Indian government officials have acknowledged that since February 27, 2002,
more than 850 people
have been killed in communal violence in the state of Gujarat, most of
them Muslims. Unofficial
estimates put the death toll as high as 2,000. At this writing, murders
are continuing, with violence
spreading to rural areas fanned by ongoing hate campaigns and economic
boycotts against Muslims.
The attacks against Muslims in Gujarat have been actively supported by
state government officials and
by the police.
The violence in Gujarat began after a Muslim mob in the town of Godhra
attacked and set fire to two
carriages of a train carrying Hindu activists. Fifty-eight
people were killed, many of them women and
children. The activists were returning from Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, where
they supported a campaign
led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council, VHP) to construct
a temple to the Hindu god
Ram on the site of a sixteenth century mosque destroyed by Hindu militants
in 1992. The Ayodhya
campaign continues to raise the spectre of further violence in the country-Hindu-Muslim
violence
following the destruction of the mosque claimed thousands of lives in the
city of Bombay and elsewhere
in 1992 and 1993. The VHP claims that the mosque was built on a site that
was the birthplace of Ram.
Between February 28 and March 2, 2002, a three-day retaliatory killing
spree by Hindus left hundreds
dead and tens of thousands homeless and dispossessed, marking the country's
worst religious
bloodletting in a decade. The looting and burning of Muslim homes, shops,
restaurants, and places of
worship was also widespread. Tragically consistent
with the longstanding pattern of attacks on
minorities and Dalits (or so-called untouchables) in India, and with previous
episodes of large-scale
communal violence in India, scores of Muslim girls and women were brutally
raped in Gujarat before
being mutilated and burnt to death. Attacks on women and girls, including
sexual violence, are detailed
throughout this report.
The Gujarat government chose to characterize the
violence as a "spontaneous reaction" to the incidents
in Godhra. Human Rights Watch's findings, and those of numerous
Indian human rights and civil liberties
organizations, and most of the Indian press indicate that the attacks on
Muslims throughout the state
were planned, well in advance of the Godhra incident, and organized with
extensive police participation
and in close cooperation with officials of the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian
People's Party, BJP) state
government.
The attacks on Muslims are part of a concerted campaign of Hindu nationalist
organizations to promote
and exploit communal tensions to further the BJP's political rule-a movement
that is supported at the
local level by militant groups that operate with impunity and under the
patronage of the state. The
groups most directly responsible for violence against Muslims in Gujarat
include the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, the Bajrang Dal, the ruling BJP, and the umbrella organization
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(National Volunteer Corps, RSS), all of whom collectively form the sangh
parivar (or "family" of
Hindu nationalist groups). These organizations, although different in many
respects, have all promoted
the argument that because Hindus constitute the majority of Indians, India
should be a Hindu state.
Nationwide violence against India's Muslim community in 1992 and 1993 and
against India's Christian
community since 1998, including in the state of Gujarat, have also stemmed
from the violent activities
and hate propaganda of these groups. Human Rights Watch and Indian human
rights groups have long
warned of the potential scale of death and destruction resulting from the
sangh parivar's Hindu
nationalist agenda.1 If the activities of these groups remain unchecked,
violence may continue to engulf
the state, and may spread to other parts of the country.
The state of Gujarat and the central government of
India initially blamed Pakistan for the train massacre,
which it called a "pre-meditated" "terrorist" attack against Hindus in
Godhra. The recent revival of the
Ram temple campaign, and heightened fears of terrorism since September
11 were exploited by local
Hindu nationalist groups and the local press which printed reports of a
"deadly conspiracy" against
Hindus by Muslims in the state. On February 28, one local language
paper headline read: "Avenge
blood for blood." Muslim survivors of the attacks repeatedly told Human
Rights Watch that they were
told to "go back to Pakistan." Anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim sentiments
had been building up in Gujarat
long before the revival of the Ayodha Ram temple campaign. Human Rights
Watch was unable to verify
conflicting accounts of what led to the mob attack on the Sabarmati Express
in Godhra though local
police investigations have ruled out the notion that it was either organized
or planned.
The state government initially charged those arrested in relation to the
attack on the Godhra train under
the controversial and draconian Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO,
now the Prevention of
Terrorism Act), but filed ordinary criminal charges against those accused
of attacks on Muslims.
