Columbia University professors Arvind Panagariya and Jagdish Bhagwati have written to The Economist contending that the violence that ripped Gujarat apart in 2002 was not a pogrom against Muslims but a communal riot.
In a joint reply this week to an article that the UK-based weekly carried in December, the two also claim that Narendra Modi, the state's chief minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party's candidate for prime minister, has no reason to atone for the violence because no court had found him guilty of any crime so far.
The Economist profile of the politician had said that much as it liked his economic policies, “Modi needs to show that his idea of a pure India is no longer a wholly Hindu one.” Without this, the publication said it would no longer be able to support him.
Panagariya and Bhagwati can't be ignored. After all, they are reputable academics and could even be given ministerial positions if a BJP-led coalition comes to power after the general election due later this year.
But they're wrong. The violence that swept Gujarat in February 2002 was not spontaneous. Muslims were targetted in a campaign of organised violence, the very definition of a pogrom.
Bhagwati and Panagariya argue that since a quarter of the people killed in Gujarat were Hindu, the violence cannot be a pogrom. According to government estimates, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus died in the violence.
This means that three times the number of Muslims died in the violence even though they constituted 9 per cent of Gujarat's population in 2001. The proportion of Muslims who died was more than five times their proportion in the overall population. This clearly suggests that they were targeted.
Correspondingly, the proportion of Hindus who died was one third their proportion in the overall population.
Just like Bhagwati and Panagariya, supporters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh also claim that the riots in 2002 were a spontaneous uprising of Hindus across the state in protest against Muslims who set fire to the Sabarmati Express in Godhra. Yet there was little or no violence in 20 of Gujarat’s 33 districts, including in Godhra, although some of these, such as Surat, were notoriously violent in previous riots.
“If riots had happened in Godhra, that would have been a spontaneous communal riot," said RB Sreekumar, a retired director general of police who was posted in Gujarat in 2002 and has since consistently challenged Modi for his role in the riots. "But violence took place in distant districts. It was planned. That makes it a pogrom."
Further, Father Cedric Prakash, an Ahmedabad-based activist, points out that the fate of women in the Gujarat violence suggests it was a pogrom. “The way women were targeted here stands out," he said. "In the Sikh violence, women were not targeted.”
One of the key features of ethnic cleansing is the targeting of women, who, as bearers of the next generation, are singled out for especially brutal violence from rape to murder.
According to reports that have emerged from trials, the people leading the mobs already knew exactly which buildings and people to attack because they had access to voters' lists and other government documents.
Though Modi has yet to be convicted of a crime relating to the violence, close associates of his have.
In 2012, Maya Kodnani, a former minister in Modi’s government and a sitting BJP MLA, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for her role in orchestrating the murders of 97 Muslims in Naroda Patiya in Ahmedabad. Modi has made no attempt to shield Kodnani after her conviction.
Another person convicted for this crime was Bajrang Dal MLA Babu Bajrangi. In a sting operation, news magazine Tehelka filmed Bajrangi describing in gory detail how he and his associates had systematically targeted and hunted Muslims -- the hallmark of a pogrom.
The fact that one of his ministers led a murderous mob points to serious administrative lapses on Modi’s watch, if not to his own complicity in the riots.
Despite this, Panagariya and Bhagwati claims that Modi had no reason to atone because the Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court found no evidence against him.
The Supreme Court appointed the SIT after the Gujarat government failed to respond to a 2007 Tehelka sting that exposed rioters talking in graphic detail about their crimes.
One of the cases SIT investigated was the Gulbarg Society case, in which a rioting mob hacked and burnt to death Ehsan Jafri, a former Congress Member of Parliament.
On December 26, an Ahmedabad court accepted the SIT closure report that said there was not enough evidence to prove Modi’s alleged order at a private meeting to allow mobs to vent their rage. Jafri’s widow, Zakia, has said she will challenge this in the high court.
However, the SIT cannot build a case without the cooperation of the local police.
On Monday, Pradeep Sharma, a suspended IAS officer, approached the Gandhinagar police to file an FIR against Modi, his associate Amit Shah and others who have allegedly been spying on him. The police, acting against the law, refused to file the case as they said there was a commission already investigating it.
If even 12 years after the massacre, police officers refuse to act against Modi for fear for their careers, one can infer the extent to which they were biased in the immediate aftermath of the riots.
One reason the cases against rioters are so weak is that the government did not follow standard operating procedures in any of the districts that saw serious violence, said Sreekumar, the retired director general of police.
Ordinarily, police officers would have made preventive arrests of known communal figures, confiscated arms and ammunitions, and imposing curfews effectively. The police did none of this.
"Let higher courts decide whether or not he was involved, but we must accept the failure of the administration," said Gautam Thaker, general secretary of the Gujarat wing of the People's Union for Civil Liberties.
The repercussions of 2002 are still visible today in Ahmedabad ghettos to in which thousands of Muslims are forced to live.
