Fell Design: Gujarat and the limits of the possible

24 January 2003 The Telegraph FELL DESIGN Gujarat and the limits of the possible

Sreyashi Dastidar

A glimpse of hell GUJARAT: THE MAKING OF A TRAGEDY Edited by Siddharth Varadarajan, Penguin, Rs 295 Among the lessons that last year’s genocide in Gujarat has taught Indians, the most important one is about the limits of the possible. It is actually possible to detect in the events preceding the state-sponsored pogrom hints of what was to come. Siddharth Varadarajan, in his introduction to Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy, presents a chronology of the systematic attacks on the minorities and their property in the state since the late Nineties. But did anyone take the hints seriously enough? No. Why? Because it was considered impossible for these precedents to bring about what followed the burning of coach number S-6 of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra, with 58 people inside it. Almost a year has passed since the first Muslim houses were set on fire after the Godhra incident. During this time, dozens of investigating teams have toured the length and breadth of the affected districts and recorded the testimonies of the victims — the book brings together extracts from many of them. These teams have indicted the Bharatiya Janata Party governments in the state and at the Centre in the harshest of terms; the media, ba-rring a section of the Gujarati press, have seconded the indictments most vociferously; the government’s will and ability to protect all its citizens have been questioned in many international fora. The cumulative effect of all this has been reduced to nothing by the landslide victory of the unrepentant Narendra Modi government in the assembly polls of December 2002. The clockwork precision with which the entire operation — from the burning of the train to the swearing-in ceremony starting Modi’s second term in power — was carried out would have made any planner proud. Such precision cannot be mastered within 24 hours of a bandh-day. The same precision also marked the numerous “sporadic” incidents of post-election violence ten months after Godhra. A friend who visited the Dahod district earlier this month saw the charred remains of almost thirty Muslim houses which were burnt to cinders while several adjoining ones belonging to Hindus remained undamaged. Yet, almost all the narratives of the 2002 killings use Godhra as a point of reference, and not as a cog in the larger wheel — even after independent probes and forensic reports have all clearly established that the burning of S-6 was pre-planned to set a bigger fireball rolling. Modi and the sangh parivar’s rhetoric predictably aimed at projecting the genocide as a justified Hindu retaliation to the burning of kar sevaks inside the coach. But what could have stopped the rest, including the media, from questioning more relentlessly the absurd theory of a “spontaneous” attack on a single compartment of the train, and asking why no one jumped out of it to save his life. Gujarat brings us face to face with these questions, and many others. The reports, analyses and essays in it confirm that there cannot be a simple and linear cause-and-effect interpretation of what happened in Gujarat since February 27. Interestingly, the problems with such an interpretation now seem to be plaguing the BJP leaders. Witness L.K. Advani’s alternately reaffirming India’s commitment to secularism and going back to his agenda of a Hindu rashtra; witness Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s use of one Urdu word, mazhabi (religious), to talk of religious fundamentalism, and another Urdu word, aman (peace), while advocating harmony between communities. Advani and Vajpayee’s doublespeak can be explained in terms of political calculations, both domestic and international. There is no doubt any more about where their loyalties lie. But what of the cabinet ministers — though few in number — who are from the victimized minority community? The Shahnawaz Hussains and the Sikander Bakhts have endorsed through their silence the attacks on innocent Muslim men, women and children. Not a single minority office-bearer has till date resigned in protest. Hussain wanted the prime minister to send him for supervising relief work, but did not object when this request was denied. And how has the opposition protested? By countering empty rhetoric with emptier rhetoric. One of the most gruesome incidents during the height of the carnage was the butchering of the 76-year-old former Congress MP, Ehsan Jafri, who was sheltering more than 60 people in his house. How many times has Jafri’s name come up in the Congress’s election campaign? Hardly ever. Instead, Congress leaders have busily tried to follow the BJP’s footsteps in catering to the majority vote bank, realizing perhaps that the few minority members remaining in the state after the pogrom could not see them through. It is important to bring up these questions because, as a senior IPS officer has pointed out, no riot can continue for more than 24 hours unless the state wants it to. In the case of Gujarat, while the state enthusiastically cheered it on, the opposition protested in whispers which got lost in all the din. Gujarat looks into the different aspects of state complicity, but does not review the role of the opposition adequately. What emerges most prominently from this book is a set of paradoxes. For instance, Muslims are accused of not joining the mainstream. But wherever they have tried to do so in Gujarat, they have been beaten back into their ghettos. Again, the sangh parivar’s fears that Muslims may outnumber Hindus one day (because of the high birth-rate myth) played a vital role in the killings. But in raping Muslim women, the Hindu mob risked adding to these threatening numbers. Who made up the Hindu mob? The book wants to make a distinction between the “Hindus” and those who attacked. But, even if one accepts that no one is naturally inclined towards violence, most Hindus in Gujarat became complicit in the brutality by voting Modi back to power. Only those who have not voted for Modi, or not voted at all, can escape this blame.