Bowing to criticism from political leaders and civil society across the
country, the chief minister dropped
the POTO charges but stated that the terms of POTO may be applied at a
later date.
Three weeks after the attacks began, Human Rights Watch visited the city
of Ahmedabad, a site of
large-scale destruction, murder, and several massacres, and spoke to both
Hindu and Muslim survivors
of the attacks. The details of the massacres of Muslims in the neighborhoods
of Naroda Patia and
Gulmarg Society and of retaliatory attacks against Hindus in Jamalpur are
included in this report.
Human Rights Watch was able to document patterns in Ahmedabad that echo
those of previous
episodes of anti-Muslim violence throughout the state and of anti-minority
violence over the years in
many parts of the country-most notably the Bombay riots in 1992 and 1993,
and the anti-Sikh riots in
Delhi in 1984.2 These include the role of sangh parivar organizations,
political parties, and the local
media in promoting anti-minority propaganda, the exploitation of communal
differences to mask political
and economic motives underlying the attacks, local and state government
complicity in the attacks, and
the failure of the government to meet its constitutional and international
obligations to protect
minorities.
Between February 28 and March 2 the attackers descended with militia-like
precision on Ahmedabad
by the thousands, arriving in trucks and clad in saffron scarves and khaki
shorts, the signature uniform of
Hindu nationalist-Hindutva-groups.3 Chanting slogans of incitement to kill,
they came armed with
swords, trishuls (three-pronged spears associated with Hindu mythology),
sophisticated explosives,
and gas cylinders. They were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses
of Muslim families and
their properties, information obtained from the Ahmedabad municipal corporation
among other sources,
and embarked on a murderous rampage confident that the police was with
them. In many cases, the
police led the charge, using gunfire to kill Muslims who got in the mobs'
way. A key BJP state minister
is reported to have taken over police control rooms in Ahmedabad on the
first day of the carnage,
issuing orders to disregard pleas for assistance from Muslims. Portions
of the Gujarati language press
meanwhile printed fabricated stories and statements openly calling on Hindus
to avenge the Godhra
attacks.
In almost all of the incidents documented by Human Rights Watch the police
were directly implicated in
the attacks. At best they were passive observers, and at worse they acted
in concert with murderous
mobs and participated directly in the burning and looting of Muslim shops
and homes and the killing and
mutilation of Muslims. In many cases, under the guise of offering assistance,
the police led the victims
directly into the hands of their killers. Many of the attacks on Muslim
homes and places of business also
took place in close proximity to police posts. Panicked phone calls made
to the police, fire brigades,
and even ambulance services generally proved futile. Many witnesses testified
that their calls either went
unanswered or that they were met with responses such as: "We don't have
any orders to save you";
"We cannot help you, we have orders from above"; "If you wish to live in
Hindustan, learn to protect
yourself"; "How come you are alive? You should have died too"; "Whose house
is on fire? Hindus' or
Muslims'?" In some cases phone lines were eventually cut to make it impossible
to call for help.
Surviving family members have faced the added trauma of having to fend
for themselves in recovering
and identifying the bodies of their loved ones. The bodies have been buried
in mass gravesites
throughout Ahmedabad. Gravediggers testified that most bodies that had
arrived-many were still
missing-were burned and butchered beyond recognition. Many were missing
body parts-arms, legs,
and even heads. The elderly and the handicapped were not spared. In some
cases, pregnant women
had their bellies cut open and their fetuses pulled out and hacked or burned
before the women were
killed.
Muslims in Gujarat have been denied equal protection under the law. Even
as attacks continue, the
Gujarat state administration has been engaged in a massive cover-up of
the state's role in the massacres
and that of the sangh parivar. Eyewitnesses filed numerous police First
Information Reports (FIRs), the
initial reports of a crime recorded by the police, that named local VHP,
BJP, and Bajrang Dal leaders
as instigators or participants in the attacks. Few if any of these leaders
have been arrested as the police,
reportedly under instructions from the state, face continuous pressure
not to arrest them or to reduce
the severity of the charges filed. In many instances, the police have also
refused to include in FIRs the
names of perpetrators identified by the victims. Police have, however,
filed false charges against Muslim
youth arbitrarily detained during combing operations in Muslim neighborhoods
that have been largely
destroyed. The state government has entrusted a criminal probe into the
deadliest of attacks in
Ahmedabad, in the Naroda Patia and Gulmarg Society neighborhoods, to an
officer handpicked by the
VHP, the organization implicated in organizing and perpetrating these massacres.
