Gujrat Ka Sach - Part 2

[Ram]

Lets see.. Seems there is no evidence against Modi.... I wonder what these things mean then... " 1) he Gujarat government had not discussed about any preventive steps to be taken to counter any attack on minorities anticipated in the wake of the Godhra train tragedy,former city Police Commissioner P.C. Pandey told the Godhra riots inquiry commission on Wedn esday. "There was no discussion on February 27, 2002 at the meeting held at Chief Minister Narendra Modi's house to counter the communal backlash anticipated after the Godhra incident," Pandey said," 2) Chief Minister Modi has called human rights workers “five-star activists and pseudo-secularists” who are trying to tarnish the image of his state.6 This has encouraged a climate of impunity, where perpetrators of the riots and those that took part in the violence feel they can threaten activists and witnesses to discourage them from pursuing justice, without a response from state authorities. 3) Responding to a demand from witnesses for protection by national forces instead of state police, the Supreme Court on March 15, 2004, indicated its lack of trust of state authorities when it asked the national government to identify key witnesses in nine Gujarat riot cases and deploy central police or paramilitary forces to protect them. 4) So many witnesses have complained of threats that in May 2003, the NHRC asked the Director General of Police in Gujarat for a report on measures taken “to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses.”12 The Director General offered a disingenuous response, saying that in the absence of any specific complaint, it would not be possible for the state police to accord protection to each and every witness or victim.13 However, when the police have known the identity of activists who have been threatened, they have a poor record of protecting them.14 5) "Statements from leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP),20 alleged by many of planning and executing the attacks on Gujarati Muslims in 2002, have added to the distrust. On July 3, 2004, two years after the riots, despite severe criticism from human rights organizations and constitutional authorities like the NHRC, VHP Working President Ashok Singhal declared that, “What happened in Gujarat after the Godhra carnage had the blessing of Lord Rama.” 5)Tax authorities and the Gujarat charity commissioner have allegedly singled out human rights activists working on the riots for investigation. Local activists say that income tax investigations have been threatened against many organizations run by Muslims in an effort to put pressure on Muslim leaders to encourage witnesses to drop charges and withdraw from cases. 6) n the Best Bakery case, the Supreme Court condemned Gujarat’s failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the 2002 violence.31 It ordered fresh investigations and specifically ordered the retrial outside Gujarat of individuals who had been acquitted after a widely criticized trial in Gujarat of twenty-one persons for setting on fire and killing fourteen people at a bakery in Vadodara, Gujarat. 7) Amicus curiae Harish Salve, former solicitor general for the Indian government and a senior lawyer, had filed an application to the Supreme Court stating that of the 4,252 cases registered by the police, nearly 2,100 had been closed.32 On August 17, 2004, the Supreme Court directed the Gujarat state government to set up a panel of senior police officials to review cases where the local police had filed closure reports instead of charge-sheets and asked the Director General of Police to report the progress of the committee’s review every three months.33 The court has also asked for a re-examination of all acquittals in riot trials to determine possibilities for filing appeals.34 8) In the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool Patel, the Supreme Court ordered a change of venue after accepting evidence of police bias in favor of the accused and the threatening of witnesses.35 The court was responding to Bilkis’ prayer for transfer of the trial outside Gujarat because justice was not possible in Gujarat in the prevailing political environment -------------------- http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/india/gujarat/1.htm --------------- Half of riot cases closed without investigation, human rights activists targeted, supreme court transferring cases outside Gujrat, Police commissioner saying that 2 days after the Godhra massacre, the cheif minister didnt even talk about them in a meeting and some potential protective measure... Yes Indeeeeed !!! Lets Mr.Evidence seeker countering this... :haha::haha:

[The Outsider]

