THE CRIMINALS waited for less than a month, after the submission of the
Wadhwa Commission report, to strike again. A Muslim trader and a
Catholic priest have been murdered in a less than 30-km radius of the
site of the Staines killings. Even the Orissa Government has
acknowledged Dara Singh's involvement in the murder of the former and
does not rule it out in the latter. But the Wadhwa Commission upheld the
myth that no organisation was involved in the Staines murder. Has this
stance encouraged the recent killings?
For years, attempts have been made to cover up such crimes, thus
encouraging the criminals. Soon after the Staines killings, three Union
Ministers spent less than an hour at the murder site, without knowing
the local dialect, and declared the crime a ``foreign conspiracy.'' Even
before appointing the Wadhwa Commission, the Union Home Minister, Mr. L.
K. Advani, had exonerated the Bajrang Dal. If they were so certain, why
did they need a Commission at all? Why did they not take action against
the ``foreign hand?'' Or, did they want a Commission only to repeat the
platitudes they were mouthing?
If that is what they wanted, the Wadhwa Commission has played its role
well. Ignoring the evidence of its own counsel and investigation team,
it exonerated every organisation. The counsel's report provides
circumstantial evidence of Dara Singh's links with the Sangh Parivar. In
seven First Information Reports (FIRs) on communal crimes, Dara Singh is
linked to the Bajrang Dal and in four to the BJP. It states that he
worked for the BJP in 1998, that he was active in the Goraksha Samiti
and attacked Muslim cattle traders. Eyewitnesses testify that the
murderous crowd shouted ``Jai Bajrang Bali'' and dispersed when a
whistle was blown - an act known to be the slogan and strategy of a
communal organisation. Even the draft refers to the counsel's evidence.
But the final report absolves all organisations. So with no
organisational support Dara Singh got information about the whereabouts
of Graham Staines and motivated 50 persons to go to a village far from
theirs to burn the Australian missionary and his two children to death.
Also the Commission's way of identifying issues raises doubts about the
forces at work. Many wanted the Commission to study the Staines murder
in the overall communal context. At least 108 attacks on Christians were
recorded in Gujarat alone during 1998. The year ended with tension in
Karnataka. There was a major incident in Orissa just when the Commission
was beginning its hearings. It had the authority to study the murder
within this context. Clause B of its terms of reference asked the
Commission to inquire whether any organisation was involved. Clause C
gave it the power to study related issues.
The Commission could have used this clause had it wanted to, but it did
not. People with a vested interest in fomenting communal tension had
blamed the Staines murder on conversions. Amid the violence in Gujarat
and elsewhere, the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, demanded a
debate on conversions, not on the acts of the criminals behind the
attacks. The Commission used Clause C to discuss conversions. Under
Clause B, it discussed the Sangh Parivar. It exonerated both but did not
situate the murder in the overall national context.
In so doing, the Commission played into the hands of those who use the
conversion myth to divert attention from their crimes. Such diversion is
an integral part of our national ethos. Whenever there is unrest against
corruption or social injustice, those involved in the protest are
declared naxalites and at times killed in pseudo-encounters. But those
who burn innocent people to death go scot-free. Conversion has become
one such convenient scapegoat. Finding scapegoat is not confined to any
one party as the inaction of the Orissa Government shows. It has filed
FIRs against Dara Singh but has not arrested him or declared him an
absconder. He is free to go around burning people or instigating others
to do so on the pretext of opposing conversions. Little wonder then that
there were two murders within a fortnight.
After the murder of the Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Arul Doss, the Home
Secretary of Orissa said Christians divided families and caused tension
by converting people. In this thinking murders are understandable and
may even be justified. The administrators are paid from the taxpayer's
money to be impartial executives. But they understand only murderers,
not the import of their irresponsible statements. They seem to ignore
the fact that the proportion of Christians declined from 2.6 per cent in
1961 to 2.3 per cent in 1991. Then how do they explain mass conversions?
They do not have to know the truth but only need scapegoats to divert
attention from their inaction.
Thus the Wadhwa report is not the main issue. It brings into focus the
very credibility of inquiry Commissions. Some of their doctored reports
seem to encourage criminals. Was the BJP Government sincere in
appointing it? And if it was, why did it appoint a Commission only when
a foreigner was murdered and when there was a danger of international
opinion going against it?
