2002 Gujarat violence

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the .(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The skyline of Ahmedabad filled with smoke as buildings and shops are set on fire by rioting mobs.

The 2002 Gujarat violence describes a series of communal riots between the communities of Hindus and Muslims that took place in the Indian State of Gujarat between February and May of 2002. According to official figures more than a thousand people were killed in the violence. Independent estimates by rights groups and NGOs place the figure higher, nearer to 2000. More than one hundred and fifty thousand people were displaced. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch criticised the Indian government for failure to address the resulting humanitarian condition of people, "overwhelming majority of them Muslim," who fled their homes for relief camps in the aftermath of the events. ^[1] In turn, some have accused these news media agencies, non-governmental organizations and human rights advocacy groups of media bias and bias against Hindus^[2][3][4][5]. While the large-scale, collective violence has been generally been described as riots^[6][7] some have termed it a massacre^[8] and an attempted pogrom or genocide^[9] of the Muslim population, claiming that the violence was largely directed against defenceless men and women of all ages; and was pre-planned, organised and aided by the local authorities and political leaders. The alleged perpetrators of the violence, Sangh leaders^[10][11] as well as the Gujarat government^[12][13][14] maintain that the violence was rioting or inter-communal clashes - spontaneous and uncontrollable, indeed justified, reaction to the Godhra train burning.^[15]

Godhra train burning

Main article: Godhra Train Burning

On February 27, 2002, 58 people, including 25 women and 15 children^[16] were burnt alive in a railway coach in the town of Godhra following an altercation between local Muslims and activists of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (Kar Sevaks) returning by the Sabarmathi express train from Ayodhya.^[17] Initial media reports blamed the local Muslims for setting the coach on fire,^[18] in what Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and the VHP leader Giriraj Kishore alleged was a "pre-planned" attack.^[19][20] The images from the train burning were broadcast on television as well as the electronic media, and printed in local Gujarati language newspapers.^[21] The bodies of those killed in the train were brought to Ahmedabad, where a procession was held,^[22] a move seen as a major provocation for the ensuing communal violence.^[23] The timings of the arrival of the dead bodies to the state capital Gandhinagar were advertised on the radio may have contributed to a very large turnout of people in an already charged atmosphere. The VHP issued a call for a state-wide strike on February 28 2002, which was supported by the BJP-led state government.^[24][25]

Post Godhra violence

151 towns and 993 villages^[26] in fifteen to sixteen of the state's 25 districts were affected by the post-Godhra violence, which was particularly severe in about five or six districts. The violence raged largely between February 28 and March 3, and after a drop, restarted on March 15, continuing till mid June.^[27] Northern and central Gujarat, as well as the north-eastern tribal belt where Hindutva mobilisation efforts were strong, were the worst affected while Saurashtra and Kutch remained largely peaceful.^[26] Attacks by large mobs began in the districts of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Saberkantha and, for the first time in its history, Gandhinagar on February 28. Violence spread to the largely rural districts of Panchmahals, Mehsana, Kheda, Junagadh, Banaskantha, Patan, Anand and Narmada the next day. Over the next two days, Bharuch and Rajkot and later Surat were hit.^[28] 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.^[29] The initial violence was believed to be instigated by unsubstantiated rumours, endorsed by a senior VHP leader, of Muslims having kidnapped three Hindu girls during the Godhra train attack.^[29] Some independent reports have held the Sangh Parivar organisations to be responsible for orchestrating the riots.^{[attribution needed]} Hundreds of mosques and other Muslim shrines were damaged or destroyed and makeshift Hindu temples were installed in their place in some cases. In Ahmedabad, the dargah of the Sufi saint-poet Wali Gujarati in Shahibaug and the 16th century Gumte Masjid mosque in Isanpur were destroyed. The Muhafiz Khan Masjid at Gheekanta was ransacked.^[30] Police records list 298 dargahs, 205 mosques, 17 temples and three churches as damaged in the months of March and April.^[31]

