It was fake encounter, admits Gujarat Government

New Delhi, March 23
In a startling revelation the Gujarat Government counsel today admitted in the Supreme Court that the killing of Muslim youth Shorabuddin by the police in 2005, suspecting him to be a Lashkar-e-Toiba operative plotting the assassination of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, was a fake encounter.

A joint team of the anti-terrorist squad of the Gujarat police and special task force of Rajasthan had allegedly killed Shorabuddin after making him and his wife alight from a bus on way to Sangli from Ahmedabad. His brother Rubabuddin’s petition for probing the killing was listed before a Bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.

Senior advocate K.T.S. Tulsi, appearing for the Gujarat Government admitted that it was a fake encounter and action was being taken against the police officials involved from both states.

Rubabuddin had also alleged that after the killing of his brother, his wife also went missing and apparently had been eliminated by the police for fear of being exposed. He added that co-passenger Tulsi Ram Prajapati, who had brought to light the killing, was also found dead under mysterious circumstances.

Noted journalist B.G. Verghese also filed a PIL seeking probe into the alleged 21 fake encounters in Gujarat but the court said unless some specific material was placed on record, a general direction for inquiry on unsubstantiated charges could not be issued.

Meanwhile, in a Gujarat riots related case being heard by another three-judge Bench, headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat, amucus curiea senior advocate Harish Salve placed on record an assessment report on major violent incidents with a suggestion that an independent inquiry in at least four of them was imminent.

The four cases cited pertained to large-scale violence in Gulberga Society, where a Congress MP was also killed.

The court directed the Gujarat Government, NHRC and NGOs to submit responses to the suggestion of amicus curiea by April 5 and said the case would be listed for appropriate direction on April 16.

Gujarat: Four Years After
The Genocide
By Azim Khan
25 February, 2006
Countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-azimkhan250206.htm
Last month, during a visit to Ahmedabad I befriended the owner of a tea-stall, a policeman and a businessman. My vendor 'friend', a wonderful man, was an innocent victim of systematic saffron propaganda against Muslims. After a few days of our friendship, when I asked him about the carnage of 2002 in Ahmedabad he narrated how people from the posh CG Road looted showrooms belonging to Muslims. To my surprise, the policeman wanted to know if I could help him, through a senior police official friend of mine, to secure a place in the Crime Branch or Anti-Terrorist Squad. Before my Gujarat visit I had assumed that postings in these special cells were considered punishment postings in police circles. I did not know that these agencies had been turned into a new extortion industry. My third 'friend', a disciple of Murari Bapu, was very happy because, he said, under Modi's regime Hindus 'taught a lesson to Muslims'.

The state-sponsored pogrom in Gujarat was a systematic effort to terrorise Muslims and reduce them to the status of second-class citizens by destroying their lives, livelihood, homes and self-respect. Beginning on 27 February 2002 the spate of violence continued for well over three months. Coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express train was burnt down at Godhra, taking a toll of 59 persons and leading to violence on an unprecedented scale and magnitude directed against Muslims in Gujarat. The profound human tragedy resulted in more than 2000 Muslims dead, many more grievously injured, orphaned, sexually abused, rendered homeless and without any source of livelihood, and property worth billions burnt or looted. Reports from several independent sources corroborate that the state was actively involved in the massacre of innocent Muslim citizens.

The physical violence ended within six months, but thereafter it was time for violence of another kind. This violence was through a systematic subversion of justice and denial of human rights of an entire community. The entire legal system was subverted to protect the culprits and to work against the interests of the victims, almost all of whom were Muslims. Out of the 4000-odd cases registered, more than 2000 were summarily closed without any trial. In other cases, witnesses were compelled to turn hostile in the face of threats by state-supported criminals who perpetrated the killings. Further victimization and terrorization of the Muslims continued by picking up innocent people, detaining them illegally before being charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The fascist goal of reducing the Muslims to second-class citizens has thus been accomplished in Gujarat. There is enormous human suffering that still remains to be healed-insecurity, homelessness, ill-health, economic distress, obstacles in securing justice, denial of human rights and state apathy.

Ahmad Husain, a 32 year-old teacher and social worker, is the second eldest son of the late Allah Rakkha who fought the British Raj. Under colonial occupation Allah Rakha was charged for treason but now his son has been charged for the same offence in 'independent', 'secular' and 'democratic' India. His family had no clue until they were told by the officials of the Crime Branch of Ahmedabad that he was detained under POTA. The officials threatened another accused to identify Ahmad or be ready for the detention of his son under POTA. They wanted a confession from Ahmad, and so they took his youngest brother Mohammad Ali into custody. Ahmad was told by the officials that it was in his family's interest to sign the confession papers prepared by the police, or else, they said, they would detain his younger brother under the same charges. A police officer sarcastically told Ahmad that if his younger brother was also detained her mother would die. In a letter to the magistrate Ahmad wrote, "Whenever, I asked about the reason of severe beating and torture by the crime branch personnel they told me your destiny has brought you in this condition, we know you haven't done wrong in this life but you are being punished for your sins in your previous life." He further states, "Policemen used to say, 'the law is ours and judges are ours, we can book anyone under POTA"

Khatoon Bibi is the mother of three boys who are detained under POTA for being allegedly involved in the Godhra incident. Her 68 year-old husband Sultan Khan Pathan is suffering from throat cancer. She and her daughter in- law are the sole bread earners in the family. In deep anguish and frustration she continuously requested to be taken to the residence of Gujarat's chief minister, who played a key role in engineering the anti-Muslim genocide. She says in anguish, "Why doesn't Modi's government detain my whole family so at least we will not face suffering and humiliation?" She is unable to understand what her sin was. In fact she is guilty of a 'crime'-a 'crime' not defined in the Indian Penal Code-the 'crime' of being a Muslim mother in Modi's fascist Gujarat.

Another unfortunate mother, who lost her eyesight while crying for her detained son for years, asked me about the draconian anti terrorist law POTA. She says, "My innocent son is languishing in jail and the butchers are roaming freely. What kind of law is it which punishes the innocent and acquits the guilty?" She wanted to know when her son would be released. I, of course, had no answer to her queries because the present regime in Gujarat does not even pretend to be remorseful for the heinous crimes that it perpetrated against the state's Muslims. The questions raised by these victims of state terrorism are shaking the foundations of rule of law and justice to all as enshrined in the Constitution of India. How can we still claim to be world's largest 'democracy'? Theirs is a story of unimaginable sufferings. The voiceless victims are losing their faith in every institution including 'democracy'. As Mukul Sinha, a prominent social activist from Ahmedabad, says, "I am convinced that Muslims will not get justice in Gujarat under the present regime. The entire legal system has been sabotaged by the fascist government."

Abdul Rashid Machiswala, father of a detainee under POTA, asks me, "95 Muslims were killed in Naroda Patia alone but no one was booked under POTA for the heinous crime. Yet, all POTA detainees are Muslims. What kind of justice is meted out to the poor Muslims in Gujarat?" One of the detainees narrates his own traumatic experience at the hands of the state authorities thus: "A policeman took us before the Magistrate, Mr Rane, in Ahmedabad. We complained about the torture in police custody. He shouted at policemen and said, 'How you have prepared them? Take them back and come with good preparation?' By this he meant using more third degree torture so we should not complain."

These innocent detainees have been subjected to the worst forms of physical as well as mental torture. One detainee wanted to remove his trousers before Ms Sonia Gandhi when she visited the Sabarmati Central Jail to show what he had suffered in police custody. The Gujarat police are almost completely saffronised. In the name of combating terrorist activities and to please their political masters, the Gujarat police have been cooking up false cases of sedition, illegal arms and criminal conspiracy against young and innocent boys of the Muslim community. Extending illegal detention of poor Muslims by the Anti-Terrorist Squad and Crime Branch is an everyday affair. In Modi's Gujarat equality before the law and equal protection of the law have no meaning. Courts are proactive in granting bails to Hindu accused and jail to Muslims. The posts of Public Prosecutors are filled with fanatic members of VHP and sympathisers of the BJP. In short, three years after the genocide, justice for Gujarat's Muslims still remains a far cry.


*The writer is a Delhi-based human rights activist. He may be contacted on azimsherwani@gmail.com

Gujarat Bill: Denying Religious Freedom In Freedom's
By Yoginder Sikand

21 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org

The recent passing of a controversial bill by the Gujarat Assembly has, understandably enough, generated a storm of protest. Ironically called the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006, the Bill, critics argue, represents a major assault on religious freedom, particularly of non-Hindus, in Gujarat. The Bill follows closely on the heels of similar legislative moves on the part of BJP governments in other states as well that, it is claimed, aim at clamping down on conversion of Hindus to other religions in the name of upholding 'religious freedom'.

