Fallen by the wayside
From interim report to final report: the Somasekhara Commission’s
U-turn
BY TEESTA SETALVAD
Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be
done: This is a well-worn cliché that sums up the rigour and application
that any process of justice delivery must observe to withstand the
exacting test of public scrutiny. When the crimes to be investigated are
mass crimes directed against a particular section of the population on
account of their religious faith, and when the political party in power
represents discriminatory, not constitutional, governance, this task
requires from such a commission – apart from the time-tested norms of
independence and integrity – both moral and physical fortitude.
The Justice BK Somasekhara Commission report on the
sustained attack on 57 Christian churches and prayer halls in Karnataka
in 2008, released in part on January 28, 2011, unfortunately fails to
meet this test on all counts. The first reason for this is that the
conclusions partially available to the public (the full report, which is
said to be well over 400 pages long, has not yet been tabled in the
state assembly) run contrary to the stark findings of the same
commission in its interim report that were made public in February 2010,
almost a year ago. The fact that these had displeased the Yeddyurappa
government has been well documented by the media both then and now. In a
blatant display of raw power soon after the commission’s interim report
was released, the state government threatened to wind up the commission
of inquiry even before its final report had been submitted.
The retired judge, who hails from the same town in
Shimoga district as the chief minister, BS Yeddyurappa, had said in his
interim report that a “strong impression is created that members
belonging to the Bajrang Dal, Sri Rama Sene and the VHP, etc are mainly
responsible in attacking the churches or places of worship, mainly in
Mangalore and South Canara (Dakshina Kannada) districts, spreading to
other districts and, in particular, Udupi, Chikmagalur, Davangere,
Bellary, Dharwad, Bangalore, Kolar and Chikkaballapur.” Going by his
final report however, Justice Somasekhara appears to have undergone a
rather dramatic change of heart; he now concludes that in reality such
impressions are incorrect.
In his interim report, the judge had also observed that
“an impression is given that the top police officers and the district
administration and other authorities and panchayat heads, specially in
South Canara, Bellary and Davangere, colluded with the members of the
Bajrang Dal and Sri Rama Sene, directly or indirectly, in attacking the
churches or places of worship”. Today, as we read the highlights and
churchwise findings of the commission’s final report, we are given to
understand that the judge believes these “impressions and allegations”
have “no merit”.
While any analysis of the reasons for this seemingly
inexplicable change must await a full reading of the report, there is
enough in the dynamics of the commission’s constitution, as well as the
obvious omissions, to raise questions about the process and its outcome.
Any such commission of inquiry appointed by the central or state
governments under the Commission of Inquiry Act is required to perform a
task and arrive at conclusions that satisfy vital questions and concerns
within a democracy. Often such commissions are appointed when
premeditated violence occurs to establish officially the reasons for the
convulsions that have erupted and to offer recommendations that would,
or should, serve as checks against such outbreaks in the future.
The very act of appointment of such mechanisms in the
past performed a salutary task, especially for the targeted victim
community. (Recall that the Rajiv Gandhi government, which rode to power
in the wake of an anti-Sikh pogrom, only appointed the Ranganath Misra
Commission in April 1985 when talks with the Akali Dal leaders were
underway and the historic Rajiv-Longowal accord was at stake.) Any
judge, serving or retired, appointed to conduct such an inquiry is
required to meet high standards of independence and integrity. The
reports of such inquiries, though unfortunately not statutorily binding
on governments, have been the basis for acknowledgement, corrective
measures and prosecution of the guilty.
However, with the appointment of the Wadhwa Commission
by the BJP-led NDA government at the centre in 1999 (to investigate the
murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his sons in Orissa),
we saw time-tested norms fall by the wayside. Pliable and ideologically
convenient individuals predisposed to giving the government in power a
clean chit were handpicked then, as they were in Gujarat in 2002, three
years later, to ensure the results before the process had even begun.
Unfortunately, the BK Somasekhara Commission of Inquiry, set up to
investigate the statewide anti-Christian violence in Karnataka, lays
itself open to that charge.
What overwhelming evidence persuaded the commission to
change its mind, to alter the views put forward in its interim report to
those in the final document submitted just one year later, will probably
forever remain a mystery. At any rate, no information has been provided
so far to justify the final conclusions. Even the judge appears to be
aware of this when he states, in the opening line of the Highlights,
that “the final report should be read as the continuation of the interim
report”.
The Somasekhara Commission was given a straightforward
yet crucial mandate: “to identify persons and organisations” responsible
for the attacks on places of worship and incidents thereafter which
occurred in Karnataka in September 2008. On this count, the judge is
hasty in giving a clean chit to both the ruling dispensation and its
affiliate organisations when he says in conclusion that “There is no
basis to the apprehension of Christian petitioners that the politicians,
BJP, mainstream sangh parivar and state government, directly or
indirectly, are involved in the attacks.”
While exonerating the ruling party, its chief minister
and home minister as well as parent affiliates like the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh, the Bajrang Dal and the Rama Sene of any
organisational involvement in the violence, the report does pin blame on
one individual, the then convener of the Bajrang Dal, Mahendra Kumar.