Attacks on Muslims

In Naroda, according to Human Rights Watch, at least 65 Muslims were killed, many of them women who were sexually assaulted by violent mobs[7]. One of the witnesses alleged before the Nanavati commission that that BJP leader Maya Kodnani, Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and others led mobs on February 28 in the Naroda-Patia area. ^[32] A high profile case involved an Ex-Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was surrounded by Hindu Mobs (including Congress workers) while many other Muslim residents in the area took shelter in his compound. JAfri was believed to have contacted the local police stations, MPs 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 the few policemen present were ineffective and unwilling to control the violent mob." Eventually he was burnt to death, along with fifty others.^[33] According to HRW in its widely-quoted report, mobs of thousands, dressed in saffron scarves and khaki shorts - the signature uniform of the RSS - and armed with swords, sophisticated explosives, and gas cylinders, were guided by voter lists and printouts of addresses of Muslim-owned properties, information obtained from the local municipal administration.^[34] Muslims in Ahmedabad alleged that there were elements of planning in the violence.^[35] Fourteen people, including women and children, were killed by a mob at the Best Bakery in the town of Vadodara on the night of 1 March.^[36] On March 3, fourteen members of Bilkis Bano's family including her two-month old daughter were killed in a mob attack near Chapparwad village in Dahod district. Seven women including Bilkis Bano, then five months pregnant, were raped.^[37][38][39]

Attacks on Hindus

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.^[40] There was a significant loss of life and property.^[41][42] Late in March, more than one thousand Hindus in Dariyapur and Kalupur, including 550 dalits, fled their homes to stay in makeshift shelters after being attacked by Muslims mobs.^[43] According to the HRW report, over ten thousand Hindus were made homeless.^[40] Several Hindu residential areas, including Mahajan No Vando, a fortified enclave in Muslim dominated Jamalpur, were targeted following calls for retaliation.

In the morning the mosques began announcing that Islam was in danger, that there was poison in the milk. This is their code word. We are the only Hindus here, poison here means us. The rioting lasted between 2:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.^[40]

Residents were unable go to work, fearing attacks. A Hindu temple in the area was destroyed. In Himmatnagar, a young man was killed when he went to a Muslim area on business.^[40]

Toll

According to an official estimate, 1044 people were killed in the violemce - 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus including those killed in the Godhra train fire. Another 223 people were reported missing, 2,548 injured, 919 women widowed and 606 children orphaned.^[44] Unofficial estimates put the death toll closer to 2000, with Muslims forming a high proportion of those killed.^[45]

Economic boycott

The People's Union for Civil Liberties allege that pamphlets were circulated by the Sangh Parivar to incite violence against and call for an economic boycott of the Muslim community.^[46] Shortly after the riots, when most Muslims were still in relief camps, a leaflet campaign "urging Hindus to boycott Muslim-owned shops and other establishments" was widely reported.^[47][48] The leaflets urged the Hindu reader not to frequent Muslim-owned restaurants, work in Muslim-run offices, hire Muslims or see films starring Muslim actors; they further assured the reader that the boycott would "throttle these elements. It will break their backbone. Then it will be difficult for them to live in any corner of this country."^[47] The economic boycott and "pressure from Hindu radicals" caused fewer employers to re-hire returning Muslims.^[48] No group claimed direct responsibility for the leaflets but a senior official of Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) was quoted as saying he was "in complete agreement with whatever is propagated through them."^[47] As a consequence of the leaflet campaign, observers claimed that year^[49] and even two and half years later^[50], the economic boycott of Muslims was severe in Pavagadh district. As a consequence of the boycott and continued threats, relief organisations lamented that they were having to build "ghettoes" for the displaced.^[51]. However, many Muslims have welcomed the post-riots stability^[52], which has allowed for economic prosperity^[53] for Muslims in some areas^[54], as well as being a catalyst for encouraging education among the Muslim populace^[55].

