u Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the
u Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
u Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
u Forcibly transferring children of one group to another group.
The Convention has also enumerated the
offences that are punishable and they are
u Conspiracy to commit genocide;
u Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
u Attempt to commit genocide;
u Complicity in genocide."
the Convention, the acts that are punishable are, genocide, conspiracy
to commit genocide, the direct and public incitement to commit genocide,
the attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide. The persons
who can be punished for these crimes are any of the persons committing
any of the above acts, even if they are constitutionally responsible
rulers, public officials or private individuals.
the Convention, it is a responsibility of member states to make
legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present legislation;
and to provide penalties to persons responsible to be tried by a
competent tribunal of the state, or such international penal tribunals
whose jurisdiction the contracting party may have accepted.
prove the crime of genocide, there has to be evidence of the physical
destruction of a section, community, racial or ethnic group as well as
the evidence of mental harm. At the crux of it all, the evidence needs
to point to an "intention" to destroy and harm; it is a crime not
computed in numbers of dead or harmed but in the intention and desire to
commit it – the sheer planning, pre-meditation, extent and thoroughness
of the killings.
Gujarat carnage was especially coloured by state complicity in the
violence, premeditation and planning behind the attacks on the lives,
dignity, livelihoods, businesses and properties of a section of the
population — Muslims — and a selective assault on their religious and
cultural places of worship. Muslim women were targeted as objects of
their community and similarly abused with an inhuman level of violence
and sexual crimes. Economic and social boycott of the community was
openly encouraged and continues in many parts of Gujarat, to
date.Agricultural land holdings of Muslims, small and large have been
taken over by dominant community and caste groups. Livelihood for
Muslims has been snatched away and there is a clearcut and ongoing
design to economically cripple the community.
chief Minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi has been held by this
Tribunal to be directly responsible, along with cabinet colleagues, and
organisations that he leads and patronises – the BJP, RSS, VHP and BD.
For all these reasons together there is no way that the post-Godhra
carnage in Gujarat can escape being called squarely what it was – Crimes
against Humanity and Genocide.
case for genocide against the VHP and the Bajrang Dal as well as Shri
Narendra Modi and members of his cabinet is being made for the following
u There have been a number of statements and pamphlets from the
VHP and the BD and its leaders in the past, which establish that they
have been consistently against the Muslim community, making them the
target of verbal and physical attacks and have been provoking people to
economically and physically attack Muslims and, thereafter, subject them
to economic and social boycott.
u There is sufficient evidence to show that the carnage in
Gujarat, post-February 27, was led by theVHP and the Bajrang Dal.
u The carnage was at six levels: Physical destruction of a part
of the community; economic destruction; sexual violence and rape of a
large number of Muslim women; cultural and religious destruction;
resistance to rehabilitation; publicly declared desire to physically and
morally destroy the Muslim community of Gujarat.
u The offences that were committed in the first flush of
organised violence continue at a lower intensity under the same
political dispensation even today (See Detailed Annexures: Status of
Refugee Survey, Volume III).
chief minister is equally liable for prosecution for genocide for the
u Refusal to take any preventive measures and protect the lives
and properties of Muslims;
u Connivance in and facilitation of the carnage;
u Transfer of good police officers;
u No action against erring police officers or party functionaries
who were named by victims;
u Persistent threats to close down privately run relief camps;
u Abusive comments against the affected and victimised community
that qualify as Hate Speech;
u Refusal to comply with the NHRC recommendations;
u Total failure in the provision of relief and rehabilitation;
u Absence of punitive action against provocative press and other
u Influencing criminal investigation — the omission of the names
of VHP/RSS/BJP functionaries from charge-sheets although their names
appear in FIRs.
u The case for the Gujarat carnage being nothing short of
genocide is clinched by the fact that Muslim journalists, Muslim police
officers, Muslim bureucrats, Muslim teachers have had to function only
after concealing or changing their identities and this continues to be a
trend even now.
Considering these facts and the distinct tendency and trends that mass
crimes committed against marginalised groups have taken in past years,
it is a grave lapse on the part of the government of India, which has,
to date, not enacted any law in compliance with Article V of the
International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, 1948. India has signed the Genocide Convention in 1948 and
ratified it in 1958. Under the Convention, a state that is signatory is
bound to effectively act upon and legislate upon the intents of the
legislation. So far, India has not enacted any law in compliance with
2. Note on the International Criminal
2.1. The ICC
came into existence from July 1, 2002. India has, however, refused to
ratify the treaty. Under the treaty, any person can be tried and
punished for crimes against humanity, acts of genocide, etc. before the
International Court, irrespective of where the crime is committed.
India, not being a ratifying party, cannot be forced to hand over any
person charged or convicted to this Court.
genocide in Gujarat could not have been taken up at the ICC since the
Court came into being only on July 1, 2002. However, since it is not the
first time that mass crimes of this kind have been allowed and condoned
internally, it is vital, as a safeguard for the future, that India
ratifies the ICC treaty and subjects itself to international scrutiny,
especially in respect of heinous crimes committed by government
functionaries. If the carnage in Gujarat had taken place post-July 2002,
and India had still not ratified the ICC treaty and acceded to the
Court, the issue could have come up through the UN Security Council