[sacw] SACW #2 | 5 Jan. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #2 | 5 January 2003

CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY -- GUJARAT 2002: A report on the 
investigations, findings and recommendations of the Concerned 
Citizens' Tribunal
on http://www.sabrang.com.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF HATE- IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva
A report on the US-based organization -- the India Development and 
Relief Fund (IDRF), which has systematically funded Hindutva 
operations in India.
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/2002/FEH/

__________________________

#1. An open letter to Narendra Modi (Rajdeep Sardesai)
#2. A long haul for secularists (Praful Bidwai)
#3. Watch Them Turn (Dilip D'Souza)
#4. 1984 Riots and Justice (G K S Sidhu)
#5. Acquittal of a politician [in the 1984 anti sikh riots] (Naunidhi Kaur)
#6. The enemy lies within (Shashi Tharoor)

__________________________

#1.

Mid Day
December 24,2002

An open letter to Narendra Modi
By Rajdeep Sardesai

My dear Narendrabhai:

Firstly, many, many congratulations on your famous victory in Gujarat.

Elections are often only about the end result, the means do not 
matter, only the ends do. Let's be honest. You ran a strategically 
brilliant campaign, one that was based on whipping up public emotion 
and stirring a religious identity. I still remember the classic ad 
that you ran on voting day.

The Congress party's campaign ad was a long sermon by Shankarsinh 
Vaghela on the development of Gujarat, written in small type, and 
with very little that we hadn't heard of in the last 55 years. Your 
ad was simple and direct. In bold type, you just reminded the reader 
of the old Haqueeqat classic, "Ae mere Vatan ke Logon" and asked the 
voter of Gujarat to treat their franchise as a homage to the dead. No 
specific mention of Godhra or Akshardham, as per Election Commission 
rules, but a clear recall of recent events. Little wonder then that 
the next ad club function should honour you and your faithful ally 
Arun Jaitley with the copywriter of the year award.

I also remember your campaign pitch on the last day of campaigning. 
While a complacent Congress party was relishing the concept of 
cashing in on the anti-incumbency mood, you were waving a news item 
that you claimed was a fatwa asking the Muslims of Gujarat to vote 
100 per cent for the Congress. Of course, you didn't have to tell the 
voter the entire truth: that there was no real fatwa, that all that 
had happened was that some unknown Muslim cleric in faraway Uttar 
Pradesh had issued an appeal to voters to support the Congress party, 
and that the advertisement in Gujarati newspapers had been inserted 
by members of the Sangh Parivar. The fatwa worked, and you were able 
to ensure that Hindus came out in large numbers to vote for you and 
your party.

I will also not forget the manner in which you were able to 
successfully use the demonisation of Musharraf as a vote-gathering 
technique. You were able to translate anti-Pakistani sentiment into a 
potent state election issue. What Musharraf had to do with the 
Gujarat elections is unclear, but somehow you were able to convince 
the voter that Islamabad was monitoring every move in Gandhinagar. 
"If I win, the entire country will celebrate, if the Congress party 
wins, crackers will be burst in Pakistan." It was yet another classic 
one-liner, designed to stir the kind of jingoism that may not end the 
low-intensity conflict on the border, but will certainly add to your 
unique brand of macho politics.

I must also commend you on how you were able to redefine the entire 
concept of Gujarati Gaurav or pride. Until now, we thought that a 
state's self-image was defined by notions of peace, communal amity, 
economic progress and social development. But you were able to 
convince the Gujarati voter that the state was a victim of a 
vilification campaign, that anyone who tried to raise uncomfortable 
questions about the post-Godhra violence was an anti-national, 
pseudo-secularist who should be hanged by the people of Gujarat.

As a representative of the English language media in particular, I 
admired the manner in which you were able to blame the media for 
virtually everything that had gone wrong in the state, from the 
killing of innocents on the Sabarmati Express, to the loot and mass 
murders that followed to the large-scale exodus of Muslim families 
from their homes.

