|
Gujarat: A victim of Communalism
Mamoona Ali Kazmi
SIX years ago across the Indian State of Gujarat, the stromtroopers of
the Hindu right, decked in saffron sashes and armed with swords,
tridents, sledgehammers and liquid gas cylinders, launched a pogrom
against the local Muslim population. They looted and torched
Muslim-owned businesses, assaulted and murdered Muslims, and gang-raped
and mutilated Muslim women. By the time the violence spluttered to a
halt, about 2,500 Muslims had been killed and about 200,000 driven from
their homes. Despite the passage of more than six years since the
February-March 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in the Indian state of Gujarat,
not a single one of the principal perpetrators of this horrific crime
has been punished. Meanwhile Muslims who were driven from their towns
and villages by roving bands of Hindu supremacist hooligans still
languish in relief camps without electricity or running water. Most of
the cases filed by victims of the violence have never been investigated.
Witnesses have been intimidated. No more than a dozen low-level culprits
have been convicted and no major conspirator has been brought before the
court.
Gujarat pogrom occurred in the wake of burning of Sabarmati Express
carrying Hindu extremists. In the fire 59 Hindu militants were killed.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its Rashtriya Sawyamsevak Sangh (RSS)
allies have insisted that Muslims executed this incident. Within hours
of the fire, leaders of the BJP and allied Hindu communalist
organizations were inciting Gujaratis to come into the streets to
protest the Godhra deaths. When Muslims became the target of violent
attacks, they depicted the attacks as spontaneous, arising from Hindus’
desire for revenge.
There is much evidence to show that leading figures in the
Hindu-supremacist BJP, which was in power in 2002 and its militant
factions such as the RSS, Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
organized and fomented the carnage in Gujarat. Indian and global human
rights organizations have singled out Gujarat’s Chief Minister, Narendra
Modi, of the BJP as the key culprit. Yet Modi remains Chief Minister and
has become the BJP’s most popular figurehead.
The inquiry into the Godhra fire headed by retired Supreme Court Justice
U.C. Bannerjee rejected the claim of Hindu extremists that the fire was
deliberately set by the Muslims. According to the Bannerjee report, due
to wind and the height of the train, only 10 to 15 per cent of any
liquid sprayed from the platform would have made it into carriage and
those seeking to light the carriage afire would themselves have been
splashed by the liquid. The report argued that it is highly unlikely
that someone could have penetrated the train and poured large amounts of
inflammable liquid onto the floor unbeknownst to the passengers. The
claim of Hindu extremists that some people entered the carriage and
poured inflammable liquid onto the floor did not consistent with the
fire victims burns many of the which were to the upper, not lower body
as they crawled towards the door on elbows during fire. Even the
investigation by a Delhi based non-governmental organization, the
Hazards Center, also concluded that the fire began from within carriage.
So the fire was set by Hindu extremists as an excuse to start a backlash
against Muslims. The BJP has long been associated with communal
violence. Along with
Gujarat pogrom it also supported the demolition of Babri Mosque in 1992.
K.R. Narayanan, who was India’s President at the time of Gujarat
massacre, told a Malayalam-language Magazine that he implored Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to immediately deploy the army to Gujarat
with orders to suppress the anti-Muslim riots, but the BJP leader
ignored his pleas. He said, “If the army had been given the powers to
suppress the violence, the Gujarat riots would never have escalated into
a state-wide convulsion. But the BJP government did not do it; the
center also did not do it. It was a conspiracy between the state and the
central government that was responsible for the Gujarat violence”.
According to the Tehelka magazine report, the 2002 Gujarat sectarian
riots had the “sanction” of Chief Minister Narendra Modi and that many
of the accused had admitted this on camera. Transcripts of the
recordings quote Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi as saying the killing
of the Hindus on the train made him feel like killing Muslims and
“hacking them apart”. He said, “I am proud of it if I get another
chance, I will kill even more”. Bajrangi, who was arrested and then
quickly released on bail for his alleged role in the rioting, was also
quoted as saying Modi manipulated the legal system to protect the
rioters. Bajrangi told that Modi kept on changing judges to ensure his
release. A leader of VHP Rajendra Vyas, reportedly told Tehelka: “As
Chief Minister, Narendra bhai (Modi) couldn’t say kill all the Muslims.