1. The post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat was an organised crime perpetrated by the state’s chief minister and his government. The state’s complicity is evident from the various 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-planned when the investigating agencies had not reached such a conclusion. Shri Modi’s cabinet, notably the minister for home, Shri Gordhan Zadaphiya, reiterated strongly that Pakistani hands were behind the Godhra act. These statements were irresponsible, given the sensitivity of the situation and the anger that they generated. Once they generated a climate ripe for apportioning blame, for the acts of a few criminals, the entire Ghanchi Muslim community of Godhra was branded. This led to a feeling of justifying the systematic massacre, plunder, loot and cultural decimation of the entire Muslim community in Gujarat thereafter. 1.2. It was the chief minister who decided that the charred, unidentifiable dead bodies be taken from Godhra to Ahmedabad in a motor cavalcade. As the cavalcade headed for Ahmedabad, senior members of his party and organisations affiliated to it shouted slogans and incited mobs to retaliate. The CM’s role in condoning this behaviour, and in using official machinery to propagate the unsubstantiated view that the Godhra tragedy was a sinister conspiracy, is condemnable. Thus, it was the chief minister who was primarily 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 Bandh on March 1. The Gujarat BJP president, Shri Rajendrasinh Rana, was quick to announce the state BJP’s support for both the bandh calls, giving a clear signal to the administration 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 proposed bandhs amounted to an abdication of all its responsibilities and an open invitation to anarchy. 1.4. Shri Modi played an active role, along with at least three cabinet colleagues, in instructing senior police personnel and civil administrators that a "Hindu reaction was 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 Panchmahal district along with others. In this meeting, the manner and methods of unleashing violence on Muslims were planned in detail. 1.6. It is clearfrom what happened in Ahmedabad and its environs on February 28 and all over the state on March 1-3 and thereafter, that there was deliberate connivance and support of the government. 1.7. The sectarian approach of the government and the inaction on the part of the administration allowed the violence to spread. According to dozens of testimonies before the Tribunal, even some ministers of the Gujarat government led the carnage and rapes, in many cases. The CM did not take adequate preventive measures, nor did he keep the army on stand-by. Though the situation was grim, and tension was at its peak, Shri Modi falsely claimed on March 2 (Newshour, Star News, 2/03/2002): "Gujarat mein bahut tezi se shanti prasthapit ho rahi hai, normalcy aa rahi hai… Ahmedabad ek prakar se kal raat ke baad, puri taraha incident-free raha hai." ("Gujarat is well on the road to peace and normalcy is slowly returning here… Ahmedabad too has been largely peaceful since 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 the world, though what was going on in Gujarat was clear to the whole world through the print media, radio and TV. 1.8. Shri Modi claimed on March 3 (Talking Heads, Star News, 3/03/2002), that the Army was called for on the evening of February 28, and joined duty from the morning of 1st March. (Although 12 columns of the Army (approximately 600 troops) had reached Ahmedabad and other sensitive areas on March 1, they were kept on standby. Military intelligence puts the blame on the state government. News reports maintained that the initial 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 not spread to the villages. But this time, due to the sectarian politics of religion, it spread to the villages as well. One of the worst incidents was at Sardarpura village where 38 villagers were hacked and torched. This is what Shri Modi had to say about the gruesome killings on March 1: "In some villages, especially in one village of Mehsana district, due to rumours, due to suspicion, due to mistrust, due to tension on both sides, there was an incident (emphasis added) in the Sardarpura village." He took no steps to nip the rumours in the bud. 1.10. Other ministers in the state cabinet displayed the same attitude. Electoral constituencies of ministers in the state cabinet were more prone to violence; in some cases, ministers themselves were leading the mobs. It may not be a mere coincidence that Bapunagar, home constituency of the minister of state for home, Shri Gordhan Zadaphiya, witnessed one of the worst communal scenes since the 1969 riots, when the area was the hardest hit. Some of the senior BJP leaders and ministers in Shri Modi’s cabinet were also alleged to have participated in the destruction of minority places of worship. Minister for revenue, Shri Haren Pandya and health minister, Shri Ashok Bhatt led the mobs enthusiastically in Ahmedabad. Shri Bharat Barot, a sitting MLA, was also at the forefront. Residents of Paldi, from where Shri Pandya was elected, actually saw him lead arson attacks. Shri Pandya’s election promise the last time 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, arson and 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 a section of the citizenry suffered due to unprecedented violence could be seen in the fact that until Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee flew into Ahmedabad and visited the Shah-e-Alam Camp, Shri Modi had not visited a single one. This, despite the 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 at close to 98,000. Instead of providing succour and assistance, which is the fundamental duty of a government towards its citizens, terror tactics through lathi-wielding policemen were employed with the residents of these camps. In areas of Gujarat outside Ahmedabad, too, there were as many as 60,000 persons internally displaced, living in terrible conditions. But the government and the administration did precious little 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 distressed students had requested a postponement of the annual examinations. But the state government, and later even the Gujarat High Court, rejected their plea. On April 10, the Gujarat government took a decision to shift out all centres located in the minority dominated areas, out of concern for the lives of students belonging to the majority community. However, minority community children were still expected to travel to examination centres located in majority dominated areas. 