Post by and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
His Master's Voice: Sid Harth
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COLUMN
Receding Right
PRAFUL BIDWAI
The BJP is in decline, its ideology is in retreat and it is unable to
enthuse the savarna middle class. Now is the time to reassert
secularism.
R.V. MOORTHY
BJP leaders (from left to right): Rajnath Singh, H.N. Ananth Kumar,
Murli Manohar Joshi, L.K. Advani, Sushma Swaraj, Nitin Gadkari, and
Arun Jaitley in New Delhi. The party failed to use its best
opportunity – when it was in power at the Centre – to make a clear
break with the RSS.
So resigned have Indians become to the idea of impunity for the
powerful, especially in respect of hate speeches and crimes targeting
ethno-religious groups, that the mere summoning of Gujarat Chief
Minister Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team generated
near-euphoric responses from the media.
That Modi was questioned on the Gulberg Society massacre case and
related issues for nine hours is significant, but it is by no means
clear whether this will lead to specific charges being framed and a
proper trial being conducted in which Modi is among the accused.
The SIT, appointed by the Supreme Court, has shown few signs of
vitality or urgent intent to bring to justice the culprits of the
communal violence cases referred to it. It will not be easy to prepare
the ground for prosecuting the culprits given the shoddy state of
police records in Gujarat and the failure to properly note the
sequence of events, the names of the accused, the nature of injuries
sustained by the victims, and so on.
By all accounts, the police did a pretty leisurely cover-up job for
themselves and for the killers, arsonists and looters who went berserk
following the Godhra train fire and butchered 2,000 Muslims. Had the
Centre dismissed Modi as Chief Minister and imposed President’s Rule,
as it ought to have done, things might have shaped up differently. But
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government did not rise above
petty party interests and refused to do its duty by the Constitution.
Even the Election Commission, having first declared the Gujarat
situation unfit for holding Assembly elections, eventually caved in.
It agreed to organise the elections barely nine months after the
violence. The situation in the State then was still abnormal and
communally polarised. The perpetrators, collaborators and defenders of
the pogrom were in a triumphant mood, and thousands of victims were
cowering in refugee camps, where they could not be realistically
expected to exercise their franchise without fear.
While Gujarat was unique in the scale and barbaric quality of its
communal violence, as well as state collusion in the pogrom, the whole
country was under the spell of communalism during the BJP’s years in
power at the Centre and beyond.
Thus, institution after institution, including the civil services,
sections of academia, the corporate media and even the judiciary, came
under the influence of what might be termed, for want of a better
word, a certain genteel kind of Hindu communalism. And, it was common
for bureaucrats and senior police officials to air Hindu communal
views.
As this column reported (“A hothouse of communalism”, August 12,
1994), a raucous celebration broke out on December 6, 1992, at the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration at Mussoorie (now
in Uttarakhand), where all-India services officers are trained. Among
the most enthusiastic participants in the jubilation over the Babri
Masjid demolition were some of the top-ranking Indian Administrative
Service officers then undergoing their final phase of training. The
principal response of the Academy’s faculty and trainees to this
embarrassing disclosure was denial, followed by a closing of the
ranks.
The police force in many States too got deeply communalised, to the
point where it became virtually impossible to prosecute anti-Muslim
hate speech. Harassment of young Muslims under the guise of anti-
terrorist measures acquired dangerous proportions.
Rabidly communal writers and anchors were catapulted to positions of
prominence in the mainstream media. School textbooks were rewritten
with a viciously communal bias. The Supreme Court refused to order
effective corrective action. Indeed, in 1995, the court passed the
“Hindutva-as-a-way-of-life” judgment, legitimising the ideology of
Hindu nationalism and a truncated notion of citizenship. BJP leaders
such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee were lionised in middle-class drawing
rooms despite their complicity in or condoning of overt violence in
Gujarat.
The BJP made two huge gains during the 1990s and the early years of
this decade. It extended its support-base outside the savarnas in the
Hindi belt, to attract the Other Backward Classes. Second, and even
more importantly, the BJP deepened its penetration among the urban
upper-caste middle and upper classes and became the preferred party of
the elite.
While the first gain eroded rapidly, especially in States such as
Uttar Pradesh, the second proved more lasting. Large sections of the
elite continued to support Hindutva even after the BJP was trounced in
the 2004 Lok Sabha elections.
The BJP continued to behave as if the election was stolen from it. It
pretended that it had lost only because of tactical errors such as the
India Shining campaign and continued to behave as if it was the
natural party of governance. In reality, the BJP was punished by the
electorate for its divisive and sectarian politics (of which the
Gujarat violence was only one manifestation, if a particularly vile
one) and its brazen pursuit of neoliberal policies. Its base had
eroded considerably.
The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) did very little during its first
term to re-secularise Indian politics and society emphatically,
barring the revamping of the National Council for Education Research
and Training (NCERT) to produce non-communal and pedagogically
superior textbooks, and the establishment of the Sachar Committee on
the status of Muslims.
It is only after the BJP’s second consecutive defeat in 2009 and its
poor performance in major States such as Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra
and Rajasthan that the realisation that the party was in decline sank
in. The BJP today faces multiple crises: a crisis of ideological
identity (linked to Hindutva and its umbilical cord with the Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh); a leadership crisis (the difficulty of making a
transition to a post-Vajpayee-Advani generation, and rivalry among
younger leaders); an organisational crisis (manifested in inner-party
dissidence and uneasy relations between the BJP and different branches
of the Sangh Parivar); and a crisis of strategy of political
mobilisation.
The BJP squandered away the best opportunity it ever had – when it was
in power at the Centre – to make a clear ideological and
organisational break with the RSS. It did not muster the will to do
it. It is highly unlikely even to want to do so now. In fact, the RSS
has tightened its grip on the BJP through securing the appointment of
its cadres as the party’s organisational secretaries in all the major
States as well as nationally.
The RSS dictated terms to the BJP by forcing L.K. Advani to resign as
party president after his public praise for Mohammed Ali Jinnah. More
recently, it forced him to quit as the Leader of the Opposition in the
Lok Sabha. Nitin Gadkari, the new BJP president, is an RSS nominee.
His organisational team bears a strong RSS impress in the form of Ram
Lal’s appointment as general secretary (organisation) with two joint
general secretaries, both RSS members, under him.
Under the circumstances, it is hard to see how the BJP can resolve its
crises and stem its decline. It has no imaginative policies and
programmes that can win it mass appeal. There are no issues around
which it can mobilise political support. And the fading appeal of
Hindutva, and loss of power in the Hindi belt barring Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh, means that it cannot draw in young people as
activists, as it once did.
Prosecute the culprits
Today is the right moment to decisively marginalise the BJP and
reaffirm secularism. The best way to do so would be for the UPA to
seriously pursue the prosecution of the culprits of the Babri
demolition and the wave of violence which followed, and above all, the
Gujarat pogrom. Simultaneously, the UPA should do all it can to
empower the marginalised among the Muslim community by aggressively
implementing the recommendations of the Sachar Committee and the
Ranganath Mishra Committee.
The testimony of police officer Anju Gupta in the case against Advani
and others in a Rae Bareli court is a landmark development, which
holds the potential for bringing the perpetrators of the Babri
demolition to justice. Anju Gupta’s account of the events of December
6 can and should be richly corroborated by other evidence, including
eyewitness accounts and video footage of the inflammatory speeches by
Sangh Parivar leaders and the kar sevaks’ actions.
The UPA would do the public a great disservice if it drags its feet on
this case. The urgency to end the impunity of Hindutva leaders cannot
be overemphasised.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270810300.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
BOOKS
Secular riddle
V. VENKATESAN
Two books that enrich our understanding of the distinctiveness of
Indian secularism.
These are relatively normal times for India’s secularism: there has
been no serious internal threat to it, at least since the 2002 pogrom
in Gujarat. Therefore, the present appears to be the appropriate time
to seek dispassionately and understand the true meaning of secularism
in India without being influenced by the compulsions of crisis-like
events. Predictably, there has been no dearth of scholarly interest in
the subject in recent months. Such interest is welcome as it helps to
achieve clarity on what Indian secularism entails, well before we
confront the next crisis.
The two books under review attempt to unravel the meaning of Indian
secularism in the light of contemporary challenges. In the first book,
Rajeev Bhargava, Director, Centre for the Study of Developing
Societies, Delhi, and a long-time student of Indian secularism both as
an activist and as a scholar, has put together his essays written
between 1990 and 2003 with a unifying theme. Those familiar with his
earlier writings are sure to feel a sense of déjÀ vu while reading
some of these essays. However, rereading them in the light of new
contemporary issues, interspersed with his fresh insights, is a
stimulating experience.
Ronojoy Sen is a young journalist with The Times of India, New Delhi,
and his book began as a PhD dissertation when the author was a
research scholar at the University of Chicago. Sen had the advantage
of using, among other sources, the scholarly output of Bhargava for
his analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgments on religion and
secularism from 1950 onwards. Reading these two books together helps
one to understand the similarities and differences in their approach
to secularism.
Both the books start with Donald Smith’s India as a Secular State,
published in 1963, which is the locus classicus on the subject.
Smith’s conception of the secular state involves three distinct but
interconnected relations involving the state, religion, and the
individual. The first relation concerns individuals and their
religion, from which the state is excluded. That is, individuals are
free to decide the merits of different religions without any coercive
interference by the state. This is the liberal ingredient within
secularism.
The second concerns the relation between individuals and the state,
from which religion is excluded. Here, the state views individuals
without taking into account their religious affiliation. This is the
egalitarian component of secularism.
As for the third, Smith argues that secularism entails the mutual
exclusion of the state and religion in order that they may operate
effectively and equally in their respective domains. A strict
separation of religion and the state, he suggests, would help achieve
religious liberty and equal citizenship.
The ideal of neutrality or equidistance is an essential component of
Smith’s view of secularism; this view does not tolerate the state’s
interference to promote Dalits’ entry into temples or the minorities’
right to run their own educational institutions.
Rightly, both Bhargava and Sen disagree with Smith. According to
Bhargava, Smith remained in the grip of a particular model of Western
secularism and, therefore, was unable to get a handle on the basic
features of Indian secularism. The distinctiveness of the Indian
variant of secularism can be understood, he argues, only when the
cultural background and social context of India is properly grasped.
The first feature of Indian secularism is the mind-boggling diversity
of religious communities and the consequent conflicts over values. The
second is the greater emphasis on practice rather than belief. Third,
many religiously sanctioned social practices are oppressive, and they
desperately need to be reformed. Fourth, reform can hardly be
initiated without help from the state, in view of the tendency to
resist change prevalent among all religions, especially within
Hinduism.
Despite their shared disagreement with Smith’s thesis, however,
Bhargava and Sen depart from each other while explaining the Indian
variant of secularism.
According to Bhargava, the separation of religion from the state could
mean a policy of principled distance, which entails a flexible
approach on the question of state intervention or abstention. In this,
whether or not the state intervenes or refrains from action depends on
what really strengthens religious liberty and equality of citizenship.
Under this policy, the state may not relate to every religion in
exactly the same way or intervene to the same degree or in the same
manner. All it must ensure is that the relation between religious and
political institutions is guided by non-sectarian principles that
remain consistent with a set of values constitutive of a life of equal
dignity for all.
Bhargava illustrates this policy of principled distance through some
examples. By its refusal to allow separate electorates, reserved
constituencies for religious communities, reservation for jobs on the
basis of religious classification, and organisation of states on
religious basis, the Indian state excluded religion from its purview,
and the grounds for this was that its inclusion would inflame
religious and communal conflict and produce another Partition-like
scenario.
However, the state included religion in policy matters of cultural
import. Thus, the state did not consider the adoption of a uniform
civil code as absolutely essential for national integration. The
Constitution granted separate rights to minority religious communities
to enable them to live with dignity.
By making polygamy illegal, introducing the right to divorce,
abolishing child marriage, legally recognising inter-caste marriages,
regulating the activities of criminals masquerading as holy men,
introducing temple entry rights for Dalits, and reforming temple
administration, the state intervened in religious matters to protect
the dignified life of its citizens. A secular state, in other words,
need not be equidistant from all religious communities and may
interfere in one religion more than another, explains Bhargava.
Sen, however, finds the “principled distance” argument somewhat
problematic. One could question, he says, what “principled” exactly
amounts to and who decides its content. Sen does not elaborate his
disagreement with Bhargava further, as that is not the primary object
of his book. He indicates that his proximity lies with the legal
scholar Rajeev Dhavan, who disaggregates Indian secularism into three
components: religious freedom, celebratory neutrality, and reformatory
justice. Religious freedom covers not just religious beliefs, but also
rituals and practices. Celebratory neutrality entails a state that
assists, both financially and otherwise, in the celebration of all
faiths. Reformatory justice involves regulating and reforming
religious institutions and practices as well as setting aside some
core elements that are beyond regulation.
On the basis of a wide range of Supreme Court rulings, Sen suggests
that the Indian state has pushed its reformist agenda at the expense
of religious freedom and neutrality. In particular, he makes two broad
claims. First, the court rulings have had the effect of homogenising
and rationalising religion and religious practices, particularly of
Hinduism. Second, there is a significant overlap between the judicial
discourse and the ontology of Hindu nationalism. This, he argues,
strengthened the hand of Hindu nationalists, inadvertently.
P. GOUTHAM
Caste Hindus form a human wall in front of the Sri Draupathi Amman
temple at Kandampatti in Salem district, Tamil Nadu, to keep out
Dalits, in June 2007. Has the Indian state pushed its reformist agenda
at the expense of neutrality by introducing temple entry rights for
Dalits?
Sen alludes here to Justice J.S. Verma’s judgment in R.Y. Prabhoo vs
P.K. Kunte (1996), laying down that Hindutva is a way of life and that
any reference to Hindutva in the course of an election campaign does
not make it communal. In conflating Hindutva with Hinduism, Justice
Verma ignored the antecedents of Hindutva, Sen suggests. For example,
Justice Verma did not consider V.D. Savarkar and M.S. Golwalkar’s use
of the ideas of the sacred soil and race to include some and exclude
others as foreigners.
The judgment made Hindu nationalists jubilant. The Bharatiya Janata
Party’s (BJP) 1999 election manifesto used Justice Verma’s judgment to
justify its Hindutva plank. Sen suggests that the precursor to Justice
Verma was the former Chief Justice of India, P.B. Gajendragadkar, who
authored the judgment in the Satsangi case in 1966. In this case, he
described Hinduism as a way of life. While he remained Nehruvian in
his commitment to the marginalisation of religion in the public
sphere, he was a key figure in the tendency to rationalise and
ultimately homogenise Hinduism, Sen states. In 1996, Justice Verma
cited his judgment in the Satsangi case to achieve a result that went
against secularism.
As Sen explains, the court’s description of Hinduism as a way of life
was based on the idea that there were certain foundational features of
Hinduism, one of them being the centrality of the Vedas. In rejecting
the claim of Satsangis that they were distinct from Hindus, the court
appealed to the idea of a “subtle indescribable unity” underneath the
“divergence” of Hinduism. This allowed the court to ignore the issue
of the multiplicity of sects and beliefs within Hinduism and deny the
right of exit to any sect or group. However, this propensity towards
homogenisation – due to Justice Gajendragadkar’s nation-building and
unification concerns – reinforced the Hindu nationalist dual project
of unifying Hinduism on the one hand and subsuming all religions under
the umbrella of Hindutva on the other.
Similarly, Justice Gajendragadkar is credited with developing the
“essential practices” doctrine, which sought to cleanse religion of
superstition and irrationalities. It was based on the premise that the
state must protect only the “essential and integral part” of religion.
While it was certainly desirable that the state would play a role in
passing laws to abolish social practices such as untouchability and
denial of permission to lower-caste people to enter temples, the
Supreme Court permitted the state to become deeply involved in
administering religious institutions, and even regulating rituals and
modes of worship, Sen’s book shows. The involvement of the state in
religious institutions flew in the face of the Nehruvian assumption
that the domain of religion would shrink gradually. Instead of
religion disappearing from the public sphere, the state became the
principal agent of Hindu reform. This, Sen argues, resulted in the
virtual takeover of temples, which completely undermines any form of
secularism.
There is one important aspect over which Sen and Bhargava
fundamentally differ. Sen suggests that it is the celebratory
neutrality of the Indian state, or a state-sponsored tolerance,
namely, sarva dharma sambhava, which is a sine qua non of Indian
secularism.
Bhargava, however, argues that there are three interpretations of
sarva dharma sambhava: religious coexistence, inter-religious
tolerance, and equal respect for all religions. There are many good
reasons why the ideals of religious coexistence and inter-religious
tolerance should not be conflated. The mainstream idea of tolerance is
that it enjoins us to refrain from interfering in the affairs of
others, even when one has the power to do so, and, additionally, even
when one finds the beliefs and practices of others morally repugnant.
In this sense, tolerance is entirely consistent with a total refusal
to respect the religion of others. It is also compatible with gross
inequality and hierarchy. One may tolerate the religion of another
person even as one treats that person as inferior. Secularism,
Bhargava argues, on the other hand, is grounded in notions of equality
– equal concern and respect – and therefore, goes beyond the notion of
inter-religious tolerance.
Bhargava also finds it inappropriate to identify secularism with equal
respect for all religions. Respecting other religions as equals does
not entail their blind acceptance or endorsement, he says. Indeed, it
is precisely because respect is consistent with difference and
critique that the idea of equal respect for all religions is closely
linked with the proposal for an inter-faith dialogue. Thus he suggests
that Indian secularism does, in a way, respect all religions but by
embodying the idea of respectful transformation of religions.
The distinctiveness of Indian secularism is also explained by Bhargava
in terms of a significant facet of post-Independence history. The idea
of separate electorates for Muslims was rejected in post-Independence
India not by an appeal to a secularism of a strict separationist
variety but on highly contextual grounds. The idea was rejected
keeping in mind not some general moral necessity of separating
religion and state but, as Sardar Patel put it, because separate
electorates had “sharpened communal differences to a dangerous extent
and prevented the development of a healthy national life”. The
implication, according to Bhargava, is that if they were compatible
with or somehow fostered a healthy national life, then they could
easily have been endorsed.
Notwithstanding such subtle nuances, these two books enrich our
understanding of Indian secularism.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270807700.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
BOOKS
Gujarat laid bare
LAWRENCE SURENDRA
A critical study of development and displacement in Gujarat.