Security measures

By the evening of February 28, curfews were imposed in twenty seven towns and cities.^[56] By March 25, thirty five towns were under curfew.^[57] Police records show 21,563 preventive arrests were made by the end of April (17,947 of the arrested were listed as Hindus and 3,616 as Muslims) as well as 13,989 substantive arrests (9,954 Hindus and 4,035 Muslims).^[31] New York Times' Celia Dugger reported that 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".^[58] Human Rights Watch reported that in some cases members of the state police force led rioting mobs, "aiming and firing at every Muslim who got in the way", or instead of offering assistance "led the victims directly into the hands of their killers."^[34] Calls for assistance to the police, fire brigades, and even ambulance services generally proved futile.^[34] Hindu residents of Mahajan No Vando, part of the Muslim dominated area of Jamalpur, told HRW that on March 1, the police ignored phone calls and left them fend for themselves when a Muslim mob attacked.^[40] Numerous calls by Hindus throughout the riots were reportedly ignored by the police.^[40] One thousand army troops were flown in by the evening of March 1 to restore order. Intelligence officials alleged that the deployment was deliberately delayed by the state and central governments.^[59] On May 3, former Punjab police chief K P S Gill was appointed as security adviser to the Chief Minister.^[60] The Gujarat government transferred several senior police officers who had taken active measures to contain and investigate violent attacks to administrative positions.^[61][25][62] RB Sreekumar, who served as Gujarat's intelligence chief during the riots, alleged that the state government issued "unconstitutional directives", with officials asking him to kill Muslims involved in rioting or disrupting a Hindu religious event. The Gujarat government denied the allegations, calling them "baseless" and instigated out of malice because Mr. Sreekumar was not promoted.^[63] Defending the Modi administration in the Rajya Sabha against charges of genocide, BJP spokesman V K Malhotra said that the official toll of 254 Hindus, killed mostly in police firing, indicates how the state authorities took effective steps to curb the violence.^[64] BJP MP and journalist Balbir Punj disputed allegations of bias against Muslims by the BJP-run state government, pointing out that the majority of those arrested during and after the riots were Hindus.^[65] An unidentified pamphlet circulated to journalists in Gujarat in 2007 labelled Modi's government as anti-Hindu for arresting VHP workers and Hindu activists involved in the riots.^[66]

Role of government and police

The Modi led state government was reprimanded at various levels including the Parliament, Supreme Court and internationally. The upper house of the Indian parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for federal intervention in Gujarat, after a similar censure motion in the lower house was defeated by about 100 votes.^[67] The United States Department of State in its International Religious Freedom Report 2003 stated:

^[68]

In 2003, A comment by G.T. Nanavati, who leads the official commission investigating the riots, that part of the evidence collected and reviewed till then did not indicate any serious lapse on the part of the government or police in Gujarat^[69][70] was criticised as inappropriate by aid and reconciliation activists and other jurists.^[71][72] 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" ^[13] The US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, John Hanford, expressed concern over religious intolerance in Indian politics, said that while the rioters may have been aided by state and local officials, "we don't believe that the Central Government even under the BJP Government was involved in inciting those riots." ^[73]

Criminal prosecutions

The Indian Supreme Court has been strongly critical of the state government's investigation and prosecution of those accused of violence during the riots, directing police to review about 2,000 of the 4,000 riot related cases that had been closed citing lack of evidence or leads.^[74] Following this direction, police identified nearly 1,600 cases for reinvestigation, arrested 640 accused and launched investigations against 40 police officers for their failures.^[75][76] Human Rights Watch alleges ^[77] that state and law enforcement officials harass and intimidate^[78] key witnesses, NGOs, social activists and lawyers who are fighting to seek justice for riot victims. In its 2003 annual report, Amnesty International says, "the same police force that was accused of colluding with the attackers was put in charge of the investigations into the massacres, undermining the process of delivery of justice to the victims."^[79] The Best Bakery murder trial received wide attention after witnesses retracted testimony in court and all accused were acquitted. The Indian Supreme Court, acting on a petition by social activist Teesta Setalvad, ordered a retrial outside Gujarat in which nine accused were found guilty in 2006.^[80] A key witness, Zaheera Sheikh, who repeatedly changed her testimony during the trials and the petition was found guilty of perjury.^[81] After a local court closed the case, Bilkis Bano approached the National Human Rights Commission and petitioned the Supreme Court, which directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation, transferred the case out of Gujarat and directed the central government to appoint the public prosecutor.^[38][39] Charges were filed against 19 people as well as six police officials and a government doctor over their role in the initial investigations.^[37] In 2005, the Vadodara fast track court acquitted 108 people accused of murdering two youths, during a mob attack on a group of displaced Muslims returning under police escort to their homes in Avdhootnagar. The court passed strictures against the police for failing to protect the people under their escort^[82] and failing to identify the attackers they had witnessed.^[83] Nine people were convicted of killing a Hindu man and injuring another during group clashes in Danilimda, Ahmedabad on April 12, while 25 others were acquitted.^[84] Eight people, including a VHP leader and a member of the BJP, were convicted for the murder of seven members of a family and the rape of two minor girls in the village of Eral in Panchmahal district.^[85][86] Fifty two people from Pavagadh and Dhikva villages in Panchmahal district were acquitted of rioting charges for lack of evidence.^[87] A stringent anti-terror law, the POTA, was used by the Gujarat government to charge 131 people in connection to the Godhra train fire, but not invoked in prosecuting any of the accused in the post-Godhra riots.^[88][89] In 2005 the POTA Review Committee set up by central government to review the application of the law opined that the Godhra accused should not be tried under the provisions of POTA.^[90]