Let me also say that I will never forget the manner in which you were 
able to use the Godhra incident for political benefit for months on 
end, and suggest that somehow all Muslims in the state were linked to 
an act of villainy by a group of criminals from the minority 
community. I distinctly remember how you had posters put up all over 
the state of the burning train compartment. I also remember how you 
got a family member of one of the Godhra victims to be present at the 
inauguration of your party office. I remember your yatra to Godhra 
where you shared the anguish of the people who had lost their loved 
ones in the train tragedy. Somehow, I don't recall you ever reaching 
out to those living in the Shah Alam camp, or Naroda Patiya or the 
numerous other refugee camps in the state. Nor did I ever see you in 
the company of Muslim children who saw their entire families being 
burnt alive before their eyes.

I must also admire the manner in which you were able to use the 
Vishwa Hindu Parishad cadres in the political campaign. Until now, we 
were always told that the VHP was a socio-cultural organisation that 
had little to do with day-to-day politics. You made sure that the VHP 
fiction was buried once and for all, and that Praveen Togadia was 
transformed from cancer surgeon to a political rabble-rouser.

The strategic alliance that you struck with the VHP ensured that you 
could eat your cake and have it too. Whenever you found yourself 
under pressure from any constitutional authority, you quickly passed 
the baton to the VHP. Then, whether it was the post-Godhra rioting, 
vitriolic Muslim-bashing, abusing Lyngdoh or assaulting the media, 
you always had the VHP as your accomplice, ensuring that the line 
between the mob and the government was totally erased.

Finally, I must salute you for the way you stood up to virtually 
anyone who questioned the politics of 'Moditva'. I remember how you 
defied the entire RSS establishment when they wanted to give an 
election ticket to your rival Haren Pandya, and even got yourself 
admitted to hospital as mark of protest. But most of all, I will not 
forget how you even put the prime minister in his place.

When Mr Vajpayee asked you to follow the 'Raj Dharma', you quietly 
listened to him, and then went about doing your own thing. A weakened 
Vajpayee was reduced to being your self-appointed advocate by the end 
of the elections. Indeed, in the last few election meetings, I didn't 
even see a single poster of Vajpayee or even of the original Hindutva 
mascot, L.K. Advani. This victory then is yours and yours alone.

While you celebrate your triumph, may I leave you with a final thought?

Now, that you've won the battle, will you win the war? Could you 
become the chief minister of each and every one of the five crore 
Gujaratis, Hindus and Muslims, you now claim to represent? You could 
perhaps start with paying a weekly visit to the homes of those who 
still live in fear and despair. It may not fit in with your 
worldview, but it would at least convince some of us that Gujarat's 
Chote Sardar is more than just a hero of hatred.

Affectionately yours, Rajdeep Sardesai.

The writer is Managing Editor, New Delhi Television.

_____

#2.

Frontline
Volume 20 - Issue 01, January 04 - 17, 2003

COLUMN
A long haul for secularists

The BJP's triumphalism is misplaced, but the struggle to mount a 
powerful ideological challenge to Hindutva has become more uphill for 
Centre-Left forces.
Praful Bidwai

NOTHING since Lal Krishna Advani's rath yatra of 1990 has boosted the 
hubris and the gross arrogance of the Sangh Parivar as strongly as 
the Gujarat Assembly results. The Bharatiya Janata Party now 
triumphantly says that the "roadmap for the future is clear": it is 
poised to wrest back each State held by its opponents and also emerge 
victorious in the next Lok Sabha elections.

The BJP National Executive meeting on December 23-24 declared the 
Gujarat election verdict "a mandate" for and an endorsement of its 
core "ideological positions" and expressed confidence that it "will 
prove to be a turning point in India's history" and that "cultural 
nationalism... will find wide scale (sic) acceptability all over the 
country". This followed the crowning of Narendra Modi not just as 
Chief Minister of Gujarat - in a spectacular ceremony in an Ahmedabad 
stadium - but as the mascot of a new, virulent Hindutva. The Vishwa 
Hindu Parishad (VHP) expectedly exults over the Gujarat results. Its 
most rabid elements like Praveen Togadia stridently declare that 
India will become a Hindu rashtra in two years' time.

Even Atal Behari Vajpayee has joined the chorus. He told Dainik 
Bhaskar that the Gujarat elections "will help the nation understand 
secularism in the proper perspective"; Gujarat has released "new 
energies", which must be skilfully used to "help us preserve the 
values of our [presumably Hindu] life". The scales should now fall 
off many Vajpayee-supporters' eyes.

