Indian Express, 6 December 2013
Editroial: A harsh winter
Dec 06 2013
The UP government has abdicated its responsibility towards victims of the Muzaffarnagar violence
Three months after communal conflict forced large numbers of Muslim families to flee their homes and villages, they are at risk from the elements. The onset of winter has reportedly claimed several lives in relief camps. Most appallingly, nearly 40 children, including newborns, have died because of exposure to the cold, the lack of warm clothing and adequate shelter. Though the district administrations dispute these figures, reports of the lived experience in these camps confirm that state assistance has been feeble. Those who are still huddled in camps are overwhelmingly poor families who have little to rely on apart from the relief provided by the administration and community groups.
There have been hundreds of weddings among these families, compelled, in part, by the sense that single young women were vulnerable to sexual harassment and assault. There has been illness and death leading directly from the dislocation and squalid conditions in the camps. The state authorities must know that their delay and inefficiency is taking such a terrible toll.
By all accounts, the primary concern of Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav — whose control over the reins of power in a regime headed by his son, Akhilesh, is becoming increasingly conspicuous — is with shutting down the camps. Relief camps, after all, hurt the image of the government, especially one that flaunts its "secular" credentials. Yet the unvarnished reality is that after having allowed lives and property to be destroyed in communal violence under its watch, and failing to provide minimal security to these families, the SP government also seems to have abandoned its responsibility to provide relief to those rendered homeless. After a large-scale tragedy, the slow rebuilding of lives is the greater challenge, and government commitment often wanes as public attention turns elsewhere. In Muzaffarnagar, however, the SP has not only betrayed the basic contract with the citizens, to provide security and welfare, it has also clearly abdicated its responsibility towards the state's minority community. Only a year ago, the SP had devoted 12 out of 31 promises in its manifesto to Muslim concerns, promising welfare schemes, government jobs, security-free loans, rolling back of false terror cases. But when it comes to concretely providing security, medical assistance, shelter, supplies and a just rehabilitation for the citizens of Muzaffarnagar, the SP seems unable to square up to the task.
|
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
December 06, 2013
February 21, 2013
Shamelessly shooting to kill (Teesta Setalvad)
The Hindu, February 20, 2013
by Teesta Setalvad
In the recent incidents at Dhule and Thangadh, the communal bias of the police was caught on camera and is there for anyone who cares to see
Images of the Delhi police lobbing tear gas shells at and using water canons on protesters at India Gate on a Sunday, December 23, 2012, who were agitating against the gang rape of a young girl are embedded in the nation’s psyche, courtesy of our omnipresent, 24x7 news networks, images sharpened further by the ever-prescient discussions on the 9 p.m. Newshour.
Not 14 days later, also on a Sunday, about a thousand kilometres away, in faraway north Maharashtra, the town of Dhule saw a distinctly more brutal police action; the rapid firing of SLR bullets to kill six young Muslims. It was a case of being caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.
They paid heavily with their young lives. In a similarly brutal and uncalled for police action at Thangadh in Surendranagar district, not far from Ahmedabad, four Gujarat officers using AK-47s had shot dead three Dalits, including a 17-year-old, on the night of September 22-23, 2012.
The tragedies, at Thangadh and Dhule, that had cost these precious lives, were however reduced to media sideshows, though the print editions of English language national dailies did spotlight some issues. The police, in Dhule, were caught on mobile phone videos in shameful acts. Yet, despite the availability of such sensationally thrilling clips, the normally avaricious and greedy eye of the television camera looked away. The shots slipped into late afternoon or midnight bulletins, cleverly bypassing the noisy news hour.
One of the Dhule clips shows a constable taking a self-loading rifle from his senior officer and aiming to shoot high above the waist. Bullet marks have been found in the market place and gullies of Macchipura a kilometre deep into the Muslim area, away from any groups that had gathered. Three such shots fired in quick succession got Imran Ali in his collarbone, eventually leading to his death. Of the 23 other young Muslim men who were critical, one had a bullet fired into his cheek, narrowly missing his eye, another rupturing a liver. Another clip shows a policeman ignoring calls for protection. Yet another shows policemen in uniform looting Muslim establishments that were being destroyed and burnt by some rioters.
In Thangadh, the four policemen later absconded.
Stephen Lawrence case
The murder, in 1993, of a black youth Stephen Lawrence, in the United Kingdom, and the publication, in 1999, of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report led to the critical acknowledgement that hate crimes are committed even by men in uniform and that such deeds demand institutional sensitisation and correction. What emerged was a Hate Crimes Manual that warned what constituted such practice.
Since the late 1980s, when evidence of deviant conduct by men in uniform surfaced from several bouts of targeted violence countrywide (Nellie, Assam, 1983 — 3,000 Muslims massacred; Delhi, 1984 — over 3,000 Sikhs systematically killed; Hashimpura, Uttar Pradesh, 1987 — 51 Muslims shot dead by the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC); Bhagalpur, Bihar, 1989 — a massacre that left thousands dead and evidence buried below a hastily planted cauliflower field; Mumbai, 1992-1993 — over 1,200 dead; Kandhamal, Odisha, 2008 — nearly 100 Christians and Gujarat, 2002 — over 2,000 Muslims massacred), courts and judicial commissions have strongly indicted India’s police for harbouring a distinct anti-minority bias, committing crimes through a manifestation of this hatred and not being punished for it.
Studying police neutrality
In 1995, I had interviewed a senior IPS officer, V.N. Rai, who taken a year’s sabbatical to complete a research study, “Combating communal conflicts: Perception of police neutrality during Hindu-Muslim riots in India.” This interview was published in over 30 Indian publications. Among other things, Rai’s interviews with hundreds of riot victims from across the country (as part of his study) produced the startling finding that in all riot situations, Hindus consider policemen as their friends while, almost without exception, the minorities — Muslims and Sikhs — experience them as their enemy. This piece of work ought to have initiated the kind of self-reflection that the Stephen Lawrence murder had led the British police to. Instead, Rai’s study was ignored by the Indian police establishment. He had to find a private publisher to publish it as a book. What it did do however was lead to the issue being flagged by senior stalwarts. The founder and former chief of the Border Security Force (BSF), K.F. Rustomjee, and DIG Padma Rosha were quick to lend their voice to this issue of crucial concern, stressing that unless the Indian police confronted the issue of deep, communal (and caste) bias, they were sowing the seeds of bitter alienation. If Rai had conducted this study today, perceptions among the minorities would reflect alienation several degrees worse.
My interview covered several sensitive areas. I asked Rai specifically about the police’s criminal dereliction of duty on December 6, 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished as 3,000-4,000 men in uniform watched. His reply was a chilling recall of another fateful Sunday 21 years ago: “The video cassette recording by the Intelligence Bureau clearly documents that not more than 3,000-4,000 ‘kar sevaks’ were within close proximity of the mosque. In such a scenario, could no effective action have been taken? The reason why no action was taken lies elsewhere. The same cassette shows policemen rejoicing, with their hands held high in victory, when the Babri Masjid was destroyed. The district magistrate and other officials were dancing with delight. That is why the ‘kar sevaks’ could not be stopped. There was no desire to do so.” None of these offenders were punished.
Pitching strongly for the application of the principle of command responsibility when large-scale violence results following the failure to prevent or contain communal violence, Rai narrated the quotation “There are no bad soldiers, only bad generals.” So, leadership not only makes a substantial difference, it is the most vital, the most decisive factor in the functioning of a force whether we are talking of the police, the paramilitary or the army.
An officer to the rescue
Two decades after much soul-searching — that followed the cataclysmic events before and after the demolition of a 400-year-old mosque at Ayodhya — we are still only debating (and the establishment resisting) the chain of command responsibility being applied to men in uniform when it comes to serious offences, including sexual violence. Worse, there is a shrill resistance to enact legislative protection against the systematic outbreak of communal and targeted violence through a law that will penalise policemen who fail to preserve the peace.
Rai, in 1987, was the man who filed the First Information Report of the crimes committed by the PAC at Hashimpura. Fifteen years later, in 2002, in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar district, it was SP Rahul Sharma who charged ahead, firing to disperse a murderous Hindu mob when his men refused to act to prevent them attacking a madrassa. His prompt action saved the lives of 400 Muslim children. Today, he is at the receiving end of blows from a vindictive State government, facing every day harassment, charge sheets and worse.
Rai or Sharma are unlikely heroes for Republic Day bravery medals nor are they the likely face or voice of discussions on television channels. Their raw deeds and searching reflection spotlight a raw nerve, a deep-rooted prejudice that India at 65+ unfortunately lives quite comfortably with.
(Teesta Setalvad is co-editor, Communalism Combat, and secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace.)
by Teesta Setalvad
In the recent incidents at Dhule and Thangadh, the communal bias of the police was caught on camera and is there for anyone who cares to see
Images of the Delhi police lobbing tear gas shells at and using water canons on protesters at India Gate on a Sunday, December 23, 2012, who were agitating against the gang rape of a young girl are embedded in the nation’s psyche, courtesy of our omnipresent, 24x7 news networks, images sharpened further by the ever-prescient discussions on the 9 p.m. Newshour.
Not 14 days later, also on a Sunday, about a thousand kilometres away, in faraway north Maharashtra, the town of Dhule saw a distinctly more brutal police action; the rapid firing of SLR bullets to kill six young Muslims. It was a case of being caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.