When Bharatiya Janata Party president Nitin Gadkari was asked by a
television channel to comment on the summons issued to Chief Minister
Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team looking into the
Gujarat riots of 2002, he rose in defence of Modi by saying that the
minorities in the State had the highest per capita income compared
with any other region in the world. Cynics would probably say that the
per capita income was bound to rise further if the populations of the
minority communities were reduced through periodic pogroms.
Gujarat has been in the news, one could say, for all the wrong
reasons. The genocidal events of 2002, which is perceived to have been
masterminded by Modi himself, have badly scarred the State’s image.
However, Modi and his cheerleaders, including some industry captains,
have claimed that Gujarat under his watch has become the foremost
“developmentalist State” in the country. Much of Modi’s claims to
glory are also intended to bury his absolute disregard for the due
process of law and the basic principles enshrined in the
Constitution.
For the sake of Gujarat’s development and that of the country, it is
necessary to take a closer look at the State to ascertain whether the
claims about high rates of growth are borne by facts. A look further
back in time rather than the period of Modi’s chief ministership is
necessary in order to place the State in the larger context of India’s
development objectives.
First of all, in 1980, exactly 20 years after its creation and long
before the Modi dispensation came on the scene and the Tata-Ambani-
Mittal industrial hype involving Gujarat began, Gujarat was among the
three fastest-growing States. Since then it has more or less occupied
that position. Apart from its long history of mercantilism, Gujarat,
like Punjab, is one of the few States with a long history of migration
to foreign countries. The remittances from abroad further fuelled
trade and mercantilism and resulted in rural prosperity to some
degree.
On the other hand, it is also a part of Gujarat’s reality that the
bulk of the State’s people, 77 per cent of whom constitute Other
Backward Classes, Dalits and Adivasis, live in severe conditions of
the impoverishment and marginalisation. The conditions of the latter
two groups are particularly bad. At the same time, communal riots,
which have broken out periodically since 1969, have often served the
purpose of consolidating the OBCs on the one hand and oppressing the
Dalits, the deprived Muslim minority and the poor Parsi landowners on
the other.
Communal riots were among the strategies of the rising industrial
capital in Gujarat over the decades. Behind the facade of the high
economic growth, there are other, more critical, development indices
that show the real story of “development and growth” in Gujarat.
The dancer and activist Mallika Sarabhai, in a recent open letter to
the actor Amitabh Bachchan, who accepted Modi’s invitation to be the
brand ambassador for Gujarat, asks, “Did you know that our poor are
getting poorer? That while the all-India reduction in poverty between
’93 and 2005 is 8.5 per cent, in Gujarat it is a mere 2.8 per cent?
That we have entire farmer families committing suicide, not just the
male head of the household?”
She goes on to state: “With our CM, hailed as the CEO of Gujarat, we
have once again achieved number one status – in indebtedness. In 2001,
the State debt was Rs.14,000 crore. This was before the State became a
multinational company. Today it stands at Rs.1,05,000 crore. And to
service this debt, we pay a whopping Rs.7,000 crore a year. Meanwhile,
our spending on education is down, no new public hospitals for the
poor are being built, fishermen are going abegging as the seas turn
turgid with effluents, more mothers die at [child] birth per thousand
than in the rest of India…. One rape a day, 17 cases of violence
against women, and, over the last 10 years, 8,802 suicides and 18,152
‘accidental’ deaths of women are officially reported.”
In order to unravel the nature of development and to know how economic
growth takes place and who it benefits, researchers have to remove
painstakingly the layers of propaganda and lay bare the facts and
figures. Creative approaches are needed to dig out the facts and
analyse the data. Lancy Lobo and Shashikant Kumar have done just that
in Land Acquisition, Displacement and Resettlement in Gujarat – a
rigorous work which is not only rich in quality but is a minefield of
ideas in terms of methodology, empirical research and the tools used.
The ostensible purpose of all development and economic growth in a
developing economy is claimed to be the removal of poverty, employment
creation, and income generation, and not just generation and
accumulation of wealth by a small percentage of the population. If
that is the case, why is it that development causes such large-scale
displacement and impoverishment of people?
The authors, in this published study, originally titled “Development
induced displacement”, have logically chosen the process of land
acquisition, displacement and resettlement to study the process of
development in Gujarat in great detail.
Referring to development-induced displacement, the social scientist Dr
Ghanshyam Shah, in his ‘foreword’ to the book, says, “We do not have
precise authenticated information…regarding land acquired and families
displaced under various development projects. Such a state of affairs
continues to exist despite the hyper ‘knowledge world’ having
sophisticated fourth-generation advanced information technology,
statistical and managerial skills, and numerous surveys for future
planning. This speaks of a casual and callous mindset of policymakers,
planners and private investors towards those who are displaced.”
The Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and the damage they are causing to
local communities and livelihoods form part of this mindset. It is in
the face of such “forced development” in the name of SEZs that works
such as the one under review are important models for similar studies
to be undertaken across the country.
The work of Lancy Lobo and Shashikant Kumar covers almost 60 years and
since no secondary data were available within any of the government
departments of Gujarat, they laboriously scanned 80,000 gazette
notifications and coded and recoded the information in order to
maintain uniformity in presenting the measurements of land in their
study. In doing so, the authors created a database of revenue land,
region-wise and decade-wise. They state that “40 per cent of the
18,638 villages of Gujarat are affected” and that “Special Economic
Zones will aggravate the problem”.
The SEZs, particularly in the case of Gujarat, the authors point out,
are acquiring more land than they require. Comparing the 15 million
persons displaced during the traumatic Partition days of 1947 with the
60 million displaced after 1947, they conclude that awareness on the
subject of displacement is weak, possibly because those displaced are
the poorest of the poor and mostly tribal people or Adivasis.
Detailed approach
The authors provide a detailed approach to the study and the
methodology used, which is unique in terms of land-related field
studies and should serve as a useful model for similar detailed
studies that will be required in other States. The work analyses not
only the displacement in terms of different types of projects but also
the trends in land acquisition and the families affected. The authors
look at the consequences and the impact of these on the people and
conclude the study by addressing a series of important policy issues.
Here are some samples. Gujarat’s sex ratio continuously declined from
942 in 1981 to 934 in 1991 to 921 in 2001. More interestingly or
rather tragically, in the 0-6 age group the sex ratio declined
steeply, reaching a ratio of 600 females to 1,000 males. Even more
significant is the fact that the decline accelerated during the
liberalisation decade – 1991-2001.
In agriculture, Gujarat’s production of cereals and other foodgrains
in the industrialised phase of 1991-2001 declined to nearly half of
what it was in 1990. In the past two decades, Gujarat has been losing
agricultural land at a faster rate than it did between 1960 and 1980.
In the context of the Narmada Valley Project and what it is supposed
to achieve, it is significant to note, according to the authors, that
“even after 60 per cent of Gujarat’s irrigation potential has been
utilised, the State claims in its socio-economic report that the
output of the agriculture sector in Gujarat has been largely dependent
on the south-west monsoon”.
In her open letter, Mallika Sarabhai says: “In the 49 years since it
[the Narmada project] was started, and in spite of the Rs.29,000 crore
spent on it, only 29 per cent of the work is complete. That the
construction is so poor that over the last nine years there have been
308 breaches, ruining lakhs of farmers whose fields were flooded,
ruining the poorest salt farmers whose salt was washed away. Whereas
in 1999, some 4,743 of Gujarat’s villages were without drinking water,
within two years that figure had gone up to 11,390 villages.”
Gujarat holds a mirror to the kind of development that is without the
corollary of accountability and just governance and shows what kind of
nightmares can await the country if the majority of its poor and
impoverished citizens are treated as if they are second-class citizens
in an apartheid state.
Lancy Lobo and Shashikant Kumar, through their painstaking effort and
deep commitment to the powerless and impoverished people, show us, as
Ghanshyam Shah points out, “how the problems caused by development
could be tackled in a just way, making the current model of
development less painful to the affected”.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270808000.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
THE STATES
Time to answer
ANUPAMA KATAKAM
in Ahmedabad
Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s questioning by the SIT is seen as a big
step in the process of ensuring justice for the 2002 riot victims.
PTI
Narendra Modi after the first round of interrogation on March 27.
The “will he won’t he” suspense eventually ended on March 27 when
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi presented himself before the
Special Investigation Team (SIT) to be interrogated for his alleged
complicity in the 2002 riots.
For a man who holds such a high office and, more importantly, is known
for his power and control, this was a humbling experience. He is the
first Chief Minister in the country to have been questioned on a
criminal complaint. He is accused of aiding and abetting riots in
Gulberg Society, a residential colony in Ahmedabad, where 68 people
were killed in a mob attack on February 28, 2002.
Modi has been indicted in a petition filed by Zakia Jafri, whose
husband Ehsan Jafri, a former Congress Member of Parliament, was
killed in the attack on Gulberg Society. Zakia Jafri has accused Modi
and 62 others of instructing officials not to heed cries for help by
Muslims during the riots. She says her husband made frantic calls to
Modi and several police officers and politicians, but no one came to
their aid. She believes that the attack on Gulberg Society was a
planned one and that her husband was targeted.
Until Modi reached the SIT headquarters in Gandhinagar, there was no
confirmation whether he would actually make it. However, around noon a
convoy of vehicles carrying the Chief Minister and his entourage
arrived at the SIT office. He went in for questioning and did not
emerge until a little past 5 p.m. He came back a few hours later for a
second session, which went on past midnight.
For those who have been fighting a tireless battle to seek justice for
the victims of the Gujarat riots, the fact that Modi was questioned
for almost nine hours indicates that the SIT does mean business and
also perhaps that the Chief Minister has a lot to explain. It is true
that some politicians, such as Maya Kodnani and Jayesh Patel, have
been brought to book for their involvement in the riots, but they are
relatively small fry.
Teesta Setalvad, who heads the Committee for Justice and Peace (CJP)
and has been working for the past eight years on several cases
connected to the 2002 riots, including Zakia Jafri’s, says: “This is a
significant step in many ways. To begin with it would be the first
time a sitting Chief Minister has been accused and interrogated for a
crime such as mass murder. Secondly it is finally a beginning in the
long road to justice. What is even more important in this case is that
the victim’s surviving family has been central to the legal process.”
Failure on the part of Modi to rebut the allegations will enable the
SIT to recommend that a first information report (FIR) be filed
against him. If an FIR is filed, Modi could be questioned again under
the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and, more importantly, could face
arrest. Many organisations such as the CJP and individuals such as
Zakia Jafri have been asking why an FIR has not already been filed,
given that there is plenty of evidence to implicate him.
The SIT, appointed by the Supreme Court, says it is currently not in a
legal position to reveal any information on the questions put to Modi
or on his answers. The SIT chief, R.K Raghavan, however, said that the
Chief Minister’s interrogation was a “major step in unravelling
mysteries”. According to him, Modi may be called back for questioning
if the SIT finds any grey areas in the responses. The Supreme Court
has asked for the report by April 30, and Raghavan is determined to
complete the interrogation by then.
If Modi was shaken, he did not show it. When he walked out after the
first round of questioning, he told the media that he had answered
most questions but since he preferred to complete the process in a
single day he would come back. He said he was taking a break and was
giving the SIT some time to do its “homework”.
He added: “My appearance here is a karara jawab [fitting reply] to my
detractors. I have given a proper reply to those who doubted my
intentions. I hope such talks by vested interests will stop.”
“We spoke in detail,” he said, adding: “Under the Indian Constitution,
the law is supreme. As a common man and CM, I am bound by the Indian
Constitution and law. No one can be above the law.”
Raghavan said that Modi’s questioning was part of a preliminary
inquiry to determine whether the allegations made by Zakia Jafri
constituted a prima facie case and warranted a formal investigation
under the CrPC against Modi and the other accused.
Raghavan added that Zakia Jafri’s complaint also pointed to the
police’s failure to protect members of the minority community and
their inefficiency in conducting a proper investigation, recording
evidence and taking cases to trial. She has stated that witnesses have
been intimidated and that the public prosecutors appointed for the
riot cases are biased and have links with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP). Raghavan said the SIT would look into these allegations.
The SIT chief said that neither he nor any officer from Gujarat was
involved in the interrogation process. Protocol kept Raghavan out,
while accusations of partisanship kept the Gujarat officers out.
Modi will also be questioned on his incendiary speeches in the lead-up
to the Gujarat Assembly elections in 2002.
Achyut Yagnik from the Ahmedabad-based Centre for Social Knowledge and
Action said that Modi’s questioning was also significant because of
the precedent it has established. “When there is a breakdown in the
state machinery, there has to be some accountability and the Supreme
Court has established this. This is the majesty of the Indian
republic,” he said. “Even if he is proven not guilty, at least it has
established that a Chief Minister has to appear before the law. Nine
hours and 68 questions is not a joke.”
Speaking to Frontline (see interview), Zakia Jafri said: “Let us see
what he says…. If he admits to his guilt, that itself would be a
punishment for someone like him.”
With the summoning and subsequent interrogation of Modi, she believes
that the process of justice has begun not just for her family but for
the thousands who lost their loved ones in 2002.
Ever since the 2002 pogrom, Modi has made every effort to distance
himself from what is now a huge blot on the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) as well as the country’s history.
Close to 1,500 people lost their lives in the days of rioting that
followed the burning of a coach of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, in
which 59 kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya died. The investigation
into the Godhra incident and the Gujarat riots has been going on for
eight years.
With Modi’s questioning, the determined battle waged by activists and
affected families finally seems to have borne some results.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270803400.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
THE STATES
Glimmer of justice
ANUPAMA KATAKAM
in Surat
Interview with Zakia Jafri, who lost her husband, former Congress MP
Ehsan Jafri, in the 2002 riots.
ANUPAMA KATAKAM
Zakia Jafri. She says she will do whatever it takes to get justice.
March 27, 2010, was an important day for Zakia Jafri, the 70-year-old
widow of former Congress Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, who was
killed by a mob that attacked Gulberg Society, a residential colony in
Ahmedabad, during the 2002 riots. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi
was questioned by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by
the Supreme Court that was investigating the riots. It was for the
first time in India that a Chief Minister was called for questioning
in connection with a criminal investigation.
It was Zakia Jafri’s petition and relentless legal battle that forced
the most powerful man in Gujarat to defend himself against charges of
alleged involvement in the 2002 pogrom, in which over 1,500 people
were killed. Zakia Jafri accused Modi and 62 others of conspiring and
plotting to kill her husband and many others residing in the houses in
Gulberg Society. Sixty-eight of the approximately 100 residents of the
colony were killed in the attack on February 28, 2002.
On March 27, Zakia Jafri sat in front of television cameras from 8-30
a.m. giving interviews about her petition and the consequent summoning
of Modi. She may be old and frail but she says age and illnesses will
not stop her from fighting.
That day Frontline caught up with the feisty Ammi, as Zakia Jafri is
affectionately known. As she watched on TV Modi’s convoy of vehicles
turn into the SIT office in Gandhinagar, she commented: “Look at the
security he has just to go to the SIT office. Not a single policeman
came to us when we were getting killed and crying and begging for
help.”
Alternating between smiles and tears and in between television
interviews, Zakia Jafri spoke about the past eight years. Finally,
after all these years, there was a glimmer of justice, she said.
Your petition to the SIT has been calling for an investigation into
Narendra Modi’s alleged complicity in the riots, in particular, the
Gulberg Society case. With the SIT summoning Modi, do you believe the
process of justice has begun?
It has taken eight years to get him here. Let us first see what he
says. At least he has appeared before the SIT. Let us see if he agrees
to the accusations. We need to see what he says. But yes, I have faith
in the SIT and I have immense faith in Allah. This is a big step. I am
hopeful we will get justice, however long it takes.
Why did you take on this battle? After all, Modi is a very powerful
man. Could you tell us about your struggles in these years?
There is no doubt Modi is an extremely powerful man. You have read and
you know what we went through those two days after Godhra. Anyone
would seek justice. My husband was killed while trying to protect us.
He saw girls being raped, people’s limbs hacked off. Because the mob
could not get him they attacked others. He knew he had to save us and
that’s when he went out to plead with the mob. They hacked his body
into parts and then burnt him.
How can we live with this without fighting? My husband was a good and
kind man. I will fight for him and for the thousands who have suffered
like us. It was Teesta [Setalvad] and the Committee for Peace and
Justice [CJP] who came to us and said they would fight our case. We
have been battling ever since 2002. I deposed before the Nanavati
Commission. Whenever the SIT calls, I go. I have even gone to the
Supreme Court. I will do whatever it takes to get justice. We lost
everything when we ran from Gulberg Society. My home is now with my
son in Surat. I could never go back to Ahmedabad. I could never go
back to Gulberg Society where blood ran like a river that day.
Eight years is a long time. Have you ever felt that this investigation
is never going to end, that you may never get the justice you are
looking for? What in your mind would be justice?
Yes. It has been a long time. But when I heard Modi had been summoned,
I said – Insaf ho jahega [justice will happen]. Someone like Modi
cannot be accused of such a major crime without adequate evidence. We
have persevered at collecting every relevant detail to implicate him.
One day it will pay off. If he admits to his guilt, that itself would
be a punishment for someone like him.
JANAK PATEL
At Gulberg Society after the violence in February 2002.
Let him give a rajinama [confessional statement]. All of this will
amount to some form of justice. Furthermore, if an FIR [first
information report] is filed following the interrogation, that will
also be a step forward.
Your petition says your husband was targeted by those who orchestrated
the riots?
My husband was an MP in [19]79-80. After the Emergency, when the
Congress was routed in the State, he still managed to win the
Ahmedabad seat. Such was his popularity. He remained very active in
politics and had become a top leader from Gujarat. The party had sent
him to Rajkot to oversee the elections that were coming. Modi always
felt threatened by my husband.
On February 26, 2002, he came home to celebrate our festival. The VHP
[Vishwa Hindu Parishad] had declared a bandh the next day, and so he
was unable to return to Rajkot. We are certain that those who were
behind the riots knew he was there and sent the mobsters to our
Gulberg Society.
They kept shouting to send him out. Most of the society’s people had
gathered in our house. He told me to go to the first floor and rest. I
was praying so hard that the beads in my hand began melting or
breaking and my lips turned black out of fear. Eventually, when there
was no alternative, he went and offered them money in order to spare
us. But they killed him.
Every year you pay homage to your lost ones at Gulberg Society and you
have been working hard in ensuring communal peace. Can you say
something about this?
