Tuition for Witnesses

The police have been making the rounds of riot victims’ home, and telling them to put in a good word for them before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

DIONNE BUNSHA

When the city was in flames, they turned their backs on peoples’ cries for help. Now in a strange role reversal, the Vadodara police is knocking on the doors of riot victims, asking them to save their skin.

They landed up at Aminaben’s (name changed) house at 10.30 p.m. “Two policemen came and asked me to report to the police station the next morning. They told me to attend the hearing of the Nanavati-Shah commission (inquiring into the 2002 communal violence),” said Aminaben. The next day, they took all potential witnesses to the police headquarters. “There was a large meeting where government lawyer Arvind Pandya spoke. He told us, ‘Forget what has happened in the past. You should keep good relations with everyone. If you support or don’t support the police, you will need their help later. So its better if you speak in their favour. Tell the commission how they helped you and rescued you during the riots…Don’t do what I say, but what you feel is best.’ He spoke sweetly but with an underlying tone of coercion.”

Yet, Aminaben didn’t testify before the commission. “They took us to the Circuit house, where the hearing was being conducted. But I left before my name was called.” She saw people protesting outside, calling for a boycott of the commission and readily agreed. “Why should we be the police’s advocate? They didn’t help us at all when our houses were being burned. They allowed the mobs to kill and loot. This commission is totally one-sided,” she said.

The Nanavati-Shah commission’s three-day hearings in Vadodara created a stir. The local media flashed reports about police-tutored witnesses. The state government responded by calling for a home department inquiry. Riot victims did not turn up for the hearings. Most witnesses were brought by the police. Local human rights groups boycotted the hearings. They were upset with Justice Nanavati’s earlier remark that there was no evidence yet of the Sangh Parivar and the state government’s involvement.

Most riot victims don’t have much faith in the commission. “I boycotted the commission hearings. They are on the side of the BJP government. What’s the point of beating drums in front of a deaf person?” said a witness who the police brought to the Commission’s hearing, but left without testifying. “Those who spoke before the commission were mainly Friends of the Police. They are locals who the police enlist for help. Many are police informers. Other riot victims are too scared to speak. I testified before the commission to make sure the police wasn’t given a clean chit,” said Mohammed (name changed), a witness.

The local media too was very critical of the commission. “This Nanavati commission is a banavati (fake) commission,” said Jitubhai Pandya, owner of Newsplus channel and also a local Shiv Sena leader. “Almost all the witnesses were brought by the police. It was stage managed. People from the worst riot-hit areas spoke as if nothing had happened there. Then how did more than 100 die? Did they commit suicide?”

Although several witnesses told Frontline that the police called them for the meeting with Arvind Pandya and then to the commission hearing, Vadodara’s police commissioner Sudhir Sinha denied any such meeting was held within the premises of his own office. “I am not aware of any such meeting. State government officials will arrive shortly to inquire into the matter,” he told Frontline. “Witnesses may have changed their stand because they have reached some settlement with the accused. Those who want to testify against the accused may be waiting for the criminal trial. They may not want to jeopardise their case by testifying before the commission, since contradictions could arise in their statements.”

The commissioner felt that witnesses who testified in favour of the police were not doing so out of fear. “Whatever deficiencies may have been in the police handling of the riots, victims are more interested in putting the real accused behind bars rather than blaming the police.” He also said there was nothing wrong if a policeman asked a witness to give a positive testimony. “Police personnel also have the rights of a citizen. If an individual police officer has approached some witness to highlight some good work done by him, it may not amount to misconduct. But I have not heard of any such incident.”

Human rights activists point out that police officials have no right to use their position to interfere with the workings of a judicial commission. “Only if the commission issues a summons for a particular witness, can the police go and deliver the summons. It cannot arbitrarily call witnesses and ask them to give the police a good character certificate,” says Mihir Desai, a human rights lawyer.

Of the 204 witnesses examined from Vadodara urban and rural, 201 spoke in favour of the police, according to police sources. “Where were all the people who filed affidavits? Why didn’t the commission didn’t call a single police officer for questioning? The commission allowed all the big police officers and government officials to sit inside the hearing. The place was packed with 50 police vans. Every single senior police inspector was standing outside. How can you expect any witness to speak against them?” asked Jitu Pandya, one of the few witnesses who spoke against the police’s role during the riots.

Refuting criticism about the functioning of the judicial commission, Justice K.G. Shah said, “I don’t know anything about the police tutoring witnesses. Now, we are only examining witnesses who have come forward on their own. That’s why we did not call any police officers at this point. Later, we will call people to depose before us.” The judge dismissed allegations that sufficient efforts were not made to publicise the hearings. “We issued press notes. It was announced in the media. We can’t go to every single house.”

Speaking about the progress of the inquiry, Justice Shah said that hearings have been conducted in almost all riot-hit districts, except Ahmedabad and Bhuj. “Sometimes hearings get delayed due to circumstances beyond our control. We need the help of the local administration. It depends on their other duties too,” he said.

All over Gujarat, the police have been criticised for standing back and watching while the mobs targeted Muslims. In fact, an anonymous minister told a Citizen’s Tribunal that chief minister Narendra Modi had instructed two senior police officials to let the state’s police chiefs that the police should come in the way of the ‘Hindu backlash’ when the VHP announced a Bharat Bandh on 28th March.

“When we called the police for help, they didn’t respond. They stood and watched while the mobs attacked. They told us that they had orders from above to let the mobs do what they want. So many masjids situated just in front of the police chowky were demolished”, said Mohammed. Describing police brutality during the violence, he added, “They fired into our homes and raided our neighbourhoods. They arbitrarily arrested any Muslim. But the real culprits are still roaming free.”

The Vadodara police has also been criticised for failing to prevent communal flare-ups. “Just when Baroda was returning to normal, the police lifted curfew to allow the VHP’s Ram Dhun rally on March 15th. Although they had imposed a ban on public meetings, this rally went on uninterrupted with full police security arrangements. The participants sparked trouble while passing through Machipeeth, a Muslim area. This disturbed peace in Vadodara for several months. The police could have prevented it,” said Jitubhai Pandya. He added, “I saw the police break a historic mosque at Nawab no Vado. I may be pro-Hindu. But you cannot justify police atrocities.”

Human rights activist Chinu Srinivasan puts it succintly, “Riot victims have great fear of the police. When police officials knock on people’s doors asking them to testify before the commission, it’s like a rapist asking the victim to defend him.”

With the government launching an inquiry into police tutoring, it’s a most unusual situation where a government inquiry is being launched into the workings of a judicial commission of inquiry. Now, whose door will the police knock on next?

Frontline, July 5 - 18, 2003 Also available here