Gujarat Government
Is
Obstructing Justice
By Human Rights
Watch
24 September, 2004
HRW
Read
The Full Report
The
government of the Indian state of Gujarat continues to obstruct justice
and prevent accountability for the perpetrators of violence committed
during communal riots in 2002 that left as many as 2,000 Muslims dead.1
The riots occurred after some Muslims allegedly attacked a train carrying
Hindu pilgrims and activists. One carriage caught fire and fifty-nine
Hindus were killed in the blaze.2 In retaliation, Hindu extremist mobs,
often with police participation and complicity, killed hundreds of Muslims
and displaced thousands.3
The Gujarat state
government, led by Chief Minister Narandra Modi of the Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), not only failed to take appropriate action
to prevent the violence, but has since failed to properly investigate
the crimes committed. It has consistently sought to impede successful
prosecutions of those allegedly involved in the massacres, leading the
Supreme Court and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to intervene
on several occasions.4
Activists and witnesses
pursuing accountability continue to be targeted by influential extremists
in Gujarat. The highest levels of government in Gujarat have created
an extremely hostile environment.5 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.
The Gujarat police
have initiated very few criminal investigations and have been largely
non-responsive in cases where activists have lodged complaints about
threats or attacks. No credible witness protection program has been
established by the state government, which seems more interested in
protecting those responsible for the violence than witnesses and victims.7
In fact, given the
active police participation in the 2002 riots, their failure to protect
Muslims as they were attacked and killed in plain view, the lack of
any admission of responsibility, or refusal to reform since, witnesses
are reluctant to approach the Gujarat police for protection or trust
them with information.8 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.9
The climate of fear
in Gujarat is so great that activists and witnesses are often reluctant
to publicly discuss or even be privately interviewed about the threats
they receive for fear of retribution from those who make the threats
or their allies, including some in powerful positions in the state government
or police.
In several recent
incidents, Hindu nationalists have threatened activists and lawyers
and even assaulted them. One activist-lawyer working on a case against
individuals accused of gang rape and murder, was threatened when she
was attending a hearing in court. Although she sent a complaint to the
Gujarat Director General of Police, no action has been taken. In another
incident, in broad daylight Hindu extremists stoned the vehicles of
activists calling for communal harmony and beat up one of the activists.
Documentary filmmaker
Shubhradeep Chakravorty was verbally abused and threatened in Ahmedabad
after the screening of his film that questions the official version
of events in the attack on the train in Godhra and criticizes the violence
that followed. An earlier screening had to be canceled because the venue
owners pulled out following threats.10 Several websites, claiming to
support the cause of Hindus in India, list human rights campaigners
as traitors. For instance, the website of the Patriotic
Sons of Mother India has listed several Gujarat activists, including
many whose testimonies are listed in this report, as enemies of India.
The website openly supports the BJP by including a list of twenty reasons
one should not support Sonia Gandhi, leader of the Congress party. The
lead entry says, Shame Shame Indian Leftists! You want human rights
for terrorists? This kind of rhetoric could endanger the security
of activists and spreads fear by providing the home address, phone numbers
and/or email address of some of those it lists, calling them anti-India,
anti-Hindu activists.11
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
Aside from prominent
activists with connections to senior government or police officials,
few activists, witnesses, or victims can rely on protection from state
authorities. Even witnesses who have received 24-hour police protection
have complained that guards turn up sporadically.15 Many Muslim witnesses
initially refused to give testimony to the Nanavati-Shah Commission16
appointed by Chief Minister Modi because they feared reprisal from local
police and Hindu extremists.17 The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) said that witnesses had no faith in the proceedings because it
was carried out in an atmosphere hostile to victims.18 Protection
offered by the Gujarat government has been refused by some witnesses
because the local police were perceived as complicit and more likely
to harm than protect the witness. Witnesses have repeatedly expressed
fear of the Gujarat police, fear so great that in one case, witnesses,
offered protection by local police, submitted their refusal in writing
to the Police Inspector.19
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.21
Realities on the
ground in Gujarat have fueled the fears of activists, particularly Muslims.22
Muslims are often treated as suspected terrorists and were arrested
under the recently-repealed draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
Of the 287 cases registered under POTA in Gujarat as of December 2003,
286 were against Muslims.23 Muslim leaders and activists fear that they
too will be investigated under POTA.24 That fear was heightened, activists
say, after police arrested Haris Ansari under POTA. He is the son of
Shakeel Ahmed Ansari, a member of the Islamic Relief Committee working
with Gujarat victims. Shakeel Ahmed described the situation:
Police pick
up youths, whoever they want, from streets, keep them on remand for
weeks and months. All this has filled Muslim psyche with fear in Gujarat.25
Activists say that
even now, almost three years after the riots, junior police officials
in charge of local police stations are reluctant to record complaints
by witnesses about threats and intimidation. According to activist Teesta
Setalvad, who has received numerous threats for her work on the Gujarat
violence, In some cases when absconders have threatened witnesses,
when the witnesses went to lodge an FIR (First Information Report),
the police refused to register it. It needs an external pushwe
have to intervene personally and call senior officers in Gujarat or
we have to send a lawyer along.26
More subtle means
have also been used to obstruct justice. Instead of pursuing the perpetrators
of the violence, who often committed their crimes in full view of large
numbers of witnesses, state police authorities have summoned human rights
activists for questioning. In many cases the questioning has been based
on unsubstantiated protest letters sent to the BJP government by its
own party workers.27
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.