Only one family out of the 20 who lived in Gulberg Society continues
to live there. A father and his only son. No one else in his family
survived. The houses are all burnt. The grass is up to your chest and
it’s difficult to walk as the trees have fallen.
To remember our loved ones, we go every year on February 28, light
lamps in our houses, put some flowers and give food to the poor. It
has become an annual tradition, and many people come to pay homage,
not just to the Gulberg Society victims but to the thousands who lost
their lives in the carnage.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270803600.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COLUMN
Love-hate ties
BHASKAR GHOSE
There is a fund of goodwill among Indians and Pakistanis for each
other but why do governments of the two countries hate each other?
PTI
Artists from India and Pakistan at the inauguration of a heritage
festival at Virsa Vihar in Amritsar on March 4. Friends and
acquaintances who have visited Pakistan return with ecstatic accounts
of the lavish hospitality they received, the affection and goodwill,
and the care taken to see that they enjoyed their stay in that
country.
All Indians know that Pakistan considers India to be The Enemy.
Paradoxically, they do not hate the Indian people, nor do Indians hate
Pakistanis. There may be indifference or ignorance, as there is in
some areas of the country, and, in North India there is a great deal
of goodwill, even affection, for the people across the border,
individually and as a body in Pakistan. But India is hated as The
Enemy, while in India Pakistan is disliked and distrusted, not as The
Enemy but as a very big and potentially dangerous irritant.
As one who is no expert in India-Pakistan relations – their numbers
are legion – but as someone who is just a citizen of India, this seems
to be rather strange. I am not really interested in Pakistan – I
neither speak nor understand Urdu nor have I ever been to that
country, though I believe their food is quite as delicious as our
North Indian food. But I have met individual Pakistanis, in India and
in the United Kingdom, and found them exceptionally warm and
friendly.
Friends and acquaintances who have visited Pakistan return with
ecstatic accounts of the lavish hospitality they received, the
affection and goodwill and the care taken to see that they enjoyed
their stay in that country. And I have heard it said that Pakistanis
visiting India say much the same thing of their treatment by their
Indian hosts.
Contrast this with the attitude of the governments of both countries.
Consider the manner in which Pakistan openly nurtures murderous
fanatic groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which have killed large
numbers of people in this country. Just cast your mind back to
November 26, 2008, to what happened in Mumbai, and more recently to
the carnage at the German Bakery in Pune. What have those acts
achieved, by themselves or as a part of a larger plan? Will these
destabilise India? No, obviously not. Will it provoke India to start a
large-scale armed conflict with Pakistan? Most likely not, since these
are quickly stopped by what is called the international community. So,
why do these groups spend day after day, year after year plotting new
ways of killing ordinary people in India?
Let me hasten to say that the last thing one wants to get is profound
analyses in historic, sociological, economic and perhaps spiritual
terms on the causes. One is asking the questions because they appear
to many of us to represent something odd. The dichotomy between the
attitude of individuals in both countries towards each other and that
of the states, the governments, of those in power. If the government
in a democracy does indeed represent the sentiments of the people who
vote it into power then what happens when they actually assume office?
Why do they suddenly stop being nice to the country across the border?
Let us look for a moment at the genesis of the two countries.
Partition, as done by the British, of what was their Indian empire.
Those in favour of Pakistan wanted it, those against it did not. The
first lot won, and Pakistan was formed. Muslims, as Jinnah had
promised them, had their own country. End of story, surely. They go
their way, we go ours. Yes, there is the Kashmir issue, but that can
be tackled as a residual disagreement, which will eventually be
solved. The process may take time, but surely there will be an
inexorable move to its resolution.
Look at Great Britain and Ireland. Their relations are very close, and
very cordial; citizens of both countries move freely from one to the
other. Sometimes it is difficult for outsiders to say who is from
which country.
Pierce Brosnan, the film actor, is of Irish origin, but brought up in
the U.K.; so is Liam Neeson, another actor. George Bernard Shaw was
Irish, but settled and died in Britain. And yet they have been engaged
in a conflict over the future of Northern Ireland – a conflict that
has cost many thousands of lives in bomb attacks and police action,
and in random firings by one lot on the other. This conflict seems to
be edging to final resolution; is there any reason that the one on
Kashmir will not?
Take a hypothetical scenario. Let us assume that Kashmir becomes a
part of Pakistan, and Jammu and Leh remain a part of India. Will it
then mean that relations between the two governments will become
cordial; will it mean that both countries will de-militarise, will
terror groups such as the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba stop
their activities? We know the answer, and if we do not, we have only
to look at what is happening in Afghanistan, where Indians who are
there to help rebuild that country’s infrastructure are repeatedly
attacked, and the Indian mission and buildings housing Indians are
repeatedly bombed. The Afghan authorities openly say that these are
being done by groups from Pakistan.
Strange, and depressing, that one should have as a neighbour a country
that sees India as the eternal enemy. Excepting in one region, nowhere
in the world does a country’s government have that kind of feeling
about a neighbouring country. Not in Africa, not in South America, not
in North America, not in the rest of Asia, not in Europe. Just here in
South Asia.
The other region is West Asia, where Israel is the eternal enemy of
some Arab countries. But one senses that if Israel were to come to
some agreement about land-sharing and stand back as Palestine
developed economically, the virulent hatred would end.
But one simply cannot see that happening in the India-Pakistan
context, even though, to repeat what one said, the people of each
country have nothing but goodwill for each other. Perhaps that could
be the subject of a series of public debates between the people of the
two countries. One could include in it ideas that could well be
considered bizarre – de-militarisation, rebuilding mosques and
temples, whatever. What is it that is really bothering the two
governments? And can that be addressed rationally, calmly, and with an
agreement that no solution, no matter how extreme, would be rejected
out of hand?
One realises that at the present moment all this is laughable and
ridiculous. The Pakistani establishment will do everything possible to
get a nuclear agreement with the United States on the lines of the one
that the U.S. has with India, and India will continue to buy its 126
fighter jets, its aircraft carriers and develop its missiles. But one
day, perhaps one day, long after we have gone, the future generations
of the two countries will begin to think of the basic question – just
why do our governments hate each other?
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270808300.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
THE STATES
The Headley affair
R.K. RAGHAVAN
David Headley’s crime of facilitating the Mumbai terror attacks is no
less punishable than that of the attackers. And still, India has not
got access to him.
SANTOSH HIRLEKAR/PTI
The Shyam Niwas building in Mumbai where David Headley stayed.
According to many people in India, the United States is utterly
insensitive to Indian sentiment and is literally frustrating India’s
lawful endeavours to interrogate David Headley of 26/11 notoriety. The
country, which is now quoting the law to deny Indian investigators
access to Headley, is widely perceived to be no great respecter of
law, with its dubious record in handling terrorism and terror
suspects.
Despite some brave words and the equally brave face of the mandarins
in the North Block, which houses the Ministry of Home Affairs, India
seems nowhere close to talking to Headley, who has cleverly
manipulated the law to keep its agencies at bay. The controversial
concept of “plea-bargaining”, which is slowly making its appearance in
Indian law, has come to his rescue. As a reward for confessing to all
his illegal actions, including facilitating the terror attacks in
Mumbai in November 2008, he has been spared the death sentence. He has
also earned immunity from further legal action, including extradition
to India.
As I write this, I understand that a letter from the Home Ministry
seeking access to Headley is ready for dispatch to the U.S. Department
of Justice. If India succeeds, its security officials may get to
interrogate Headley at a U.S. jail, but only after getting permission
from the relevant U.S. court and probably only in the presence of
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
This tortuous process is demoralising, and India, the affected party,
is being made to look comical. “The law is an ass” may be a hackneyed
phrase but nowhere is it more appropriate. Here is a diabolical
character who suppressed his Pakistani origins, using a Christian
name, and prepared the ground so ably for a brutal attack on India’s
financial capital. He still manages to dodge India.
It is quite possible that Mohammed Ajmal Amir Iman “Kasab” and company
may not have achieved all that they did if Headley had not done the
recce with such a professional touch. Headley’s crime is therefore no
less punishable than that of Kasab and his teammates. And still, India
cannot interrogate Headley and get to know who his Indian accomplices
are who continue to hide themselves in the community. If this is not a
travesty of justice, what else is?
Criticism against the North Block in the Headley case is, however, not
wholly justified. It has done its homework reasonably well and has
gone about the task of getting at Headley in a methodical manner. The
scepticism arising from the Home Ministry’s failure to secure Headley
ignores the fact that the fate of such international investigations
rests not on the merits of a case but on a country’s clout among the
comity of nations. Let us face it. India does not have the kind of
authority in the international community that it assumed it had. The
growing feeling is that the U.S. needs Pakistan more than it needs
India, and this is why things are not moving as fast as they should in
the Headley case. This may not be entirely correct. Nevertheless,
Headley is going to be a thorn in India-U.S. relations for quite some
time to come.
There may be any number of reasons for the U.S. to be cool towards
India’s request. One is the strong suspicion that Headley had worked
for one or more U.S. agencies in Pakistan. If this is true, Indian
officials’ questioning of Headley, if and when it takes place, will be
tightly controlled by the FBI. No questions on his past might be
allowed. The Indian National Investigation Agency (NIA) team that is
expected to be entrusted with the task could be required to stick
scrupulously to his role in 26/11. This could be annoying and it may
also whittle down his culpability if he is ever brought to trial in
India.
PTI
A television grab of Headley's passport photograph.
A silver lining is that Headley’s co-conspirator Tahawwur Rana, a
Canadian citizen who lives in Chicago, is available to India for
interrogation. He has pleaded not guilty and therefore does not enjoy
the benefits of a plea-bargain. Also, in a sense, he is equally, if
not more, important to India than Headley because Rana was present in
India at least a short while before 26/11. One report categorically
states that he was in India in the third week of November 2008.
According to the FBI, he had four Pakistani handlers, possibly all of
them belonging to the Pakistan Army. Also, he had active contact with
the Lashkar-e-Taiba and, in all probability, had an accurate knowledge
of the LeT’s future plans in India.
The million-dollar question is how much the FBI will cooperate with
India in debriefing Rana. There should not normally be any inhibitions
because what Rana knows could not embarrass the U.S., but it may not
want Pakistan to feel any discomfiture in the context of Rana’s
admitted links with the Pakistan Army officers.
Just now, these are only within the realm of speculation. I do not
foresee any great reluctance on the part of the FBI to share
information with Indian law-enforcement agencies. Any wanton failure
to part with information could prove costly. This is because India, in
a retaliatory mood, could always ask the U.S. to withdraw the FBI
presence from its Embassy in New Delhi. I still recall the difficulty
with which it came into India.
This was an act of grace and realism on the part of the Atal Bihari
Vajpayee government, way back in 1999-2000. The matter had been
hanging fire for decades, and suddenly India agreed to the placement
of FBI legal attaches in the Embassy. I believe that the arrangement
has been mutually beneficial. This is why the Barack Obama
administration should go out of its way to share all that it knows
about Headley and Rana.
I would like to deviate slightly from the subject of action against
two known terror suspects to that of protecting our railway systems.
This is in the context of what happened a few days ago on the Moscow
Metro.
Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up and caused havoc at two
metro stations during the morning rush hour. My very logical question
is how well protected is our prestigious Delhi metro. I am sure that
E. Sreedharan and company have taken adequate care of this. Even then,
I am a little sceptical of the state of alertness of most of our
public transport personnel. The authorities should also not spare any
effort or investment to safeguard metro systems coming up in other
cities. Public transport is going to become more and more vital as
roads are getting horribly clogged. The Delhi metro should lead the
way, especially as the Commonwealth Games are around the corner.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270810900.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
Godhra questions
There are only questions, and no definitive answers, with regard to
the facts of the Godhra killings.
PRAVEEN SWAMI
A FORTNIGHT after the Sabarmati Express massacre, no one seems to be
clear about just what happened at Godhra on February 27. As important,
no one knows why it happened. And in some senses, both questions are
pointless. The murder of 58 Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists, mostly
women and children, on the Sabarmati Express was without dispute a
terrible tragedy. But it was part of a far larger tragedy that has
been played out in Godhra for over half a century: the tearing apart
of a people by competing communal fascisms.
AP
February 27: The burning train in Godhra.
The basic facts with regard to the events that preceded the attack on
the Sabarmati Express are clear. For days before the particular train
pulled out of Faizabad on February 25, Muslim communities living along
the railway line had been subjected to abuse and even beatings from
VHP activists travelling to Ayodhya. Newspapers in Uttar Pradesh had
reported ugly clashes on railway platforms, harassment of Muslim
passengers on the train, and some retaliatory stoning of railway
coaches carrying kar sevaks. Muslim women who caught the train to
Ahmedabad that evening had been advised by relatives not to wear
burkhas. By some accounts, VHP cadres had sexually harassed Muslim
women, exposing themselves and shouting out insults. No great
foresight was needed to imagine that someone might decide to respond
to such behaviour with force.
Most accounts have suggested that the reaction was spontaneous, born
out of events on the railway platform at Godhra. There was indeed an
altercation with a tea stall owner on the platform, the consequence of
some VHP activists in coaches S5 and S6 allegedly refusing to pay for
what they bought. The altercation rapidly escalated into a small
communal incident, as the VHP activists began to shout slogans. One
witness present on the platform, 14-year-old Sophiya Sheikh, told
investigators that some of the men attempted to pull her into the
train. The claim ties in with accounts that a man was heard shouting
that the kar sevaks had kidnapped two Muslim women. This, the story
suggests, led to the pulling of emergency chains on the train. By the
time it stopped, an angry mob had gathered at Singal Fadia, a short
distance from the railway station.
But this account has several problems. According to railway records
accessed by Frontline, the Sabarmati Express pulled into Godhra at
7-43 a.m. and left the station at 7-45 a.m. At 7-48 a.m., the chain
was pulled three times, first from S10 and then twice from an
unreserved compartment. This means that individuals on the railway
platform would have had just over three minutes to inform the
residents of Singal Fadia about the incident, and then to assemble a
mob armed with stones, crowbars and petrol. In that time, people would
also have had to organise the barricade that stopped the fire brigade
from reaching the burning train until about 8-15 a.m. The mob,
moreover, would have had to know that the train would indeed stop at
Singal Fadia, and not at the station itself. To resolve this problem,
other accounts have suggested that the mob was informed of similar
incidents up the line at Dahod. Investigators, however, have traced
all long-distance calls made to Godhra from the evening of February
25, and have discovered just two - and both were made to Hindu homes.
Sources in the know about the police investigation say that these
facts suggest that plans had been made in advance to attack the train.
The motive of the attack, they suggest, may have been political. The
leaders of the mob may have wished to respond to anti-Muslim violence
seen along the route over previous days, or to put an end to the
mobilisation of kar sevaks. Mohammad Husain Kalota, the key suspect
arrested on March 3, is not talking. All that Kalota has confirmed,
the sources said, is that two other suspects who are still missing,
Bilal Haji and Farooq Bhana, did have plans to attack the train. While
Kalota is the president of the Godhra Municipal Corporation, Haji and
Bhana, like two others of the 27 persons arrested so far, are its
members. The issue has acquired some political significance since
Kalota, although elected as an independent member, has for six years
led the minorities cell of the district Congress (I). Congress (I)
politicians have hit back, producing photographs that show that Kalota
was close to the local leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party as
well.
Godhra seems an unlikely birthplace for a plot to attack the Hindu
Right, but the town has in the recent past seen aggressive
mobilisation by Islamist groups. The reasons for these developments
lie in post-independence history. Home to many refugees who came to
India after Partition, its 150,000 residents, roughly divided in half
between Hindus and Muslims, have a fraught history. The Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh found it only to persuade the refugees that Muslims
were collectively responsible for their problems, and that they had no
place in India. The town saw riots in 1947, 1952, 1959, 1961, 1965,
1967, 1972, 1974, 1980, 1983, 1989, 1990 and again in 1992, after the
demolition of the Babri Masjid. In all these riots, perhaps
unsurprisingly, the Muslim community was the larger victim of
violence.
In December 2001, the town witnessed a new and significant kind of
confrontation. The mainly centrist Muslim leadership in the town
clashed with the ultra Right Tablighi Jamaat over the control of
community mosques. Tablighi Jamaat preachers had been using several
mosques to collect funds for their organisation and to preach their
creed. Older Muslim leaders in Godhra owe allegiance to Ahl-e-Jamaat
wal'Sunnat, an organisation born of the Hanafi-Barelvi school of
theology which accepts syncretic practices such as the veneration of
saints and worship at their shrines. The Tablighi Jamaat rejects these
practices as apostasy, and is critical even of common Indian Muslim
celebrations like Id Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of Prophet Mohammad.
In recent years, the Tablighi Jamaat had set up seminaries and other
religious institutions throughout Gujarat, and was slowly outpacing
the traditional leadership.
What the clashes of December 2001 showed was that there was a crucial
shift under way in the structure of power among Muslims in Godhra, and
Gujarat in general. In a sense this was a logical culmination of the
forces that have been active since Partition. The Tablighi Jamaat was
set up in the mid-1920s, a period which witnessed the growing
politicisation of both Hindu and Muslim identities that eventually led
to Partition. The Jamaat and Hindu organisations like the Arya Samaj
were engaged in a fierce campaign of proselytisation among their
respective constituencies. While the Jamaat, like the Arya Samaj,
claimed to be apolitical, it is significant that the only pamphlet
that its founder Mohammad Ilyas ever wrote was addressed to
politicians on the eve of Independence. As the Hindu Right acquired a
stranglehold in Gujarat, then, it was almost inevitable that the
Islamic Right would find new adherents in direct proportion.
By the 1970s, backed by West Asian oil dollars, the Tablighi Jamaat
acquired enormous influence. Its literature, the scholar Marc
Gaborieau has pointed out, represented this expansion as "a planned
conquest of the world in a wording and spirit reminiscent of the
medieval holy war or jehad: Tablighi Jamaat is presented as a militant
movement which organizes people quasi militarily". In Pakistan, its
cadre came to support a welter of armed campaigns, including the
Islamist Right in Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir. It also acquired
support at the highest levels of the Pakistan military and political
establishment. Pakistan's former President, Rafiq Tarar, was a Jamaat
member. It also supported the Taliban. The United States national who
was found working for the ultra Right group, John Walker Lindh, was
for example recruited through a Tablighi Jamaat seminary. There were
several Tablighi Jamaat members among Taliban soldiers arrested by the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
KALOTA and several other members of the Godhra Municipal Corporation
had past Tablighi Jamaat links. This does not prove that any of them
had anything to do with the attack on the Sabarmati Express, but does
suggest that there could have been an ideological context to the
event. Although there is nothing resembling evidence that Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence had anything to do with the attack, it is
possible that at least some of the young people who attended Tablighi
Jamaat-run seminaries in Godhra had exposure to the organisation's
wider agenda. The Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami, now active in Jammu and
Kashmir, was founded by the Tablighi Jamaat to support the Afghan
Mujahideen. The organisation has not made any secret of the fact that
it considers its campaign in Jammu and Kashmir to be part of a larger
battle to free Muslims in India from what it believes to be tyrannical
Hindu rule.
