"Aaj bhi ham hamare mukkam par nahi ja ke rah sakte (Even today we cannot go back to where we belong)."

– Aiyubmiya, eye-witness to the massacre where 33 persons from Sardarpura village, Mehsana were killed in 2002. The village his family had lived in for decades is no more their home.

"Jab ham bach ke nikle, aath ghante ke baad, aur laash aur laash hamare ghar ke chabootre par giri hui thi; jakar kaanpte kaanpte ham police van me baithe, toh policewale ne kaha, ‘kya itne log bach gaye hai, kya? Hamne socha sab khatm hue!’ (When we escaped with our lives after eight hours of brutal targeting, there was a row of corpses outside our house. Trembling, we got into the waiting police van when a policeman in uniform said, ‘What! So many saved! We thought all would be finished!’)."

– Zakiabehn Jaffri, wife of former parliamentarian Ahsan Jaffri.

"Mere bees saal ke bacche ko police ne nanga kar ke bithaya, peeth mod kar, goliyan mar mar kar police ne khatm kiya… Maine socha tha ki badle mein bandook uthaoon magar phir socha ke nirdosh ko maar kar kya phayda? Aaj bhi hamara case waise hee pada hai, sessions court mein. (My 20-year-old boy was made to strip. The police bent him over and then pumped bullets into him… I thought of picking up the gun in revenge but then I thought what good would killing innocents bring? My case still drags on in the sessions court)."

– Zahid Kadri, a father.

(Survivors’ Speak, meeting organised by Communalism Combat, Citizens for Justice and Peace and SAHMAT, New Delhi, April 16, 2005).

The criminal trial in six major massacres were stayed by the Supreme Court on November 21, 2003 after about 60 victims who are also eye-witnesses filed affidavits in the apex court of India detailing how the investigation into this massacre was being consciously subverted by the Gujarat police and witnesses continually threatened. Though 18 months have passed since the stay and several dates of hearing come and gone, the plea for reinvestigation and transfer is still pending before the apex court.

On May 2, 2002, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a petition through citizens of Gujarat in the Supreme Court of India requesting that the CBI, not the Gujarat police, investigate the major massacres. This was also a key recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its reports, March-July 2002, on the genocide. Three years later, this petition too is pending disposal before the apex court. With due respect, the three major acquittals – including the Best Bakery (in Vadodara), the Kidiad (where 61 persons were burnt alive in two tempos at Limbadiya Chowki in Sabarkantha district), and Pandharwada (where over 45 persons were massacred in two separate incidents in a village in Panchmahal district) massacre cases – may not have resulted if key recommendations made by the NHRC, which included investigation by the CBI into major carnage cases and trials by special courts, had been followed in these cases.

A detailed report, ‘Gujarat –Three Years Later’ is currently being compiled by Communalism Combat. Our preliminary investigations reveal that on a rough estimate about 61,000 persons continue to be internally displaced within the state.

Included among them are key witnesses of the major massacres, who even today cannot go back to their villages or localities simply because they have chosen to fight for justice. Many are both victims of the massacre and key eye-witnesses.

The large majority of the internally displaced were small minority groups scattered across many of Gujarat’s 18,000 villages. They have had to surrender their homes and petty landholdings in return for a life of penury-struck refugees. This is the stark and shameful reality of Gujarat, where even the political Opposition has stopped addressing issues arising out of a State-sponsored pogrom and where the perpetrators continue in seats of power and influence.

Eye-witnesses who are also victims include survivors of the Gulberg massacre (February 28, 2002) where 68 persons were slaughtered including former MP Ahsan Jaffri and 10-15 girls and women subjected to brutal sexual violence; Naroda Gaon and Patiya (February 28, 2002) where over 120 persons were similarly ravaged while a complicit police and elected representatives watched and led mobs respectively; Sardarpura (March 1-3, 2002) where 33 persons were brutally killed in one incident while 14 were burnt alive in the second); and the Ode killings in Anand district (March 1-3, 2002) in which a total of 27 persons were killed. All of them continue to suffer and sacrifice for their decision to struggle for justice. Many eye-witnesses, like a key witness from Naroda Gaon and his family members, have been penalised three or four times with false criminal cases being slapped against them. The attempt is clearly to intimidate all those who stand for the struggle for justice. Recent reports highlighting attempts to target citizens and human rights defenders who support the struggle only underline the state of affairs in Gujarat today.

