Strip away Immunity to Police
in Gujarat-like Situations

Normal 0 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10.0pt;"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-"Times New Roman";}

Mr. Narendra Modi has sown wind. He is bound to reap whirlwind as the mills of God grind slowly but surely. This is the faith, nay conviction of his victims. So also feel the political observers.

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) on March 11 issued summons to Mr. Modi for appearing before it on March 21. Besides exploring legal alternatives, Mr. Modi’s strategy was to somehow or the other, share dais and rub shoulders with the Chief Justice of India, who had to attend the first convocation ceremony of Gujarat National Law University. Although Mr. Modi could not find any legal option to avoid the SIT questions, he, however, succeeded in sharing the dais with the Apex Court Chief. So what? Has he succeeded in proving his and that of his accomplices’ innocence to Mr Justice K.G. Balakrishnan?

The ideal position is, and would have been, if an accused and the CJI were not seen together on dais, as it casts a reflection on the dignity of the august office that the Chief Justice presides over.

Mr Modi is the first Chief Minister in independent Bharat who has been quizzed for his role in an anti-minority upheaval in 2002, which claimed about 2000 lives.

Mr. Modi carried an odorous figure. The Supreme Court described him and his colleagues as “modern-day Neros”. Till date there is no official data with regard to the casualties and loss of property in the Gujarat riots. Gujarat under Mr Modi has the dubious distinction of massive acquittals of the murder-accused. Because of bias and prejudice in the bureaucracy, the Apex Court had to send two cases outside the state.

Gujarat is the Model Saffron state. This is the state in which a widow had to knock the doors of the highest palladium of justice to investigate the reasons behind the state failure in protecting life, honour and property of its citizens. When the widow, Ms. Zakia Jaffry as well as the Citizens for Democracy and Peace failed to get registered an FIR with the police, and the state High Court they approached the Supreme Court, which directed the SIT to look into the matter thoroughly. 

What questions were put to Mr Modi and what were his responses is not available through the official sources. The SIT Chief Mr. R.K. Raghavan in his March 29 press conference did not divulge much, the genuine reason being ‘the information is privileged’ and has to be handed over to the Supreme Court. The lead-investigator was Mr. A.K. Malhotra. What has, however, appeared in some sections of the press in the form of questions is:

– Why were there no minutes of the meeting which Mr Modi held with senior officers for a review of the situation arising out of the Godhra train burning incident?

– There are some state intelligence reports of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad meeting held at 4 p.m. at Ahmedabad on Feb. 27, 2002. Who attended this meeting? Were any elected members of the Gujarat legislature and the state cabinet present?

– Why were the bodies of the victims of the Godhra train carnage brought to Ahmedabad, and why were they paraded in streets? Did senior police officials or the DGP report it to the Chief Minister or higher officers in writing about the likely repercussions of parading the bodies?

– Why was no preventive action taken when a bandh call had already been given by VHP?

– Why was the army not called out immediately and why was there a delay in the deployment of the army?

– Despite rules for this, why was there no arrangement for videography of the violence by mobs in all districts of the state?

– Why were more Muslims killed in police firing during riots when it is well known that Muslims were the target of mob violence?  

– Why was the response to distress calls from prominent Muslims like Ehsan Jaffry delayed?

– Why was there no monitoring of the instructions of senior officials, including chief secretary, officials of the home department and the DGP?

– Why was there no action against officials who failed to register FIRs and why was there no adequate response to the complaints of the riot victims?

The SIT chief will submit his report to the Supreme Court on April 30. What is important to note is: When an anti-minority upheaval starts, the government knows what is happening. These happenings are always in the knowledge of the police officers. But more-often-than-not they choose to look the other way. The point to be emphasised pertains to the vicarious responsibility of the political leadership. In this regard, the Indian legal system has to be brought in line with the customary international norms. We say so because punishment for “dereliction of duty” by an Indian police officer is not in consonance with the gamut of the crime he commits.

Mr. Siddhartha Vardarajan had appropriately suggested: Eight years after the Gujarat killings it is surely time to ask how the Indian legal system could be strengthened so that future day Neros can be held strictly liable for their fiddling in the face of mass crime. The proposed Communal Violence Bill provides one such opportunity formally to embed the doctrine of command responsibility – holding superiors guilty, under circumstances for the acts of those under their command. It also provides an opportunity to strip away the immunity provided to police officers and senior officials whose acts of omission and commission allow terrible offences to be committed against vulnerable sections of the population.