The Bill, critics contend, is a direct violation of the freedom to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The Bill requires that if a person wishes to convert to another religion he or she has to first inform the local district magistrate, who is charged with verifying his or her case. Why this should be so is beyond one's understanding. Since religion is an intensely personal matter, between an individual and the Supreme Being, and a question of one's understanding of the world and Ultimate Reality, there ought to be no need to inform, leave alone secure the approval of, anyone about one's change of religious allegiance, just as one does not need to seek permission or inform anyone about a change in one's political allegiance, culinary habits or dress code, equally personal issues. Rather than promoting religious freedom, as the Bill ostensibly seeks to, this clause can easily be used to suppress it. Informing anyone, including a government functionary, before one's conversion can easily lead to pressure, witch-hunting and persecution by those, such as Hindutva supporters, within the governmental apparatus and in society at large who are vehemently opposed to Hindus converting to other religions. This is no mere speculation, for such persecution of religious converts and those seeking to convert has been happening on a frighteningly large scale in recent years.

In large measure, the Bill reflects the fierce opposition of the Hindutva lobby, and, more generally, of many 'upper' caste Hindus, to the struggles for emancipation of the dominated and marginalized castes, who have historically accounted for the vast majority of converts to various non-Hindu religions in India. The history of religious conversion movements in India is, by and large, the story of numerous struggles of Dalits, Adivasis and other similarly oppressed caste groups seeking a new, more positive identity for themselves that Brahminical Hinduism has denied them. Brahminical Hinduism has branded these communities, who, together, form the vast majority of the Indian population, as 'low' and 'despicable', as is evident in almost all the key Brahminical texts. The subordination of the oppressed castes that Brahmincal Hinduism clearly legitimises is central to the maintenance of the hegemony of the 'upper' caste Hindu elite. In protest against Brahminical chauvinism, large numbers of people from the oppressed castes have chosen religious conversion as a powerful means of protest. This explains why the majority of non-Hindus in India, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs, are of oppressed caste background. Even today, most converts to non-Hindu religions are from these castes.

Since conversion to non-Hindu religions is a potent symbol of defiance of the caste system and 'upper' caste religious, cultural, social and economic oppression, it is obvious that many 'upper' caste Hindus, including those affiliated to the Hindutva lobby that defends 'upper' caste privilege while claiming to speak on behalf of all 'Hindus', are vehemently opposed to the freedom of Hindus, particularly those branded as 'low' caste, to convert to other religions, because it threatens 'upper' caste hegemony.

At the same time, ironically, the Hindutva lobby is a vociferous advocate of the conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism, or what it calls shuddhi ('purification', reflecting, probably, the Brahminical belief that non-Hindus are 'impure') or 'ghar vapasi' ('returning home'). Not much is talked about this in the press, which prefers to focus, instead, on conversions to Christianity and Islam. But this agenda is real enough. To cite just one instance, a recent article in the RSS-mouthpiece Organiser (17 September, 2006) by a certain Ravi Shanker Kapoor, bearing the revealing title 'Shuddhi Movement Needed: Hindus Should Promote Religious Conversion', exhorts Hindus to convert Indian Muslims to Hinduism. Conversions of Muslims, and, to a greater extent, Christians, to Hinduism has been happening in India in recent years. Predictably, these have been lauded, rather than condemned, by Hindutva advocates of a ban on or strict regulation of religious conversion.

A crucial issue in the conversion debate is the question of who precisely is a Hindu. There is no ready, textbook definition of what Hinduism is or what a person needs to believe or practice in order to be considered a Hindu. Most often, attempts at producing such a definition project Brahminical Hinduism as laying down what Hinduism is all about. This, of course, ignores the religious traditions of vast numbers of Dalits and Adivasis, which, on crucial points, have nothing to do with Brahminical Hinduism and are diametrically opposed to it. And if Brahmnical Hinduism comes to be seen as defining Hinduism, large numbers of people from the oppressed castes can hardly be said to be Hindu at all, or, at the very most, 'imperfect' Hindus.

Almost all the classical Brahminical texts do not even once mention the word 'Hindu', and for centuries the dominant castes did not consider Dalits, Adivasis and other such oppressed castes as fellow Hindus in practical terms. Even today, widespread prejudice against the oppressed castes makes the notion of Hindus as a single community, united by a feeling of brotherhood, equality and oneness, quite meaningless in empirical terms. It is the British who first categorized Hindus as a single community, but the definition they deployed was a negative one: Indians who were not Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain were treated as 'Hindus'. It was thus by default that Dalits and other such oppressed castes came to be considered as 'Hindus' in the administrative or legal sense of the term. In actual fact, however, in large parts of India these caste groups are still not treated by 'upper' caste Hindus as co-religionists ideally should be. Hence, to argue that Dalits or Adivasis converting to, say, Christianity, are abandoning Hinduism is problematic, to say the least.

The Indian state, following the British, continues with this definition of 'Hindu', thus effectively converting to an amorphously-defined Hinduism large numbers of Dalits and Adivasis, whose 'Hinduness' is doubtful going by what the Brahminical scriptures teach and by the practice and attitudes of many 'upper' caste Hindus. An ostensibly secular state has, therefore, taken on itself the right to define what and who is a Hindu. One can easily discern in this creation by the state of the legal definition of a single Hindu community the 'upper' caste Hindu quest for the preservation of caste Hindu hegemony. This legal definition of a Hindu has created the notion, not seriously sustainable empirically, of Hindus as the 'majority' community, by co-opting Dalits, Adivasis and so on, into the 'Hindu' fold. This definition and the logic of Hindu majoritarianism is then used in different ways to legitimize the domination of the 'upper' caste minority, with the 'upper' castes presenting themselves and accepted by the 'upper' caste-dominated state and society state as the spokesmen of the entire Hindu community as it has come to be legally constructed. And to further sustain 'upper' caste hegemony, Dalits, Adivasis and other such marginalised communities are subjected to what is effectively a process of religious conversion to Brahminical Hinduism, subtly, through the state, which insists on defining them as Hindus, through the Hinduised state education system and, more overtly, through a range of 'upper' caste-led religious groups, including those associated with the Hindutva lobby, through roving ' sadhus', bhajan-mandalis and temples that are, in a planned way, being actively promoted among these communities. In this regard, why, one might well ask, is it that the ongoing religious conversion of such communities to Brahminical Hinduism is not considered a form of religious conversion that the Gujarat Bill ostensibly seeks to control. The answer, of course, is obvious: the framers of the Bill probably seek to prevent conversion to non-Hindu religions while remaining silent, if not encouraging, non-Hindus to convert to Hinduism.

Another related problem with the arrogation by the state of the right to decide what or who as Hindu is, critics of the Bill point out, relates to the Bill's arbitrary and unwarranted clubbing of Jains and Buddhists as 'Hindus'. Gujarat's Minister of State for Home, Amit Shah, who introduced the Bill, is on record as having arbitrarily announced that Jainism and Buddhism were 'construed as parts of Hinduism'. How and why the state, especially one that claims to be secular, should have that right is a crucial question. Numerous Buddhists and Jains do not consider themselves as Hindus, particularly in theological terms. The state, therefore, has no right to declare them so against their will. Indeed, Indian history is replete with instances of bloody persecution by Brahmins and their royal supporters of Jains and Buddhists, declaring them to be anti-Vedic heretics. Brahminical hatred for Jainism and Buddhism was rooted in the fact that these two religions, in their inception, were stiffly opposed to Brahminical hegemony and the oppression of the non-Brahmins that classical Hinduism legitimised. Clubbing together these religions with Hinduism is thus a clever means to deny their separate identity, paper over their historical contradictions with Brahminism, and, ultimately, to absorb them into the Hindu fold. In a sense, this is tantamount to another form of religious conversion but on a massive scale—converting entire religious traditions and their followers to the status of mere branches of the amorphous Hindu religion and community.

Clearly, then, the Gujarat Bill is deeply flawed. It is an assault on religious freedom while claiming to protect it. It is a violation of the right of marginalized communities to struggle for new, more positive identities that Brahminical Hinduism has denied them. It is a subtle means for preserving 'upper' caste hegemony and stave off threats to it. It is also a devious means to co-opt large numbers of non-Hindu Jains and Buddhists into the Hindu fold against their will. In short, those denouncing the Bill are amply justified in their opposition.


The author works with the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He moderates an online discussion group 'South Asian Leftists Dialoguing With Religion' ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saldwr/)

Naseem's Story
By Azim Sherwani
http://www.countercurrents.org/guj-naseem061006.htm
06 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org

Naseem Mohammad Shekh is an activist working with victims of the state -sponsored anti-Muslim carnage in Gujarat in 2002, in which more than 3000 people were killed. She is based in the Qasimabad Colony, near Kalol in the Panchmahals district of Gujarat. Eleven members of her own family, including her daughter and husband, were slaughtered in this most large-scale wave of anti-Muslim violence in India in recent times, the victims of which are yet to get justice. Here she narrates to Azim Sherwani the traumatic murder of her family, her struggle for survival and her present involvement in seeking to promote peace and communal harmony in communally-polarised Gujarat.