They paid heavily with their young lives. In a similarly brutal and uncalled for police action at Thangadh in Surendranagar district, not far from Ahmedabad, four Gujarat officers using AK-47s had shot dead three Dalits, including a 17-year-old, on the night of September 22-23, 2012.
The tragedies, at Thangadh and Dhule, that had cost these precious lives, were however reduced to media sideshows, though the print editions of English language national dailies did spotlight some issues. The police, in Dhule, were caught on mobile phone videos in shameful acts. Yet, despite the availability of such sensationally thrilling clips, the normally avaricious and greedy eye of the television camera looked away. The shots slipped into late afternoon or midnight bulletins, cleverly bypassing the noisy news hour.
One of the Dhule clips shows a constable taking a self-loading rifle from his senior officer and aiming to shoot high above the waist. Bullet marks have been found in the market place and gullies of Macchipura a kilometre deep into the Muslim area, away from any groups that had gathered. Three such shots fired in quick succession got Imran Ali in his collarbone, eventually leading to his death. Of the 23 other young Muslim men who were critical, one had a bullet fired into his cheek, narrowly missing his eye, another rupturing a liver. Another clip shows a policeman ignoring calls for protection. Yet another shows policemen in uniform looting Muslim establishments that were being destroyed and burnt by some rioters.
In Thangadh, the four policemen later absconded.
Stephen Lawrence case
The murder, in 1993, of a black youth Stephen Lawrence, in the United Kingdom, and the publication, in 1999, of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report led to the critical acknowledgement that hate crimes are committed even by men in uniform and that such deeds demand institutional sensitisation and correction. What emerged was a Hate Crimes Manual that warned what constituted such practice.
Since the late 1980s, when evidence of deviant conduct by men in uniform surfaced from several bouts of targeted violence countrywide (Nellie, Assam, 1983 — 3,000 Muslims massacred; Delhi, 1984 — over 3,000 Sikhs systematically killed; Hashimpura, Uttar Pradesh, 1987 — 51 Muslims shot dead by the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC); Bhagalpur, Bihar, 1989 — a massacre that left thousands dead and evidence buried below a hastily planted cauliflower field; Mumbai, 1992-1993 — over 1,200 dead; Kandhamal, Odisha, 2008 — nearly 100 Christians and Gujarat, 2002 — over 2,000 Muslims massacred), courts and judicial commissions have strongly indicted India’s police for harbouring a distinct anti-minority bias, committing crimes through a manifestation of this hatred and not being punished for it.
Studying police neutrality
In 1995, I had interviewed a senior IPS officer, V.N. Rai, who taken a year’s sabbatical to complete a research study, “Combating communal conflicts: Perception of police neutrality during Hindu-Muslim riots in India.” This interview was published in over 30 Indian publications. Among other things, Rai’s interviews with hundreds of riot victims from across the country (as part of his study) produced the startling finding that in all riot situations, Hindus consider policemen as their friends while, almost without exception, the minorities — Muslims and Sikhs — experience them as their enemy. This piece of work ought to have initiated the kind of self-reflection that the Stephen Lawrence murder had led the British police to. Instead, Rai’s study was ignored by the Indian police establishment. He had to find a private publisher to publish it as a book. What it did do however was lead to the issue being flagged by senior stalwarts. The founder and former chief of the Border Security Force (BSF), K.F. Rustomjee, and DIG Padma Rosha were quick to lend their voice to this issue of crucial concern, stressing that unless the Indian police confronted the issue of deep, communal (and caste) bias, they were sowing the seeds of bitter alienation. If Rai had conducted this study today, perceptions among the minorities would reflect alienation several degrees worse.
My interview covered several sensitive areas. I asked Rai specifically about the police’s criminal dereliction of duty on December 6, 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished as 3,000-4,000 men in uniform watched. His reply was a chilling recall of another fateful Sunday 21 years ago: “The video cassette recording by the Intelligence Bureau clearly documents that not more than 3,000-4,000 ‘kar sevaks’ were within close proximity of the mosque. In such a scenario, could no effective action have been taken? The reason why no action was taken lies elsewhere. The same cassette shows policemen rejoicing, with their hands held high in victory, when the Babri Masjid was destroyed. The district magistrate and other officials were dancing with delight. That is why the ‘kar sevaks’ could not be stopped. There was no desire to do so.” None of these offenders were punished.
Pitching strongly for the application of the principle of command responsibility when large-scale violence results following the failure to prevent or contain communal violence, Rai narrated the quotation “There are no bad soldiers, only bad generals.” So, leadership not only makes a substantial difference, it is the most vital, the most decisive factor in the functioning of a force whether we are talking of the police, the paramilitary or the army.
An officer to the rescue
Two decades after much soul-searching — that followed the cataclysmic events before and after the demolition of a 400-year-old mosque at Ayodhya — we are still only debating (and the establishment resisting) the chain of command responsibility being applied to men in uniform when it comes to serious offences, including sexual violence. Worse, there is a shrill resistance to enact legislative protection against the systematic outbreak of communal and targeted violence through a law that will penalise policemen who fail to preserve the peace.
Rai, in 1987, was the man who filed the First Information Report of the crimes committed by the PAC at Hashimpura. Fifteen years later, in 2002, in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar district, it was SP Rahul Sharma who charged ahead, firing to disperse a murderous Hindu mob when his men refused to act to prevent them attacking a madrassa. His prompt action saved the lives of 400 Muslim children. Today, he is at the receiving end of blows from a vindictive State government, facing every day harassment, charge sheets and worse.
Rai or Sharma are unlikely heroes for Republic Day bravery medals nor are they the likely face or voice of discussions on television channels. Their raw deeds and searching reflection spotlight a raw nerve, a deep-rooted prejudice that India at 65+ unfortunately lives quite comfortably with.
(Teesta Setalvad is co-editor, Communalism Combat, and secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace.)
February 27, 2012
Communalisation of Indian police : Press Release following film screening of 'After the Storm'
Press release
Today on 27th February on the eve of Gujarat carnage New Stream Media along with Indian Social action Forum organised a press premier of documentary film 'After the Storm' here at the Press Club of India. After the screening Advocate Prashant Bhushan and director of After the Storm addressed the media.
Advocate Prashant said that communalisation of Indian police force is a big problem and the root cause of such fabricated cases which destroyed many innocent lives across India. In fact in many cases Hindu terror groups were behind but due to lack of proper investigation innocent Muslims had suffered. He also added by saying that by making such fabricated cases police are actually creating ground for making real terrorists from Muslim community.
Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty said in his submission that while making this documentary he had realised that such cases are not unique to one or two Indian states but similar cases are happening all over the country. He also raised the question of compensation to such acquitted persons and financial help to them by the state and the community to build their lives all over again.
Shubhradeep Chakravorty
New Stream Media,
674, Kamal Vihar Apartments,
Plot number 5, Sector 7,
Dwarika, New Delhi 110075, India.
Tel-91-9868226579, 91-11-25086613,
E-mails- shubhradeep@gmail.com
After the Storm
68 minutes
2012, India
Executive Producer: Jawad Khan
Director: Shubhradeep Chakravorty
Camera: Mohammad Ali
Editor: M. K. Shreenivas
Documentary After the Storm narrates stories of seven former terror accused set free by various law courts across India. Mukhtar Ahmed, Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed, Umar Farooque, Umar Farooque, Moutasim Billah, Harith Ansari, Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ and Shaik Abdul Kaleem are among thousands of Muslim youth arrested, falsely accused and then acquitted in terror cases. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
Documentary strongly advocates for they must be compensated, cases against them withdrawn and an unconditional public apology should be made by the authorities to keep faith in democracy and democratic institutions.
Forty-nine years old Mukhtar Ahmed from Bangalore was in retail business of readymade garments when he was picked by Central Bureau of Investigation on 3 September 1993 under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and then framed in the Chennai RSS (Hindu rightwing organisation) regional headquarters blast case. In all 17 persons were arrested in this case. He was acquitted by all the court and final judgement came from Supreme Court on 6 December 2010. In all he spent 6 years in jail and remained in Chennai on conditional bail for 8 years away from his family and business. Though he achieved some success in re-establishing his business but still his struggle for survival is on.
Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed from Hyderabad was doing his graduation when he was picked on 1 September, 2007 by Hyderabad police as a suspect in the blast at Gokul chat and Lumbini Park. Ironically his cousin died in one of the blasts. He was shown arrested on 5 September, 2007. He spent 6 months in jail and finally secured his acquittal in February 2008. Though he finished his graduation somehow but mental trauma and fear still continues.
Twenty-eight years old Umar Farooque was picked by Ahemdabad police on 11 May, 2oo6 in the conspiracy case to kill the rightwing Hindutva leaders. He was shown arrested on 9June, 2006 along with 5 others. After spending four and half years in jail he finally secured the acquittal on 29 July, 2010 but his life stand ruined today. Currently he is unemployed and his family is debt ridden.
On 5 March, 2008 engineering student Moutasim Billah was sitting in front of his house in old Hyderabad when he was picked by the police and then along with 20 others he was framed in Hyderabad conspiracy case. He spent 6 month in jail and then got the acquittal on 31 December 2008. Though he spent relatively shorter time in the jail but his education got ruined and he is yet to finish his engineering and marriages of his sisters are not fixed due to his social image.