On April 3, India's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) released the
preliminary findings of its
report on the violence, a strong indictment of the failure of the Gujarat
government to contain the
violence. As the commission awaited a response from the state government
before releasing a
comprehensive report, its very authority to intervene in the matter was
being challenged in the state's
High Court based on the fact that a state-appointed judicial commission
of inquiry was already in place.
Following the trail of other commissions of inquiry appointed by the state
in the wake of communal riots
in 1969 and 1985-whose recommendations have yet to be implemented-the current
state commission
inspires little hope of justice. One lawyer noted, "The state government
is involved and is a party to
what happened. How can a party appoint a judge? We cannot expect him to
give justice." India's
National Commission for Minorities (NCM) and National Commission for Women
(NCW) have also
been severely critical of the Gujarat government's response to the violence
and its aftermath.
Government figures indicate that more than 98,000 people are residing in
over one hundred newly
created relief camps throughout the state, an overwhelming majority of
them Muslim. They hold little
hope for justice and remain largely unprotected by the police and local
authorities. One relief camp
resident asked: "The same people who shot at us are now supposed to protect
us? There is no faith in
the police." A lack of faith has also kept many camp residents from approaching
the police to file
complaints. Fearing for their lives, or fearing arrest, many have also
been unable to leave the camps to
return to what is left of their homes.
The state government has failed to provide adequate and timely humanitarian
assistance to internally
displaced persons in Gujarat. Problems documented in this report include
serious delays in government
assistance reaching relief camps, inadequate state provision of medical
and food supplies and sanitation
facilities, and lack of access and protection for nongovernmental (NGO)
relief workers seeking to assist
victims of violence. Muslims have also been denied equal access to relief
assistance. Government
authorities are also reported to be absent from many Muslim camps. In sharp
contrast to the
international and Indian community's response following a massive earthquake
in the state in January
2001-when millions of dollars in aid from the international community and
civil society poured into the
state-the onus for providing food, medical support, and other supplies
for victims of violence rests
largely on local NGO and Muslim voluntary groups.
The relief camps visited by Human Rights Watch were desperately lacking
in government and
international assistance. One camp with 6,000 residents was located on
the site of a Muslim graveyard.
Residents were literally sleeping in the open, between the graves. One
resident remarked: "Usually the
dead sleep here, now the living are sleeping here."
The disbursement of financial compensation and the process of rehabilitation
for victims of the violence
has been painstakingly slow and has failed to include all of those affected.
Initially compensation was
disbursed on a communal basis: the state government announced that the
families of Hindus killed in
Godhra would receive Rs. 200,000 (U.S.$4,094)4 while the families of Muslims
killed in retaliatory
attacks would receive Rs. 100,000-a statement that was later retracted,
in part due to widespread
criticism from nongovernmental organizations and Indian officials outside
the state of Gujarat.
In the wake of the massive earthquake in January 2001 that, according to
government reports, claimed
close to 14,000 lives and left over one million homeless, the state of
Gujarat also faces economic
devastation. The economic impact is felt acutely by both Hindu and Muslim
survivors of the attacks
whose homes and personal belongings have been destroyed, and whose businesses
have been burnt to
the ground. Others reside in neighborhoods where curfews have yet to be
lifted, limiting their mobility.
Thousands are also unable to leave the relief camps to go to work for fear
of further attacks. Many
Muslims do not have jobs to which to return-their employers have hired
Hindus in their place. An
economic boycott against Muslims in certain parts of the state has helped
to ensure their continued and
long-term impoverishment. Acute food shortages resulting in starvation
have been reported in areas of
Ahmedabad where Muslim communities are forced into isolation, afraid to
leave their enclaves to get
more supplies. Children's education has also been severely disrupted while
the threat of measles and
other outbreaks looms large in Ahmedabad camps.
