State Complicity: Government of Gujarat

Crime Against Humanity 
Volume 2 An inquiry into the carnage in Gujarat -- Findings And Recommendations  by Concerned Citizens Tribunal -Gujarat 2002

State Complicity
Government of Gujarat

2. Role of Chief Minister and HisMinisterial Colleagues

1. The post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat was an organised crime perpetrated by thestate’s chief minister and his government. The state’s complicity is evident from thevarious acts of commission and omission of the government and its officials.

1.1. It was the chief minister who declared that the Godhra incident was pre-plannedwhen the investigating agencies had not reached such a conclusion. Shri Modi’s cabi-net, notably the minister for home, Shri Gordhan Zadaphiya, reiterated strongly thatPakistani hands were behind the Godhra act. These statements were irresponsible,given the sensitivity of the situation and the anger that they generated. Once theygenerated a climate ripe for apportioning blame, for the acts of a few criminals, theentire Ghanchi Muslim community of Godhra was branded. This led to a feeling ofjustifying the systematic massacre, plunder, loot and cultural decimation of the entireMuslim community in Gujarat thereafter.

1.2. It was the chief minister who decided that the charred, unidentifiable dead bod-ies be taken from Godhra to Ahmedabad in a motor cavalcade. As the cavalcade headedfor Ahmedabad, senior members of his party and organisations affiliated to it shoutedslogans and incited mobs to retaliate. The CM’s role in condoning this behaviour, and inusing official machinery to propagate the unsubstantiated view that the Godhra tragedywas a sinister conspiracy, is condemnable. Thus, it was the chief minister who wasprimarily responsible for the spread of violence, post-Godhra, in the rest of Gujarat.

1.3. The VHP gave a call for a Gujarat Bandh on February 28 and for a Bharat Bandhon March 1. The Gujarat BJP president, Shri Rajendrasinh Rana, was quick to an-nounce the state BJP’s support for both the bandh calls, giving a clear signal to theadministration that it need not take a hard line against those who enforce the bandh.The state government’s reluctance to take adequate steps in the wake of the pro-posed bandhs amounted to an abdication of all its responsibilities and an open invita-tion to anarchy.

1.4. Shri Modi played an active role, along with at least three cabinet colleagues, ininstructing senior police personnel and civil administrators that a “Hindu reactionwas to be expected and this must not be curtailed or controlled.”

1.5. On the evening of February 27, two cabinet colleagues of the chief minister,Shri Ashok Bhatt and Shri Pratap Singh Chauhan, met at Lunavada in Panchmahaldistrict along with others. In this meeting, the manner and methods of unleashingviolence on Muslims were planned in detail.

1.6. It is clear from what happened in Ahmedabad and its environs on February 28and all over the state on March 1-3 and thereafter, that there was deliberate conniv-ance and support of the government.

1.7. The sectarian approach of the government and the inaction on the part of theadministration allowed the violence to spread. According to dozens of testimoniesbefore the Tribunal, even some ministers of the Gujarat government led the carnageand rapes, in many cases. The CM did not take adequate preventive measures, nor didhe keep the army on stand-by. Though the situation was grim, and tension was at itspeak, Shri Modi falsely claimed on March 2 (Newshour, Star News, 2/03/2002): “Gujaratmein bahut tezi se shanti prasthapit ho rahi hai, normalcy aa rahi hai… Ahmedabad ek prakarse kal raat ke baad, puri taraha incident-free raha hai.” (“Gujarat is well on the road topeace and normalcy is slowly returning here… Ahmedabad too has been largely peacefulsince last night.”) This, while the attacks in Panchmahal district, Mehsana, Kheda,Nadiad, Bhavnagar – which included hacking, lynching and burning alive of people—continued. This was done deliberately to mislead the rest of the country and theworld, though what was going on in Gujarat was clear to the whole world through theprint media, radio and TV.

1.8. Shri Modi claimed on March 3 (Talking Heads, Star News, 3/03/2002), that theArmy was called for on the evening of February 28, and joined duty from the morningof 1 st March.

(Although 12 columns of the Army (approximately 600 troops) had reachedAhmedabad and other sensitive areas on March 1, they were kept on standby. Militaryintelligence puts the blame on the state government. News reports maintained that theinitial delay was due to the absence of clear instructions from the Gujarat government.(The Times of India, Ahmedabad, March 11, Pg. 7). (See chapter on Godhra, Volume II).

1.9. In the past, communal riots had been mostly an urban phenomena that did notspread to the villages. But this time, due to the sectarian politics of religion, it spreadto the villages as well. One of the worst incidents was at Sardarpura village where 38villagers were hacked and torched. This is what Shri Modi had to say about the grue-some killings on March 1: “In some villages, especially in one village of Mehsanadistrict, due to rumours, due to suspicion, due to mistrust, due to tension on bothsides, there was an incident (emphasis added) in the Sardarpura village.” He took nosteps to nip the rumours in the bud.