I could say it publicly because I was from VHP. He gave us a free run to
do whatever we wanted to since we were already fed up of the Muslims ...
the police was with us”. Godhra BJP MLA Haresh Bhatt was purportedly
caught on tape saying he was present in a meeting in which Modi gave him
three days time “to do whatever they wanted.” “After three days, he (Modi)
asked to stop and everything came to a halt.”
The principal architect of the massacre was Narendra Modi, the then and
now Gujarat’s Chief Minister. Notwithstanding his role in inciting the
violence and ensuring that security forces took no effective action to
protect Gujarat’s Muslims, Modi not only continues to head Gujarat
Government but also serve as one of the principle leaders of the BJP at
national level. This is due to Congress’ reluctance to convict him
despite the evidences provided by Tehelka news that he organized the
Gujarat pogrom. It is ironical that after the Gujarat carnage and
bloodshed, in 2005 Modi was honoured for leading the “best governed”
state in India by the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, which has the patronage
of Congress. The Congress party which portrays itself as a secular and
impartial party hesitates to use the resources of the state to mount a
serious investigation into the Gujarat pogrom.
There are several reasons that the Congress party is not acting against
the BJP. Firstly, the sympathies of significant elements within the
Congress, especially in Gujarat, lie not with the Muslim victims of the
2002 pogrom but rather with its instigators. Secondly, the BJP has
played a pivotal role in implementing the neo-liberal socio-economic
reform programme pioneered by the Congress government of 1991-96 and
continued by the current UPA coalition. So the Congress needed BJP’s
support in forwarding its reform agenda in face of popular opposition.
Thirdly, UPA government feared to conduct an inquiry into Gujarat pogrom
because of the fact that police and judiciary are sympathetic to the
doctrine of Hindutva spouted by the BJP and RSS and thus an inquiry into
Gujrat pogrom would alienate police and judiciary ultimately
destabilizing the state institutions. Lastly, Congress feared that if it
digs into the BJP’s role in fomenting the Gujarat pogrom or razing of
1992 Babri mosque, consequently BJP would retaliate by clamoring for an
inquiry into Congress Party’s own culpability in the 1984 anti-Sikh
massacre.
Six years have passed, yet, the perpetrators of the Gujarat pogrom
remain at liberty while Muslims who were arrested in 2002 under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), a law formally repealed by the UPA
government in 2004, still remain in detention. Tens of thousands of
Muslims have been condemned to live in squalor in relief camps. The
Muslims who have returned to their hometowns and villages in the years
since the pogrom have frequently been forced to make “concessions” to
their Hindu Chauvinist tormentors and must live under the constant
threat of renewed Hindu supremacist violence. Many Muslims were only
able to return to their home villages after agreeing to drop criminal
cases filed against Hindus. In many Gujarat villages, the local mosque
has had to cease making calls to prayer and Muslims must celebrate their
religious festivals behind close doors and have been compelled to stop
openly selling meat.
The Nanavati-Shah Commission, which was set up to ascertain the truth,
failed to submit its report even after five years of the inquiry. It
seems as if the judges are extending their job after retirement. The
Commission is turning out to be another Liberhan Commission, which was
set up in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992. The committee
has not submitted even an interim report in the last 15 years.
Congress and BJP are making fun of Indian democracy. Both have their
hands dipped into the blood of innocent people. Congress is accountable
for the massacre of the Sikhs in 1984 and BJP is responsible for Gujarat
pogrom. For their parochial interests both avoid to convict each other
for their sins as both are sailing on the same boat. No doubt, India has
failed to emerge as a secular state even after 60 years of independence.
BJP and Sangh Parivar are constantly using the communal card to win the
forthcoming elections. Whether it is BJP or Congress both have sidelined
Muslim community to the advantage of Hindu vote bank.
Its Pakistan’s victory
Nasim Zehra
PAKISTANIS have reason to rejoice. The outcome of the ninth national
elections has prompted the beginning of the much needed democratic
process and the realisation that Pakistan needs to move ahead as a
secure, prosperous and strong nation. The majority consensus is that
democracy is a necessary factor for Pakistan’s economic, socio-cultural
and political development. Without genuine democracy Pakistan is also
not viewed internationally as a mature and responsible nation.