1.13. The CM announced Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for the victims/survivors of the Godhra tragedy. But the compensation declared by the CM for the survivors of the 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’ families to Rs 1 lakh, rather than by increasing the amount to Rs 2 lakh in all cases.) As of now, there is no information on how many families concerned have been paid the compensation amount. As regards the injured, the government decided to pay compensation amounts ranging from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 50,000. This compensation amount was decided in accordance with the norms fixed for the victims of the earthquake on January 26, 2001, a government notification said. Here, again, there is no statistical data offered. As regards the destruction of homes, properties and businesses, the state government has been perfunctory and callous in announcing compensation. There are no clear guidelines; some have been paid paltry sums ranging from Rs. 500 to a few thousand rupees, without any proper assessment of the loss suffered. 1.14. On March 1, the CM announced a judicial commission of inquiry into the Godhra tragedy alone, appointing retired judge, Shri KG Shah at its head. Again, only after widespread protests, did he announce the inclusion, in the terms of reference of inquiry of the judicial commission, of the post–Godhra carnage. (On March 5.) The appointment of the KG Shah Commission was the subject matter of serious controversy because of the conduct of this particular judge in an earlier matter and also on the simple ground that due to the situation in Gujarat, where judges, academics, professionals and others live under threat of fanatic groups who have become a law unto themselves, the criteria of a free, fair and independent inquiry demands the appointment of a senior judge (preferably judges) from outside the state. Now, the government has included Justice GT Nanavaty (former judge of the SC) as an additional member, without specifying 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. They do not refer to the need to look into the causes of the disturbances/events/killings as also the need to pinpoint the groups, individuals and organisations behind the violent provocation, and also the role of the police and the administration in controlling the spread of riots and on the failure of the state government in taking prompt and effective relief measures for the victims of the riots. 1.15. The RSS and the VHP control key functionaries in the State. Chief minister Shri Modi 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 report on what is happening in the state to the centre, is also an RSS leader. As a consequence of all 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 directly determined by its penetration by the Sangh Parivar including its most extreme elements, the VHP 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 of Bajrang 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. IAS and IPS officers who are supposed to be independent, have succumbed to the pressure of the Sangh Parivar. "There is no civil service left in Gujarat," said the former Indian cabinet secretary Shri TSR Subramanian (The Indian Express, April 10).‘‘What has happened is something much more fundamental than Gujarat: The civil service is gone. There is no such thing left. Over the years, the civil service has turned from a steelframe 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 so in Gujarat is a telling indictment not only of the way of the present government, but also the collapse of the police and civil magistracy,’’ he says. 1.17. The government of Gujarat has been utterly secretive about the disbursal of the Rs. 150 crores promised by the Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee for rehabilitation 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 the Prime Minister. Shri Narendra Modi is accountable for criminal negligence of duty in failing to provide any relief and rehabilitation to the victims of carnage in Gujarat. 2. Role of Chief Minister and His Ministerial Colleagues 2.1. The facts mentioned in this report clearly establish that chief minister Shri Narendra Modi is the chief Author and Architect of all that happened in Gujarat after the arson of February 27, 2002. It is amply clear from all the evidence placed before the Tribunal that what began in Godhra, could have, given the political will, been controlled promptly at Godhra itself. Instead, the state government under chief minister Shri Narendra Modi took an active part in leading and sponsoring the violence against minorities all over Gujarat. His words and actions throughout the developments in Gujarat show that he has been openly defying the Constitution and indulging in actions 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 one who directed the police and the administration not to act. He was the one who refused to help the likes of former member of Parliament, Shri Ahsan Jafri and the large 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 coercion and other tactics to wind up refugee relief camps. 2.4. He has refused to buy land and rehabilitate persons in new locations or to give transparent accounts of the Rs. 150 crore rehabilitation package announced by Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee during his visit to the state on April 4, 2002. He has no remorse for the rapes, the butcherings, the loss of properties, the agony of displacement and the acute insecurity and lack of belonging felt by large numbers of the people of Gujarat. 2.5. As late as September 3, 2002, the international working president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Shri Ashok Singhal made a shocking statement that received wide publicity, in which he described Gujarat as a "successful experiment" and warned that it would be repeated all over India. Shri Singhal further stated that the success of the Gujarat exepriment lay in the fact that entire villages were "purged" of Islam and Muslims. This outrageous and pathetic statement was not only anti-constitutional but also in violation of the law itself, for which he could be prosecuted. But Shri Modi, by not expressing any outrage at Shri Singhal’s remarks, and by indulging in blatant minority-bashing himself, appears to have accepted Shri Singhal’s warning that whatever happened in Gujarat was an experiment, a precursor of things to come in the rest of the country. He has made no secret of his hatred for the minorities, and his utterances from time to time keep emphasising that he is still an RSS pracharak (propagator) with a hostile attitude. His role as CM is nothing short of an extension of his functioning as an RSS pracharak. 2.6. It is unfortunate that all his ministerial colleagues have toed his line with no regard 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 conduct on the part of the chief minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi and his cabinet colleagues make them unfit to hold any public office. The interests of the people of this country are not safe in their hands.