Just last month, the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) of the Gujarat Police
obtained evidence of the Harkat's activities in the State. On February
15, the ATS arrested Asad Ahmad Munshi, a teacher at a Tablighi Jamaat-
run seminary at Dabhel, near Surat, along with Inam-ul-Haq Banarasi
and Husain Ahmad Maniar. The three were found to be in possession of
4.2 kg of explosives, nine 30mm pistols, ammunition and detonators.
Investigators believe that the three men had no immediate plans to use
the material, and that it may have been stored to be activated in
retaliation for any atrocities by the Hindu Right. In March 2001, a
Kalashnikov assault rifle and explosives had been recovered from a
Pakistani gun-runner, Shah Nawaz Bhatti, while the Central Bureau of
Investigation had found Research Department Explosive (RDX) in the
course of investigations last year into kidnapping operations run by
mobster-turned-terrorist Aftab Ansari.
It is clear that terrorists did not execute the Sabarmati Express
attack - individuals armed with assault rifles will have no reason to
use mere petrol and crowbars - but there is little doubt that the
Islamic Right has gained considerable legitimacy from Gujarat's
repeated pogroms. In the wake of the riots that followed the
demolition of the Babri Masjid, Ahmedabad saw a series of grenade
attacks in crowded public places. Many of these later turned out to
have been executed by underworld elements, who found the enterprise to
be a means to gain legitimacy for themselves as defenders and avengers
of their community. Godhra, perhaps significantly, also has had a
strong tradition of organised crime and is one of the major centres in
western India for the sale of steel pipes and wire stolen from railway
depots. It is possible that some people saw taking on the VHP as a
means to widen their level of respectability within the community, and
displace the traditional Muslim leadership.
No real answers can be expected until Bilal Haji is arrested, and
until investigators are able to put together a coherent picture of
just how the attack was organised. As things stand, however, a simple
dictum seems to be playing itself out: communalism breeds communalism.
Young Muslims throughout Gujarat feel increasingly fed up with a
traditional, Congress(I)-affiliated leadership that seems to be unable
to defend the community's religious interests, as symbolised by the
demolition of the Babri Masjid, or its own physical safety. Former MP
Iqbal Ehsan Jaffrey's desperate but futile telephone calls to top
politicians and bureaucrats before he was killed and his house was
ransacked, have signalled to many people that other means might be
needed to protect ordinary Muslims. Almost all the officers within the
intelligence establishment are certain that Gujarat may well see
reprisal attacks in the weeks and months to come.
Hindu fascists came to power in Gujarat on the basis of defamation of
Muslims, claiming that they were violent, hostile to Hinduism and
disloyal to India. Now, tragically, they seem dangerously close to
turning this ugly fantasy into fact. Most Muslims in Gujarat, like
their counterparts elsewhere, unequivocally condemned the killings in
Godhra. But at least some of them must be wondering what else they can
possibly do in order to protect their own rights.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060120.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
APPEASING THE HINDU RIGHT
With the political power gained by whipping up majoritarian hysteria
over Ayodhya slowly slipping out of its hold, the Hindutva fraternity
is returning to the strategy of rightwing mobilisation. Thus Gujarat
burns and Ayodhya simmers.
SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN
in New Delhi
A SYMBOLIC act, by all conventional definitions, involves a
demonstration of intent, perhaps an evocation of a material outcome
that is desired but not achievable on account of a variety of
constraints. In the lexicon of Hindutva, though, the phrase has
acquired a totally different connotation. The last time the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (VHP) organised a symbolic act at Ayodhya, it had the
all too physical effect of causing the complete effacement of a
monument that had weathered the elements and the vicissitudes of human
history for close to five centuries. And in the train of that
vandalism came a bloody sequence of riots across the country that left
thousands dead, community relations embittered, and civic institutions
in a state of disarray.
PAWEL KOPCZNSKI/ REUTERS
Charred human remains after a round of violence in Ahmedabad on
February 28.
As the VHP prepares for another round of ritual mobilisation at
Ayodhya, it has shown little inclination to heed counsels of
moderation and caution. It has relented fractionally from its earlier
intent to begin a 'yagna' at Ayodhya on March 12, but only in order to
accommodate an astrologically more propitious date. The authority of
the country's institutions and the sanctity of legally constituted
processes of dispute settlement are clearly secondary considerations
for the VHP. Indeed, it has coerced a government that is plainly
petrified when not in open connivance with its designs to institute
new means of problem solving that threaten to undermine and perhaps
quash the accepted institutional processes of a secular and democratic
society.
When the Sabarmati Express was attacked at Godhra in Gujarat with
massive loss of life on February 27, condemnation was swift and
unequivocal. Few people paused to fix the identity of the perpetrators
of the outrage before issuing the most unambiguous denunciations.
Showing a rare awareness of where the origins of the cycle of violence
and retribution lay, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Home
Minister L.K. Advani at once called upon the VHP to suspend its
agitational programme at Ayodhya.
The VHP clearly was not listening. As Gujarat plunged into a week-long
pogrom, planned and executed by the cadres that had been created and
nurtured on the vision of a magnificent temple at Ayodhya, a desperate
Prime Minister chose first to consult with the secretive leadership of
the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), a body that has limitless
resources to orchestrate violence, but little credibility as a forum
for enlightened public policy guidelines. The Prime Minister obtained
little solace from this quarter, since the apex organisation in the
Hindutva family was not about to abandon the project on which it had
built its constituency over the last decade.
PRAKASH SINGH/AFP
A group of activists from Madhya Pradesh on their way to Ayodhya.
A degree of sobriety was induced by two factors. There was, first,
little ambiguity about the profound sense of public revulsion and that
was stirred up by the carnage in Gujarat. And second, the most serious
communal bloodbath in the decade of globalisation was an international
public relations disaster for a government that has been seeking to
strut its stuff as a dependable ally in the war against terrorism,
committed to the rule of law when appropriate, unafraid to seek
legitimate recourse to arms when compelled to. Far from asserting its
authority, the government was seen internationally as all too willing
to surrender its legitimate monopoly over coercion to the fury of
criminal mobs intent on targeting innocents.
Some of the more abject of the Bharatiya Janata Party's allies in the
ruling coalition, notably Samata Party leader Jaya Jaitley, sought to
rationalise the anti-Muslim violence in terms of public anger against
the supposed indifference that the secular intelligentsia had shown
towards the Godhra atrocity. Jana Krishnamurthy, national president of
the BJP, added his more partisan voice to this chorus. Meanwhile the
egregious Chief Minister of Gujarat, a total innocent in
administration and governance but a battle-scarred veteran in mob
incitement, presided over a week of shame in the country's history.
The Central government could not, however, concede any ground to the
apologists for mob violence. Vajpayee had first to respond to the
increasing signs of restiveness that some of his coalition partners
were displaying. As the more obsequious of his allies leapt to the
defence of the Gujarat government, he moved to shore up a consensus
with more scrupulous elements, including the deeply disturbed
Opposition. A joint appeal for calm was crafted with the participation
of the main Opposition parties on the second day of the violence. And
on the third day of the riots, Vajpayee went on national television to
denounce the Gujarat riots as a "disgrace" and a "scar on the nation's
conscience."
RAJEEV BHATT
A burn victim at the civil hospital in Ahmedabad
Although strangely subdued to begin with, Home Minister Advani also
was fairly unequivocal on his first visit to Gujarat since the riots
began. Irrespective of the provocation, he said, the riots that
claimed hundreds of lives in Gujarat were as reprehensible and as base
an act of terror as the event that ostensibly triggered it.
With two of the leading lights of the Hindutva family in open dissent
with the Ayodhya campaign, the VHP for the first time found that it
had to go beyond the formula it had unilaterally sought to impose -
that a yagna would be conducted on the supposedly "undisputed" parts
of the land at Ayodhya and construction started adjacent to the
perimeter of the Babri Masjid compound, which constituted the core of
the half-century old litigation. The VHP's pretence that there is no
dispute over this land is of course disingenuous, since a Supreme
Court injunction obliges the Central government to maintain the status
quo within the entire area acquired by it in 1993, after the
demolition of the Babri Masjid.
In January, Vajpayee had sought an easy way around the conundrum by
referring the question to Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley. But
Jaitley, who left a lucrative legal practice to take up ministerial
responsibilities, was canny enough not to seek to grasp the hot potato
that was thrown his way. With his mind now focussed by the new
mobilisation at Ayodhya and the carnage in Gujarat, Jaitley has moved
a petition before the Allahabad High Court asking it to expedite
hearings of the title suit on the Babri Masjid compound. It is yet
unclear whether the High Court will concede this request, first
because a title suit is not known to be so easily disposed of and not
least because of the surcharged political atmosphere in which it will
be compelled to hold its hearings.
In a situation muddied by VHP hyperbole and official equivocation, a
small group working under the tutelage of Defence Minister George
Fernandes sought to move beyond the deadlock by drawing in a larger
cast of characters and exploring newer options. For a brief while it
seemed that the intercession of Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati of
Kanchi would provide a way out. But this was a false promise, partly
because the concessions that the VHP was willing to offer were either
illusory, derisory or negligible. First, there was the offer to
confine the proposed 'yagna' of March 15 to a symbolic affair and wait
till June for final clearance to commence construction. This was
diluted a little later, when the VHP insisted that it would not merely
offer a symbolic 'yagna' but also move its prefabricated pillars to
the supposedly undisputed land.
RAJEEV BHATT
More victims at the Daryakhan Gumat relief camp.
The Sankaracharya of Kanchi insisted that the VHP leadership should
make a clear affirmation of faith in the process of the law,
challenging them that this was a minimum standard of public
accountability expected of an organisation that claimed to act in the
name of a symbol of probity. After much evasion and dissimulation,
such an assurance was given by the VHP's international working
president Ashok Singhal, only to be promptly disavowed by Acharya
Giriraj Kishore, another of its main functionaries. And when the
historical precedent was considered, it was pointed out that precisely
such an assurance had been given by the VHP in November 1989, as a
reciprocal concession for Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's decision to
allow a 'shilanyas puja' at a site abutting the Babri Masjid
compound.
There was little symbolic about the shilanyas puja. It left a trail of
bloodshed in the country. And the solemn assurance that the VHP then
gave was rather quickly forgotten, when the theme that the judiciary
has no competence to adjudicate on a matter of faith was emblazoned
across the Hindutva constellation's political manifesto. Ironically,
this was exactly the kind of rhetoric that Advani and Vajpayee, in
their avatars as power-seeking rather than power-wielding politicians,
proved eager to endorse and echo, little suspecting that it would
return to haunt their days in governmental authority.
It is precisely this tarnished history that accounts for the paralysis
of decision making that afflicts the Central government. In their
reactions to the Gujarat riots, even though delayed, Vajpayee and
Advani succeeded in saying what was intuitively obvious to millions of
others. But in their attitude towards the Ayodhya mobilisation, they
have simply failed to articulate a credible position.
In his speech opening the Budget session of Parliament President K.R.
Narayanan affirmed the government's commitment to maintaining the
status quo at Ayodhya. Although the President's address is considered
the most authoritative annual statement of government policy, the
Ministers of the Union Cabinet have since been engaged in a bid to
find ingenious ways of altering the status quo while pretending that
all remains the same. Vajpayee for his part is known to have expressed
his resentment at the obstreperousness of the VHP. But he has
defaulted on his responsibility to say so publicly. Instead, he has
allowed a variety of extra-constitutional figures to speak on behalf
of the government.
Shortly after visiting Delhi for mediation efforts with the VHP and
Muslim community representatives, the Sankaracharya of Kanchi made
public his formula for seeing through the current crisis. It turned
out that he had preempted both the response of the government and the
All-India Muslim Personal Law Board. The latter has attained, contrary
to its mission and mandate, a role in public policy that is perhaps an
obverse of the salience the RSS enjoys. But perilously for his own
authority, Prime Minister Vajpayee seemed only to be bending with the
wind, now allowing the Sankaracharya to make an authoritative
statement that the government had agreed to a symbolic 'yagna' and the
movement of pillars to the 'undisputed' land, and then assuring the
leadership of the Muslim community that there would be no violation of
Supreme Court injunctions. Finally, in the manner of one whose
faculties have been paralysed and stands in need of a superior wisdom,
Vajpayee seems likely to leave the entire onus of deciding whether any
activity can be permitted in the acquired land to the Supreme Court.
SEBASTIAN D'SOUZA/AFP
Home Minister L.K. Advani in Ahmedabad, along with Chief Minister
Narendra Modi.
The formula offered by the Sankaracharya was simply infeasible because
the VHP insisted that it would not depart from its original plan for a
temple, which proposes to locate its innermost sanctum on the precise
spot where the Babri Masjid stood. Considering that this was really
the central issue in the dispute before the judiciary, there was no
way that any government could accede to the demand for commencing
activity on the site, even in a 'symbolic' manner, when the VHP's
track record makes it clear that every concession it succeeds in
wheedling out is only further grist for its own obduracy.
The involvement of Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati in a mediation
effort has not been out of character. The Kanchi sage has often sought
a political role for himself in the past and has frequently displayed
an ideological bent that puts him out of sympathy with the country's
religious minorities. The leadership of the Muslim community rendered
him the reverence that was his due, though they were seemingly never
convinced that he could propose a formula that adequately dealt with
the complexities involved. His credibility was not enhanced by the
rather crass stratagems that the VHP employed, of seeming to yield
ground while actually giving nothing away to either his moral
authority or to the judicial process.
A schism in the ecclesiastical order of the Sankaracharyas is perhaps
foretold by the forthright response of the head of the Govardhan Puri
order, Swami Adhokshajananda Devtirth, to the VHP campaign and the
violence in Gujarat. Denouncing the communal riots in Gujarat as
"state terrorism", the Puri Sankaracharya alleged that it was being
perpetrated with the "direct assistance of VHP office-bearers and the
police". "For the sake of unity and communal harmony and to save the
Hindu religion from further degeneration, the VHP should be banned,
like the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), and their so-
called leaders and activists should be arrested forthwith under the
National Security Act," he demanded. The Puri Sankaracharya's
assertion that the VHP, with all its self-constructed halo of
majoritarian virtue, is the moral equivalent of the recently
proscribed SIMI may reflect just the kind of conceptual clarity that
is required for the government today, if it is serious about tackling
the renewed threat of communal mayhem in the country.
If for the BJP and its partners, the Ayodhya crisis can be reduced to
the rather crass question of survival as a Ministry, those with
greater political scruples have few doubts about the stakes involved.
The majoritarian hysteria whipped up over the Ram Janmabhoomi temple
enabled the Hindutva fraternity to take a partial, if tenuous, hold of
electoral politics. But those gains are now being reversed and a
mobilisation to undo some of the damage to the body politic is
underway. The revival of the Ayodhya campaign now brings the other
institutions of democratic governance, principally the judiciary,
within the sights of Hindutva fascism. If on December 6, 1992, the VHP
succeeded in authoring the single most destructive act in the troubled
history of India's adventures in political democracy, March 2002 could
well be setting the stage for an encore. It may not be hyperbole to
say today that democracy in India now faces its stiffest challenge
ever. And those in uneasy occupation today of the Governmental space
are clearly unequal to the challenge.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060040.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
SAFFRON TERROR
Political direction and police support enable the death squads of the
Hindu Right to run riot in Muslim neighbourhoods in Gujarat.
PRAVEEN SWAMI
in Ahmedabad
ASIF KHAN was not surprised when the police came knocking on his door
in Ahmedabad's Narora neighbourhood on the morning of February 28. A
bootlegger and a small-time thief, Khan has a dictionary-sized
criminal record. Each time there is communal trouble in the air, as a
precautionary measure he is arrested along with thousands of others
registered at police stations as "bad characters". That morning,
however, the police just wanted a walk. Khan took four officers
through the neighbourhood, after which they politely said goodbye.
"That," he now recalls, "really scared me. They were just there to see
how well-prepared we were to defend ourselves. And they learned we
weren't ready at all."
MANISH SWAROOP/ AP
Looters stalk the streets in Ahmedabad.
Images of charred bodies and burned homes have gone off television
screens, and a more terrible truth is starting to reveal itself. No
riots took place in Gujarat. What the State witnessed was a fascist
pogrom, conducted by organised death squads of the Hindu Right with
the entire State apparatus at their disposal. The pogrom was initiated
with two objectives. The first was to ensure that the State's Muslim
population remained confined to its ghettos, and the second to ensure
that the authority of the Hindu Right remained stamped forever on
Gujarat's political landscape. The scale of the violence was not the
worst the country has seen, but its significance is unmistakable: if
Hindu fascists ever wield unchecked power, Gujarat is what India might
look like.
Not since the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in New Delhi have senior political
figures played such a visible role in directing violence. Nazir Khan
Pathan, a school-teacher, had left his home behind the State Transport
Workshop in Narora for a walk at 9 a.m. on February 28. "A mob had
already gathered at the main chowk in front of Nataraj Hotel," he
recalls. "They were all wearing saffron scarves and khaki shorts. Most
of them were carrying swords. There were two police jeeps parked
there, and two white Ambassador cars with red lights on top. I was
about a 100 metres away. One of the persons standing there was Vishwa
Hindu Parishad leader Pravin Togadia. A little later he left, and the
mob started shouting abusive slogans. The attackers threw stones at
us, and we responded in kind."
The police now stepped in to allow the VHP squads free access. Four
Muslim men were killed in firing, forcing those defending the
neighbourhood to retreat. The local Noorani mosque was set on fire,
and a saffron flag hoisted on its dome.
RAJEEV BHATT
The Kankaria mosque damaged in a mob attack.