1.10. Other ministers in the state cabinet displayed the same attitude. Electoralconstituencies of ministers in the state cabinet were more prone to violence; in somecases, ministersthemselves were leading the mobs. It may not be a mere coincidencethat Bapunagar, home constituency of the minister of state for home, Shri GordhanZadaphiya, witnessed one of the worst communal scenes since the 1969 riots, whenthe area was the hardest hit. Some of the senior BJP leaders and ministers in ShriModi’s cabinet were also alleged to have participated in the destruction of minorityplaces of worship. Minister for revenue, Shri Haren Pandya and health minister, ShriAshok Bhatt led the mobs enthusiastically in Ahmedabad. Shri Bharat Barot, a sittingMLA, was also at the forefront. Residents of Paldi, from where Shri Pandya waselected, actually saw him lead arson attacks. Shri Pandya’s election promise the lasttime was “to wipe any trace of Muslims out of Paldi.” Smt. Maya Kotdani, an MLA,has also been named by a few dozen witnesses as an active participant in the violence.Gujarat ministers Shri Nitin Patel and Shri Narayan Laloo Patel led violence, arsonand even sexual violence against women in Kadi and Unja in Mehsana respectively.

1.11. The utter disregard for the loss of life and property and the anguish that asection of the citizenry suffered due to unprecedented violence could be seen in thefact that until Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee flew into Ahmedabad andvisited the Shah-e-Alam Camp, Shri Modi had not visited a single one. This, despitethe fact that there were as many as 66,000 persons, according to collector’s figures,huddled in camps in Ahmedabad, while independent assessments put the figure atclose to 98,000. Instead of providing succour and assistance, which is the fundamen-tal duty of a government towards its citizens, terror tactics through lathi-wieldingpolicemen were employed with the residents of these camps. In areas of Gujaratoutside Ahmedabad, too, there were as many as 60,000 persons internally displaced,living in terrible conditions. But the government and the administration did preciouslittle to give them prompt and adequate relief.

1.12. The attitude of the government showed it had no regard for the life, well-being and future of students from the minority community. Traumatised and dis-tressed students had requested a postponement of the annual examinations. But thestate government, and later even the Gujarat High Court, rejected their plea. OnApril 10, the Gujarat government took a decision to shift out all centres located in theminority dominated areas, out of concern for the lives of students belonging to themajority community. However, minority community children were still expected totravel to examination centres located in majority dominated areas.

1.13. The CM announced Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for the victims/survivors ofthe Godhra tragedy. But the compensation declared by the CM for the survivors ofthe carnage that followed was Rs. 1 lakh for the family members of each victim.(When widespread criticism was made about the discriminatory stand of the state,the amount was equalised by reducing the compensation to the Godhra victims’ fami-lies to Rs 1 lakh, rather than by increasing the amount to Rs 2 lakh in all cases.) As ofnow, there is no information on how many families concerned have been paid thecompensation amount. As regards the injured, the government decided to pay com-pensation amounts ranging from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 50,000. This compensation amountwas decided in accordance with the norms fixed for the victims of the earthquake onJanuary 26, 2001, a government notification said. Here, again, there is no statisticaldata offered. As regards the destruction of homes, properties and businesses, thestate government has been perfunctory and callous in announcing compensation. Thereare no clear guidelines; some have been paid paltry sums ranging from Rs. 500 to afew thousand rupees, without any proper assessment of the loss suffered.

1.14. On March 1, the CM announced a judicial commission of inquiry into theGodhra tragedy alone, appointing retired judge, Shri KG Shah at its head. Again, onlyafter widespread protests, did he announce the inclusion, in the terms of reference ofinquiry of the judicial commission, of the post–Godhra carnage. (On March 5.) Theappointment of the KG Shah Commission was the subject matter of serious contro-versy because of the conduct of this particular judge in an earlier matter and also onthe simple ground that due to the situation in Gujarat, where judges, academics, pro-fessionals and others live under threat of fanatic groups who have become a law untothemselves, the criteria of a free, fair and independent inquiry demands the appointment of asenior judge (preferably judges) from outside the state. Now, the government has includedJustice GT Nanavaty (former judge of the SC) as an additional member, withoutspecifying as to what would happen if the two judges differ on any matter.The terms of reference of the KG Shah Commission are also controversial. Theydo not refer to the need to look into the causes of the disturbances/events/killings asalso the need to pinpoint the groups, individuals and organisations behind the violentprovocation, and also the role of the police and the administration in controlling thespread of riots and on the failure of the state government in taking prompt and effec-tive relief measures for the victims of the riots.