The BJP has cited all sorts of reasons for its victory, including 
"good governance", and the popularity of "cultural nationalism" and 
its "commitment to eliminate terrorism". It portrays the results as a 
punishment to secularists for their "Hindu bashing". In reality, the 
BJP's victory is not as pervasive and comprehensive as it seems.

A look at the detailed election results shows that the party won just 
under 50 per cent of the vote (to be precise, 49.79 per cent). Given 
the 62 per cent poll turnout, this means 31 per cent of the 
population supported it, giving it a total of 10.13 million votes. 
However, the votes of the secular parties (the Congress(I), the 
Nationalist Congress Party, the Samajwadi Party, the Janata Dal(U), 
the CPI(M) and CPI) together add up to 8.62 million. In addition, 
"Independents" won 1.17 million votes. It is estimated that perhaps 
70 per cent of these were bagged by rebel Congress candidates. If 
these votes are added, the total secular vote goes up to 9.44 
million, only marginally (7 per cent) lower than the BJP's.

The BJP thus gained considerably from Opposition disunity. In 
addition to the 53 seats bagged by the Congress(I) and Jatanta DalU), 
the secular parties lost by narrow margins in as many as 40 
constituencies, where the combined vote of the Number 2 and 3 
candidates exceeds the BJP's. Absent vote division, the BJP would 
have lost all 40.

What is special about Gujarat is not a Hindutva wave so much as the 
BJP's ability to raise its vote-share by six percentage points, 
despite having organised India's worst pogrom of a minority in 55 
years. The success is all the more telling, given its appalling 
record of governance, which saw index after social index plummet, and 
growth slow down from 10 per cent-plus in the mid- and late- 1990s to 
only 1 per cent now, leaving a wasteland of closed factories. 
Disgracefully, the BJP's vote was especially high precisely in the 
two regions - northern and central Gujarat - where the post-Godhra 
violence was most acute.

One of the main reasons for this dark victory is the electorate's 
polarisation along religious lines which the BJP effected. However, 
it would be wrong to attribute its success to polarisation alone. 
Also significant was the Congress(I)'s "soft Hindutva" line and 
failure to confront the BJP on communalism and nationalism. The 
Congress(I) concentrated exclusively on "development". More 
generally, two sets of factors seem to have been at work. The first 
is in many ways Gujarat-specific, and the second more generic, 
present in many other States.

The first set of factors has to do with some conservative right-wing 
peculiarities of Gujarati society, politics and culture. Gujarat has 
seen not a loosening of hierarchies, but a hardening of caste 
divisions over two centuries amidst a general absence of social 
reform - just when some other parts of India were being reshaped by 
reform movements. Perhaps no other State matches Gujarat in throwing 
up a substantial class of proprietary farmers (the patidar Patels) 
which so dominates its economic, social and religious life. The 
Patels' ascendancy coincided with the rise of conservative cults such 
as the Swaminarayan sect, in contrast to the cultural "renaissance" 
and modernisation processes that were gathering momentum in some 
other regions in the 19th century.

The Patels, the Banias and the Brahmins of Gujarat retain a tight 
hold over state power, the economy and social institutions. They have 
steadfastly refused to share power with other groups. Indeed, they 
have beaten down challenges from below with violent street-level 
agitations - for instance the anti-Dalit, anti-Muslim mobilisation in 
1980-82, and the campaign against OBC reservations in 1985-86.

Gujarat is thus an oddity or paradox: one of India's most urbanised 
and industrialised States, but socially, one of the most conservative 
and backward. Gujarat has a Muslim minority that is culturally highly 
integrated and assimilated - its 130 Muslim communities speak no 
other language than Gujarati - but is reviled and ghettoised. Gujarat 
is, relatively, highly prosperous, but it has among India's lowest 
wage levels, and highest rates of exploitation. Surat's diamond 
industry and Alang's shipbreaking yard are revolting instances of 
this.

Nowhere else has economic neoliberalism been as deeply and widely 
implemented as in Gujarat. And nowhere else has the same kind of 
rapid deindustrialisation occurred, wiping out the country's second 
largest textile-mill economy in the 1980s, and more recently, a range 
of modern industries, especially chemicals. These processes, along 
with the advanced commercialisation of all social relations, have 
produced enormous stresses and dislocations - for instance, growing 
destitution among now-unemployed mill workers, crime, intensification 
of caste prejudices, and new rivalries between Dalits and Muslims in 
collapsing city centres.