http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/vol2/compgovt.html Complete report at : http://www.sabrang.com/tribunal/

[Ram]

Come on DR, let us all see you refute the points i have made.... Do it you if have the ticker...

[fineleg]

Fantastic work MM and shwetabh :thumbs_up: Ofcourse Hindutvas will throw it out becos it affects their sensitivities.

[Ram]

quite brave that MM ... you got the ticker to stay till the end ? You went AWOL in about 5 posts last time while discussing Babri majid :nervous:

BB, i told you i dont share the same passion as you guys in debating these issues.. Not debating doesnt mean not capable of debating... understand that..

[Ram]

^ BTW, why have you been unsually late in responding to the points highlighted in the OP ? Care to respond to mine and Shwetabh's post ? point by point ?

[The Outsider]

From, "Mapping Political Violence in a Globalized World: The Case of Hindu Nationalism", by Sangeeta Kamat, Biju Mathew; Social Justice, Vol. 30, 2003.

Jafri lived in a middle-class neighborhood in Gandhinagar, Gujarat's capital. His family and the several dozen families that came to his house seeking refuge were brutally murdered in like manner, while his middle-class Hindu neighbors watched the carnage from their apartments. According to eyewitnesses, members of the police stood by during the public spectacle of torture, rape, murder, and looting (Ibid.). On this and other occasions, police officers are said to have directed the mobs to people hiding from Hindutva members. The alleged complicity of the police and municipal officers in aiding and abetting the violent mobs, directing them toward Muslim businesses and homes, and then calmly watching the rape and murder of innocent people, points to a breakdown of the legal system that no one had anticipated (Simeon, 2002; Roy, 2003). At the time of the incidents, Gujarat's chief minister, Narendra Modi, flippantly dismissed them as the "Hindu backlash" in response to the Godhra incident. However, numerous fact-finding teams and testimonies expose the lie of the "backlash" thesis. The evidence shows that the organization and precision of the killings and burning of Muslims and the destruction of their property was anything but spontaneous and instead reflected months of careful planning (Human Rights Watch, 2002; Citizens Tribunal Report, 2002). (4) The mobs, ranging from several hundred to several thousand people, were equipped not only with swords, knives, firearms, cans of an unidentified petroleum-based solvent, and trishuls (a trident of Hindu religious significance), but also with municipal listings of Muslim homes and business establishments. Telephone lines in Muslim neighborhoods were cut off well before armed mobs arrived there. Reports concur that in several neighborhoods the police cordoned off areas where Muslims lived to prevent them from escaping their attackers. In some cases, the police opened fire against fleeing Muslims (Human Rights Watch, 2002). The burning of people, whether alive or dead, was a systematic tactic that made it impossible to accurately assess the number of people who lost their lives. Figures vary from 800 killed as per state government figures to over 2,000 people killed in five days as per the Citizens Tribunal Report. Systematic sexual violence took place in the pogrom. Muslim women, young and old, were brutally gang raped, their limbs hacked, and they were ultimately killed. Eyewitnesses recount that pregnant women were cut open and the unborn child speared before the mother was killed and burned. When young Muslim boys and girls were spared, it was to watch the brutal murder of their parents and the rape of their mothers and sisters (Citizens Initiative, 2002; Citizens Tribunal Report, 2002). An inquiry team documented the following: The fact-finding team found compelling evidence of the most extreme form of sexual violence against women during the first few days of the carnage--in Ahmedabad on February 28 and March 1 and in rural areas up to March 3, 2002. The testimonies point to brutal and depraved forms of violence. The violence against minorities was pre-planned, organized, and targeted. In every instance of large-scale