000 persons in the first week of March, in Gujarat, even after the Godhra fire incident, the State Police arrested only two persons in Ahmedabad, both Muslims.
A major administrative lapse in the antici-pation and handling of the violence was the blatant ignoring of the basic principles of law and order maintenance and governance. In 1965, when disturbances erupted in Godhra, the then Collector promptly arrested both Muslims and Hindus whose names appeared in FIRs. In a couple of days, the disturbances were curbed. After the October 1980 disturbances, the then Collector immediately put the miscreants behind bars. If a similar non-partisan approach had been followed in Godhra after the fire incident of February 27, 2002, the prevailing tension would have been contained and the chances of a vengeful and highly-organised spree of retaliatory killings demonstrating every element of ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been pre-empted. That this did not happen suggests a lack of intent, on the part of those in government, to take prompt preventive measures in order to de-escalate the situation.
On February 27, 2002, the Tribunal recorded the evidence of both the Collector and DSP of the Panchmahal district at Godhra. The evidence showed that though the Central Government’s Rapid Action Force (RAF) had been called in, adequate powers were not given to it. Despite the curfew, the RAF men were made to sit in the officers’ mess, helpless, unable to do anything. Though the Fire Brigade Station was only five minutes away from the railway station, it took a while for the fire brigade to reach the torched S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express.
Conclusion
Four official reports and at least three non-official reports on the Gujarat violence have rejected the thesis of a conspiracy behind the fire incident in the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002. Only the Nanavati Commission and the recent special court judgement have intriguingly opted for the theory. A prolonged legal battle appears to be in store for the affected people.
The author is a former IPS officer who is currently an ICSSR Senior Fellow at the Council for Social Development, New Delhi.
February 09, 2011
Karnataka: Justice B.K. Somasekhara Commission does a cover up job
Frontline, 12 February 2011
Attacks justified
SECULAR and Christian organisations in Karnataka have voiced strong protest against the report of the Justice B.K. Somasekhara Commission submitted to the government on January 28. They have done so on the basis of the highlights of the report put up on the commission's website and also the parts of the report made available selectively to the media. The entire report has not been released.
The one-man commission consisting of Justice Somasekhara, former judge in the High Courts of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, was set up in September 2008 to “inquire into the sequence of events and circumstances leading to attack on the places of worship and incidents thereafter, which occurred during the month of September 2008 in Dakshina Kannada and other districts of Karnataka”.
Its terms of reference also included identifying the persons and organisations responsible for such incidents and ascertaining whether there was any negligence or lapses on the part of the district administrations in dealing with the situation.
The September 2008 incidents, mainly in Dakshina Kannada, were the first in a series of actions by fringe groups of the Hindu Right since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in Karnataka that year.
The attacks on churches, according to media reports then, looked planned and they evoked fear and insecurity in the Christian community in the State. Groups in the Sangh Parivar such as the Bajrang Dal claimed responsibility for them (“Now, Karnataka”, Frontline, October 10, 2008). Even the State Home Minister, Dr V.S. Acharya, had justified the violence by saying that there were reports of “forced conversions”.
Given the evidence produced by affected persons, including priests and nuns, and the audacity of the lumpen members of the Sangh Parivar in accepting their role in the attacks, the commission's job seemed fairly simple. The report, however, has come as a disappointment, as it has refused to recognise the government's culpability although it acknowledges that “misguided fundamentalist miscreants... have mistakenly presumed that they would be protected by the party in power with their policies at the relevant time”.
The highlights of the report show that the one-man commission has not done its best to fulfil its mandate. There are contradictions in the report. On the fundamental question as to who was responsible for the attacks, the commission says: “There is no basis to the apprehension of Christian petitioners that the Politicians, BJP, mainstream Sangha Parivar and State Government directly or indirectly, are involved in the attacks [ sic].”
It further states that the Bajrang Dal and the Hindu Jagran Vedike (HJV) were responsible for attacks on 12 churches across the State. There is no doubt that the Bajrang Dal and the HJV are Sangh Parivar organisations, and Mahendra Kumar, the State president of the Bajrang Dal, is known to hobnob with BJP politicians, especially during the annual Datta Jayanthi celebration.
While concluding that the impression that police officers of the district administration colluded with the attackers is false, the report says that the police action against Christian protesters in several parts of the State was justified. It also indicts several police officers for failing in their duty to protect churches but refuses to connect the work of the police with the government. It is learnt from advocates present at the hearing that an application to summon the Home Minister to explain the failure of the police was ignored.
By and large, the commission has accepted the idea that religious conversions were the main reason for the attacks. According to a lawyers' forum that took part in the proceedings, the commission's work was an eyewash, with “pastors and priests who had suffered attacks being repeatedly and aggressively questioned as to their alleged conversion activities, almost making it seem that the attacks were justified”. By contrast, the report has paid little attention to the activists of the Sangh Parivar.
The Archbishop of Bangalore, in a press release, stated: “After going through the highlights of the final report of Justice Somashekara Commission, the entire Christian Community is disappointed and felt the report is very unfair. It also feels the Commission has very badly let down the Christian community.”
Fr Amborse Pinto, Principal of St Joseph's College, Bangalore, pointed out that there were no attacks on the Christian community before the BJP came to power. “Given the fact that it was a government's commission, the report is no surprise. The commission has done the biddings of its masters by wasting the resources of the state,” he said.
Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed
Attacks justified
SECULAR and Christian organisations in Karnataka have voiced strong protest against the report of the Justice B.K. Somasekhara Commission submitted to the government on January 28. They have done so on the basis of the highlights of the report put up on the commission's website and also the parts of the report made available selectively to the media. The entire report has not been released.
The one-man commission consisting of Justice Somasekhara, former judge in the High Courts of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, was set up in September 2008 to “inquire into the sequence of events and circumstances leading to attack on the places of worship and incidents thereafter, which occurred during the month of September 2008 in Dakshina Kannada and other districts of Karnataka”.
Its terms of reference also included identifying the persons and organisations responsible for such incidents and ascertaining whether there was any negligence or lapses on the part of the district administrations in dealing with the situation.
The September 2008 incidents, mainly in Dakshina Kannada, were the first in a series of actions by fringe groups of the Hindu Right since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in Karnataka that year.
The attacks on churches, according to media reports then, looked planned and they evoked fear and insecurity in the Christian community in the State. Groups in the Sangh Parivar such as the Bajrang Dal claimed responsibility for them (“Now, Karnataka”, Frontline, October 10, 2008). Even the State Home Minister, Dr V.S. Acharya, had justified the violence by saying that there were reports of “forced conversions”.
Given the evidence produced by affected persons, including priests and nuns, and the audacity of the lumpen members of the Sangh Parivar in accepting their role in the attacks, the commission's job seemed fairly simple. The report, however, has come as a disappointment, as it has refused to recognise the government's culpability although it acknowledges that “misguided fundamentalist miscreants... have mistakenly presumed that they would be protected by the party in power with their policies at the relevant time”.
The highlights of the report show that the one-man commission has not done its best to fulfil its mandate. There are contradictions in the report. On the fundamental question as to who was responsible for the attacks, the commission says: “There is no basis to the apprehension of Christian petitioners that the Politicians, BJP, mainstream Sangha Parivar and State Government directly or indirectly, are involved in the attacks [ sic].”
It further states that the Bajrang Dal and the Hindu Jagran Vedike (HJV) were responsible for attacks on 12 churches across the State. There is no doubt that the Bajrang Dal and the HJV are Sangh Parivar organisations, and Mahendra Kumar, the State president of the Bajrang Dal, is known to hobnob with BJP politicians, especially during the annual Datta Jayanthi celebration.
While concluding that the impression that police officers of the district administration colluded with the attackers is false, the report says that the police action against Christian protesters in several parts of the State was justified. It also indicts several police officers for failing in their duty to protect churches but refuses to connect the work of the police with the government. It is learnt from advocates present at the hearing that an application to summon the Home Minister to explain the failure of the police was ignored.
By and large, the commission has accepted the idea that religious conversions were the main reason for the attacks. According to a lawyers' forum that took part in the proceedings, the commission's work was an eyewash, with “pastors and priests who had suffered attacks being repeatedly and aggressively questioned as to their alleged conversion activities, almost making it seem that the attacks were justified”. By contrast, the report has paid little attention to the activists of the Sangh Parivar.
The Archbishop of Bangalore, in a press release, stated: “After going through the highlights of the final report of Justice Somashekara Commission, the entire Christian Community is disappointed and felt the report is very unfair. It also feels the Commission has very badly let down the Christian community.”
Fr Amborse Pinto, Principal of St Joseph's College, Bangalore, pointed out that there were no attacks on the Christian community before the BJP came to power. “Given the fact that it was a government's commission, the report is no surprise. The commission has done the biddings of its masters by wasting the resources of the state,” he said.
Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed
January 24, 2010
January 18, 2010
India: Kandhamal Survivors letter to the Mohapatra Commission
(A letter to Hon’ble Justice Sri Sarat Chandra Mahapatra, Chairman, Inquiry Commission for Kandhamal Violence sent by Sampradayik Hinsa Prapidita Sanghathana (Association of Survivors of Communal Violence) formed a month's back by the victims of Kandhamal violence irrespective of their caste, community and religion.)
SAMPRADAYIK HINSA PRAPIDITA SANGHATHANA
(ASSOCIATION OF SURVIVORS OF KANDHAMAL COMMUNAL VIOLENCE)
At/Po- MundaSahi, Balliguda, Kandhamal, Ph-9438072385
Letter no-11/2010
Date:13.01.2010
To
Hon’ble Justice Sri Sarat Chandra Mahapatra,
Chairman, Inquiry Commission for Kandhamal Violence,
At State Guest House,
Bhubaneswar.
Sub: Boycott of the Hon’ble Commission by SHPS Association.