“The plea of many Christian memorialists for taking action as per law
against Mr Mahendra Kumar, the then convener of Bajrang Dal who publicly
sought to justify the attacks on churches, is totally justified.” The
report adds that “the plea… that organisations like Bajrang Dal need
identification and registration for legal control deserves acceptance”.
It is not insignificant that the person whom the
commission has sought to easily identify and pin culpability on, the
notorious Mahendra Kumar, stated – in an interview with the media on
January 31, three days after the commission’s final report was released
– that “I went to jail to save the government from further embarrassment
after the church attacks and on instructions from the sangh parivar
leaders” (Bangalore Mirror, January 31, 2011). In this interview,
Kumar, the alleged mastermind behind the 2008 attacks, accuses the
ruling BJP government and the sangh parivar of scapegoating him
and also raises some pertinent questions:
a) How can the Bajrang Dal be given a clean chit when
its then convener is named as the prime accused?
b) Is it possible for one person to carry out attacks at
all places simultaneously between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.?
Mahendra Kumar conveniently “left” the Bajrang Dal after
the attacks in 2008 and has, if recent reports are to be believed, now
joined the Janata Dal-Secular (Deccan Herald, February 20,
2011).
Further contradictions arise in respect of a crucial
annexure to the report, Annexure XLVII, which lists 56 churches that
were attacked and specifies the Hindu fundamentalist organisations that
were involved in some of these attacks. The Bajrang Dal has been held
responsible for the attacks on nine churches, the Hindu Jagaran Vedike
has been held responsible for the attacks on three churches, the
sangh parivar has been held responsible for the attack on one church
and unnamed Hindu fundamentalists have been held responsible for the
attacks on two churches. Why then does the report in its conclusions shy
away from pinning organisational responsibility and blame?
Although the commission holds that the Bajrang Dal and
the Hindu Jagaran Vedike were behind the attacks on some churches, it
seems eager to establish that these organisations are fringe groups that
cannot be tied to the umbrella body of the sangh parivar.
The commission in its ‘Churchwise Findings’ observes
that the attack on the DHM Prarthana Mandira in Nittuvalli was launched
“by angered Hindus in general and about 10-15… Hindu Jagaran Vedike
workers in particular”. The attack on the Eternal Life Church, also in
Nittuvalli, was, according to the commission, also perpetrated by
members of the Hindu Jagaran Vedike, at least nine of whom are mentioned
by name. With regard to the attacks on the Jagadeeshwara Devalaya in
Kalasa and the Carmel Mathe Devalaya at Kudremukh, the commission states
that “The miscreants were not known but suspected to be workers of
Bajrang Dal led by Mahendra Kumar” and, similarly, in respect of the
attack on the Life and Light Ministries Church, Shiroor, the panel notes
that “the involvement of workers of Bajrang Dal led by Mr Mahendra
Kumar, the convener of Bajrang Dal, is probable and appears to be true”.
It is however the commission’s conclusions that give
serious cause for concern, as they appear to offer justifications for
the violence, which should have no place in the report of a judicial
inquiry. Echoing a trend that has been witnessed in the highest echelons
of the Indian judiciary, the report states that there are “clear
indications of conversions to Christianity… by [a] few [non-Roman
Catholic] organisations and self-styled or self-appointed pastors”.
These activities had “damaged the reputation and holy image of the
genuine and true Christians” and evoked anger among a section of the
Hindus, which was further exacerbated by the mischievous behaviour of
some Christians and their literature “maligning the Hindu religion,
Hindu ancient systems, Hindu sacred beliefs, practices and sentiments” (Highlights
of the Final Report of the Commission for Publication).
Such an unreasoned justification of violence, violence
that has been unleashed against both Christians (from 2008 onwards) and
Muslims in Karnataka – and which has been accompanied by
widespread terrorising of the local media and inducements to other
sections to ensure a statewide “cover-up” – is dangerous in the extreme.
It gives murderous mobs and corrupt policemen an implicit carte blanche.
The Somasekhara Commission received 1,018 statements and
affidavits, examined several hundred witnesses and conducted site
inspections of 25 affected places of worship spread across Dakshina
Kannada, Udupi, Kolar, Chikkaballapur, Davangere and Bangalore. But
despite the extensive effort put in by the official commission of
inquiry, the obvious contradictions and lacunae detailed above have
rendered the report open to criticism and censure.
An area where the lacunae is inexcusable is in the
exoneration of three officials of the state police, Sathish Kumar, SP,
Dakshina Kannada; Jayanth Shetty, deputy superintendent of police (DSP),
Mangalore (rural); and MK Ganapathy, inspector, Mangalore (east) (see
box, ‘Crimes by men in uniform’). For many of us who
visited southern Karnataka when the attacks took place and recorded
evidence of the complicity of the police, one thing became clear: action
against these three policemen had been recommended by top echelons of
the Karnataka police at that time. When the top man in the Karnataka
police force, DGP Ajai Kumar Singh, chickened out under pressure from
the political bullies in his state, he betrayed not just the principle
of the rule of law enshrined in the Indian Constitution that guarantees
dignity of life to all Indians – he also let the better men in his force
down.