Harith Ansari is son of Dr. Shakeel Ahmed; a prominent Ahmedabad based social activist and politician. Harith was in the profession of medical transcription and was doing well. He was picked on 7 Dec, 2003 from his home and his arrest was shown 11 Dec, 2003. Harith along with 5 others were framed in Conspiracy to conduct bomb blast in prominent buildings of Ahmadabad. After remaining 6 years in jail he finally got acquitted on 12 Dec, 2009. Currently he is unemployed and struggling in life.
Thirty-five years old Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ was working in a printing press when he was picked on 5 March 2002 and shown arrested on 7 March 2002 under the charge of firing and killing policemen at American Centre, Kolkata. He spent 8 years in jail and remained on death row for 5 years. Finally Kolkata High Court acquitted him on 7 Feb 2010. His family is in bad shape and he along with his two daughters and wife took shelter in the house of his father-in-law.
Shaik Abdul Kaleem is the person who was credited to influence Swami Aseemanand by his behaviour and prompted him to confess the Hindu terror plots. He was a paramedical student when he was picked first time by the police on 1 June 2007 but his arrest was shown on 7 June 2007. He was framed in Macca Masjid blast case and fake SIM cards case. After spending one and half years in jail he secured acquittal on 20 Sep 2008(SIM cards case) and 22 Jan 2009(RDX case). Currently he is studying law.
About the Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty
I did my post graduation in Political Science and International Relations and work as a journalist and documentary filmmaker. I work independently. I am interest in current affairs based documentary film making.
My Work:
So far I only made four documentaries and currently getting involved in another one.
My first independent documentary film was Godhra Tak: The Terror Trail. It is an investigative documentation of the barbaric incident of 27 Feb 2002, in which coach S6 of Sabermati Express was burnt down at Godhra railway station in Gujarat, India. Fifty-nine passengers including several Karsevaks died in that fire. The film tries to find out what actually happened at Godhra railway station on that day and how far the allegation of a conspiracy is true. This incident was used to start anti Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002.
In 2008 I finished my second documentary film 'Encountered on Saffron Agenda?'; a film based on investigative documentation of encounters of Sameer Khan Pathan (22 October, 2002), Sadik Jamal (13 January, 2003), Ishrat Jahan-Javed Seikh (16 June, 2004) and Shorabuddin Seikh (26 November, 2005), all happened in Gujarat. Those killed in them were said to have on a mission to kill the Chief Minister Narendra Modi who had allegedly organised the 2002 genocide of Muslims in the state after Godhra train burning incident. Film tries to find out the truth behind Police stories and politics of encounters in Gujarat.
The third one is 'After the Storm' based on stories of seven former terror accused who secured acquittal through various law courts in past few years. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
The forth one is 'Out of Court Settlement.' It is based on the tales of killings, beating up and intimidation of several defense lawyers across the country who were appearing in terror related cases. This documentary tries to put forth the ensuing danger to rule of law in the country because of such incidents.
Today on 27th February on the eve of Gujarat carnage New Stream Media along with Indian Social action Forum organised a press premier of documentary film 'After the Storm' here at the Press Club of India. After the screening Advocate Prashant Bhushan and director of After the Storm addressed the media.
Advocate Prashant said that communalisation of Indian police force is a big problem and the root cause of such fabricated cases which destroyed many innocent lives across India. In fact in many cases Hindu terror groups were behind but due to lack of proper investigation innocent Muslims had suffered. He also added by saying that by making such fabricated cases police are actually creating ground for making real terrorists from Muslim community.
Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty said in his submission that while making this documentary he had realised that such cases are not unique to one or two Indian states but similar cases are happening all over the country. He also raised the question of compensation to such acquitted persons and financial help to them by the state and the community to build their lives all over again.
Shubhradeep Chakravorty
New Stream Media,
674, Kamal Vihar Apartments,
Plot number 5, Sector 7,
Dwarika, New Delhi 110075, India.
Tel-91-9868226579, 91-11-25086613,
E-mails- shubhradeep@gmail.com
After the Storm
68 minutes
2012, India
Executive Producer: Jawad Khan
Director: Shubhradeep Chakravorty
Camera: Mohammad Ali
Editor: M. K. Shreenivas
Documentary After the Storm narrates stories of seven former terror accused set free by various law courts across India. Mukhtar Ahmed, Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed, Umar Farooque, Umar Farooque, Moutasim Billah, Harith Ansari, Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ and Shaik Abdul Kaleem are among thousands of Muslim youth arrested, falsely accused and then acquitted in terror cases. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
Documentary strongly advocates for they must be compensated, cases against them withdrawn and an unconditional public apology should be made by the authorities to keep faith in democracy and democratic institutions.
Forty-nine years old Mukhtar Ahmed from Bangalore was in retail business of readymade garments when he was picked by Central Bureau of Investigation on 3 September 1993 under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and then framed in the Chennai RSS (Hindu rightwing organisation) regional headquarters blast case. In all 17 persons were arrested in this case. He was acquitted by all the court and final judgement came from Supreme Court on 6 December 2010. In all he spent 6 years in jail and remained in Chennai on conditional bail for 8 years away from his family and business. Though he achieved some success in re-establishing his business but still his struggle for survival is on.
Md. Fassiuddin Ahmed from Hyderabad was doing his graduation when he was picked on 1 September, 2007 by Hyderabad police as a suspect in the blast at Gokul chat and Lumbini Park. Ironically his cousin died in one of the blasts. He was shown arrested on 5 September, 2007. He spent 6 months in jail and finally secured his acquittal in February 2008. Though he finished his graduation somehow but mental trauma and fear still continues.
Twenty-eight years old Umar Farooque was picked by Ahemdabad police on 11 May, 2oo6 in the conspiracy case to kill the rightwing Hindutva leaders. He was shown arrested on 9June, 2006 along with 5 others. After spending four and half years in jail he finally secured the acquittal on 29 July, 2010 but his life stand ruined today. Currently he is unemployed and his family is debt ridden.
On 5 March, 2008 engineering student Moutasim Billah was sitting in front of his house in old Hyderabad when he was picked by the police and then along with 20 others he was framed in Hyderabad conspiracy case. He spent 6 month in jail and then got the acquittal on 31 December 2008. Though he spent relatively shorter time in the jail but his education got ruined and he is yet to finish his engineering and marriages of his sisters are not fixed due to his social image.
Harith Ansari is son of Dr. Shakeel Ahmed; a prominent Ahmedabad based social activist and politician. Harith was in the profession of medical transcription and was doing well. He was picked on 7 Dec, 2003 from his home and his arrest was shown 11 Dec, 2003. Harith along with 5 others were framed in Conspiracy to conduct bomb blast in prominent buildings of Ahmadabad. After remaining 6 years in jail he finally got acquitted on 12 Dec, 2009. Currently he is unemployed and struggling in life.
Thirty-five years old Md. Musarrat Hussain ‘Bobby’ was working in a printing press when he was picked on 5 March 2002 and shown arrested on 7 March 2002 under the charge of firing and killing policemen at American Centre, Kolkata. He spent 8 years in jail and remained on death row for 5 years. Finally Kolkata High Court acquitted him on 7 Feb 2010. His family is in bad shape and he along with his two daughters and wife took shelter in the house of his father-in-law.
Shaik Abdul Kaleem is the person who was credited to influence Swami Aseemanand by his behaviour and prompted him to confess the Hindu terror plots. He was a paramedical student when he was picked first time by the police on 1 June 2007 but his arrest was shown on 7 June 2007. He was framed in Macca Masjid blast case and fake SIM cards case. After spending one and half years in jail he secured acquittal on 20 Sep 2008(SIM cards case) and 22 Jan 2009(RDX case). Currently he is studying law.
About the Director Shubhradeep Chakravorty
I did my post graduation in Political Science and International Relations and work as a journalist and documentary filmmaker. I work independently. I am interest in current affairs based documentary film making.
My Work:
So far I only made four documentaries and currently getting involved in another one.
My first independent documentary film was Godhra Tak: The Terror Trail. It is an investigative documentation of the barbaric incident of 27 Feb 2002, in which coach S6 of Sabermati Express was burnt down at Godhra railway station in Gujarat, India. Fifty-nine passengers including several Karsevaks died in that fire. The film tries to find out what actually happened at Godhra railway station on that day and how far the allegation of a conspiracy is true. This incident was used to start anti Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002.
In 2008 I finished my second documentary film 'Encountered on Saffron Agenda?'; a film based on investigative documentation of encounters of Sameer Khan Pathan (22 October, 2002), Sadik Jamal (13 January, 2003), Ishrat Jahan-Javed Seikh (16 June, 2004) and Shorabuddin Seikh (26 November, 2005), all happened in Gujarat. Those killed in them were said to have on a mission to kill the Chief Minister Narendra Modi who had allegedly organised the 2002 genocide of Muslims in the state after Godhra train burning incident. Film tries to find out the truth behind Police stories and politics of encounters in Gujarat.
The third one is 'After the Storm' based on stories of seven former terror accused who secured acquittal through various law courts in past few years. The film narrates their ordeal and miseries and shed light on their current fight for survival.
