People's Democracy

CITIZENS TRIBUNAL REPORT

 Advani’s Supportive Hand Behind Gujarat Carnage

S K Pande

THE report of the “Concerned Citizens Tribunal,” an independent body, has castigated the deputy prime minister cum home minister, Lal Krishna Advani, for his “patently partisan” role in Gujarat’s communal carnage as also for “irresponsibly” peddling the theory of a “foreign hand” behind the Godhra train coach burning. The tribunal comprised three retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as well as others.

The tribunal, which held chief minister Narendra Modi and some of his ministers as “unfit to hold any public office,” has brought out Advani’s complicity in the post-Godhra carnage. It questioned his act of dubbing Godhra as an “act of terrorism” by a “foreign hand” without any proof and describing the subsequent post-Godhra carnage as a “communal riot.”

“What is inexcusable on his part is the assumption of the role of both a lawyer holding the brief of Hindu communalists as also of a presiding judge giving his verdict on the carnage.” So says the bulky two-volume report released in Ahmedabad on November 22 and in Delhi the next day.

The tribunal also debunks Advani for instantly rejecting the Forensic Science Laboratory’s report on Godhra train coach burning, wondering whether he was “doing so on behalf of the Hindu communalists or the central government.” It goes on to blast him saying, “it appears that like Shri Modi, he too keeps forgetting that he holds a constitutional office and is not a Sangh pracharak.”

The eight-member tribunal points out that Advani showed reluctance to visit extensively the affected areas of the post-Godhra carnage immediately despite being an MP from Gandhinagar. “His statements with regard to the entire carnage make people wonder whether any impartial investigation is at all possible into the charges against the accused, with him in charge of the home affairs of the country.” Certainly, this is the sternest commentary on Advani in recent days.

Holding the centre responsible for not only failing in its constitutional duty and obligation to take over the law and order administration in Gujarat and send army that takes direct orders from it but for also having no intention to discharge it at all, the tribunal contrasts it with the centre’s prompt action after the Akshardham Mandir massacre, to conclude that “this only shows that if the central government intended to take action, it could have done so.”

The tribunal has not spared even the prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee. It points out that he cancelled a scheduled foreign visit in the wake of the post-Godhra violence that spread badly on February 28; later on that day he met RSS and VHP leaders in the nation’s capital “not to discuss the slaughtering and massacre of innocents in Gujarat but to dialogue on the Ayodhya issue!”

The tribunal regretted that “the attitude of both Shri Vajpayee and Shri Advani appeared to aim at diverting the nation’s attention away from Gujarat, and directing it instead towards Ayodhya and the happenings there.” It points out that “neither did the prime minister nor the home minister even issue a stern order to the chief minister to crack down on the lawless elements.” It says, “the PM’s prevaricating statements, saying different things at different times at different places, left everybody in utter confusion.”

Speaking of the union law minister Arun Jaitley, the report said on page 99 that "he as the union law minister was expected to have more respect for the rule of law than Shri Modi has. Instead, he showed complete disregard for the basic human rights of innocent men, women and children who fell victim to the carnage. He patted Shri Modi’s back, of the man who was the root cause of the massacre of humanity in the state of Gujarat. His attitude was and is sufficiently representative of the view and attitude of the central government to the entire incident."

About union defence minister George Fernanades, it said, “the union defence minister emerges from the entire episode as a pathetic character. While he no doubt visited Gujarat immediately after outbreak of the violence to oversee the role of the army, and for which he undoubtedly deserves appreciation, it appears he learnt nothing from whatever he may have surveyed. Had he done so, he would not have made the statement that he did in the Lok Sabha on April 30. That statement not only added insult to the injury of those brutalised by the pogrom but also undermined all human values. If a minister of his rank and a politician of his experience chooses to liken the mass instances of gender violence (perpetrated against 150-200 women and girls) and the subsequent slaughter of most of them, as “nothing new,” it is sufficient indication of the seriousness with which the whole carnage was looked upon by the central government. His attempt at whitewashing his statement at a later stage made things even worse.”

About the railway minister Nitish Kumar, the report says, “The conduct of the railway minister, who rushes to the spot whenever a train accident takes place, failed in his duty to visit Godhra, to survey the situation for himself and to order an immediate inquiry into the cause of the fire. Questions about the fire in the railway compartment at Godhra still beg for an answer. Who pulled the chain? How did the fire occur? Surely this merited the urgent attention and immediate intervention of the railway minister. Yet, to this date, the minister has not visited Godhra. What explanation has he to offer for his utter inaction?”

Retired Supreme Court judge P B Sawant, who was one of the members of the tribunal alongwith Justice V R Krishna Iyer and Justice Hosbet Suresh, told reporters in Delhi that the tribunal’s report was based on the testimony of 1,500 witnesses from 16 of the 25 districts of Gujarat and on 2,090 documents. Other tribunal members were: Professor Ghanshyam Shah and Professor  Tanika Sarkar of Jawaharlal Nehru University, retired Tripura director general of police Dr K S Subramanian, PUCL president and advocate K G Kannabiran, and activist Aruna Roy.

The findings of the tribunal, which holds chief minister Narendra Modi and some of his ministers “guilty of carnage” and said they ought to be prosecuted and are “unfit to hold any public life,” were first forwarded to both the central and the state governments on August 20 for comments. The tribunal finalised its report only after they did not respond, Justice Sawant pointed out.

He said the tribunal has recommended enactment of a law to deal with genocide and crimes against humanity as per the UN convention on genocide, since the present legal system is incapable of handling such crimes. The tribunal also suggested a standing national tribunal for mass killings, be they related to communalism or any other reason.

Briefing mediapersons, Justice P B Sawant said, “Be under no illusion. It was not just a riot; it was genocide.” He further said that it was organised by the state. “A great deal of planning was involved,” he opined, adding that there was training in military style. Speaking to the INN correspondent, he said: “Rest assured that it was preplanned and planned in great detail and, had it not been that day, it could be any other day. For conditions had been created when only a spark was needed for the explosions that occurred.” (INN)