Fact-finding
by
a Women's Panel
Syeda Hameed, Muslim Women?s Forum, Delhi
Ruth Manorama, National Alliance of Women, Bangalore
Malini Ghose, Nirantar, Delhi
Sheba George, Sahrwaru, Ahmedabad
Farah Naqvi, Independent Journalist, Delhi
Mari Thekaekara, Accord, Tamil Nadu

Sponsored by
Citizen?s Initiative, Ahmedabad [India]

April 16, 2002   

     PSI Patil and DySP Parmar had both been named by Muslims in Kalol as having led
     the mobs who burnt and looted. Jamadar Uday Singh, Badge # 1272 was identified as
     having started burning a Muslim owned vehicle. Kalol has one of the highest death tolls
     in Panchmahals (26 dead: 23 Muslims and 3 Hindus). The taluka has also reported
     extreme brutality against women (Ref: Sultani?s testimony in Section 1 on Sexual
     Violence).
 

     As the interview progressed, PSI Patil?s initially confident attitude was replaced by
     suspicion and defensiveness. He was also joined by other policemen, including a
     policewoman. She said that during this period she was always in the office and had not
     been assigned "field duty". PSI Patil denied playing any role in the violence. And to
     prove his impartiality he kept mentioning an incident where he saved 15 Muslims from a
     crowd of over 4000 near Jethral station. He also justified the high death toll by stating
     that the situation could not be controlled as it was a natural reaction to Godhra. 4
     karsevaks who died on the Sabarmati express were from Kalol taluka, from nearby
     Bhadroli village. Among the dead were a mother and child. This image had a deep
     impact on the people and they reacted. The extent of outpouring was such that the
     police could have done nothing. They had not anticipated this therefore there was
     inadequate "bandobast".
 

     When told that many victims claim they are being refused the right to lodge FIRs, he
     hotly denied this, and said, proudly that Kalol Station had lodged 13 FIRs. We asked
     for details of these FIRs. Closer examination revealed that only 6 FIRs had been
     lodged by victims. 7 FIRs had been lodged by the State with Patil himself as the
     complainant. The State FIRs were an eyewash - since the accused in each FIR was
     simply written as ?tola? (mob). Obviously not a single arrest has been made in these
     State FIRs. We examined the other 6 FIRs:
 

     1. Complainant: Medina Bibi, Eral. Out of the 39 named as accused, only 13 have
     been arrested
     2. Complainant: Arvind Bhai Parmar. Out of 5 Muslims accused, all have been
     arrested.
     3. Complainant: Ilyas. No arrests
     4. Complainant: Ahmed Haji Mohammed: Out of 10 named as accused, none have
     been arrested.
     5. Complainant: Shiraz Abdul: 4 arrests
     6. Musa Bhai Sheikh: Out of 2 accused, none have been arrested.
 

     One Muslim died and 3-4 were injured when the Police fired to control a volatile
     situation that arose when 3 Hindus were stabbed on the 27 of February. The firing was
     done by Dy SP Parmar, who many testified as having seen leading the mobs. However,
     when the firing was against large Hindu mobs there were no deaths. We asked PSI
     Patil how was it possible that when firing at a large mob, the Police did not manage to
     injure even a single person? He smiled and said Yeh to chance ki baat hai (It?s all a
     matter of chance).
     There is a clearly a long road ahead to justice, rehabilitation and recovery for the
     victims of Gujarat. The fact-finding team tried to meet Mr. Kumaraswami, who is in
     charge of the Human Rights Cell in the office of the DG Police. Although too busy to
     meet the team because of the PM?s impending visit, he agreed to a phone interview.
     He was asked to comment on the charge made by almost every victim met by the team
     that the Police was aiding, abetting and colluding with the looting and marauding mobs -
     what action was being taken on these charges? What action was the Human Rights Cell
     proposing on the evidence of several cases of rape? What, according to him, should
     have been the role of the Mahila Police, in preventing sexual violence?. Mr.
     Kumaraswami?s responses were that he was simply a part of the DG?s office, working
     as a bridge between the NHRC and the DG. His office merely laid down the policy
     about women police, and about other human rights aspects. Since he was not a field
     officer he did not have answers for the rest of the questions.
 

     The fact-finding team was concerned that with the total collapse of the State machinery
     in Gujarat, there was no alternative institutional mechanism in Gujarat through which
     women could seek justice. Gujarat does not have a State Commission for Women, and
     until the writing of this report, the National Commission for Women had chosen not to
     visit the State.