The forth one is 'Out of Court Settlement.' It is based on the tales of killings, beating up and intimidation of several defense lawyers across the country who were appearing in terror related cases. This documentary tries to put forth the ensuing danger to rule of law in the country because of such incidents.
February 16, 2012
Truth about Godhra SIT report: Why are they protecting Modi?
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 8, Issue 6, Dated February 12, 2011
Here’s the smoking gun. So how come the SIT is looking the other way?
Narendra Modi swore he was clean. ASHISH KHETAN scoops the 600-page report that exposes he is not
ON 3 DECEMBER 2010, a leading national daily ran a frontpage story headlined ‘SIT clears Narendra Modi of willfully allowing post- Godhra riots.’ News channels leaped at the story. ‘SIT gives Modi a clean chit’ flashed in bold letters across television screens. The newspaper report that was attributed to anonymous sources and had little more information than the sensational caption was expanded into a certificate of innocence for Modi.
Within hours, a beguiling charade of Modi’s righteousness was constructed. While the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which had done the probe, chose to remain quiet as it was answerable only to the Supreme Court, BJP spokespersons popped up on news channels hailing the imaginary ‘clean-chit’ as a political triumph. An exuberant LK Advani called it “the most heartening news I have read in a long, long time”. Praising Modi’s personality and his style of governance, Advani wrote in his blog: “In my 60 years of political life I have not known any colleague of mine so consistently, so sustainedly and so viciously maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi.”
The BJP patriarch wrapped up his eulogy on Modi with the following remark: “Several papers have reported that the SIT has found no evidence to substantiate the charge and has exonerated the Gujarat chief minister. The country is eagerly awaiting the full text of the SIT report to the Supreme Court.”
Well, the wait is over. TEHELKA has scooped the sensational 600-page inquiry report into Modi’s alleged role in the 2002 massacre. The content is shocking and will come as a serious blow to the carefully cultivated image of Modi as an able administrator and a man of good governance. For eight years, riot victims and human rights groups have cried hoarse about the deliberate miscarriage of justice in Gujarat. About how the police and State machinery had either ignored or abetted rioters and created the space for massacres to happen; about how some ruling party politicians had goaded the public mood to new danger levels; about the State’s blatant and continuing prejudice against the victims; about public prosecutors who were subverting justice in the courts by helping the accused instead of nailing their guilt.
But as the years passed, despite the glaring evidence, the accusations lost their sting and were deemed to be, as Advani called it, merely a vicious maligning campaign. Modi won two elections and the effects of the counter-propaganda began to kick in. Both corporate heads and sections of the national media began to hail Modi as a great statesman and potential prime minister. His sins of omission and commission were set aside. The Congress, blunted by its own abysmal handling of the 1984 Sikh riots, stayed meekly quiet.
PHOTO:REUTERS
But now, for the first time, there is damning official confirmation of many things victims and human rights groups have been accusing Modi of. The SIT was set up by order of the Supreme Court. Far from giving Modi a clean chit, in its report dated 12 May 2010 that the Supreme Court has kept under wraps, the SIT found Modi guilty on many counts: a communal mindset, inflammatory speeches, destruction of crucial records, appointment of Sangh members as public prosecutors, illegal positioning of ministers in police control rooms during the riots, and persecution of neutral officers.
Is there a right-thinking citizen who would say that these are the attributes of a model chief minister? Are efficiency and ability to attract investments the only qualities we seek in our leaders?
This damning report, now exposed by TEHELKA, blows craters into the BJP propaganda that the SIT had exonerated Modi and vindicated his handling of the 2002 riots. The text of the report, in fact, points to exactly the opposite. The report comments that political and communal agendas ‘weighed heavily’ in Modi’s handling of the criminal justice system. It records his government’s abject failure in providing justice to the victims. It also accuses Modi of making “sweeping” and “offensive” comments against the Muslim community that “showed a measure of thoughtlessness and irresponsibility on the part of a person holding a high public office.” [. . .].
FULL TEXT AT: http://tinyurl.com/67bnrwu
Here’s the smoking gun. So how come the SIT is looking the other way?
Narendra Modi swore he was clean. ASHISH KHETAN scoops the 600-page report that exposes he is not
ON 3 DECEMBER 2010, a leading national daily ran a frontpage story headlined ‘SIT clears Narendra Modi of willfully allowing post- Godhra riots.’ News channels leaped at the story. ‘SIT gives Modi a clean chit’ flashed in bold letters across television screens. The newspaper report that was attributed to anonymous sources and had little more information than the sensational caption was expanded into a certificate of innocence for Modi.
Within hours, a beguiling charade of Modi’s righteousness was constructed. While the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which had done the probe, chose to remain quiet as it was answerable only to the Supreme Court, BJP spokespersons popped up on news channels hailing the imaginary ‘clean-chit’ as a political triumph. An exuberant LK Advani called it “the most heartening news I have read in a long, long time”. Praising Modi’s personality and his style of governance, Advani wrote in his blog: “In my 60 years of political life I have not known any colleague of mine so consistently, so sustainedly and so viciously maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi.”
The BJP patriarch wrapped up his eulogy on Modi with the following remark: “Several papers have reported that the SIT has found no evidence to substantiate the charge and has exonerated the Gujarat chief minister. The country is eagerly awaiting the full text of the SIT report to the Supreme Court.”
Well, the wait is over. TEHELKA has scooped the sensational 600-page inquiry report into Modi’s alleged role in the 2002 massacre. The content is shocking and will come as a serious blow to the carefully cultivated image of Modi as an able administrator and a man of good governance. For eight years, riot victims and human rights groups have cried hoarse about the deliberate miscarriage of justice in Gujarat. About how the police and State machinery had either ignored or abetted rioters and created the space for massacres to happen; about how some ruling party politicians had goaded the public mood to new danger levels; about the State’s blatant and continuing prejudice against the victims; about public prosecutors who were subverting justice in the courts by helping the accused instead of nailing their guilt.
But as the years passed, despite the glaring evidence, the accusations lost their sting and were deemed to be, as Advani called it, merely a vicious maligning campaign. Modi won two elections and the effects of the counter-propaganda began to kick in. Both corporate heads and sections of the national media began to hail Modi as a great statesman and potential prime minister. His sins of omission and commission were set aside. The Congress, blunted by its own abysmal handling of the 1984 Sikh riots, stayed meekly quiet.
PHOTO:REUTERS
But now, for the first time, there is damning official confirmation of many things victims and human rights groups have been accusing Modi of. The SIT was set up by order of the Supreme Court. Far from giving Modi a clean chit, in its report dated 12 May 2010 that the Supreme Court has kept under wraps, the SIT found Modi guilty on many counts: a communal mindset, inflammatory speeches, destruction of crucial records, appointment of Sangh members as public prosecutors, illegal positioning of ministers in police control rooms during the riots, and persecution of neutral officers.
Is there a right-thinking citizen who would say that these are the attributes of a model chief minister? Are efficiency and ability to attract investments the only qualities we seek in our leaders?
This damning report, now exposed by TEHELKA, blows craters into the BJP propaganda that the SIT had exonerated Modi and vindicated his handling of the 2002 riots. The text of the report, in fact, points to exactly the opposite. The report comments that political and communal agendas ‘weighed heavily’ in Modi’s handling of the criminal justice system. It records his government’s abject failure in providing justice to the victims. It also accuses Modi of making “sweeping” and “offensive” comments against the Muslim community that “showed a measure of thoughtlessness and irresponsibility on the part of a person holding a high public office.” [. . .].
FULL TEXT AT: http://tinyurl.com/67bnrwu
February 11, 2012
Whitewashing Narendra Modi's Crimes Wont Pass
The Hindu, 11 February 2012
EDITORIAL
A past that will not pass
Consider this for the volatility of present times in Gujarat. On Wednesday, the Gujarat High Court lit into the Narendra Modi government, accusing it of “inaction and negligence” resulting in the destruction of over 500 Muslim places of worship during the 2002 post-Godhra pogrom. Rejecting the State government's portrayal of the violence as a “general reaction” to the February 27, 2002 Sabarmati Express carnage, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J.B. Pardiwala ordered compensation to be paid for the defilement and destruction, noting that in the absence of police intelligence and “appropriate” preventive action, “anarchy” had reigned “unabated” in Gujarat. Twenty-four hours after the sledgehammer indictment came news of a different kind: Mr. Modi had been cleared of the charge of abetting the 2002 violence in a final report filed to the magisterial court by the Special Investigation Team probing Zakia Jafri's omnibus complaint against the Chief Minister and 61 others. Of course, with the SIT's report locked in the secret vaults of the magisterial court and amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran taking a contrarian view in the same case, it is clear that the last word on the question of criminality will not be said for some time.
Yet none of this could stop sections of the BJP from exulting over Mr. Modi's “victory” or his imminent promotion to Prime Minister of India. Mr. Modi himself tweeted: “The history of the world is the history of a few men who had faith in themselves…” Similar misplaced celebrations had marked the Supreme Court's September 12, 2011 order, directing the trial court to hear Ms Jafri's complaint. Mr. Modi had then tweeted, “God is great”, blithely obfuscating the truth that the apex court had in fact fast-tracked proceedings in the case. The Chief Minister's camp followers will do well to show some restraint, not least because his administration has come in for repeated censure by courts in the past year. The SIT's conclusions and reasoning will be publicly known and debated, including in these columns, once the magistrate concerned makes all relevant documents available to the petitioners. The court's own decision on the matter — whether to accept or reject the closure report – will doubtless be litigated by one side or the other. But whatever the final view taken by the courts on his individual legal culpability for the tragedy of Gujarat, Mr. Modi should know this much. The fact that he remained — at best — a mute spectator to the killing of hundreds of innocent citizens and did nothing to ensure justice for the victims afterwards is a moral and political badge of dishonour that will ensure the higher office his supporters seek for him remains out of reach.