Similar questions can be asked about many other Commissions appointed
after police firings, communal massacres or train accidents. Most of
them present what look like doctored reports. The Commission which
probed the police firing in Banjhi, Bihar, in which 15 tribals were
killed in April 1985, accepted the police version and exonerated the
state though evidence pointed in the opposite direction. Look at the
reports of the Commissions on the frequent railway accidents. Their
reports are accepted when they give the official version, but their
recommendations are ignored. See how long it took to initiate action
against the small-timers mentioned in the Mishra Commission Report on
the massacre of Sikhs. The big fish swim free.
If a Commission does a good job, its report is usually rejected. The
Srikrishna Commission report pinpointed responsibility and identified
persons behind the carnage of Muslims in 1993. The Maharashtra
Government rejected the report. The Commission on the Khanna train
accident in Punjab in 1998 also fixed the blame. Instead of implementing
its recommendations, another Commission was appointed. It is yet to
begin its work.
The criminals know where to go from here. They have shown it through two
more murders in Orissa. But where does the honest citizen go? Do we
throw up our hands and let the criminals have their way or come forward,
be counted and demand justice to the victims? In so doing, it is
important to situate these murders within the context of the growth of
fascism. Criminalisation and communalisation are basic to it. So these
crimes are human rights issues and do not concern the minorities alone.
The economic and political forces with a vested interest in the growing
poverty of the majority use religion to ensure that the poor do not wake
up to the reality of their exploitation. Criminals are used when they
raise their voice. They link the crimes with conversions to give them a
communal bias.
Thus there is a link between the 1984 massacre of Sikhs, of the Muslims
in 1993, the frequent atrocities on the Dalits and tribals and the
recent attacks on Christians. The fascist elements need to find and
tackle one enemy at a time, thus ensuring that the enemy is divided. And
many inquiry Commissions play the role expected of them. It is for the
honest citizens to decide whether they want to let fascist, criminal and
communal elements rule or come together against these destructive
forces.
(The writer is Senior Fellow (Research), Indian Social Institute, New
Delhi.)
Courtesy The Hindu 11-09-99
Wadhwa Commission report, to strike again. A Muslim trader and a
Catholic priest have been murdered in a less than 30-km radius of the
site of the Staines killings. Even the Orissa Government has
acknowledged Dara Singh's involvement in the murder of the former and
does not rule it out in the latter. But the Wadhwa Commission upheld the
myth that no organisation was involved in the Staines murder. Has this
stance encouraged the recent killings?
For years, attempts have been made to cover up such crimes, thus
encouraging the criminals. Soon after the Staines killings, three Union
Ministers spent less than an hour at the murder site, without knowing
the local dialect, and declared the crime a ``foreign conspiracy.'' Even
before appointing the Wadhwa Commission, the Union Home Minister, Mr. L.
K. Advani, had exonerated the Bajrang Dal. If they were so certain, why
did they need a Commission at all? Why did they not take action against
the ``foreign hand?'' Or, did they want a Commission only to repeat the
platitudes they were mouthing?
If that is what they wanted, the Wadhwa Commission has played its role
well. Ignoring the evidence of its own counsel and investigation team,
it exonerated every organisation. The counsel's report provides
circumstantial evidence of Dara Singh's links with the Sangh Parivar. In
seven First Information Reports (FIRs) on communal crimes, Dara Singh is
linked to the Bajrang Dal and in four to the BJP. It states that he
worked for the BJP in 1998, that he was active in the Goraksha Samiti
and attacked Muslim cattle traders. Eyewitnesses testify that the
murderous crowd shouted ``Jai Bajrang Bali'' and dispersed when a
whistle was blown - an act known to be the slogan and strategy of a
communal organisation. Even the draft refers to the counsel's evidence.
But the final report absolves all organisations. So with no
organisational support Dara Singh got information about the whereabouts
of Graham Staines and motivated 50 persons to go to a village far from
theirs to burn the Australian missionary and his two children to death.