Fatima Bi was one of hundreds who tried to hide in the State Transport
staff colony. "The police pushed us out of there," she says, "saying
it was our night to die. The people who lived in the colony were
giving the mob tyres and petrol to burn people with. While Fatima Bi
found a place to hide, others were less lucky. She watched as her
pregnant friend Saliya Behn had her belly slit, and was then set on
fire along with her children, three-year-old Muskan and six-month-old
Subhan. Her badly injured son Khwaja Husain now sits in the Shah Alam
refugee camp, unable to talk. Witnesses who can speak describe scenes
of rape and torture. Many say they wish they were among the 110
believed killed.
Eyewitness accounts of politicians directing violence are commonplace.
Feroza Begum was on the roof of her slum-dwelling in Arban Nagar when
the mob massed across the road, which local residents call the border
with the Hindu neighbourhood of Haridas Nagar. "I could see what was
going on," Feroza Begum says, "because my home is right on the border.
Ravinder Sharma, a Bajrang Dal leader, was leading the mob. Pradeep
Sharma, a Congress(I) worker who had been involved in riots earlier,
was also there. Stones were thrown and then a policeman who works at
the local police post, Bhupatdan Gadvi, opened fire. A young man from
Bihar, who worked at an embroidery factory, was injured, and fell on
the road. I saw them set him on fire."
Gadvi and other police officers, Arban Nagar residents say, kept
firing along with VHP-Bajrang Dal cadre who had weapons. Muslims
seeking to defend the neighbourhood were slowly pushed back. As the
mob pushed forward from Haridas Nagar, it again reached the main
crossroads. This time, a street battle followed. One of those fighting
was Sultan Khan. "They fired teargas at us," he recalls, "but that
wasn't enough to push us back". Then, he says, Bharat Rana, a key aide
of State Home Minister Gordhan Jhadaphia, arrived on the scene. Gadvi
was instructed to step up the pressure. Firing followed, in which four
of Khan's friends were killed. Shops and homes were set on fire right
in front of the local police station. In nearby Ansar Nagar, again
part of Jhadaphia's constituency, mobs drove in dozens of oxygen
cylinders on trucks, and then used them as improvised explosive
devices to blow up homes, shops and a seminary.
SEBASTIAN D'SOUZA/AFP
Brandishing swords and sticks during a street battle at Bapunagar on
March 1.
If VHP-BJP leaders led mobs from the front along with the police, they
also took control of the institutional apparatus. Health Minister
Ashok Bhat sat in the Police Control Room in Ahmedabad through the
first two days of violence. Given his portfolio, it was an odd place
to be - but not given his past. Bhat, along with Union Minister of
State for Defence Harin Pathak, faces charges of having incited a mob
that murdered a police constable in the course of communal violence on
April 25, 1985. According to several eyewitnesses, another State
Minister, Harin Pandya, moved through the Paldi area, speaking to
leaders of mobs that were burning Muslim homes and shops. Jhadaphia,
who ought to have been in the control room after the violence broke
out on February 28, was busy telling reporters that he "did not expect
Hindus to retaliate".
Political guidance and support were available to help the Hindu
Right's death squads select their targets. A car showroom was set on
fire because a Muslim based abroad had an interest in the concern, a
fact known to no one in the establishment. So too was an upmarket
garment store. Establishments with no obvious signs of their
ownership, such as Hotel Tasty or Hans Inn, were burned down. The
leaders of the VHP-Bajrang Dal squads clearly had access to official
records of ownership, which must have been compiled and distributed
several months earlier. In several areas, Muslim-owned shops nestled
among rows of Hindu-owned establishments were targeted with precision.
Many of these attacks took place within yards of police posts.
Invariably, police personnel stood by, rarely bothering even to
register first information reports.
Such studious inaction went all the way to the top of the Ahmedabad
Police. The city, like other communally sensitive areas, has a well-
established preventive drill to contain potential riots. "The Director-
General of Police, the Additional Director-General in charge of
intelligence, the Commissioner of Police, the Home Secretary, the
Chief Secretary and the Home Minister or the Chief Minister meet to
discuss what must be done to deal with the situation," says
Ahmedabad's former Commissioner of Police M.M. Mehta, who years ago
won the National Citizen's Award for his handling of riots in
Vadodara. "Each police station carries out preventive arrests, curfew
is imposed and the Deputy Commissioners of Police meet their
Commissioner regularly to review developments."
Contrast this with what actually happened. Although reports of attacks
on Muslims came in within hours of news breaking of the killings in
Godhra, no meeting was held. Ahmedabad's 30 police stations and posts
carried out just two arrests on the night of February 27, both of
Muslims on charge of shouting inflammatory statements. The State Armed
Police was deployed in small groups of four or five through the city,
but was given no orders to fire on mobs. The result was predictable.
"During the 1985 riots," recalls Zakia Naseem Jaffrey, the widow of
former Member of Parliament Iqbal Ehsan Jaffrey who was murdered,
"there were only a few Central Reserve Police Force personnel to
protect us, but they opened fire and saved our lives." This time,
while Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P.C. Pande visited the Jaffrey
home, he left no instructions with the local police to use effective
fire and did not respond to subsequent distress calls. Shockingly,
Pande sought to blame Jaffrey for provoking his own death by firing
into the mob. How the Police Commissioner came by this piece of
information is unclear, but Zakia Jaffrey denies the charge, saying
she heard no shots at all that afternoon.
RAJEEV BHATT
A car showroom that was attacked.
Jaffrey was not the only prominent Muslim to be targeted. High Court
Judge M.H. Kadri had to be evacuated after his house was attacked,
while the home of Justice Akbar Divecha was burned down. Top police
officials, including Inspector General of Police Ai Saiyed and Deputy
Commissioner of Police Samiullah Ansari, were also targeted. Pande
made no secret of his feelings about these events, asserting that his
force's communal bias was legitimate since it was "a part of society".
While Pande has subsequently claimed that his force was "overwhelmed
by the mobs", the fact is that just two Gujarat Police personnel were
killed in their course. Only one was injured by a Hindu mob. Chaos
prevailed in the control room, which was run not by an officer but by
a clerk, Jagdish Makhwana, who was promoted to the post of Special
Police Officer. "We should have a Deputy Commissioner of Police here,"
he told Frontline, "but the officers are very busy with other
duties."
Interestingly, the factors responsible for the collapse of the
Ahmedabad Police seem to be at least three months old. The Deputy
Commissioner of Police in charge of Zone-II, Raj Kumar, was shifted
out. No one was brought in to take charge of the highly sensitive
areas of Shahpura and Delhi Darwaza. Another key post, that of the DCP
in charge of crime, was also left vacant after the incumbent,
Gyanendra Singh Malik, left for an overseas assignment. None of the
DCPs in the six zones that remained staffed hailed from outside the
State, and just two were directly recruited Indian Police Service
officers. While there is nothing illegal about these postings, such a
line-up is unlikely to have come about by chance.
By way of contrast, officers less open to political pressure did
succeed in containing the violence, notably in Surat, Kutch and even
Godhra. Pande's only substantial comment on police failure came on
March 9, when he proclaimed that the force was crippled because it had
only 270 sub-inspectors instead of a sanctioned strength of 500. If
this claim of shortages of junior officers is true, this would be yet
another achievement of BJP rule. According to the National Crime
Records Bureau's authoritative report, Crime in India, Ahmedabad in
1998 had 713 officers of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector and
above, against a sanctioned strength of 529. The force had 6,462
officers below this rank, against a sanctioned strength of 5,822.
Official figures on violence underline the fact that the State
apparatus served as an instrument of Hindu fascism. Frontline obtained
details of the pattern of killings both in Ahmedabad and in Gujarat as
a whole, showing systematic police bias. In Ahmedabad, 249 bodies had
been recovered until the midnight of March 5. Of these, six could not
be identified, while 30 were of Hindus. Of the Hindus killed, 13 were
shot by the police, while several others died in attacks on Muslim-
owned establishments. Six bodies of Hindu workers were, for example,
recovered from Hans Inn and Tasty Hotel. Although there were almost no
attacks by Muslim mobs on Hindu-dominated areas, 24 Muslims were
killed in police firing. State-wide, the pattern was repeated. Forty-
six Muslims were killed in police firing, as against 51 Hindus. This
despite the fact that 32 Muslims were reported killed in rioting by
this point, as against 90 Hindus. The police were not, as Pande
claims, overrun: they were choosing their targets carefully.
INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP
Members of a Hindu family, whose house at Vasanth Kunj Maidan in
Ahmedabad was set ablaze on March 1, plead for protection.
Statistics on deaths are based only on bodies actually recovered, and
therefore give a far-from-complete picture of the scale of the
slaughter. No one knows just how many bodies were completely
incinerated, or remain trapped in debris. Ehsan Jaffrey's body, for
example, was not found. Private estimates range upwards of 1,500 dead,
and it will take months before a full picture emerges. Incredibly, the
Gujarat government has not even set up offices at refugee camps to
compile a list of missing persons. Nor, despite repeated promises by
Pande, have policemen been sent to these camps to register FIRs. Where
FIRs have been registered, riot victims often complain that they leave
out names of local politicians and police officials who led the mob
attacks. Only five arrests have been made in connection with the
Narora killings, and none of those picked up are key members of the
mob named by eyewitnesses. All this seems to be part of a deliberate
effort to obliterate evidence.
Meanwhile, the physical obliteration of the Muslim heritage of
Ahmedabad is proceeding apace. Some 40 mosques and shrines were
brought down during the riots, and the debris has been meticulously
moved away by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. That such removal
of debris constitutes a criminal offence, in that it amounts to
tampering with evidence, seems to bother no one. The shrine of the
Urdu poet Wali Gujarati, located just a few minutes walk from the
Police Commissioner's Office, was destroyed and replaced with a
makeshift Hindu temple. The temple was removed a few days later, but
the Corporation has now covered the area with a strip of fresh tarmac.
The project of ethnic cleansing initiated in earlier riots has also
reached near-closure. The sole Muslim home in Gagori Chawl, adjoining
a police station, has been broken down and temples now adorn the
ruins. Some Hindus, possibly those who are thought to be obtuse enough
to have missed the message sent out by the burning of the showrooms,
have received leaflets ordering them not to have any dealings with
Muslims.
In less than 12 months, Gujarat's Hindu Right will face Assembly
elections. Discredited by its record on the economic front, and its
less-than-creditable handling of the 2001 Kutch earthquake, few people
had given the Bharatiya Janata Party a serious chance to retain power.
Now, after February 28, the Hindu Right is again on a roll. It has
learned the lessons of the 1998 Lok Sabha elections when a string of
attacks on Christians and Muslims in south Gujarat helped the BJP
wrest key seats, including Godhra, from the Congress (I).
Tragically, Chief Minister Narendra Modi has become something of a
hero for many Hindus because he presided over this pogrom. That the
sentiment cuts across party lines is evident from the fact that the
Municipal Corporation is run by a Congress(I) Mayor, Himmat Singh
Patel. At a March 7 meeting with Muslim leaders, he flatly refused to
allow the reconstruction of a 300-year old mosque near Anjali Cinema,
which was destroyed by a VHP-led mob. And until the morning of March
8, hours before Congress(I) president Sonia Gandhi visited the city,
the Corporation did not even provide the relief camps with food
assistance, clean water or medical facilities.
Even if the Justice K.G. Shah Commission of Inquiry provides a basis
for giving the riot victims some justice, it will do nothing to
address the larger issue. For decades, riot after riot has pushed the
city's Muslims into deprived ghettos. After February 28, they have
become Bantustans. Terrorising Muslims is no longer a vote-driven
political enterprise. It has become state policy.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060080.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
Rural trauma
The communal 'cleansing' process extends to Gujarat's villages, and
the tribal districts erupt in anti-Muslim violence for the first
time.
DIONNE BUNSHA
in Pandharvada and elsewhere
"CLEANSE the village of cow-eaters. Remove all Muslims. Chase them and
kill them," the loudspeaker blared out this grim message in
Pandharvada village in Panchmahal, where the Vishwa Hindu Parishad was
holding a public meeting. Personnel of the local police and a district
official, who were present there, sat on the sidelines, drinking tea
or talking, and soaking in the atmosphere. Pandharvada's Muslims
stayed away, fearing the worst. Three weeks later, VHP supporters
carried out their threat. Around 21 people were killed when the Muslim
bastis in the village were burned. The survivors fled. The VHP had
achieved its end.
PARAS SHAH
Riot victims take shelter at Gomatipur in Ahmedabad.
Akhtar Husain Sayyed, who survived the Pandharvada attack, narrates
this chilling tale in Godhra, 85 km from his village, where he has
taken shelter in a relative's house. Two members of his family are
missing. His mother and sister escaped being burned alive by a mob led
by a local Bharatiya Janata Party activist.
The elderly Nathubhai Sheikh saw his two sons being hacked to death.
When a mob attacked Muslims in Pandharvada, he ran into the fields
where he saw his two sons being attacked with swords. His third son is
missing. "I hid in the wilderness for a few days, until the military
found me and took me to the Lunawada relief camp. From there, one of
my relatives from Godhra brought me to his house," he said.
In the violence that followed the burning of a compartment of the
Sabarmati Express, rural Gujarat witnessed heinous attacks on Muslims.
It is for the first time that communal violence has spread to tribal
districts such as Panchmahal and Sabarkantha. In the 1990 and 1992
communal riots, other areas in rural Gujarat were affected but not
these districts. This time, however, since the attacks are apparently
part of the Sangh Parivar's diabolic design, the 'cleansing' process
has been extended to villages. Most cases of violence were well-
orchestrated attacks. They did not involve a clash between two
communities. Muslims were systematically hunted and attacked.
"We get the feeling that these attacks were planned. Mobs seem to have
been systematically gathered from other villages, instigated and let
loose," says Raju Bhargav, Panchmahal district's Superintendent of
Police. "Some of the people we arrested at the scene of the crime
belonged to villages that are even 15 to 20 km away. It is the first
time that villages are experiencing such communal fury," he added. The
worst-affected districts have been Panchmahal (where Godhra is
located) and its neighbouring districts - Dahod, Sabarkantha, Banas
Kantha and Mehsana.
In Pandharvada, nine-year-old Noorunissa was slashed on her back with
a sword. Two fingers of Razak, her father, were chopped off and his
head was injured. "We hid in the jungle for two days. The police came
on the third day. By then I was unconscious," says Razak, who is being
treated at Godhra's general hospital. Muslims have been chased and
killed and their houses and shops burned down. Entire bastis have been
evacuated after the attacks. The numbers of missing persons and
displaced families are yet to be determined.
Children and women were not spared. In Anjanva village in Panchmahal
district 11 people died after they were thrown into a well. Four of
them were children. Maksooda and Hanif Rahim lost their children, aged
two and three years, in the attack. The children were thrown into the
well along with Maksooda by the members of the mob that attacked the
village's Muslim basti. "People came from other villages and started
burning our houses. We all ran, but some of us were caught and thrown
into the well," says Maksooda, who was the only one rescued from the
well by the police. The rest were already dead. She suffered head
injuries and is being treated at the Godhra General Hospital. Hanif
and Maksooda have nowhere to go once she is discharged from the
hospital.
In some villages, local Sangh Parivar activists even warned Muslims of
impending doom. "On the night before the VHP bandh, the sarpanch and
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief of the village came to my
house and told me that we (Muslims) should leave by morning or there
would be trouble," says Himmat Khan, a resident of Sundarpura village
in Mehsana district. However, the community decided to stay on. "There
was a bandh. We were scared there would be trouble outside. When the
mob came in the evening and burned our houses, we all ran to our
Muslim friends in Sardarpura village nearby. They were also attacked
within a few hours," he says.
Sardarpura witnessed one of the most gory crimes in Gujarat's recent
history when 29 people, many of them women and children hiding from a
mob, were locked inside a house and burned alive by Patel (a
landowning caste) leaders. Shameem Husain, a 20-year-old, lost her
mother, two brothers and a sister in the fire. "I managed to get out
of the burning house and hid in a bathroom," says Shameem. Shameem was
a farm worker under the Patel landlords. She and her handicapped
father have now taken refuge in Savala village, 30 km away.
While the former sarpanch along with several others have been arrested
in Sardarpura, many other Sangh Parivar activists roam scot-free. "We
have to be careful while making arrests. If we start arresting many
ruling party activists, we will be under pressure," admits a police
officer. Yet, there are no excuses for the police's failure to protect
lives and property. "For the past two months, I was threatened by the
Bajrang Dal. They wanted me to leave the village," says a Bori (a
trading caste) Muslim trader from Dekva village in Panchmahal
district. He continues, "I was given police protection. After the
Godhra incident, our shop was burned. The police inspector was there
while it happened but did nothing. If the police had acted, a lot of
lives and property would have been saved."
Economic interests also underlie the communal agenda. "It's very
simple - our land is very valuable. It is fertile and has borewell
irrigation. The Patels want to get hold of it," says Munsaf Pathan, a
farmer and a landowner who survived the Sardarpura attack. Muslim-
owned shops, occupying prime space, near bus stops or railway
stations, have been targeted. Hindu-owned shops adjacent to them
remain untouched. The likelihood of Muslims returning to set up shop
is slim. "In the tribal areas of Panchmahal and Sabarkantha, there has
been a history of class conflict between Bori Muslim traders and
tribal people. This has been exploited by the Hindutva brigade, who
have given it a communal colour," says activist Rohit Prajapati. In
many places tribal people have been instigated to loot. "The Bhil
tribal people in this area are extremely poor. The district has
suffered drought conditions for the past two years. In some cases,
they used this chance purely to loot," says Raju Bhargav.
Yet, the overriding motive was to work up communal frenzy. Over the
last decade, organisations such as the RSS, the VHP and the Bajrang
Dal have managed to make inroads into rural Gujarat. "Though its
traditional support comes from the trading community, the Sangh
Parivar has managed to saffronise even OBCs (Other Backward Classes),
Dalits and the tribal people since they follow more Hindu customs
compared to Dalits or Adivasis in other States," says human rights
lawyer Girish Patel. The VHP first started mobilising support in
Gujarat when it launched the rath yatra campaign in 1990. Its recent
Trishul campaign, to convert people to Hinduism, also succeeded in
inciting communal fervour. The BJP's rise to power in the State in
1995 and the use of moneypower in deprived areas have also fostered
its growth.