The fears of sabotage of the election process, either through suicide
bombings or through major rigging on the polling day, did not
fortunately materialise. The security arrangements prevented major
violence although tragically about 25 people were killed in election day
violence. There were also sporadic attempts to rig the elections either
through using unfair influence of Nazims (intimidation) or through
fraudulent means like stealing ballot papers, etc. Yet major rigging was
prevented by the democratic deterrents including political workers, the
energy of the voters, keen media watch and observer groups including
FAFEN.
Election results indicate the general fairness of the election process.
Virtually the entire PML-Q federal cabinet, the bigwigs including the
president, Chaudary Shujaat, Shiekh Rashid and Huamyun Akhtar have all
lost. The IB chief’s brother too lost from Punjab perhaps suggesting
that the fears of the agencies roles in manipulating the polls was not
entirely true. The results of the ninth national election is generally
being accepted across the board by all political parties. While the
democratic deterrent prevented major rigging attempts, the Musharraf
government too was prompted by various factors to become wizened against
rigging. The pro-PML-Q and the pro-Musharraf caretaker government was
unable to influence the election outcome.
There are some interesting and significant facts that flow from the
election outcome. Eleven are noteworthy.
One, that the election was an anti-Musharraf and anti-PML(Q) referendum.
The voters ultimately overlooked some of the positive steps taken by the
Musharraf government and voted against him for inflation, for the flour,
electricity and gas crisis, the lack of his political legitimacy, the
manipulation of the constitution, the manipulation of politics, his
broken promises, the treatment of the chief justice, the ransacking of
the judiciary, the flawed policy on terrorism. Ultimately, people have
voted to say no to establishment manipulated politics and yes to genuine
political forces. As for the president’s political future, much will
depend on the PPP strategy towards him.
Two, the PPP has emerged as the only national party bagging national and
provincial assembly seats in all the four provinces. That has
traditionally been PPP’s political profile when it has fought in a less
than completely rigged electoral process. Benazir Bhutto’s tragic
assassination must have prompted some habitual fence-sitters to vote for
PPP too but to explain the PPP victory only in terms of sympathy wave
would be incorrect. The last 70 days of Benazir’s politics after she
returned to Pakistan on October 18 did underscore the need for genuine
democracy, for upholding rule of law, for ending poverty and for ending
terrorism. She astutely took on the establishment and indeed ensured the
return of genuine popular politics to Pakistan by deciding to engage
with General Parvez Musharraf. Indeed, even after her return, Benazir
Bhutto remained engaged with the president and the establishment. She
travelled the paradoxical path — of engagement with the forces that
contributed to undermining democracy and of carrying forward the
democratic struggle. That the PPP leader was committed to what in her
final days appeared to be no less than a mission became evident to the
people as she ended up giving up her life for her mission. The other
factor that has also worked against PPP has been the incumbency factor.
Its performance-deficit while in power has often lost it its traditional
support. Performance deficit has also cost electoral support to other
incumbent political parties.
Three, PML-N the second largest party went into the election with its
leadership back in the country after six years but was still able to get
its traditional vote. Its clean sweep in the Lahore and Rawalpindi
Divisions illustrate this fact. Additional factors that helped PML-N’s
impressive showing in the elections is the anti-Musharraf, the Jamaat
boycott, prompting many of its supporters to vote for PML-N, expressing
anti-PML-Q sentiment. Nawaz Sharif’s unambiguous commitment to the
lawyers’ demand of the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary and
his opposition to General Musharraf won him the votes of the politically
more conscious voter who began relating to the issues of rule of law,
independent judiciary and constitutional democracy that the 2007
movement threw up. PML-N also benefited from the advantage of an intact
leadership. Unlike PPP which lost its leader the Sharif brothers,
despite having had their papers rejected, provide the party leadership.
Four, the ANP has managed a historic comeback in the NWFP and national
politics. It not only retrieved its old front-runner position in NWFP
but has improved upon it. Five, the religious parties have been pushed
back to their seventies electoral support, that is, before the
establishment had begun supporting them. Six, the PML-Q support has
drastically whittled down and many of its winners may even walk over to
the PML-N camp. Of the national assembly elections and the four
provincial elections, the PML-Q won is Balochistan. Seven, in
Baluchistan, all the regional parties opted to boycott and so there is
no representation of these parties in the national or provincial
assemblies.