Your Honour,
We the undersigned members of the Sampradayik Hinsa Prapidita Sangathana (Association of Survivors of Kandhamal violence), Kandhamal herewith present this memorandum to inform you of our decision to boycott the Inquiry Commission for the under-mentioned reasons:
1. During your days visit to Kandhamal you made a statement stating, inter alia, that the Kandhamal violence is not communal violence but is of ethnic origin. This statement you made even before a proper inquiry was begun. [Enclosed is copy of one of the media reports.]
2. After the Commission began hearings, you made it a practice to brief the press on your “judgment” or ruling of the day.
3. The Commission formulated leading questions on issues such as conversions which were sociological in nature and in fact would further incite the violence which was still going on unchecked.
4. Responsible public officers like Pravin Kumar, police Superintendent, former and present police DG Gopal Nanda and Monmohan Praharaj were made to give the absurd but sensitive statements about religious conversion as if it was crime and then what role Police had taken to control the crime. The Police officers did not tell about why they could not prevent the march of funeral procession of Swami Laxmanananda with instigated mobs. Such statements caused further desperation among the witnesses and victims fighting their cases in Fast Track Courts and aggravated the situation. They should be summoned and held responsible for these acts.
5. BJP president, Suresh Pujari’s presence inside the Courts is threatening to the witnesses and inspiring the culprits. Moreover he is allowed to enter into the commission chamber under garb of a lawyer and before the press meet is conducted.
6. Recently, in response to the question of Mr. Adikanda Sethy, MLA, Chhtrapur; the Chief Minister, Mr. Navin Pattnaik, said in the Assembly that the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists were involved in the Kandhamal violence. The commission should summon the records of the Assembly and take note of this as part of its proceedings, which it has not said it has done.
7. Your media statements have shown clearly that you have pre-decided and have already come to the conclusion about the violence without going through all the evidence that could have come before the Commission if it had proceeded without pre-conceptions and patent bias.
In the face of all these, we are left in no other position than to boycott the proceedings of the Honorable commission, holding it biased and its statements based on preconceived notions which are not rooted in facts or investigations.
Yours faithfully
Convenor
SHPS, Kandhamal, Orissa.
N.B:-
Copy of the memorandum has been sent to the following personnel
1. Her Excellency, the President of India, New Delhi
2. To the Honorable Prime Minister of India, New Delhi
3. The Hon’ble Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi
4. The Hon’ble Chairman, State Human Rights Commission, Orissa.
5. The Home minister, Minister of Home affairs, Govt of India, New Delhi
6. The Minister of information and Broadcasting, Govt of India, New Delhi.
7. The Hon’ble Commission for Scheduled Caste, Govt of India, New Delhi.
8. The Hon’able Commission for Scheduled Tribe, Govt of India, New Delhi
9. The Hon’ble Governor, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.
10. The Chairman, Editors Guild’s Of India, New Delhi
11. The Hon’able Commission for Minorities, Govt of India, New Delhi
Encls:
Justice Sarat Chandra Mahapatra statement before first affidavits
Newsreader, “Justice Sarat Chandra Mahapatra commission enquiring into Kandhamal violence has issued a notification for the general public to submit affidavits by 15th (of Number 2009).
Based on the affidavits, the commission shall develop framework/procedures on 28th of this month.
In the meanwhile, Justice Mahapatra commission after his visit to Kandhamal in his preliminary assessment stated, “Communalism is not the primary reason for the riot.”
Reporter: Justice Mahapatra is not ready to accept that Kandhamal incidence is communal conflict. Justice Mahapatra appointed to make enquiry into Kandhamal violence said, “The problems are ages. It cannot be attributed to the bitterness of the two communities”. “Likewise, in order to find out the reasons for killing of swami and the violence thereafter and the role of the administration in aftermath of the killing, and the hand of external forces to intensify the conflicts have to be looked into it” he said.
Justice Mahapatra’s voice, “Administration, social and political when all these combined, discontentment got deepened and it manifested from the killing of Laxmanananda”.
Reporter: In the meanwhile in order to know the opinions of the general public about Kandhamal incident, Justice Mahapatra has issued a notification:
The murder of Swami Laxmanananda and the violence thereafter; The involvement of individuals and the role of community; Anticipation of riot and the preventive measures taken for the riot the hand of individuals/institutions inciting Kandhamal incident should be submitted before the Enquiry Commission before 15th ( of November).
Justice Mahapatra commission: ‘If affidavits submitted in large numbers, then my enquiry could objective and impartial’.
Reporter: After 28th hearing, the next course of action will be decided by Justice Mahapatra Commision. Last month, from 14th to 21st (14thto 21st of October 2009), Justice Mahapatra has visited different parts of Kandhamal and interacted with the local people and at the administration’. Report by Radhamadhav Mishra, OTV.
Source: OTV, Orissa
SAMPRADAYIK HINSA PRAPIDITA SANGHATHANA
(ASSOCIATION OF SURVIVORS OF KANDHAMAL COMMUNAL VIOLENCE)
At/Po- MundaSahi, Balliguda, Kandhamal, Ph-9438072385
Letter no-11/2010
Date:13.01.2010
To
Hon’ble Justice Sri Sarat Chandra Mahapatra,
Chairman, Inquiry Commission for Kandhamal Violence,
At State Guest House,
Bhubaneswar.
Sub: Boycott of the Hon’ble Commission by SHPS Association.
Your Honour,
We the undersigned members of the Sampradayik Hinsa Prapidita Sangathana (Association of Survivors of Kandhamal violence), Kandhamal herewith present this memorandum to inform you of our decision to boycott the Inquiry Commission for the under-mentioned reasons:
1. During your days visit to Kandhamal you made a statement stating, inter alia, that the Kandhamal violence is not communal violence but is of ethnic origin. This statement you made even before a proper inquiry was begun. [Enclosed is copy of one of the media reports.]
2. After the Commission began hearings, you made it a practice to brief the press on your “judgment” or ruling of the day.
3. The Commission formulated leading questions on issues such as conversions which were sociological in nature and in fact would further incite the violence which was still going on unchecked.
4. Responsible public officers like Pravin Kumar, police Superintendent, former and present police DG Gopal Nanda and Monmohan Praharaj were made to give the absurd but sensitive statements about religious conversion as if it was crime and then what role Police had taken to control the crime. The Police officers did not tell about why they could not prevent the march of funeral procession of Swami Laxmanananda with instigated mobs. Such statements caused further desperation among the witnesses and victims fighting their cases in Fast Track Courts and aggravated the situation. They should be summoned and held responsible for these acts.
5. BJP president, Suresh Pujari’s presence inside the Courts is threatening to the witnesses and inspiring the culprits. Moreover he is allowed to enter into the commission chamber under garb of a lawyer and before the press meet is conducted.
6. Recently, in response to the question of Mr. Adikanda Sethy, MLA, Chhtrapur; the Chief Minister, Mr. Navin Pattnaik, said in the Assembly that the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists were involved in the Kandhamal violence. The commission should summon the records of the Assembly and take note of this as part of its proceedings, which it has not said it has done.
7. Your media statements have shown clearly that you have pre-decided and have already come to the conclusion about the violence without going through all the evidence that could have come before the Commission if it had proceeded without pre-conceptions and patent bias.
In the face of all these, we are left in no other position than to boycott the proceedings of the Honorable commission, holding it biased and its statements based on preconceived notions which are not rooted in facts or investigations.
Yours faithfully
Convenor
SHPS, Kandhamal, Orissa.
N.B:-
Copy of the memorandum has been sent to the following personnel
1. Her Excellency, the President of India, New Delhi
2. To the Honorable Prime Minister of India, New Delhi
3. The Hon’ble Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi
4. The Hon’ble Chairman, State Human Rights Commission, Orissa.
5. The Home minister, Minister of Home affairs, Govt of India, New Delhi
6. The Minister of information and Broadcasting, Govt of India, New Delhi.
7. The Hon’ble Commission for Scheduled Caste, Govt of India, New Delhi.
8. The Hon’able Commission for Scheduled Tribe, Govt of India, New Delhi
9. The Hon’ble Governor, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.
10. The Chairman, Editors Guild’s Of India, New Delhi
11. The Hon’able Commission for Minorities, Govt of India, New Delhi
Encls:
Justice Sarat Chandra Mahapatra statement before first affidavits
Newsreader, “Justice Sarat Chandra Mahapatra commission enquiring into Kandhamal violence has issued a notification for the general public to submit affidavits by 15th (of Number 2009).
Based on the affidavits, the commission shall develop framework/procedures on 28th of this month.
In the meanwhile, Justice Mahapatra commission after his visit to Kandhamal in his preliminary assessment stated, “Communalism is not the primary reason for the riot.”
Reporter: Justice Mahapatra is not ready to accept that Kandhamal incidence is communal conflict. Justice Mahapatra appointed to make enquiry into Kandhamal violence said, “The problems are ages. It cannot be attributed to the bitterness of the two communities”. “Likewise, in order to find out the reasons for killing of swami and the violence thereafter and the role of the administration in aftermath of the killing, and the hand of external forces to intensify the conflicts have to be looked into it” he said.
Justice Mahapatra’s voice, “Administration, social and political when all these combined, discontentment got deepened and it manifested from the killing of Laxmanananda”.
Reporter: In the meanwhile in order to know the opinions of the general public about Kandhamal incident, Justice Mahapatra has issued a notification:
The murder of Swami Laxmanananda and the violence thereafter; The involvement of individuals and the role of community; Anticipation of riot and the preventive measures taken for the riot the hand of individuals/institutions inciting Kandhamal incident should be submitted before the Enquiry Commission before 15th ( of November).
Justice Mahapatra commission: ‘If affidavits submitted in large numbers, then my enquiry could objective and impartial’.
Reporter: After 28th hearing, the next course of action will be decided by Justice Mahapatra Commision. Last month, from 14th to 21st (14thto 21st of October 2009), Justice Mahapatra has visited different parts of Kandhamal and interacted with the local people and at the administration’. Report by Radhamadhav Mishra, OTV.
Source: OTV, Orissa
December 04, 2009
November 24, 2009
India: Memo of Action Taken by Govt. on Liberhan Report
'Memorandum of Action Taken on the Report of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry' tabled by the home minister in Parliament.