I was born in a fairly well-off family. I grew up with my grandparents and parents. My grandfather wanted me to marry in the same village. So he found a boy of my own village who was my cousin from my mother's side. He had done his secondary schooling but the economic condition of his family was not very sound. I was 13 at that time and told my family that I would commit
suicide if they forced me to marry him but they did so. Initially, I hated to live with my husband's family but my grandfather convinced me and emotionally blackmailed me. I started supporting my husband by helping him sell vegetables. Once my husband had an offer of a government job but he was asked to pay a hefty bribe. My parents were willing to pay the bribe to help my husband have a better future but he refused. He felt it was against his honor to borrow from his in-laws to pay the bribe. He promised me a good life with his hard labor. Because of our hard work our business flourished and finally we had to employ some local youths as helping hands in the business.

On 27th February 2002, I had a gynecological operation. I was in the nursing home. The next day my husband told me about the burning of the train coach in Godhra. I was frightened but he told me that police had been deployed and that nothing untoward would happen. He told the doctors to take care of me and not to worry about the money, promising to be back the next morning.

On 1st March a Hindu mob attacked the Muslim houses in my village Dahlol. I intuitively did not want my husband to go to the village but, owing to his repeated insistence that the children were alone, I could not stop him. A Hindu customer of ours sheltered my husband and the children in his house when the mob went on a rampage. He insisted on sending our children to the hospital, which he thought to be a safer place.

My husband reluctantly agreed. My 13-year old daughter stayed with her father. The Hindu customer dropped my son Suhail at the nursing home. I was worried. I wanted to know where my family was. He told me not to worry. Very soon, he said, everybody would join me, and he assured me that they were safe in his house.

In the evening this Hindu man took my family with him, telling them that he was arranging for safe passage for them. He took them towards the river and on the way started shouting that there were Muslims around. This was a trap that he had laid. All at once, a Hindu mob, armed with sharp weapons, surrounded my family members. One of my nephews ran to save his life and hid behind huge bushes. But the mob killed everybody one by one. They begged for their life to be spared but in vain. My 13 year-old daughter was gang-raped and cut into pieces. After killing everybody they
burnt their bodies. My nephew, who narrowly escaped, was watching everything, shaking with fear. He fled the place when the mob went back to the village. He came to the main road, which connects Kalol, a town with a substantial Muslim population. The police found him, and asked him to remove his trousers to see if he was a Muslim. They kicked him and abused him for being a Muslim. He was thrown out of the police jeep. Upon arriving Kalol he narrated the incident to our relatives and family friends.

I was still in the hospital and was not told anything by our relatives. The next day the mob came to the hospital in search of me. The doctor told them that I had been discharged and had left the hospital. After this incident the doctor was afraid that the mob might come again in search of me. He provided a set of clothes normally worn by Hindu women to hide my identity in case I was stopped on my way to a safer place. After 15 days I was sent to a relief camp in Qasimabad in an Army vehicle. When I reached the camp, my sister and other people started crying. I wanted to
know about my husband, daughter and other family members. They told me that they were in a different relief camp. I insisted that I want to speak to them. One of my family friends phoned me, pretending that he was my husband, but I could easily make out that it was a different voice. I guessed that I lost everything. My life was completely destroyed. My brother-in-law started crying and revealed to me that only thee members of our family of 11 had survived.

The atmosphere in the relief camp was depressing and frustrating. I had lost everything but I had to live for my son Suhail. We had to face so very many problems. We could not go back home. My brother-in-law wanted the compensation money to be deposited in his name. He thought I might take the money and get married to someone else and might not take care of my son. I convinced him that I would take care of my son for he was everything to me now. In case I got married again, I said, I would deposit the money in his account.

I had so much pain in my heart and was worried that I might go mad. I started volunteering in the camp. At that time some women's group and an NGO came to work for the rehabilitation and access to justice for the victims of the carnage. I joined them as a volunteer initially. There was a lot of opposition from some conservative maulvis. They tried to force me not to go out because I was a widow and I had to perform the religious duty of being isolated from men for four months. I told them categorically that I needed to work for women like me who had lost everything in the
carnage. They needed my support. There was also some opposition from some of my distant relatives.

It was really difficult to engage Hindus, Dalits and Muslims in peace-building initiatives. There was complete mistrust of and hatred for each other. Muslims said that the Hindus had destroyed their life. What kind of reconciliation, they asked, is possible? But some people started appreciating our work. They would tell me, 'You lost everything in the carnage but you still don't hate Hindus. Rather, you try to engage them. So, we should follow your path of trying to promote peace and counter hatred'.

Today, I have no one in my life except Suhail. I am sad but now I am a confident woman. I can relate to and understand the problems of all other women, Hindus, Dalits and Muslims.

Constant preaching of hatred against Muslims for political purposes is the root cause of communal violence in Gujarat. The Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad are the main instigators of anti-Muslim hatred in India and use any opportunity to instigate violence against them. During the mass violence against Muslims there were some good Hindus who helped their Muslim neighbors in providing shelter or safe passage. Unfortunately, however, in Gujarat today the communal divide has increased. We need to work hard in engaging youth, women, Dalits and Adivasis to mobilize for communal harmony.

In fact, all religions teach tolerance and peace but some people interpret religion with narrowness and to generate hate against fellow human beings. At times I ask myself that if the different religions were made to serve humanity then why are people all over the world killing each other in the name of religion?

I have devoted my life to the struggle against communalism and for empowering women. This and the hope for a better future of my son are my strength. I want to educate my son and would like him to join government service in Gujarat. There is so much pain in my heart but I want to channelise it to prevent a repeat of what happened in Gujarat in 2002.


Azim A.Khan Sherwani is based in Delhi and writes on human rights and Muslim-related issues. He may be contacted on azimsherwani@gmail.com

Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002
http://www.countercurrents.org/guj-jha191006.htm
Guajarat 2006 Is Deadlier Than 2002

By Prashant Jha

19 October, 2006
Countercurrents.org

Short, stocky, and balding, Babubhai Rajabhai Patel can pass off as a normal, middle-class trader. Only, he isn't one. Babu Bajrangi, as Patel likes to be called, says he runs an NGO, Navchetan Sangathan. Sitting in his 'office' in Ajanta Ellora Complex in Naroda in Ahemdabad, Bajrangi is surrounded by images of RSS ideologues KS Hedgewar and Guru Golwalkar, a map of Akhand Bharat, and his own photographs, with politicians or in public meetings.

Bajrangi claims to be a social worker. "I rescue Hindu women who are lured by Muslims. I hate such marriages." As soon as Bajrangi gets to know of any such union, he kidnaps and sends the girl back home; and beats up the Muslim boy. "It's fun. Only last week, we made one such man eat his own shit thrice," he says. Bajrangi's operation is ruthless and effective. He claims to have 'saved' 725 Hindu women this way. And what about the law? "What I do is illegal, but it is moral. And anyway, the government is ours."

Perhaps that is the reason that Bajrangi, chief accused in the Naroda Patiya murder case (during the Gujarat carnage), is out on the streets and not behind bars. "People say I killed 123 people," says Bajrangi with a grin. Did you? "How does it matter? They were Muslims - bloody Pakistanis. They had to die. They are dead."

"The government is ours." Few will doubt Bajrangi's claim. Not Muslims for sure, for they know Bajrangi might be more extremist than most, but he represents a mindset that is widespread: the mindset of the Gandhinagar government's ministers. The mindset of several Hindus, from the waiter to the auto-driver and the middle-class, across Gujarat.

The discourse among Muslims has a striking unity. There is no one who speaks for us. This is not our government. This is their rule - Hindu rule. What do we do? As an elder in Shah Alam, a Muslim area in Ahmedabad, puts it, "Our crime is we pray to Allah."

The emotions of Muslims across Gujarat revolves around alienation, helplessness, and anger. Understandably so, large sections of the Hindu society, led on by the BJP government, ensure that Muslims remain second-class citizens.

And that is the story of Gujarat 2006. A tale of a society that is sharply polarised and prejudices about the 'other' deeply entrenched, and a state that happily engineers everyday hatred. In its wake, lies a community that lives in fear. The Gujarat of today is in some senses more dangerous than the Gujarat of 2002. For here, the violence is invisible. It operates systematically, as well as subtly, at the establishment and social level.

The truth is, the Gujarat government has seceded from the Indian Constitution. It did so in 2002, when the state sponsored mass violence against Muslims. And contrary to what many think, it has
consistently done so and flaunted it since then. It has tried to completely subvert the process of justice for 2002 victims, from distorting FIRs and ensuring faulty investigation, to letting the accused get away free. With office-bearers of the Sangh Parivar affiliates doubling up as public prosecutors, it is little surprise that only 13 out of the 345 cases decided so far have resulted in convictions.

Even as it fulfils its promise that no harm should come the way of rioters, the government continues its campaign to harass innocent Muslims. The fact that the UPA government in Delhi did not ban the draconian legislation, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), retrospectively has meant that those charged under that law in Gujarat before 2004 remain in jail. This effectively means that the secular UPA government, backed by the Left, is playing Narendra Modi's game.

