All Pervasive Bias

After the Godhra incident of February 2002, Human Rights Watch (HRW) claimed, in a widely publicized report titled, “We Have No Orders to Save You: State Complicity and Communal Violence in Gujarat” (April 30, 2002), that the post-Godhra violence was planned even before the Godhra incident occurred and the attacks on Muslims in Gujarat were “state-sponsored.” HRW has authored many reports on communal violence and human rights in India such as the report on anti-Christian violence (1999) and two reports on the Mumbai riots (1992-93) in addition to its annual reports on human rights practices worldwide.

Gujarat Burns after Godhra

A closer examination of these reports reveals a systematic and all-pervasive bias. Their most glaring defect is the lack of concern for the rights and lives of the majority community in India – the Hindu community. Incidents of communal violence in which the Hindu majority and the Muslim or Christian minority[1] community were involved are portrayed as one-sided attacks by Hindus against “innocent minorities.” Human rights abuses against Hindus are either ignored or downplayed as compared to abuses suffered by minority groups.

In the 1995 report on the Mumbai riots, HRW sought to place the blame for the violent events exclusively on the Hindu community and completely ignored the role of Muslim communalism in the riots. This should be compared with a more objective report on the occurrences by the Sri Krishna Commission. There was not a single eyewitness account of attacks on Hindus in the report even though Hindus had also suffered many casualties!

Again, the 1999 report on attacks on Christians in India blamed Hindu nationalists for all the violence, totally ignoring news reports and individual testimonies which go against such generalizations. Even more disturbing, this report demonstrated hostility towards the Hindu religion itself. It also attributed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots to the right-wing Hindu groups, while it is common knowledge that the riots were instigated and led by many leaders of the Congress Party in retaliation to Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards.[2]

HRW’s most extensive publication on India was its 2002 report on the Gujarat violence. The report claimed that the attacks on Muslims were all state-sponsored and planned well before the massacre of Hindus at Godhra. Virtually, all the blame for the violence is placed on the Sangh Parivar and the BJP state government. A detailed examination of the events shows that a spontaneous uprising of the populace in reaction to the Godhra massacre was the key element in the Gujarat violence, though Hindu extremists were also involved in the riots that continued for several months. There was not one iota of evidence in the report to back up its assertion of the state having planned the violence in advance. It also dramatically distorted the role of the police in the Gujarat violence.

Secularism Under Siege?

The 2000 HRW report on human rights developments in India begins with this bizarre claim: “The Hindu nationalist policies espoused by India’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its affiliate organizations undermined the country’s historical commitment to secular democracy. Violence against Christian, Muslim, and Dalit, or ‘untouchable,’ populations was one result…”

It is hard to see what policies adopted by the BJP government at the Centre prior to the events in Gujarat and at the time of the report’s publication “undermined secular democracy.” In fact, Freedom House, an NGO that has annually rated political freedom in every country in the world since 1972, has indicated that since the BJP came to power, political freedom has actually improved. Both political rights and civil liberties fared better under the BJP-led NDA government than under the Congress government, which ruled from 1991-1996.

In addition, any of the party’s policies that could possibly “undermine the country’s historical commitment to secular democracy” could not have been implemented due to the fact that the BJP was leading a multi-party coalition, comprised of 23 parties that depend on Muslim votes and which are not supportive of Hindu nationalism. The BJP has in fact adopted pro-Muslim policies such as increasing government subsidy for the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca. Exit polls showed that between 7% and 16% of Muslims voted for the BJP in the February 1998 elections. Also, many policies of the BJP that have not been implemented, such as imposing a Uniform Civil Code and making changes to Article 30 in the Indian Constitution to end discrimination against Hindus, would actually strengthen secularism.[3]

Hindu-Muslim riots had actually decreased in the time period since the BJP came to power and the Gujarat riots started. As journalist K.P. Nayar notes, during this period, India had seen the lowest record of communal riots in all of the previous 10 years. Likewise, Tavleen Singh, writing in India Today a few months after the BJP first came to power at the Centre, notes, “Few people have noticed that there have been no communal riots in India since Vajpayee became prime minister. Remember the Congress record of one major communal riot every few months? Meerut, Maliana, Bhagalpur, Moradabad, Mumbai.”

Many BJP state governments have bright records with regards to containing communal violence. In Uttar Pradesh, four chief ministers performed as follows: under V.P. Singh, the monthly average of casualties (dead and wounded) in communal violence was 29, the monthly average of Muslims killed was eight; for N.D. Tiwari the figures were 28 and three; for Mulayam Singh Yadav they were 98 and 17; and for Kalyan Singh of the BJP they were five and one, respectively. Notwithstanding the fact that Mulayam Singh Yadav and V.P. Singh are widely considered to be amongst the most pro-Muslim politicians in India!

Most troubling in these reports, however, is the linking of violence against Dalits to the BJP and the Sangh Parivar. One can argue that groups such as the RSS and VHP are hostile towards Muslim and Christian minorities. But are these groups anti-Dalit? The core of Hindu nationalist ideology is “political unity among Hindus.” Caste divisions are seen as a threat to this unity. As The Economist remarked, “the bulk of the party’s [BJP] thinkers are reformers who seek a modern Hinduism purged of caste and sex discrimination…”

Nevertheless, the notion that the Sangh Parivar wants to prop up the caste system is spread throughout these reports, particularly the 1999 report on anti-Christian violence. In HRW’s report on caste violence titled, “Broken People: Caste Violence Against India’s Untouchables,” nothing is said about the role of the BJP or the Sangh Parivar in orchestrating violence against Dalits. Most of the cases of caste violence cited in the 2000 report on human rights developments in India take place in Bihar, a state not run by the BJP. Moreover, as the same report notes, the caste violence in Bihar was something in which both upper caste Hindu and lower caste Hindu militias were involved. In the 13th Lok Sabha, the BJP has far more Dalit MPs than any other party.

The 2002 report on human rights development in India states: “The government drew sharp criticism from numerous minority groups for selectively banning the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) as part of its post-September 11 actions to counter terrorism while ignoring the ‘anti-national’ activities of right-wing Hindu groups. At least four people were killed when police opened fire on a protest in Lucknow on September 27 following the arrest of some SIMI activists.”