The recent attacks were a culmination of a strategy. It seems to have
paid off. Many Muslim bastis are deserted now. People are shattered
both emotionally and economically. Muslims have been left with nothing
but the clothes on their back. The mission seems to have been
accomplished to a large extent, but the Sangh Parivar still refuses to
put away the trishuls and the loudspeakers and forget about cow
slaughter.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060150.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
The wounds of civilisation
DIONNE BUNSHA
WHEN Fatima (not her real name) went to celebrate Id at her mother's
house in Randhikpur village, Patan district, she never imagined she
would end up in a relief camp in Godhra, her life shattered. Fatima
fled the village with a group of 35 people after their houses were set
on fire by a mob. "We did not know where to go. For three days we
walked from village to village asking for protection. We stayed one
night in a masjid, another in an Adivasi's house. By then our number
had dwindled to nine," says Fatima.
DIONNE BUNSHA
At a relief camp at the Shahibagh municipal school.
As they walked to the next village in search of shelter, they were
ambushed by a group of men from Randhikpur, most of whom Fatima says
she can identify. They stopped their cars, raped the women and killed
all of them except Fatima. After regaining consciousness Fatima lay on
the road for almost 24 hours, pretending to be dead. She was finally
rescued by the police and taken to a school in Godhra where Muslim
charities are running a relief camp.
Relief camps have emerged as the only shelter for the thousands who
have escaped death. However, the journey both to and out of the camps
is very difficult for the riot-affected people. In rural Gujarat, many
people fled their homes and hid in the hills and jungles for days
without food or water before being rescued by the police. "We ate
leaves," said Sapura Ghachi, who hid with her husband and daughter on
a hill for three days. Her husband was taken to the Godhra general
hospital for treatment. Since the camps are situated in towns, far
from villages, hardly anyone knows about them. Moreover, people cannot
reach them unless they are escorted by the police.
Camps situated in Ahmedabad's slums are far more accessible. People
have sought shelter in local masjids and schools. Hundreds of people
are packed into a small school building or a tent. At Pir Kasamshak ki
Roza in Ahmedabad's Gomatipura area, several Muslims actually live in
a graveyard. "We have no other security. When bullets start flying, we
rush here. There was a camp set up here during the 1985, 1990 and 1992
riots as well," says Munni Bibi Rasul, whose son was killed in police
firing on February 28.
Muslim charities, pooling contributions, from within the community,
have set up these camps. Neither the government nor non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) have taken any such initiative. The State
government announced a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the families of
those killed in the riots, as compared to Rs.2 lakhs for the families
of those killed in the Sabarmati Express attack, a telling instance of
the ruling party's prejudice. The morsels of relief that the
government is handing out were also delayed. The Collector's offices
started supplying provisions to the camps one week after the violence
began.
The surge of sympathy, the flow of relief in cash and kind and the
active presence of NGOs that were evident in Kutch in the wake of the
earthquake in January 2001 are missing in the case of the riot
victims. However, a group of 20 NGOs in Ahmedabad, under the umbrella
of the Citizen's Initiative, was quick to start coordinating help and
supplies although their volunteers were initially threatened by local
goons. "It is more difficult to work in this situation than it was in
Kutch. This was planned ethnic-cleansing. There are people who want to
make sure that help does not reach the needy," one of the volunteers
said. Moreover, the stakes are not high enough. Foreign aid is not
coming the way it did after the earthquake.
Muslim charities, which always managed to mobilise resources during
riots, are finding it difficult to do so this time, since even middle
class Muslims have been destroyed economically. They are somehow able
to provide basic services at the relief camps. The NGOs' coordination
group has begun nursing and counselling services. The need for such
services is very much in evidence, as in Fatima's case. She was
prompted to speak to the media about being gang-raped. It was only
when the men among the mediapersons were asked to leave that she felt
comfortable to speak. Moreover, she was made to narrate her horrific
story twice or thrice a day, depending on how many people came to
interview her.
While medical facilities are basic - confined to check-ups by
volunteer doctors and nurses - the refugees are afraid to be taken to
hospitals. "Many pregnant women refuse to be taken to hospital," says
Fr. Victor Moses, who is coordinating the Citizen's Initiative. He is
also concerned about the conditions at the camps. With 800 to 900
people sharing a few toilets, sanitation is impossible to maintain.
At one camp, security is a problem. Eye-witnesses who can identify
prominent leaders in the mobs that were on the rampage are being
targeted. The Sangh Parivar, which was blatantly aggressive during the
first few days of the violence, has now realised that the law still
exists. It has hired a legal team to defend its activists.
Ironically, the law-enforcers are also scared to escort trucks into
the relief camps. "People are angry with us. They feel that we were
part of the attackers. They could do anything when we enter the area,"
said a policeman who was part of the escort team. Added a relief
volunteer: "When we are on the streets transporting supplies, they
protect us. But when we are in the relief camps, the police keep
asking us to make sure they are safe." Several Hindus living in Muslim-
dominated areas have also sought shelter in camps. However, it may be
easier for them to go back to their homes, since they will not be
under threat.
Muslim refugees, not wishing to risk their lives, are too scared to
venture beyond the camps, although they are desperate to know about
the condition of their shops or other sources of livelihood.
Yet life in the rest of Ahmedabad goes on. With the curfew lifted, the
streets are buzzing with traffic. Normal life is slowly returning to
the city, although several businesses have been destroyed.
Long-term rehabilitation is still a problem the charitable
organisations are trying to grapple with. It remains uncertain how the
60,000-odd refugees housed in Ahmedabad's relief camps and the
thousands of others stranded in camps in rural areas will restart
their life.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060160.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
Talks and obstacles
The Ayodhya-related negotiations enter another delicate phase.
PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
in New Delhi
THE Ayodhya issue is once again poised for a decisive turn, as it was
just prior to December 6, 1992. The surcharged atmosphere, the heavy
security development, the huge build-up of kar sevaks, the hectic
parleys, an unrelenting Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the fervent
appeals to the Supreme Court to intervene, the worried reaction of
Muslims - it all seems like a replay of the earlier events.
BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT
The Sankaracharya of Kanchi Math, Jayendra Saraswati, holding talks
with Muslim leaders in New Delhi.
The issue has taken centre stage as the VHP continues to be
unrelenting on its shilapujan programme scheduled for March 15 on the
part of the land over which there is no dispute, while the All India
Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has rejected the very idea of it.
The AIMPLB came into the picture after the Sankaracharya of Kanchi
Kamakoti Peetam, Jayendra Saraswati, in a bid to make peace, coaxed it
into discussing the issue. In turn he offered it an undertaking that
the VHP would abide by the court verdict on the disputed area.
Predictably, the AIMPLB has rejected any "piecemeal" solution. It also
demanded that the Centre should fulfil its legal obligation of
maintaining the status quo in Ayodhya and not allow even a "symbolic
kar seva or puja" on the acquired land.
The VHP contends that the 43-acre plot, which was owned by the
Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas before the acquisition, can be handed over to it
as there is no dispute about its ownership. It has demanded that it be
allowed to begin building a temple on this land. In the meantime, the
VHP said, the government should request the Allahabad High Court to
hold day-to-day hearings in order to settle fast the dispute over the
land on which the Babri Masjid stood.
In a letter to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on February 27,
chairman of the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das
stated that the Centre could hold back the disputed land and part of
the land adjacent to it about which there was no dispute, so that it
could be handed over to the successful party after the judicial
process was over. But in the meantime, he said, it should allow the
VHP and the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas to go ahead with their temple
construction plan on the remaining part of the land. Significantly,
this is the first time that the VHP has said it will abide by the
court's verdict in the case of the disputed land. So far its stand was
that it was not for the court to decide where exactly Ram was born. It
had also maintained that the sanctum sanctorum of the temple would be
built where Ram was supposed to have been born and that that spot
formed part of the disputed area.
This climbdown by the VHP came after the intervention of the
Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, Jayendra Saraswati, who
agreed to mediate between the VHP and the government on the one hand
and the VHP and Muslim leaders on the other. The Sankaracharya, who
arrived in New Delhi on March 4, was requested by Vajpayee to try and
find a solution to the problem. This is seen as the first serious
attempt by the Prime Minister to find a negotiated settlement of the
Ayodhya problem, though he has been talking about it for some time.
As a first step towards finding a solution, the Sankaracharya got in
writing an assurance from the VHP that it would abide by the court
verdict on the disputed land. It was at his urging that VHP president
Ashok Singhal gave the written assurance to the Prime Minister.
According to the Sankaracharya, this was the minimum the VHP would
have to do for the government to agree to hand over to it the land
that was not disputed. He reasoned with the VHP that the government
could hand over the land only if Muslims too agreed to it and that
Muslims would do so only if the VHP promised to abide by the court
verdict on the disputed land.
RANJAN BASU
VHP leaders Ashok Singhal and Acharya Giriraj Kishore.
The Sankaracharya also held meetings with prominent Muslim leaders led
by Maulana Nizamuddin, general secretary of the AIMPLB. He offered
them a proposal: Muslims should agree to a symbolic pooja by the VHP
on the land that is not disputed and give in writing that they had no
objection to the government handing back to the VHP that land provided
the VHP abided by the court verdict. He assured the Muslim leaders
that the VHP had agreed to build a wall separating the disputed part
of land so that there would be no confusion about it later. The
meeting with Muslim leaders, however, was not conclusive as they
demanded time until March 10, when the executive committee of the
AIMPLB, which was the apex body to take a decision on the issue, would
discuss it.
After a day-long meeting on March 10, the AIMPLB came out with a
resolution rejecting the proposal on the grounds that it was
"incomplete and inchoate" and expressed its displeasure at being
offered a "piecemeal solution" for the Ayodhya issue. It said in the
resolution that "the settlement of the dispute is not possible in
piecemeal manner. It has to be resolved in the holistic manner in such
a way that construction of the mosque is also not delayed". The AIMPLB
basically had the following objections to the Sankaracharya's
proposal: the linkage between the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas and the VHP and
other Sangh Parivar organisations was not clear, so it was not
possible to understand how the VHP would honour the undertaking given
by the Nyas; there was no assurance that the VHP would abide by the
undertaking given by the Nyas; there was no construction plan to
specify that proposal; there was no assurance that if Muslims won the
case, the construction plan of the temple would be changed to shift
the sanctum sanctorum of the temple elsewhere and there will be no
obstruction in the way of construction of a mosque; with freedom given
to the VHP to carry on its mass mobilisation programme there was no
guarantee about the sanctity of the wall; and, finally, Muslims are
asked to wait for the final court verdict while the proposal allowed
the immediate construction of a temple.
Describing the proposal as "workable arrangements at best", the AIMPLB
said it did not offer any solution to the problem in its entirety. The
legal adviser to the AIMPLB, Y.H. Muchala, told reporters that though
they were for a court verdict of the problem, they were still open to
negotiations with "anyone except Sangh Parivar members", provided the
proposal was "foolproof" and had factored into it the constriction of
a mosque. The AIMPLB clarified that even for the March 15 programme,
it would abide by the court verdict and, if required, it would make an
intervention.
ON the government's part, National Democratic Alliance (NDA) convener
George Fernandes, Home Minister L.K. Advani, former official in the
Prime Minister's Office Sudheendra Kulkarni and Samata Party
functionary Shambhu Srivastava kept in touch with the Sankaracharya,
who got back to the Prime Minister every evening. Jayendra Saraswati's
involvement provides the entire exercise an apolitical touch and his
bid to include the AIMPLB would make it difficult for anyone to
criticise the effort.
What is worrying, though, is the involvement of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh in the dialogue. Once the VHP hardened its stance,
the deputy chief of the RSS, Madan Das Devi, came into the picture. He
not only supported the VHP's demand, but also urged the Prime Minister
to find ways to dispose of quickly the title suit pending in the
Allahabad High Court. That the entire exercise got under way is a
clear sign of the Prime Minister succumbing to the combined pressure
from the RSS and the VHP.
The government, which has been sleeping on the issue for years, filed
an application in the Allahabad High Court on March 6 to hold day-to-
day hearings of the title dispute so that it is spared the huge cost
(Rs.30 crores a year) of maintaining the acquired land. The
application will be considered by the court on March 19.
The VHP, however, remains as unpredictable as ever. Its leaders
continue to speak in different voices, and this raises doubts about
their intentions. Even as Singhal gave a written assurance to the
Prime Minister and announced to the media that the VHP would abide by
the court verdict, VHP president Vishnu Hari Dalmia said a day later
that only the dharmacharyas could decide the course of action on the
disputed land. Such change of positions by the top two VHP
functionaries has created doubts whether Singhal's written undertaking
had any validity.
In 1992 the Kalyan Singh-led BJP government in Uttar Pradesh had given
a written undertaking both to the Supreme Court and the National
Integration Council that the Babri structure would be protected at any
cost. But it looked the other way when kar sevaks tore it down. There
was no guarantee that the VHP would stop with shilapujan and not force
its way into the disputed land.
It is this fear which seems to be weighing down heavily on the Muslim
mind. While saner elements among Muslims see a ray of hope in the
peace initiative by the Sankaracharya, hardliners such as Ahmad
Bukhari, the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, and Syed Shahabuddin, member
of the AIMPLB, have trashed it in no uncertain terms. They announced
that they would oppose any symbolic pooja even on land that was not
disputed because that would be violative of the Supreme Court order to
maintain the status quo on the acquired land.
This could well be the last chance for the Vajpayee government to
settle the issue through negotiations. What may have spoiled the
chances for a negotiated settlement is the fact that the Sankaracharya
made the details public without waiting for the outcome of the AIMPLB
meeting. He announced that a symbolic pooja would be allowed on March
15 and the land on which there is no dispute could be handed over to
the VHP by June 2, the deadline the VHP has set for temple
construction to begin.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has fixed March 15 as the date for
hearing contempt of court petition filed against Ashok Singhal for
making statements violative of the Supreme Court orders.
In another development, Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy said
in a statement that the dispute "for any government was never a
religious one for a Sankaracharya to be involved, especially one so
close to RSS and so controversial as Jayendra Saraswati". He claimed
that a new unilateral alteration of the 10-year status quo was being
sought by the VHP. "This no constitutionally committed government can
allow, either by force or by fraud," he said.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060180.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
Fear in the air
Ayodhya is in the grip of fear and confusion as Union Ministers and
Uttar Pradesh administration speak in different voices about the
security arrangements in, and the movement of kar sevaks to, the town.
NAUNIDHI KAUR
in Ayodhya
A WEEK before the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas' proposed bhoomi puja at
Ayodhya, it became clear that the Central government was succumbing to
pressure from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on the issue of relaxing
security measures in the town. This was despite the Uttar Pradesh
administration's plea for tightening of security measures. Nothing
illustrated this better than the statements made within a span of 48
hours by two Union Ministers, which were not only at variance with
each other but contrary to the State government's stand.
SUBIR ROY
On alert in Ayodhya.
When Minister of State for Home Affairs I.D. Swami visited Ayodhya on
March 8 to review the security arrangements, he said that he would
remove the restrictions on the road and rail traffic to the town. It
was apparent that he had made the statement under pressure from VHP
leaders. The next morning Defence Minister George Fernandes said at a
public function in New Delhi that the State government had sought the
deployment of the Army in Ayodhya. "We have received a written request
from the U.P. administration for deployment of the Army in Faizabad,"
he said. "For the last few days we were getting telephone requests
from the Faizabad district administration. But since last night, the
requests have become intense," he added.
A few hours after this announcement, Governor Vishnu Kant Shastri
speaking in Lucknow, vehemently denied having made any such request.
"We have only asked the Army to stay alert," he clarified. However, he
admitted that "it is a crisis situation". It became obvious that the
State administration's assessment of the situation in Faizabad-Ayodhya
was at complete variance with the statement of Swami and Fernandes.
Swami, by announcing in Ayodhya that the restrictions on road and rail
traffic would be removed, blatantly acceded to the demands of the VHP
to open to kar sevaks the gates of Ayodhya. This drew a retort from
the State administration, which had, with some success, kept the kar
sevaks away from Ayodhya. Three days earlier the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas
had, in a statement, asked the government to lift the curbs on Ram
sevaks travelling to Ayodhya, remove the additional police force,
allow the March 15 ceremony and hand over to it the acquired land by
June 2.
Swami felt that nothing untoward would happen if the district
administration handled the situation sensibly. At the workshop at
Ramsevakpuram, where the work of the prefabricating parts of the
temple is going on, he said: "The VHP and the Nyas have said they will
hold only a symbolic puja on March 15. The restrictions on road and
train traffic need not be that stringent. We are working towards a
compromise that is acceptable to all."
The local administration reacted with surprise. "We had been
successful in keeping out kar sevaks. Now the entire exercise has been
made redundant by the Minister's order. Allowing trains and buses into
Ayodhya would make it impossible to keep a tab on the movements of kar
sevaks," an officer said.
PRAKASH SINGH/ AFP
Mahant Paramhans Ramachandra Das (right), the chairman of the
Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas, with Union Minister of State for Home I.D. Swami
on March 8.
The next day there was no let-up in the restrictions. Instead the
State administration asked the Army to stay on alert. Security checks
were tightened and the police thoroughly searched even vehicles moving
with valid passes. Faizabad Divisional Commissioner Anil Kumar Gupta
said the district administration had not received any instructions in
writing to lift the restrictions.
Train services did not resume as the Railway authorities had not
received any intimation from the Centre in this regard. Following the
Gujarat violence the Central government had cancelled or diverted 19
trains reaching Ayodhya and Faizabad. All roads to Ayodhya were sealed
and it was made mandatory for all vehicles entering Ayodhya to get an
entry pass, issued by the local magistrate. The administration divided
the vehicles into three categories and issued passes only for vehicles
carrying marriage parties and mediapersons and those that were on
official duty.
In the first few days of the introduction of the pass system, the
magistrate's office was flooded with applications. The fuel stations
in the Faizabad, Barabanki and Ayodhya region ran out of fuel as
tankers without permits were denied entry. There was a shortage of
vegetables and milk. "Our life has been put on hold," said Ram Bhaj, a
shopkeeper in the Chowk area of Faizabad. Local newspapers reported
delays in marriage ceremonies in cases where the families had arranged
for priests to be brought from outside the district. It was left to
the family members to do the running around to get the permit for the
priest. It did not take long for the local people to start complaining
about the stringent security measures. Local leaders of the Bharatiya
Janata Party, such as Laloo Singh and Faizabad MP Vinay Katiyar,
peeved as they were by the Central government's additional measures to
keep kar sevaks out of Ayodhya, demanded immediate revocation of the
security measures.
Among the steps taken by the authorities was the issuing of a notice
imposing ban orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On March 3, such notices appeared at Karsevakpuram and Ramsevakpuram.