Maulana Omarji's house is, ironically, on the Station Road in Godhra. But he doesn't live there. Along with others accused of hatching the conspiracy and burning the train compartment at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002, he stays some distance away - in Sabarmati Jail in Ahmedabad. Omarji was arrested one year after the incident took place - a period in which he was active in organising relief camps for Muslims, and petitioning national leaders who came visiting about the injustice meted out to minorities in the state. Clearly, someone powerful did not like that. A well-respected man and community leader against whom there is no evidence, Maulana Omarji is charged with POTA.

His young and articulate son, Saeed, is quite frustrated. "What is the fault of Muslims in India? I am so angry with the system here, including the judiciary." Everything is stacked up against Muslims in India, feels Saeed. "I am an Indian and will never be disloyal to my country. But I feel our parents and grandparents made a mistake by staying on here. We should have gone to Pakistan." It is a striking comment, revealing the manner in which a fascist state is pushing
people into a corner.

Half-an-hour from Godhra lies Kalol -- a site of major violence in 2002. This reporter met Mukhtar Mohammad at the Kalol police station. Active in organising relief camps, Mukhtar has been working to get justice for the victims. Something that did not go down too well with the state authorities. Framed under, what by all accounts, is a false 'rape case', he is stuck making rounds of police stations and magistrates and has to spend occasional nights, and at times, extended periods in jail. He says, "They want to break any kind of leadership that emerges among the Muslims, especially those who are moderate, and want to fight politically, constitutionally and legally."

Indeed, there is a pattern in which the Gujarat government is acting against Muslims. The Hindutva forces have no problems if the influence of the Muslim conservative religious organisations increases because it helps strengthen their stereotypes about Muslims. What they do not want is an articulate, liberal voice among Muslims that speaks the language of democratic rights and claims equal citizenship.

The regime targets innocent Muslims not just by framing false cases. Discrimination is spread across all realms. Juhapura is the largest Muslim ghetto in Ahmedabad with more than 300,000 people. Yet, it has no bank, state transport buses take a detour to avoid crossing through it, and there are no public parks or libraries. OBC communities among the Muslims in Gujarat find it difficult to get certain certificates. The saffronisation of the bureaucracy and local power structures, points out scholar Achyut Yagnik, has meant that panchayats, co-operatives, agrarian produce markets and government schemes have become sites for discrimination against Muslims.

What is more alarming is the fact that this discrimination has larger social sanction. There is pride about the 2002 toofan among many Hindus - we taught them a lesson, crushed; the world should learn how to deal with miyas from us, are oft-heard remarks. And the increasing distance between the two communities, both in the minds and physically, has not helped matters.

Most cities and towns in Gujarat are completely divided into Hindu and Muslim areas; a street corner, a divider in the middle of the road, a wall, or just a turn acting as borders. If it was difficult for a Muslim to find a house in Hindu areas before the killings, it is impossible now.

Sophia Khan is a well-known woman activist in Ahmedabad. Her office was in Narayanpura, an upmarket Hindu area. A month ago, when neighbours in her office complex got to know of her faith, they asked her to vacate immediately. Putting up a fight was no use in the face of constant harassment. She has now shifted to Juhapura. "My house is in a Muslim area. My office is now in a Muslim area. My Hindu employee is being pressurised by her family to resign, because they don't like her coming to a Muslim area. And my work revolves around Muslim women. This is how they want to push an entire community into a corner," says Khan.

The segregation has spread to other realms as well, leading to absence of contact and interaction between the two communities and breeding stereotypes and intolerance. The most visible realm is the fewer number of mixed schools in Ahmedabad which have a fair number of Hindus and Muslims. Discrimination on religious lines, coupled with the desire of parents to send children to schools where there are 'more of our people' has further boosted this trend. Pankaj Chandra, professor at Indian Institute of Management, is worried. Brought up in the composite Ganga-Jamuni culture of Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh, he says, "My children may graduate from school without knowing a single Muslim. Imagine how easy it will be to build stereotypes then."

When this reporter, with his long, unkempt beard, walked into an elite government colony in Ahmedabad to meet a senior official, three kids parked their bicycles right in front. One screamed aloud, "Terrorist." Why? "Because you are a Musalman," he responded. So? "All Muslims are terrorists. My father is a judge. He will call you terrorist in court." Really? "Yes. And get out of here. This is a Hindu area." Sauyajya is 12-year-old and has not met a single Muslim in his life. No one knows how many Sauyajyas are in the making in Gujarat.

The writer is Assistant Editor, Himal Southasian, Kathmandu. He can be contacted on prashantj@himalmag.com

2002 Gujarat violence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence

The term 2002 Gujarat violence, also called as the "Gujarat Pogrom","Gujarat Genocide"[1] and "Gujarat Massacre" refers to the violent incidents that took place in Gujarat state in India beginning February, 2002 as an aftermath of the Godhra Train Burning episode.The ruling BJP party maintained that this was in retaliation of the 27 February 2002 fire in which 58 Hindu Karsevaks died and 43 were injured in Godhra.[2][3]
Officially 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were declared dead, 223 missing, 2548 injured, 919 widowed and 606 kids orphaned[4][5]. [6]. By "unofficial" estimates more than 2000 people were killed, a majority of them Muslims, together with retaliatory attacks on Hindus by Muslims. According to these sources, hundreds of thousands more were displaced from their homes between the end of February and May 2002 in Gujarat. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] These figures are however uncorroborated by official sources.
Contents[hide]
1 Build up of the rioting
2 Incidents
2.1 Naroda Patia
2.2 Gulbarg Society - Case of Ehsaan Jaffery
2.3 Best Bakery Incident
2.4 Kausar Bano and Bilkis Bano
2.5 Attacks on Hindus by Muslims
3 Role of Government and Police
4 Role of Hindu Nationalist Organisations
4.1 Response of the accused parties
5 Indian National Human Rights Commission's Confidential Report [35]
6 Aftermath
7 Controversies on the riots
7.1 Allegations of Complicity of the state machinery
7.1.1 Planning
7.1.2 State Inquiry
7.1.3 Relief efforts
7.2 Allegations of Media Bias
7.2.1 From the intelligentsia
7.2.2 From the New York Times
7.2.3 From Human Rights Watch
8 References
9 External links
//

[edit] Build up of the rioting
The images from the train burning were broadcast in print as well as the electronic media, especially in local Gujarati language newspapers. The Chief Minister of the BJP ruled state, Narendra Modi ordered a state funeral for the deceased in the train burning incident. The timings of the arrival of the dead bodies to the state capital Ahmedabad were advertised on the radio may have contributed to a very large turnout of people in an already charged atmosphere. Modi blamed the Pakistani secret service Inter Services Intelligence behind the incident. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad issued a call for a peaceful statewide bandh on February 28, 2002. That bandh was later supported by the ruling BJP government. The first incidents of attacks on the minority Muslim community started at Ahmedabad, where Hindus began throwing stones at and later burned a Muslim housing complex known as Gulburg Society, and then spread elsewhere.[13] The initial violence was instigated by a rumour that Muslims had kidnapped three girls from the trains.[13] Thirty three towns of the state were severely affected and had to be placed under curfew at one point or another during this period. According to Human rights Watch, Muslim monuments like mosques and tombs were demolished and at some places temples erected over them [2][3].By some estimates two hundred and thirty different Islamic monuments, including a 400-year-old mosque were destroyed or vandalised which the Right-wing Hindu scholars justified saying that India's Muslim Emperors had demolished Hindu temples to build mosques, so the gangs who tore down the Muslim shrines were merely "redeeming the past".[4]

[edit] Incidents
Most of the deaths were the result of Hindu mobs collectively attacking Muslims and their property primarily by arson. The Times wrote of one example where a family as well as their children “were surrounded in their car and drenched in petrol and set alight” and of another where a mob of 2,000 “threw paraffin at the houses and set them alight, trapping the [Muslim] families inside.”[14]
The violence continued unabated with only one section of the population becoming the primary targets. Thirty three towns of the state were severely affected and had to be placed under curfew at one point or another during this period. Some incidents that became very well known are Naroda Patia, Gulbarg Society and Best Bakery in Ahmedabad.

[edit] Naroda Patia
According to Human Rights Watch, at least 65 Muslims were killed, many of them women who were sexually assaulted by violent mobs[5]. One of the witnesses stated before the Nanavati commission that that BJP leader Maya Kodnani, Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and others had led mobs on February 28 last year in the Naroda-Patia area. [15]

[edit] Gulbarg Society - Case of Ehsaan Jaffery
A high profile case involved an Ex-Congress MP who was surrounded by Hindu Mobs while many other Muslim residents in the area took shelter in his compound. Ehsaan was believed to have contacted the local police stations, MP's of the area as well as the Chief Minister Modi to save the people from the ever increasing mob. However, no police reinforcement had reached his place and few policemen present were ineffective and unwilling to control the violent mob."Eventually he along with fifty others were burnt to death.[16]
Arundhati Roy, in her articles, made several claims about the details of the situation in Gujarat at the time , particularly regarding the murder of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsaan Jaffery where she said that his daughters were raped and burnt by a mob which eventually killed at least 150 persons. BJP MP Balbir Punj, writing in Outlook India, has criticized her recounting of the events and pointed out several deliberate errors inserted by her. He mentions that Ehsaan Jaffery's daughters were not in Gujarat at the time of incident[17] debunking many of her assertions.However, Punj did not deny the killing of 150 persons in this incident.