The comments and recommendations of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry are followed by the government's response in bold
1. GENERAL
1.1 The constitutional scheme to separate religion from politics was intended to insulate the issues of governance from those of theology. While it may be useful and indeed desirable to import certain aspects of ethics and morality into the political arena, the use of religion, caste or regionalism is a regressive and dangerous trend, capable of alienating people and dividing them into small sections.
Noted.
1.2 The events of December 6, 1992 and the many subsequent events have already shown to the nation the danger and the disruptive potential of allowing the intermixing of religion and politics.
Agreed
1.3 It is imperative therefore for the people, acting through their elected representatives, to undertake an objective study of whether or not
the existing constitutional, statutory and institutional safeguards have proven to be efficacious. It seems highly probable from a cursory study of recent affairs that the measures adopted so far have been overly optimistic and have not entirely succeeded in providing secular governance, unaffected and uncolored by religious or regional affiliations.
Accepted. One of the measures contemplated is the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill.
1.4 It is high time that institutions like the National Integration Council were conferred statutory powers. This or any other similar organization which is set up must call upon the participation of well known and highly regarded leaders of religious communities and social workers from all over the country particularly who are not affiliated with any political party to find ways and means to implement secularism as envisaged by the constitution. The participants or the ones invited should thereafter be barred from holding any constitutional office or office of profit or public office or from participation in any political activity.
National Integration Council is a large organization consisting of political leaders, representatives from business, media, women’s organizations, NGOs etc. Conferring statutory powers on the Council may not be practical. The Council has been set up primarily to act as an advisory body to advise the Government and other institutions of civil society to advance the cause of secularism and preserve unity, integrity and communal harmony.
1.5 Political leaders, holders of constitutional offices, offices of profit, public office and especially those holding cabinet positions or other similar
positions of responsibility, sometimes simultaneously hold offices in religious organizations, charities and trusts constituted on religious grounds etc. The temptation to allow one's judgment in one sphere to influence opinions in the other is irresistible and easily leads to dissatisfaction and disenchantment in the other sections of the population.
Accepted in part. Government agrees that political leaders etc. holding public office should not simultaneously hold positions of responsibility in religious organisations.
1.6 The extraneous interference in democratic affairs for acquiring political power through criminalisation of political office or mixing of political and religious affairs has become the order of the day.
Noted
1.7 A special separate law providing for exemplary punishment for misuse of religion, caste etc. for political gains or illicit acquisition of political or other power ought to be enacted. Regional tribunals for ensuring swift prosecution and effective implementation of the law ought to be set up in the four corners of the country.
Accepted. One of the measures contemplated is the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill. The Bill contemplates the setting up of Special Courts. As regards the cases arising out of the demolition of RJBBM, the status of 3 cases is as under:
i) Case No 197/92 FIR against lacs of unknown karsewaks, in the special court Lucknow
ii) Case No. 198/92 FIR against 8 accused in the special court Rae Bareli.
iii) 47 other cases in the special court Lucknow
Steps will be taken to expedite the hearing of these cases.
1.8 The desirability of establishing a Criminal Justice Commission should be examined which would comprehensively monitor the performance of all law enforcement agencies and apply corrective measures wherever needed.
Law Commission of India will be requested to study the desirability of establishing a Criminal Justice Commission.
1.9 The threat from communal violence needs to be dealt with firmly. Specialised investigating squads need to be formed under the state
criminal investigation agencies and communal offences or crimes committed during communal riots ought to be vigorously investigated. Governments should not be able to withdraw charges relating to communal riots.
Accepted. One of the measures contemplated is the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill. The Bill contemplates the setting up of Special Courts. As regards the cases arising out of the demolition of RJBBM, the status of 3 cases is as under:
i) Case No 197/92 FIR against lacs of unknown karsewaks, in the special court Lucknow
ii) Case No. 198/92 FIR against 8 accused in the special court Rae Bareli.
iii) 47 other cases in the special court Lucknow
Steps will be taken to expedite the hearing of these cases.
1.10 The Election Commission of India must also ensure that any complaints brought before it by any citizen of the country, of attempts to misuse religious sentiments, or to appeal to voters through the mode of their piety, whether by holding thinly disguised electoral rallies in places of worship, or posing as political supplications to God must result in swift action and possible
disqualifications.
The matter will be referred to the Election Commission of India
1.11 This subject requires the consideration not just of the Parliament of India, but also of religious leaders and statesmen alike. While I cannot prescribe a code of conduct or regulations for the running of the democratic process, I must recommend that the demerger of religion and politics must be studied and implemented at the earliest.
Noted
1.12 It is inherently unfair, immoral and legally dubious to hold democracy hostage to religious and casteist blackmail. The separation of state and religion has been debated at great length in every age and has found favour in almost every organised civilized society.
Agreed
1.13 The Constitution of India is an endorsement of this principle of separation and goes on to clarify in unequivocal terms that the Indian union does not eschew religion or declare an irreligious state.
Agreed
1.14 The liberties granted to individuals and religious aggregations extend to such activities which can be construed purely for the welfare of the general public, members of that religious aggregation or for preserving and promoting its culture. The intermixing of the two aspects of human social life is neither envisaged nor permitted under the constitution or law.
Agreed
1.15 The negative covenants specifically bar the state from discriminating against any religious denomination. As a necessary and inescapable corollary, the injunction against state patronage of any religion has to be read within these provisions and has been thus treated ever since the inception of this Constitution.
Agreed
1.16 The next logical conclusion must therefore be that a government which is formed on the premise of religion or which has religious issues on its political agenda must also be barred. A government which is formed by professing its support to a particular religion or which has a religious issue or purpose as its stated agenda must therefore fall foul of the explicit and implicit proscriptions of the constitution.
Noted. The matter will be examined further.
1.17 I must therefore recommend and reiterate the views of numerous statesmen that in order to achieve the ideal of a secular state, the incorporation of religious agenda within political manifestos or electoral promises is made an electoral offence and should incur summary disqualification for the individual, or for the political party if such blatant resort to the religious and casteist sentiment is part of the party's substantive poll plank.
As in para 1.16 above.
1.18 It is my considered recommendation that the Parliament, Legislatures, elected governments and the political parties themselves must rededicate themselves to ensuring a secular India, whether strengthening existing provisions in the Codes of Conduct or in election related laws.
Agreed. Whether the code of conduct and whether election related laws require amendments will be referred to the Election Commission.
1.19 It is high time that the Parliament constitute an assembly to look into the working of Constitution and the short falls observed or noticed in the years since its inception; and to suggest requisite steps for remedying them.
A Commission headed by a Retd. Chief Justice has already reviewed the working of the Constitution. The Commission on Centre-State Relations has already been set up and its report is expected by March 2010 and further action will be considered on the basis of that report.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CIVIL SERVICES
2.1 The enforcement of law and the maintenance of order in the society depend upon a responsive, efficient and upright police force and bureaucracy. In present times, the police and the bureaucracy face a crisis of confidence. The general public rightly or wrongly does not trust either as a protector or as an honest enforcer of the laws. This perception is reflected in the appointment of numerous committees and commissions by the Parliament to study and propose reforms. The Law Commission too has examined the various shortcomings which exist in the infrastructure today.
Agreed.
2.2 The efforts of these acknowledged reform experts has been published and presented in a plethora of reports which are available in the public domain. A conspectus of these reports reveals a clear consensus of the ills which plague the current system. The problems which have been documented and widely commented upon include the nexus between the police and the politician or the bureaucrat and the politician, the rampant corruption which exists at the bottom and at the top levels, the stark insensitive and unhelpful nature of the frontline forces, the deplorable state of training and the reliance on brute force rather than scientific investigation techniques. These same reports also present a wide spectrum of solutions from which once again, a common set of suggestions can be distilled.
A committee set up by the MHA has culled out 49 recommendations relating to police recruitment, posting promotion and grievance redressal mechanism made by various Commissions/ Committees in the past. Government is considering these recommendations as part of the National Police Mission. Micro Missions have been identified and projects prepared by the Micro Missions are being commended to the State Governments for implementation. To the extent they pertain to the Central Government, the Central Government will implement or help in implementing these projects.
2.3 Unfortunately, these reports have remained dead letters and the recommendations have not been implemented in a cohesive, systematic and workable manner. The few attempts at police reforms have been patchy at best and have found resistance not only from within the police forces, but also from the criminal bar as well as some states worried about the implications for the state — union relations. I do not wish to reinvent the wheel, nor claim to be an expert on the subject. However, an exhaustive analysis of the facts and circumstances which resulted in the events of December 6th 1992 in the backdrop of these reports on the policing or bureaucratic system makes it abundantly clear that the failure to take the law enforcement agencies and systems into the 21st century has contributed and continues to contribute to a state of lawlessness.
As in 2.2 above.
2.4 The nexus between the politician and the policeman or the bureaucrat needs to be disrupted; the confidence of the common man needs to be restored in the police officer and the administrator. Experts have already written lengthy monographs on the subject and suggested specific changes. We need to ensure that these reforms are undertaken holistically at the earliest.
As in 2.2 above
2.5 Specific offences that have inter-state, national and international dimensions should be declared federal offences and investigated by a special crimes division of the Central Bureau of Investigation, which should function under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Parliament has enacted the National Investigation Agency Act whereunder certain offences are treated as offences that have inter-State ramifications and hence the investigation and prosecution of those offences have been entrusted to the NIA. NIA is under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
2.6 The problem of a politically and religiously biased civil service and police service is particularly vexatious. The civil servant or police officer who professes or practices closeness to a political or religious leader and who thereby allows it to colour his objective discharge of duties is an anathema to good governance.
Agreed
2.7 The root cause of the problem may possibly lie in the very process which is used to recruit these officers. Just as in areas requiring excellence such as the profession of medicine, the profession of governance cannot admit of candidates whose merit is not of proven providence.
The UPSC is examining changes in the recruitment procedure for All India Service officers. This recommendation will be communicated to the UPSC.