On April 4, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Gujarat
and announced a federal relief
package for riot victims. Vajpayee, who earlier described the burning alive
of men, women, and
children, as a "blot on the country's face," stated that the Godhra attack
was "condemnable" but what
followed was "madness." His comments stood in deep contrast to those of
the state's chief minister,
Narendra Modi, formerly a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh volunteer and propagandist,
who at the
height of the carnage declared that, "The five crore [fifty million] people
of Gujarat have shown
remarkable restraint under grave provocation," referring to the Godhra
attacks.
On April 12, the BJP proposed early elections in Gujarat soon after rejecting
Chief Minister Narendra
Modi's offer to resign. Early elections in the aftermath of the attacks
may favor the Hindu nationalist
vote in the state-a primary objective of the sangh parivar nationwide-and
Narendra Modi's continued
tenure as chief minister. As this report was going to press, national political
parties were pressing to
remove Modi, leading the BJP to set aside the early election option. The
upper and lower houses of the
Indian parliament were preparing for parliamentary debates on the violence
in Gujarat while opposition
parties were pushing for a vote to censure the national government.
This report is by no means a comprehensive account of the violence that
began on February 27.
Ahmedabad was only one of many cities affected. Reports from other areas
indicate that the violence
was statewide, affecting at least twenty-one cities and sixty-eight provinces.
Information from these
areas also suggest a consistent pattern in the methods used, undermining
government assertions that
these were "spontaneous" "communal riots." As one activist noted, "no riot
lasts for three days without
the active connivance of the state."
Gujarat is only one of several Indian states to have experienced post-Godhra
violence, though
elsewhere incidents have been sporadic and were often immediately contained.
Events were unfolding
every day as this report went to press including developments related to
the political future of the
Gujarat government.
Both the Godhra incident and the attacks that ensued throughout Gujarat
have been documented in
meticulous detail by Indian human rights and civil liberties groups and
by the Indian press. Their
painstaking documentation of the attacks, often under grave security conditions,
has been cited
throughout this report. In some cases, the names of victims have been changed
or withheld for their
protection. Names of human rights activists have also been withheld to
ensure their ability to continue
their important work, an unfortunate indicator of the volatility surrounding
the issue of communal
violence in Gujarat and beyond.
All of the communities affected continue to live with a deep sense of insecurity,
fearing further attacks
and a cycle of retaliation. Not included in this report are many heroic
accounts of individual police and
of Hindu and Muslim civilians who risked their lives and livelihoods to
rescue and shelter one another,
and the many peace activities that have been organized by citizens amidst
the ruins of the state.
The violence in Gujarat has triggered widespread outrage in India. Civil
society groups from across the
world have also mobilized to condemn the attacks and appeal for justice
and intervention. Responding
to growing international scrutiny into the violence, however, the Indian
government has stated that it
"does not appreciate interference in [its] internal affairs."5 Human Rights
Watch calls on the Indian
government to prevent further attacks and prosecute those found responsible
for the violence in
Gujarat, including state government and police officials complicit in the
attacks. We call on the
international community to put pressure on the Indian government to comply
with international human
rights and Indian constitutional law and end impunity for current and past
campaigns to generate
communal violence against Indian minorities.
Assistance from international humanitarian and United Nations agencies
is sorely needed for Hindus and
Muslims in relief camps. Human Rights Watch urges the Indian government
to actively seek the
assistance of these groups and to invite United Nations human rights experts
to investigate state
participation and complicity in the violence in Gujarat.
1 See for example, Human Rights Watch, "Politics By Other Means: Attacks
Against Christians in
India," A Human Rights Watch Report, vol. 11, no. 6, September 1999; and
Smita Narula, "India's
Minorities Are Targets of Government-Abetted Violence," International Herald
Tribune, March 20,
2000.
2 The then-ruling Congress (I) party was charged with complicity in the
killing of over 2,000 Sikhs in
Delhi in 1984 following the assassination of Congress party president Indira
Gandhi by her Sikh
bodyguard.
3 Hindutwa, Hindutva, or Hinduvata refers to a movement for Hindu awakening.
4 At this writing, one U.S. dollar was equivalent to 48.85 Indian rupees.
5 "India warns against criticism over Gujarat," Agence France-Presse, April
22, 2002.