SREYASHI DASTIDAR

Text of joint statement issued by Hurriyat and Indian government, January 2004

GOI-Hurriyat Joint Statement
22 January 2004

Full text of joint statement issued after the first meeting between leaders of the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference and Mr L.K. Advani, Deputy Prime Minister of India, New Delhi, 22 January 2004.

It was agreed that today's meeting was the first significant step in the dialogue process initiated by the government of India and that a step-by-step approach would lead to resolution of all outstanding issues relating to Jammu and Kashmir.

The APHC (All Parties Hurriyat Conference) delegation stressed that an honourable and durable solution should be found through dialogue.

It was agreed that the only way forward is to ensure that all forms of violence at all levels should come to an end. The deputy prime minister (LK Advani) endorsed the APHC's view that the role for the gun should be replaced by the sound of politics.

The APHC delegation was committed to the enlargement of the dialogue process to cover all regions of Jammu and Kashmir and the concerns of all communities.

After hearing the delegation, the deputy prime minister observed it was the government's foremost concern to safeguard the security of all people and ensure against the violation of their rights.

He (Advani) also agreed that a rapid review would be undertaken to examine the cases of those held in detention.

The talks were amicable, free, frank and fruitful and it was agreed that the next round of discussion would take place in the latter part of March.

India puts Pakistan under pressure with bus buzz

1 January 2004
The Times of India

India puts Pakistan under pressure with bus buzz

By Siddharth Varadarajan
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: In a gentle but strategic upping of the peace pressure on Pakistan, India on Wednesday proposed concrete dates for technical-level talks on the establishment of bus links between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad in Kashmir, and Munabao and Khokhrapar on the Sindh-Rajasthan border.

The latest proposals come less than a week before the start of the Saarc summit in Islamabad on January 4 and are designed to test the degree to which Pakistan is willing to move bilateral relations forward, independent of a political dialogue process on the “core issue’’ of Kashmir.
Speaking to reporters here, an external affairs ministry spokesman said India was acting “in continuation of the step-by-step process for normalisation of links and promotion of people-to-people contacts’’. He said India was proposing that technical talks on the Sindh-Rajasthan and Kashmir buses be held in the second half of January.

India also proposed the reciprocal removal of restrictions placed on the movement of respective high commission staff in December 2001 as well as a further increase in the size of the two missions to 75 each from the current strength of 55.

Although an Islamabad news agency quoted a senior Pakistani official as saying a “40-minute meeting’’ between Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali had been fixed for January 5 to discuss “bilateral issues’’, Indian officials said the reports were baseless. Officially, the line from New Delhi is that even if the two PMs meet on the sidelines, there will be no substantive discussion between them on political matters.

If Islamabad were to ‘improve the atmospherics’ by responding positively to the latest Indian transport proposals and taking steps on the terrorism front, the stage could well be set for “talks about talks’’, Indian officials here said.

If Pakistan agrees to the talks on the new buses, it would represent the first real step forward on the people-topeople front since 1999, when the Lahore-Delhi bus service was launched.
When the Kashmir bus proposal was first made by external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha in October, Pakistan’s initial response was negative. Pakistan then said the service could only run under UN supervision. Since then, Islamabad has softened its stand.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell and the French and British foreign ministers separately telephoned Mr Sinha on Wednesday to express their appreciation for his commitment to carrying forward the PM’s peace initiative.