2.8 It serves little purpose to squander the skills and talents of a doctor or an engineer by posting them to positions requiring a combination of skills including administration, diplomacy, logic and legal acumen. The civil servants who are posted at the helm of affairs ought to be picked for the skills that they are required to exercise, rather than for completely unrelated academic skills or for casteist or regional basis.
As in para 2.7 above.
2.9 It is inexplicable how our current system takes the brightest academicians of the country and based only on their inter se merit, train them variously as specialists in foreign service, revenue, police, administrative or a veritable spectrum of "lesser" civil services. The aptitude, training, experience and suitability of a particular candidate are of the least concern of the current recruitment process.
As in para 2.7 above.
2.10 It is also inherently dangerous and unsatisfactory to allow civil servants to seek patronage of political or religious leaders. The en masse exodus of civil servants from positions of power after each election is the best evidence of the malaise that affects our system.
Noted.
2.11 In the first half of their career, most officers fall prey to extraneous influence for securing transfers and postings or other benefits for themselves. In the latter half, the emphasis is equally on finding out and securing a roosting ground for their post-retirement period.
Noted.
2.12 It is therefore my recommendation that the recruitment into the civil and police services should be extensively revamped and recruitment on the basis of aptitude, education, training and experience should be preferred over recruitment on the basis of academic excellence in unrelated fields.
The UPSC is examining changes in the recruitment procedure for All India Service officers. This recommendation will be communicated to the UPSC.
2.13 It may be particularly useful to conduct periodic exercises of screening the members of the civil and police services to identify and weed out the communal or biased elements.
A review of the officer’s performance is now done under the relevant rules. The procedure of review will be strengthened and based on objective factors, without giving room for misuse.
2.14 I also recommend that the nexus between the politicians, religious leaders, civil servants and the police officers should be disrupted and rooted out. Civil servants ought also to be barred from holding office of profit after their retirement. A tenure policy should be put in place to prevent illegitimate political interference in police and administrative functioning
Noted. A tenure policy is in place in the Central Government and has been commended to the State Governments. Post-retirement commercial employment is already governed by rules.
2.15 Judicial prudence and the fact that I have not been given a mandate on administrative reforms preclude me from giving any concrete recommendations on specific administrative reforms. Be that as it may, the urgent need for reforms to the recruitment, service conditions, service regulations and post-retirement avenues is writ large.
Noted. Amendment of the rules is an ongoing exercise and will be done from time to time.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO RIOT CONTROL
3.1 The police service in India is a state subject predominantly. The same police personnel who are deputed to man police stations and to investigate crimes can often - though not in all cases - be found to be posted on crowd control and riot control duties. The provincial armed police, wherever they have been established, were ostensibly attempts to free these specialized personnel from routine jobs and were expected to be trained in preventive and preemptive measures.
The suggestion of separating law and order duties from investigative duties has been commended to the State Governments. Specialised police forces for specialised functions are being raised by State Governments. More training institutes are being established and the training curriculum is being upgraded to meet the new challenges.
3.2 The training and equipment given to these forces is woefully inadequate. Bamboo sticks and flimsy sticks offer scanty protection to these forces and pose little deterrent threat to miscreants. The use of lethal force is rightly eschewed in favour of less deadly method which at present predominantly includes rubber bullets or tear gas.
Agreed. Under the Police Modernisation Scheme, State Governments are provided funds to enhance their training capabilities as well as to procure modern equipment including non-lethal equipment.
3.3 The crowd control equipment provided to these forces is at best ad hoc and home grown or whatever can be locally fabricated. There are few scientifically conducted studies into the efficacy or correct usage of these measures. The training to the peacekeepers is inadequate and equips them neither in the optimum use of whatever material and equipment is available, nor in the conduct which they must adhere to.
State of art crowd control equipment developed on basis of scientifically conducted studies is already available in the country and many State Governments have already procured them. Training in the field of crowd control forms part of the syllabus and the syllabus is being upgraded.
3.4 A duty to quell an unruly mob must never be confused with a license to attack, molest or hurt unarmed malcontents or miscreants who may have been whipped up into frenzy by some occurrences or by some vested interests.
Agreed. Detailed SOPs have been developed by many States for riot control.
3.5 At the same time, the attitude cannot be of all-or-nothing. The riot control officer must not choose only from between an all-out attack or a permissive submission. The riot police must be highly trained to disarm, disperse and render mobs ineffectual without having to resort to objectionable methods.
Agreed. Capacity building for handling riot situations is emphasized in all training programmes.
3.6 What also became painfully obvious was the danger of allowing the guardians of peace to sympathize with miscreants to the extent that they become a part and parcel of the problem instead of the solution. If the sympathies of the men are suspect, the senior officers must replace them immediately by withdrawing them and posting replacement personnel instead. If the senior officers are unable to gauge the emotions and the involvement of their men with the miscreants, the senior officers must be held strictly responsible for their failure.
Agreed. State Governments will be advised again in the matter.
3.7 Police reforms, in terms of men and equipment, are long overdue. The Indian Police Service has replaced the Imperial Police Service more than half a century ago. The attitude and the methods must also change.
Agreed. Police Reforms is already on a high agenda of the MHA. A committee set up by the MHA has culled out 49 recommendations relating to police recruitment, posting promotion and grievance redressal mechanism made by various Commissions/ Committees in the past. Government is considering these recommendations as part of the National Police Mission. Micro Missions have been identified and projects prepared by the Micro Missions are being commended to the State Governments for implementation. To the extent they pertain to the Central Government, the Central Government will implement or help in implementing these projects.
3.8 I recommend the establishment of a centralised riot control constabulary, equipped with modern weapons for crowd control under the control of the Union of India. The deployment of this force should be made by the central government independent of state, under its own supervision. A law enabling the Central Government to take over the administration of a specified geographical area for the purpose of crowd management or for maintaining or restoring peace, particularly when the State Government itself is unable or unwilling to take action, should be enacted. It should prescribe the duration tor which such a takeover over of the administration is possible, subject to strict review by the Parliament. Such a law would be less drastic than the imposition of President's Rule or the dissolution of a legislative assembly.
A centralized riot control constabulary may not be required considering that there already exists a Central Police Reserve Force which is sent to States as and when required to augment the efforts of the State Police. Some aspects of this recommendation will be met by the provisions of the proposed Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
4.1 There are any number of intelligence agencies which exist inside India. Each state has a myriad system of gathering human, electronic and communications intelligence. The union government has a larger number of agencies and operatives at work collecting information as well.
Noted.
4.2 The institutional and personal jealousies which abound and which have been extensively written about, by insiders and by experts, prevent the bits and pieces of intelligence from being assembled into usable and actionable information.
Intelligence sharing is a complex issue and measures have already been taken to improve intelligence sharing. The establishment of MAC and SMACs is a step in this direction.
4.3 There is a strong need today to ensure coordination between the various state and union intelligence agencies, whether they operate within commercial, revenue, police, international or specialized domains.
As in 4.2 above
4.4 It is also imperative that the state's or union's intelligence agencies do not become mere appendages of the incumbent government. The use of precious intelligence resources and trained personnel for petty political gains is wholly deplorable and must give way to higher purposes. It is imperative that the state and central intelligence agencies share information and cooperate with each other to ensure the overall welfare of the state and of the people.
As in 4.2 above
5. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CENTRE STATE RELATIONS
5.1 It is trite that the state and the Central Government exist for the promotion and welfare of the citizens of the India. No State Government can claim that it acts only for those people born solely within its boundaries or that it will actively discriminate against those who live outside its area. The caveats that accompany the preceding observation are few and imposed only for particular exigencies or to protect a particularly weaker or underprivileged section of society.
Agreed
5.2 The State Governments and the union government occupy and fulfil complementary domains. The goal of either government is the same and the audience it addresses is also the same. There are hardly any reasons for a State Government to treat the union government as an adversary or vice versa. Each has a specific purpose in our constitutional scheme.
Agreed
5.3 Party politics must come to an end upon the swearing of the oath by a legislator. Upon taking oath, a person ought to cease thinking like a party member and instead assume the larger and loftier role of a statesman and a member of the government. The sworn-in ministers and the chief minister are responsible for protecting and upholding the rights even of those who opposed them at the hustings. The incumbent government is not entitled to discriminate against those who belong to other political parties, religions or castes - the proscription is not only moral, but also legal.
Agreed
5.4 The rivalry and adversarial stance adopted by a State Government composed of ministers from one political grouping as against the members of the union government which may be consisting of legislators from a different political party is neither healthy nor warranted.
Agreed
5.5 As members of a single union, the State Governments must therefore trust the union government and expect a reciprocal trust as well.
Agreed
5.6 The bone of contention between states and the union is frequently the allocation of monies and the siting of industrial, power or other projects which can boost the economy of the host state. It is as much incumbent upon the Central Government to dole out its largesse equitably as it is for the State Government not to view each other or each other's domiciles with hostility.
Agreed. It may also be pointed out that there are other institutional mechanisms such as Finance Commission, Planning Commission etc. to ensure equitable allocation and distribution of Central Government resources.
5.7 It is therefore my recommendation that a fresh look at inter-state and centre state relations be undertaken with a view to advance the common good of the people.
The Government has constituted a Commission on Centre-State Relations for this purpose. The Commission is likely to complete its work and submit its report with recommendations by 31st March, 2010. Besides, the Inter state council is another forum to examine Centre State relations and to enable a smooth working relationship between the Centre and the States.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL SITES
6.1 In a land as old as India, and with its rich ancient culture and heritage, it is inevitable that each stone and each structure has a story to tell.
Agreed
6.2 Our land has been called the cradle of most religions and for that reason; there is a proliferation of temples and places connected with each religion all around us.
Agreed
6.3 The historical cycles and the rise and fall of each religious movement has also undeniably seen friction between the various communities, religions and regional rulers.
Noted.
6.4 The disputes between various groupings about the provenance of monuments, temples and other structures have survived into this day and age, and like in the case of the Ram Janambhoomi - Babri Masjid issue, are capable of fomenting unnecessary and unwanted trouble and disharmony.
