Punish the perpetrators
Demanding justice for victims of anti-minority violence in
Rajasthan
In Sept-October 2011 Communalism Combat had
reproduced the preliminary report of a fact-finding team
set up by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties to investigate the
attacks on the Meo Muslim minority in Gopalgarh, Rajasthan, on
September 13-14, 2011, where police brutality and mob violence claimed
10 lives and left several persons injured. Thereafter, in a report on
the All India Democratic Women’s Association’s Convention against
Communal Conflict in December 2011, CC had revisited the
incident.
Distressed by the state government’s reluctance to
punish the culprits, including police officers responsible for
dereliction of duty, in the violence against innocent Muslims in
Gopalgarh (Bharatpur) and elsewhere in Rajasthan, representatives of
Rajasthan’s Muslim minority under the banner of the Rajasthan Muslim
Forum (RMF) led delegations to the National Commission for Minorities
and met ministers in the central government in June 2012 to submit a
detailed representation in this regard. In what appears to be a clear
instance of contrary messages being sent out by the United Progressive
Alliance, a month before the RMF felt compelled to take such steps and
meet senior functionaries of the UPA in Delhi, union minister Salman
Khurshid and Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh had in a public
meeting in Jaipur on May 6, 2012 urged the chief minister of
Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, who was present on the dais, to give prompt
and fair justice to the victims of the Gopalgarh violence and punish
the guilty.
The press release issued by the RMF on June 26, 2012
tragically encapsulates the attitudes of the state (Congress) and
central (UPA) governments towards the punishment of the perpetrators
of communal violence in a state under their rule.
Summary of demands
The victims of the Gopalgarh violence of September
13-14, 2011 and concerned citizens and social workers appeal to the
government of Rajasthan (GoR), the government of India (GoI) and the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to give fair and prompt justice
to the victims. Documentary evidences and the attitudes of officers
show that the victims are not only not getting justice but have
been made to suffer further injustice, discrimination and harassment
due to delays and arbitrary procedures. Thus victims are made to fend
for their own security and legal defence whereas the accused are given
a clean chit due to faulty investigations and delays. Ten Muslims died
due to police firing and burning and several were injured. Many houses
and shops were looted and damaged while the police looked on.
None of the officers responsible for such flagrant
dereliction of duty, including the district magistrate (DM) and
superintendent of police (SP) of Bharatpur, have been punished. In
fact, they have now been reinstated by the state thus demonstrating
its desire to shelter them. This is one of the reasons why Rajasthan
has witnessed increasing violence against Muslims, in the regions of
Marwar, Mewar, Hadoti and Mewat, in recent months. No officer has so
far been punished for these incidents of anti-Muslim violence.
The law of the land must apply equally to all,
irrespective of class, status and religion.
The adverse roles of the CBI and the
state
Ø Using subterfuge (e.g. calling victims for
assessment of losses for compensation and then arresting them in
Bharatpur), Muslim victims of violence have been treated as
perpetrators; they have been arrested and are being harassed by the
CBI and police. This is done with the desire to immobilise victims, to
undermine their commitment to fight for justice and file first
information reports (FIRs) against the accused and officers who
conspired with perpetrators and/or committed gross dereliction of duty
which resulted in deaths and massive loss of property.
Ø Ignoring the clear instructions in two government (GoR
and GoI) notifications, the CBI took a biased approach while dealing
with Muslim victims and guilty officers like the DM and SP; the FIRs
filed by Muslim victims were ignored while those filed by the police
were investigated and action was taken on them.
Ø The CBI is intimidating witnesses to the violence.
It is asking Muslims only two specific questions (‘How many Muslims
were in the masjid?’ and ‘Who instigated the violence?’) without
allowing them to narrate the sequence of events which would reveal who
cast the first stone. Why is the CBI not interested in a complete
chain of circumstances when such an investigation would expose the
preplanning and conspiracy behind the violence and bring in the
calculated assault on the imam of the Jama Masjid and other Muslims on
September 13, 2011 which occurred before passions were allowed to
build up and violence erupted? The approach of the CBI is selective,
to say the least, and reveals a biased approach in the investigation
itself.
Ø Despite the assurances given to Muslims by the chief
minister of Rajasthan, he has not taken strict action against the
officers accused of dereliction of duty and others who indulged in
arson, looting and killing i.e. those responsible for the loss of
Muslim life and property.