[edit] Best Bakery Incident
During the night of 1 March 2002, 14 people, including women and children, were killed. Despite repeated phone calls to the local police, a police vehicle reportedly only drove by once but none of the police officers took any steps to stop the attack, which lasted through the night.[18]. The prime witness to the case, Zaheera Sheikh has been found guilty of lying to the court and has been sentenced to one year in prison.[19] Human rights activist Teesta Setalvad also is believed to have induced her to fabricate accusations against the defendants. In fact, the prosecution stated that Sheikh and her mother may have demanded money from Setalvad to make statements in court [20].

[edit] Kausar Bano and Bilkis Bano
Kausar Bano was nine months into pregnancy when on February 28th 2002, 500 strong armed mob stormed into their house at Naroda Patia. Her womb was allegedly cut open with swords and the foetus was burnt along with herself and 7 other members of her family of 12.
Bilkis Yakoob Rasool was six month pregnant when, on March 3rd 2002, a mob attacked their house in Randhikpur village located in Dahod district and gang-raped her while killing 14 of her closest relatives. She was left for dead but she survived. During the trial for these crimes , she subsequently identified 20 of the accused including 6 policemen in an ongoing trial[21].

[edit] Attacks on Hindus by Muslims
Attacks on Hindus by Muslim mobs in Danilimda, Modasa, Himmatnagar, Bharuch, Sindhi Market, Bhanderi Pole, and other localities in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat were perpetrated by muslim mobs [22]. The attacks have been described as "retaliatory" by Human Rights Watch. There was significant loss of life and property [23] [24]. and many Hindu Dalits were rendered homeless[25].
According to testifying witnesses, Muslims in the Amraiwadi area unfurled the Pakistani flag and raised pro-Pakistan slogans ten days after the Godhra riots. There were continued claims of Hindus being attacked in the area .This was accompanied by cries demanding that "Kaffirs" be killed and their houses emptied, said Ashok Patel, a BJP member and municipal corporator. He further claimed that riots were triggered after Muslims instigated them "with an intention of spreading fear".[26]
In September 2002, at least 29 people were killed when suspected Islamic fundamentalist gunmen engaged in the Akshardham Temple attack in the city of Gandhinagar in Gujarat. The Pakistani ISI and Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba were accused of supporting the terrorists [27], but they have denied this accusation [28] [29][30].

[edit] Role of Government and Police
The Modi led state government was reprimanded at various levels including the National Parliament, Supreme Court and the international fora. It was observed that the Gujarat government referred to the death of 58 people in the Godhra train episode as carnage while those post Godhra events, where at least 1000 perished were referred to as disturbances seen as an effort to pass on the subsequent deaths as a natural reaction to Godhra Train incident.
According to New York Times reporter Celia Dugger, witnesses were "dismayed by the lack of intervention from local police", who often "watched the events taking place and took no action against the attacks on Muslims and their property".[31]

[edit] Role of Hindu Nationalist Organisations
Most independent reports have blamed the Sangh Parivar organisations to be responsible for orchestrating the riots.These organisations include the RSS,VHP,Bajrang Dal and affiliated orgainsations.The Hindutva forces are said to have launched a systematic demonisation of Muslims and to a lesser extent the Christians in Gujarat. The attack on the Muslims was a backlash against the terrorist attacks while attacks on Christians were justified by their intense proselytizing among dalits and tribals.
It was also reported in independent media that there are elements of economic boycott against the Muslim community in most areas of Gujarat. Muslims who were forced to move to the Relief camps are reported to have found it difficult to return and restart economic activity because of bad blood between them and the Hindu community as per the notions of action-reaction theory advanced by Modi and the RSS
The People's Union of Civil Liberties allege that pamphlets were in circulation by the Sangh Parivar which could have ignited the violence further.Peoples Union of Civil Liberties is a Indian Civil Rights group along the lines of the American Civil Liberties Union that enumerated the list of these alleged documents[32].

[edit] Response of the accused parties
The BJP government has defended the actions of Narendra Modi's administration against charges of 'genocide'. They said that the killing of 254 Hindus, mostly in police firing, indicates how the state authorities took effective steps to curb the violence [33]. In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal confirmed the Hindu death toll in the incident(s). He, in turn, accused the Congress for misrepresenting the extent of the riots as part of a political agenda.
BJP MP Balbir Punj has also responded to criticisms from the press and advocates such as Arundhati Roy by accusing them of hyperbole and sensationalising the riots as part of an agenda of what he calls 'defamation' and 'left wing anti-India propaganda' [34]. In particular, Punj writes "She (Roy) terms Gujarat the “petri dish” of the Sangh Parivar. The fact is that Godhra has been used as a crucible by the secular fundamentalists.","Loss of 900-odd innocent lives (both Hindus and Muslims) is definitely not a “genocide” of any one community", and "The secular pack is not only guilty of parading half-truths but also of condoning and inciting violence"

[edit] Indian National Human Rights Commission's Confidential Report [35]
In its Proceedings of 1 April 2002, the Commission had set out its Preliminary Comments and Recommendations on the situation and sent a Confidential Report of the team of the Commission that visited Gujarat from 19-22 March 2002 to Gujarat government and Central Home Ministry.The Gujarat government in its reply did not provide its response to the Confidential report. Therefore, it was compelled to release the confidential report in its entirety and observed that nothing in the reports received in response "rebuts the presumption that the Modi administration failed in its duty to protect the rights of the people of Gujarat" by not exercising its jurisidiction over non-state players that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights.
It further observed that "the violence in the State, which was initially claimed to have been brought under control in seventy two hours, persisted in varying degree for over two months, the toll in death and destruction rising with the passage of time despite the measures reportedly taken by the State Government".
The report claims "Failure of intelligence","Failure to take appropriate action","Pattern of arrests","Uneven handling of major cases" and "Distorted FIRs: ‘extraneous influences’, issue of transparency and integrity" as key factors in the incident(s).
There has been widespread public outrage, in particular, in respect of atrocities against women, including acts of rape, in respect of which FIRs were allegedly neither promptly nor accurately recorded, and the victims allegedly harassed and intimidated.
However, The National Commission for Women has accused organisations and the media of needlessly exaggerating the plight of women victims of the riots [36] [37].

[edit] Aftermath
The Indian government's compensation policies offered 200,000 rupees for families with dead members on the train and 100,000 rupees for families who had relatives die in the riots. According to Celia Dugger of the New York Times, it has been called discriminatory by Muslims as all of the train burning victims were Hindus and about 75% [38] of the riot victims were Muslims.[39]

[edit] Controversies on the riots

[edit] Allegations of Complicity of the state machinery

[edit] Planning
Muslims in Ahmedabad alleged that there were elements of planning in the violence[6]. Human Rights Watch alleges [40] that they also had detailed precise knowledge about buildings and businesses held by members of the minority community while there were also cases where Hindus living in mixed neighbourhood were attacked and driven out of their homes. [7]. Human Rights Watch also alleges that that the trucks carried quantities of gas cylinders. Rich homes of people belonging to the Muslim community and business establishments were first systematically looted, stripped down of all their valuables, then cooking gas was released from cylinders into the buildings for several minutes[citation needed].
Telegraph reports of Indian Intelligence admitting of a "deliberate delay" in deployment of the army in riot affected areas in order to give a free hand to Hindu mobs seeking revenge for Godhra Train Burning.
In response to allegations of state involvement, Gujarat government spokesman, Bharat Pandya, told the BBC that the rioting was a spontaneous Hindu backlash fuelled by widespread anger against Muslims. He said "Hindus are frustrated over the role of Muslims in the on-going violence in Indian-administered Kashmir and other parts of India"NGO says Gujarat riots were planned.
RB Sreekumar, who served as Gujarat's intelligence chief during the riots, made similar allegations[8]. The Gujarat government issued a statement denying the charges, saying they had "no veracity".The Gujarat government claims that the charges were instigated because Mr Sreekumar was not promoted.[9]

[edit] State Inquiry
The first inquiry panel headed by KG Shah limited its scope entirely to the Godhra Train Burning completely omitting the riots that followed it. Many of his judgements were overturned by the Supreme Court of India with the comment that "the finding of the judge... is not based on appreciation of evidence but on imagination."

[edit] Relief efforts
Human Rights Watch further alleges [10] that state enforcement and state machinery continues to "harrass and intimidate" key witnesses, NGOs, social activitists and lawyers who are fighting to seek justice for riot victims.
The state government was attacked by the media and certain NGOs for allegedly having done little towards relief and rehabilitation for the welfare of victims in setup and administration of relief camps. [11]. The sanitary conditions and overall hygiene were reported to be "appalling" by the BBC, NGO says Gujarat riots were planned.
Refugees of the riots were supposedly being "harassed". The government justified some actions taken against these refugees saying that was necessary to ensure security [41].
Gujarat government spokesperson Pandya however denied the accusation and claimed that the state was extending all possible help to the people in the camps [12].