The Gujarat government
appears to be abusing its law enforcement powers to deter local activists
by tying them up in lengthy legal proceedings. If spurious charges are
filed, it could take years for activists or witnesses to prove their
innocence, meanwhile limiting their ability to participate in efforts
at justice for the 2002 riots. While the government has every right
to examine or audit voluntary agencies, the alacrity with which the
Gujarat government has been pursuing such investigations is in stark
contrast to its attempts to arrest and prosecute those accused of taking
part in the riots and committing crimes as serious as rape and murder.
Indias Supreme
Court and the NHRC have taken the lead in addressing the failure of
justice in Gujarat and the continuing threats and intimidation of witnesses
and activists. Each has pointedly criticized Gujarats failure
to protect the rights of its residents.28 Mallika Sarabhai,29 who has
suffered tremendous harassment by the Gujarat government, said recently:
The Supreme
Court has been my beacon of light
It is the only institution that
has stood by people fighting intolerance and hatred and taken on the
government.30
Recent crucial interventions
by the Supreme Court, particularly in the Best Bakery case, have offered
victims and their supporters new confidence to continue pressing for
justice. In the Best Bakery case, the Supreme Court condemned Gujarats
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.
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 committees
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
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.
The Supreme Courts
orders have rewarded a persistent campaign on behalf of the victims
of the Gujarat riots by activists, lawyers, and victims. However, apparently
fearful of the consequences of this tough action, Gujarat officials
and Hindu nationalistsmany connected to the BJPhave stepped
up their harassment and intimidation of witnesses, human rights activists,
and lawyers in order to discourage them from continuing with their efforts
at demanding accountability for the 2002 violence.
Victims have started
fighting back. Zahira Sheikh, a witness in the Best Bakery case who
had retracted previous testimony against the accused at trial, announced
that she had recanted her statement after being intimidated by a local
BJP leader, and called for a fresh trial. This has encouraged other
witnesses to come forward, bolstered by the legal protection which activists
and lawyers are providing, sometimes at great personal risk, under the
umbrella of Supreme Court and National Human Rights Commission rulings.
As one victim said:
This is not my struggle
alone. It is our struggle, of those countless Muslim women raped and
humiliated during the riots whose names and faces I do not even know
but whose pain I can feel. I will carry on my fight to till the end
and I am confident that other Muslim women faced with similar trauma
will come forward and fight their cases.36
But individual courage
alone will not allow fair trials to proceed. The cases set out below
are illustrative of the problem of threats and intimidation faced by
many victims, witnesses and activists, but most remain too afraid to
tell their stories in public.
The new Congress
Party-led coalition government in New Delhi has raised hopes among activists
and victims because of its promise of secular governance and its commitment
to preserve, protect and promote social harmony and enforce the
law without fear or favor to deal with all obscurantist and fundamentalist
elements who seek to disturb social amity and peace.37 Now it
needs to take strong action to ensure the investigation and prosecution
of those guilty of committing crimes during the riotsand
to identify and prosecute their sponsors.
To address the nature
and scale of intimidation against victims, witnesses, activists, and
lawyers, Human Rights Watch calls upon the new government in Delhi and
the state government in Gujarat to:
1 Immediately take
all necessary steps to ensure the safety of activists, lawyers, victims
and witnesses who are fighting for justice in Gujarat and prevent retaliation
by state agencies against witnesses, human rights activists and lawyers
working on riot related cases
2 Ensure that a
credible and effective witness protection program is created at the
national level to protect victims, witnesses, and activists. Support
and encourage the work of the Indian Law Commission on this subject.
It is critical to note that physical protection alone is not enough
to constitute witness security. In situations of mass violence, like
in Gujarat, effective witness protection programs have to include long-term
sustained rehabilitation of survivors/witnesses to the violence
3 Order the Central
Bureau of Investigation to investigate all allegations of violence,
intimidation, or witness tampering by officials of the Gujarat administration,
local police, local nationalist organizations, and others. When such
acts are found to have occurred, initiate prosecutions and take disciplinary
action against offenders.
4 Initiate vigorous
prosecutions in all cases related to the 2002 violence where there is
sufficient evidence. Prosecute any civil servant, including police officers
and prosecutors, who failed to fulfill their obligations towards Muslims
or their representatives.
5 Ensure that tax
investigations are not used as a political tool against witnesses and
activists.
6 Take appropriate criminal or civil action against all individuals
and organizations that incite violence.
7 Launch public
awareness campaign in Gujarat and other states aimed at preventing future
communal violence, including public service announcements condemning
religious violence and extremism. Enact a comprehensive law against
communal violence, as promised in the Common Minimum Program of the
United Progressive Alliance and encourage each state to adopt that law.
Offer full support to the work of the NHRC and its Special Representative,
including acting expeditiously on their recommendations.