Also the Commission's way of identifying issues raises doubts about the
forces at work. Many wanted the Commission to study the Staines murder
in the overall communal context. At least 108 attacks on Christians were
recorded in Gujarat alone during 1998. The year ended with tension in
Karnataka. There was a major incident in Orissa just when the Commission
was beginning its hearings. It had the authority to study the murder
within this context. Clause B of its terms of reference asked the
Commission to inquire whether any organisation was involved. Clause C
gave it the power to study related issues.
The Commission could have used this clause had it wanted to, but it did
not. People with a vested interest in fomenting communal tension had
blamed the Staines murder on conversions. Amid the violence in Gujarat
and elsewhere, the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, demanded a
debate on conversions, not on the acts of the criminals behind the
attacks. The Commission used Clause C to discuss conversions. Under
Clause B, it discussed the Sangh Parivar. It exonerated both but did not
situate the murder in the overall national context.
In so doing, the Commission played into the hands of those who use the
conversion myth to divert attention from their crimes. Such diversion is
an integral part of our national ethos. Whenever there is unrest against
corruption or social injustice, those involved in the protest are
declared naxalites and at times killed in pseudo-encounters. But those
who burn innocent people to death go scot-free. Conversion has become
one such convenient scapegoat. Finding scapegoat is not confined to any
one party as the inaction of the Orissa Government shows. It has filed
FIRs against Dara Singh but has not arrested him or declared him an
absconder. He is free to go around burning people or instigating others
to do so on the pretext of opposing conversions. Little wonder then that
there were two murders within a fortnight.
After the murder of the Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Arul Doss, the Home
Secretary of Orissa said Christians divided families and caused tension
by converting people. In this thinking murders are understandable and
may even be justified. The administrators are paid from the taxpayer's
money to be impartial executives. But they understand only murderers,
not the import of their irresponsible statements. They seem to ignore
the fact that the proportion of Christians declined from 2.6 per cent in
1961 to 2.3 per cent in 1991. Then how do they explain mass conversions?
They do not have to know the truth but only need scapegoats to divert
attention from their inaction.
Thus the Wadhwa report is not the main issue. It brings into focus the
very credibility of inquiry Commissions. Some of their doctored reports
seem to encourage criminals. Was the BJP Government sincere in
appointing it? And if it was, why did it appoint a Commission only when
a foreigner was murdered and when there was a danger of international
opinion going against it?
Similar questions can be asked about many other Commissions appointed
after police firings, communal massacres or train accidents. Most of
them present what look like doctored reports. The Commission which
probed the police firing in Banjhi, Bihar, in which 15 tribals were
killed in April 1985, accepted the police version and exonerated the
state though evidence pointed in the opposite direction. Look at the
reports of the Commissions on the frequent railway accidents. Their
reports are accepted when they give the official version, but their
recommendations are ignored. See how long it took to initiate action
against the small-timers mentioned in the Mishra Commission Report on
the massacre of Sikhs. The big fish swim free.
If a Commission does a good job, its report is usually rejected. The
Srikrishna Commission report pinpointed responsibility and identified
persons behind the carnage of Muslims in 1993. The Maharashtra
Government rejected the report. The Commission on the Khanna train
accident in Punjab in 1998 also fixed the blame. Instead of implementing
its recommendations, another Commission was appointed. It is yet to
begin its work.
The criminals know where to go from here. They have shown it through two
more murders in Orissa. But where does the honest citizen go? Do we
throw up our hands and let the criminals have their way or come forward,
be counted and demand justice to the victims? In so doing, it is
important to situate these murders within the context of the growth of
fascism. Criminalisation and communalisation are basic to it. So these
crimes are human rights issues and do not concern the minorities alone.
The economic and political forces with a vested interest in the growing
poverty of the majority use religion to ensure that the poor do not wake
up to the reality of their exploitation. Criminals are used when they
raise their voice. They link the crimes with conversions to give them a
communal bias.
Thus there is a link between the 1984 massacre of Sikhs, of the Muslims
in 1993, the frequent atrocities on the Dalits and tribals and the
recent attacks on Christians. The fascist elements need to find and
tackle one enemy at a time, thus ensuring that the enemy is divided. And
many inquiry Commissions play the role expected of them. It is for the
honest citizens to decide whether they want to let fascist, criminal and
communal elements rule or come together against these destructive
forces.
(The writer is Senior Fellow (Research), Indian Social Institute, New
Delhi.)
Courtesy The Hindu 11-09-99