It is quite amazing, even by HRW standards, that it would criticize the banning of the infamous SIMI and define the ban on the Islamic terrorist group as “selective banning.” SIMI is a notorious “student” group, which has been linked to Islamic terrorist groups that have planned and carried out numerous terrorist acts and other crimes. HRW is absurdly insinuating that the government banned SIMI due to anti-Muslim bias and partisan politics. The government’s primary reason for banning SIMI is its links to Pakistan’s ISI which actively sponsors terrorism in India. Even non-BJP state governments in India have cracked down on SIMI considering its threat to national security. In the aftermath of the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots, the Congress government banned “right-wing Hindu groups” such as the VHP. When an organization is banned, a tribunal is required to determine if the ban is valid or not. The tribunal overturned the ban on the VHP. By contrast, the ban on SIMI was upheld by the tribunal on March 23, 2003, two-and-a-half years after the government declared the Students Islamic Movement of India unlawful. Justice R.C. Chopra of the Delhi High Court, who headed the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal, said, “`there is sufficient cause for declaring SIMI unlawful’’ and as such the Government’s notification in this regard issued on September 26, 2003 “stands confirmed,” for its activities were “detrimental to peace, communal harmony, internal security and maintenance of secular fabric of the country.”

The Mumbai Riots

The report on the 1992-93 riots claims, “During the week following the events in Ayodhya, Muslims held public demonstrations in the streets of Bombay, targeted not against Hindus, but against the government, which had failed to prevent the destruction of the mosque.”

This is simply absurd and is an attempt to foist righteousness and innocence on Muslim rioters. As the Sri Krishna Report notes, from December 7, 1992 onwards, “large mobs of Muslims came on the streets and there was recourse taken to violence without doubt.” For example, in Nirmal Nagar jurisdiction, “a Ganesh idol in the Ganesh Mandir on Anant Kanekar Marg was found decapitated and moved out from its place of installation and eleven temples in different jurisdictions were damaged, demolished or set on fire.”

HRW repeatedly accuses the police of brutality against Muslims and places more blame on the police for alleged brutality against Muslims, than on the violent behaviour that caused the need for police involvement in the first place. In reading the report, one is inclined to view the police, rather than the mobs, as the aggressors.

Below are some selections from the Sri Krishna Report that document the type of violence inflicted on the police by Muslim mobs:

“This time the Muslim mobs appear to have come out with the intention of mounting violent attacks as noticed from their preparedness with weapons of offence. There were violent attacks on the policemen in Muslim dominated areas…

“Two Constables in Deonar jurisdiction were killed with choppers and swords by the rampaging Muslims. ..

“Jogeshwari area, which has been the hotbed of frequent communal riots, saw serious riots at the junction of Pascal Colony and Shankarwadi. A police officer carrying on his duty received a bullet injury in his head and died subsequently, though it cannot be said with certitude that it was a case of private firing. The police recovered large number of iron rods, sickles, choppers, knives and soda water bottles from different jurisdictions indicating that there was intention and preparations to carry on the communal riots (emphasis added).”

None of these incidents are included in the report. Indeed, the report seems to downplay the violence perpetrated by Muslims against police officers. For example, it states, “Many of these spontaneous gatherings, particularly in south and central Bombay, degenerated into violent attacks against police officers.” But as can be seen above, many of these were not mere “spontaneous gatherings” that “degenerated into violent attacks” but pre-planned attacks.

Most of the report, however, speaks of the rapes, murders, and attacks by the Shiv Sena on Muslims in January of 1993. However, almost nothing is said about attacks by Muslims against Hindus. The Sri Krishna Report notes that in the last week of December 1992 and first week of January 1993, particularly between January 1 and January 5, there was a series of stabbing incidents in which the majority of the victims were Hindus. The notorious Radhabai Chawl massacre, in which six Hindus (most of them handicapped) were burned alive, is not even mentioned. This massacre played a significant role in igniting the Hindu backlash. As Varsha Bhosle notes in another column on Rediff, an analysis of the Sri Krishna Report shows that prior to the Radhabai Chawl massacre, the majority of the victims in the early January violence were Hindus. After the Radhabai Chawl massacre, the trend was reversed.

HRW notes that “In January 1992, much of the violence was directed by members of the Shiv Sena who stopped cars, identified Muslim passengers, and attacked them.” Muslims, however, were doing very similar things, which HRW chooses to ignore. Mumbai resident Shrikant Talageri, who closely followed news reports in The Times of India, points out that, “On 7 January, mobs of Muslims in the Muslim areas named above fanned the streets and caught passers-by on the busy roads. Those suspected to be Hindus were made to remove their pants, and if they were found to be uncircumcised, they were stabbed to death. The police were under strict instructions from the state government not to shoot at Muslim mobs. The main area of this activity was in the Muslim heartland in south Mumbai.”

The communal breakdown of deaths, according to the Sri Krishna Report, was 575 Muslims, 275 Hindus, 45 unknown, and 5 others. While the majority of the victims were Muslims, this can hardly be classified as an anti-Muslim riot, since a significant number of dead were Hindus. Both communities are to blame for what happened. But from reading the HRW report, one would view the Mumbai riots as a one-sided pogrom by the Shiv Sena and the police against peaceful and defenceless Muslims.

In April 1996, another report on the Mumbai riots titled, “Communal Violence and the Denial of Justice” was released which repeats the things discussed in the first report, albeit in much more detail. As in the first report, exclusive blame for the violence is placed on the Hindu community and the Shiv Sena, Muslims are exonerated of all blame, and a biased analysis of encounters between Muslims and the police is presented. What is ironic about this report is that it was written as a response to Chief Minister Manohar Joshi’s decision to terminate the Sri Krishna inquiry. The purpose of this report is to encourage the continuation of the inquiry and the implementation of its recommendations.

Yet, despite the fact that the Sri Krishna Report notes that roughly one-third of those killed in the riots were Hindus, there is not a single mention in the HRW report of any attack against Hindus! In addition, every single one of HRW’s eighteen eyewitness accounts describes attacks on Muslims, and none describe attacks on Hindus. From reading HRW’s report, one would be surprised to find that any Hindus suffered from the violence. HRW even uses testimony from a Muslim man “who participated in a demonstration,” (not exactly the most objective of sources) claiming that Shiv Sena members attacked the demonstrators. Just imagine HRW using testimony from Hindu “demonstrators” or “activists.”

Report on Attacks on Christians in India

In 1999, HRW authored a report titled, “Politics by Other Means: Attacks on Christians in India,” which is perhaps the most biased among the reports discussed till now. It does not just display the typical lack of concern for the rights of Hindus, or blame “Hindu nationalists” for all of India’s ills, but includes bigotry towards the Hindu religion itself, distortions, and false statements that are directly contradicted by news reports and individual testimonies.

The report seems more like a work produced by fundamentalist Christian proselytisers than by an independent non-biased organization. Particularly troubling is that John Dayal, a notorious Christian demagogue who throughout the report is referred to as a “human rights activist” is extensively quoted and relied upon for information in the report. Dayal fabricated the story of the rape of nuns at Jhajjar and said in an online discussion with Rediff that there are no forced conversions in India despite numerous testimonies, police evidence, and above all the Niyogi Commission report on Christian missionary activity instituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in 1956. Dayal blamed Hindu groups for the church bomb blasts a full month after the confessions by Deendar Anjuman.