mob violence against the community in general, there was a regular pattern of violence against women (Citizens Initiative, 2002: 5). The specificity of targeted violence of mass proportions on women is a key aspect in understanding the ideology of Hindutva (Sarkar, 1999). The patriarchal aspect of the ideology places the protection of women by men as symbolic to the integrity of the community as a whole. In the case of the massacre against Muslims, subjecting "their" women to bestial forms of sexual violence was seen as a critical factor in the destruction of the integrity and self-worth of the Muslim community as a whole. As the violence spread from urban pockets of Ahmedabad and Baroda into the rural heartland of central Gujarat, a mass exodus of Muslims was forced into makeshift refugee camps set up in large part by volunteer groups with little or no assistance from the state or federal governments. More than 150,000 Muslims were rendered homeless after their homes and business establishments were burned to the ground. Mosques and tombs of Muslim saints were torn down, and in some cases, the area repaved in a few hours, leaving no trace that they had existed at all (Human Rights Watch, 2002). At the time of this writing, at least two "refugee camps" (5) continue to exist, with few relief and rehabilitation services, as the refugees find it impossible to return to their villages with any sense of security. The federal and state governments refuse to acknowledge the existence of these camps and claims that "normalcy has been restored" (Times of India, 2002). In some cases, refugees returned to their burned homes and reconstructed them with the assistance of volunteer groups, but were driven out and their houses again destroyed. To date, the government has refused to take any action against the perpetrators and instead further polarized the Hindu and Muslim communities by calling for early elections in Gujarat.

[Ram]

The mobs, ranging from several hundred to several thousand people, were equipped not only with swords, knives, firearms, cans of an unidentified petroleum-based solvent, and trishuls (a trident of Hindu religious significance), but also with municipal listings of Muslim homes and business establishments.

Reports concur that in several neighborhoods the police cordoned off areas where Muslims lived to prevent them from escaping their attackers.

How more damning can this get ?? Brilliant piece Shwetabh !

[The Outsider]

From, "Normalizing Violence: Transitional Justice and the Gujarat Riots", by Ratna Kapur; Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 15, 2006.

The casting of the Hindus who were killed in Godhra as martyrs, and the Muslims as terrorists and rioters, was played out in several responses to the riots by both the State and the central government. Modi ordered that the victims of Godhra, the Hindus, be awarded twice the amount of compensation than the Muslims who had been slaughtered in the subsequent rioting were awarded. (29) Secondly, although over 2000 Muslims were killed in the state, over sixty Muslims were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002. (30) Not a single Hindu was arrested or detained under these provisions. (31) They were primarily detained under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), where their rights to due process and a fair trial were assured. (32) Indeed, the Godhra killings were used as an opportunity for the government to rush through the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, which was due to expire in April, 2002. The fact that only Muslims were arrested under its provisions in the context of the Gujarat riots speaks to the concerns that many human rights and civil liberties groups expressed during the debates on introducing such legislation--that it would be used against minorities and other groups that the government does not like or wants to eliminate. (33) In the prevailing climate of that elusive and ill-defined "war on terror," the Hindu Right had at hand the rhetoric and justification for enacting such legislation in the name of the security of the nation and protection of the citizens (Hindus) from the dangerous "others" (Muslims).

