Muslims in Gujarat still await justice
A decade on from the Gujarat riots, an overwhelming majority of victims still await justice in India,” is the heading carried by public statement issued by Amnesty International, earlier this year. The statement also noted that in 10 years, investigation and trial processes have made headway only in a handful of cases. Against this backdrop, whenever there is any sign of Muslims in Gujarat receiving some justice, it instantly hits headlines. In this context, the judgment delivered recently by a special judge Jyotsna Yagnik, convicting 32 accused for Naroda-Patiya massacre of 97 people in anti-Muslim Gujarat-carnage of 2002, has been welcomed across the country. Though it has taken Indian judicial system around 10 years, at least this judgment sends the message that communal criminals are not likely to be spared. It is a warning for other rioters who were also responsible for brutal targeting of Muslims but have yet to face any punishment.
Yet, sadly, the slow speed with which the judicial process is moving cannot be ignored. It cannot be forgotten that the rioters had their way in Gujarat for several months, from end of February to mid-June. Despite being well aware of Muslims being brutally targeted, why were the rioters allowed to indulge in this communal violence for such a long period of time? Why did the national and state political as well as administrative system fail to take adequate attention to prevent continuance of such communal activities?
Without doubt, the Indian system is well equipped to take needed action if and when situation demands. The continuity of anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat only suggests that during that period Indian secularism was deliberately allowed to bow down before what the communal rioters desired. True, the situation may have been different if Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not in power in the state with Narendra Modi as chief minister. And this raises questions on whether the state machinery, including the government, judiciary as well as the police are expected to give importance to the constitutional ruling of the country or to communal whims of rioters and their sponsors?
If judicial conviction of rioters is allowed to move at a slow pace, it is feared that secularism may always remain to a degree subdued by communal actors. In fact, considering the alacrity with which action has been taken against alleged terrorists and actual terrorists before, during or after actual or fake encounters, India has the required capacity to control and check rise and spread of communal violence. Why was this not put to use when Muslims were being literally butchered in Gujarat?
One is naturally forced to raise the question is to why is swift action taken when Muslims are assumed to be criminals, particularly terrorists, but it is delayed when they happen to be victims? Perhaps, the time has come when the government should ensure — irrespective of the nature of criminal activity, whether it is described as terrorist or communal rioting — that swift action is taken against perpetrators of such activities. Humanitarianism demands that prime importance should be given to nature of crime, number of persons killed, harmed and/or dislocated. Irrespective of whether the criminals are defined as terrorists or as communal rioters, their criminal activity should be graded in accordance with the havoc, loss of lives, homes and injuries that the same has led to.
Besides, regarding Gujarat-carnage, punishment announced for a few and that too after a long gap does not suggest that the Muslim victims have finally been ensured some justice. No, it does not. The death cannot be brought back to life. But what about the property damages suffered by Muslims? Whenever a serious accident takes place, the government does not take long in announcing compensation for the injured and relatives of those dead. How much compensation have the central and state governments actually handed out to date for the sufferers of Gujarat-carnage? Barely any.
More than 21,000 people are still living in transit relief camps in Gujarat. In other words, 10 years have passed by and they are still awaiting relocation. There is the risk of these people facing “forced evictions” as the transit relief camps were build on land claimed by state authorities as that of the government, according to the Amnesty statement. The authorities wanted them to vacate the land. Where does the state government expect these victims to move to, without their having received any adequate compensation? Is this the nature of “justice” being assured for victims of Gujarat-carnage?
It is not without reason Amnesty stated that victims of Gujarat riots, including the women and family members of those killed, “should be provided with full reparation: rehabilitation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.” Besides, “all those responsible for the killings and gender-based violence must be brought to justice — whether they are political leaders, police or government officials,” Amnesty said.
The situation would have been different if Gujarat had not witnessed the heinous scale of violence against Muslims. Communal terrorists had their way in 2002 and Muslims have yet to recover even partially from what they faced then in Gujarat. Against this backdrop, punishment announced recently for a few criminals can be held at most just a symbolic display of efforts being made to ensure “justice” for victims of Gujarat-carnage. If speedy trials and punishments cannot be ensured for the rioters, at least constructive effort should be made to ensure compensation for Gujarati Muslims still suffering from what they faced in 2002!
- The author is an Indian freelance journalist who has written extensively for national newspapers.