In this situation, Hindutva functions as a cohering force and a 
source of ideological legitimisation for the rule of the globalising 
neo-liberal upper-caste elite. It is buttressed on the ground by new 
evangelical Hindu movements which proselytise among the tribals and 
play upon the "Sanskritisation" aspirations of other plebeian layers.

Gujarat is unique for the sheer spread and power of the VHP, with 
branches in 55 per cent of the 18,000 villages. Along with religious 
cults and gurus, the VHP has drummed up an aggressive form of Hindu 
identity assertion. Its penetration of schools and textbooks is 
extensive. Given the weakness of Gujarat's Left and of its liberal 
intelligentsia - infinitesimal in relation to commercial 
entrepreneurs - there has been little resistance to the Sangh 
Parivar's growth. A decade of BJP rule has consolidated Hindutva's 
hold. No other State matches Gujarat in its ideological stranglehold 
over civil society and state institutions, including the police.

THE generic factors in the Gujarat verdict are extremely important 
too. They will come into play immediately in Himachal Pradesh and the 
other States going to the polls soon. Broadly, they include the BJP's 
appeal to bellicose nationalism; second, its claim that it is 
uniquely committed to defending "national security" against 
"terrorism", on which the secular parties are "compromised"; and, 
third, its xenophobic portrayal of Islam and Muslims as "outsiders", 
with "extra-territorial" loyalties, who cannot be trusted at this 
"critical juncture" when India's security is gravely threatened, like 
the United States', by jehadi terrorism.

It should be clear that even in the short run, no sustained 
ideological-political challenge can be mobilised against the Sangh 
Parivar unless these claims are exposed as misleading, exaggerated, 
or downright hollow. Yet, it is undeniable that they appeal to many 
people, especially urban, upper-caste, high-income strata. Just as 
bellicose nationalism has struck root over the past two decades, 
elite opinion in India has shifted rightwards under the impact of 
neo-liberal economics, Social-Darwinism, imitation of role-models of 
"success" and "competition" defined in misanthropic terms, and 
increasing fascination with force as the main means of resolving 
differences and disputes.

These ideas, like Mera-Bharat-Mahan nationalism, have gone largely 
unchallenged by the Centre-Left at the level of social discourse. At 
the level of parliamentary or strategic debate, there is often a 
competition among centrist parties to appear more loyal than the 
king. Thus, certain groups that criticised the government's handling 
of the Kargil crisis (for instance, intelligence failure) ended up 
railing at it for not taking the war to its logical culmination!

Since September 11, terrorism - strictly of the non-state, and 
preferably Islamic, variety - has become a powerful shibboleth which 
it is not easy (or popular) to attack. Given today's Islamophobic 
climate, particularly in the United States, many Indians who would 
have preferred to be fence-sitters on the issue of religion and 
politics, now sympathise with the view that there is an "organic" 
link between Islam and terrorism, and that Indian Muslims are partial 
to jehad.

All these propositions are utterly, completely misconceived. The 
Sangh Parivar's claim to nationalism finds no validation in the 
freedom movement's history. It did not participate in it. Sections of 
it collaborated with the colonial state, preferring to regard Muslims 
as the greater evil. Parivar nationalism is hate-filled and negative. 
It severs the nation from the people.

The BJP must be roundly condemned for saying, in reply to the VHP's 
Hindu rashtra demand, that India has been a "Hindu Nation" for 
thousands of years and will never become a "theocratic state". This 
"theocracy" business is a red herring. The core of communalism is not 
about the rule of priesthood, but about the primacy of one group by 
virtue of religion. This primacy has no place in democracy - 
especially in a richly plural, composite culture such as India's.

India was never a "Hindu Nation" in any real sense. For about 2,000 
years, non-Hindus have been integral to what is called India - 
Buddhists, animists, Jains, atheists, Christians, agnostics, Muslims, 
ancestor- or nature-worshippers. It makes no historical or 
sociological-political sense to term ancient or medieval India a 
"nation". This is a quintessentially modern phenomenon. Nor will it 
do to talk about one continuous Indian "civilisation". Civilisations 
arise, grow, decline and die.