Modi broke his silence on the riots for the first time on December 27, but spoke of only his personal pain and did not apologise for the riots. The fact that one of his own ministers was so deeply implicated in the violence means that Modi's apology, if it ever comes, will be over a decade too late.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
In a joint reply this week to an article that the UK-based weekly carried in December, the two also claim that Narendra Modi, the state's chief minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party's candidate for prime minister, has no reason to atone for the violence because no court had found him guilty of any crime so far.
The Economist profile of the politician had said that much as it liked his economic policies, “Modi needs to show that his idea of a pure India is no longer a wholly Hindu one.” Without this, the publication said it would no longer be able to support him.
Panagariya and Bhagwati can't be ignored. After all, they are reputable academics and could even be given ministerial positions if a BJP-led coalition comes to power after the general election due later this year.
But they're wrong. The violence that swept Gujarat in February 2002 was not spontaneous. Muslims were targetted in a campaign of organised violence, the very definition of a pogrom.
Bhagwati and Panagariya argue that since a quarter of the people killed in Gujarat were Hindu, the violence cannot be a pogrom. According to government estimates, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus died in the violence.
This means that three times the number of Muslims died in the violence even though they constituted 9 per cent of Gujarat's population in 2001. The proportion of Muslims who died was more than five times their proportion in the overall population. This clearly suggests that they were targeted.
Correspondingly, the proportion of Hindus who died was one third their proportion in the overall population.
Just like Bhagwati and Panagariya, supporters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh also claim that the riots in 2002 were a spontaneous uprising of Hindus across the state in protest against Muslims who set fire to the Sabarmati Express in Godhra. Yet there was little or no violence in 20 of Gujarat’s 33 districts, including in Godhra, although some of these, such as Surat, were notoriously violent in previous riots.
“If riots had happened in Godhra, that would have been a spontaneous communal riot," said RB Sreekumar, a retired director general of police who was posted in Gujarat in 2002 and has since consistently challenged Modi for his role in the riots. "But violence took place in distant districts. It was planned. That makes it a pogrom."
Further, Father Cedric Prakash, an Ahmedabad-based activist, points out that the fate of women in the Gujarat violence suggests it was a pogrom. “The way women were targeted here stands out," he said. "In the Sikh violence, women were not targeted.”
One of the key features of ethnic cleansing is the targeting of women, who, as bearers of the next generation, are singled out for especially brutal violence from rape to murder.
According to reports that have emerged from trials, the people leading the mobs already knew exactly which buildings and people to attack because they had access to voters' lists and other government documents.
Though Modi has yet to be convicted of a crime relating to the violence, close associates of his have.
In 2012, Maya Kodnani, a former minister in Modi’s government and a sitting BJP MLA, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for her role in orchestrating the murders of 97 Muslims in Naroda Patiya in Ahmedabad. Modi has made no attempt to shield Kodnani after her conviction.
Another person convicted for this crime was Bajrang Dal MLA Babu Bajrangi. In a sting operation, news magazine Tehelka filmed Bajrangi describing in gory detail how he and his associates had systematically targeted and hunted Muslims -- the hallmark of a pogrom.
The fact that one of his ministers led a murderous mob points to serious administrative lapses on Modi’s watch, if not to his own complicity in the riots.
Despite this, Panagariya and Bhagwati claims that Modi had no reason to atone because the Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court found no evidence against him.
The Supreme Court appointed the SIT after the Gujarat government failed to respond to a 2007 Tehelka sting that exposed rioters talking in graphic detail about their crimes.
One of the cases SIT investigated was the Gulbarg Society case, in which a rioting mob hacked and burnt to death Ehsan Jafri, a former Congress Member of Parliament.
On December 26, an Ahmedabad court accepted the SIT closure report that said there was not enough evidence to prove Modi’s alleged order at a private meeting to allow mobs to vent their rage. Jafri’s widow, Zakia, has said she will challenge this in the high court.
However, the SIT cannot build a case without the cooperation of the local police.
On Monday, Pradeep Sharma, a suspended IAS officer, approached the Gandhinagar police to file an FIR against Modi, his associate Amit Shah and others who have allegedly been spying on him. The police, acting against the law, refused to file the case as they said there was a commission already investigating it.
If even 12 years after the massacre, police officers refuse to act against Modi for fear for their careers, one can infer the extent to which they were biased in the immediate aftermath of the riots.
One reason the cases against rioters are so weak is that the government did not follow standard operating procedures in any of the districts that saw serious violence, said Sreekumar, the retired director general of police.
Ordinarily, police officers would have made preventive arrests of known communal figures, confiscated arms and ammunitions, and imposing curfews effectively. The police did none of this.
"Let higher courts decide whether or not he was involved, but we must accept the failure of the administration," said Gautam Thaker, general secretary of the Gujarat wing of the People's Union for Civil Liberties.
The repercussions of 2002 are still visible today in Ahmedabad ghettos to in which thousands of Muslims are forced to live.
Modi broke his silence on the riots for the first time on December 27, but spoke of only his personal pain and did not apologise for the riots. The fact that one of his own ministers was so deeply implicated in the violence means that Modi's apology, if it ever comes, will be over a decade too late.