Several mechanisms have been set up to try and secure justice for the Muslims and specifically the women who experienced horrific violence during the Gujarat riots. The primary mechanism established to inquire into the Godhra incident and Gujarat riots, is the "fast track" court. The clear emphasis is on prosecution and conviction of those involved in the violence and to demonstrate in the most visible way that action is being taken by the State. However, in one of the first cases to be decided by the court, The Best Bakery Case, which arose out of the killing of fourteen people on the nights of March 1 and 2, 2002, in a building named Best Bakery, the court acquitted all of the twenty-one accused. (38) Many of the key eyewitnesses turned hostile, refusing to repeat testimony that they had previously given to the police for fear that they would be subjected to reprisals. (39) Subsequently, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) successfully appealed to the Supreme Court to set aside the orders of acquittal and secure a retrial of the case outside of Gujarat. (40) The second mechanism established by the government to investigate into the Godhra incident, as well as subsequently into the massacres that took place during the Gujarat riots, and to place its recommendations before Parliament, is the Nanavati Commission. (41) The Commission has yet to submit its report to Parliament. The establishment of commissions of inquiry is a part of a long tradition in India of investigating events that are catastrophic and demand redress. (42) Such commissions have not tended to provide justice in a substantive sense. (43) As Upendra Baxi has stated, "momentarily distressed regimes have used this mechanism, with some success in order to provide the appearance of a short term rule of law oriented state action, which in the long term divests victims of any semblance of effective redress." (44) The scope of this commission's terms of reference was initially limited to investigating the "Godhra incident," but was subsequently expanded to include an investigation into the acts of senior state government officials relating to the Godhra train carnage and the 2002 Gujarat pogroms against Muslims. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has also played a role by publishing a report of its findings on the Gujarat riots and intervening at the level of the Supreme Court to challenge the ineptitude and inertia on the part of the Gujarat state government in pursuing criminal prosecutions. (45) Several non-government initiatives were also set up to investigate into the riots. This included a specific initiative to investigate the gendered nature of the violence inflicted during the course of the Gujarat riots. The panel report of the International Initiative for Justice (IIJ) was prepared with the objective of securing justice for women harmed during the riots, guaranteeing their basic rights to citizenship, as well as ensuring that democracy provided security to all. (46) The panelists drew attention to the fact that the sexual violence and killings of Muslim women constituted genocide as increasingly recognized and defined in international law and jurisprudence. (47) The report also declared that Hindutva was a genocidal project and that sexual violence against Muslims was integral to this project. (48) At the same time the report acknowledged that reparations and justice in such a complex context would be difficult to secure, though recognition of the State's failure to prevent the massacres was nevertheless important. As the report pointed out, the Gujarat government has been careful not to use the word "reparation," but rather "assistance," "aid," and "relief," thus absolving it of any sense of entitlement or accountability to the affected citizen. (49) The recommendations focused primarily on the international and legal mechanisms that needed to be applied to establish that the Gujarat riots constituted genocide and crimes against humanity and that the harms experienced by women had to be specifically addressed. (50) The panelists also emphasized that justice for Muslim women had to be addressed separately from the justice to be secured for the community as a whole.

[Ram]

BB, why havent you refuted the point listed by me or Shwetabh yet ?

[Ram]

Man this is getting worse..

Modi ordered that the victims of Godhra, the Hindus, be awarded twice the amount of compensation than the Muslims who had been slaughtered in the subsequent rioting were awarded

Secondly, although over 2000 Muslims were killed in the state, over sixty Muslims were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002. (30) Not a single Hindu was arrested or detained under these provisions.

Many of the key eyewitnesses turned hostile, refusing to repeat testimony that they had previously given to the police for fear that they would be subjected to reprisals. (39) Subsequently, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) successfully appealed to the Supreme Court to set aside the orders of acquittal and secure a retrial of the case outside of Gujarat.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has also played a role by publishing a report of its findings on the Gujarat riots and intervening at the level of the Supreme Court to challenge the ineptitude and inertia on the part of the Gujarat state government in pursuing criminal prosecutions. (45)

As the report pointed out, the Gujarat government has been careful not to use the word "reparation," but rather "assistance," "aid," and "relief," thus absolving it of any sense of entitlement or accountability to the affected citizen.