For a thousand years or more, Muslims have been inseparable from 
India's material life: languages, arts, crafts, economic practices, 
literatures, music, administrative systems, forms of social 
intercourse, and politics, as we have known all these. Muslims' 
integration in Independent India and their commitment to it is one of 
the greatest stories of cultural-political assimilation anywhere. 
This has withstood the worst stresses produced by the rise of 
"identity politics" over the past two decades, in particular both 
political Islam and political Hinduism.

It is truly remarkable that not a single Indian Muslim has recently 
joined a violent Islamic movement anywhere in the world: whether in 
Afghanistan, Kashmir, North Africa or Pakistan. To underrate this 
community's prodigious restraint and good sense is to indulge in 
communal stereotyping.

The BJP must be thoroughly contested on the issue of terrorism too. 
Its leadership has no comprehension of terrorism - not just its 
origins, but of how to fight it. Legislating draconian laws, setting 
up special "fast-track" courts, and staging fake "encounters" do not 
solve the problem of terrorism. That is amply demonstrated by the 
discontent and suffering in Kashmir, the sorry experience with TADA 
(Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act), and the 
latest verdict in the first trial under POTA (Prevention of Terrorism 
Act).

If the BJP is to be electorally defeated, it must be challenged at 
the ideological level. But that is not enough. It has to be pursued 
into civil society and into the institutions it has infiltrated: 
tribal villages, primary schools, Dalit settlements, cultural 
organisations, youth groups, professional associations. This cannot 
be done by parties which are mere election machines.

There has to be a movement, through society and in politics, based on 
cooperation between progressive parties, civil society organisations 
and the intelligentsia. This will be a long haul. Communalism is a 
historic menace. It seeks to destroy the legacy of the Enlightenment 
and of modernity itself. It can only be fought comprehensively, 
without short-cuts.

_____

#3.