The report claims that attacks against Christians are part of a “concerted campaign of right-wing Hindu organizations, collectively known as the Sangh Parivar, to promote and exploit communal tensions to stay in power, a movement that is supported at the local level by militant groups who operate with impunity.”

Dr. B Raman of the South Asia Analysis Group explains that Hindu-Christian violence in India is mostly caused by the social tension created by aggressive missionary activity in the tribal belt. Conversion drives by Christian missionaries, foreign or Indian, are concentrated in the tribal belt. The people are very poor and many of them are animists with no organised religion. In return for material incentives such as cash, scholarships, etc, they are prepared to embrace Christianity even if they don’t like the faith or understand the implications of their actions.

Even though many of the tribals are animists, their social and cultural traditions are similar to those of the Hindus – like the responsibility of the son to look after the parents, perform their last rites when they die, find a husband for the sister etc. In the tribal areas, the old people are reluctant to convert. So, the missionaries focus on the youth. If in a family, the son is won over by the missionaries and embraces Christianity, he refuses to look after his parents or perform their last rites. They themselves do not want their last rites to be performed by their son because he has become a Christian. Nobody would marry the daughter in the house… the result: the activities of the missionaries have been playing havoc with local cultural and social traditions and creating social tensions and leading to the break-up of many families. Such tensions and anger result in occasional outbreaks of wrath against the missionaries.

According to HRW, any commission or inquiry that does not say that attacks against Christians were systematically planned attacks and carried out by the Sangh Parivar is suspect. For example, in the 2000 report on human rights developments in India, it is stated, “In May, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), a government agency, issued a report stating that attacks against Christians were either accidental or the unrelated actions of petty criminals. Outraged Christian activists said the report showed that the government condoned attacks on Christians. Earlier reports by the NCM, issued before it was overhauled by the central government in January, had recommended prosecutions for such attacks and accused the government of wilful neglect at all levels.”

Simply because the report said that the attacks were “either accidental or the unrelated actions of petty criminals” does not mean the government condones the attacks. The notion that the NCM would be biased and would condone attacks against Christians is preposterous. The head of the NCM at the time was John Joseph, a Christian himself. His father was one of the leaders of the Pentecost church in India. Despite charging the NCM of condoning attacks on Christians in the report on communal violence in Gujarat, HRW cites the NCM’s strong criticism of the Gujarat government’s response to the communal violence. The NCM report noted that the attacks it examined were isolated incidents and could not be blamed on the Sangh Parivar. Joseph said that many Christian leaders who had criticized the report, especially Dayal, “want the attacks to continue so that they can be in the limelight,” and more easily obtain foreign funds. According to Joseph, Dayal was at the forefront of efforts to undermine Hindu-Christian dialogue. Joseph also notes that many Christian leaders want the NCM to portray all the incidents of attacks against Christians in the country as being the handiwork of the Sangh Parivar.

Chapter 5 of the report, titled, “Attacks Across the Country” includes a section on the infamous rapes of nuns in the Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh. HRW manages to find a way to blame the VHP and the BJP for it, despite the fact that the Madhya Pradesh police found that that many of those involved were Christians.

The Madhya Pradesh government after investigations arrested the suspects and took the accused into custody. An equal number of Christians and non-Christians were arrested, and no one from the Sangh Parivar was implicated. Madhya Pradesh was run by the Congress party at the time, and it is unlikely the police would have covered up the Sangh Parivar’s role in the attack. Rather, there would be a vested interest in showing any Sangh Parivar involvement. It is more likely that Dayal is fabricating the story or not telling the complete truth.

The report is filled with half- truths, distortions, and missionary propaganda. One would expect that a human rights organization would be religiously neutral and not favour any religion. This unfortunately is not the case with HRW as it basically endorses proselytisation throughout the report. Note that the quotes above are strikingly similar to Father Dominic Emmanuel’s statement the that violence in the Dangs was the “handiwork of high caste Hindus who were afraid that the Church’s work among the poor would erode their status.”

Most importantly, no mention at all is made throughout the report about the Hindu reasons for opposing conversions. HRW makes it seem as if opposition to conversions is solely due to the fanaticism of the Sangh Parivar. The Hindu view on conversion is essential to understanding the strong opposition to proselytisation efforts and Hindu-Christian violence. As Arvind Sharma, Professor of Religion at McGill University notes, “most modem Hindus are opposed to the idea of conversion from one religion to another per se”. According to Sharma, this opposition is rooted in the neo-Hindu doctrine of the validity of all paths to the divine. If all paths are valid, then conversion from one religion to another does not make much sense. The Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytise, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselytisation.

Several states in decades past not run by the BJP have passed laws banning conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. This is seen as a way of protecting religious freedom. The proselytiser takes the view that Christianity is the “only true religion” and “all other religions are false” and refuses to accept multiple paths to God, which is central to Hindu belief. That is why he seeks to convert and “harvest souls” for the Church. Such intolerance towards people of other faiths and the delegitimisation of the Hindu religion is what causes strong Hindu resistance to conversion. It is not just Hindu extremists in the VHP and the Bajrang Dal who are strongly opposed to conversion, but even Mahatma Gandhi himself was. Gandhi once stated, “If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising.”

The notion of converting to escape the caste system is a ploy foisted by Christian proselytisers to cast their religious intolerance in secular and even humanitarian terms. Firstly, while it may be true that many Dalits convert to escape the caste system, Dalit Christians still suffer from extensive caste discrimination. For example, many parishes have separate chapels and graveyards for Dalit and non-Dalit Christians and prohibit Dalit Christians from becoming altar boys. Secondly, viewing caste oppression as the main reason for conversion ignores the fact that many conversions are carried about by force, fraud, and allurement as documented in the Niyogi Report and numerous others testimonies. The two quotes above illustrates one of the Hindu critiques of conversions pertaining to how economic benefits provided by missionaries, entice poor Hindus to convert. Thirdly, talking about “uplifting Dalits” obscures the real intent of proselytisers, which is harvesting the souls of the non-believers. If the main goal of proselytisers is to aid the underprivileged, why not help all those who are poor regardless of their religion and forget about conversions?

The fact that HRW does not believe that conversion and proselytisation should be criticized is a clear indication of its hostility toward the Hindu religion. From the perspective of HRW, even the mere criticism of conversion is off limits.     