1.15. The RSS and the VHP control key functionaries in the State. Chief minister ShriModi is an RSS pracharak. Minister of state for home, Shri Zadaphiya, is a VHP activist.Shri SS Bhandari, the governor of Gujarat, who has not deemed it fit to send a true reporton what is happening in the state to the centre, is also an RSS leader. As a consequence ofall these factors, the Gujarat government has functioned not as a constitutionally bound,non-partisan and independent body, but one controlled by, and answerable to, the SanghParivar. The role and the functioning of the Gujarat government, therefore, is directlydetermined by its penetration by the Sangh Parivar including its most extreme elements, theVHP and Bajrang Dal. This fact underlies the conduct of the Gujarat government before,during and after the peak period of communal violence in the state during February-March 2002. As a result, while the Government had made certain arrests, no arrests ofBajrang Dal/VHP and BJP workers were undertaken. The arrests of at least 150 such accused,whose names figure in FIRs, are being avoided by the state government.

1.16. Not only the criminal justice system, the entire Administration has failed. IASand IPS officers who are supposed to be independent, have succumbed to the pres-sure of the Sangh Parivar. “There is no civil service left in Gujarat,” said the formerIndian cabinet secretary Shri TSR Subramanian (The Indian Express, April 10).‘‘Whathas happened is something much more fundamental than Gujarat: The civil service isgone. There is no such thing left. Over the years, the civil service has turned from asteelframe to non-existent. And that is a shattering thought.“When the government wants something done it has the ability, it has the takat(strength). It can do it in village after village, town after town. That it has not done soin Gujarat is a telling indictment not only of the way of the present government, butalso the collapse of the police and civil magistracy,’’ he says.

1.17. The government of Gujarat has been utterly secretive about the disbursal of theRs. 150 crores promised by the Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee for rehabilita-tion on April 4, 2002. In all this, the conduct of the chief minister Shri Narendra Modi,has not simply violated the spirit and the law as laid down by the Indian Constitution.He has, in effect, blatantly defied every constitutional institution, including that of thePrime Minister. Shri Narendra Modi is accountable for criminal negligence of duty infailing to provide any relief and rehabilitation to the victims of carnage in Gujarat.

2. Role of Chief Minister and HisMinisterial Colleagues

2.1. The facts mentioned in this report clearly establish that chief minister ShriNarendra Modi is the chief Author and Architect of all that happened in Gujarat afterthe arson of February 27, 2002. It is amply clear from all the evidence placed beforethe Tribunal that what began in Godhra, could have, given the political will, beencontrolled promptly at Godhra itself. Instead, the state government under chief ministerShri Narendra Modi took an active part in leading and sponsoring the violence againstminorities all over Gujarat. His words and actions throughout the developments inGujarat show that he has been openly defying the Constitution and indulging in ac-tions which are positively detrimental to the interests of the country.

2.2. Shri Modi was the one who took Godhra to the rest of Gujarat. He was the onewho directed the police and the administration not to act. He was the one who re-fused to help the likes of former member of Parliament, Shri Ahsan Jafri and thelarge number of people in Shri Jafri ’s home, who were all butchered later on.

2.3. He refused shelter and succour to the victims of the carnage.He refused, and continues to refuse, basic human amenities and was using coercionand other tactics to wind up refugee relief camps.

2.4. He has refused to buy land and rehabilitate persons in new locations or to givetransparent accounts of the Rs. 150 crore rehabilitation package announced by PrimeMinister Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee during his visit to the state on April 4, 2002. Hehas no remorse for the rapes, the butcherings, the loss of properties, the agony ofdisplacement and the acute insecurity and lack of belonging felt by large numbers ofthe people of Gujarat.

2.5. As late as September 3, 2002, the international working president of the VishwaHindu Parishad, Shri Ashok Singhal made a shocking statement that received widepublicity, in which he described Gujarat as a “successful experiment” and warned thatit would be repeated all over India. Shri Singhal further stated that the success of theGujarat exepriment lay in the fact that entire villages were “purged” of Islam andMuslims. This outrageous and pathetic statement was not only anti-constitutional butalso in violation of the law itself, for which he could be prosecuted. But Shri Modi, bynot expressing any outrage at Shri Singhal’s remarks, and by indulging in blatant mi-nority-bashing himself, appears to have accepted Shri Singhal’s warning that what-ever happened in Gujarat was an experiment, a precursor of things to come in the restof the country. He has made no secret of his hatred for the minorities, and his utter-ances from time to time keep emphasising that he is still an RSS pracharak (propaga-tor) with a hostile attitude. His role as CM is nothing short of an extension of hisfunctioning as an RSS pracharak.

2.6. It is unfortunate that all his ministerial colleagues have toed his line with noregard to the oath that they took under the Indian Constitution. They are, therefore,equally guilty of the commissions and omissions committed by the chief minister.These rabid, communal, anti-national and anti-constitutional statements and conducton the part of the chief minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi and his cabinetcolleagues make them unfit to hold any public office. The interests of the people ofthis country are not safe in their hands.