If there is one thing that the onerous struggle for justice has shown, it is this: For justice to be finally ensured at least in case of the major incidents of carnage let alone the hundreds of crimes that took place in Gujarat in 2002, the struggle for justice needs strong support from State agencies. But in reality, three years after the horrors in which they lost their near and dear ones, key witnesses of the major incidents of violence cannot even step into their villages or localities simply because they have chosen the path of justice.

Further, the conduct of the state of Gujarat through the ongoing Best Bakery re-trial being conducted in Mumbai (see accompanying story) is far removed from that of a prosecutor state committed to ensuring justice. Apart from the questionable role of the Gujarat state in the Best Bakery case, the sheer brazenness of its conduct can be gauged from its decision to reappoint the controversial public prosecutor in the Best Bakery case, Raghuvir Pandya, allegedly a VHP sympathiser, as Vadodara’s district government pleader. Pandya, who was indicted by the Supreme Court for acting "more as a defence counsel than a public prosecutor" in its historic verdict transferring the Best Bakery case to Maharashtra on April 12, 2003 (see Communalism Combat, April 2005), is now back as state counsel and will again plead the government’s case if any of the communal riot cases are reopened!

Clearly undeterred by the spotlight of the apex court, the Gujarat government has appointed another allegedly active BJP member, MD Pandya, as special public prosecutor in a case related to Radhanpur town of Patan district where many BJP heavyweights like Radhanpur BJP MLA Shankar Chaudhary, former president of Radhanpur municipal council Pravin Thakkar, president of Radhanpur municipal borough Prakash Kumar Thakkar and member of the district BJP medical cell Dr. Jyotindra Raval were all implicated as accused in the case.

The attitude of the Gujarat state headed by chief minister Narendra Modi who was re-elected by 51 per cent of the Gujarati electorate in December 2002, nine months after masterminding the pogrom, has been understood and absorbed nationwide. What escapes public attention is the realisation that even three years later there is absolutely no remorse or regret for what had been orchestrated in February/March-May 2002. If Modi is relatively silent today, it is only because of the legal battles in which his state is embroiled despite his best efforts.

At the ground level his brigands carry on unashamed. At Desar village of Vadodara district on April 10, 2005, as hundreds of villagers watched in the presence of BJP MP Jayaben Thakkar, local MLA Upendrasinh Gohil and VHP leaders, two Swaminarayan sadhus unveiled the bust of Vakhatsinh Ramansinh Parmar. The inscription on the marble plaque under the bust read: "This memorial is to honour Ram Sevak Vakhatsinh Ramansinh Parmar who laid down his life in the attacks in retaliation to the killing of 58 karsevaks on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002. Parmar was killed in police firing on March 1, 2002, third Friday, Vikram Samvat, 2058". Parmar was, according to police records, part of a mob that torched Muslim properties and attacked the police when the police was trying to save properties from being torched. He was named as an accused in the case. This is the first time that a riot accused has been publicly felicitated in Gujarat albeit posthumously. The function was organised by the VHP. The local MLA and MP did not find anything wrong in erecting a memorial for a mob leader in a village where Muslims form 30 per cent of the population. "This is a fitting tribute to the youth for his sacrifices for the cause of Hindutva," Thakkar told The Deccan Herald. Asked about the incident, minister of state for Home Amit Shah said: "One is always innocent till he is convicted."

An apt illustration of the perversion of values within the political class in Gujarat.

If justice is to prevail, a necessary condition for this must be created through the dismissal of the Modi government under Article 356 of the Constitution, say constitutional experts like Shanti Bhushan.

There is legitimate apprehension among many about the use of Article 356, lest it set a precedent for the Centre to get rid of governments in Opposition-ruled states. But the Gujarat case is an exceptional one in so much as the state government has been seriously implicated by the NHRC and even the Supreme Court, in what are perhaps the most inhuman, horrendous and unconstitutional acts in the history of post-Independence India. In the past few months, courageous statements by serving police officers have echoed the outrage earlier expressed by these apex institutions and hundreds of groups and individuals. Statements by serving policemen that have been made public clearly show that orders were issued by none less than the present chief minister Narendra Modi that minorities who resist or protest be exterminated. Put together, the imposition of Article 356 in Gujarat is warranted not only on grounds of humanity and constitutional propriety, but also for the maintenance of the country’s unity, integrity and secular fabric.