Rediff.com
January 04, 2003

Watch Them Turn
Dilip D'Souza

Heard about two inquiries into Indian atrocities that are going on as 
you read this, both of which, for now, are expected to produce 
reports sometime this year? One is an inquiry into the crimes in 
Gujarat in February and March 2002: the killing of 60 Indians on that 
train in Godhra and the massacre of a thousand or more Indians that 
followed throughout the state. The other is an inquiry into the 
slaughter of 3,000 Indians in Delhi in 1984, following Indira 
Gandhi's assassination.
What is common to these two inquiries, you might ask. That is, apart 
from what is common to every such inquiry in India: they meander 
along at taxpayer-paid glacial speeds, cope with deliberate delays, 
are forced to ask for repeated extensions, eventually produce reports 
that nobody reads and governments refuse to act on, and are then 
forgotten. They are also the perfect screen for governments that have 
no desire to punish criminals and still want to pretend that they do. 
All those apply to these two inquiries, I'm positive.
But there's one more intriguing detail about these two. They are both 
headed by the same judge: Justice G T Nanavati.
One honourable judge is simultaneously inquiring into two of India's 
most shameful episodes, two of our country's greatest crimes. I mean 
no disrespect to a judge I don't know at all. Has Justice Nanavati 
been saddled with two enormous tasks, in the knowledge that therefore 
both reports will be even slower in coming than either one would be? 
Are the politicians and bureaucrats who gave him these jobs off 
somewhere, laughing at how easily they have managed to pull yet more 
sheepskin over our eyes? How easily they have got you and me nodding 
our heads, thinking lofty thoughts such as 'the wheels of justice are 
turning,' and 'the law will take its own course'?
If we are thinking those thoughts, of course, we've forgotten that 
inquiry commissions have nothing to do with the law and justice in 
the first place. Among other things, that's because they are not 
courts of law, cannot punish people, and governments are not required 
to act on their recommendations anyway. Besides, with Nanavati, a 
small bit of news from a few days ago is a pointer to the 
hopelessness of both his inquiries and the cause of justice.
A man called Sajjan Kumar, a powerful Congress leader from Delhi, was 
acquitted in what was the last existing attempt to bring him to 
justice for his crimes during the killings of Sikhs in 1984. Sure, 
the wheels of justice turned for Sajjan Kumar, the law did take its 
own course. For 18 years the wheels turned. They turned and turned 
more till we reached, on December 23, the dead end we could have 
predicted all the way back in 1984: the case against the man was 
dismissed.
And this happened even though the guilt is down in black and white in 
inquiry report after inquiry report, and will no doubt figure in 
Nanavati's report too, when it makes its appearance. Oh yes, many 
bodies inquired into the slaughter of the Sikhs and issued many 
reports. Take a deep breath, now, and hold tight as I run quickly 
through them.
The first inquiry connected with the 1984 massacre was when police 
officer Ved Marwah headed a committee to investigate the role of the 
police in the massacre. Six months after the tragedy, the Rajiv 
Gandhi government appointed Justice Ranganath Misra to investigate 
'allegations in regard to the incidents of organised violence.' 
Justice Misra submitted his report in August 1986. Another six months 
later, in February 1987, the government tabled his report in 
Parliament and, on Justice Misra's recommendation, promptly appointed 
three more commissions. Yes, three more.
The Jain-Bannerjee commission was to look into cases that were not 
registered or not adequately investigated. The Kapur-Mittal 
commission had to identify guilty police officers. The Ahuja 
commission was supposed to come up with the exact number of people 
killed. (Six months later, Ahuja had the figure: 2,733).
Jain-Bannerjee's first recommendation was to register a case of 
murder against Sajjan Kumar. One of his accomplices, Brahmanand 
Gupta, immediately went to court to shut down the Jain-Bannerjee 
inquiry on legal technicalities; two years later, he succeeded. In 
March 1990, the V P Singh government appointed the Potti-Rosha 
committee, taking care to correct the legal problems that had 
resulted in the Jain-Bannerjee fiasco. In August 1990, Potti-Rosha 
issued recommendations for filing cases based on affidavits victims 
of the violence had submitted. There was one against Sajjan Kumar. A 
CBI team went to Kumar's home to file the charges; his supporters 
locked them up and threatened them harm if they persisted in their 
designs on their leader. As a result of this intimidation, when 
Potti-Rosha's term expired in September 1990, Potti and Rosha decided 
to disband their inquiry.
Within two months, the Delhi administration appointed the 
Jain-Aggarwal committee to resume Potti-Rosha's work. Over the next 
three years, Jain-Aggarwal recommended several cases based on the 
filed affidavits, including against Sajjan Kumar and other Congress 
leaders like H K L Bhagat. In 1994, the Delhi administration 
appointed the Narula Advisory Committee to 'review the status' of the 
recommendations made by Potti-Rosha, Kapur-Mittal and Jain-Aggarwal. 
Among many observations, Narula specifically mentioned the repeated 
failure of the police to proceed against Bhagat and Kumar.
In 2000, the Vajpayee government appointed the Nanavati Commission. 
By my count, that's the ninth official commission, over 16 years, to 
investigate the killings.
There were unofficial inquiries too. PUCL, those now much-maligned 
'human rights wallahs,' produced a searing expose of the slaughter 
titled Who Are The Guilty? The BJP sent its cadres out to do a survey 
and concluded that 2,700 people had been killed in those few dreadful 
days. By the beginning of 1985, two more sets of human rights wallahs 
had produced reports severely critical of the Congress and its 
government: Citizens for Democracy under Justice V M Tarkunde, and a 
Citizens Commission led by Justice S M Sikri, once Chief Justice of 
India. And there was a Citizens Justice Commission -- yes, still more 
human rights wallahs -- that formed to help the Ranganath Misra 
Commission collect affidavits and evidence.
If you are reeling from this list of inquiries, there is an even more 
egregious aspect to them. Not one resulted in even a single case 
filed and pursued against anyone, certainly not Sajjan Kumar.
Yet there were two cases, no thanks to inquiries, that actually 
brought Kumar to court. The police filed the first in 1984, accusing 
Kumar and 10 accomplices of instigating riots in the Sultanpuri area 
of Delhi, killing 49 people. In early 2000, Additional Sessions Judge 
R C Yaduvanshi dismissed that case, citing the police's failure to 
produce sufficient evidence against the men. (See my column Few 
Notice The Terror).
The CBI filed the second case in 1990, acting on a complaint by a 
Sikh widow called Anwar Kaur. She accused Kumar of leading the mob 
that killed her husband in Sultanpuri on November 1, 1984. 'They were 
armed with lathis and other weapons,' she told the judge in a 1999 
hearing. 'They hit my husband with lathis till he died.' After that, 
the killers pulled mattresses from her house and placed them on her 
husband's body, drenched everything in kerosene and sent him up in 
flames.
'Sajjan Kumar,' Anwar Kaur said at that hearing, 'was standing there 
and instigating the mob.'
On December 23, 2002, Additional Sessions Judge Manju Goel acquitted 
Kumar in Anwar Kaur's case. The CBI, Her Ladyship observed, had 
failed to produce sufficient evidence against Kumar. The witnesses 
the CBI produced in court, she also observed, had many flaws in their 
testimony.
So ended one more attempt to punish powerful men who instigate 
killing and looting; who subject us to the regular riots that are now 
an indelible part of our Indian tapestry. All because our law and 
order authorities are strangely unable, when it comes to powerful 
men, to produce 'sufficient evidence' in court.
Outraged at this perversion of justice, are you? Well, when I've 
shown signs of such outrage, several people have said to me: 'But 
think of the kind of life Sajjan Kumar and H K L Bhagat have had to 
lead all these years.' That is to say, OK, they haven't been 
officially punished, but they have lived a hunted existence since 
1984. As if it must be some kind of comfort to know that 
taxpayer-paid police protection is the only punishment this man will 
ever get. Still, that's all the comfort we get. That's what we have 
to take.
Then again, you could wait for Justice Nanavati's report. Make that 
reports, plural. Of course, you could also wait for the wheels of 
justice to turn and the law to take its own course. Wait, in other 
words, for the next massacre of ordinary Indians.