It stated that in view of the developments in Gujarat and the
assemblage of kar sevaks in Ayodhya, there were apprehensions that any
sloganeering would directly or indirectly incite public sentiments,
affecting the law and order situation.
SUBIR ROY
Prefabricated parts for the proposed temple stacked at Ramsevakpuram.
One measure that has proved effective is the division of Ayodhya -
which has nearly 7,000 temples-cum-houses - into a number of
administrative segments. Each segment has been assigned to a Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Around 70
companies of paramilitary forces have been deployed in the area. As a
result of all these, the number of kar sevaks in Ayodhya, by the time
of Swami's visit, fell to around 500 from 15,000. The VHP had planned
to mobilise its cadre in U.P. from March 9 onwards and put pressure on
Swami to relax the conditions for entry of kar sevaks into Ayodhya. It
has divided U.P. into six pranths (zone) - Avadh, Kashi, Ayodhya,
Meerut, Uttaranchal and Braj. Each pranth has at least 20 zillas and
each zilla at least 214 blocks. Each block has its own units of the
VHP and the Bajrang Dal. The VHP support base in villages that lie
beside the road to Gonda and Balrampur is quite strong. The approach
roads and access points have been carefully studied and woven into the
revised VHP strategy of calling upon its cadre at short notice. Any
decision to relax entry into Ayodhya by allowing in buses and trains
would only make it easier for kar sevaks to reach Ayodhya.
The cadre have been asked to remain prepared for any eventuality. The
500-odd kar sevaks who were present in Karsevakpuram until March 8
have been trained in shifting the prefabricated pillars to the
construction site. However, the cadre also know that they can act only
after getting orders from the top leadership.
All these have resulted in a sense of insecurity among residents of
Ayodhya, particularly the 3,000-odd Muslims. Some Muslim families have
even moved out hoping to return after the tension has eased. But when
that will happen is anybody's guess.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060200.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
Friends indeed
The muted response of its 'secular' allies to the developments in
Ayodhya and Gujarat emboldens the BJP to dismiss the Opposition's
demand for the removal of the Narendra Modi government.
V. VENKATESAN
in New Delhi
WHEN the Opposition and sections of civil society made persistent
demands for the dismissal of the Narendra Modi government in Gujarat
holding it responsible for the post-Godhra mayhem, the Atal Behari
Vajpayee government at the Centre remained indifferent to them. The
reasons were not far to seek.
The Vajpayee government owes its existence to the support extended by
the Bharatiya Janata Party's 20 allies inside and outside the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA). Through a process of assimilation and
accommodation, the Vajpayee government has largely managed to
neutralise any opposition within the NDA to the BJP's communal agenda.
It was, therefore, not surprising that many of the BJP's secular
allies hardly bothered to put pressure on the government to accept the
Opposition's demand. This was in contrast to their success in 2000 in
forcing the Vajpayee government to prevail upon the Gujarat government
to withdraw its circular allowing the participation of State
government employees in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) camps.
The allies have lost much of their clout within the NDA not because of
the BJP's increasing strength but because of their relatively weak
position on their home turfs. In fact, the BJP has lost ground in many
States, as is evident from the latest round of Assembly elections. Its
secular allies such as the Trinamul Congress, the Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (DMK) and the Samata Party and the Akali Dal have either lost
power in their respective strongholds or failed to make a dent in
their major rivals' base. Political compulsions in their respective
areas have forced some of them to toe a pro-Vajpayee line.
The DMK's response to the Gujarat developments, for instance, was
dictated by its compulsions in Tamil Nadu. The ruling All India Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) shows signs of moving closer to the
BJP, especially after its general secretary Jayalalithaa's return to
power. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's response to the Godhra incident
was in line with the usual response of the Sangh Parivar in such
situations. She accused secular parties of being silent over the
Godhra incident because the victims happened to belong to the majority
community. The AIADMK did not join the protest meeting organised by
Opposition parties outside Parliament House. P.G. Narayanan, AIADMK
member of the Rajya Sabha, spoke against the Opposition's demand for
the dismissal of Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister L.K. Advani for
their "complicity" in the attacks on minorities in Gujarat. P.N.
Shiva, a DMK member of the Rajya Sabha, appealed to the Opposition to
make common cause with the government to stop the bloodshed and
butchery in Gujarat. "The NDA should remain united," he said.
The Telugu Desam Party (TDP), which supports the NDA government from
outside, also failed to take a strong line. During a debate in the
Rajya Sabha, its member Y.V. Rao confined himself to a condemnation of
the violence in Gujarat and an appeal to the government to see that
such incidents did not recur. Similar was the response of K. Yerran
Naidu, leader of the TDP Parliamentary Party, who was part of the all-
party delegation that visited Gujarat. Although he was convinced that
the attacks on minorities began as a result of the government's
failure to arrest miscreants on the eve of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad-
sponsored bandh, he was reluctant to demand the removal of the Modi
government. He told Frontline: "The government has ordered a judicial
inquiry. It is clear that the Chief Minister's justification of the
riots - when he described them as a natural reaction to the Godhra
incident - triggered more violence against the minorities. But we
should await the outcome of the inquiry." His response on the Ayodhya
issue was equally evasive. The TDP, he said, was not against
negotiations to resolve the issue and it would wait and watch until
the government finalised its stand on maintaining the status quo in
Ayodhya.
The TDP's vacillation was perhaps owing to the perception that the
Vajpayee government does not need its support for survival. One
possible reason for the perceived confidence of the BJP is the
prospect of the 14-member Bahujan Samaj Party supporting it in the Lok
Sabha in return for its support to BSP leader Mayawati's chief
ministership in Uttar Pradesh. Strengthening this perception was
Mayawati's tepid response to the Gujarat violence and the VHP's
threats in Ayodhya.
The DMK's response was also marked by ambiguity. Asked about the
formula suggested by the Sankaracharya of Kanchi to resolve the
Ayodhya dispute, its president M. Karunanidhi said that he was happy
that someone from Tamil Nadu was able to suggest a workable solution.
Earlier he said that the DMK would withdraw its support if the
Vajpayee government allowed a temple to come up at the disputed site.
His critics were quick to ask what would be the use of such a stand if
the Vajpayee government was prepared to quit office after allowing the
VHP to accomplish its goal in Ayodhya.
The response of Trinamul Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, who would
not miss any opportunity to embarrass the Vajpayee government in the
past, was largely subdued. She returned to the NDA following her
party's rout in the Assembly elections in West Bengal and is
reportedly waiting to be reinducted into the Cabinet.
None of the secular allies of the BJP thought it fit to invoke the
provisions of the National Agenda for Governance (NAG) against the
Vajpayee government in view of the VHP's demand for permission to
perform a "symbolic puja" near the disputed site to mark the beginning
of the construction of a Ram temple. The NAG forbids NDA constituents
to raise issues of contention among them, including Ayodhya.
Emboldened by the allies' muted response to the developments in
Ayodhya and Gujarat, the BJP defended Modi to the hilt. Party
spokesperson V.K. Malhotra rejected the Opposition demand for the
removal of the Narendra Modi government. He dismissed the Opposition
charge that the Gujarat government's inadequate response to the
communal frenzy stemmed from its anti-Muslim bias. Since communal
harmony was under threat, Malhotra said, this was not the juncture to
make such demands.
Whatever happens in Ayodhya on March 15 and after, the Vajpayee
government will have no reason to worry about its survival in the
immediate term as long as its allies are prepared to keep their
secular credentials aside for the sake of protecting and furthering
their immediate political interests.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060220.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COVER STORY
Condemning a carnage
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
in New Delhi
THE attacks on the Muslim community in Gujarat and the passive role
the State and Central governments played have evoked protest not only
among political parties but among various sections of society. The
nature of the violence was such that it drew outraged citizens to the
streets.
The outpouring of protest against the Bharatiya Janata Party, which
rules both at the Centre and in Gujarat, drew attention yet again to
the growth of right-wing fanaticism and the need to fight it
politically. Large sections of the Muslim community, who had stood
with the government in the aftermath of December 13, were angered by
the virtually state-sponsored carnage in Gujarat. Students, teachers,
journalists and even the working class joined hands in protest and
stated in unequivocal terms that the violence in Gujarat was not
acceptable even if it was triggered by the horrifying incident at
Godhra on February 27. That both incidents were deplored in equal
terms was clear from slogans such as "Godhra ho ya Ahmedabad,
sampradayakta ho barbad" (condemn communalism in both Godhra and
Ahmedabad).
It was appalling to see the State and Central governments looking for
excuses to defend the post-Godhra violence. Mediapersons who brought
out the horror were accused of behaving irresponsibly by none other
than Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, while he gave Gujarat Chief
Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit. It appeared as if the media were
acceptable as long as it fought the government's patriotic war, but
not when it seemingly transgressed government-set boundaries to expose
a pogrom in a BJP-ruled State. This further prompted mediapersons from
prominent newspaper organisations to come out in solidarity against
the carnage.
The murderous retaliation had just begun in Gujarat when seven
national women's organisations and several bodies of teachers and
students organised a dharna outside Gujarat Bhavan in New Delhi on
March 2. The previous day a candlelight vigil was held at Rajghat by
several groups, including women's organisations, the All India
Federation of Trade Unions, and the Coalition For Nuclear Disarmament
and Peace, where the Godhra episode and the revenge killings were
condemned.
In spite of a drizzle, the dharna went on for two hours. Speaker after
speaker stressed the need to stand up to the atrocities perpetrated by
organised gangs with state patronage. Led by the All India Democratic
Women's Association (AIDWA), the National Federation of Indian Women,
the Centre for Women's Development Studies, the Joint Women's
Programme, the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), the All
India Women's Conference, the Muslim Women's Forum, Nirantar, Saheli,
Sama, Jagori, the women's unit of the Indian Social Institute, and
others, the meeting demanded the deployment of the Army in the State.
Pointing out that women and children were the worst sufferers, they
demanded the setting up of an independent panel to expose the real
perpetrators of the carnage. Significantly, even women not associated
with any organisation joined the protest. A two-minute silence was
observed to mourn the death of innocents.
On March 4, hundreds of journalists, academicians and students took
out a march in the national capital, condemning the carnage, the
negligence of the State government and the attacks on the media.
Prominent among them were authors Khushwant Singh and Arundhati Roy,
columnist B G Verghese, Frontline Editor N. Ram, The Times of India
Executive Managing Editor Dileep Padgaonkar, veteran Gandhian Nirmala
Deshpande, The Asian Age bureau chief Seema Mustafa, senior journalist
Amit Sen Gupta of The Hindustan Times, Nai Duniya Editor Shahid
Siddiqui and Mainstream Editor Sumit Chakravarty. The meeting was
supported by the Delhi Union of Journalists, Janwadi Lekhakh Sangh and
the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union. The speakers
condemned the Narendra Modi government for its abdication of
responsibility during the carnage and took strong exception to its
attempt to blame the media for "inciting violence".
While Padgaonkar said that the march was an expression of solidarity
among the media and that the media had come out in flying colours for
its coverage of the carnage, N. Ram demanded the resignation of the
Modi government and pointed out that though the situation could have
easily been brought under control by the State government, it had
chosen to allow violence to continue unabated for two days. Slogans
were raised denouncing the carnage and demanding a ban on the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad.
The same day, hundreds of teachers, students and karamcharis of Delhi
University organised a march calling for a ban on the VHP, the
resignation of the Gujarat government and action against members of
the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) students who spread
terror in the university during the VHP-sponsored bandh on March 1.
Students had walked the corridors of the Arts department, wielding
lathis, swords and tridents, shouting communal slogans and trying to
disrupt classes. The VHP's bandh call proved to be a damp squib.
The Left parties gave a call to observe March 6 as National Unity Day.
Thousands of people in various parts of the country came out on the
streets to hold meetings, protests and demonstrations. The same day,
teachers from across the country, under the banner of the All India
Federation of University and College Teachers' Organisations and the
Federation of Central Universities Teachers' Associations, marched to
the Parliament House protesting against the government policies on
higher education as well as against the Gujarat carnage.
There were violent reactions to some protests. In Ahmedabad, a hundred-
strong mob forced students and faculty from three city-based
institutions - the National Institute of Design, the Indian Institute
of Management and the Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology
- to call off their protest. They had undertaken a token fast but it
had to be called off as some of them were threatened. Their placards
were burnt and some of them beaten by VHP activists.
On March 9, at a meeting on the role of the state and the media and
ensuing violence in Gujarat prominent journalists condemned the
killings and reiterated that the media had not behaved irresponsibly
but had highlighted the horrors taking place while the government
remained inert and impassive. The horror of the killings as reported
in the media has succeeded in evoking a strong public reaction against
Hindu right-wing forces.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060240.htm
Volume 19 - Issue 06, Mar. 16 - 29, 2002
India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU
AYODHYA
Echoes of a demolition
In their depositions before the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, former
Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and Home Minister L.K. Advani present
some interesting points of view.
NAUNIDHI KAUR
in New Delhi
ON February 27, less than four hours after the train carrying kar
sevaks returning from Ayodhya was attacked in Gujarat, former Prime
Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao deposed before the Justice M.S. Liberhan
Commission of Inquiry in New Delhi explaining the sequence of events
that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.
His response to the last question posed by the Commission earned him
plaudits. Affirming that the demolished structure was a mosque,
Narasimha Rao said: "What else could it be? Was it a dwelling house?
When the Government of Uttar Pradesh says that namaz was going on
there until 1949, irrespective of the date, what else could it be but
a mosque?"
Union Home Minister L.K. Advani after deposing before the Liberhan
Commission of Inquiry on January 28.
When counsel for the Commission Anupam Gupta asked Narasimha Rao
whether he had come across any anti-Muslim rhetoric during the Ayodhya
movement, he said: "As you find it today, as it has evolved up to
today over a period of time, yes it is there."
Narasimha Rao has often been accused of coming up with obdurate and
self-exculpating explanations in response to uncomfortable questions.
Gupta read out portions from the White Paper that the Bharatiya Janata
Party had brought out on the Ayodhya issue, accusing the Congress(I)
of using the Ayodhya movement for electoral gains: "...that is why it
(Congress(I)), in the first instance, permitted the shilanyas on
November 10, 1989 and in the same breath prohibited the kar seva on
November 11." Narasimha Rao replied: "Personally I was not aware of
the shilanyas but I can refer the Hon'ble Commission to Mr. Buta
Singh, who was then Home Minister, and who, according to my
information, was dealing with the subject from day to day. I believe
that he will be able to shed some light on this." In reply to a
question on the role of the BJP leadership in the Somnath-Ayodhya rath
yatra, Narasimha Rao said that he did not have a discussion with the
BJP leadership on the issue.
However, Narasimha Rao was critical of a particular section in the
White Paper. On page 129, the party lists "historical and immediate
provocations" that led to the demolition. These include: "(i) The
general and growing Hindu resentment against pseudo-secularism and
minority appeasement; (ii) the allergy of most political parties to
Hinduism and the consequent loss of national identity; (iii) the
political effect implicit in the Babri structure which is an invader's
victory monument; (iv) the deliberate pseudo-secular attempt to ignore
the truth and clothe it with religious sanctity; (v) the identifying
of a mosque structure in Sri Rama's birthplace as a symbol of minority
rights and secularism."
Narasimha Rao stated: "I can straightaway tell you that I do not agree
with any of these. I have a cogent answer to each of these points." He
said: "Point one is totally wrong. In the first place, we are either
secular or non-secular. There is no such thing as pseudo-secularism.
And if the minorities have to be given certain rights according to the
Constitution and according to secular principles, there is no question
of appeasement. Point two borders on the absurd. But for the support
of Hindus, other parties would never have come to power - some in the
States and the Congress party at the Centre. On the third point, I
have no reason to take the structure as an invader's victory monument.
And if invasions took place, they took place all over northern India
and in some areas in the South also. So, there is no meaning in saying
that there is one monument representing the history of, say, 250
years. On the fourth point, I do not think anybody else has done it.
If it has been done - clothing it with religious sanctity - it has
been done by the BJP only. On the fifth point, I do not know who is
doing it. The boot is on the other leg because they are saying that
there was a temple before the structure was built. So the argument is
being stood on its head."
Perhaps Narasimha Rao's most valuable answer to the Commission was the
one in which he delegitimised the role of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad-
sponsored Dharma Sansad and Margdarshak Mandal in the Ayodhya movement
by saying that he refused to acknowledge them as organisations. When
asked about the role of the sants and the sadhus and his meeting with
them on July 23, 1992, he said: "When they came to meet (me), I only
found individuals in front of me. Frankly, as I have stated in my
testimony, I have no knowledge of their backgrounds either personally
or organisationally."
To a question on the Shankara-charyas' demand for the construction of
a temple in Ayodhya, Narasimha Rao said that he could not recall any
such instance and added that though he had known the Shankaracharyas
for a long time, it had been in a different context. "Their position,"
he maintained, "is unassailable." He refused to name the sadhus and
the sants who were active in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
On questions relating to the debates on secularism, Narasimha Rao's
responses, by and large, were concise and incisive. However, in some
instances his replies tended to be stilted. In one instance, Gupta
asked: "You had ritual in the Ram shila pujan programme; you had
religious imagery in the rath yatra of 1990; and, finally, you had
exhortations for kar seva in July and then in December 1992. How much
of all this legitimately falls in the sphere of religion and how much
of it is an illegitimate intrusion into the public domain?" And
Narasimha Rao pointedly replied that "both are inter-related as motive
and action."
Dwelling at length on the concept of cultural nationalism, he
explained: "Indian culture went far out of India, it also spread to
Indonesia, Thailand and so many other areas. So the geographical
entity which is called 'India' today is much smaller than what is
comprehended in the phrase 'Indian culture'."
NARASIMHA RAO'S deposition was preceded by Home Minister L.K. Advani's
on January 28 and 29. In what was his last deposition before the
Commission, Advani refused to disclose the role of BJP leaders like
Sadhvi Rithambara and Uma Bharti in the demolition of the Masjid. He
said that he was unaware of their "contributions" to the Ayodhya
movement. Quoting passages from the book Creating a Nationality: The
Ramjanmabhumi Movement and Fear of the Self, by Ashis Nandy, Shikha
Trivedy, Shail Mayaram and Achyut Yagnik, Gupta asked whether Advani
recalled hearing the slogan "Babri Masjid tod do" anytime on December
6. Advani said: "There might have been. In fact, during the campaign
itself when slogans of this kind were raised and I was addressing the
crowd, I used to express my disapproval. This I have mentioned earlier
in my deposition. But, on that day, there may have been. I was
engrossed in my efforts and contacting the authorities in Lucknow."