Public enquiries

Shah-Nanavati commission

On March 6, the Gujarat government set up a commission of enquiry headed by retired High Court judge K.G. Shah to enquire into the Godhra train burning and the subsequent violence and submit a report in three months.^[91] Following criticism from victims' organisations, activists and political parties over Shah's alleged proximity to the BJP, on May 22, the government reconstituted the commission, appointing retired Supreme Court Justice G.T. Nanavati to lead the commission.^[92][93]

National Human Rights Commission

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 March-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, the Commission was compelled to release the confidential report in its entirety^[94] 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 jurisdiction 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, patterns of arrests, uneven handling of major cases, and "Distorted FIRs: ‘extraneous influences’, issue of transparency and integrity" as key factors in the incident(s).

Banerjee Committee

In September 2004, a panel appointed by the central government and headed by former Supreme Court judge UC Banerjee to probe the Godhra train fire concluded that the fire was accidental.^[95][96] Its findings were challenged by the BJP and the Gujarat inspector-general of police. In October 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled that the panel was set up illegally, in violation of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 which prohibits the setting up of separate commissions by state and central governments to probe a matter of public importance.^[97]

Concerned Citizens Tribunal

The citizen tribunal headed by retired Supreme Court justice Krishna Iyer collected evidence and testimony from more than 2000 riot victims, witnesses and others. In its report, the tribunal accuses the state government and chief minister Modi of complicity in the violeence.^{[98][99][100]}

Aftermath

Opposition parties as well as three coalition partners^[101] of the BJP-led central government demanded the dismissal of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi for failing to contain the violence, with some calling for the removal of Union Home Minister L K Advani as well.^[102] On July 18, Chief Minister Narendra Modi asked the Governor of Gujarat to dissolve the state assembly and call fresh elections.^[103] The Indian Election Commission ruled out early elections, citing the prevailing law and order situation, a decision the union government unsuccessfully^[104] appealed against in the Supreme Court.^[105] In August 2002 a plot by Lashkar-e-Toiba to assassinate Narendra Modi, Praveen Togadia, and other Sangh Parivar leaders was unearthed by Indian police. Delhi Police Special Commissioner K. K. Paul noted their motive was to avenge the "injustices caused to [the] Muslims in Gujarat".^[106] In September 2002, at least 29 people were killed when 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.^[107], but they have denied this accusation ^{[108] [109][110]} Elections were held in December and Modi was returned to power in a landslide victory.^[111]

Relief efforts

Amnesty International's annual report on India in 2003 claimed the "Gujarat government did not actively fulfill its duty to provide appropriate relief and rehabilitation to the survivors".^[79] The state government initially offered compensation payments of 200,000 rupees to the families of those who died in the Godhra train fire and 100,000 rupees to the families of those who died in the subsequent riots, which local Muslims described as discriminatory.^[112] Subsequently, the government set the compensation amount at 150,000 rupees. ^[113] By March 27, nearly 100,000 displaced people moved into 101 relief camps. This swelled to over 150,000 in 104 camps the next two weeks.^[27] The camps were run by community groups and NGOs, with the government committing to provide amenities and supplementary services. Drinking water, medical help, clothing and blankets were in short supply at the camps.^[114] At least another 100 camps were denied government support, according to a camp organiser.^[115] and relief supplies were prevented from reaching the camps over fears that they may be carrying arms.^[116] Relief camp organisers alleged that the state government was coercing refugees to leave relief camps, with 25,000 people made to leave eighteen camps that were shut down. Following government assurances that camps would not be shut down, the Gujarat High Court bench ordered that camp organisers be given a supervisory role to ensure that the assurances were met.^[117]