EDITORIAL
A past that will not pass
Consider this for the volatility of present times in Gujarat. On Wednesday, the Gujarat High Court lit into the Narendra Modi government, accusing it of “inaction and negligence” resulting in the destruction of over 500 Muslim places of worship during the 2002 post-Godhra pogrom. Rejecting the State government's portrayal of the violence as a “general reaction” to the February 27, 2002 Sabarmati Express carnage, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J.B. Pardiwala ordered compensation to be paid for the defilement and destruction, noting that in the absence of police intelligence and “appropriate” preventive action, “anarchy” had reigned “unabated” in Gujarat. Twenty-four hours after the sledgehammer indictment came news of a different kind: Mr. Modi had been cleared of the charge of abetting the 2002 violence in a final report filed to the magisterial court by the Special Investigation Team probing Zakia Jafri's omnibus complaint against the Chief Minister and 61 others. Of course, with the SIT's report locked in the secret vaults of the magisterial court and amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran taking a contrarian view in the same case, it is clear that the last word on the question of criminality will not be said for some time.
Yet none of this could stop sections of the BJP from exulting over Mr. Modi's “victory” or his imminent promotion to Prime Minister of India. Mr. Modi himself tweeted: “The history of the world is the history of a few men who had faith in themselves…” Similar misplaced celebrations had marked the Supreme Court's September 12, 2011 order, directing the trial court to hear Ms Jafri's complaint. Mr. Modi had then tweeted, “God is great”, blithely obfuscating the truth that the apex court had in fact fast-tracked proceedings in the case. The Chief Minister's camp followers will do well to show some restraint, not least because his administration has come in for repeated censure by courts in the past year. The SIT's conclusions and reasoning will be publicly known and debated, including in these columns, once the magistrate concerned makes all relevant documents available to the petitioners. The court's own decision on the matter — whether to accept or reject the closure report – will doubtless be litigated by one side or the other. But whatever the final view taken by the courts on his individual legal culpability for the tragedy of Gujarat, Mr. Modi should know this much. The fact that he remained — at best — a mute spectator to the killing of hundreds of innocent citizens and did nothing to ensure justice for the victims afterwards is a moral and political badge of dishonour that will ensure the higher office his supporters seek for him remains out of reach.
February 08, 2012
Is the Raghavan SIT in Undue Haste for a Closure? - Open letter by concrned citizens
sacw.net - 8 February 2012
We, the undersigned members of civil society, were aghast to learn from newspaper reports that RK Raghavan, the head of the Special Investigative Team (SIT), is planning to file a closure report, and has no intention of filing charges against Narendra Modi and his co-conspirators for being allegedly complicit in the horrific massacre in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the death of over a thousand innocent citizens and extensive destruction of private and public property.
[. . .]
The proposed closure, if it happens, will add insult to injury for the victims of the massacre and their families and will exacerbate inter-community tensions. People will lose faith in our judicial system. The ability of the powerful to manipulate the course of justice will do serious harm to people’s faith in the system. It is obvious to many of us that an attempt at a massive cover-up is at work. It would be better if Modi answered the charges against him so that the matter is cleared and the issue of the accountability of a chief minister is addressed.
People must speak out against such gross abuse of our judicial system. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. [. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article2533.html
We, the undersigned members of civil society, were aghast to learn from newspaper reports that RK Raghavan, the head of the Special Investigative Team (SIT), is planning to file a closure report, and has no intention of filing charges against Narendra Modi and his co-conspirators for being allegedly complicit in the horrific massacre in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the death of over a thousand innocent citizens and extensive destruction of private and public property.
[. . .]
The proposed closure, if it happens, will add insult to injury for the victims of the massacre and their families and will exacerbate inter-community tensions. People will lose faith in our judicial system. The ability of the powerful to manipulate the course of justice will do serious harm to people’s faith in the system. It is obvious to many of us that an attempt at a massive cover-up is at work. It would be better if Modi answered the charges against him so that the matter is cleared and the issue of the accountability of a chief minister is addressed.
People must speak out against such gross abuse of our judicial system. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. [. . .]
FULL TEXT AT: http://www.sacw.net/article2533.html
October 15, 2011
Prabhat Patnaik on the Sanjiv Bhatt case in Gujarat
From: Hindustan Times, October 13, 2011
Scared of the light
by Prabhat Patnaik
Ashok Malik (A shot in the dark, Comment, October 10) sees Sanjiv Bhatt as a dubious and unreliable person making opportunistic moves to revive a sagging career, whom a bunch of 'Modiphobes', hell-bent on using any stick to beat Narendra Modi with, are making out to be a hero. The term'Modiphobia' Malik uses is symptomatic of his general argument: it trivialises the 2002 pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat.
There are certain episodes in the life of a nation that must not go beyond in a routine manner. Doing so only inflicts long-term damage on itself. The nation has to get to the truth, fix responsibilities and mete out justice before it can go beyond them. The pogrom in Gujarat is one such episode. It could not have occurred without the complicity - or, at the very least the callousness - of the administration. And in a state where the administration is run by a 'hands-on' chief minister, a trait for which he is being constantly lionised, the sins of the administration in 2002 can't but be laid at his door. Unless Modi's role in the pogrom, whatever it may be, is unearthed, the nation must not proceed with 'business as usual'. Nobody is born a 'Modiphobe'. Those accused of being so simply refuse to make light of 2002.
Bhatt's testimony becomes important in this context. He is not a 'whistleblower' in the sense the BJP MPs in the 'cash-for-votes' case claimed to be. He didn't fix a meeting and 'entrap' Modi. He merely revealed that he had been present at one of Modi's meetings and testified to what transpired there. His claim may be right or wrong; that is for the Supreme Court to decide. This decision has to be solely on the merits of the case to which Bhatt's own past misdemeanours, if any, are of little relevance.
Likewise, any closeness he may have with Congress leaders in Gujarat is irrelevant to the question of whether he is speaking the truth. Indeed, for anyone to acquire courage to testify against Narendra Modi who is usually lauded for his aggressiveness in short-circuiting procedures (in wooing corporate investment, for instance), some amount of soliciting of support from rival political formations would be quite natural. It does not make the testimony suspect for that reason. Similarly, questioning the truth of his testimony on the grounds that other people's testimonies contradict his is a complete non-sequitur.
One cannot take Bhatt's testimony to be correct just because it is anti-Modi. Its veracity has to be independently established. But Bhatt's refusal to have any judicially-brokered compromises with the state government can't but be lauded for its underlying courage. The fact that the Gujarat government chose to arrest him and demand police custody indicate an attempt at intimidation and vendetta. Nobody is above the law and the police must act on the basis of a complaint filed against a person.
This happens to be a case where no truth can possibly be attached to any middle ground. Either Bhatt has been speaking the truth all along; in which case police constable KD Panth's complaint is bogus and probably instigated by the threatened authorities. Or Bhatt has been making bogus charges; in which case Panth's complaint against him is genuine and he needs to be protected from Bhatt. But no matter which is true, the ends of justice would have been served well if Bhatt did not suffer incarceration and was simply denied access to Panth while the apex court was sifting through the evidence to arrive at the truth.
Such an act of intimidation and vindictiveness is inconceivable without the complicity of the 'hands-on' CM. Bhatt's affidavit on Modi's role in the pogrom was submitted to the Supreme Court sometime ago. But that did not make him the public figure that he now is. The status he now enjoys is a result of the bloody-minded actions of the Gujarat government. It is not the 'Modiphobes' who made Sanjiv Bhatt a hero, but Modi himself.
The Bhatt case does raise the important issue of what constitutes proper conduct on the part of a serving official. Certainly, for an official to air critical opinions on government official policy, or even to hold forth as an independent commentator on what government policy should be, represents a violation of service conditions. Not surprisingly, those who do express such opinions do so anonymously or under pseudonyms, which is an admission of transgression on their part. But when we are talking not of expressing opinions about government policy but of revealing facts about an incident that has a bearing on a major issue of justice, the official has a duty to speak the truth.
Fixing responsibility is essential if injustice is not to be perpetrated through a convenient anonymity. And service conditions must not come in the way of any official acting with the intention of fixing responsibility. To be sure, if the official does so falsely or with malicious intent, then appropriate punishment must be visited upon him. The practice of officials speaking the truth to fix responsibility in major matters involving justice will have an extremely salutary effect on the administration and the polity of this country. Political bosses are known to use pliant officials to serve all kinds of personal ends through unjust means. But if both the leaders and the officials know that they will be held responsible for their actions and that they cannot hide behind a cloak of anonymity, then their propensity to inflict injustice will be curbed.
Prabhat Patnaik is a Delhi-based economic and political commentator associated with the Citizens for Justice and Peace. The views expressed by the author are personal.