Ø Although the DM and SP of Bharatpur were suspended
from service in late September 2011, serious administrative loopholes
in the orders passed have ensured that they and other officers could
not be punished. The state government deliberately failed to issue
show-cause notices to or file charge sheets against the two officers
either before or during their suspension. Worse, the state government
consciously chose not to intervene before the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT); hence it was not heard before the CAT delivered its
interim order. The government did not file a review application
against the judgement delivered by the CAT nor has it to date appealed
against the CAT judgement in the high court, explaining forcefully the
reasons for the officers’ suspension.
Ø Soon after the DM and SP were suspended,
representatives of the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police
Service associations in the state met the then chief secretary to
protest against the suspension, claiming that this had demoralised
their officers. Such belligerence reveals a disturbing mindset among
the senior bureaucracy in the state – where firm action following
criminal dereliction of duty is interpreted as a cause for loss of
morale. In fact, the suspended officers had violated their
constitutional duty and the code of conduct that enjoins IAS/IPS
officers to uphold the fundamental rights to life and equality before
the law.
Ø There is a nexus between the various arms of the
bureaucracy that is protecting guilty officers responsible for the
carnage in Gopalgarh.
Ø Compensation for the loss of property has been
calculated in accordance with the GoR (home department) rules of 2008;
these amounts are miserably low and do not reflect the price index.
Most victims have refused to accept the compensation offered. It has
been a consistent finding that during communal violence and one-sided
violence against Muslims, it is the Muslims who suffer the most in
terms of loss of life and property. The corollary then is equally
disturbing: while the compensation paid to Muslims for loss of life
and property ought to be much higher, it is in fact unrealistically
low. This shows a deep-seated prejudice against minorities. The rules
were framed during the Congress regime in 2008 when Ashok Gehlot was
chief minister. Such norms must be reviewed and upgraded realistically
(as has been done in the case of victims of the 1984 Sikh massacre in
Delhi or the 2002 Muslim massacre in Gujarat).
Ø The victim community’s requests for an appointment
with the chief minister had not been successful.
Background
Ø GoR notification F-19 (13) Home-5/2011, dated
September 21, 2011, mentions five FIRS registered (thus far) at the
Gopalgarh police station. However, the notification contains clear
instructions that all FIRs in the case: "All cases registered
at police station Gopalgarh, district Bharatpur, and attempts,
abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the
above-mentioned offences and any other offence or offences committed
in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts" must be investigated.
GoI notification F. No. 228/65/2011-AVD-II, dated
October 11, 2011, refers to the GoR notification above and repeats
verbatim GoI instructions which include all cases/FIRs for CBI
investigation.
Ø However, going against the explicit instructions in
the GoR/GoI notifications, SS Kishore, additional superintendent of
police, CBI, registered (and thereafter investigated) only five FIRs
on October 11, 2011, deliberately excluding the 14 FIRs filed by
victim Muslims against the DM, SP, local officers and Gujjars/Hindus,
accusing them of conspiracy and of abetting the crimes committed
against the victims on September 13-14, 2011. The CBI was quick to
register a fresh case on October 11, 2011 but it did not take
cognisance of the 14 FIRs that had also been registered at the police
station before that date and which it deliberately ignored. This shows
that the CBI had acted mala fides in its willingness to protect
bureaucrats accused of gross dereliction of duty. This despite the
fact that the divisional commissioner of Bharatpur had indicted these
officers for dereliction of duty, stating that the investigation must
be conducted by an inspector-general of police.
Ø The GoR notification mentions 20 FIRs, including the
14 FIRs filed by Muslims, and the same instructions (i.e. to
investigate all cases/FIRs relating to the incident) were reiterated
to the CBI in October 2011.
Ø About three and a half months later, on January 20,
2012, the GoI issued another notification which mentioned 18 FIRs,
including the 14 FIRs filed by Muslims. There was no need to do this,
as it was a mere repetition. This appears to have been done with
deliberate purpose. It gave the CBI a handle to protect the DM and SP
while maintaining that it (the CBI) could begin investigations into
the 14 FIRs (which named the DM and SP among other accused) only
after the (second) GoI notification of January 20, 2012. This time
lag of over three months (October 11, 2011 to January 20, 2012) also
allowed the CBI to file a charge sheet against those accused in the
five FIRs first registered by it without delay. Since the DM and SP
were not mentioned in these FIRs (at least two of which were filed by
policemen), both officers could be given a clean chit; there was
nothing to incriminate them. The damning accusations against these
officers were contained in the 14 FIRs filed by victims which had been
registered earlier but which the CBI had deliberately overlooked.
