People's Democracy

ARE bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) facing selective but informal censorship for their critical comments on the Gujarat scene? The answer is a definite yes. It is further clear that the Modi government has treated the commission with utter contempt. The censoring body was the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and its victim, the NHRC.

Certain facts are incontrovertible. Disgusted with the lack of response from the Modi government, the commission decided to make its confidential report public. It said: "It will not wait any longer for the response of the government to the confidential report sent on April 1, 2002, enough time and opportunity having been provided to the state government to comment on it. Instead, the commission now considers it to be its duty to release that confidential report in totality."

This lack of response to the search for the report at the website made an India News Network/People’s Democracy correspondent visit the NHRC office. After half an hour’s wait and cricket watch at the NHRC, the correspondent was told: "No, it is not there and photocopy is not available." When he volunteered to provide a floppy, however, the report after some time was available. Now it is back on the website.

Why did it vanish? It definitely could not be a routine mistake. It is clear that some of the pro-BJP personnel in the NHRC and/or NIC did play mischief. The fact is that it was too critical of the Modi government’s lack of response. Some excerpts of the confidential report throw light on why it was made to vanish:

"Despite the above-mentioned response of the government of India, and the extension of time until 15 May 2002 that was granted by the commission to the government of Gujarat to respond to the confidential report, no response has as yet been received from the state government to that report. 

"This is so despite repeated oral reminders by the commission and assurance by the state government that a response would soon be forthcoming.

"In these circumstances, the commission is now adopting the following procedure:

"(A) It will offer additional comments upon the response of the government of Gujarat of 12 April 2002, in respect of the preliminary comments of the commission of 1 April 2002;

"(B) It will not wait any longer for the response of the government of Gujarat to the confidential report that was sent to it on 1 April 2002, enough time and opportunity having been provided to the state government to comment on it. Instead, the commission now considers it to be its duty to release that confidential report in totality. It is, accordingly, annexed to these proceedings. The commission had earlier withheld release of the confidential report because it considered it appropriate to give the state government a full opportunity to comment on its contents, given the sensitivity of the allegations contained in it that were made to the team of the commission that visited Gujarat between 19-22 March 2002. As and when the response of the state government to that confidential report is received, the commission will also make that public, together with the commission’s views thereon. It will make a further set of recommendations developing on its earlier recommendations, in the light of the reply received from the government of Gujarat dated 12 April 2002 and from the ministry of home affairs, government of India, dated 1 May 2002."

More than sufficient time has indeed been given! (INN)