When asked whether the unrestricted access to Ayodhya given to kar
sevaks from all over Uttar Pradesh and from across the country had
contributed to the demolition, Advani said: "I have seen congregations
of the same size which had been well-controlled and disciplined, and
so not only those who organised this congregation but even the Supreme
Court felt that unrestricted gathering of crowds in itself does not
pose a danger and, therefore, they permitted it. But obviously there
were elements in the crowd who seem to have decided..."
M. LAKSHMAN
Former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao after a deposition.
As in his earlier depositions, Advani approved of the Ayodhya movement
and at the same time grieved over the destruction of the mosque. Also,
this time he went a step ahead in political doublespeak by comparing
the demolition in Ayodhya with the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi in 1984.
To a question whether the lax police and administrative arrangements
in Ayodhya had facilitated the demolition, Advani said: "Even though
the analogy is of a different kind, in November 1984 there were
obviously elements in the administration and the police who did not
mind Sikhs being brutally assassinated as they were and so looked on
even while thousands of Sikhs were being burnt alive... In comparison,
policemen or executives who failed to do their duty while vandalism
was taking place in Ayodhya, I would regard as such, less guilty than
the policemen who saw the massacre of innocent human beings without
raising a little finger."
Further, Advani said: "I regard the happenings in Delhi in November
1984 as happenings of greater shame and agony than the incidents in
Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. Though for me, as a person who was
intimately associated with the movement and felt proud about the
achievements of the movement, that became the saddest day."
The Commission's recommendations are not legally binding on the state.
Its strength lies in the fact that it has been able to record such
statements as those of Advani and Narasimha Rao.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060250.htm
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060270.htm
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1906/19060340.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
COMMUNALISM
Demolishing images
PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
Anju Gupta’s statement in the CBI court on L.K. Advani’s role in the
Babri masjid demolition comes as a major embarrassment to the BJP.
NAND KUMAR/PTI
IPS officer Anju Gupta after deposing before the CBI special court in
Rae Bareli.
Senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Anju Gupta’s statement in
the special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Rae Bareli
on March 26 nails the lie that Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K.
Advani has been serving to the nation for many years that the
demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, by kar sevaks was
the “saddest day of my life” and that he had never wanted the mosque
to fall. Anju Gupta, who was with Advani all through that day in her
capacity as his personal security officer, was Superintendent of
Police, Faizabad then and was barely months into her service when the
incident happened.
She has now given a graphic account of how the former Deputy Prime
Minister and Union Home Minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee
government provoked kar sevaks, how he kept telling them that a temple
would be built at the spot where the mosque stood, and how he, along
with other BJP and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders, celebrated the
demolition by distributing and partaking sweets and hugging each
other. Although a dozen senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and
IPS officers were present at the spot that day, Anju Gupta was the
only officer to record her statement before the CBI in 1993. The CBI
filed the case against Advani and other leaders such as Murli Manohar
Joshi, Uma Bharati, Vinay Katiyar, S.C. Dixit and Sadhvi Rithambara on
the basis of her statement.
Eight witnesses had been examined in the case, Anju Gupta was the
ninth. It is understood that the statements of 40 more witnesses will
be recorded. The first statement recorded was that of Inspector
Hanuman Prasad, on December 5, 2007. An inspector posted with the
local police station, he registered the first information report (FIR)
on the demolition of the masjid. The second witness to record his
statement was R.K. Swami, on December 13, 2007. Swami (now retired)
was the deputy commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
posted there at the time. The recording of his statement and cross-
examination continued until April 8, 2008.
On July 8, 2008, the third witness in the case, Mohammad Aslam,
recorded his statement before the court. The fourth witness was Avdesh
Upadhyaya, a priest. The statement of the fifth witness, Sanjay Khare,
was recorded on February 28, 2009, and his cross-examination continued
until May 16, 2009. The sixth and seventh witnesses, Ram Bahadur
Mishra and Jitendra Mishra, two sub-inspectors, recorded their
statements on June 5, 2009, and August 27, 2009, respectively. The
eighth witness, whose statement was recorded on November 23, 2009, was
Chandra Kishore Mishra.
But Anju Gupta’s statement stands out as she is the only serving IPS
officer (at present a Deputy Inspector-General with the Research and
Analysis Wing, or RAW) and the highest ranking one to have deposed in
the case. Even the CBI court has designated her as the “most
important” witness in the case. Her testimony could have far-reaching
implications for the country’s polity.
Recalling the sequence of events on that fateful day, Anju Gupta said
that Advani and other leaders had reached Ayodhya on the night of
December 5. She had received Advani in the night at the Faizabad-
Barabanki border, and her job as his personal security officer was to
stick close to him and watch over him. The next morning, she said,
they went to Ram Katha Kunj, a single-storey building, the roof of
which was being used as a dais by the leaders to address kar sevaks.
She said that when Advani and M.M. Joshi reached the place, VHP leader
Vinay Katiyar was already making a speech in which he sarcastically
said: “Even a bird cannot flap its wings here.” (This was to mock an
earlier statement by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav
in October 1990 when he had ordered a firing to prevent kar sevaks
from reaching the mosque.) Joshi, she said, told the gathering that
the temple would be constructed exactly where the mosque stood.
When she went to bring Advani’s fleet of vehicles, parked near the
police control room, she saw for the first time people scaling the
walls of the disputed structure. This happened between 11-50 a.m. and
12 noon. “I saw some people carrying the equipment used to demolish a
building, like iron rods and ploughs,” she said. She added that she
immediately tried to contact the Ayodhya police control room.
“Around 12-10 p.m., I gave my location to the control room and
requested for force, but got no positive response. I again contacted
the control room at 12-31 p,m, and made repeated requests,” she was
quoted by the Press Trust of India (PTI) as saying.
V. V. KRISHNAN
L. K. Advani. He has always said that the day of the demolition of the
mosque was the saddest day of his life.
Anju Gupta said that when she came back to Ram Katha Kunj, she saw
that people had already climbed the structure and were destroying it.
“I saw that there was an atmosphere of excitement on the dais where
the leaders were present.” On the basis of wireless information she
informed Advani that some people had entered the disputed structure
and were demolishing it. “I told him that people were falling from the
domes of the structure and were getting injured, upon which Advani
expressed concern and expressed his willingness to go to the site. But
I advised him against this,” she said.
After consultations with senior officials, she told the BJP leader
that it was not desirable for him to go there because if there was any
mishap involving him, it might make the situation spin out of control.
Advani then sent Uma Bharti to the spot but she came back after some
time. Anju Gupta said that while the BJP and Sangh leaders continued
to provoke kar sevaks by chanting slogans, the kar sevaks razed the
structure to the ground. The first dome was demolished between 1-45
p.m. and 2 p.m. and the third and last one came down at 4-30 p.m. The
PTI quotes her as saying that Advani made feeble attempts to ask the
kar sevaks to climb down from the dome as “they were falling down and
injuring themselves”.
She said Advani asked her to arrange a telephonic talk with the then
Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh, and the District Magistrate and Senior
Superintendent of Police of Faizabad. She said she was not in a
position to do so. However, the D.M. and the SSP came to the Ram Katha
Kunj office after messages were sent to them, and they had a closed-
door meeting with Advani and others. “I came to know that Advani later
had a telephonic conversation with the Chief Minister,” she said. She
added that when the last dome fell, Uma Bharati and Sadhvi Rithambara
hugged each other, and they hugged Advani and Joshi too and
distributed sweets. The PTI quotes her as saying that the atmosphere
on the dais where Advani and others were sitting was one of jubilation
and euphoria. Even as kar sevaks were pulling down the mosque, the BJP
and VHP leaders kept singing bhajans, which grew louder by the minute,
and Sadhvi Rithambara was chanting slogans like: “Ek dhakka aur do,
Babri Masjid tod do” (give one more push and demolish the mosque).
The defence lawyer has started to cross-examine Anju Gupta. The cross-
examination will be resumed on April 23.
The statement of Anju Gupta, who watched the action from a distance of
barely 150-175 metres, has been the most damning for the BJP. Its
leaders are taken aback by the forthrightness of the statement, since
it leaves no doubt about the intent of the BJP leaders, including
Advani, that day.
No BJP leader is willing to speak on record, on the grounds that the
“matter is sub judice”. Senior BJP leaders, however, agree that the
statement has come as a major embarrassment for the party, especially
at a time when it was trying to bounce back to its prominent position
at the national level under a new and younger leadership.
Efforts to contact Advani remained futile as he refused to say
anything on the issue. A close aide, however, tried to brazen it out
by saying that the same police officer had given a different statement
before the Liberhan Commission and that the party would expose the
falsehood in her statement on the basis of her two versions. He said
that she had never said anything about the distribution of sweets
before the Liberhan Commission, and that she had added it now as an
afterthought. The party is trying to caste a shadow of doubt on her
credibility by insisting on calling her Anju Gupta Rizvi. It is trying
to hammer in the point that her statement is prejudiced since she is
married to a Muslim. .
Reactions
Surprisingly, the Congress, the BJP’s main political adversary, has
not shown any excitement about the statement, except to say that it
was a “very crucial one”. The subdued reaction outlines the fact that
despite being of huge political significance, Anju Gupta’s statement
may not exactly have any deleterious effect on the case. It would be
premature to jump to any conclusions based on this statement alone, a
fact that even Muslim organisations acknowledge. Nor will it expedite
the case in any way.
According to Dr S.Q.R. Ilyas, spokesman for the All India Muslim
Personal Law Board, the statement merely vindicates what the Muslim
community has been saying for years. Now that there is no doubt about
the role of senior BJP leaders in the demolition, Ilyas said, the
government should immediately lodge a case against them under Section
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (pertaining to charges of conspiracy),
which was deleted from the CBI charge-sheet in 2003 during the tenure
of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance regime. Advani was the
Union Home Minister then.
“What is required is political will and that, sad to say, seems to be
missing ,” he said. He said that even after the Liberhan Report, which
took an agonising 17 years to materialise, the government had taken no
initiative to bring the guilty to book.
THE HINDU ARCHIVES
Kar sevaks atop the Babri Masjid on December 6,1992.
Dr Rehmani, president of the Muslim Political Council of India,
agrees. He says the main civil case about the Babri Masjid land title
is 47 years old and, in all likelihood, will continue for another 50
years. “Political parties are merely using the issue for their gains
and nobody wants to punish the guilty,” he said.
It should be noted that the same IPS officer’s statement was used by
Rae Bareli Special Court Magistrate V.K. Singh in 2003 to acquit
Advani of all charges in the demolition case. He quoted selectively
from the officer’s testimony to prove that the charges against Advani
were based only on “mere suspicion” and not on “grave suspicion”. For
example, Anju Gupta’s statement that Advani asked her what was
happening was inferred by the judge as meaning that he was in the dark
about the happenings. Similarly, quoting from her statement, he said
since Advani expressed his willingness to go to the site, it meant he
wanted to prevent the kar sevaks. Also, quoting Anju Gupta, he said
that since Advani was on the mike asking kar sevaks to come down it
meant he was asking them to stop demolishing the structure. He glossed
over the fact that she had said Advani asked kar sevaks to come down
because “they were falling down from the dome and injuring
themselves”. In 2005, however, the Allahabad High Court reinstated the
charges against Advani.
Such jugglery of words, political observers believe, could once again
be used to twist facts. Hence the statement may not mean much at this
juncture.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270812300.htm
Volume 27 - Issue 08 :: Apr. 10-23, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
LEGISLATION
Beefing up a law
VIKHAR AHMED SAYEED
The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill,
passed by the State Assembly, raises a wave of protests .
K. BHAGYA PRAKASH
Members of various Dalit organisations staging a protest against the
Bill in Bangalore.
The butchers at Bangalore’s largest beef market, in Shivajinagar, are
a worried lot. On March 19, the Karnataka State Assembly passed a Bill
that proposes to ban completely the slaughter of cattle in Karnataka.
“I see this as a conspiracy by the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP]
government in the State against minorities and backward castes,” said
Suhail, a young butcher whose livelihood depends on the procurement
and sale of beef.
Another butcher remarked that the elections to the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), held on March 28, could be the main reason
for the Bill’s passage at this juncture. Elections to the 198 wards of
the BBMP were held more than three years after the term of the last
council ended. The keenly contested elections had 1,336 candidates,
including those from the three leading political parties in the State
– the BJP, the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular).
Behind the beef market and in the thickly populated lanes of
Shivajinagar is the office of Khasim Aijaz Quraishi, the president of
the Beef Merchants’ Association of Karnataka. Quraishi is furious that
the government could contemplate such an enactment when 35 lakh people
in the State were dependent on the trade in beef. The figure, he said,
included people involved in the ancillary activities such as
transportation of cattle, the leather industry and the meat packaging
industry.
“While the Bill seems to be targeted at Muslims, what the State has
overlooked is that almost all the people involved in the associated
trades are non-Muslims,” he said His estimate of the number of people
is not backed by any documentary evidence, but there is no doubt that
if all the people involved in all the ancillary trades of the beef
industry are enumerated, it will be a huge figure.
A complete ban on the slaughter of cattle figured in the manifesto of
the Bharatiya Janata Party when it contested the elections to the
Legislative Assembly in 2008. Once the party emerged as the single
largest party in the Assembly and formed the government with the
support of independent legislators, right-wing pressure groups within
the party began demanding that the pre-election promise be fulfilled.
The government first introduced the Bill in the Assembly last year but
withdrew it on March 3, a couple of days after the communal skirmish
over the publication of Taslima Nasrin’s translated article in a
Kannada newspaper (see Frontline, March 26). However, it was
reintroduced in a much more draconian form a few days later as the
Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill of
2010, which proposed to replace the Karnataka Prevention of Cow
Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act of 1964.
There are two major differences between the two pieces of legislation.
The latest Bill extends the prevention of slaughter to “cattle”, which
it defines as “cow, calf of a cow and bull, bullock, buffalo male or
female and calf of she-buffalo”. The 1964 Act had its scope restricted
to the slaughter of cows, calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes,
but allowed the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and buffaloes if they
were over 12 years of age or if they were no longer fit for breeding
or draught or did not give milk.
The other difference is the severity of the penalty. The maximum
imprisonment for violating the provisions of the 1964 Act was six
months whereas the 2010 Bill prescribes imprisonment extending up to
seven years. It is this that has made people question the intentions
of the State BJP government as in the Indian Penal Code, imprisonment
for such long terms is usually meant for crimes of a far more heinous
nature.
Karnataka, especially its coastal areas, has routinely been the target
of right-wing groups who use the cow slaughter issue to create
communal tensions. Skirmishes follow allegations of transporting of
cows for slaughter.
In March 2005, a 60-year-old man and his son were stripped, paraded
and beaten in public for trying to buy a calf in Udupi district. In
another incident in May 2006 in the same district, an elderly Hindu
man was killed for being a middleman in the sale of cows. The
involvement of fundamentalist organisations such as the Bajrang Dal
and the Hindu Yuva Sena was alleged in both these incidents.
M.A.SRIRAM
Right-wing groups in the State use the cow slaughter issue to create
communal tensions.
Activist groups such as the Karnataka Komu Souharda Vedike (KKSV, or
the Karnataka Communal Harmony Forum) feel that the harsh clauses of
the 2010 Bill will be used to target religious minorities.
The Bill has come under the scanner for two other reasons. First, for
its interference in the food habits of people – apart from the
religious minorities, a large number of backward caste people consume
beef. Second, the excessive burden that the Bill will place on
farmers, who will now have to look after their aged cattle instead of
selling them off to meat traders.
Members of Dalit communities across the State have protested against
the Bill, saying that it is a case of interference with their food
habits and fulfilment of the upper-caste, Hindutva agenda of
“Sanskritisation”.
Ideologues of the Dalit cause such as Kancha Ilaiah have, in the past,
argued that beef-eating is an inherent part of the lower-caste
identity. Many opponents of the Bill quote extensively from D.N. Jha’s
2002 work, The Myth of the Holy Cow, which expounds that in the Hindu
religion, “the ‘holiness’ of the cow is a myth and that its flesh was
very much a part of the early Indian non-vegetarian food regimen and
dietary traditions”. Jha writes that beef-eating is not Islam’s
bequeathal to India, as is commonly believed. He cites Vedic sources
to demonstrate Indra’s preference for ox meat and Agni’s and Soma’s
fondness for cow meat.
The cow emerged as the rallying point for communal mobilisation in
northern India in the late 19th century. It was the reason for riots
on several occasions in pre-independent and post-independent India.
There is evidence to show that many rulers in medieval India banned
the killing of cows. And when the issue came up for discussion in the
Constituent Assembly debates, the Drafting Committee decided to
include cow protection in the Directive Principles rather than accept
the demand for a total ban on cow slaughter across the country. The
demand for a total ban continued in independent India, the apogee of
which was in 1966 when a large crowd marched to Parliament and the
Shankaracharya of Puri decided on an indefinite fast demanding the
same.
The demand was raised sporadically across the country even after that,
and a few States such as Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh banned the
slaughter of all cattle. When the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance
(NDA) was in power at the Centre, it had tried to introduce the
‘Prevention of Cruelty to Cow Bill’ in 2003 but its efforts failed as
it could not build a consensus on the issue. While most States across
India have banned the slaughter of cows but not other cattle, it is
legal to slaughter cows in Kerala, West Bengal and in the north-
eastern States.
The Bill was passed in the Karnataka Assembly by a voice vote after a
lengthy debate and amidst protests from the Opposition parties. Chief
Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa said that the aim of the Bill was to
preserve the rich cattle wealth of the State and should not be
construed as being against any particular community. He said it was in
accordance with Article 48 of the Directive Principles. But the
government will find it more difficult to get the Bill passed by the
Legislative Council, where it does not have a clear majority. The
Governor’s sanction will follow this approval.
If the Bill becomes an Act and the sale of beef is completely
forbidden in the State, it will be the responsibility of the State
government to provide for the upkeep of lakhs of head of cattle. This
will increase the burden on the State exchequer.
The ban will also bring about a change in the dietary habits of lakhs
of people. Beef is relatively cheap, selling at between Rs.100 and Rs.
120 in Bangalore, while mutton sells at double that price. The BJP
government has not given a thought to this or to the livelihood
problem of lakhs of people involved in the cattle meat trade while
attempting to appease its right-wing constituency.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100423270812100.htm
...and I am Sid Harth