Media coverage

Covering the first major communal riots following in the advent of satellite television to India, news channels set a precedent by identifying the community of those involved in the violence, breaking a long-standing practice.^[118] The Gujarat government banned television news channels critical of the government's response. STAR News, Zee News, Aaj Tak, CNN as well as local stations were blocked.^[118] Critical reporting on the Gujarat government's handling of the situation helped bring about the Indian government's intervention in controlling the violence.^[118] Allegations have been made of deliberately loading the reports against Hindus and whitewashing the violence perpetrated by Muslims. 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 perpetrators of the violence.^[119] Jayalalithaa Jayaram, general secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, also criticized the media and politicians for bias, saying "it is saddening and strange that when such acts are perpetrated against the minorities all political leaders rush to condemn. But when the majority is attacked, not a single political leader condemns it."^[120][121] A group from the Editorial Guild of India rejected the charge that the graphic news coverage aggravated the situation, saying that the coverage exposed the "horrors" of the riots as well as the "supine if not complicit" attitude of the state, helping propel remedial action. The team also faulted Gujarati language papers Gujarat Samachar and the pro-Hindutva Sandesh of distorted and provocative reporting.^[118] Columnist Rajeev Srinivasan of Rediff.com accused "the self-proclaimed 'intelligentsia'" of attempting to "mislead the public with its biased and one-sided perorations".^[122][123] He says that there is a decidedly Marxist,"Nehruvian" and anti-Hindu bias in the intelligentsia in India that leads them to believe that Hindu lives are "less valuable" than Muslim lives. This leads them to ignore the atrocities perpetrated by Islamic Fundamentalists against Hindus, as well as the Godhra Train Burning that precipitated the riots, and deflect attention away from them by focusing on the actions of the Hindus.^[122][123] The Godhra incident, however, received extensive news coverage until it was overtaken by the subsequent violence and the presentation of the Union budget.^[118] BJP MP Balbir Punj has criticised an Arundhati Roy essay, pointing out a factual error in it, and accusing a "secular pack" in the media of hyperbole and sensationalising the riots as part of an agenda of what he calls 'defamation' and 'left wing anti-India propaganda'.^[14] 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." Punj later continues, "Loss of 900-odd innocent lives (both Hindus and Muslims) is definitely not a 'genocide' of any one community". Punj also says, "The secular pack is not only guilty of parading half-truths but also of condoning and inciting violence".^[65] In 2004, the weekly newspaper Tehelka published a hidden camera exposé alleging that a BJP legislator Madhu Srivastava bribed Zaheera Sheikh, a witness in the Best Bakery killings trial.^[124] Srivatsava denied the allegation,^[125] and an inquiry committee appointed by the Indian Supreme Court drew an "adverse inference" from the video footage, though it failed to uncover evidence that money was actually paid.^[126] In a 2007 expose, the newspaper released hidden camera footage of several members of the BJP, VHP and the Bajrang Dal admitting their role in the riots.^[127][128] Among those featured in the tapes was the special counsel representing the Gujarat government before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, Arvind Pandya, who resigned from his post after they were made public.^[129] While the report was criticized by some as being politically motivated,^{[130][131][132][133]} some newspapers said the revelations simply reinforced what was common knowledge.^{[134][135][136][128]} The Gujarat government blocked telecast of cable news channels broadcasting the expose, a move strongly condemned by the Editors Guild of India.^[137]

Controversies on the riots

Allegations of atrocities against women

There has been widespread public outrage regarding atrocities against women during the riots, including acts of rape, in respect of which FIRs were allegedly neither promptly nor accurately recorded, and the victims allegedly harassed and intimidated. An international "fact finding committee" formed of experts from US, UK, France, Germany and Sri Lanka claimed that "Sexual violence was being used as a strategy for terrorising women belonging to minority community in the state.^[138] Taking a stand decried by the media and other rights group, the National Commission for Women accused organisations and the media of needlessly exaggerating the plight of women victims of the riots. Nafisa Hussain, a member of the NCW, went on record saying that several organisations and the media have needlessly blown out of proportion the violence suffered by minority women in the communal riots of Gujarat.^{[139][140][141]} Other groups have challenged the stand of the NCW.The newspaper Tribune reported that "The National Commission for Women has reluctantly agreed to the complicity of Gujarat Government in the communal violence in the state." The tone of their most recent report was reported by the Tribune as "lenient".^[142]

Notes