Eight, the vote against the establishment manipulated politics is likely
to further wizen the military against dabbling in the arena of politics
which is not their constitutional domain. Nine, while remaining engaged
in dialogue with political forces on all sides the ISI seemed to have
finally stayed away from directly manipulating the voting day process.
Ten, the government did take steps to remove some of the glitches to
reduce possibility of rigging.
Eleven, the APDM’s decision to boycott was a wrong decision as many had
argued even when the question was being debated. Boycott denied the
opposition parties additional support they could have gained from APDM
supporters. Also, it prevented the regional parties from participating
in the electoral process and compounding the problem of alienation from
the centre. Pakistan’s politics has come full circle. The election
results are reminiscent of the 1970 election when genuine political
forces won the day. Pakistan’s media and the lawyer community deserve a
pat on the back for raising the political awareness in the country and
for exposing the reality of those who have been in power. Given that
only a coalition government will be the way forward the ball is in the
court of the politicians. It’s time for them to deliver on their tall
electioneering promises of working together to promote the interest of
the people and of the country.
—Khaleej Times
Pakistan’s struggle for democracy
Dr. Nazir Khaja
PAKISTAN’S parliamentary elections were held yesterday. Though this may
be the last call for the country to remain as a functional democracy,
the signs are anything but hopeful. Ethnic and provincial differences,
religious zeal, feudal control, dynastic politics, corruption, and
army’s ambition — all have prevented Pakistan’s emergence as a strong
nation. The betrayal of Pakistan by the politicians is a long and sad
story. There can hardly be any doubt that as much as the army might be
blamed for some of the crises that Pakistan has gone through in its
short history, the politicians deserve an even greater share. They have
been so corrupt and have created such confusion and chaos by
manipulating religious, ethnic, provincial and linguistic issues and
sentiments; it was this incapacity of the political leadership that led
to the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971. Because of the failure of the
civilian leadership there have been repeated military takeovers. It is,
therefore, hardly any surprise that there is not one leader from any of
the competing factions who has the capability to hold Pakistan together
and take it past this crisis. All without exception have been a part of
Pakistan’s problem rather than its solution. There is now increasing
concern regarding further breakup of the country.
In Sindh, the stronghold of Benazir Bhutto’s PPP or the Peoples’ Party
of Pakistan, a majority of the people are poor serfs subservient to the
landowners. Loyalty demands that their feudal masters be obeyed and
supported. This explains Benazir’s will and her husband Zardari’s claim
now to lead the PPP and hopefully to become the next prime minister. In
Punjab that has remained dominant in the power politics of Pakistan, the
Pakistan Muslim League (PML) that supports President Musharraf, expects
to win a major chunk of seats in the National Assembly. Punjab has been
the PML’s mainstay. However the PML has been split into two factions —
PML (Q) and PML (N). The former which claims to be the original or the
one founded by Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, is actually a creation
of President Musharraf. The latter group supports the former Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif who was ousted by Musharraf. Actually the split
happened over the support for Sharif.
The other party that is a coalition partner of President Musharraf and
controls the port city of Karachi, the most populous city of Pakistan,
and the capital of Sindh is the MQM or the Mutahidda (Muhajir) Qaumi
Mahaz. The party that champions the cause of Urdu-speaking migrants from
India became well organized quickly after its birth in the early 1980s.
After it achieved a modest amount of success in the elections early it
split into two factions fighting each other for control. Ultimately the
control was taken over by mostly reactionary and shortsighted faction.
All of this has caused a decline in their appeal. Yet because of
Karachi’s vital place in Pakistan’s economy and politics they have a lot
of influence. The other parties (for example the religious groups) which
had only played a nuisance role in Pakistani politics until recently
have now been empowered only because of Musharraf’s need to maintain a
coalition and hold on to the reins of power. In the last elections the
religious groups were able to amass a lot of power in the two most
troubled provinces of Pakistan (the Frontier and Balochistan) where they
control the provincial assemblies. They have always had more slogans
than policies up their sleeves and can hardly help Pakistan out of the
mess.—Arab News
|