Agreed
6.5 These are however not issues which can be resolved without the participation of experts. The question whether a structure was a temple or a mosque can only be answered by a scientific study by archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. No politician, jurist or journalist, learned though they may be, can provide a comprehensive answer to such questions and any attempt to hijack the issue can only result in the chaotic consequences which resulted in the events of December 6th 1992.
Agreed
6.6 It is therefore my recommendation that a statutory national commission be composed of acknowledged experts to delve into these questions of the provenance of historical monuments, artifacts etc. and their determination should be deemed to be definitive and final.
The mandate of the Archeological Survey of India is to undertake archaeological studies and the preservation of archaeological heritage of the country under various Acts of the Indian Parliament. ASI's function is also to explore, excavate, conserve, preserve and protect the monuments and sites of National & International Importance. Hence, it is not necessary to appoint another National Commission and it would suffice to strengthen the functions of the ASI.
6.7 There should be no hesitation in associating the finest historians, anthropologists and archaeologists from within and outside the country, and in equipping these experts with the latest and most sophisticated tools in an attempt not only to finally answer the question of the historical legacy of these places, but also to ensure that their findings contribute to harmony and peace between communities, castes and regions.
The Archeological Survey of India will be requested, in the discharge of its mandate, to associate reputed historians, anthropologists and archaeologists both from within the country and outside.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PRESS
7.1 In his book On Heroes and Hero Worship, Thomas Carlyle quoted British politician Edmund Burke who said "there [were] Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all."
Noted.
7.2 The importance and primacy of the media in a free society cannot be denied. However, with the enormous privileges that these chroniclers of history enjoy, they must also be alive to the trust that the common man reposes in them.
Agreed.
7.3 Unlike other learned professions like those of doctors or lawyers, the media in India has no professional standards body capable of effectively dealing with yellow journalism. The Press Council of India as it exists today, has no authority to hear complaints from persons aggrieved of questionable reporting and effectively punishing a mischievous journalist.
Agreed
7.4 There is a dire need for a body on the lines of the Medical Council of India or the Bar Council of India which has a permanent tribunal which can entertain and decide complaints against individual members of the press corps or against newspapers, TV or radio channels as also media conglomerates.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Law will be requested to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a Tribunal or a Regulatory Body for the purpose.
7.5 I strongly recommend that a statutory body be setup to oversee the media in the country. It is highly desirable that journalists ought to be granted licenses just like the practitioners of other learned professions and ought to be subject to disciplinary action, including suspension of the rights to work as journalists on grounds of proven professional misconduct.
As in 7.4 above
The comments and recommendations of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry are followed by the government's response in bold
1. GENERAL
1.1 The constitutional scheme to separate religion from politics was intended to insulate the issues of governance from those of theology. While it may be useful and indeed desirable to import certain aspects of ethics and morality into the political arena, the use of religion, caste or regionalism is a regressive and dangerous trend, capable of alienating people and dividing them into small sections.
Noted.
1.2 The events of December 6, 1992 and the many subsequent events have already shown to the nation the danger and the disruptive potential of allowing the intermixing of religion and politics.
Agreed
1.3 It is imperative therefore for the people, acting through their elected representatives, to undertake an objective study of whether or not
the existing constitutional, statutory and institutional safeguards have proven to be efficacious. It seems highly probable from a cursory study of recent affairs that the measures adopted so far have been overly optimistic and have not entirely succeeded in providing secular governance, unaffected and uncolored by religious or regional affiliations.
Accepted. One of the measures contemplated is the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill.
1.4 It is high time that institutions like the National Integration Council were conferred statutory powers. This or any other similar organization which is set up must call upon the participation of well known and highly regarded leaders of religious communities and social workers from all over the country particularly who are not affiliated with any political party to find ways and means to implement secularism as envisaged by the constitution. The participants or the ones invited should thereafter be barred from holding any constitutional office or office of profit or public office or from participation in any political activity.
National Integration Council is a large organization consisting of political leaders, representatives from business, media, women’s organizations, NGOs etc. Conferring statutory powers on the Council may not be practical. The Council has been set up primarily to act as an advisory body to advise the Government and other institutions of civil society to advance the cause of secularism and preserve unity, integrity and communal harmony.
1.5 Political leaders, holders of constitutional offices, offices of profit, public office and especially those holding cabinet positions or other similar
positions of responsibility, sometimes simultaneously hold offices in religious organizations, charities and trusts constituted on religious grounds etc. The temptation to allow one's judgment in one sphere to influence opinions in the other is irresistible and easily leads to dissatisfaction and disenchantment in the other sections of the population.
Accepted in part. Government agrees that political leaders etc. holding public office should not simultaneously hold positions of responsibility in religious organisations.
1.6 The extraneous interference in democratic affairs for acquiring political power through criminalisation of political office or mixing of political and religious affairs has become the order of the day.
Noted
1.7 A special separate law providing for exemplary punishment for misuse of religion, caste etc. for political gains or illicit acquisition of political or other power ought to be enacted. Regional tribunals for ensuring swift prosecution and effective implementation of the law ought to be set up in the four corners of the country.
Accepted. One of the measures contemplated is the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill. The Bill contemplates the setting up of Special Courts. As regards the cases arising out of the demolition of RJBBM, the status of 3 cases is as under:
i) Case No 197/92 FIR against lacs of unknown karsewaks, in the special court Lucknow
ii) Case No. 198/92 FIR against 8 accused in the special court Rae Bareli.
iii) 47 other cases in the special court Lucknow
Steps will be taken to expedite the hearing of these cases.
1.8 The desirability of establishing a Criminal Justice Commission should be examined which would comprehensively monitor the performance of all law enforcement agencies and apply corrective measures wherever needed.
Law Commission of India will be requested to study the desirability of establishing a Criminal Justice Commission.
1.9 The threat from communal violence needs to be dealt with firmly. Specialised investigating squads need to be formed under the state
criminal investigation agencies and communal offences or crimes committed during communal riots ought to be vigorously investigated. Governments should not be able to withdraw charges relating to communal riots.
Accepted. One of the measures contemplated is the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill. The Bill contemplates the setting up of Special Courts. As regards the cases arising out of the demolition of RJBBM, the status of 3 cases is as under:
i) Case No 197/92 FIR against lacs of unknown karsewaks, in the special court Lucknow
ii) Case No. 198/92 FIR against 8 accused in the special court Rae Bareli.
iii) 47 other cases in the special court Lucknow
Steps will be taken to expedite the hearing of these cases.
1.10 The Election Commission of India must also ensure that any complaints brought before it by any citizen of the country, of attempts to misuse religious sentiments, or to appeal to voters through the mode of their piety, whether by holding thinly disguised electoral rallies in places of worship, or posing as political supplications to God must result in swift action and possible
disqualifications.
The matter will be referred to the Election Commission of India
1.11 This subject requires the consideration not just of the Parliament of India, but also of religious leaders and statesmen alike. While I cannot prescribe a code of conduct or regulations for the running of the democratic process, I must recommend that the demerger of religion and politics must be studied and implemented at the earliest.
Noted
1.12 It is inherently unfair, immoral and legally dubious to hold democracy hostage to religious and casteist blackmail. The separation of state and religion has been debated at great length in every age and has found favour in almost every organised civilized society.
Agreed
1.13 The Constitution of India is an endorsement of this principle of separation and goes on to clarify in unequivocal terms that the Indian union does not eschew religion or declare an irreligious state.
Agreed
1.14 The liberties granted to individuals and religious aggregations extend to such activities which can be construed purely for the welfare of the general public, members of that religious aggregation or for preserving and promoting its culture. The intermixing of the two aspects of human social life is neither envisaged nor permitted under the constitution or law.
Agreed
1.15 The negative covenants specifically bar the state from discriminating against any religious denomination. As a necessary and inescapable corollary, the injunction against state patronage of any religion has to be read within these provisions and has been thus treated ever since the inception of this Constitution.
Agreed
1.16 The next logical conclusion must therefore be that a government which is formed on the premise of religion or which has religious issues on its political agenda must also be barred. A government which is formed by professing its support to a particular religion or which has a religious issue or purpose as its stated agenda must therefore fall foul of the explicit and implicit proscriptions of the constitution.
Noted. The matter will be examined further.
1.17 I must therefore recommend and reiterate the views of numerous statesmen that in order to achieve the ideal of a secular state, the incorporation of religious agenda within political manifestos or electoral promises is made an electoral offence and should incur summary disqualification for the individual, or for the political party if such blatant resort to the religious and casteist sentiment is part of the party's substantive poll plank.
As in para 1.16 above.
1.18 It is my considered recommendation that the Parliament, Legislatures, elected governments and the political parties themselves must rededicate themselves to ensuring a secular India, whether strengthening existing provisions in the Codes of Conduct or in election related laws.
Agreed. Whether the code of conduct and whether election related laws require amendments will be referred to the Election Commission.
1.19 It is high time that the Parliament constitute an assembly to look into the working of Constitution and the short falls observed or noticed in the years since its inception; and to suggest requisite steps for remedying them.
A Commission headed by a Retd. Chief Justice has already reviewed the working of the Constitution. The Commission on Centre-State Relations has already been set up and its report is expected by March 2010 and further action will be considered on the basis of that report.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CIVIL SERVICES
2.1 The enforcement of law and the maintenance of order in the society depend upon a responsive, efficient and upright police force and bureaucracy. In present times, the police and the bureaucracy face a crisis of confidence. The general public rightly or wrongly does not trust either as a protector or as an honest enforcer of the laws. This perception is reflected in the appointment of numerous committees and commissions by the Parliament to study and propose reforms. The Law Commission too has examined the various shortcomings which exist in the infrastructure today.
Agreed.