[Guest dada_rocks]

(1) nanavati commission report last time I checked is still not out so answering speculation on that wud be exercise in futility (2) About judicial process alacrity: so far numberof conviction in post-godhara riots 15 and number of conviction in delhi riots 13. one happend in 84 other in 2002. Again zelaous broigade against MOdi would like Gujaraat court to suddenly delier speedy results btu last tiem I checked Gujraat was still in India and their court is doing thousands times better job than delhi court as far as spped of trial was concerned. (3) regarding every tom dick and hary fidning that he has fallen out of favour of Modi and hence give some barbs agsint them well u know how I value those opinions unless they cud get at last a case registered. For god sake I am not even asking for court-trial to complete its course and thereby award him sentence of guilty or innocent. I want bare minimum get a case registered . U guys have bene harping he said she said since last six years somehow none of them are good enough for even an FIR. Who are you fooling guys..

[Ram]

nanavati commission report last time I checked is still not out so answering speculation on that wud be exercise in futility

Speculation ??? !!!!!

he Gujarat government had not discussed about any preventive steps to be taken to counter any attack on minorities anticipated in the wake of the Godhra train tragedy,former city Police Commissioner P.C. Pandey told the Godhra riots inquiry commission on Wedn esday. "There was no discussion on February 27, 2002 at the meeting held at Chief Minister Narendra Modi's house to counter the communal backlash anticipated after the Godhra incident," Pandey said,"

Is this speculation ?

Responding to a demand from witnesses for protection by national forces instead of state police, the Supreme Court on March 15, 2004, indicated its lack of trust of state authorities when it asked the national government to identify key witnesses in nine Gujarat riot cases and deploy central police or paramilitary forces to protect them.

Is this speculation ?

On July 3, 2004, two years after the riots, despite severe criticism from human rights organizations and constitutional authorities like the NHRC, VHP Working President Ashok Singhal declared that, “What happened in Gujarat after the Godhra carnage had the blessing of Lord Rama.”

Is this speculation ?

n the Best Bakery case, the Supreme Court condemned Gujarat’s failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the 2002 violence.31 It ordered fresh investigations and specifically ordered the retrial outside Gujarat of individuals who had been acquitted after a widely criticized trial in Gujarat of twenty-one persons for setting on fire and killing fourteen people at a bakery in Vadodara, Gujarat.

Is this speculation ?

In the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool Patel, the Supreme Court ordered a change of venue after accepting evidence of police bias in favor of the accused and the threatening of witnesses.35 The court was responding to Bilkis’ prayer for transfer of the trial outside Gujarat because justice was not possible in Gujarat in the prevailing political environment

Is this speculation ? Last question. Do you know what the word speculation means ?

[Guest dada_rocks]

U are quoting from Nanavati commisison report which is not yet public and I consider quotation from that report a mere speculation over its content .. We will discuss that report when it comes out. Moreover on 27th everythig was in control it all started on 28th and Narendra Modi did what was required then as the Gujaraat ka sach thread vouches.

[The Outsider]

:hysterical::hysterical: Who is quoting from Nanawati commission report!!!!

[Ram]

:hysterical::hysterical: Who is quoting from Nanawati commission report!!!!

Precisely.... When did i ever quote from the Nanavati commission report ? Those are supreme court rulings !! :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Ram]

U Moreover on 27th everythig was in control it all started on 28th and Narendra Modi did what was required then as the Gujaraat ka sach thread vouches.

:haha::haha::haha: Not even DISCUSSING about a Riot-waiting-to-happen with a city police commissioner , just days after a communal massacre !!! Of course, everything was under control ! :haha::haha:

[The Outsider]

:haha::haha::haha: Not even DISCUSSING about a Riot-waiting-to-happen with a city police commissioner , just days after a communal massacre !!! Of course, everything was under control ! :haha::haha:

That too when the VHP had called for a Gujarat Bandh on Feb. 28 and Bharat Bandh on Mar. 1. Everything under control. No chance of communal tensions.:hysterical:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Riot waiting to happen Modi cud have used fortune teller like you.. PS: U are second guessing speculating the report content it's not out yet.. Day after nahin day before I know that's how u guys peddle lies pretty soon ti will become a truth like nothign was doen on 29th 30th and 31st of february..

[Guest dada_rocks]

This or that police officer said this or that to nanavati sounds like second-guessing to me....