Hindu-Christian Violence in Gujarat

Chapter 4 of the report describes the 1998-99 Hindu-Christian violence in Gujarat with particular focus on the Dangs region. HRW states that 1998 began “with an unprecedented hate campaign by Hindutva groups and culminated with ten days of non-stop violence against Christian tribals and the destruction of churches and Christian institutions in the south-eastern districts at the year’s end.” HRW makes copious mentions of the destruction of churches, Christian run schools, and Bibles. Also, the report mentions the anti-Christian propaganda spread by the Sangh Parivar, particularly the Hindu Jagran Manch and the VHP.

But Ghelubhai Nayak, a Gandhian social worker in the Dangs notes that Christian proselytisers have played a large role in promoting communal conflict in the Dangs, which is completely ignored by the HRW report. In testimony before the NCM, Nayak notes that “Christian missionaries in the area” are converting tribals with means that are “clearly questionable and even illegal.” He asserts, “They have been using a curious mix of blind faith and allurements to entice the innocent tribals into the Christian fold.” For example, a missionary infiltrated Sabarmati Ashram carrying a book, Gandhiji’s Favourite Bhajans, which was found to contain only Christian Psalms, and not a single Gandhian reference. In fact, when Nayak and his late brother rebuffed conversion overtures, the missionaries tried to forcibly evict them from their office in the Missionpada area of Ahwa.

Nayak notes that converted tribals under the influence of preachers desecrated Hindu idols at least fifteen times in the three years preceding the Dangs violence. Converted tribals have also abused Hindu idols as “devils” and urinated on them. According to Nayak, “The ire against Christians in the area has been rising for past few years and has reached a boil now because of the provocative activities of the Christians, under the influence of their preachers”.

Many instances have been recorded when those who refused to convert to Christianity were physically assaulted by converted tribals. HRW mentions the burning of Bibles at the I. P. Mission School in the Rajkot district. But what is not mentioned is that forced conversions were going on. The school distributed among its students, copies of Navo Karaar, the New Testament in Gujarati. On the last page was an oath (“I accept Jesus Christ as my saviour,” etc.) to be signed by each student. Not only does HRW neglect to mention that conversions by force, fraud, and allurement took place, but also dismisses the idea that such things occurred as anti-Christian propaganda.

None of the fact-finding missions found any evidence to support the accusation that Christians were converting tribals by force or trickery, accusations that were included in anti-Christian propaganda and distributed to the community at large. These are indeed fact-finding missions of a very strange sort!

In the report, HRW describes the start of the violence that took place in the Dangs in December of 1998: “The Hindu Jagran Manch (HJM), an offshoot of the Sangh Parivar consisting of people who belong to the Bajrang Dal, VHP and RSS, obtained permission to hold a rally on December 25 in Ahwa town in the Dangs district. Over 4,000 people participated in the rally, shouting anti-Christian slogans while the police stood by and watched. After the rally, the attacks began on Christian places of worship, schools run by missionaries, and shops owned by Christians and Muslims.”

Rediff, however, tells a very different story demonstrating that Christians, not Hindus instigated the attacks:

“When a little-known organisation called the Hindu Jagran Manch decided to stage a rally at Ahwa, headquarters of the Dangs district in south Gujarat, on December 25 to protest against the mass conversion of Hindus to Christianity, nobody foresaw much trouble. But according to the local police, at noon, some 100 tribal Christians pelted stones at the rally. Neo-Christians from surrounding villages joined in and started abusing the rallyists and throwing stones at them. Soon, the place became a battlefield with some 2,000 Christians ranged against 3,000 Hindus and stones flying all over. Finally, the police used their batons and tear-gas to disperse the warring groups. But by then several people were injured. And a spark had been lit.

Next, a group of tribal Christians turned their attention to a Hindu house, trying to break down the doors and windows. When they failed, they smashed a jeep parked outside. They then allegedly ransacked the shop of Pradeep Sambhaji Patil, district president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

“The tribals were drunk and shouting anti-Hindu slogans,” alleges Sanjay D Vyavahare, whose house was attacked. “They were screaming, ‘Hindu baahar niklo, Hinduonko maar do [Hindus come out. Kill the Hindus] and abusing our gods. We were lucky the door didn’t open, otherwise they would have killed us.”Says Poonam Vyavahare, his sister-in-law, “We support neither the BJP nor the VHP, but still they attacked us. We have never experienced these things here. Our house was the only one they attacked.” The news spread like fire and soon Hindus started congregating and attacking Christian institutions.

[1] The term ‘minority’ itself, like the word ‘secularism,’ is a highly mischievous misnomer that has been exploited by the Muslims and Christians to enjoy undue privileges. There is as such no ethnic minority in India and aggressive religious minorities deserve no special privileges – Ed.

[2] Perhaps, this is the only instance of a “state-sponsored pogrom” in India since the party which was in power, particularly in Delhi, made use of the State machinery in shielding arsonists and instigating even the police to attack members of the Sikh community. The Sikh community was painted black all over India and looked upon with suspicion. – Ed.

[3] The BJP on assuming power, eschewed all those issues of concern to the Hindus which facilitated its electoral rise in the first place – Ramjanmabhoomi, Conversions, Uniform Civil Code, Article 30 etc. Some Hindu activist groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad bitterly resent this sell-out by the BJP, “They have betrayed Ram in pursuit of Lakshmi (economic growth, lust of power etc.),” is a popular perception. In fact, the increase in Haj subsidy (in the face of disapproval from Muslims themselves!) and other apologetic measures to woo the Muslim community are seen as unfair and unjust, not only by Hindu activist groups but also by a large section of the Hindu community which feels increasingly discriminated against in the name of secularism, minority privileges and human rights – Ed.

Spontaneous Uprising or Planned Attacks?

The Gujarat government claimed that the attacks against Muslims in the Godhra aftermath were a spontaneous uprising of Hindu rage. HRW, by contrast, claims that the attacks were not a spontaneous uprising but were planned and “carefully orchestrated.” It is true that some attacks were well coordinated and carefully organized but this is only part of the story since much of the violence that occurred was the result of a spontaneous uprising at the outrage of Godhra.

For example, numerous news reports indicate that on February 28, the day after the Godhra carnage, there were Hindu mobs of 10,000 to 20,000 at different places on the same day at the same time. It is estimated that approximately two million people came onto the streets during the post-Godhra violence. It is inconceivable that these mobs consisted entirely of Sangh Parivar members or that the attacks were all planned by VHP or Bajrang Dal leaders.

Indeed as Prem Shankar Jha notes in Outlook, “None could anticipate the mob size or fury as none foresaw what TV would do to the communal powder keg in Gujarat. The images on TV of the Godhra carnage were a powerful force in igniting communal passion amongst the Hindus.” There was extensive participation of the educated middle class because many had seen the Godhra carnage on TV. The National Human Rights Commission and the Minorities Commission both of which are cited in HRW reports “accepted the Gujarat government’s contention that it did foresee trouble and took precautionary steps to check it, but was caught by surprise and overwhelmed by the mob fury erupting on February 28”.