2.2 The efforts of these acknowledged reform experts has been published and presented in a plethora of reports which are available in the public domain. A conspectus of these reports reveals a clear consensus of the ills which plague the current system. The problems which have been documented and widely commented upon include the nexus between the police and the politician or the bureaucrat and the politician, the rampant corruption which exists at the bottom and at the top levels, the stark insensitive and unhelpful nature of the frontline forces, the deplorable state of training and the reliance on brute force rather than scientific investigation techniques. These same reports also present a wide spectrum of solutions from which once again, a common set of suggestions can be distilled.
A committee set up by the MHA has culled out 49 recommendations relating to police recruitment, posting promotion and grievance redressal mechanism made by various Commissions/ Committees in the past. Government is considering these recommendations as part of the National Police Mission. Micro Missions have been identified and projects prepared by the Micro Missions are being commended to the State Governments for implementation. To the extent they pertain to the Central Government, the Central Government will implement or help in implementing these projects.
2.3 Unfortunately, these reports have remained dead letters and the recommendations have not been implemented in a cohesive, systematic and workable manner. The few attempts at police reforms have been patchy at best and have found resistance not only from within the police forces, but also from the criminal bar as well as some states worried about the implications for the state — union relations. I do not wish to reinvent the wheel, nor claim to be an expert on the subject. However, an exhaustive analysis of the facts and circumstances which resulted in the events of December 6th 1992 in the backdrop of these reports on the policing or bureaucratic system makes it abundantly clear that the failure to take the law enforcement agencies and systems into the 21st century has contributed and continues to contribute to a state of lawlessness.
As in 2.2 above.
2.4 The nexus between the politician and the policeman or the bureaucrat needs to be disrupted; the confidence of the common man needs to be restored in the police officer and the administrator. Experts have already written lengthy monographs on the subject and suggested specific changes. We need to ensure that these reforms are undertaken holistically at the earliest.
As in 2.2 above
2.5 Specific offences that have inter-state, national and international dimensions should be declared federal offences and investigated by a special crimes division of the Central Bureau of Investigation, which should function under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Parliament has enacted the National Investigation Agency Act whereunder certain offences are treated as offences that have inter-State ramifications and hence the investigation and prosecution of those offences have been entrusted to the NIA. NIA is under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
2.6 The problem of a politically and religiously biased civil service and police service is particularly vexatious. The civil servant or police officer who professes or practices closeness to a political or religious leader and who thereby allows it to colour his objective discharge of duties is an anathema to good governance.
Agreed
2.7 The root cause of the problem may possibly lie in the very process which is used to recruit these officers. Just as in areas requiring excellence such as the profession of medicine, the profession of governance cannot admit of candidates whose merit is not of proven providence.
The UPSC is examining changes in the recruitment procedure for All India Service officers. This recommendation will be communicated to the UPSC.
2.8 It serves little purpose to squander the skills and talents of a doctor or an engineer by posting them to positions requiring a combination of skills including administration, diplomacy, logic and legal acumen. The civil servants who are posted at the helm of affairs ought to be picked for the skills that they are required to exercise, rather than for completely unrelated academic skills or for casteist or regional basis.
As in para 2.7 above.
2.9 It is inexplicable how our current system takes the brightest academicians of the country and based only on their inter se merit, train them variously as specialists in foreign service, revenue, police, administrative or a veritable spectrum of "lesser" civil services. The aptitude, training, experience and suitability of a particular candidate are of the least concern of the current recruitment process.
As in para 2.7 above.
2.10 It is also inherently dangerous and unsatisfactory to allow civil servants to seek patronage of political or religious leaders. The en masse exodus of civil servants from positions of power after each election is the best evidence of the malaise that affects our system.
Noted.
2.11 In the first half of their career, most officers fall prey to extraneous influence for securing transfers and postings or other benefits for themselves. In the latter half, the emphasis is equally on finding out and securing a roosting ground for their post-retirement period.
Noted.
2.12 It is therefore my recommendation that the recruitment into the civil and police services should be extensively revamped and recruitment on the basis of aptitude, education, training and experience should be preferred over recruitment on the basis of academic excellence in unrelated fields.
The UPSC is examining changes in the recruitment procedure for All India Service officers. This recommendation will be communicated to the UPSC.
2.13 It may be particularly useful to conduct periodic exercises of screening the members of the civil and police services to identify and weed out the communal or biased elements.
A review of the officer’s performance is now done under the relevant rules. The procedure of review will be strengthened and based on objective factors, without giving room for misuse.
2.14 I also recommend that the nexus between the politicians, religious leaders, civil servants and the police officers should be disrupted and rooted out. Civil servants ought also to be barred from holding office of profit after their retirement. A tenure policy should be put in place to prevent illegitimate political interference in police and administrative functioning
Noted. A tenure policy is in place in the Central Government and has been commended to the State Governments. Post-retirement commercial employment is already governed by rules.
2.15 Judicial prudence and the fact that I have not been given a mandate on administrative reforms preclude me from giving any concrete recommendations on specific administrative reforms. Be that as it may, the urgent need for reforms to the recruitment, service conditions, service regulations and post-retirement avenues is writ large.
Noted. Amendment of the rules is an ongoing exercise and will be done from time to time.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO RIOT CONTROL
3.1 The police service in India is a state subject predominantly. The same police personnel who are deputed to man police stations and to investigate crimes can often - though not in all cases - be found to be posted on crowd control and riot control duties. The provincial armed police, wherever they have been established, were ostensibly attempts to free these specialized personnel from routine jobs and were expected to be trained in preventive and preemptive measures.
The suggestion of separating law and order duties from investigative duties has been commended to the State Governments. Specialised police forces for specialised functions are being raised by State Governments. More training institutes are being established and the training curriculum is being upgraded to meet the new challenges.
3.2 The training and equipment given to these forces is woefully inadequate. Bamboo sticks and flimsy sticks offer scanty protection to these forces and pose little deterrent threat to miscreants. The use of lethal force is rightly eschewed in favour of less deadly method which at present predominantly includes rubber bullets or tear gas.
Agreed. Under the Police Modernisation Scheme, State Governments are provided funds to enhance their training capabilities as well as to procure modern equipment including non-lethal equipment.
3.3 The crowd control equipment provided to these forces is at best ad hoc and home grown or whatever can be locally fabricated. There are few scientifically conducted studies into the efficacy or correct usage of these measures. The training to the peacekeepers is inadequate and equips them neither in the optimum use of whatever material and equipment is available, nor in the conduct which they must adhere to.
State of art crowd control equipment developed on basis of scientifically conducted studies is already available in the country and many State Governments have already procured them. Training in the field of crowd control forms part of the syllabus and the syllabus is being upgraded.
3.4 A duty to quell an unruly mob must never be confused with a license to attack, molest or hurt unarmed malcontents or miscreants who may have been whipped up into frenzy by some occurrences or by some vested interests.
Agreed. Detailed SOPs have been developed by many States for riot control.
3.5 At the same time, the attitude cannot be of all-or-nothing. The riot control officer must not choose only from between an all-out attack or a permissive submission. The riot police must be highly trained to disarm, disperse and render mobs ineffectual without having to resort to objectionable methods.
Agreed. Capacity building for handling riot situations is emphasized in all training programmes.
3.6 What also became painfully obvious was the danger of allowing the guardians of peace to sympathize with miscreants to the extent that they become a part and parcel of the problem instead of the solution. If the sympathies of the men are suspect, the senior officers must replace them immediately by withdrawing them and posting replacement personnel instead. If the senior officers are unable to gauge the emotions and the involvement of their men with the miscreants, the senior officers must be held strictly responsible for their failure.
Agreed. State Governments will be advised again in the matter.
3.7 Police reforms, in terms of men and equipment, are long overdue. The Indian Police Service has replaced the Imperial Police Service more than half a century ago. The attitude and the methods must also change.
Agreed. Police Reforms is already on a high agenda of the MHA. A committee set up by the MHA has culled out 49 recommendations relating to police recruitment, posting promotion and grievance redressal mechanism made by various Commissions/ Committees in the past. Government is considering these recommendations as part of the National Police Mission. Micro Missions have been identified and projects prepared by the Micro Missions are being commended to the State Governments for implementation. To the extent they pertain to the Central Government, the Central Government will implement or help in implementing these projects.
3.8 I recommend the establishment of a centralised riot control constabulary, equipped with modern weapons for crowd control under the control of the Union of India. The deployment of this force should be made by the central government independent of state, under its own supervision. A law enabling the Central Government to take over the administration of a specified geographical area for the purpose of crowd management or for maintaining or restoring peace, particularly when the State Government itself is unable or unwilling to take action, should be enacted. It should prescribe the duration tor which such a takeover over of the administration is possible, subject to strict review by the Parliament. Such a law would be less drastic than the imposition of President's Rule or the dissolution of a legislative assembly.
A centralized riot control constabulary may not be required considering that there already exists a Central Police Reserve Force which is sent to States as and when required to augment the efforts of the State Police. Some aspects of this recommendation will be met by the provisions of the proposed Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
4.1 There are any number of intelligence agencies which exist inside India. Each state has a myriad system of gathering human, electronic and communications intelligence. The union government has a larger number of agencies and operatives at work collecting information as well.
Noted.
4.2 The institutional and personal jealousies which abound and which have been extensively written about, by insiders and by experts, prevent the bits and pieces of intelligence from being assembled into usable and actionable information.
Intelligence sharing is a complex issue and measures have already been taken to improve intelligence sharing. The establishment of MAC and SMACs is a step in this direction.
4.3 There is a strong need today to ensure coordination between the various state and union intelligence agencies, whether they operate within commercial, revenue, police, international or specialized domains.
As in 4.2 above
4.4 It is also imperative that the state's or union's intelligence agencies do not become mere appendages of the incumbent government. The use of precious intelligence resources and trained personnel for petty political gains is wholly deplorable and must give way to higher purposes. It is imperative that the state and central intelligence agencies share information and cooperate with each other to ensure the overall welfare of the state and of the people.
As in 4.2 above
5. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CENTRE STATE RELATIONS
5.1 It is trite that the state and the Central Government exist for the promotion and welfare of the citizens of the India. No State Government can claim that it acts only for those people born solely within its boundaries or that it will actively discriminate against those who live outside its area. The caveats that accompany the preceding observation are few and imposed only for particular exigencies or to protect a particularly weaker or underprivileged section of society.