______

#4.

EPW
December 28, 2002
Letter to Editor

1984 Riots and Justice

Justice delayed is justice denied but if justice is denied even after 
delay than we can well imagine the agony in the minds of affected 
people and their faith in judiciary. Few people will absolve Sajjan 
Kumar from involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The Ranganath 
Mishra Commission clearly indicts the police for not recording cases 
against anyone in authority as the ruling party engineered riots. A 
number of panels had held Sajjan Kumar, J Tytler, H K L Bhagat, etc, 
guilty of leading and inciting the mob to burn, loot and murder 
Sikhs. The Illustrated Weekly of India in November 1984 came out with 
candid picture of those involved in riots but was banned immediately. 
Such organised violence spanning over three days can never be 
imagined without the active involvement of those in power. In case of 
parliament attack court issued death warrants in one year but in the 
case of anti-Sikh riots case was filed in 1989, after five years, and 
charge sheet was filed in 1994, after 10 years. In all 12 persons 
were absolved of any crime. For thousands of Sikhs killed by mob not 
even a single prosecution took place even after 18 years.

The gory crime of burning missionary Stains and his two young kids in 
jeep is still fresh in our minds. There had been mudslinging in 
political parties as to political affiliation of one accused Dara 
Singh but no prosecution till date. The case of Gujarat will be no 
different, where Muslims were at the receiving end. The party 
responsible for organised violence is back in power. The whole nation 
witnessed the shameful acts but accused will roam free, the reasons 
for which are not hard to fathom.

It is unfair to expect a victim to lodge an FIR instantly after crime 
more so it is impossible to lodge FIR where whole family is murdered 
and only accused are eyewitness to that incident. The judiciary 
should come out to rescue of helpless victims, technical hitches 
should not be a ground to let off culprit, it can rely on panel 
reports, photographic evidence, independent confirmation or it should 
take into consideration the lapse of time in which witnessed can be 
harassed or influenced so as to contradict himself. Is India truly a 
secular and democratic country? Let us search our souls.

G K S Sidhu
Barnala

______

#5.

Frontline, Volume 20 - Issue 01, January 04 - 17, 2003

LITIGATION
Acquittal of a politician

NAUNIDHI KAUR
in New Delhi

The acquittal of former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in a case relating 
to the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 raises questions about the role and 
effectiveness of the prosecution in pursuing the investigations.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2001/stories/20030117004312000.htm

______

#6.