In addition, Dalits took part in the violence on a large scale. As Lavakare notes: “In the post-Godhra violence in Gujarat, 8,000 armed tribals descended on Sanjeli town in the tribal heartland of Dahod district with bows, stones and gunshots, killing 15 fleeing Muslims and destroying 450 Muslim houses. The killers, be it noted, were tribals and not the urban elite moved by the Hindutva ideology; nor were they city goons armed with the Bajrang Dal trishul. In another post-Godhra episode, 7,000 armed Adivasis marched into Bodeli town in Chotte-Udepur tribal area of Vadodara district and 15,000 Hindus, mostly armed Thakurs of the Other Backward Classes, burnt 250 Muslim houses, causing large-scale Muslim migration.”

At the time Lavakare’s article was published, 140 deaths had been recorded in tribal areas. Furthermore, incidents of violence continued for weeks after the Godhra carnage, when there were no rampaging Hindu mobs of thousands of people and the army was deployed, indicating that much of the violence was due to strong communal hatred between the two communities. If all the violence that occurred was planned, there should have been no more violence at all after the first few days.Thus, it is problematic to say that everything that happened was planned. Elements of both planning by Hindu extremists and a spontaneous uprising of the populace at the outrage of Godhra were present in the Gujarat violence.

The Role of the Police

Caught in between: Were the police playing a partisan role in the riots as HRW claims?

HRW points to numerous instances of police participation and inaction during the communal violence. The report quotes many Muslims saying that the police was with the rioters. HRW states, “Eyewitness accounts cited throughout this report, as well as the history of police and political recruitment demonstrate the state’s partisan role.”

The section on police firings starts off with a quote in italics, stating, “They only shot at one side. Why? Why didn’t they shoot to stop the attackers?” HRW also notes, “According to a report in The Week, a weekly Indian news magazine, in the month following the Godhra massacre, 120 people had been killed in police shootings throughout the state, many of them Muslim.”

It is interesting to see that HRW does not give the communal breakdown of those killed in police firings, which was readily available at the time at the time of the report’s publication. For example, the head of the NCM at the time of the riots, John Joseph, noted in April 2002, “As on April 6, 126 persons were killed in police firing, of which 77 were Hindus”. Thus, HRW’s statement, “120 people had been killed in police shootings… many of them Muslims” is a deliberate attempt to mislead to the reader of the report.

The manner in which HRW presents the information on police firings hides the fact that the majority of those killed in police firings were Hindus, while calling attention to the fact that “many Muslims” were killed. It is not surprising to see HRW resort to such tactics. If it were to acknowledge that the majority of those killed in police firings were Hindus, this would seriously undermine it’s distorted and exaggerated account of the role of the police and lead the reader of the report to question its accuracy. Indeed, after reading HRW’s account of police actions, one would be shocked to find that any Hindus were killed in police firings, let alone a majority.

In addition to the police firings, the Gujarat police arrested 3,900 persons, two-thirds Hindus, in the first 48 hours of the violence. “By April 5, 9,500 persons had been arrested of whom two-thirds were Hindus. In one instance, while tribals were attacking Muslims, “Police intervention meant another 2,500 were spared a savage death.”

Statistics on police firings and arrests and situations where the police saved thousands of lives are extremely important in assessing the role of the police in the attacks. None of this, however, is mentioned in the HRW report. Such statistics demonstrate that “we have no orders to save you” could not have been the response of the police in every instance since many Muslims were saved, thousands of Hindus were arrested, and many Hindus were killed in police firings. Nor is it true that the police officers consistently “only shot at one side.”

Is this to say that the police did everything it could to stop the violence, as the Gujarat government claims it did? No. There were many cases where the police was partisan, participated in the attacks, or stood by and let Muslims be butchered. In addition, there were many instances in which politicians and cabinet ministers discouraged efforts to control the violence.

However, a more balanced view of the role of the police than the one presented by HRW is needed. In sharp contrast to the HRW report, Prem Shankar Jha, the National Human Rights Commission, and the NCM take the view that to an extent the Gujarat government took certain precautionary measures, but was overwhelmed by the mob fury that erupted on February 28. Jha notes that despite the size of the mobs, “The Gujarat police did try to restore law and order”. In Jha’s view, the problem was not so much how the administration behaved, but how the political leaders behaved. The BJP leadership tried to force the release of VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders who were arrested for their involvement in the violence and transferred police officers who did not comply.

In addition, state inaction also harmed Hindus. In the chapter on “Retaliatory Attacks on Hindus, ” one Hindu victim is quoted as saying, “We called the police thousands of times but they told us, “Sir is out.” In another case, when asked about police response during the attacks, a victim told:

After 5:30 p.m., the brigadier came in. The Rapid Action Force and the military said, “We got no message to come here. We have been close by for seven hours but got no message that there was any problem here.” The police said, “We are on our way.” They cut off our phones from the outside. When the police arrived they threw tear gas inside here.

HRW tries to use police partisanship to show state sponsorship of the attacks, but not one instance is cited in which the police leadership is giving orders to officers to participate in attacks on Muslims. Much has to do with events on the local level and the attitudes of individual low-level police officers. It is likely that the Godhra massacre influenced the communal mood at the moment. Much of the partisanship, inaction, and participation of the police in the riots probably were related to the anti-Muslim bias of individual police officers and local officials rather than a state-sponsored campaign to exterminate Muslims.In the overall analysis, there was considerable police inaction and some participation in the violence. If the Chief Minister was truly concerned about preventing communal carnage, greater steps could have been taken. But considering the fact that the police saved a lot of lives, many Hindus were killed in the police firings, and thousands were arrested, HRW’s descriptions of the role of the police aren’t just inaccurate, but inflammatory. From reading the report, one gets the impression that the police were orchestrating state-sponsored genocide against Muslims and not doing anything at all to help control the violence.

State Sponsored Attacks?

The Much Maligned Chief Minister: Narendra Modi retains his dharmic image in spite of the media’s unprecedented smear campaign against him.

Narendra Modi With Shankaracharya

As noted above, HRW claims the attacks against Muslims were “state-sponsored.” If the attacks were state-sponsored, then by the very definition of “state-sponsored”, this would mean that the attacks on Muslims were orchestrated and planned by the state hierarchy and carried out by the entire state machinery. The very fact that many Hindus were killed in police firings, 2,500 Muslims were saved at one point, and 3,900 arrests were made in the first 48 hours means the attacks cannot be defined as state sponsored. While police officers were implicated in attacks, no proof has been provided that orders were given by the state government or police hierarchy to carry out attacks on Muslims. Indeed, as HRW notes, Modi even gave “shoot to kill” orders on March 1.