Agreed
5.2 The State Governments and the union government occupy and fulfil complementary domains. The goal of either government is the same and the audience it addresses is also the same. There are hardly any reasons for a State Government to treat the union government as an adversary or vice versa. Each has a specific purpose in our constitutional scheme.
Agreed
5.3 Party politics must come to an end upon the swearing of the oath by a legislator. Upon taking oath, a person ought to cease thinking like a party member and instead assume the larger and loftier role of a statesman and a member of the government. The sworn-in ministers and the chief minister are responsible for protecting and upholding the rights even of those who opposed them at the hustings. The incumbent government is not entitled to discriminate against those who belong to other political parties, religions or castes - the proscription is not only moral, but also legal.
Agreed
5.4 The rivalry and adversarial stance adopted by a State Government composed of ministers from one political grouping as against the members of the union government which may be consisting of legislators from a different political party is neither healthy nor warranted.
Agreed
5.5 As members of a single union, the State Governments must therefore trust the union government and expect a reciprocal trust as well.
Agreed
5.6 The bone of contention between states and the union is frequently the allocation of monies and the siting of industrial, power or other projects which can boost the economy of the host state. It is as much incumbent upon the Central Government to dole out its largesse equitably as it is for the State Government not to view each other or each other's domiciles with hostility.
Agreed. It may also be pointed out that there are other institutional mechanisms such as Finance Commission, Planning Commission etc. to ensure equitable allocation and distribution of Central Government resources.
5.7 It is therefore my recommendation that a fresh look at inter-state and centre state relations be undertaken with a view to advance the common good of the people.
The Government has constituted a Commission on Centre-State Relations for this purpose. The Commission is likely to complete its work and submit its report with recommendations by 31st March, 2010. Besides, the Inter state council is another forum to examine Centre State relations and to enable a smooth working relationship between the Centre and the States.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL SITES
6.1 In a land as old as India, and with its rich ancient culture and heritage, it is inevitable that each stone and each structure has a story to tell.
Agreed
6.2 Our land has been called the cradle of most religions and for that reason; there is a proliferation of temples and places connected with each religion all around us.
Agreed
6.3 The historical cycles and the rise and fall of each religious movement has also undeniably seen friction between the various communities, religions and regional rulers.
Noted.
6.4 The disputes between various groupings about the provenance of monuments, temples and other structures have survived into this day and age, and like in the case of the Ram Janambhoomi - Babri Masjid issue, are capable of fomenting unnecessary and unwanted trouble and disharmony.
Agreed
6.5 These are however not issues which can be resolved without the participation of experts. The question whether a structure was a temple or a mosque can only be answered by a scientific study by archaeologists, historians and anthropologists. No politician, jurist or journalist, learned though they may be, can provide a comprehensive answer to such questions and any attempt to hijack the issue can only result in the chaotic consequences which resulted in the events of December 6th 1992.
Agreed
6.6 It is therefore my recommendation that a statutory national commission be composed of acknowledged experts to delve into these questions of the provenance of historical monuments, artifacts etc. and their determination should be deemed to be definitive and final.
The mandate of the Archeological Survey of India is to undertake archaeological studies and the preservation of archaeological heritage of the country under various Acts of the Indian Parliament. ASI's function is also to explore, excavate, conserve, preserve and protect the monuments and sites of National & International Importance. Hence, it is not necessary to appoint another National Commission and it would suffice to strengthen the functions of the ASI.
6.7 There should be no hesitation in associating the finest historians, anthropologists and archaeologists from within and outside the country, and in equipping these experts with the latest and most sophisticated tools in an attempt not only to finally answer the question of the historical legacy of these places, but also to ensure that their findings contribute to harmony and peace between communities, castes and regions.
The Archeological Survey of India will be requested, in the discharge of its mandate, to associate reputed historians, anthropologists and archaeologists both from within the country and outside.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PRESS
7.1 In his book On Heroes and Hero Worship, Thomas Carlyle quoted British politician Edmund Burke who said "there [were] Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all."
Noted.
7.2 The importance and primacy of the media in a free society cannot be denied. However, with the enormous privileges that these chroniclers of history enjoy, they must also be alive to the trust that the common man reposes in them.
Agreed.
7.3 Unlike other learned professions like those of doctors or lawyers, the media in India has no professional standards body capable of effectively dealing with yellow journalism. The Press Council of India as it exists today, has no authority to hear complaints from persons aggrieved of questionable reporting and effectively punishing a mischievous journalist.
Agreed
7.4 There is a dire need for a body on the lines of the Medical Council of India or the Bar Council of India which has a permanent tribunal which can entertain and decide complaints against individual members of the press corps or against newspapers, TV or radio channels as also media conglomerates.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Law will be requested to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a Tribunal or a Regulatory Body for the purpose.
7.5 I strongly recommend that a statutory body be setup to oversee the media in the country. It is highly desirable that journalists ought to be granted licenses just like the practitioners of other learned professions and ought to be subject to disciplinary action, including suspension of the rights to work as journalists on grounds of proven professional misconduct.
As in 7.4 above
July 07, 2009
Gujarat appoints "Commission of Inquiry" to target Minorities
PRASHANT (A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace)
Street Address : Hill Nagar, Near Kamdhenu Hall, Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad - 380052, Gujarat, India
Postal Address : P B 4050, Navrangpura PO, Ahmedabad - 380 009, Gujarat, India
Phone : 91 79 27455913, 66522333
Fax : 91 79 27489018
Email: sjprashant@gmail.com www.humanrightsindia.in
GUJARAT GOVERNMENT CONTINUES WITH COMMUNAL AGENDA
In a surreptitious and secret move, the Government of Gujarat through its Legal Department has issued a notification (No. GK/8/2009/COI/102009/33/A) appointing a Commission of Inquiry to inquire and report into the “polarization of population on the basis of religion taking place in the State of Gujarat” and “the migration of the people following different religions taking place every 10 years after 15th August 1947”.
According to the Gujarat Government, this Commission is being instituted because of “allegations which have been made in the courts as well as in the media against the State Government” that the population of Gujarat is polarized on the basis of religion.
Further the Government maintains that “such allegations and unscientific conclusions create heart burning (sic!) and distance among the citizens”.
In the very institution of the Commission, “the Government of Gujarat is of the opinion that the allegations so made are not based on scientific study”.
The very nature and tone of this so-called Commission of Inquiry is bound to target the minorities of the State and add to the already existing fear among these groups. Further, it is bound to polarize even more and make the minorities sitting ducks (because of minority mapping) for the hate propaganda and violence by right wing Hindu groups who have the patronage of the State Government as is evident when the Christians were attacked in 1998-99 and the Muslims in 2001. Minorities in the State continue to be victims of overt and subtle intimidations, harassment and attacks.
Earlier in 1999, the Gujarat Government had initiated a survey of Muslims and Christians of the State. This was challenged in the Gujarat High Court and in a landmark Order (SCA/1000/1999 dated 16/02/1999), Justice M.R. Calla of the Gujarat High Court, maintained that “once this country has adopted the Constitution, we have to abide by the same, which is the fountain source of law……if any survey or census is to be made or any information is sought to be gathered with regard to the criminal activities or for other allied purposes, may be as a part of routine exercise, cannot be based on a communal footing”.
Realising that its move was unconstitutional, the then Gujarat Government, affirmed in court that it had withdrawn the survey.
It is a well known fact that most minorities in Gujarat live in a highly polarized situations. One does not need a ‘scientific study’ and much less a Commission of Inquiry (with all its biases) to prove or disprove this. What the Gujarat Government should ensure is that every single citizen of the State is treated with respect and dignity and with the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. A significant step would be to ensure the implementation in the State of the recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report.
Above all, it should withdraw this Commission of Inquiry immediately!
6th July 2009 Fr. Cedric Prakash s.j.
Director, PRASHANT
( * Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is the Director of PRASHANT, the Ahmedabad based Jesuit Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace.)
PRASHANT (A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace)
Street Address : Hill Nagar, Near Kamdhenu Hall, Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad - 380052, Gujarat, India
Postal Address : P B 4050, Navrangpura PO, Ahmedabad - 380 009, Gujarat, India
Phone : 91 79 27455913, 66522333
Fax : 91 79 27489018
Email: sjprashant@gmail.com www.humanrightsindia.in
Street Address : Hill Nagar, Near Kamdhenu Hall, Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad - 380052, Gujarat, India
Postal Address : P B 4050, Navrangpura PO, Ahmedabad - 380 009, Gujarat, India
Phone : 91 79 27455913, 66522333
Fax : 91 79 27489018
Email: sjprashant@gmail.com www.humanrightsindia.in
GUJARAT GOVERNMENT CONTINUES WITH COMMUNAL AGENDA
In a surreptitious and secret move, the Government of Gujarat through its Legal Department has issued a notification (No. GK/8/2009/COI/102009/33/A) appointing a Commission of Inquiry to inquire and report into the “polarization of population on the basis of religion taking place in the State of Gujarat” and “the migration of the people following different religions taking place every 10 years after 15th August 1947”.
According to the Gujarat Government, this Commission is being instituted because of “allegations which have been made in the courts as well as in the media against the State Government” that the population of Gujarat is polarized on the basis of religion.
Further the Government maintains that “such allegations and unscientific conclusions create heart burning (sic!) and distance among the citizens”.
In the very institution of the Commission, “the Government of Gujarat is of the opinion that the allegations so made are not based on scientific study”.
The very nature and tone of this so-called Commission of Inquiry is bound to target the minorities of the State and add to the already existing fear among these groups. Further, it is bound to polarize even more and make the minorities sitting ducks (because of minority mapping) for the hate propaganda and violence by right wing Hindu groups who have the patronage of the State Government as is evident when the Christians were attacked in 1998-99 and the Muslims in 2001. Minorities in the State continue to be victims of overt and subtle intimidations, harassment and attacks.