Ø Moreover, the CBI did not act promptly even after
the GoI’s second notification had been issued on January 20, 2012. It
only registered the cases on February 24, 2012 after a deliberate
delay of one month. This amounts to a total delay of five months if
the initial GoR/GoI notifications are taken into consideration. In
contrast, the CBI acted on the GoI’s first notification (albeit
selectively) the very same day i.e. October 11, 2011. It appears that
for the CBI, the ‘accused’ named in the five FIRs that were first
registered (which include Muslim victims who were attacked in the
market and those whose property was looted) are more serious
offenders than the high-profile ‘accused’ (the DM, SP and other
officials) named in the 14 FIRs filed by Muslim victims. This shows a
clear bias towards the powerful accused and a communal bias against
the victims. The conduct of the investigation, the CBI’s selective
promptness and delays, served to protect the district administration,
particularly the SP and DM, while the victim Muslims were further
victimised. While the victim Muslims were in jail, or nursing their
injured kinsmen in hospital, the accused were allowed to roam free.
Ø The 14 FIRs filed by Muslim victims in the incidents
of September 13-14, 2011 were registered between September 25 and 27,
2011 after curfew was partially lifted and only after the victims,
occupied with the treatment of the injured and the burial of their
dead, could muster the courage to do so. There was thus a 12-day delay
in the registration of these FIRs. This is not an insurmountable delay
in law. Meanwhile, the policemen and Gujjars were at an advantage;
they had nothing to fear and were able to file FIRs immediately. (The
very fact that the entire police staff of the Gopalgarh police station
was transferred to the Bharatpur police lines about a week after the
incident points to their complicity in the violence.)
Ø If all 19 FIRs had been clubbed together for the CBI
investigation as per the explicit instructions in the state and
central government notifications, the dereliction of duty and
collusive roles of the district administrators and others accused by
the victims would have become clear, in particular the mala fide
intent and conduct of the DM, the SP and other local officials.
Ø In sum, the CBI is determined to protect bureaucrats
somehow. It has managed to give them a clean chit despite evidence of
their complicity and incompetence.
The GoR has aided this. As mentioned earlier, it did
not file charge sheets against or issue show-cause notices to the DM
and SP before or during their suspension, allowing the CAT to give a
verdict in their favour. Nor did the state put its views on the
conduct of these officials before the tribunal. The GoR had enough
evidence against these officers for dereliction of duty as a result of
which precious lives were lost, property damaged/looted and communal
and social harmony jeopardised or destroyed.
The officers’ failures and culpability were manifest
in:
a) Their failure to take preventive measures on
September 13, 2011 by arresting those named in the FIR filed by Abdul
Gani for assaulting his family and the imam of the Jama Masjid (before
the violence had escalated);
b) Their deliberate failure to impose prohibitory
orders, or Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (powers to
issue an order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger),
on the morning of September 14, 2011 when a crowd had assembled to
protest against the assault on the imam; and
c) The DM and SP’s failure to resolve the graveyard
land dispute by referring the same to the revenue department and Wakf Board
expeditiously.
By their deliberate inaction, passions were allowed to
build up.
Among the signatories to the representation are Quari
Moinudin, Nazimudin Engineer, Mohd Saleem and Prof M. Hasan (all of
the Rajasthan Muslim Forum) along with victims of the Gopalgarh
violence, including Abdul Rashid, the imam of the Jama Masjid who was
brutally assaulted on the evening of September 13, 2011, as well as
several prominent members of the Muslim community across Rajasthan.
Prof HC Bhartiya, Prof RC Bhandari, Prof HC Rara, Prof Surendra Singh
Chaudhari, Prof NC Jain, Prof RP Bhatnagar and Prof CH Hada (all
formerly of the University of Rajasthan) and Prof SS Shukla, formerly
of the Government College, Ajmer, are also key signatories.
|