In understanding the violence in Gujarat, one must examine what happened on the local level. K.P.S. Gill, the former director of the Punjab police who was sent by the Centre to advise the Gujarat government noted: “What happened in Gulmarg society and Naroda Patia is inexcusable because it was a failure at the local level.” Likewise, in the communally sensitive town of Dhokla, a local BJP leader helped bring community leaders together in order to prevent riots from starting.

If the attacks were state sponsored and the entire state machinery was involved, it is almost certain that the death toll would be higher. The official death toll of the riots is roughly 900 and the unofficial is 2000. The great majority, but not all of these deaths were Muslim. Large-scale riots are not new to Gujarat. Sanjeev Srivastava, a reporter for the BBC, puts the toll for the 1969 Gujarat riots at 2,500 while Ashutosh Varshney of the University of Michigan puts the toll at 630. Many more Muslims would have been killed if the entire state machinery were involved in the 2002 riots.

Also, if the attacks were state sponsored, it is unlikely that Hindus would have suffered as much as they did. About 10,000 – 40,000 Hindus were in refugee camps after the violence and hundreds were killed. It would have been almost impossible for Muslims to harm Hindus to the extent they did, if the entire state machinery was involved in orchestrating attacks against them.

However, while the attacks could not be called “state-sponsored” there was clearly some state complicity. Local officials, the police, and perhaps even some state officials were involved in the attacks against Muslims.

Planned Before Godhra?

As noted above, HRW asserts that the attacks against Muslims were planned before Godhra. It is of utmost necessity to have substantial evidence before one makes such a serious accusation. Yet, not one iota of evidence is produced in the report to back up this assertion. Most of the violent, large-scale mob attacks started occurring on February 28, the day after the Godhra carnage.

As the HRW report notes, very little violence occurred on February 27. If the attacks were planned in advance, it is more likely the anti-Muslim retaliation would have commenced on February 27, immediately after the Godhra carnage, than on February 28. It seems that the attacks that were planned by the VHP and Bajrang Dal were probably planned on February 27 after the Godhra carnage or on the morning of February 28. It is also inconceivable, how mob-violence involving hundreds of thousands of people could have been planned before the Godhra massacre without anyone knowing. Also, as noted above, much of the violence that occurred was the result of a spontaneous response to the Godhra massacre. Nor is there a political reason for planning such attacks. It is true that BJP and the Sangh Parivar have been strengthened in Gujarat as a result of the communal violence. They were successful in playing on the fears of Hindus and projecting themselves as the defenders of Hindus. However, it is difficult to see how committing atrocities against Muslims for no apparent reason or without a major provocation such as Godhra could have possibly benefited the BJP and the Sangh Parivar.

But it is not surprising that HRW alleges that the attacks against Muslims were planned before Godhra. By alleging that the attacks were planned before Godhra, HRW seeks to indicate that the Godhra killings, one of the worst massacres of Hindus since partition, had little to do with the carnage that followed. This is consistent with HRW’s pattern of reporting on communal violence in India.

With regards to the Godhra attack, HRW asserts:

“There are significantly divergent accounts about the events leading to the dispute that resulted in the Godhra killings. Human Rights Watch was not able to independently verify the accuracy of these varying accounts, but it was widely reported that a scuffle began between Muslim vendors and Hindu activists shortly after the train arrived at the station. The activists, who had been chanting Hindu nationalist slogans, were said to have refused to pay a vendor until he said “Jai Shri Ram” or “Praise Lord Ram”.” As the train then tried to pull out of the station, the emergency brake was pulled and a Muslim mob attacked the train and set it on fire.

Initially Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi claimed that the killings were an “organized terrorist attack.” Federal government sources speculated that they were “pre-meditated”, or the work of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). However, senior police officials in Gujarat have now concluded that the killings were “not pre-planned” but rather the result of “a sudden, provocative incident.” In addition, a report from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) has concluded that the killings resulted from a spontaneous altercation between VHP activists and merchants on the railway that escalated out of control, rather than a planned conspiracy.

If there are “divergent accounts” and HRW was not able to “ independently verify the accuracy of these varying accounts” why is only the version of the altercation between the VHP activists and Muslim vendors mentioned? While it may have been “widely reported” that the attack resulted from a scuffle between the VHP and Muslim vendors, a report by Justice D. S. Tewatia, a man whose findings are cited in an earlier HRW report, finds that the Godhra killings were pre-planned and sponsored by Pakistan.

While some “senior police officials” concluded that the attack was not pre-planned, Additional Director General (law and order) of Gujarat police, J. Mahapatra stated that they were a pre-planned conspiracy. In addition, while much is said about BJP members who were involved in anti-Muslim violence, HRW does not mention that local Congress Muslim leaders were arrested for their role in the Godhra massacre.

Reporting of Attacks on Muslims Versus Reporting of Attacks on Hindus

HRW even admits that 10,000 of the 98,000 in refugee camps were Hindus, while a British report that was extremely critical of the Gujarat government, claims that 100,000 Muslims and 40,000 Hindus were made homeless by the riots. Justice G. T. Nanavati, who is heading the commission investigating the Gujarat riots, rejected the notion that the riots were one-sided. “On the evidence that we have recorded so far, it would not be fair to say that only Muslims were targeted. Initially though Hindus may have been the perpetrators of violence because they were angry, later members of both communities were engaged in the violence, he stated.”

Balbir Punj, writing in The Pioneer, claims that 200 of the 800 killed were Hindus, while Prafull Goradia states that the Hindu death toll is one third. The proportion of Hindus killed might be a bit lower than Punj and Goradia suggest. But it is undoubtedly clear that Hindus greatly suffered in the Gujarat riots, though from reading the HRW report, one would think that the only dead were Muslims, and the only displaced were Muslims. Only three pages of the 75-page report describe attacks on Hindus.

The chapter on attacks on Hindus does not start off describing attacks on Hindus, but rather is all about the Sangh Parivar. HRW describes how residents were “wearing religion on their sleeve” and displaying Hindu religious symbols in order to protect themselves from Hindu mobs and how Muslim houses were burnt while Hindu homes were left unscathed. This is all good information that one needs to know. But shouldn’t a chapter on attacks on Hindus describe Hindu suffering at the hands of Muslims?