Scared of the light
by Prabhat Patnaik
Ashok Malik (A shot in the dark, Comment, October 10) sees Sanjiv Bhatt as a dubious and unreliable person making opportunistic moves to revive a sagging career, whom a bunch of 'Modiphobes', hell-bent on using any stick to beat Narendra Modi with, are making out to be a hero. The term'Modiphobia' Malik uses is symptomatic of his general argument: it trivialises the 2002 pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat.
There are certain episodes in the life of a nation that must not go beyond in a routine manner. Doing so only inflicts long-term damage on itself. The nation has to get to the truth, fix responsibilities and mete out justice before it can go beyond them. The pogrom in Gujarat is one such episode. It could not have occurred without the complicity - or, at the very least the callousness - of the administration. And in a state where the administration is run by a 'hands-on' chief minister, a trait for which he is being constantly lionised, the sins of the administration in 2002 can't but be laid at his door. Unless Modi's role in the pogrom, whatever it may be, is unearthed, the nation must not proceed with 'business as usual'. Nobody is born a 'Modiphobe'. Those accused of being so simply refuse to make light of 2002.
Bhatt's testimony becomes important in this context. He is not a 'whistleblower' in the sense the BJP MPs in the 'cash-for-votes' case claimed to be. He didn't fix a meeting and 'entrap' Modi. He merely revealed that he had been present at one of Modi's meetings and testified to what transpired there. His claim may be right or wrong; that is for the Supreme Court to decide. This decision has to be solely on the merits of the case to which Bhatt's own past misdemeanours, if any, are of little relevance.
Likewise, any closeness he may have with Congress leaders in Gujarat is irrelevant to the question of whether he is speaking the truth. Indeed, for anyone to acquire courage to testify against Narendra Modi who is usually lauded for his aggressiveness in short-circuiting procedures (in wooing corporate investment, for instance), some amount of soliciting of support from rival political formations would be quite natural. It does not make the testimony suspect for that reason. Similarly, questioning the truth of his testimony on the grounds that other people's testimonies contradict his is a complete non-sequitur.
One cannot take Bhatt's testimony to be correct just because it is anti-Modi. Its veracity has to be independently established. But Bhatt's refusal to have any judicially-brokered compromises with the state government can't but be lauded for its underlying courage. The fact that the Gujarat government chose to arrest him and demand police custody indicate an attempt at intimidation and vendetta. Nobody is above the law and the police must act on the basis of a complaint filed against a person.
This happens to be a case where no truth can possibly be attached to any middle ground. Either Bhatt has been speaking the truth all along; in which case police constable KD Panth's complaint is bogus and probably instigated by the threatened authorities. Or Bhatt has been making bogus charges; in which case Panth's complaint against him is genuine and he needs to be protected from Bhatt. But no matter which is true, the ends of justice would have been served well if Bhatt did not suffer incarceration and was simply denied access to Panth while the apex court was sifting through the evidence to arrive at the truth.
Such an act of intimidation and vindictiveness is inconceivable without the complicity of the 'hands-on' CM. Bhatt's affidavit on Modi's role in the pogrom was submitted to the Supreme Court sometime ago. But that did not make him the public figure that he now is. The status he now enjoys is a result of the bloody-minded actions of the Gujarat government. It is not the 'Modiphobes' who made Sanjiv Bhatt a hero, but Modi himself.
The Bhatt case does raise the important issue of what constitutes proper conduct on the part of a serving official. Certainly, for an official to air critical opinions on government official policy, or even to hold forth as an independent commentator on what government policy should be, represents a violation of service conditions. Not surprisingly, those who do express such opinions do so anonymously or under pseudonyms, which is an admission of transgression on their part. But when we are talking not of expressing opinions about government policy but of revealing facts about an incident that has a bearing on a major issue of justice, the official has a duty to speak the truth.
Fixing responsibility is essential if injustice is not to be perpetrated through a convenient anonymity. And service conditions must not come in the way of any official acting with the intention of fixing responsibility. To be sure, if the official does so falsely or with malicious intent, then appropriate punishment must be visited upon him. The practice of officials speaking the truth to fix responsibility in major matters involving justice will have an extremely salutary effect on the administration and the polity of this country. Political bosses are known to use pliant officials to serve all kinds of personal ends through unjust means. But if both the leaders and the officials know that they will be held responsible for their actions and that they cannot hide behind a cloak of anonymity, then their propensity to inflict injustice will be curbed.
Prabhat Patnaik is a Delhi-based economic and political commentator associated with the Citizens for Justice and Peace. The views expressed by the author are personal.
March 01, 2009
Gujarat: manufactured divide is growing
Hindustan Times
Reconcile with the truth
Harsh Mander
February 26, 2009
There have been many failures that characterise the polity and society of contemporary Gujarat. Probably the most dangerous of the lot is the unprecedented extent of the arrest and collapse of processes of authentic reconciliation, even seven years after the 2002 Gujarat carnage. There are few organised social and political spaces — official or non-official — for fostering forgiveness in Gujarat today. Instead, there is a communal chasm, ignored or actively encouraged by the powerful political, administrative, business and media establishments. This manufactured divide is growing exponentially.
Even before the carnage, despite communal bloodletting during and after Partition, there has been no structured official (or even significant non-official) processes of ‘truth and reconciliation’ to help perpetrators and survivors of hate violence come together; to see and speak to each other; acknowledge their crimes and failings, their hate and fear, their grievances and suspicions; to seek and offer forgiveness, trust and goodwill. And ultimately help bring closure and healing.
Part of the problem is that the threats and peril, both of on-going communal violence and of pervasive subversion of justice to minorities, are not acknowledged by the State, political parties and formal civil society organisations. Even as relations between communities deteriorate, and states are increasingly openly partisan on communal lines and soft on organisations committed to destroy the secular democratic foundations of India, many continue to live in dogged denial.
Second, much of the violence and injustice is not overt, it rages in the hearts and minds of people. We attend to it only when violence spills on to the streets. We deliberately overlook the covert violence of the everyday. Third, governments, political parties and social organisations are today most frequently equivocal, unsteady and reluctant in dealing with the intensely sensitive and potentially divisive issues raised by communalism. They are no longer prepared to stand up to be counted.
However, Indians have arguably had more experience than most. Therefore, even without organised processes of reconciliation, there are natural spontaneous processes of reaching out that follow bouts of sectarian violence. There may be debates about whether, without structured modes of facilitating reconciliation for survivors of Partition violence, there could have been adequate closure for families that experienced the loss of their loved ones.
Perhaps we needed to bring together people who lived with the violence from both sides of the border, to share their truths, discover their common burdens of suffering and privation, and thereby find the spaces for individual and collective forgiveness. The defining feature of post-riot Gujarat is its frozen compassion, the determined absence of remorse both by the State and among many segments of the people. So it isn’t surprising that more than seven years later, what is most scarce in the parched soil of ‘vibrant Gujarat’ is reconciliation and empathy.
Efforts for reconciliation in Gujarat are imperative. In the absence of reconciliation, hate is retained and nurtured — with stereotypes, myths, selective memory and lies about the demonised ‘Other’ — and passed on as a dubious legacy from generation to generation. But to be authentic and enduring, it must traverse the stony paths of justice. Not just those who joined the slaughter, but those who planned it must face the law of the land.
There are recent brilliant glimmerings of hope, with cabinet ministers and police officers becoming fugitives from the law. Those who held the command in those weeks of slaughter must stand before the courts of the land to atone for their crimes. Only such a just reconciliation will rebuild a stable and enduring peace for a shared future of restored trust between our estranged peoples.
(Harsh Mander is the Convenor of Aman Biradari)
Reconcile with the truth
Harsh Mander
February 26, 2009
There have been many failures that characterise the polity and society of contemporary Gujarat. Probably the most dangerous of the lot is the unprecedented extent of the arrest and collapse of processes of authentic reconciliation, even seven years after the 2002 Gujarat carnage. There are few organised social and political spaces — official or non-official — for fostering forgiveness in Gujarat today. Instead, there is a communal chasm, ignored or actively encouraged by the powerful political, administrative, business and media establishments. This manufactured divide is growing exponentially.
Even before the carnage, despite communal bloodletting during and after Partition, there has been no structured official (or even significant non-official) processes of ‘truth and reconciliation’ to help perpetrators and survivors of hate violence come together; to see and speak to each other; acknowledge their crimes and failings, their hate and fear, their grievances and suspicions; to seek and offer forgiveness, trust and goodwill. And ultimately help bring closure and healing.
Part of the problem is that the threats and peril, both of on-going communal violence and of pervasive subversion of justice to minorities, are not acknowledged by the State, political parties and formal civil society organisations. Even as relations between communities deteriorate, and states are increasingly openly partisan on communal lines and soft on organisations committed to destroy the secular democratic foundations of India, many continue to live in dogged denial.
Second, much of the violence and injustice is not overt, it rages in the hearts and minds of people. We attend to it only when violence spills on to the streets. We deliberately overlook the covert violence of the everyday. Third, governments, political parties and social organisations are today most frequently equivocal, unsteady and reluctant in dealing with the intensely sensitive and potentially divisive issues raised by communalism. They are no longer prepared to stand up to be counted.
However, Indians have arguably had more experience than most. Therefore, even without organised processes of reconciliation, there are natural spontaneous processes of reaching out that follow bouts of sectarian violence. There may be debates about whether, without structured modes of facilitating reconciliation for survivors of Partition violence, there could have been adequate closure for families that experienced the loss of their loved ones.