[edit] Allegations of Media Bias
There have been several allegations of biased reporting of the riots by the media. Specifically, allegations have been made of deliberately loading the reports against Hindus and whitewashing the violence perpetrated by muslims.

[edit] From the intelligentsia
Several newpaper columnists have lambasted media agencies for biased partisan reporting of the riots. The media, as well as several opinion makers, have been criticized for ignoring the causal connection between rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of the country and the resulting frustration of Hindus that led to the riots and falsely attacking Hindus as the sole cause and the sole peretrators of the violence.
Columnist such as Rajeev Srinivasan accused "the self-proclaimed 'intelligentsia' has been equally at fault: it has attempted to mislead the public with its biased and one-sided perorations"[42][43][44].

[edit] From the New York Times
Celia Dugger, a journalist with the New York Times, has written several articles on the riots[39][31]. Her reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence and other communal incidents has been criticized by several organizations , activists and blogging scholars as biased against Hindus [45][46].
In particular, Ramesh Nagaraj Rao, professor and chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia and author of several books regarding contemporary Hindu society claims that Dugger has reported dispropportionately by focussing on the Hindus to the exclusion of the violence perpetrated by muslims, including the Godhra Train Burning immediately preceding the riots. He also points out that U.S newspapers have misrepresente the death toll figures. He writes "(The editorial) does not mention that a train was burned and 57 people, all Hindus, and mostly women and children, were charred to death on February 27.Instead, they say it all began because of the “attempt by Hindu fanatics to build a temple!" When Hindus kill Muslims, The New York Times mentions both groups, with the stress being on Hindus who are supposedly doing the killing. When Muslims kill Hindus, Muslims are not mentioned. Many American readers don't go beyond the headlines, especially dealing with international affairs. The NYT, by skewing headlines against India's Hindu majority, seems to indicate to its readers that Hindus are to blame for all religious conflict in India."[47]

[edit] From Human Rights Watch
Yatindra Bhatnagar, chief editor of "International Opinion", has criticized Human Rights Watch representatives and those of related organizations of having an anti-India bias with regards to their reports of communal riots in India between Hindus and Muslims, particularly in reference to the Gujarat riots. He writes that, instead of trying to heal the wounds of such incidents, organizations like Human Rights Watch focus disproportionately on blaming Hindus exclusively for the incident and trying to deflect attention from the violence perpetrated by Islamists in the Godhra Train Burning that precipitated the riots. In particular, he criticizes Human Rights Watch representative Smita Narula and her colleagues for providing a "blatantly one-sided" account of events and dismissing his concerns to that effect [48].
In addition, the reports on the Gujarat riots compiled by Human Rights Watch have been criticized by Arvin Bahl of Princeton University as "one-sided" and "biased". He claims that the reports generally "are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods". He points out that HRW's claims about the Bharatiya Janata Party advocating a Hindu Nation as its core ideology are false. He further says that his analysis of the reports accuse the Gujarat government for planning the riots but do not provide any evidence to back those assertions. He also criticizes HRW's labelling of the attacks on Hindus as "retaliatory". In his analysis he states that while he does not deny that Hindu extremists were responsible for the riots, he "objectively analyze[s] the complexity of communal conflict in India and avoid[s] the generalizations associated with HRW reports."[49].

[edit] References
^ [1],The Guardian
^ Taking revenge in Gujarat,CNN
^ Train Carrying Hindus Set Afire by Muslim Mob in India,ict.org
^ Gujarat riot death toll revealed,BBC
^ BJP cites govt statistics to defend Modi,Indian Express
^ 254 Hindus, 790 Muslims killed in post-Godhra riots,Indiainfo.com
^ "Talibanization" and "Saffronization" in India,hir.harvard.edu
^ Why is Narendra Modi in Wembley?,The Guardian
^ India Shining, Communal Darkness,pucl.org
^ India's Calculated Ethnic Violence
^ Communal violence and nuclear stand-off
^ India in crisis
^ a b Dugger, Celia W. 200 Are Dead In 3-Day Riot Of Revenge In West India New York Times. New York, N.Y.:Mar 2, 2002. p. A1
^ Philp, Catherine Muslims burnt alive in Indian revenge riots The Times. London, England:Mar 1, 2002.
^ Riot witness names MLA
^ National Human Rights Commission report
^ Fiddling With Facts As Gujarat Burns,Outlookindia.com
^ Gujarat state fails to protect women from violence
^ Why did Zaheera Sheikh have to lie?,Rediff.com
^ Zaheera's allegations a pack of lies: Teesta Setalvad,Indiainfo.com
^ The tragedy of Bilkis Banu,Rediff.com
^ Attacks on Hindus,Human rights watch
^ Riots hit all classes, people of all faith
^ A home for long now just a death trap
^ With no relief, they turn to religious places for shelter,Indian Express
^ Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness,Rediff.com
^ Lashkar responsible for temple attack,Rediff.com
^ Gunmen Attack Hindu Temple in Gujarat,ict.org
^ NSG commandos rush to Gandhinagar
^ ISI instigated Akshardham attack: Gujarat police,Rediff.com
^ a b Dugger, Celia W. Hindu Rioters Kill 60 Muslims in India New York Times. New York, N.Y.:Mar 1, 2002.
^ NHRC,pucl.org
^ BJP cites govt statistics to defend Modi
^ Fiddling With Facts As Gujarat Burns
^ http://nhrc.nic.in/guj_finalorder.htm
^ Womens groups decry NCW stand
^ Gujarat’s women were victims of extreme violence
^ 254 Hindus, 790 Muslims killed in post-Godhra riots
^ a b Dugger, Celia W. Ahmedabad Journal - In India, a Child's Life Is Cheap Indeed New York Times. New York, N.Y.:Mar 7, 2002.
^ We have no orders to save you!
^ NGO says Gujarat riots were planned
^ After the carnage: the predatory 'intelligentsia'
^ Why I Refuse to Condemn Post-Godhra Riots
^ Blaming the Hindu Victim: Manufacturing Consent for Barbarism
^ Old habits die hard
^ Media Coverage of the Events in Gujarat
^ Media Coverage of the Events in Gujarat
^ Hours of Anti-India, Anti-Hindutva Rhetoric at “Indian” Muslim Meet, bu Yatindra Bhatnagar,International Opinion
^ Politics By Other Means: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch Reports on India,saag.org
[edit] External links
The violence of security
The full story of Kauser Bano
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence"

2002 Gujarat violence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence
The term 2002 Gujarat violence, also called as the "Gujarat Pogrom","Gujarat Genocide"[1] and "Gujarat Massacre" refers to the violent incidents that took place in Gujarat state in India beginning February, 2002 as an aftermath of the Godhra Train Burning episode.The ruling BJP party maintained that this was in retaliation of the 27 February 2002 fire in which 58 Hindu Karsevaks died and 43 were injured in Godhra.[2][3]
Officially 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were declared dead, 223 missing, 2548 injured, 919 widowed and 606 kids orphaned[4][5]. [6]. By "unofficial" estimates more than 2000 people were killed, a majority of them Muslims, together with retaliatory attacks on Hindus by Muslims. According to these sources, hundreds of thousands more were displaced from their homes between the end of February and May 2002 in Gujarat. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] These figures are however uncorroborated by official sources.
Contents[hide]
1 Build up of the rioting
2 Incidents
2.1 Naroda Patia
2.2 Gulbarg Society - Case of Ehsaan Jaffery
2.3 Best Bakery Incident
2.4 Kausar Bano and Bilkis Bano
2.5 Attacks on Hindus by Muslims
3 Role of Government and Police
4 Role of Hindu Nationalist Organisations
4.1 Response of the accused parties
5 Indian National Human Rights Commission's Confidential Report [35]
6 Aftermath
7 Controversies on the riots
7.1 Allegations of Complicity of the state machinery
7.1.1 Planning
7.1.2 State Inquiry
7.1.3 Relief efforts
7.2 Allegations of Media Bias
7.2.1 From the intelligentsia
7.2.2 From the New York Times
7.2.3 From Human Rights Watch
8 References
9 External links
//

[edit] Build up of the rioting
The images from the train burning were broadcast in print as well as the electronic media, especially in local Gujarati language newspapers. The Chief Minister of the BJP ruled state, Narendra Modi ordered a state funeral for the deceased in the train burning incident. The timings of the arrival of the dead bodies to the state capital Ahmedabad were advertised on the radio may have contributed to a very large turnout of people in an already charged atmosphere. Modi blamed the Pakistani secret service Inter Services Intelligence behind the incident. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad issued a call for a peaceful statewide bandh on February 28, 2002. That bandh was later supported by the ruling BJP government. The first incidents of attacks on the minority Muslim community started at Ahmedabad, where Hindus began throwing stones at and later burned a Muslim housing complex known as Gulburg Society, and then spread elsewhere.[13] The initial violence was instigated by a rumour that Muslims had kidnapped three girls from the trains.[13] Thirty three towns of the state were severely affected and had to be placed under curfew at one point or another during this period. According to Human rights Watch, Muslim monuments like mosques and tombs were demolished and at some places temples erected over them [2][3].By some estimates two hundred and thirty different Islamic monuments, including a 400-year-old mosque were destroyed or vandalised which the Right-wing Hindu scholars justified saying that India's Muslim Emperors had demolished Hindu temples to build mosques, so the gangs who tore down the Muslim shrines were merely "redeeming the past".[4]

[edit] Incidents
Most of the deaths were the result of Hindu mobs collectively attacking Muslims and their property primarily by arson. The Times wrote of one example where a family as well as their children “were surrounded in their car and drenched in petrol and set alight” and of another where a mob of 2,000 “threw paraffin at the houses and set them alight, trapping the [Muslim] families inside.”[14]
The violence continued unabated with only one section of the population becoming the primary targets. Thirty three towns of the state were severely affected and had to be placed under curfew at one point or another during this period. Some incidents that became very well known are Naroda Patia, Gulbarg Society and Best Bakery in Ahmedabad.