The chapter on attacks on Hindus is titled “Retaliatory Attacks on Hindus.” But the chapter on attacks on Muslims is titled “Overview of the Attacks Against Muslims.” By using the word “retaliatory” to describe the attacks on Hindus, HRW indicates that in all cases Muslims were responding to violence started by Hindus or that the attacks on Hindus occurred only after the first few days of the violence. While the overwhelming majority of attacks in the first days of the violence were initiated by Hindus, many of the attacks were initiated by Muslims. For example, HRW states, “Mahajan No Vando was the site of a retaliatory attack by Muslims on March 1.” The report, however, includes testimony, which indicates that it was Muslims who initiated the attack. Thus, Mahajan No Vando was not a “retaliatory attack,” but a Muslim initiated attack.

In addition, the deaths of Muslims are described in the most graphic ways. For example, the first page of the report describes the massacre of Muslims at Gulmarg Society:

They pulled him out and hit him with a sword across the forehead, then across the stomach, then on his legs… They then took him on the road, poured kerosene on him and burned him…first cut them and then burned them. Other girls were raped, cut, and burned.

In chapter 3 of the report, titled, “Massacres in Ahmedabad,” HRW presents the testimony of a witness to the Naroda Patia massacre:

“Others simply did not have the words to describe the attack: You won’t be able to bear it if we tell you. They are scared, they won’t speak, people have been asking for days what happened. What difference has it made? We don’t want to go back there. Our lives are in danger there [Naroda Patia]…. We won’t go back to Patia; we will go anywhere else. We even left without our shoes, all our hard-earned savings are gone.” One female resident said, “Some girls even threw themselves into the fire, so as not to get raped.

In sharp contrast to the reporting of attacks on Muslims that include graphic descriptions of murder, the grief of survivors, and testimonies of mass killings, attacks on Hindus are reported as if they were isolated incidents of stabbing, looting, and burning. While in the sections on attacks on Muslims one reads of entire families being killed in the most graphic language, the section on attacks on Hindus describes “instances of stone-throwing” and notes that in one particular instance “twenty-five people were injured in the attacks and at least five homes were completely destroyed.” All this gives the impression that attacks on Hindus were relatively low-scale and not systematic. The stories by victims, in Prem Darwaja Vagheri, however, show that Hindus were also subject to large-scale destruction.

About 550-odd residents of the Prem Darwaja Vagheri Vas, Dariyapur, had no choice but to leave behind their belongings and take shelter in a nearby temple, following the violence of March 21. These Dalit families claim that they had been attacked by the people belonging to the minority community, who damaged their houses, property and drove them out of the area.

HRW mentions that Hindu mobs were shouting, “Go to Pakistan. If you want to stay here become Hindu.” In the same manner, in Vagheri Vas on the walls of the locality slogans such as ‘‘Mini Pakistan,’’ ‘‘Miya Vad, Karachi,’’ “Don’t come back or you’ll pay a heavy price,’’ and ‘‘Hindus not allowed’’ were seen.

The HRW report contains many graphic descriptions about how Muslims were burned alive and their bodies slashed by swords. Professor Dr. Suvarna Raval, writing in a Marathi daily, documents the violence Muslims inflicted upon Dalits. Mobs consisting of thousands of Muslims burned Dalits alive and cut them to pieces with swords. It is interesting, that the HRW writes a report on caste violence (“Broken People: Caste Violence Against India’s Untouchables”), but says nothing about the suffering of Dalits at the hands of Muslims during the Gujarat violence.

We hear many stories from HRW of places where Muslim residences and shops are torched and Hindu ones left unscathed. Likewise, in one locality, a Muslim hotel manager, together with fanatic Muslim youths from the same locality set the houses in the locality on fire, first taking care to remove all inhabitants of Muslim houses to a safe place.

HRW reports about Hindu mobs chanting “Jai Sri Ram,” while they were attacking Muslims. Similarly, a man named Yusuf Ajmeri led a 1,000 strong mob with swords and guptis in their hands into a Hindu locality shouting, “Kill Hindus, Allah is with us”.

Context of the Communal Violence

Chapter 6 of the report examines the “the context of the violence in Gujarat.” Exclusive focus is placed on the Sangh Parivar and the fact that Gujarat has a BJP government. While radical Hindu groups like the VHP and the Bajrang Dal have to share the blame for communal violence and religious polarization in the state, there is much to the context of communal violence, which HRW ignores. In understanding the context of communal violence in India, it is of utmost importance to examine the role of minority communalism. In her book, The Politics of Communalism, Zenab Banu, a Gujarati Muslim scholar, lists the Hindu-Muslim riots that have occurred from 1713 to 1977. The overwhelming majority of these, especially the ones after 1950, were started by Muslims.

In all of India’s most recent major communal conflicts, Delhi 1984, Mumbai 1992-93, Gujarat 1998-99, and Gujarat 2002, minority groups played a significant role in initiating the conflict. HRW accuses the Sangh Parivar of spreading hate propaganda against minority groups. Such hate propaganda, however, is not the monopoly of Hindus. Muslim extremists and Christian proselytisers also spread such hate propaganda, which HRW chooses to ignore.

In addition, Gujarat has been a hotbed of communal tension long before the BJP came to power in 1998. In order to examine the context of these riots, one must examine the history of communal violence in Gujarat. Gujarat had by far the highest number of deaths per million in urban areas due to communal violence from 1950 to 1995.

According to Tavleen Singh, “ communal riots were a regular, yearly event” in the 40 years when the Congress ruled the state. Godhra, in particular, witnessed communal riots in 1947, 1952, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1980, 1983, 1989 and 1990.

Varshney notes that Ahmedbad has had “endemic violence.” He reports that, “The 1969 carnage in Ahmedabad was the nation’s single worst Hindu-Muslim riot between 1950 and 1995. About 630 people were killed in five days of mayhem and chaos, and many more injured and made homeless”. As noted above, Srivastava claims that 2,500 died in the 1969 Ahmedabad riots. As Bharat Wariavwalla writing in The Tribune of Chandigarh notes, “The Hindu-Muslim divide in Gujarat is deeper than perhaps anywhere else in the country. It cuts across party lines. That the Congress is secular and the BJP is sectarian simply doesn’t hold true in Gujarat, perhaps nowhere else either”.

For example, when a Congress MLA from Vadodara started the Khichadi Kitchen for Muslims affected in the riots, he was criticized by members of his party. Likewise, “it’s the Congress members who violently demonstrated, besides the BJP and VHP members, against Medha Patkar’s visit to the Sabarmati Ashram to help and console the grieving Muslims”.