Perhaps we needed to bring together people who lived with the violence from both sides of the border, to share their truths, discover their common burdens of suffering and privation, and thereby find the spaces for individual and collective forgiveness. The defining feature of post-riot Gujarat is its frozen compassion, the determined absence of remorse both by the State and among many segments of the people. So it isn’t surprising that more than seven years later, what is most scarce in the parched soil of ‘vibrant Gujarat’ is reconciliation and empathy.
Efforts for reconciliation in Gujarat are imperative. In the absence of reconciliation, hate is retained and nurtured — with stereotypes, myths, selective memory and lies about the demonised ‘Other’ — and passed on as a dubious legacy from generation to generation. But to be authentic and enduring, it must traverse the stony paths of justice. Not just those who joined the slaughter, but those who planned it must face the law of the land.
There are recent brilliant glimmerings of hope, with cabinet ministers and police officers becoming fugitives from the law. Those who held the command in those weeks of slaughter must stand before the courts of the land to atone for their crimes. Only such a just reconciliation will rebuild a stable and enduring peace for a shared future of restored trust between our estranged peoples.
(Harsh Mander is the Convenor of Aman Biradari)
October 08, 2008
India's Govt keeps dragging its feet to outlaw Bajrang Dal
The Tribune, October 9, 2008
No consensus on Bajrang Dal ban
Aditi Tandon
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 8
The marathon meeting of the union cabinet today failed to arrive on any consensus on the controversial issue of banning the Bajrang Dal ahead of Assembly and general elections.
The issue came up for heated discussion when the Cabinet reassembled at 8 pm but did not end conclusively, with some members questioning its feasibility and legal standing. The Cabinet, however, decided to send a ministerial delegation to Orissa, even as home minister Shivraj Patil told the members that his ministry was in process of gathering evidence for banning the Bajrang Dal.
Meanwhile, sources told The Tribune that there was lot of discussion in the Cabinet on the practicability of imposing a ban on the Bajrang Dal, which has been on the forefront of anti-Christian violence in Orissa. Such a ban would have to be ultimately enforced by the state and the state’s role in this regard is crucial, sources said. It was on this ground that some members questioned feasibility of the ban.
Although the UPA allies, including the RJD, the LJP and the SP have been very vocal about their demand to ban the Bajrang Dal and the Congress, too, today pitched for similar action, saying there was enough evidence to proceed, a decision in this matter is likely to be advanced at least till the National Integration Council (NIC) meets. The idea, UPA sources said, is to not politically jostle the BJP at this time but to isolate it on a broader platform.
Moreover, sources said the matter regarding banning an extremist organisation needed not come to the Cabinet at all. Such a ban can simply be enforced through notification by the centre.
The government, however, feels the need to raise the issue at the NIC first, said sources, adding that the NIC is a 103-member forum of union ministers, Chief Ministers, political leaders, heads of national commissions and eminent public figures, and can be used to gauge broader opinion of the intelligentsia on sensitive matters.
The NIC is meeting here on October 13 to discuss ways of fighting divisiveness in the country. Orissa violence will feature in discussions, so will the matter of banning the Bajrang Dal and imposition of Article 356.
Also, discussions in the Cabinet today on the imposition of Article 356 in Orissa remained inconclusive. Senior Cabinet members like external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee and agriculture minister Sharad Pawar were absent from the meeting, which, sources said, was another reason why vital decisions on Orissa could not be taken.
No consensus on Bajrang Dal ban
Aditi Tandon
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, October 8
The marathon meeting of the union cabinet today failed to arrive on any consensus on the controversial issue of banning the Bajrang Dal ahead of Assembly and general elections.
The issue came up for heated discussion when the Cabinet reassembled at 8 pm but did not end conclusively, with some members questioning its feasibility and legal standing. The Cabinet, however, decided to send a ministerial delegation to Orissa, even as home minister Shivraj Patil told the members that his ministry was in process of gathering evidence for banning the Bajrang Dal.
Meanwhile, sources told The Tribune that there was lot of discussion in the Cabinet on the practicability of imposing a ban on the Bajrang Dal, which has been on the forefront of anti-Christian violence in Orissa. Such a ban would have to be ultimately enforced by the state and the state’s role in this regard is crucial, sources said. It was on this ground that some members questioned feasibility of the ban.
Although the UPA allies, including the RJD, the LJP and the SP have been very vocal about their demand to ban the Bajrang Dal and the Congress, too, today pitched for similar action, saying there was enough evidence to proceed, a decision in this matter is likely to be advanced at least till the National Integration Council (NIC) meets. The idea, UPA sources said, is to not politically jostle the BJP at this time but to isolate it on a broader platform.
Moreover, sources said the matter regarding banning an extremist organisation needed not come to the Cabinet at all. Such a ban can simply be enforced through notification by the centre.
The government, however, feels the need to raise the issue at the NIC first, said sources, adding that the NIC is a 103-member forum of union ministers, Chief Ministers, political leaders, heads of national commissions and eminent public figures, and can be used to gauge broader opinion of the intelligentsia on sensitive matters.
The NIC is meeting here on October 13 to discuss ways of fighting divisiveness in the country. Orissa violence will feature in discussions, so will the matter of banning the Bajrang Dal and imposition of Article 356.
Also, discussions in the Cabinet today on the imposition of Article 356 in Orissa remained inconclusive. Senior Cabinet members like external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee and agriculture minister Sharad Pawar were absent from the meeting, which, sources said, was another reason why vital decisions on Orissa could not be taken.
June 19, 2008
Maharashtra: Samna edit on Hindu Bomb - Govt dithers
(The Times of India, June 19, 2008)
GOVT REACTS CAUTIOUSLY TO SENA BOMB
Cops Will Be Asked To Study Saamna Edit, Says Deputy Chief Minister Patil
Prafulla Marpakwar | TNN
Mumbai: The Congress-led Democratic Front government does not seem to have taken the editorial in Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna very seriously.
“I don’t know. I have not read the editorial,’’ was deputy chief minister and state home minister R R Patil’s initial response when a group of scribes asked for his comments on the controversial editorial.
But, when the scribes brought the contents of the editorial to his minister, Patil had no option but to say that he would ask the Special Branch and the State Intelligence Department to carefully study the editorial in the Saamna. “In fact, it is a routine exercise for the Special Branch and the SID to study articles and editorials in newspapers and bring their contents and their impact to the notice of the government,’’ Patil said.
His government would take the opinion of the home and the law and judiciary departments on the next course of action if the Special Branch or the SID gave an adverse report, Patil said.
Despite these comments, however, it appeared as if Patil was not aware of the contents of the editorial till the members of the electronic and print media sought his comments. The Saamna editorial, among other things, says there is the need for a “Hindu bomb’’ to tackle the “Muslim bomb’’. Pro-Hindu activists engineering blasts in Thane and Vashi was a we l c o m e step but, at the same time, it was sad that the bombs were aimed to injure none other than only Hindus, the editorial added.
A senior IPS official said it was the responsibility of the Special Branch and the SID to bring to the notice of the chief minister and the deputy chief minister media reports that might have an adverse impact on the law-and-order situation.
A section of Congress and NCP ministers felt that the home department should act against the Saamna. “Such articles disturb peace in society and create law-and-order problems,’’ a senior Congress minister said.
But a leading lawyer, on condition of anonymity, said there was prime facie nothing objectionable in the editorial. “Thackeray has expressed his views. He has been agitating for the cause of the Hindus,’’ he added.
GOVT REACTS CAUTIOUSLY TO SENA BOMB
Cops Will Be Asked To Study Saamna Edit, Says Deputy Chief Minister Patil
Prafulla Marpakwar | TNN
Mumbai: The Congress-led Democratic Front government does not seem to have taken the editorial in Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna very seriously.
“I don’t know. I have not read the editorial,’’ was deputy chief minister and state home minister R R Patil’s initial response when a group of scribes asked for his comments on the controversial editorial.
But, when the scribes brought the contents of the editorial to his minister, Patil had no option but to say that he would ask the Special Branch and the State Intelligence Department to carefully study the editorial in the Saamna. “In fact, it is a routine exercise for the Special Branch and the SID to study articles and editorials in newspapers and bring their contents and their impact to the notice of the government,’’ Patil said.
His government would take the opinion of the home and the law and judiciary departments on the next course of action if the Special Branch or the SID gave an adverse report, Patil said.
Despite these comments, however, it appeared as if Patil was not aware of the contents of the editorial till the members of the electronic and print media sought his comments. The Saamna editorial, among other things, says there is the need for a “Hindu bomb’’ to tackle the “Muslim bomb’’. Pro-Hindu activists engineering blasts in Thane and Vashi was a we l c o m e step but, at the same time, it was sad that the bombs were aimed to injure none other than only Hindus, the editorial added.
A senior IPS official said it was the responsibility of the Special Branch and the SID to bring to the notice of the chief minister and the deputy chief minister media reports that might have an adverse impact on the law-and-order situation.
A section of Congress and NCP ministers felt that the home department should act against the Saamna. “Such articles disturb peace in society and create law-and-order problems,’’ a senior Congress minister said.