Earlier in 1999, the Gujarat Government had initiated a survey of Muslims and Christians of the State. This was challenged in the Gujarat High Court and in a landmark Order (SCA/1000/1999 dated 16/02/1999), Justice M.R. Calla of the Gujarat High Court, maintained that “once this country has adopted the Constitution, we have to abide by the same, which is the fountain source of law……if any survey or census is to be made or any information is sought to be gathered with regard to the criminal activities or for other allied purposes, may be as a part of routine exercise, cannot be based on a communal footing”.
Realising that its move was unconstitutional, the then Gujarat Government, affirmed in court that it had withdrawn the survey.
It is a well known fact that most minorities in Gujarat live in a highly polarized situations. One does not need a ‘scientific study’ and much less a Commission of Inquiry (with all its biases) to prove or disprove this. What the Gujarat Government should ensure is that every single citizen of the State is treated with respect and dignity and with the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. A significant step would be to ensure the implementation in the State of the recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report.
Above all, it should withdraw this Commission of Inquiry immediately!
6th July 2009 Fr. Cedric Prakash s.j.
Director, PRASHANT
( * Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is the Director of PRASHANT, the Ahmedabad based Jesuit Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace.)
PRASHANT (A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace)
Street Address : Hill Nagar, Near Kamdhenu Hall, Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad - 380052, Gujarat, India
Postal Address : P B 4050, Navrangpura PO, Ahmedabad - 380 009, Gujarat, India
Phone : 91 79 27455913, 66522333
Fax : 91 79 27489018
Email: sjprashant@gmail.com www.humanrightsindia.in
July 05, 2009
Official Gujarat investigation into geographical location of population of different religions
Modi govt orders study of Gujarat population to ‘stop polarisation’
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Modi-govt-orders-study-of-Gujarat-population-to---stop-polarisation-/484867
Syed Khalique Ahmed
Posted: Friday , Jul 03, 2009 at 0415 hrs IST Ahmedabad:
The Narendra Modi government has set up a commission to inquire into the changes in demographic patterns in Gujarat since independence, and identify the reasons behind the “polarisation” and migration of population.
The panel, headed by retired Justice B J Sethna, will assess the total area in square metres occupied by people of different religious faiths as on August 15, 1947, and the patterns of “polarisation of population” and migration every 10 years thereafter.
The survey is expected to identify the areas — their names and sizes — where people of different religions live, or have shifted to.
An important aspect of the commission’s mandate is to give “recommendations and policies as a guidance” for “stopping polarisation of population in the state”.
The commission has been asked to submit its report by January 2011. Assembly elections are due in December 2012.
A copy of the notification is in possession of The
Indian Express.
According to the state legal department, the reason for commissioning the survey is that “allegations have been made in courts as well as in media against the state government that polarisation of population on the basis of religion is taking place in the state of Gujarat” and “such allegations and unscientific conclusions create heart-burning and distance among citizens”.
The notification says that “the Government of Gujarat is of the opinion that the allegations so made are not based on scientific study”.
The government feels that “development of the population as a whole should take place in the context of law and order and social and economic development as well”, and “an inquiry should be held into this matter of definite public importance”.
Justice Sethna refused to comment on the matter. The retired judge had been in the news after he upheld a Vadodara fast track court order acquitting all accused in the Best Bakery case relating to the 2002 riots. The Supreme Court later ordered a fresh trial in the case by a special court in Mumbai.
Gujarat minister of state for law and parliamentary affairs Amit Shah said the study was required in view of the unfounded allegations made against the state BJP government.
“The inquiry will make it clear when, how and under what circumstances minority population shifted from one area to another,” Shah said.
State government spokesperson Jay Narayan Vyas said the matter was neither “sensitive nor provocative”, but it “will bring to surface the unfounded publicity that is being given without being backed by appropriate facts by certain NGOs and a section of the media”.
“This will also put in correct perspective a long-term change that has taken place in demography, nullifying the temporary bias a solitary incidence-based short term interpretation could bring in”, Vyas said.
o o o
Gujarat Govt’s demography study a communal agenda, say activists
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gujarat-govts-demography-study-a-communal-agenda-say-activists/485238/1
Syed Khalique Ahmed
Posted: Sunday , Jul 05, 2009 at 0350 hrs IST Ahmedabad:
NGO and human rights activists have reacted strongly to Gujarat Government’s move to study the reasons behind “polarisation of population” or changing demography of the state by setting up an inquiry commission, saying the move is intended to further harass the minorities.
Senior Gujarat High Court advocate and human rights activist Girish Patel said that “the move is nothing but state Government’s continuing communal agenda by perverted use of law”. “The commission will come out with a report blaming the minorities for the polarisation,” Patel said adding, fear factor owing to repeated communal tension with the successive state governments doing little to check it.
According to him, some polarisation took place after 1969 riots but it was not so sharp as in 2002.
“Today if some one in a Hindu locality wants to sell his house to a Muslim, he is attacked by the neighbours,” said Patel.
Another senior Gujarat HC advocate Mukul Sinha said it to be “political hypocrisy”. “Those who engineered polarisation now want a debate on it. If the government is sensitive to the problem of minorities, why it is not providing basic civic amenities in Juhapura, the biggest Muslim ghetto in Gujarat with no road, drainage and drinking water supply,” said Sinha. He also questioned the appointment of Justice B J Sethna (retd) as the commission’s chairman.
“The choice of judge is very inappropriate because he had been involved in several controversies in the past,” he said. The Supreme Court had reversed his judgment in the Best Bakery case and ordered fresh trial.
Gagan Sethi of the Jan Vikas Trust Gagan Sethi said,
“There are housing societies and multi-storeyed complexes where people belonging to only one caste are allowed to buy houses.” “If the Modi Government is seriously interested in mixed population localities, it must ensure that the houses constructed by the Gujarat Housing Board are allotted percentage wise to all religious communities,” said Sethi.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Modi-govt-orders-study-of-Gujarat-population-to---stop-polarisation-/484867
Syed Khalique Ahmed
Posted: Friday , Jul 03, 2009 at 0415 hrs IST Ahmedabad:
The Narendra Modi government has set up a commission to inquire into the changes in demographic patterns in Gujarat since independence, and identify the reasons behind the “polarisation” and migration of population.
The panel, headed by retired Justice B J Sethna, will assess the total area in square metres occupied by people of different religious faiths as on August 15, 1947, and the patterns of “polarisation of population” and migration every 10 years thereafter.
The survey is expected to identify the areas — their names and sizes — where people of different religions live, or have shifted to.
An important aspect of the commission’s mandate is to give “recommendations and policies as a guidance” for “stopping polarisation of population in the state”.
The commission has been asked to submit its report by January 2011. Assembly elections are due in December 2012.
A copy of the notification is in possession of The
Indian Express.
According to the state legal department, the reason for commissioning the survey is that “allegations have been made in courts as well as in media against the state government that polarisation of population on the basis of religion is taking place in the state of Gujarat” and “such allegations and unscientific conclusions create heart-burning and distance among citizens”.
The notification says that “the Government of Gujarat is of the opinion that the allegations so made are not based on scientific study”.
The government feels that “development of the population as a whole should take place in the context of law and order and social and economic development as well”, and “an inquiry should be held into this matter of definite public importance”.
Justice Sethna refused to comment on the matter. The retired judge had been in the news after he upheld a Vadodara fast track court order acquitting all accused in the Best Bakery case relating to the 2002 riots. The Supreme Court later ordered a fresh trial in the case by a special court in Mumbai.
Gujarat minister of state for law and parliamentary affairs Amit Shah said the study was required in view of the unfounded allegations made against the state BJP government.
“The inquiry will make it clear when, how and under what circumstances minority population shifted from one area to another,” Shah said.
State government spokesperson Jay Narayan Vyas said the matter was neither “sensitive nor provocative”, but it “will bring to surface the unfounded publicity that is being given without being backed by appropriate facts by certain NGOs and a section of the media”.
“This will also put in correct perspective a long-term change that has taken place in demography, nullifying the temporary bias a solitary incidence-based short term interpretation could bring in”, Vyas said.
o o o
Gujarat Govt’s demography study a communal agenda, say activists
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gujarat-govts-demography-study-a-communal-agenda-say-activists/485238/1
Syed Khalique Ahmed
Posted: Sunday , Jul 05, 2009 at 0350 hrs IST Ahmedabad:
NGO and human rights activists have reacted strongly to Gujarat Government’s move to study the reasons behind “polarisation of population” or changing demography of the state by setting up an inquiry commission, saying the move is intended to further harass the minorities.
Senior Gujarat High Court advocate and human rights activist Girish Patel said that “the move is nothing but state Government’s continuing communal agenda by perverted use of law”. “The commission will come out with a report blaming the minorities for the polarisation,” Patel said adding, fear factor owing to repeated communal tension with the successive state governments doing little to check it.
According to him, some polarisation took place after 1969 riots but it was not so sharp as in 2002.
“Today if some one in a Hindu locality wants to sell his house to a Muslim, he is attacked by the neighbours,” said Patel.
Another senior Gujarat HC advocate Mukul Sinha said it to be “political hypocrisy”. “Those who engineered polarisation now want a debate on it. If the government is sensitive to the problem of minorities, why it is not providing basic civic amenities in Juhapura, the biggest Muslim ghetto in Gujarat with no road, drainage and drinking water supply,” said Sinha. He also questioned the appointment of Justice B J Sethna (retd) as the commission’s chairman.
“The choice of judge is very inappropriate because he had been involved in several controversies in the past,” he said. The Supreme Court had reversed his judgment in the Best Bakery case and ordered fresh trial.
Gagan Sethi of the Jan Vikas Trust Gagan Sethi said,
“There are housing societies and multi-storeyed complexes where people belonging to only one caste are allowed to buy houses.” “If the Modi Government is seriously interested in mixed population localities, it must ensure that the houses constructed by the Gujarat Housing Board are allotted percentage wise to all religious communities,” said Sethi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