The Hindu
Sunday, Jan 05, 2003
Magazine

The enemy lies within

Shashi Tharoor

MY avowal of my own Hinduism in my last column has elicited a 
surprising - and in many cases surprised - response from readers. Why 
should it have? Must every believing Hindu automatically be assumed 
to believe in the Hindutva project? It is hardly paradoxical to 
suggest that Hinduism, India's ancient home-grown faith, can help 
strengthen Indianness in ways that the proponents of Hindutva have 
not understood. In one sense Hinduism is almost the ideal faith for 
the 21st Century: a faith without apostasy, where there are no 
heretics to cast out because there has never been any such thing as a 
Hindu heresy, a faith that is eclectic and non-doctrinaire, responds 
ideally to the incertitudes of a post-modern world. Hinduism, with 
its openness, its respect for variety, its acceptance of all other 
faiths, is one religion which should be able to assert itself without 
threatening others. But this cannot be the Hinduism that destroyed a 
mosque, nor the Hindutva spewed in hate-filled speeches by communal 
politicians. It has to be the Hinduism of Swami Vivekananda, who more 
than a century ago, at Chicago's World Parliament of Religions in 
1893, articulated best the liberal humanism that lies at the heart of 
his (and my) creed: I am proud to belong to a religion which has 
taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe 
not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as 
true. I am proud to belong to a country which has sheltered the 
persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all countries of the 
earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the 
purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to southern India and took 
refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was 
shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the 
religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of 
the grand Zoroastrian nation. I remember having repeated a hymn from 
my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human 
beings: "As the different streams having their sources in different 
places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the different 
paths which men take through different tendencies, various though 
they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee." .... [T]he 
wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita [says]: "Whosoever comes to 
Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling 
through paths which in the end lead to me." Vivekananda went on to 
denounce the fact that "sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible 
descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth". 
His confident belief that their death-knell had sounded was sadly not 
to be borne out. But his vision - summarised in the Sanskrit credo 
"Sarva Dharma Sambhava, all religions are equally worthy of respect" 
- is, in fact, the kind of Hinduism practised by the vast majority of 
India's Hindus, whose instinctive acceptance of other faiths and 
forms of worship has long been the vital hallmark of Indianness. 
Vivekananda made no distinction between the actions of Hindus as a 
people (the grant of asylum, for instance) and their actions as a 
religious community (tolerance of other faiths): for him, the 
distinction was irrelevant because Hinduism was as much a 
civilisation as a set of religious beliefs. In a different speech to 
the same Chicago convention, Swami Vivekananda set out his philosophy 
in simple terms: Unity in variety is the plan of nature, and the 
Hindu has recognised it. Every other religion lays down certain fixed 
dogmas and tries to force society to adopt them. It places before 
society only one coat which must fit Jack and John and Henry, all 
alike. If it does not fit John or Henry, he must go without a coat to 
cover his body. The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only 
be realised, or thought of, or stated through the relative, and the 
images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols - so many 
pegs to hang spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is 
necessary for everyone, but those that do not need it have no right 
to say that it is wrong. Nor is it compulsory in Hinduism .... The 
Hindus have their faults, but mark this, they are always for 
punishing their own bodies, and never for cutting the throats of 
their neighbours. If the Hindu fanatic burns himself on the pyre, he 
never lights the fire of Inquisition.

It is sad that this assertion of Vivekananda's is being contradicted 
in the streets by those who claim to be reviving his faith in his 
name. Of course it is true that, while Hinduism as a faith might 
privilege tolerance, this does not necessarily mean that all Hindus 
behave tolerantly. Nor should we assume that, even when religion is 
used as a mobilising identity, all those so mobilised act in 
accordance with the tenets of their religion. Nonetheless it is 
ironic that even the Maratha warrior-king Shivaji, after whom the 
bigoted Shiv Sena is named, exemplified the tolerance of Hinduism. In 
the account of a critic, the Mughal historian Khafi Khan, Shivaji 
made it a rule that his followers should do no harm to mosques, the 
Koran or to women. "Whenever a copy of the sacred Koran came into his 
hands," Khafi Khan wrote, Shivaji "treated it with respect, and gave 
it to some of his Mussalman followers".

Indians today have to find real answers to the dilemmas of running a 
plural nation. "A nation," wrote the Zionist visionary Theodor Herzl, 
"is a historical group of men of recognisable cohesion, held together 
by a common enemy". The common enemy of Indians is an internal one, 
but not the one identified by Mr. Togadia and his ilk. The common 
enemy lies in the forces of sectarian division that would, if 
unchecked, tear the country apart - or transform it into something 
that all self-respecting Hindus would refuse to recognise.

(To be continued)

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996.
To subscribe send a blank message to:
<act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|//\\|//|
--