[edit] Naroda Patia
According to Human Rights Watch, at least 65 Muslims were killed, many of them women who were sexually assaulted by violent mobs[5]. One of the witnesses stated before the Nanavati commission that that BJP leader Maya Kodnani, Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and others had led mobs on February 28 last year in the Naroda-Patia area. [15]

[edit] Gulbarg Society - Case of Ehsaan Jaffery
A high profile case involved an Ex-Congress MP who was surrounded by Hindu Mobs while many other Muslim residents in the area took shelter in his compound. Ehsaan was believed to have contacted the local police stations, MP's of the area as well as the Chief Minister Modi to save the people from the ever increasing mob. However, no police reinforcement had reached his place and few policemen present were ineffective and unwilling to control the violent mob."Eventually he along with fifty others were burnt to death.[16]
Arundhati Roy, in her articles, made several claims about the details of the situation in Gujarat at the time , particularly regarding the murder of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsaan Jaffery where she said that his daughters were raped and burnt by a mob which eventually killed at least 150 persons. BJP MP Balbir Punj, writing in Outlook India, has criticized her recounting of the events and pointed out several deliberate errors inserted by her. He mentions that Ehsaan Jaffery's daughters were not in Gujarat at the time of incident[17] debunking many of her assertions.However, Punj did not deny the killing of 150 persons in this incident.

[edit] Best Bakery Incident
During the night of 1 March 2002, 14 people, including women and children, were killed. Despite repeated phone calls to the local police, a police vehicle reportedly only drove by once but none of the police officers took any steps to stop the attack, which lasted through the night.[18]. The prime witness to the case, Zaheera Sheikh has been found guilty of lying to the court and has been sentenced to one year in prison.[19] Human rights activist Teesta Setalvad also is believed to have induced her to fabricate accusations against the defendants. In fact, the prosecution stated that Sheikh and her mother may have demanded money from Setalvad to make statements in court [20].

[edit] Kausar Bano and Bilkis Bano
Kausar Bano was nine months into pregnancy when on February 28th 2002, 500 strong armed mob stormed into their house at Naroda Patia. Her womb was allegedly cut open with swords and the foetus was burnt along with herself and 7 other members of her family of 12.
Bilkis Yakoob Rasool was six month pregnant when, on March 3rd 2002, a mob attacked their house in Randhikpur village located in Dahod district and gang-raped her while killing 14 of her closest relatives. She was left for dead but she survived. During the trial for these crimes , she subsequently identified 20 of the accused including 6 policemen in an ongoing trial[21].

[edit] Attacks on Hindus by Muslims
Attacks on Hindus by Muslim mobs in Danilimda, Modasa, Himmatnagar, Bharuch, Sindhi Market, Bhanderi Pole, and other localities in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat were perpetrated by muslim mobs [22]. The attacks have been described as "retaliatory" by Human Rights Watch. There was significant loss of life and property [23] [24]. and many Hindu Dalits were rendered homeless[25].
According to testifying witnesses, Muslims in the Amraiwadi area unfurled the Pakistani flag and raised pro-Pakistan slogans ten days after the Godhra riots. There were continued claims of Hindus being attacked in the area .This was accompanied by cries demanding that "Kaffirs" be killed and their houses emptied, said Ashok Patel, a BJP member and municipal corporator. He further claimed that riots were triggered after Muslims instigated them "with an intention of spreading fear".[26]
In September 2002, at least 29 people were killed when suspected Islamic fundamentalist gunmen engaged in the Akshardham Temple attack in the city of Gandhinagar in Gujarat. The Pakistani ISI and Islamic terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba were accused of supporting the terrorists [27], but they have denied this accusation [28] [29][30].

[edit] Role of Government and Police
The Modi led state government was reprimanded at various levels including the National Parliament, Supreme Court and the international fora. It was observed that the Gujarat government referred to the death of 58 people in the Godhra train episode as carnage while those post Godhra events, where at least 1000 perished were referred to as disturbances seen as an effort to pass on the subsequent deaths as a natural reaction to Godhra Train incident.
According to New York Times reporter Celia Dugger, witnesses were "dismayed by the lack of intervention from local police", who often "watched the events taking place and took no action against the attacks on Muslims and their property".[31]

[edit] Role of Hindu Nationalist Organisations
Most independent reports have blamed the Sangh Parivar organisations to be responsible for orchestrating the riots.These organisations include the RSS,VHP,Bajrang Dal and affiliated orgainsations.The Hindutva forces are said to have launched a systematic demonisation of Muslims and to a lesser extent the Christians in Gujarat. The attack on the Muslims was a backlash against the terrorist attacks while attacks on Christians were justified by their intense proselytizing among dalits and tribals.
It was also reported in independent media that there are elements of economic boycott against the Muslim community in most areas of Gujarat. Muslims who were forced to move to the Relief camps are reported to have found it difficult to return and restart economic activity because of bad blood between them and the Hindu community as per the notions of action-reaction theory advanced by Modi and the RSS
The People's Union of Civil Liberties allege that pamphlets were in circulation by the Sangh Parivar which could have ignited the violence further.Peoples Union of Civil Liberties is a Indian Civil Rights group along the lines of the American Civil Liberties Union that enumerated the list of these alleged documents[32].

[edit] Response of the accused parties
The BJP government has defended the actions of Narendra Modi's administration against charges of 'genocide'. They said that the killing of 254 Hindus, mostly in police firing, indicates how the state authorities took effective steps to curb the violence [33]. In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal confirmed the Hindu death toll in the incident(s). He, in turn, accused the Congress for misrepresenting the extent of the riots as part of a political agenda.
BJP MP Balbir Punj has also responded to criticisms from the press and advocates such as Arundhati Roy by accusing them of hyperbole and sensationalising the riots as part of an agenda of what he calls 'defamation' and 'left wing anti-India propaganda' [34]. In particular, Punj writes "She (Roy) terms Gujarat the “petri dish” of the Sangh Parivar. The fact is that Godhra has been used as a crucible by the secular fundamentalists.","Loss of 900-odd innocent lives (both Hindus and Muslims) is definitely not a “genocide” of any one community", and "The secular pack is not only guilty of parading half-truths but also of condoning and inciting violence"

[edit] Indian National Human Rights Commission's Confidential Report [35]
In its Proceedings of 1 April 2002, the Commission had set out its Preliminary Comments and Recommendations on the situation and sent a Confidential Report of the team of the Commission that visited Gujarat from 19-22 March 2002 to Gujarat government and Central Home Ministry.The Gujarat government in its reply did not provide its response to the Confidential report. Therefore, it was compelled to release the confidential report in its entirety and observed that nothing in the reports received in response "rebuts the presumption that the Modi administration failed in its duty to protect the rights of the people of Gujarat" by not exercising its jurisidiction over non-state players that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights.
It further observed that "the violence in the State, which was initially claimed to have been brought under control in seventy two hours, persisted in varying degree for over two months, the toll in death and destruction rising with the passage of time despite the measures reportedly taken by the State Government".
The report claims "Failure of intelligence","Failure to take appropriate action","Pattern of arrests","Uneven handling of major cases" and "Distorted FIRs: ‘extraneous influences’, issue of transparency and integrity" as key factors in the incident(s).
There has been widespread public outrage, in particular, in respect of atrocities against women, including acts of rape, in respect of which FIRs were allegedly neither promptly nor accurately recorded, and the victims allegedly harassed and intimidated.
However, The National Commission for Women has accused organisations and the media of needlessly exaggerating the plight of women victims of the riots [36] [37].