The role of politicians in supporting communalism to obtain political power is a key reason for communal conflict in India. This phenomenon was evident long before the BJP became a major political player and the communal divide has been exploited by politicians of all stripes. For example, in the 1984 elections Rajiv Gandhi played to Hindu chauvinism more effectively than the BJP ever did through his virulent anti-Sikh campaign. The Congress ended up winning more than 400 seats in that election. In a similar manner, Modi and the BJP leadership have been attempting to capitalize on the communal violence in order to consolidate the Hindu vote, since the BJP has lost power in most states. As noted above, the mere presence of a BJP government at the state level or at the Centre does not mean that a state or the nation will be more prone to communal violence. In addition, many of the causes of communal violence relate to civil society. Varshney argues that cities with strong civic institutions such as trade unions and professional organizations are less prone to communal violence.

 Relief Camps and Rehabilitation

The HRW report describes in grim detail the conditions of those who lived in relief camps after the riots and the failure of the government in providing relief to the riots victims. Much of this is probably warranted. Horrific conditions did exist in relief camps and the government could still do more to help the victims. However, significant progress was made in rehabilitating riot victims in the months following the riots, which HRW makesno mention of.

For example, S.M.F. Bukhari, a Muslim, who was appointed special officer of relief by the state noted in late July of 2002 that of the 133,000 refugees who had taken shelter in the 110 camps across the state, 12,229 were still living in the camps, indicating that a significant number had been rehabilitated in the months after the riots. [lxxi] He stated that at the time kin of 773 of the 925 reported victims had been fully compensated and that 680 million rupees had been spent on compensating victims. Bukhari also stated, “We could achieve 100 per cent success in rural areas where we involved the local leaders and made them convince the refugees to return home. The state machinery behaved as a catalyst.”

Ethnic Cleansing? Genocide?

It has been often stated that what happened in Gujarat was “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide.” However, upon closer examination, these terms do not accurately describe the violence that occurred in Gujarat. Genocide is defined as “the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.” There was no plan to exterminate Gujarat’s Muslim population. There are roughly five million Muslims in Gujarat. The official death toll was approximately 900, and the unofficial was 2000. Most but not all of those killed were Muslims. As horrific as the violence was, not even in one’s wildest imagination can it be said that there was an effort to exterminate Gujarat’s Muslim population.

“Ethnic cleansing” is defined as “the systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.” It is clearly evident that there was no plan to eliminate Muslims from the state of Gujarat and force them to flee elsewhere. As noted above, significant progress in the rehabilitation of riots victims has been made.

Other Statements from the Report

In the beginning of the report, HRW states: “The groups most directly responsible for violence against Muslims in Gujarat include the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal, the ruling BJP, and the umbrella organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps, RSS), all of whom collectively form the Sangh Parivar (or “family” of Hindu nationalist groups). These organizations, although different in many respects, have all promoted the argument that because Hindus constitute the majority of Indians, India should be a Hindu state.”

With regards to the BJP, this statement is false. For example, one of the statements in the party pledge taken by a member when he joins the party is “I subscribe to the concept of a Secular State and Nation not based on religion.” Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani recently asserted in the Lok Sabha that India could never be converted into a Hindu state.

In the beginning of the report, it is stated, that the rioters, “were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses of Muslim families and their properties, information obtained from the Ahmedabad municipal corporation among other sources.” The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is run by the Congress Party, not the BJP. This raises interesting questions about the communal violence in Gujarat. For example, is it possible that the Congress may also have been involved in promoting violence during the Gujarat riots?

In chapter 4, titled “Overview of the Attacks Against Muslims” it is stated, “ According to the preliminary report of SAHMAT, a Delhi-based nongovernmental organization, its fact-finding team found graffiti left behind on the charred walls of a burnt madrassa in Sundaramnagar, Ahmedabad boasted of police support.”

Yeh andar ki bat hai, Police hamarey saath hai

(This is inside information, the police are with us).

Writing on the wall cannot be considered conclusive evidence. While in some cases the police looked the other way as Hindu mobs went on the rampage, it was taking action against the mobs in many instances too, as noted above.

In chapter 6, it is stated that past communal violence in Gujarat has led to the “increasing ghettoisation of the state’s Muslim community.” The Economist however, notes that in Ahmedabad, both “Hindus and Muslims have been quitting each other’s neighbourhoods since the mid-1980s”.

In this chapter, HRW also states that, “The current climate [in Gujarat] also cannot be divorced from heightened conflict in Kashmir, India’s deteriorating relations with Pakistan.” This is simply preposterous and is further evidence of HRW’s political agenda. One fails to see what events in Gujarat have to do with deteriorating relations with Pakistan. No evidence is provided to support this assertion. Relations with Pakistan are in the shape they are because of Pakistan sponsored terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, which has killed 20,000-50,000 and an attempt to wipe out India’s political leadership on December 13, 2001. In fact, this quote seems to be placing the blame for tensions with Pakistan on “Hindu nationalists” and the Indian government, despite Pakistan’s continuing support for anti-India terrorism.

 Conclusion

It is not merely the lack of context in HRW reports, but the outright distortions contained in them, that are actually worrying. Blaming “Hindu nationalists” for church blasts carried out by Islamic terrorists, violence against Dalits and wanting to maintain the caste system, the 1984 riots, and insinuating their involvement in the Jhabua rapes are evidence of a concerted effort by HRW to advance a political agenda – an agenda of the Indian left, fundamentalist Christian proselytisers, and others. This political agenda includes demonizing the BJP government and the Sangh Parivar; ignoring minority communalism; ignoring human rights abuses against Hindus; and a barely concealed hostility towards Hinduism itself.

[1) The term ‘minority’ itself, like the word ‘secularism,’ is a highly mischievous misnomer that has been exploited by the Muslims and Christians to enjoy undue privileges. There is as such no ethnic minority in India and aggressive religious minorities deserve no special privileges – Ed.

2) Perhaps, this is the only instance of a “state-sponsored pogrom” in India since the party which has in power, particularly in Delhi, made use of the State machinery in shielding arsonists and instigating even the police to attack members of the Sikh community. The Sikh community was painted black all over India and looked upon with suspicion. – Ed.

3) The BJP on assuming power, eschewed all those issues of concern to the Hindus which facilitated its electoral rise in the first place – Ramjanmabhoomi, Conversions, Uniform Civil Code, Article 30 etc. Some Hindu activist groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad bitterly resent this sell-out by the BJP, “They have betrayed Ram in pursuit of Lakshmi (economic growth, lust of power etc.),” is a popular perception. In fact, the increase in Haj subsidy (in the face of disapproval from Muslims themselves!) and other apologetic measures to woo the Muslim community are seen as unfair and unjust, not only by Hindu activist groups but also by a large section of the Hindu community which feels increasingly discriminated against in the name of secularism, minority privileges and human rights – Ed.]

– Arvin Bahl

(This is a slightly abridged version of a thorough critique which was published online by the South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG, www.saag.org). The writer is an undergraduate from Princeton University. He can be reached at: abahl@princeton.edu.)