But a leading lawyer, on condition of anonymity, said there was prime facie nothing objectionable in the editorial. “Thackeray has expressed his views. He has been agitating for the cause of the Hindus,’’ he added.
December 06, 2007
Peace with honour? Or peace of the grave?
Indian Express
The professor must tell Gujarat’s Muslims...
Posted online: Thursday, December 06, 2007 at 0000 hrs
Peace with honour? Or peace of the grave?
I have been reading Professor Bandukwala’s comments and the readers’ responses to them. The professor must be lauded for his sentiments that Muslims in Gujarat must stand up and forgive their tormentors. At one level, this is the right and proper thing to do. But it is as well to recall that good as he is and as gentle as he is, he is just one of the 500,000 Muslims affected by the riots.
Salma Bibi is another. She asks, “How can I forgive? How can I forget those people from my own village who so enjoyed tearing my family limb from limb and killing them and so enjoyed snatching my baby from my arms before raping me one by one, while all the while I cried and pleaded with them? I said stop, stop, help me please, save me please. Don’t hurt my baby, please. But they killed him even as they raped me. So how can I forgive; why should I forgive?”
There is something beautiful in imagining the victim group rising up collectively, hands outstretched, to embrace the perpetrators and say I forgive you. There’s something ennobling and uplifting in that moment. But who would they go to? To the mass who today spit at them in scorn; who isolate them in stinking ghettos; who watch them live out broken lives each day, without pity or remorse; who won’t let them back into their land and homes and who make sure that every step to justice is subverted and there is agony without end?
What is forgiving really? Does it require giving up the battle for justice? Does it mean there will be no punishment? What a relief that would be for the few who are wriggling hard at court to buy and threaten their way out of getting their just desserts. What a laugh it would be for those who think nothing of telling passing researchers that they have themselves raped, burned and killed — sometimes for the fun of it, sometimes at the behest of others who they knew would protect them to the bitter end, thanks to the thick bonds of guilt that bind them. As thick as the blood on their hands.
There is a chorus of people telling Muslim victims to forgive and forget. The Hindus are telling them, the police is telling them, the courts are telling them, the administration is telling them, their own leaders are telling them, and now we have one more gentle physics professor telling them. People are trying. They have moved on. They have restarted lives. They are settling down. They are trying to move away from their nightmares, to get past the screaming grief and loss. They want peace. Just like Bandukwala.
But there is the peace with honour that justice brings and then there is the peace of the grave. Bandukwala has his beliefs and I have mine.
The writer is director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
The professor must tell Gujarat’s Muslims...
Posted online: Thursday, December 06, 2007 at 0000 hrs
Peace with honour? Or peace of the grave?
I have been reading Professor Bandukwala’s comments and the readers’ responses to them. The professor must be lauded for his sentiments that Muslims in Gujarat must stand up and forgive their tormentors. At one level, this is the right and proper thing to do. But it is as well to recall that good as he is and as gentle as he is, he is just one of the 500,000 Muslims affected by the riots.
Salma Bibi is another. She asks, “How can I forgive? How can I forget those people from my own village who so enjoyed tearing my family limb from limb and killing them and so enjoyed snatching my baby from my arms before raping me one by one, while all the while I cried and pleaded with them? I said stop, stop, help me please, save me please. Don’t hurt my baby, please. But they killed him even as they raped me. So how can I forgive; why should I forgive?”
There is something beautiful in imagining the victim group rising up collectively, hands outstretched, to embrace the perpetrators and say I forgive you. There’s something ennobling and uplifting in that moment. But who would they go to? To the mass who today spit at them in scorn; who isolate them in stinking ghettos; who watch them live out broken lives each day, without pity or remorse; who won’t let them back into their land and homes and who make sure that every step to justice is subverted and there is agony without end?
What is forgiving really? Does it require giving up the battle for justice? Does it mean there will be no punishment? What a relief that would be for the few who are wriggling hard at court to buy and threaten their way out of getting their just desserts. What a laugh it would be for those who think nothing of telling passing researchers that they have themselves raped, burned and killed — sometimes for the fun of it, sometimes at the behest of others who they knew would protect them to the bitter end, thanks to the thick bonds of guilt that bind them. As thick as the blood on their hands.
There is a chorus of people telling Muslim victims to forgive and forget. The Hindus are telling them, the police is telling them, the courts are telling them, the administration is telling them, their own leaders are telling them, and now we have one more gentle physics professor telling them. People are trying. They have moved on. They have restarted lives. They are settling down. They are trying to move away from their nightmares, to get past the screaming grief and loss. They want peace. Just like Bandukwala.
But there is the peace with honour that justice brings and then there is the peace of the grave. Bandukwala has his beliefs and I have mine.
The writer is director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
March 11, 2007
A critique of the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill
(Tehelka
Mar 17 , 2007)
RIOT BILL
Will it be any use if executive responsibility still can’t be fixed?
Sankarshan Thakur
Illustrations: Anand Naorem
Perhaps a good test for any piece of legislation is how its targeted beneficiaries see it. The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, which returns to the Lok Sabha after being deliberated by a standing committee of Parliament, fails that test rather dramatically. Most civil society groups representing minorities and women stand opposed to the Bill in its current form and have been lobbying hard to scuttle it. Why on earth? Has this Bill not been drafted in order that they can be more secure? Is this not the government’s way of ensuring there isn’t a repeat of Gujarat 2002? Well, no, they think not. On the contrary, most citizens groups engaged on the ground in communally fractured areas believe the Bill will be counterproductive to its intended purposes. Worse, they believe it will strengthen the hands of the State and its agencies in a way that can potentially be used to harass victims of communal violence.
Considering the essential reasons for the Bill were provided by the Gujarat carnage, the concerns being voiced need to heard and addressed. There is, for instance, no provision in the draft Bill that makes the executive accountable for the outbreak of mass violence. Thousands get killed, more thousands are left injured and homeless, nobody gets punished. At least nobody among those whose job it is to protect the lives and property of citizens. Gujarat 2002 was as close as you can get in a democracy to state-sponsored mayhem and murder. And if a Bill intended to prevent a repeat does not ensure that the executive — political and police — is held responsible for acts of omission and commission, surely it is a bit lost on its purposes. Another significant hole in the Bill appears to be its failure to address crimes against women, which happened large-scale during the Gujarat frenzy. How do you tackle mass rape and molestation? Who’s responsible? Surely the answer cannot be ‘nobody’. And how are the responsible to be booked? Even under the existing rape law, ravaging by iron rods and knives does not qualify as rape and is, therefore, not punishable. Our rape law is antiquated and obtuse, this could have been an occasion for corrections. But even a standing committee of Parliament headed by a woman (Sushma Swaraj of the BJP) has not thought it fit to devote time and attention to it. On the face of it, the nation and those given responsible to maintain order are equipped with enough provisions of law to ensure there are enough deterrents to any manner of lawbreaking. The Bill in question was called for because there was a general sense a miscarriage like Gujarat could not be allowed to happen again; that being the case, the drafting committee should have done a better job ensuring they were going to enshrine genuine protections.
Mar 17 , 2007)
RIOT BILL
Will it be any use if executive responsibility still can’t be fixed?
Sankarshan Thakur
Illustrations: Anand Naorem
Perhaps a good test for any piece of legislation is how its targeted beneficiaries see it. The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, which returns to the Lok Sabha after being deliberated by a standing committee of Parliament, fails that test rather dramatically. Most civil society groups representing minorities and women stand opposed to the Bill in its current form and have been lobbying hard to scuttle it. Why on earth? Has this Bill not been drafted in order that they can be more secure? Is this not the government’s way of ensuring there isn’t a repeat of Gujarat 2002? Well, no, they think not. On the contrary, most citizens groups engaged on the ground in communally fractured areas believe the Bill will be counterproductive to its intended purposes. Worse, they believe it will strengthen the hands of the State and its agencies in a way that can potentially be used to harass victims of communal violence.
Considering the essential reasons for the Bill were provided by the Gujarat carnage, the concerns being voiced need to heard and addressed. There is, for instance, no provision in the draft Bill that makes the executive accountable for the outbreak of mass violence. Thousands get killed, more thousands are left injured and homeless, nobody gets punished. At least nobody among those whose job it is to protect the lives and property of citizens. Gujarat 2002 was as close as you can get in a democracy to state-sponsored mayhem and murder. And if a Bill intended to prevent a repeat does not ensure that the executive — political and police — is held responsible for acts of omission and commission, surely it is a bit lost on its purposes. Another significant hole in the Bill appears to be its failure to address crimes against women, which happened large-scale during the Gujarat frenzy. How do you tackle mass rape and molestation? Who’s responsible? Surely the answer cannot be ‘nobody’. And how are the responsible to be booked? Even under the existing rape law, ravaging by iron rods and knives does not qualify as rape and is, therefore, not punishable. Our rape law is antiquated and obtuse, this could have been an occasion for corrections. But even a standing committee of Parliament headed by a woman (Sushma Swaraj of the BJP) has not thought it fit to devote time and attention to it. On the face of it, the nation and those given responsible to maintain order are equipped with enough provisions of law to ensure there are enough deterrents to any manner of lawbreaking. The Bill in question was called for because there was a general sense a miscarriage like Gujarat could not be allowed to happen again; that being the case, the drafting committee should have done a better job ensuring they were going to enshrine genuine protections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