[edit] Aftermath
The Indian government's compensation policies offered 200,000 rupees for families with dead members on the train and 100,000 rupees for families who had relatives die in the riots. According to Celia Dugger of the New York Times, it has been called discriminatory by Muslims as all of the train burning victims were Hindus and about 75% [38] of the riot victims were Muslims.[39]

[edit] Controversies on the riots

[edit] Allegations of Complicity of the state machinery

[edit] Planning
Muslims in Ahmedabad alleged that there were elements of planning in the violence[6]. Human Rights Watch alleges [40] that they also had detailed precise knowledge about buildings and businesses held by members of the minority community while there were also cases where Hindus living in mixed neighbourhood were attacked and driven out of their homes. [7]. Human Rights Watch also alleges that that the trucks carried quantities of gas cylinders. Rich homes of people belonging to the Muslim community and business establishments were first systematically looted, stripped down of all their valuables, then cooking gas was released from cylinders into the buildings for several minutes[citation needed].
Telegraph reports of Indian Intelligence admitting of a "deliberate delay" in deployment of the army in riot affected areas in order to give a free hand to Hindu mobs seeking revenge for Godhra Train Burning.
In response to allegations of state involvement, Gujarat government spokesman, Bharat Pandya, told the BBC that the rioting was a spontaneous Hindu backlash fuelled by widespread anger against Muslims. He said "Hindus are frustrated over the role of Muslims in the on-going violence in Indian-administered Kashmir and other parts of India"NGO says Gujarat riots were planned.
RB Sreekumar, who served as Gujarat's intelligence chief during the riots, made similar allegations[8]. The Gujarat government issued a statement denying the charges, saying they had "no veracity".The Gujarat government claims that the charges were instigated because Mr Sreekumar was not promoted.[9]

[edit] State Inquiry
The first inquiry panel headed by KG Shah limited its scope entirely to the Godhra Train Burning completely omitting the riots that followed it. Many of his judgements were overturned by the Supreme Court of India with the comment that "the finding of the judge... is not based on appreciation of evidence but on imagination."

[edit] Relief efforts
Human Rights Watch further alleges [10] that state enforcement and state machinery continues to "harrass and intimidate" key witnesses, NGOs, social activitists and lawyers who are fighting to seek justice for riot victims.
The state government was attacked by the media and certain NGOs for allegedly having done little towards relief and rehabilitation for the welfare of victims in setup and administration of relief camps. [11]. The sanitary conditions and overall hygiene were reported to be "appalling" by the BBC, NGO says Gujarat riots were planned.
Refugees of the riots were supposedly being "harassed". The government justified some actions taken against these refugees saying that was necessary to ensure security [41].
Gujarat government spokesperson Pandya however denied the accusation and claimed that the state was extending all possible help to the people in the camps [12].

[edit] Allegations of Media Bias
There have been several allegations of biased reporting of the riots by the media. Specifically, allegations have been made of deliberately loading the reports against Hindus and whitewashing the violence perpetrated by muslims.

[edit] From the intelligentsia
Several newpaper columnists have lambasted media agencies for biased partisan reporting of the riots. The media, as well as several opinion makers, have been criticized for ignoring the causal connection between rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of the country and the resulting frustration of Hindus that led to the riots and falsely attacking Hindus as the sole cause and the sole peretrators of the violence.
Columnist such as Rajeev Srinivasan accused "the self-proclaimed 'intelligentsia' has been equally at fault: it has attempted to mislead the public with its biased and one-sided perorations"[42][43][44].

[edit] From the New York Times
Celia Dugger, a journalist with the New York Times, has written several articles on the riots[39][31]. Her reporting of the 2002 Gujarat violence and other communal incidents has been criticized by several organizations , activists and blogging scholars as biased against Hindus [45][46].
In particular, Ramesh Nagaraj Rao, professor and chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia and author of several books regarding contemporary Hindu society claims that Dugger has reported dispropportionately by focussing on the Hindus to the exclusion of the violence perpetrated by muslims, including the Godhra Train Burning immediately preceding the riots. He also points out that U.S newspapers have misrepresente the death toll figures. He writes "(The editorial) does not mention that a train was burned and 57 people, all Hindus, and mostly women and children, were charred to death on February 27.Instead, they say it all began because of the “attempt by Hindu fanatics to build a temple!" When Hindus kill Muslims, The New York Times mentions both groups, with the stress being on Hindus who are supposedly doing the killing. When Muslims kill Hindus, Muslims are not mentioned. Many American readers don't go beyond the headlines, especially dealing with international affairs. The NYT, by skewing headlines against India's Hindu majority, seems to indicate to its readers that Hindus are to blame for all religious conflict in India."[47]

[edit] From Human Rights Watch
Yatindra Bhatnagar, chief editor of "International Opinion", has criticized Human Rights Watch representatives and those of related organizations of having an anti-India bias with regards to their reports of communal riots in India between Hindus and Muslims, particularly in reference to the Gujarat riots. He writes that, instead of trying to heal the wounds of such incidents, organizations like Human Rights Watch focus disproportionately on blaming Hindus exclusively for the incident and trying to deflect attention from the violence perpetrated by Islamists in the Godhra Train Burning that precipitated the riots. In particular, he criticizes Human Rights Watch representative Smita Narula and her colleagues for providing a "blatantly one-sided" account of events and dismissing his concerns to that effect [48].
In addition, the reports on the Gujarat riots compiled by Human Rights Watch have been criticized by Arvin Bahl of Princeton University as "one-sided" and "biased". He claims that the reports generally "are based on half-truths, distortions and sometimes outright falsehoods". He points out that HRW's claims about the Bharatiya Janata Party advocating a Hindu Nation as its core ideology are false. He further says that his analysis of the reports accuse the Gujarat government for planning the riots but do not provide any evidence to back those assertions. He also criticizes HRW's labelling of the attacks on Hindus as "retaliatory". In his analysis he states that while he does not deny that Hindu extremists were responsible for the riots, he "objectively analyze[s] the complexity of communal conflict in India and avoid[s] the generalizations associated with HRW reports."[49].

[edit] References
^ [1],The Guardian
^ Taking revenge in Gujarat,CNN
^ Train Carrying Hindus Set Afire by Muslim Mob in India,ict.org
^ Gujarat riot death toll revealed,BBC
^ BJP cites govt statistics to defend Modi,Indian Express
^ 254 Hindus, 790 Muslims killed in post-Godhra riots,Indiainfo.com
^ "Talibanization" and "Saffronization" in India,hir.harvard.edu
^ Why is Narendra Modi in Wembley?,The Guardian
^ India Shining, Communal Darkness,pucl.org
^ India's Calculated Ethnic Violence
^ Communal violence and nuclear stand-off
^ India in crisis
^ a b Dugger, Celia W. 200 Are Dead In 3-Day Riot Of Revenge In West India New York Times. New York, N.Y.:Mar 2, 2002. p. A1
^ Philp, Catherine Muslims burnt alive in Indian revenge riots The Times. London, England:Mar 1, 2002.
^ Riot witness names MLA
^ National Human Rights Commission report
^ Fiddling With Facts As Gujarat Burns,Outlookindia.com
^ Gujarat state fails to protect women from violence
^ Why did Zaheera Sheikh have to lie?,Rediff.com
^ Zaheera's allegations a pack of lies: Teesta Setalvad,Indiainfo.com
^ The tragedy of Bilkis Banu,Rediff.com
^ Attacks on Hindus,Human rights watch
^ Riots hit all classes, people of all faith
^ A home for long now just a death trap
^ With no relief, they turn to religious places for shelter,Indian Express
^ Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness,Rediff.com
^ Lashkar responsible for temple attack,Rediff.com
^ Gunmen Attack Hindu Temple in Gujarat,ict.org
^ NSG commandos rush to Gandhinagar
^ ISI instigated Akshardham attack: Gujarat police,Rediff.com
^ a b Dugger, Celia W. Hindu Rioters Kill 60 Muslims in India New York Times. New York, N.Y.:Mar 1, 2002.
^ NHRC,pucl.org
^ BJP cites govt statistics to defend Modi
^ Fiddling With Facts As Gujarat Burns
^ http://nhrc.nic.in/guj_finalorder.htm
^ Womens groups decry NCW stand
^ Gujarat’s women were victims of extreme violence
^ 254 Hindus, 790 Muslims killed in post-Godhra riots
^ a b Dugger, Celia W. Ahmedabad Journal - In India, a Child's Life Is Cheap Indeed New York Times. New York, N.Y.:Mar 7, 2002.
^ We have no orders to save you!
^ NGO says Gujarat riots were planned
^ After the carnage: the predatory 'intelligentsia'
^ Why I Refuse to Condemn Post-Godhra Riots
^ Blaming the Hindu Victim: Manufacturing Consent for Barbarism
^ Old habits die hard
^ Media Coverage of the Events in Gujarat
^ Media Coverage of the Events in Gujarat
^ Hours of Anti-India, Anti-Hindutva Rhetoric at “Indian” Muslim Meet, bu Yatindra Bhatnagar,International Opinion
^ Politics By Other Means: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch Reports on India,saag.org
[edit] External links
The violence of security
The full story of Kauser Bano
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence"