The skyline of Ahmedabad filled with smoke as buildings and shops are set on fire by rioting mobs The 2002 Gujarat violence, also known as the Gujarat pogrom [1][2][3] was a period of inter-communal violence in the Indian state ofGujarat which lasted for approximately three days. Following the initial incident there were further outbreaks of violence in Ahmedabadwhich lasted for approximately three weeks; statewide, there were further outbreaks of mass killings against the minority Muslim population that lasted about three months. [4][5] The burning of a train in Godhra on 27 February 2002, which caused the deaths of 58 people including Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya, is believed to have triggered the violence. [6][7] Some commentators, however, hold the view that the attacks had been pre-planned, were well orchestrated, and that the attack on the train was in fact a "staged trigger" for what was actually premeditated violence. [8][9]
According to the official figures, the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus; 2,500 people were injured non-fatally, and 223 more were reported missing. [10] Other sources estimate that up to 2000 Muslims died. [11] There were instances of rape, children being burned alive, and widespread looting and destruction of property. Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them. [12] In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India. The Muslim community are reported to have reacted with "anger and disbelief" and Teesta Setalvad, of the NGO, Citizens for Peace and Justice, has said that the legal process was not yet complete as there existed a right to appeal. [13] In July 2013 allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence. [14] On 26 December 2013, an Indian court upheld the earlier SIT report and rejected a petition seeking prosecution of Mr. Modi. [15]
While officially classified as a communalist riot, the 2002 events have been described as a pogrom by many scholars and commentators. [16][17] Other independent observers have stated that these events had met the "legal definition of genocide", [18] and called it an instance of State Terrorism. [19][20] Still others have said the incidents were tantamount to ethnic cleansing. [21] Instances of mass violence which occurred include the Naroda Patiya massacre that took place directly alongside a police training camp, [22] the Gulbarg Society massacre where Ehsan Jafri, a former member of parliament, was among those killed, and several incidents in the city of Vadodara. [23] Martha Nussbaum has said that "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law" [24]
Contents [hide] Godhra train burning Main article: Godhra train burning
The Sabarmati Express afire On the morning of 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express, returning from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad, was stopped near the Godhra railway station. Several of the passengers were Hindu kar sevaks,, or activists, returning from Ayodhya after a religious ceremony at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid. [25][26] Under controversial circumstances, four coaches of the train caught on fire, trapping many people inside. In the resulting conflagration, 59 people, including 25 women and 25 children, were burned to death. [27]
The government of Gujarat set up a commission to look into the incident, the sole member of which was retired Gujarat High Court judge K G Shah. [28] Following outrage over Shah's alleged closeness to Modi, retired Supreme Court judgeG.T. Nanavati was appointed chairman of the two person commission. [29] After spending six years going over the details of the case, the commission submitted its preliminary report, concluding that the fire was arson committed by a mob of 1000-2000 local people. [29][30] Maulvi Husain Haji Ibrahim Umarji, a cleric in Godhra, and a dismissed Central Reserve Police Force officer named Nanumiyan were presented as the "masterminds" behind the operation. [31] As of March 2014, the commission had yet to submit its final report. [32] The findings of the commission were called into question by a video recording released by Tehelka magazine, in which Arvind Pandya, counsel for the Gujarat government, stated that the findings of the Shah-Nanavati commission would support the view presented by the BJP, as Shah was "their man" and Nanavati could be bribed. [33]
The union government also set up a committee to probe the incident, headed up by retired Supreme Court judge Umesh Chandra Banerjee. The committee concluded that the fire had begun inside the train and was most likely accidental. [34] However, the Gujarat High Court ruled in 2006 that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the union government, and that the committee was therefore unconstitutional. [35]
In February 2011, the trial court convicted 31 people and acquitted 63 others based on the murder and conspiracy provisions of the Indian Penal Code, saying the incident was a "pre-planned conspiracy". [36]
[37] mainly Muslims. [38] The death penalty was awarded to 11 convicts; twenty others were sentenced to life imprisonment. [39][40] Maulvi Umarji, presented by the Nanavati-Shah commission as the prime conspirator, was acquitted along with 62 other accused for lack of evidence. [41][42]
The Concerned Citizens Tribunal(CCT), headed by Teesta Setalvad also concluded that the fire had been an accident, stating that the attack by a mob was part of a government conspiracy to trigger riots across the state. [43][44] Several other independent commentators have also concluded that the fire itself was almost certainly an accident, saying that the initial cause of the conflagration will never be determined. [7][45][46] Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official version of the attack on the train, that it was organized, carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, was entirely baseless. [47]
Post Godhra violence
Vadodara Naroda Ahmedabad Godhra Ode Gandhinagar Mehsana Bharuch Surat Rajkot Halvad Modasa Himatnagar Location of major incidents. Following the attack on the train the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) called for a statewide bandh (strike), even though these have been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and illegal. It is common knowledge in India that these strikes are usually followed by violence. No action was taken by the state to prevent the strike, or put a stop the initial violence. [48] Independent reports indicate that former VHP president Rana Rajendrasinh had endorsed the strike, and that Modi and Rana had used inflammatory language which could worsen the situation. [49]
Modi declared that the attack on the train had been carried out by "terrorists", these words were interpreted as a signal to take vengeance on the Muslim community. [50] Local newspapers and members of the state government used the Godhra incident to incite the violence. They claimed without proof [47] the attack on the train was carried out by Pakistan's intelligence agency and that local Muslims had conspired with them to attack Hindus in the state. False stories were also printed by local newspapers which claimed that Muslims kidnapped and then raped some Hindu women. [51]
The day following the fire coordinated attacks began. Men wearing saffron robes and khaki shorts arrived en masse in trucks. They had swords, explosives and gas cylinders which were used to destroy homes and places of business. Attacks were made in full view of police stations and police officers, however the police did not intervene. [12] The rioters used mobile phones to coordinate their attacks. [52] By days end on 28 February in 27 towns and cities a curfew was declared. [53] A minister who spoke with Rediff.com stated that though the circumstances were tense in Baroda and Ahmedabad, the situation was under control, and that the police who had been deployed were enough to prevent any violence. In Baroda the administration also imposed a curfew in seven areas. The deputy superintendent of police stated that the Rapid Action Force had been deployed to sensitive areas in Godhra. Gordhan Zadaphia, the state home minister believed there would be no retaliation from the Hindu community. [54] Two days after (on 1 March) the violence had begun troops were airlifted into the state and began flag marches. Modi, stated that the violence was no longer as intense as it had been and that it would soon be brought under control, he also said that if the situation warranted it, then the police would have help by deploying the army. A shoot to kill order was also issued. [55] However the troop deployment was withheld by the state until the most severe aspects of the violence had ended, and it was not until 1 March that contingents of troops began to be deployed to help put down the violence. [56] After more than two months of violence a unanimous vote to gain federal intervention was passed in the upper house of parliament. Members of the opposition made accusations that the government had failed to give protection to Muslims in what was, after ten years the worst rioting in India. [57]
There was widespread targeted destruction of shrines and mosques. The tomb of Malik Asin was bulldozed, the Muhafiz Khan Mosque was also destroyed. The tomb of the eighteenth century saint Wali Gujrati was leveled and paved over the following day by the council. It is estimated that 230 masjids and dargahs were destroyed during the violence. [58] For the first time in the history of communal riots Hindu women took part, and looted Muslim shops. [53] It is estimated that up to 150,000 people were displaced during the violence. [59] It is estimated that 200 police officers died while trying to control the violence and human rights watch has reported on acts of exceptional heroism by Hindus, Dalits and tribals who tried to protect Muslims from the violence. [60][61]
Attacks on Muslims Dionne Bunsha writing on the Gulbarg Society massacre and murder of Ehsan Jafri, has said that Jafri begged the crowd to spare the women, he was dragged into the street and forced to parade naked yet he refused to say "Jai Shri Ram". He was then beheaded and thrown onto a fire, following this the rioters returned and burned Jafri's family, including two small boys to death. After the massacre Gulbarg burned for a week. [58][62] According to Siddharth Varadarajan on 28 February in the districts of Morjari Chowk and Charodia Chowk, in Ahmedabad of forty people killed by police shooting, all were Muslim. [63] It is estimated that at least 250 girls and women had been gang raped and then burned to death. [64] Children were killed by being burnt alive and those digging mass graves described the bodies as "burned and butchered beyond recognition". [65] Children were force fed petrol and then set on fire, pregnant women were gutted and their unborn child's body then shown to the women. In the Naroda Patiya mass grave of 96 bodies 46 were women. The murderers also flooded homes and electrocuted entire families inside. [66] Violence against women also included their being stripped naked, objects being forced into their bodies and then their being killed. According to Kalpana Kannabiran the rapes were part of a well organized, deliberate and pre-planned strategy, and that this puts the violence in the area of a political pogrom and genocide. [67] Other acts of violence against women were acid attacks, beatings and the killing of women who were pregnant. Children were also killed in front of their parents. [68] George Fernandes in a discussion in parliament on the violence caused widespread furore in his defence of the state government, saying that this was not the first time that women had been violated and raped in India. [69]
Children and infants were speared and held aloft before being thrown into fires. [70] Describing the sexual violence perpetrated against Muslim women and girls, Renu Khanna writes that the survivors reported "that sexual violence consisted of forced nudity, mass rapes, gang-rapes, mutilation, insertion of objects into bodies, cutting of breasts, slitting the stomach and reproductive organs, and carving of Hindu religious symbols on women's body parts." [71] The Concerned Citizens' Tribunal, characterised the use of rape "as an instrument for the subjugation and humiliation of a community". [71] Testimony heard by the committee stated that: A chilling technique, absent in pogroms unleashed hitherto but very much in evidence this time in a large number of cases, was the deliberate destruction of evidence. Barring a few, in most instances of sexual violence, the women victims were stripped and paraded naked, then gang-raped, and thereafter quartered and burnt beyond recognition ... The leaders of the mobs even raped young girls, some as young as 11 years old ... before burning them alive ... Even a 20-day-old infant, or a fetus in the womb of its mother, was not spared. [71]
According to Vandana Shiva "Young boys have been taught to burn, rape and kill in the name of Hindutva". [72]
Attacks on Hindus Human rights watch has reported that 10000 Hindus had been displaced during the violence, [citation needed] many Hindu residents were in fear of reprisal attacks or being mistaken for Muslim. Hindu home and business owners had placed saffron flags or pictures of Hindu deities on their properties to identify themselves as Hindu. On 17 March there was an attack by Muslims on Dalits. In Himatnagar, a man was found dead, his eyes had been gouged out. The Sindhi Market and Bhanderi Pole areas of Ahmedabad, were also attacked. [73]
There was a retaliatory attack in Jamalpur which resulted in 25 Hindus injured and five house being razed. The police quickly responded, and the colony was visited by Modi after a short period of time. [73][74] According to Varadarajan the majority of Hindu deaths were from shootings by the police, some were killed by Hindutva rioters after they had been mistaken for Muslims, with some deliberately killed for having worked with, or having befriended Muslims. A report from Frontline on the violence in Ahmedabad of 249 bodies recovered by 5 march, 30 were Hindus. Of these 13 had died as a result of police action and several others had died while attacking Muslim owned properties. 24 Muslims had died in police shootings even though there had been very few attacks by Muslims on Hindu neighborhoods. [75]
Media coverage The events in Gujarat were the first instance of communal violence in India in the age of 24-hour news coverage, and were televised worldwide, this coverage played a central role in the politics of the situation. Media coverage was generally critical of the Hindu right; however the BJP portrayed the coverage as an assault on the honour of Gujaratis and turned the hostility into an emotive part of their electoral campaign. [76][77]
With the violence receding in April a peace meeting was arranged at Sabarmati Ashram, a former home of Gandhi. Hindutva supporters and Police officers attacked almost a dozen Journalists. The state government banned television news channels critical of the government's response, and local stations were blocked. Two reporters working for STAR News were assaulted several times while covering the violence, on a return trip from having interviewed Modi when their car was surrounded by a crowd, one of the crowd claimed that they would be killed should they be a member of a minority community. Prasun Sonwalkar believes the media can play an important role in highlighting acts of action, or inaction and abuses of power. [78]
The Editors Guild of India, in its report on media ethics and coverage on the incidents stated that the news coverage was exemplary, with only a few minor lapses. The local newspapers Sandesh Gujarati and Gujarat Samachar however were heavily criticised. [79] The report states that Sandesh had headlines which would "provoke, communalize and terrorise people. The newspaper also used a quote from a VHP leader as a headline, "Avenge with blood". The report also stated that Samachar had played a role in increasing the tensions, but did not give all of its coverage over to "hawkish and inflammatory reportage in the first few weeks" The paper also carried reports to highlight communal harmony. Gujarat Today was given praise for showing restraint and for the balanced reportage of the violence. [80]
Critical reporting on the Gujarat government's handling of the situation helped bring about the Indian government's intervention in controlling the violence. The Editorial Guild of India rejected the charge that graphic news coverage aggravated the situation, saying that the coverage exposed the "horrors" of the riots as well as the "supine if not complicit" attitude of the state, helping propel remedial action. [81]
Allegations of state complicity Dipankar Gupta believes that the state and police were complicit in the violence is an undoubted fact. Gupta has also said that some officers were outstanding in the performance of their duties such as Himanshu Bhatt and Rahul Sharma. Sharma was reported to have said "I don't think any other job would have allowed me to save so many lives". [82] These attacks have been described by Gyanendra Pandey as pogroms and a new form of state terrorism, and that these incidents are not riots but "organized political massacres". [19] According to Paul Brass the only conclusion from the evidence which is available points to a methodical Anti-Muslim pogrom which was carried out with exceptional brutality and was highly coordinated. [83]
The media has also described the attacks as state terrorism rather than "communal riots" due to the lack of state intervention. [20] Selective targeting of properties was shown by the destruction of the offices of the Muslim Wakf board which was located within the confines of the high security zone and just 500 meters from the office of the chief minister. [48] Cited as further evidence of state complicity was that the rioters had printouts of voter registration lists, allowing them to target Muslim properties. [52][59]
According to Scott W. Hibbard the violence had been planned far in advance, and that similar to other instances of communal violence the Bajrang Dal, the VHP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh all took part in the attacks. [51] An investigation by the British high commission concluded that the violence had been pre-planned and the state government had supported the rioters and that the violence had the mark of ethnic cleansing. This report also said that while Modi remained in power then reconciliation between the Hindu and Muslim communities would not be possible. [84] The US Commission on International Religious Freedom Report in 2003 and 2004 called India a "country of particular concern", and cited as one reason for this was the violence in 2002. They also wrote the even though India has a tradition of democracy, minorities are subjected to mass killings and intense violence periodically. It also made note that those who carry out these acts of violence are rarely held accountable for their actions. [85]
An international fact finding committee formed of all women international experts from US, UK, France, Germany and Sri Lanka reported, "sexual violence was being used as a strategy for terrorising women belonging to minority community in the state." [86]
The CCT report includes testimony of the then Gujarat BJP minister Haren Pandya (since murdered), who testified about an evening meeting convened by Narendra Modi the evening of the Godhra train burning. At this meeting, officials were instructed not to obstruct the Hindu rage following the incident. [87] The report also highlighted a second meeting, held in Lunawada village ofPanchmahal district, attended by state ministers Ashok Bhatt, and Prabhatsinh Chauhan, and other BJP and RSS leaders, where "detailed plans were made on the use of kerosene and petrol for arson and other methods of killing." [88] The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind claimed in 2002 that some regional Congress workers collaborated with the perpetrators of the violence. [89]
Organizations such as Human Rights Watch criticised the Indian government for failure to address the resulting humanitarian condition of the people, the "overwhelming majority of them Muslim," who fled their homes for relief camps in the aftermath of the events, as well as the Gujarat state administration for engaging in a cover-up of the state's role in the massacres. [90]
In response to allegations of state involvement, Gujarat government spokesman, Bharat Pandya, told the BBC that the rioting was a spontaneous Hindu backlash fuelled by widespread anger against Muslims. He said "Hindus are frustrated over the role of Muslims in the on-going violence in Indian-administered Kashmir and other parts of India". [91]
The US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, John Hanford, expressing concern over religious intolerance in Indian politics, said that while the rioters may have been aided by state and local officials, he did not believe that the BJP- led central government was involved in inciting the riots. [92]
Criminal prosecutions Prosecution of those accused for criminal actions during the violence faced problems with witnesses being either bribed or intimidated, local judges were also biased. [93] As of April 2013 249 convictions had been secured, 184 Hindus and 65 Muslims. 31 of the Muslim convictions were for the Train incident in Godhra. [94]
The Indian Supreme Court has been strongly critical of the state government's investigation and prosecution of those accused of violence during the riots, directing police to review about 2,000 of the 4,000 riot-related cases that had been closed citing lack of evidence or leads. [38] Following this direction, police identified nearly 1,600 cases for re-investigation, arrested 640 accused and launched investigations against 40 police officers for their failures. [95][96]
Human Rights Watch alleged [97] that state and law enforcement officials were harassing and intimidating [98] key witnesses, NGOs, social activists and lawyers who were fighting to seek justice for riot victims. In its 2003 annual report, Amnesty International stated, "the same police force that was accused of colluding with the attackers was put in charge of the investigations into the massacres, undermining the process of delivery of justice to the victims." [99]
The Best Bakery murder trial received wide attention after witnesses retracted testimony in court and all of the accused were acquitted. The Indian Supreme Court, acting on a petition by social activist Teesta Setalvad, ordered a retrial outside Gujarat in which nine accused were found guilty in 2006. [100] A key witness, Zaheera Sheikh, who repeatedly changed her testimony during the trials and the petition was found guilty of perjury. [101]
After a local court dismissed the case against her assailants, Bilkis Bano approached the National Human Rights Commission and petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a retrial. The Supreme Court granted the motion, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation. CBI appointed a team of experts from CFSL Delhi and AIIMS under the guidance and leadership of Professor T. D. Dogra of AIIMS to exhume the mass graves to established the identity and cause of death of victims. The team successfully located and exhumed the remains of victims. [102] The trial of the case was transferred out of Gujarat and directing the central government to appoint the public prosecutor. [103][104] Charges were filed in a Mumbai court against nineteen people as well as six police officials and a government doctor over their role in the initial investigations. [105] In January 2008, eleven men were sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murders and a policeman was convicted of falsifying evidence. [106]
In 2005, the Vadodara fast-track court acquitted 108 people accused of murdering two youths, during a mob attack on a group of displaced Muslims returning under police escort to their homes in Avdhootnagar. The court passed strictures against the police for failing to protect the people under their escort [107] and failing to identify the attackers they had witnessed. [108]
Nine people were convicted of killing a Hindu man and injuring another during group clashes in Danilimda, Ahmedabad on 12 April, while 25 others were acquitted. [109]
Eight people, including a VHP leader and a member of the BJP, were convicted for the murder of seven members of a family and the rape of two minor girls in the village of Eral in Panchmahal district. [110][111]
52 people from Pavagadh and Dhikva villages in Panchmahal district were acquitted of rioting charges for lack of evidence. [112]
A stringent anti-terror law, the POTA, was used by the Gujarat government to charge 131 people in connection to the Godhra train fire, but not invoked in prosecuting any of the accused in the post-Godhra riots. [113][114] In 2005 the POTA Review Committee set up by the central government to review the application of the law opined that the Godhra accused should not be tried under the provisions of POTA. [115]
In February 2011 a special fast track court convicted 31 Muslims for the Godhra train burning incident and the conspiracy for the crime [39]
On 9 November 2011, a court in Ahmedabad sentenced 31 Hindus to life imprisonment for murdering dozens of Muslims, by burning a building in which they took shelter. [116] 41 other Hindus were acquitted of murder charges due to lack of evidence. [116] 22 additional people were convicted for attempted murder on 30 July 2012, while 61 others were acquitted. [117]
On 29 July 2012, an Indian court gave the verdict in the Naroda Patiya massacre case and convicted 32 people, including former state minister Maya Kodnani and Hindu leader Babu Bajrangi of involvement in the attacks. The court case began in 2009, and over 300 people (including victims, witnesses, doctors, and journalists) had testified before the court. For the first time, the verdict acknowledged the role of a politician in inciting Hindu mobs. Activists say that the verdict will embolden the opponent of Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, in the crucial run-up to state elections later this year, when Modi will seek a third term. Modi refused to apologise and denied that the government had a role in the riots. Twenty-nine people were acquitted during the verdict. Teesta Setalvad, a human rights campaigner, said, "For the first time, this judgment actually goes beyond neighborhood perpetrators and goes up to the political conspiracy. The fact that convictions have gone that high means the conspiracy charge has been accepted and the political influencing of the mobs has been accepted by the judge. This is a huge victory for justice." [118]
In April 2009, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) setup by the Supreme Court of India to investigate and expedite the Gujarat riot cases submitted before the Court that Teesta Setalvad had cooked up cases of violence to spice up the incidents. The SIT which is headed by former CBI director, R. K. Raghavan has said that false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents by Setalvad and other NGOs. [119] The SIT charged her of "cooking up macabre tales of killings". [120][121]
The court was told that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were questioned by SIT and it was found that the witnesses had not actually witnessed the incidents and they were tutored and the affidavits were handed over to them by Setalvad. [120]
The report which was brought to the notice of the bench, consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, noted that the much publicised case of a pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu being gangraped by a mob and foetus being removed from sharp weapons, was also cooked up and false. [119][122]
Many of the investigations and prosecutions of those accused of violence during the riots have been opened for re-investigation and prosecution. [38][95]
Inquiries There were more than 60 investigations by national and international bodies many of which having investigated the incident, concluded there was support from state officials in the violence. [123] The report from the National Human Rights Commission of India(NHRC) concluded that the attacks had been premeditated, that state government officials were complicit and that there was evidence of police not acting during the assaults on Muslims. The report also made mention of the BJP and Modi in "Promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazismthrough his governments support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified". The US state department also found "that Modi revised high school textbooks to describe Hitler's 'charismatic personality' and the 'achievements of Nazism'. [124][Note 1] The NHRC also stated that Res ipsa loquitur applied as the state had comprehensively failed to protect and had not upheld the rights of the people as set out in the Constitution of India. [125]
The CCT report which was headed up by Krishna Iyer, a retired justice of the Supreme Court released its findings in 2003 and stated that contrary to the government allegation of a conspiracy in Godhra, this incident had not been pre-planned and there were no evidence to indicate otherwise. On the statewide riots the CCT reported that several days before the Godhra incident, the excuse used for the attacks, homes belonging to Hindus which were in Muslim areas and been marked with pictures of Hindu deities or saffron flags, this had been done to prevent any accidental assaults on Hindu homes or businesses. The CCT investigation also discovered evidence that the VHP and the Bajrang Dal had training camps in which people were thought to view Muslims as an enemy. These camps were backed and supported by the BJP and RSS. They also reported that "The complicity of the state government is obvious. And, the support of the central government to the state government in all that it did is also by now a matter of common knowledge." [126]
The state government commissioned J G. Shah to conduct, what became, a controversial one man inquiry into the Godhra incident, its credibility was questioned and the NHRC and the National minorities commission requested that a sitting judge from the supreme court be appointed. The supreme court overturned the findings by Shah stating, "this judgement is not based on the understanding on any evidence, but on imagination". [127]
Early in 2003 the state government of Gujarat set up the Shah-Nanavati commission to investigate the entire incident, from the initial one at Godhra to the ensuing violence. The commission has been caught up in controversy from the beginning, activists and members of the opposition insisted on a judicial commission be set up and headed by a sitting judge rather than a retired one from the high court, the state refused. Within a few months Nanavati, before hearing any testimony declared there was no evidence of lapses by either the police or government in their handling of the violence. [128] In 2008 Shah died and was replaced by Justice Akshay Mehta, a retired high court judge. [129] Metha's appointment was controversial as he was the judge who allowed Babu Bajrangi to be bailed, Bajrangi is a leader of Bajrang Dal and is a prime suspect in the massacre at Naroda Patiya. [130][131] In July 2013 the commission was given its 20th extension, and Mukul Sinha of the civil rights group Jan Sangahrsh Manch said of the delays "I think commission has lost its significance and it now seems to be awaiting the outcome of the 2014 Lok Sabha election," [132] In 2007 Tehelka in an undercover operation had said that the Shah-Nanavati commission had relied on "manufactured evidence" Tehelka editor Tarun Tajpal has claimed that they had taped witnesses who stated they had given false testimony after they had been bribed by the Gujarati police force. Tehelka also recorded Ranjitsinh Patel where he stated that he and Prabhatsinh Patel had been paid 50,000 rupees apiece to amend earlier statements and to identify as conspirators some Muslims. [133] According to B G Verghese the Tehelka expose was far too detailed to have been a fake as some had claimed. [134]
A fact finding mission by the Sahmat organisation and headed up by Dr. Kamal Mitra Chenoy concluded that from the evidence the violence was more akin to ethnic cleansing or a pogrom rather than an instance of communal violence as they would be usually defined. The report said that the violence surpassed other periods of communal violence such as in 1969, 1985, 1989, and 1992not only in the amount of lives lost, but in the savagery of the attacks. [91][135]
Aftermath There was widespread destruction of property. 527 places of worship such as, masjids, Temples, cemeteries, dargahs and schools had been either destroyed or damaged. [136] It is estimated that Muslim property losses were, "100,000 houses, 1,100 hotels, 15,000 businesses, 3,000 handcarts and 5,000 vehicles destroyed." [137] In total 27,780 persons were arrested, either for rioting or as a preventative measure. For criminal behaviour 11,167 of which 3,269 were Muslim and 7,896 Hindu. Preventative arrests were 16,615 of which 2,811 were Muslim and 13,804 being Hindu. It was reported by the Concerned Citizens Tribunal that 90 percent of those arrested were almost immediately granted bail, even if they had been arrested on suspicion of murder or arson. There were also media reports that political leaders gave those being released public welcomes as they were given bail. This contradicts what the state government had been saying during the violence, that "Bail applications of all accused persons are being strongly defended and rejected". [138]
According to R.B.Sreekumar police officers who had followed the rule of law and helped prevent the riots from spreading were punished by the Modi government. They were subjected to disciplinary proceedings and transfers with some having to leave the state. [139] Sreekumar also claims that intimidation of whistleblowers and the subversion of the justice system are common practice. [140] Sreekumar also alleged that the state government issued "unconstitutional directives", with officials asking him to kill Muslims involved in rioting or disrupting a Hindu religious event. The Gujarat government denied the allegations, calling them "baseless" and instigated out of malice because Mr. Sreekumar was not promoted. [141]
Following the violence Bal Thackeray then leader of the nationalist group Shiv Sena said "Muslims are a cancer to this country ... Cancer is an incurable disease. Its only cure is operation. O Hindus take weapons in your hands and remove this cancer from your roots". [142] Pravin Togadia general secretary of the Vishva Hindu Parishad(VHP) said "All Hindutva opponents will get the death sentence" and Ashok Singhal then president of the VHP has said that the violence in Gujarat was a "successful experiment" which would be repeated nationwide. [142]
The militant group Indian Mujahideen have carried out attacks in revenge and to also act as a deterrent against further instances of mass violence against Muslims. [143] They also claimed to have carried out the 2008 Delhi bombings in revenge for mistreatment of Muslims, they referenced the destruction of the Babri Mosque and the violence in Gujarat 2002. [144] In September 2002 there was an attack on the Hindu temple of Akshardham, the gunmen carried letters on their persons which suggested that it was a revenge attack for the violence that the Muslims had gone through. [145] In August 2002 Shahid Ahmad Bakshi, an operative for the militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba in an act of revenge over the violence planned to assassinate Modi, Pravin Togadia of the VHP and other members of the right wing nationalist movement. [146]
In 2005 Modi was invited to the US to speak before the Asian-Americans hotel owners association. A petition was set up and signed by academics requesting that Modi be refused a diplomatic visa, Hindu groups in the US also protested and planned to demonstrate in cities in Florida. A resolution was submitted by John Conyers and Joseph R. Pitts in the House of Representativeswhich condemned Modi for inciting religious persecution. Pitts also wrote to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requesting Modi be refused a visa. On 19 March Modi was denied a diplomatic visa and his tourist visa was revoked [24]
Human rights watch has accused the state of orchestrating a cover up over their role in the violence. Human rights activists and Indian solicitors have urged that legislation be passed so that "communal violence is treated as genocide". [147] Following the violence thousands of Muslims were fired from their places of work, and those who tried to return home had to endure an economic and social boycott. [148]
On 3 May, former Punjab police chief K P S Gill was appointed as security adviser to the Chief Minister. [149] Defending the Modi administration in the Rajya Sabha against charges of genocide, BJP spokesman V K Malhotra said that the official toll of 254 Hindus, killed mostly by police fire, indicates how the state authorities took effective steps to curb the violence. [150]
Opposition parties as well as three coalition partners of the BJP-led central government demanded the dismissal of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi for failing to contain the violence, with some calling for the removal of Union Home Minister L. K. Advani as well. [151]
On 18 July, Chief Minister Narendra Modi asked the Governor of Gujarat to dissolve the state assembly and call fresh elections. [152] The Indian Election Commission ruled out early elections, citing the prevailing law and order situation, a decision the union government unsuccessfully [153] appealed against in the Supreme Court. [154]
Elections were held in December, and Modi was returned to power in a landslide victory. [155]
In 2004, the weekly newspaper Tehelka published a hidden camera expos alleging that BJP legislator Madhu Srivastava bribed Zaheera Sheikh, a witness in the Best Bakery killings trial. [156] Srivatsava denied the allegation, [157] and an inquiry committee appointed by the Indian Supreme Court drew an "adverse inference" from the video footage, though it failed to uncover evidence that money was actually paid. [158] In a 2007 expose, the newspaper released hidden camera footage of several members of the BJP, VHP and the Bajrang Dal admitting their role in the riots. [159][160] Among those featured in the tapes was the special counsel representing the Gujarat government before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, Arvind Pandya, who resigned from his post after they were made public. [161] While the report was criticised by some as being politically motivated, [162][163][164][165] some newspapers said the revelations simply reinforced what was common knowledge. [160][166][167][168] However there were several inaccuracies in the statements that diluted the impact of the sting operation. Babu Bajrani and Suresh Richard in the statements said that Narendra Modi visited Naroda Patiya one day after the massacre to thank them. However official record shows that Naredra Modi didn't visit Naroda Patiya. VHP activist, Ramesh Dave told Tehelka reporter that S.K.Gadhvi, one of the divisional superintendents of Police killed five Muslims in Dariapur area as promised to him. But the official records show that Gadhvi was only posted in Dariapur one month after the riots. During his tenure no such incident took place in Dariapur. [169] The Gujarat government blocked telecast of cable news channels broadcasting the expose, a move strongly condemned by the Editors Guild of India. [170]
Taking a stand decried by the media and other rights groups, Nafisa Hussain, a member of the National Commission for Women accused organisations and the media of needlessly exaggerating the plight of women victims of the riots. [171][172][173] which was strongly disputed as Gujarat did not have a State Commission for Women to act on the ground. [171] The newspaper Tribunereported that "The National Commission for Women has reluctantly agreed to the complicity of Gujarat Government in the communal violence in the state." The tone of their most recent report was reported by the Tribune as "lenient". [174]
In April 2012, a Special Investigation Team found absolved Modi of any involvement in the Gulberg massacre, arguably the worst episode of the riots. [175]
In his report, Raju Ramachandran, the amicus curiae for the case, strongly disagreed with a key conclusion of the R. K. Raghavan-led SIT: that IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at a late-night meeting of top Gujarat cops held at the Chief Minister's residence in the wake of 27 February 2002 Godhra carnage. It has been Bhatt's claim made in an affidavit before the apex court and in statements to the SIT and the amicus that he was present at the meeting where Modi allegedly said Hindus must be allowed to carry out retaliatory violence against Muslims. Ramachandran was of the opinion that Modi could be prosecuted for alleged statements he had made. He said there was no clinching material available in the pre-trial stage to disbelieve Bhatt, whose claim could be tested only in court. "Hence, it cannot be said, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved and no further proceedings should be taken against Shri Modi." [176][177]
Further, R. K. Shah the public prosecutor in the Gulbarg Society massacre resigned as the public prosecutor because he found it impossible to work with the SIT and further stated that "Here I am collecting witnesses who know something about a gruesome case in which so many people, mostly women and children huddled in Jafri's house, were killed and I get no cooperation. The SIT officers are unsympathetic towards witnesses, they try to browbeat them and don't share evidence with the prosecution as they are supposed to do." [178]
Relief efforts Amnesty International's annual report on India in 2003 claimed the "Gujarat government did not actively fulfill its duty to provide appropriate relief and rehabilitation to the survivors". [99]
The state government initially offered compensation payments of 200,000 rupees to the families of those who died in the Godhra train fire and 100,000 rupees to the families of those who died in the subsequent riots, which local Muslims described as discriminatory. [179] Subsequently, the government set the compensation amount at 150,000 rupees. [180]
By 27 March, nearly 100,000 displaced people moved into 101 relief camps. This swelled to over 150,000 in 104 camps the next two weeks. [181] The camps were run by community groups and NGOs, with the government committing to provide amenities and supplementary services. Drinking water, medical help, clothing and blankets were in short supply at the camps. [182] At least another 100 camps were denied government support, according to a camp organiser. [183] and relief supplies were prevented from reaching the camps over fears that they may be carrying arms. [184] On 9 September 2002, Narendra Modi during his speech mentioned that he was against running relief camps.This speech was initially withheld by the Gujarat government from the SIT. In January 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the government to hand over the speech and other documents to the SIT. "What brother, should we run relief camps? Should I start children-producing centres there? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the policy of family planning with determination. Ame paanch, Amara pachhees! (we are five and we have twenty-five) Can't Gujarat implement family planning? Whose inhibitions are coming in our way? Which religious sect is coming in the way? ..." [185]
Relief camp organisers alleged that the state government was coercing refugees to leave relief camps, with 25,000 people made to leave eighteen camps that were shut down. Following government assurances that camps would not be shut down, the Gujarat High Court bench ordered that camp organizers be given a supervisory role to ensure that the assurances were met. [186]
On 23 May 2008, the Union Government announced a 3.20 billion rupee (US$80 million) relief package for the victims of the riots. [187]
1984 anti-Sikh riots From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Sikh genocide" redirects here. For the genocide of 1762, see Sikh holocaust of 1762. For the genocide of 1746, see Sikh holocaust of 1746. 1984 anti-Sikh riots
A Sikh man being surrounded and beaten by a mob Date 31 October 1984 3 November 1984 Target Sikhs Deaths >8,000 (3,000 in Delhi) [1]
The 1984 anti-Sikhs riots or the 1984 Sikh Massacre were a series of pogroms [2][3][4][5] directed against Sikhs in India, by anti-Sikh mobs, in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. There were more than 8,000 [6] deaths, including 3,000 in Delhi. [4] The Central Bureau of Investigation, the main Indian investigating agency, is of the opinion that the acts of violence were organized with the support from the then Delhi police officials and the central government headed by Indira Gandhi's son, Rajiv Gandhi. [7] Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as Prime Minister after his mother's death and, when asked about the riots, said "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes". [8]
During the Indian Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in the 1970s, thousands of Sikhs campaigning for autonomous government were imprisoned. The sporadic violence continued as a result of an armed Sikh separatist group which was designated as a terrorist entity by the Indian government. In June 1984, during Operation Blue Star, Indira Gandhi ordered the Indian Army to attack the Golden Temple and eliminate any insurgents, as it had been occupied by Sikh separatists who were stockpiling weapons. Later operations by Indian paramilitary forces were initiated to clear the separatists from the countryside of Punjab state. [9]
The violence in Delhi was triggered by the assassination of Indira Gandhi, India's prime minister, on 31 October 1984, by two of her Sikh bodyguards in response to her actions authorising the military operation. The Indian government reported 2,700 deaths in the ensuing chaos. In the aftermath of the riots, the Indian government reported 20,000 had fled the city, however the People's Union for Civil Liberties reported "at least" 1,000 displaced persons. [10] The most affected regions were the Sikh neighbourhoods in Delhi. Human rights organisations and newspapers across India believe the massacre was organised. [4][7][11] The collusion of political officials in the massacres and the Judiciary's failure to penalise the killers alienated normal Sikhs and increased support for the Khalistan movement. [12] The Akal Takht, the governing religious body of Sikhism, considers the killings to be a genocide. [13]
In 2011, Human Rights Watch reported the Government of India had "yet to prosecute those responsible for the mass killings". [14] The 2011 WikiLeaks cable leaks revealed that the United States was convinced about the complicity of the Indian government ruled by the Indian National Congress in the riots, and termed it as "opportunism" and "hatred" of the Congress government against Sikhs. [15][16] The United States has denied to recognize the riots as genocide, but do acknowledge that "grave human rights violations" did take place. [17] Also in 2011, a new set of mass graves were discovered in Haryana, and Human Rights Watch reported that "Widespread anti-Sikh attacks in Haryana were part of broader revenge attacks" in India. [18]
Background[edit] See also: List of terrorist incidents in Punjab (India) and Punjab insurgency In 1973 Akali Dal and other Sikh groups introduced the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, which demanded special status for Punjab and Sikhs. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, security in Punjab started deteriorating due to State level and religious politics, leading to the sacking of the Punjab government in 1983. [19][20]
A section of Sikhs turned to militancy in Punjab; some Sikh militant groups aimed to create an independent state called Khalistan through acts of violence directed at members of the Indian government, army or forces. Others demanded an autonomous state within India, based on the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. A large number of Sikhs condemned the actions of the militants. [21]
By 1983, the situation in Punjab had become highly volatile. In October 1983, some Sikh militants stopped a bus and shot six Hindu bus passengers. On the same day, another group of extremists killed two officials on a train. [22]:174 The Congress(I)-led Central Government dismissed its own Punjab's government, declaring a state of emergency, and imposed the President's Rule in the state. During the five months preceding Operation Blue Star, from 1 January 1984 to 3 June 1984, 298 people had been killed in various violent incidents across Punjab. In five days preceding the Operation, 48 people had been killed in the violence. [22]:175
Characteristics of violence[edit] See also: Hondh-Chillar Massacre After the assassination of Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984, by two of her Sikh bodyguards, anti-Sikh riots erupted on 1 November 1984, and continued in some areas for days, killing more than 3,000 Sikhs. [4] Sultanpuri, Mangolpuri, Trilokpuri, and other Trans-Yamuna areas of Delhi were the worst affected. Mobs carried iron rods, knives, clubs, and combustible material, including kerosene and Petrol. The mobs swarmed into Sikh neighbourhoods, arbitrarily killing any Sikh men or women they could find. Their shops and houses were ransacked and burned. In other incidents, armed mobs stopped buses and trains, in and around Delhi, pulling out Sikh passengers to be lynched or doused with kerosene and burnt alive. Others were dragged out from their homes and hacked to death with bladed weapons. Such wide-scale violence cannot take place without police help. Delhi Police, whose paramount duty was to upkeep law and order situation and protect innocent lives, gave full help to rioters who were in fact working under able guidance of sycophant leaders like Jagdish Tytler and H K L Bhagat. It is a known fact that many jails, sub-jails and lock-ups were opened for three days and prisoners, for the most part hardened criminals, were provided fullest provisions, means and instruction to "teach the Sikhs a lesson". But it will be wrong to say that Delhi Police did nothing, for it took full and keen action against Sikhs who tried to defend themselves. The Sikhs who opened fire to save their lives and property had to spend months dragging heels in courts after-wards.
-Jagmohan Singh Khurmi, The Tribune These riots are alternately referred to as pogroms [2][3][4][23] or massacres. [24][25]
Meetings and distribution of weapons[edit] On 31 October, the crowd around the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, began shouting for vengeance with slogans such as "Blood for blood!" and turned into an unruly mob. At 17:20, President Zail Singh arrived at the hospital and the mob outside stoned his car. The mob began assaulting Sikhs by stopping cars and buses to pull Sikhs out of them and burn their turbans. [26] The violence on 31 October was restricted to the area around the AIIMS and did result in many Sikh deaths. [26] People in other parts of Delhi reported their neighbourhoods were peaceful. Throughout the night of 31 October and morning of 1 November, Congress leaders met with local supporters to distribute money and weapons. Congress party MP Sajjan Kumar and Trade Unionleader Lalit Maken handed out 100 rupee notes and bottles of liquor to assailants. [26] On the morning of 1 November, Sajjan Kumar was seen holding rallies in, at least, the following Delhi neighbourhoods; in Palam Colony from 06:30 to 07:00, in Kiran Gardens from 08:00 to 08:30, and in Sultanpuri from around 08:30 to 09:00. [26] In Kiran Gardens at 8:00 AM, Sajjan Kumar was seen distributing iron rods from a parked truck to a group of 120 people and instructing them to "attack Sikhs, kill them, and loot and burn their properties". [26] At an undefined time in the morning of 1 November, Sajjan Kumar led a mob of people along the Palam Railway main road to the Mangolpuri neighbourhood where the crowd answered his calls with chants of "Kill the Sardars" and "Indira Gandhi is our mother and these people have killed her". [27] In Sultanpuri, Moti Singh, a Sikh who had served in the Congress party for 20 years heard Sajjan Kumar give the following speech: Whoever kills the sons of the snakes, I will reward them. Whoever kills Roshan Singh and Bagh Singh will get 5,000 rupees each and 1,000 rupees each for killing any other Sikhs. You can collect these prizes on November 3 from my personal assistant Jai Chand Jamadar. [note 1]
The CBI recently told the court that during the riot Sajjan Kumar had said that "not a single Sikh should survive". [7][29] It also said that Delhi police kept its "eyes closed" during the riot as it was pre-planned. [7]
In the neighbourhood of Shakarpur, Congress (I) leader Shyam Tyagi's home was used as a meeting place for an undefined number of people. [28] H. K. L. Bhagat, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting distributed money to Boop Tyagi, Shyam Tyagi's brother, and ordered him to Keep these two thousand rupees for liquor and do as I have told you.... You need not worry at all. I will look after everything. [28]
During the night of 31 October, Balwan Khokhar, a local Congress (I) party leader who was later implicated in the ensuing massacre, held a meeting at the Ration Shop of Pandit Harkesh in the Palam Colony. [28] At 08:30 on 1 November, Shankar Lal Sharma, an active Congress party supporter, held a meeting at his shop where he formed a mob and had the people swear to kill Sikhs. [28]
The chief weapon used by the mobs, kerosene was supplied by a group of Congress Party leaders who owned filling stations. [30] In Sultanpuri, Brahmanand Gupta, the president of the A-4 block Congress Party distributed oil while Congress Party MP Sajjan Kumar "instructed the crowd to kill Sikhs, and to loot and burn their properties" as he had in other meetings throughout New Delhi. [30] In much the same way, meetings were held in places like Cooperative Colony in Bokaro where P.K. Tripathi, president of the local Congress Party and owner of a gas station in Nara More, provided kerosene to mobs. [30] Aseem Shrivastava, a Masters student at the Delhi School of Economics described the organised nature of the mobs in an affidavit submitted to the Misra Commission: The attack on Sikhs and their property in our locality appeared to be an extremely organized affair...There were also some young men on motorcycles, who were instructing the mobs and supplying them with kerosene oil from time to time. On more than a few occasions we saw auto-rickshaw arriving with several tins of kerosene oil and other inflammable material such as jute-sacks. [31]
A senior official at the Ministry of Home Affairs informed journalist Ivan Fera, that an arson investigation of several businesses burned in the riots had uncovered an unnamed combustible chemical "whose provision required large-scale coordination". [32] Eyewitness reports confirmed the use of a combustible chemical besides kerosene. [32] The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committeelater identified 70 affidavits which cited the use of a highly flammable chemical in its written arguments before the Misra Commission. [30]
Use of voter lists by the Congress Party[edit] On 31 October, Congress party officials provided assailants with voter lists, school registration forms, and ration lists. [33] The lists were used to find the location of Sikh homes and business, an otherwise impossible task because they were located in unmarked and diverse neighbourhoods. On the night of 31 October, the night before the massacres began, assailants used the lists to mark the houses of Sikhs with letter "S". [33] In addition, because most of the mobs were illiterate, Congress Party officials provided help in reading the lists and leading the mobs to Sikh homes and businesses in the other neighbourhoods. [30] By using the lists the mobs were able to pinpoint the locations of Sikhs they otherwise would have missed. [30]
Sikh men not in their homes were easily identified by their distinctive turban and beard while Sikh women were identified by their dress. In some cases, the mobs returned to locations where they knew Sikhs were hiding after consulting their lists. One man, Amar Singh, escaped the initial attack on his house by having a Hindu neighbour drag him into his neighbour's house and declare him dead. However, a group of 18 assailants later came looking for his body, and when his neighbour replied that others had already taken away the body an assailant showed him a list and replied, "Look, Amar Singh's name has not been struck off from the list so his dead body has not been taken away." [30]
Timeline of events[edit] First day (31 October)[edit] 09:20: Indira Gandhi is shot by two of her Sikh security guards at her residence, No. 1 Safdarjung Road, and rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). 10:50: Indira Gandhi dies. [34][35]
11:00: All India Radio listeners learn that the two security guards who shot Indira Gandhi were Sikhs. 16:00: Rajiv Gandhi returns from West Bengal and reaches AIIMS. Stray incidents of attacks in and around that area. 17:30: The motorcade of President Zail Singh, who is returning from a foreign visit, is stoned as it approaches AIIMS. evening and night Organized and well equipped gangs of ruffians set out in different directions from AIIMS. The violence, including violence towards Sikhs and destruction of Sikh properties, spreads. Rajiv Gandhi is sworn in as the Prime Minister. Senior advocate and BJP leader Ram Jethmalani, meets Home Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and urges him to take immediate steps to protect Sikhs from further attacks. Delhi's Lt. Governor, P.G. Gavai and Police Commissioner, S.C. Tandon, visits some of the affected areas. Second day (1 November)[edit] The first killing of a Sikh occurs in East Delhi. 09:00: Armed mobs take over the streets of Delhi and launch a massacre. Among the first targets were Gurdwaras, the holy temples of Sikhs The worst affected areas are low income colonies like Trilokpuri, Shahdara, Geeta Colony, Mongolpuri, Sultanpuri and Palam Colony. The few areas where the local police stations take prompt measures against mobs see hardly any killings or major violence. Farsh Bazar and Karol Bagh are two such examples. Third day (2 November)[edit] Curfew is announced throughout Delhi, but is not enforced. The Army deployed throughout Delhi too but ineffective because the police did not co-operate with soldiers (who are not allowed to open fire without the consent of senior police officers and executive magistrates). Mobs continue to rampage. Fourth day (3 November)[edit] Violence continues. By late evening, the national Army and local police units work together to subdue the violence. After law enforcement intervention, violence is comparatively mild and sporadic.In Delhi the dead bodies of the victims of riots were taken to All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi and Civil Hospital Mortuary Tis hazari, Delhi. [36]
Aftermath[edit] The Delhi High Court, while pronouncing its verdict on a riots-related case in 2009, stated: [37]
Though we boast of being the world's largest democracy and the Delhi being its national capital, the sheer mention of the incidents of 1984 anti- Sikh riots in general and the role played by Delhi Police and state machinery in particular makes our heads hang in shame in the eyes of the world polity. There are allegations that the government destroyed evidence and shielded the guilty. Asian Age, an Indian daily newspaper, ran a front-page story calling the government actions "the mother of all cover-ups." [38][39]
From 31 October 1984 to 10 November 1984, human rights groups People's Union for Democratic Rights and the People's Union for Civil Liberties conducted an inquiry into the riots by interviewing victims, police officers, neighbours of the victims, army personnel and political leaders. In their joint report, entitled Who Are The Guilty?, they concluded: The attacks on members of the Sikh Community in Delhi and its suburbs during the period, far from being a spontaneous expression of "madness" and of popular "grief and anger" at Mrs. Gandhi's assassination as made out to be by the authorities, were the outcome of a well organised plan marked by acts of both deliberate commissions and omissions by important politicians of the Congress (I) at the top and by authorities in the administration. [10]
Eyewitness accounts obtained by Time magazine state the Delhi Police looked on as "rioters murdered and raped, having gotten access to voter records that allowed them to mark Sikh homes with large Xs, and large mobs being bused in to large Sikh settlements". [40] Time reported the riots only led to minor arrests and that no major politician or police officer had been convicted and quotes Ensaaf, [41] a human rights organisation, as saying the government worked to destroy evidence of involvement by refusing to record First Information Reports. [40]
A Human Rights Watch report published in 1991 on violence between Sikh separatists and the Government of India traces part of the problem back to the government response to the violence: Despite numerous credible eye-witness accounts that identified many of those involved in the violence, including police and politicians, in the months following the killings, the government sought no prosecutions or indictments of any persons, including officials, accused in any case of murder, rape or arson. [42]
There are allegations that the violence was led and often perpetrated by Indian National Congress activists and sympathizers during the riot. The government, then led by the Congress, was widely criticised for doing very little at the time, possibly acting as a conspirator. Voting lists were used to identify Sikh families. [11]
A few days following the massacre, many surviving Sikh youth in Delhi had retaliated in either joining or creating Sikh militant groups. This lead to series of more violence in the Punjab, where several assassinations of senior Congress party members took place. The Khalistan Commando Force and Khalistan Liberation Force took responsibility of the targeted hits in retaliation. An underground network had also been established between the victims of the genocide and Sikh extremists. On 31 July 1985, Harjinder Singh Jinda, Sukhdev Singh Sukha and Ranjit Singh Gill of Khalistan Commando Force assassinated Lalit Maken (Member Parliament of India and a leader of Congress (I)) to take revenge for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. In a 31-page booklet titled Who Are The Guilty, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) listed 227 people who led the mobs, Lalit Maken's name was third on the list. [43]
Harjinder Singh Jinda and Sukhdev Singh Sukha also assassinated Congress (I) leader Arjan Dass because of his involvement in the 1984 anti- Sikh riots. Arjan Dass's name appeared in various affidavits submitted by Sikh victims to the Nanavati Commission which was headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. [44]
Convictions[edit] In Delhi, 442 of the rioters were convicted by the courts. 49 of these were sentenced to the life imprisonment, and another three to imprisonment of more than 10 years. 6 Delhi Police officers were punished for lapses during the riots. [45] In April 2013, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of three convicts who had challenged the High Court's decision to award them life sentence. [46]
In April 2013, the Karkardooma district court in Delhi convicted five people Balwan Khokkar (former councillor), Mahender Yadav (former MLA), Kishan Khokkar, Girdhari Lal and Captain Bhagmal for inciting a mob against the Sikhs in the Delhi Cantonment area. It acquitted the Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in the same case, leading to protests. [47]
Investigations[edit] Numerous commissions have been set up to investigate the riots. The most recent commission on the pogroms, headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, submitted its 185-page report to the Home Minister, Shivraj Patil on 9 February 2005 and the report was tabled in Parliament on 8 August 2005. Ten commissions and committees have so far enquired into the riots. The commissions below are listed in the order they were formed. Many of the primary accused were acquitted or never charge-sheeted. Marwah Commission[edit] This commission was appointed in November 1984. Ved Marwah, Additional Commissioner of Police, was assigned the job of enquiring into the role of the police during the carnage of November 1984. Many of the accused officers of Delhi Police went to Delhi High Court. As Ved Marwah completed his inquiry towards the middle of 1985, he was abruptly directed by the Home Ministry not to proceed further. [48] Complete records of the Marwah Commission were taken over by the government and were later transferred to the Misra Commission. However, the most important part of the record, namely the handwritten notes of Mr Marwah, which contained important information, were not transferred to the Misra Commission. Misra Commission[edit] Misra commission was appointed in May 1985. Justice Rangnath Misra, was a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Misra submitted his report in August 1986 and the report was made public six months thereafter in February 1987. In his report, Justice Misra stated that it was not part of his terms of reference to identify any person and recommended the formation of three committees. The commission and its report was criticised by People's Union for Civil Liberties and Human Rights Watch as biased. A Human Rights Watch report recording the Misra Commission noted: It recommended no criminal prosecution of any individual, and it cleared all high-level officials of directing the pogroms. In its findings, the commission did acknowledge that many of the victims testifying before it had received threats from local police. While the commission noted that there had been "widespread lapses" on the part of the police, it concluded that "the allegations before the commission about the conduct of the police are more of indifference and negligence during the riots than of any wrongful overt act." [42]
People's Union for Civil Liberties criticised the Misra commission for keeping information on the accused secret while revealing the names and addresses of victims of violence. [49]
Kapur Mittal Committee[edit] Kapur Mittal Committee was appointed in February 1987 on the recommendation of the Misra Commission to enquire into the role of the police, which the Marwah Commission had almost completed in 1985 itself, when the government asked that committee to wind up and not proceed further. After almost two years, this committee was appointed for the same purpose. This committee consisted of Justice Dalip Kapur and Mrs Kusum Mittal, retired Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. It submitted its report in 1990. Seventy- two police officers were identified for their connivance or gross negligence. The committee recommended forthwith dismissal of 30 police officers out of 72. However, till date, not a single police officer has been awarded any kind of punishment. Jain Banerjee Committee[edit] This committee was recommended by the Misra Commission for recommending registration of cases. It consisted of Justice M.L. Jain, former Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr A.K. Banerjee, retired Inspector General of Police. The Misra Commission held in its report that a large number of cases had not been registered and wherever the victims named political leaders or police officers, cases were not registered against them. This committee recommended registration of cases against Mr Sajjan Kumar in August 1987, but no case was registered. In November 1987, press reports criticised the government for not registering cases despite the recommendation of the committee. In December 1987, one of the co-accused along with Sajjan Kumar, namely Mr Brahmanand Gupta filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court and obtained a stay against this committee. The government did not oppose the stay. The Citizen's Justice Committee filed an application for vacating the stay. Ultimately, the writ petition was decided in August 1989 and the high court quashed the appointment of this committee. An appeal was filed by the Citizens Justice Committee in the Supreme Court of India. Potti Rosha Committee[edit] Potti Rosha Committee was appointed in March 1990, by the V.P. Singh government, as a successor to the Jain Banerjee Committee. In August 1990, Potti-Rosha issued recommendations for filing cases based on affidavits victims of the violence had submitted. There was one against Sajjan Kumar. A CBI team went to Kumar's home to file the charges. His supporters locked them up and threatened them harm if they persisted in their designs on their leader. As a result of this intimidation, when Potti- Rosha's term expired in September 1990, Potti and Rosha decided to disband their inquiry. Jain Aggarwal Committee[edit] The committee was appointed in December 1990 as a successor to the Potti Rosha Committee. It consisted of Justice J.D. Jain, retired Judge of the Delhi High Court and Mr D.K. Aggarwal, retired DGP of Uttar Pradesh. This committee recommended registration of cases against H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Dharamdas Shastri and Jagdish Tytler. The Committee also suggested setting up of two three Special Investigating Teams in the Delhi Police under a Deputy Commissioner of Police and the overall supervision by the Additional Commissioner of Police, In-charge CID and also to review the work-load of the three Special Courts set up to deal with October November 1984 riots cases exclusively so that these cases could be taken up on day-to-day basis. The question of appointment of Special Prosecutors to deal with October November 1984 riots cases exclusively was also discussed. This committee was wound up in August 1993. However, the cases recommended by this committee were not even registered by the police. Ahuja Committee[edit] Ahuja Committee was the third committee recommended by the Misra Commission to ascertain the total number of killings in Delhi. This committee submitted its report in August 1987 and gave a figure of 2,733 as the number of Sikhs killed in Delhi alone. Dhillon Committee[edit] The Dhillon Committee, headed by Mr Gurdial Singh Dhillon was appointed in 1985 to recommend measures for the rehabilitation of the victims. This committee submitted its report by the end of 1985. One of its major recommendations was that the business establishments, which had insurance cover, but whose insurance claims were not settled by insurance companies on the technical ground that riot was not covered under insurance, should be paid compensation under the directions of the government. This committee recommended that since all insurance companies were nationalised, they be directed to pay the claims. However, the government did not accept this recommendation and as a result insurance claims were rejected by all insurance companies throughout the country. Narula Committee[edit] Narula Committee was appointed in December 1993 by the Madan Lal Khurana led BJP government in Delhi. One of the recommendations of the Narula Committee was to convince the Central Government to grant sanction in this matter. Mr. Khurana took up the matter with the Central Government and in the middle of 1994, the Central Government decided that the matter did not fall within its purview and sent the case to the Lt. Governor of Delhi. It took two years for the Narasimha Rao Government to decide that it did not fall within Centre's purview. Narasimha Rao Government further delayed the case. This committee submitted its report in January 1994 and recommended the registration of cases against H.K.L. Bhagat and Sajjan Kumar. Ultimately, despite the delay by the Central government, the CBI was able to file the charge sheet in December 1994. The Nanavati Commission[edit] The Nanavati Commission was established in 2000 after some dissatisfaction was expressed with previous reports. [50] The Nanavati Commission was appointed by a unanimous resolution passed in the Rajya Sabha. This commission was headed by Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The commission submitted its report in February 2004. The commission reported that recorded accounts from victims and witnesses "indicate that local Congress leaders and workers had either incited or helped the mobs in attacking the Sikhs". [50] Its report also found evidence against Jagdish Tytler "to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organising attacks on Sikhs". [50] It also recommended that Sajjan Kumar's involvement in the rioting required a closer look. The commission's report also cleared Rajiv Gandhi and other high ranking Congress (I) party members of any involvement in organising riots against Sikhs. It did find, however, that the Delhi Police fired about 392 rounds of bullets, arrested approximately 372 persons, and "remained passive and did not provide protection to the people" throughout the rioting. [50][51]
Role of Jagdish Tytler[edit]
Jagdish Tytler in 2010 India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) closed all cases against Jagdish Tytler in November 2007 for his alleged criminal conspiracy to engineer riots against Sikhs in the aftermath of Indira Gandhis assassination on 31 October 1984. CBI submitted a report to the Delhi court which stated that no evidence or witness was found to corroborate the allegations against Tytler of leading murderous mobs during 1984 Re-probe Tytlers role: Court. [52] It was also alleged in the court that then member of Indian Parliament Jagdish Tytler was complaining to his supporters about relatively "small" number of Sikhs killed in his parliamentary constituency Delhi Sadar, which in his opinion had undermined his position in the ruling Indian National Congress party of India. [53]
However in December 2007, a certain witness, Jasbir Singh, who is living in California, appeared on several private television news channels in India, and stated he was never contacted by Central Bureau of Investigation. India's main opposition party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) demanded an explanation from the minister in-charge of CBI in Indian Parliament. However, Minister of State for Personnel Suresh Pachouri, who is in-charge of department of CBI, and was present in the parliament session, refused to make a statement. [54]
On 18 December 2007, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi court, Sanjeev Jain, who had earlier dismissed the case after CBI submitted a misleading report in his court, ordered India's Central Bureau of Investigation to reopen cases relating to 1984 anti-Sikh riots against Jagdish Tytler. [55]
In December 2008, a two-member CBI team was sent to New York to record the statements of two eyewitnesses, Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh. The two witnesses have stated that they saw Jagdish Tytler lead a mob during the riot, but did not want to come to India as they feared for their security. [56] They also blamed the CBI for not conducting a fair trial and accused it of protecting Tytler. However, in March 2009, CBI gave a clean chit to Tytler, amidst protests from Sikhs and the opposition parties. [57]
On 7 April 2009, a Sikh reporter with Dainik Jagran, Jarnail Singh hurled his shoe at home minister P Chidambaram in protest against the clean chit given to Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. He was however let off as the home minister did not want the police to pursue the case, in lieu of the upcoming Lok Sabha (general) elections. [58]
On 9 April 2009, over 500 protesters from various Sikh organisations from all over the country gathered outside the court which was scheduled to hear CBI's plea of closing the case against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 anti-Sikh riotscase. Later in the day, Tytler announced his decision to pull out of the Lok Sabha elections, saying he does not want to cause embarrassment to his party. This has forced the Congress party to cut the Tytler and Sajjan Kumar Lok Sabha tickets. [59] On 10 April 2013, Delhi court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to reopen the 1984 anti- Sikh riots case against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler.Court ordered CBI to further probe killing of 3 persons in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which Jagdish Tytler was given clean chit. [60]
Civil case in New York[edit]
Kamal Nath in 2008 On 14 March 2011, an American-based NGO, Sikhs for Justice, filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing the Indian government of complicity in the riots. The court issued a summons to the Indian Congress Party and Kamal Nath. [61]
[62]
[63] The court complaint was dismissed in March 2012 by Judge Robert Sweet of the US District Court Southern District of New York, against Nath, who stated that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case. [64] The 22- page order granted Nath's motion to dismiss the claim, and the judge also noted that 'Sikhs for Justice' failed to serve the summons and its complaints to Nath in an appropriate and desired manner. [65] On September 3, 2013 a Federal Court in New York issued summons to Sonia Gandhi for her alleged role in protecting the culprits of the 1984 Anti Sikh Riots. [66]
Alleged Role of Amitabh Bachchan[edit] Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan was accused by certain members of the Sikh community of instigating attacks [67] He is alleged to have made polemic remarks saying "Khoon ka Badla Khoon se lenge" (Blood for Blood). [67][68][69][70] Responding to the allegations, Mr Bachchan is said to pleading his innocence to the Akal Takht. [71][72][73]
Impact and legacy[edit] It seemed easy for [former Prime Minister] Rajiv Gandhi to say, When a giant tree falls, the earth below shakes. Our trees fell and we can still feel the tremors. -Victim whose husband was burned alive during the riots [74]
The attack on the Sikh community in India is remembered annually in the United Kingdom with a remembrance march through London bringing together thousands of Sikhs from all over the UK. [citation needed] The Sikh riots are cited as a reason to support creation of a Sikh homeland in India, often called Khalistan. [75][76]
Many ordinary Indians of different religious dispositions made significant efforts to hide and help Sikh families during the rioting. [77] Recently on 15 July 2010 the Sikh high clergy (Jathedar) declared the events following the death of Indira Gandhi to be a Sikh "Genocide" replacing the widely used term "Anti-Sikh riots" used by the Indian government, media and other writers. [78] The decision came soon after a similar motion was raised in the Canadian Parliament by a Sikh MP.
Operation Blue Star From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2013) Operation Blue Star
Akal Takht being repaired by the Indian Government after the attack Date 38 June 1984 Location Harmandir Sahib Complex in Amritsar, India Result Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale killed. Akal Takht and various other buildings heavily damaged. Militants cleared out of Harmandir Sahib complex. Assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in October. Belligerents * Indian Army Central Reserve Police Force Border Security Force Punjab Police Supported by: Special Air Service [1][2]
Sikh militants [3][4][5]
Nihung guards [6]
Commanders and leaders Major General Kuldip Singh Brar Lt Gen Ranjit Singh Dyal [7]
Lt Gen Krishnaswamy Sundarji Peter de la Billire Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Bhai Amrik Singh Shabeg Singh Strength 10,000 armed troops. of 9th Division, National Security Guard 175Parachute Regiment and Artillery units 175 200 [citation needed]
700 jawans of CRPF 4th Battallion and BSF 7th Battallion 150 Jawans of Punjab Armed Police and officers from Harmandir Police Station. [citation needed]
Casualties and losses 136 total casualties [8] 140200 combatants killed 4925,000 [9] civilians killed Operation Blue Star was an Indian military operation which took place 38 June 1984, ordered by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi [10] in order to establish control [11] over the Harmandir Sahib Complex in Amritsar, Punjab and remove Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his armed followers from the complex buildings. Bhindranwale had earlier taken residence in Harmandir Sahib and made it his headquarters in April 1980. Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the gurudwara in order to start a major armed uprising. [12] These reasons are contested by most Sikh scholars who claim that the Akal Takhat is a temporal seat and keeping weapons in gurudwaras is well within the precincts of Sikhism. The operation had two components: Operation Metal, confined to the Harmandir Sahib complex, and Operation Shop, which raided the Punjabi countryside to capture any suspects. [13] Following it, Operation Woodrose was launched to thoroughly scan the Punjab countryside. The operation was carried out by Indian Army troops with tanks, artillery, helicopters, armoured vehicles, and chemical weapons. [14][15][16] Actual casualty figures given by Kuldip Singh Brar put the number of deaths among the Indian army at 83 and injuries at 220. [17] According to the official estimate, 492 civilians were killed, [18][19] though some independent claims run as high as 5,000. [9]
In addition, the CBI is considered responsible for seizing historical artifacts and manuscripts in the Sikh Reference Library, before burning it down. [20] The military action led to an uproar amongst Sikhs worldwide and the increased tension following the action led to assaults on members of the Sikh community within India. Many Sikh soldiers in the Indian army mutinied, many Sikhs resigned from armed and civil administrative office and several returned awards and honours they had received from the Indian government. [21]
Four months after the operation, on 31 October 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, two of her Sikh bodyguards, in what is viewed as an act of vengeance. Subsequently, more than 3,000 Sikhs were killed in the ensuing anti- Sikh riots. [22] Within the Sikh community itself, Operation Blue Star has taken on considerable historical significance and is often compared to what Sikhs call 'the great massacre' by the Afghan invader Ahmad Shah Durrani, the Sikh holocaust of 1762. [23]
Contents [hide] 1 Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in Harmandir Sahib 2 The Operation o 2.1 June 1 st 1984 o 2.2 June 2 nd 1984 o 2.3 June 3 rd 1984 o 2.4 June 4 th 1984 o 2.5 June 5 th 1984 2.5.1 1900 hrs 2.5.2 22000730 hrs o 2.6 June 6 th 1984 o 2.7 June 7 th 1984 o 2.8 June 810, 1984 3 Casualties 4 Aftermath 5 Criticisms o 5.1 Last resort o 5.2 Timing o 5.3 Media Blackout o 5.4 Human rights o 5.5 Honours to the soldiers 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in Harmandir Sahib[edit]
Sri Harmandir Sahib at night Throughout his career Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale remained in contact with Indira Gandhi. [24][25] Bhindranwale had earlier taken residence in Harmandir Sahib and made it his headquarters in April 1980, when he was accused of the assassination ofNirankari Gurbachan Singh. [26] The Nirankari Baba, also known as Baba Gurbachan, had been the target of an attack by followers of Bhindranwale, outside Harmandir Sahib. On 13 April 1978, Nirankari's Baba Gurbachan is alleged to have ridiculed 10th Guru Gobind Singh in a Nirankari Convention held in Amritsar. This promptedAkhand Kirtani Jatha to lead a peaceful protest against the offensive actions by Baba Gurbachan. Police responded to the Sikhs' peaceful protest by opening fire on them. Amritsar police used guns to fire at the protesters. In the ensuing violence, several people were killed: two of Bhindranwale's followers, eleven members of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (total 13 Sikhs) and three Nirankaris. [27]
In 1982, Bhindranwale and approximately 600 armed followers moved into a guest- house called the Guru Nanak Niwas, in the precinct of Harmandir Sahib. [28] From here he met and was interviewed by international television crews. [28]
By 1983, Harmandir Sahib became a fort for a large number of separatists. [29] On 23 April 1983, the Punjab Police Deputy Inspector General A. S. Atwal was shot dead as he left the Harmandir Sahib compound. The following day, after the murder, Harchand Singh Longowal (then president of Shiromani Akali Dal) hinted at the involvement of Bhindranwale in the murder. [30]
Harmandir Sahib compound and some of the surrounding houses were fortified. The Statesman reported on 4 July that light machine-guns and semi-automatic rifles were known to have been brought into the compound. [31] Faced with imminent army action and with the foremost Sikh political organisation, Shiromani Akali Dal (headed by Harchand Singh Longowal), abandoning him, Bhindranwale declared "This bird is alone. There are many hunters after it". [32]
Time magazine described Amritsar in November 1983: "These days it more closely resembles a city of death. Inside the temple compound, violent Sikh fanatics wield submachine guns, resisting arrest by government security forces. Outside, the security men keep a nervous vigil, all too aware that the bodies of murdered comrades often turn up in the warren of tiny streets around the shrine." [33]
On 15 December 1983, Bhindranwale was forced to move out of Guru Nanak Niwas house by members of the Babbar Khalsa who acted with Harcharan Singh Longowal's support. Longowal by now feared for his own safety. [29]
The Operation[edit]
The Indian Army used seven Vijayanta Tanks during the operation [34]
According to the Indian government, Operation Blue Star was launched to eliminate Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers who had sought cover in the Amritsar Harmandir Sahib Complex. The armed Sikhs within the Harmandir Sahib were led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and former Maj. Gen.Shabeg Singh. Lt. Gen. Kuldip Singh Brar had command of the action, operating under Gen. Sundarji. Indira Gandhi first asked Lt. Gen. S. K. Sinha, then Vice-Chief of Indian Army and selected to become the next Army chief, to prepare a position paper for assault on the Golden Temple. [35] Lt. Gen. Sinha advised against any such move, given its sacrilegious nature according to Sikh tradition. He suggested the government adopt an alternative solution. A controversial decision was made to replace him with General Arun Shridhar Vaidya as the Chief of the Indian army. General Vaidya, assisted by Lt. Gen. K Sundarji as Vice-Chief, planned and coordinated Operation Blue Star. [35]
On 3 June, a 36-hour curfew was imposed on the state of Punjab with all methods of communication and public travel suspended. [36] Electricity supplies were also interrupted, creating a total blackout and cutting off the state from the rest of India and the world. [37] Complete censorship was enforced on the news media. [37]
The Indian Army stormed Harmandir Sahib on the night of 5 June under the command of Kuldip Singh Brar. The forces had full control of Harmandir Sahib by the morning of 7 June. There were casualties among the army, civilians, and militants. Sikh leaders Bhindranwale and Shabeg Singh were killed in the operation. [38]
June 1 st 1984[edit] At 1240 hrs the CRPF started firing at "Guru Ram Das Langar" building. The Border Security Force and the Central Reserve Police Force, under orders of the Army, started firing upon the Complex, in which at least 8 people died. [39]
June 2 nd 1984[edit] The Indian army had already sealed the international border from Kashmir to Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. At least seven divisions of army were deployed in villages of Punjab. By the nightfall media and the press were gagged; the rail, road and air services in Punjab were suspended. Foreigners' and NRIs' entry was also banned . General Gauri Shankar was appointed as the Security Advisor to the Governor of Punjab. The water and electricity supply was cut off. [40][41][42]
June 3 rd 1984[edit] A complete curfew was observed with the army and para-military patrolling the whole Punjab. The army sealed off all routes of ingress and exit around the temple complex. June 4 th 1984[edit] The army started bombarding the historic Ramgarhia Bungas, the water tank, and other fortified positions. The army used Ordnance QF 25 pounder and destroyed the outer defences laid by General Shabeg Singh. The army then placed tanks and APCs on the road separating the Guru Nanak niwas building. About 100 died in pitched battles. [43]
Nearly fifty thousand Sikhs gathered in the Golewal village about 25 km from Amritsar to fight the army, thirty thousand converged from the side of Batala in Gurdaspur district and about twenty thousand Sikhs gathered at Chauk Mehta, the headquarters of Damdami Taksal. Another formation of about twenty thousand were marching from the side of Harik Patan at confluence of the riversSutlej and Beas. [citation needed]
The army helicopters spotted the massive movements, and General K. Sunderji sent tanks and APCs to meet them. Hundreds or thousands of Sikhs were killed at the rendezvous. [44]
The artillery and small arms firing stopped for a while, and Gurcharan Singh Tohra, former head of SGPC was sent to negotiate with Bindrawale, however, he was unsuccessful. The firing resumed again. June 5 th 1984[edit] In the morning, shelling started on the building inside the Harmandir Sahib complex. [45] The 9th division launched a frontal attack on the Akal Takht, although it was unable to secure the building. 1900 hrs[edit] The BSF and CRPF attacked Hotel Temple View and Brahm Boota Akhara respectively on the southwest fringes of the complex. By 2200 hours both the structures were under their control. [46] The Army simultaneously attacked various other gurdwaras. Sources mention either 42 or 74 locations. [43]
22000730 hrs[edit]
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2013) Late in the evening, the generals decided to launch a simultaneous attack from three sides. 10 Guards, 1 Para Commandos and Special Frontier Force (SFF) would attack from the main entrance of the complex, and 26 Madras and 9 Kumaon battalions from the hostel complex side entrance from the south. The objective of the 10 Guards was to secure the northern wing of the Temple complex and draw attention away from SFF who were to secure the western wing of the complex and 1 Para Commandos who were to gain a foothold in Akal Takht and in Harmandir Sahab, with the help of divers. 26 Madras was tasked with securing the southern and the eastern complexes, and the 9 Kumaon regiment with SGPC building and Guru Ramdas Serai. 12 Bihar was charged with providing a cordon and fire support to the other regiments by neutralising enemy positions under their observance. [47]
As the troops entered the temple from the Northern entrance, they were gunned down by light machine-gun fire from both sides of the steps. The few commandos who did get down the steps were driven back by a barrage of fire from the building on the south side of the sacred pool, and thus they failed to reach the pavement around the Sacred Pool. The commandos and SFF inched pillar by pillar to reach the western wing where they came under fire from Harmandir Sahib itself. They were under strict instructions not to fire at Harmandir Sahib, the sanctum sanctorum, and instead told to focus on Akal Takth. An initial attempt by the commandos to gain a foothold at Darshani Deori failed as they came under devastating fire, after which several further attempts were made with varying degrees of success. Eventually, other teams managed to reach Darshani Deori, a building north of the Nishant Sahib, and started to fire at the Akal Takth and a red building towards its left, so that the SFF troops could get closer to the Darshani Deori and fire gas canisters at Akal Takth. The canisters bounced off the building and affected the troops instead. Meanwhile, 26 Madras and 9 Garhwal Rifles (reserve troops) had come under heavy fire from the Langar rooftop, Guru Ramdas Serai and the buildings in the vicinity. Moreover, they took a lot of time in forcing open the heavy Southern Gate, which had to be shot open with tank fire. This delay caused a lot a of casualties among the Indian troops fighting inside the complex. Three tanks and an APC had entered the complex. Crawling was impossible as Shabeg Singh had placed light machine guns nine or ten inches above the ground. The attempt caused many casualties among the Indian troops. A third attempt to gain the Pool was made by a squad of 200 troops from both the commandos and the Guards. On the southern side, the Madras and Garhwal battalions were not able to make it to the pavement around the pool because they were engaged by positions on the southern side. Despite the mounting casualties, General Sunderji ordered a fourth assault by the commandos. This time, the Madras battalion was reinforced with two more companies of the 7th Garhwal Rifles under the command of General K S Brar. However, the Madras and Garhwal troops under Brigadier A K Diwan once again failed to move towards the parikarma (the pavement around the pool). Brigadier Diwan reported heavy casualties and requested more reinforcements. General Brar sent two companies of 15 Kumaon Regiment. This resulted in yet more heavy casualties, forcing Brigadier Diwan to request tank support. As the APC inched closer to the Akal Takth it was hit with an anti tank RPG, which immediately immobilized it. Brar also requested tank support. The tanks received the clearance to fire their main guns (105 mm high explosive Squash Head shells) only at around 7.30 am. [48]
June 6 th 1984[edit] Vijayanta tanks shelled and destroyed the Akal Takhat. A group trying to escape was mowed down by machine gun fire. [citation needed] The resistance continued from the neighbouring structures of the Akal Takhat. [citation needed]
June 7 th 1984[edit] The army gained effective control of the Harmandir Sahib complex. [citation needed]
June 810, 1984[edit] The Army fought about four militant Sikhs holed up in basement of a tower. A colonel of the commandos was shot dead by an LMG burst while trying to force his way into the basement. By the afternoon of 10 June, the entire operation was completed. [citation needed]
Casualties[edit] The Army placed total casualties at: [8]
Civilians: 492 dead Military: 136 killed and 220 wounded. Unofficial casualty figures were much higher. [49] Some suggest that civilian casualties numbered 20,000. [50]
Mark Tully and Satish Jacob mention of use of tanks by the army at Sultanwind area over the civilian Sikhs marching towards Amritsar. [51]
According to the independent sources, the number of military personnel was at least 700. [52] In one of his speeches, Rajiv Gandhi, the former prime minister of India, admitted to have lost more than 700 soldiers in this operation. [53] CNN-IBN on the 25 death anniversary of Indira Gandhi, i.e. 31 Oct 2009, reported to have lost 365 commandos. [54] Apart from this, an unspecified number of soldiers were been reported killed during the fighting at 38 other gurdwaras in Punjab. Strong resistance was reported at Muktsar and Moga. [55] On top of this, more Indian army personnel would have perished during mutinies by Sikh soldiers at different military locations across India. [55]
Aftermath[edit] Main articles: Assassination of Indira Gandhi and 1984 anti-Sikh riots At least 4000 [56] Sikh soldiers mutinied at different locations in India in protest, with some reports of large-scale pitched battles being fought to bring mutineers under control. [57]
The operation also led to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984 by two of her Sikh bodyguards, [58][59] triggering the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The widespread killing of Sikhs, principally in the national capital Delhi but also in other major cities in North India, led to major divisions between the Sikh community and the Indian Government. The army withdrew from Harmandir Sahib later in 1984 under pressure from Sikh demands. [60]
General Arun Shridhar Vaidya, the Chief of Army Staff at the time of Operation Blue Star, was assassinated in 1986 in Pune by two Sikhs, Harjinder Singh Jinda and Sukhdev Singh Sukha. Both were sentenced to death, and hanged on 7 October 1992. Sikh separatists continued to use and occupy the temple compound and on 1 May 1986, Indian paramilitary police entered the temple and arrested 200 separatists that had occupied Harmandir Sahib for more than three months. [61] On 2 May 1986 the paramilitary police undertook a 12-hour operation to take control of Harmandir Sahib at Amritsar from several hundred separatists, but almost all the major radical leaders managed to escape. [62] In June 1990, the Indian government ordered the area surrounding the temple to be vacated by local residents in order to prevent separatists activity around the temple. [63]
Criticisms[edit] The use of artillery in the congested inner city of Amritsar proved deadly to many civilian bystanders living near Harmandir Sahib. The media blackout throughout the Punjab resulted in widespread doubt regarding the official stories and aided the promotion of hearsay and rumour. [64] The operation is criticised on four main grounds: the choice of time of attack by Government, the heavy casualties, the loss of property, and allegations of human rights violations by Army personnel. In addition, Indira Gandhi has been accused of using the attack for political ends. Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer stated that Indira Gandhi attacked the Harmandir Sahib complex to present herself as a great hero in order to win forthcoming elections. [65]
Last resort[edit] S. K. Sinha, the GOC of the Indian Army who was sacked just before the attack, had advised the government against the operation. [66] He later criticized the Government's claim that the attack represented a "last resort". [67] He also stated that the operation would have been conducted in an entirely different manner if he had planned it. [68]
He also pointed out that a few days before the operation, the Home Minister had announced that the troops would not be sent to Harmandir Sahib. [68] , but the operation seems to have been in plans much earlier. The General has alleged that the army had been rehearsing the operation in a replica of Harmandir Sahib at a secret location near Chakrata Cantonment in the Doon Valley. [69][70]
Timing[edit] The timing of Operation Blue Star coincided with a Sikh religious day, the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev, the founder of the Harmandir Sahib. Sikhs from all over the world visit the temple on this day. Many Sikhs view the timing and attack by the Indian Army as an attempt to inflict maximum casualties on Sikhs and demoralise them, [71] and the government is in turn blamed for the inflated number of civilian dead for choosing to attack on this day. The justification given by the Centre was the announcement made by Longowal that a State-wide civil disobedience movement would be launched on 3 June 1984, by refusing to pay land revenue, water and electricity bills, and blocking the flow of grain out of Punjab. [72][73]
The Sikh community's anger and suffering was further increased by comments from leading newspaper editors, such as Ramnath Goenka, terming the operation as "A greater victory than the win over Bangladesh, this is the greatest victory of Mrs. Gandhi". [74]
Media Blackout[edit]
Brahma Chellaney was the only reporter for a foreign news service in Amritsar during the media blackout. Before the attack by army a media blackout was imposed in Punjab. [75] The Times reporter Michael Hamlyn reported that journalists were picked up from their hotels at 5 am in a military bus, taken to the adjoining border of the state of Haryana and "were abandoned there". [75] The main towns in Punjab were put under curfew, transportation was banned, a news blackout was imposed, and Punjab was "cut off from the outside world". [76] A group of journalists who later tried to drive into Punjab were stopped at the road block at Punjab border and were threatened with shooting if they proceeded. [75] Indian nationals who worked with the foreign media also were banned from the area. [75] The press criticized these actions by government as an "obvious attempt to attack the temple without the eyes of the foreign press on them". [77] Associated Press reporter Brahma Chellaney managed to report on the operation. Human rights[edit] Brahma Chellaney, who was then the South Asia correspondent of the Associated Press, was the only foreign reporter who managed to stay on in Amritsar despite the media blackout. [78] His dispatches, filed by telex, provided the first non-governmental news reports on the bloody operation in Amritsar. His first dispatch, front-paged by the New York Times, The Times of London and The Guardian, reported a death toll about twice of what authorities had admitted. According to the dispatch, about 780 militants and civilians and 400 troops had perished in fierce gunbattles. The high casualty rates among security forces were attributed to "the presence of such sophisticated weapons as medium machine guns and rockets" in the militants arsenal. [79]
Mr. Chellaney also reported that several suspected Sikh militants had been shot with their hands tied. [80] The dispatch, after its first paragraph reference to several such deaths, specified later that eight to 10 men had been shot in that fashion. [81] In that dispatch, Mr. Chellaney interviewed a doctor who said he was picked up by the army and forced to conduct postmortems despite the fact he had never done any postmortem examination before. [80] The number of casualties reported by Mr. Chellaney were far more than government reports, [82] and the Indian government, which disputed his casualty figures [83] , accused him of inflammatory reporting. [84] The Associated Press stood by the reports and figures, the accuracy of which was also "supported by Indian and other press accounts" and by reports in The Times and The New York Times. [85]
Similar accusations of highhandedness by the Indian Army and allegations of human rights violations by security forces in Operation Blue Star and subsequent military operations in Punjab have been levelled by Justice V. M. Tarkunde, [86] Mary Anne Weaver, [87] human rights lawyer Ram Narayan Kumar, [88] and anthropologists Cynthia Mahmood and Joyce Pettigrew. [89][90][91]
The Indian Army responded to this criticism by stating that they "answered the call of duty as disciplined, loyal and dedicated members of the Armed Forces of India...our loyalties are to the nation, the armed forces to which we belong, the uniforms we wear and to the troops we command". [92]:156
It was later pointed out that as the blockade approach taken by Rajiv Gandhi five years later in Operation Black Thunder, when Sikh militants had again taken over the temple complex, was highly successful as they managed to resolve the stand-off peacefully and in hindsight, Operation Blue Star could have been averted by using similar blockade tactics. The army responded by stating that "no comparison is possible between the two situations", as "there was no cult figure like Bhindranwale to idolise, and no professional military general like Shahbeg Singh to provide military leadership" and "the confidence of militants having been shattered by Operation Blue Star". [92] Furthermore, it is pointed out that the separatists in the temple were armed with machine guns, anti tank missiles and rocket launchers, and that they strongly resisted the army's attempts to dislodge them from the shrine, appearing to have planned for a long stand-off, having arranged for water to be supplied from wells within the temple compound and had stocked food provisions that could have lasted months. [92]:153154
The Hindustan Times correspondent Chand Joshi alleged that the army units "acted in total anger" and shot down all the suspects rounded up from the temple complex. [93] Mark Tully and Satish Jacob, in Amritsar; Mrs. Gandhi's Last Battle, criticized the Army for burning down the Sikh Reference Library, stating that it did this to destroy the culture of the Sikhs. In The Sikhs of Punjab, Joyce Pettigrew alleges that the army conducted the operation to "suppress the culture, and political will, of a people". [91]
Honours to the soldiers[edit] The soldiers and generals involved in the Operation were presented with gallantry awards, honours, decoration strips and promotions by the Sikh president Zail Singh in a ceremony conducted on 10 July 1985. The act was criticized by authors and activists such as Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, who accused the troops of human rights violations during the Operation. [65]
2013 Muzaffarnagar riots From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots Date 27 August 2013 17 September 2013 Location Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India 29.472332N 77.708874ECoordinates: 29.472332N 77.708874E Causes Brawl between Hindu and Muslim youth at Kawal village on 27 August [1]
Violence and action Death(s) 49 [3]
Injuries 93 [2]
Arrested 1,000 booked [4]
Detained 10,000 [2]
Muzaffarnagar Location of riots in Uttar Pradesh, India The clashes between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India in August - September 2013, resulted in at least 49 deaths and injured 93. [5][6][7][8] By 17 September, the curfew was lifted from all riot affected areas and the army was also withdrawn. [9]
The riot has been described as "the worst violence in Uttar Pradesh in recent history," with the army, as a result, being deployed in the state for the first time in last 20 years. [10]
Contents [hide] 1 Initial clashes 2 Gathering of masses 3 Jauli Canal Incident 4 Sexual violence 5 Aftermath o 5.1 Mahapanchayat in Sardhana o 5.2 Repercussions 6 Action 7 Investigation o 7.1 Misuse of social media o 7.2 Sting operation 8 Response 9 Reactions 10 Relief camps o 10.1 Deaths in camps 11 See also 12 References 13 External links Initial clashes[edit] Clashes between two communities, Jat and muslims, in Shamli and Muzaffarnagar, India began on 27 August 2013. The original cause of the rioting is disputed according to bipartisan claims largely concerning the affected communities. [11] In this case, the cause of this rioting alternates between a traffic accident and an eve-teasing incident. According to the first version, the cause was a minor traffic accident involving some youths which then spiralled out of control when it eventually took on religious overtones. [12] In the second version, a girl from the Hindu Jat community was allegedly harassed in an Eve-teasing incident by one Muslim youth in Kawal village. [13][14] In retaliation, Hindu relatives of the girl in question, Sachin Singh and Gaurav Singh, [15][16] killed the youth named Shahnawaz Qureshi. [17] The two brothers were lynched by a Muslim mob when they tried to escape. [16] The police arrested eleven members of the girl's family for the killing of the Muslim youth. [14] According to some locals, the police did not act against the killers of the Hindu brothers. [14] According to police records, Gaurav and Sachin picked a fight with Shahnawaz over a motorcycle accident. While it has been widely reported that the fight was sparked off when Shahnawaz harassed Gaurav and Sachins cousin sister, the FIR in the murder makes no mention of sexual harassment or molestation. [12]
NDTV carried a contradictory report on the Kawal village incident. The girl who was allegedly harassed by Shahnawaz commented that she had not gone to Kawal or known anybody by name of Shahnawaz, [18] but she said that harassment by Muslim youth were common in Kawwal. There were no mention of harassment in police records on that particular day. [18] Shahnawaz's father claims that the problem started when their vehicles collided . [18] In the FIR registered for Shahnawaz's death, five people along with Sachin and Gaurav were named to be responsible for his death. The reports mentions that the seven men entered Shahnawaz's home, took him out and killed him with swords and knives. Shahnawaz had later died on the way to hospital. [18] In the FIR registers for Sachin and Gaurav's death, 7 other men were reported to be responsible, with the root cause to be an altercation between a person named as Mujassim and Gaurav after a bike accident. [18] Police are yet to arrest anyone named in the FIR. [18]
After news of the killings spread, the members of both communities attacked each other. The police took possession of the three dead bodies, and temporarily brought the situation under control. The authorities also deployed Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel in the village. [19]
Gathering of masses[edit] The killing of the three youths in Kawal village started echoing across the district. On 30 August, two days after the incident, local Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Congress leaders had hijacked a Muslim meeting demanding justice for the Kawal incident. [20] Also, local Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders are alleged to have given an incendiary speech instigating the Hindu farmers on the same day. A First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against all the leaders. After the two meetings, the farmers were attacked and killed. [20]
Jauli Canal Incident[edit] Clashes between the two communities occurred at low frequencies for the next two weeks. Around 2000 Jats returning from the Mahapanchayat held at Kawwal were ambushed by a Muslim [21] mob armed with assault rifles and other sophisticated weapons near Jolly Canal on 7 September. [22] The mobs had set fire on 18 tractor trollies and 3 motorbikes. According to the eyewitness accounts, the bodies were dumped into the canal. [22] Although six bodies have been recovered, hundreds are still missing. [22] District Magistrate agreed that many bodies were still missing, but doubted whether the missing people were killed or had migrated earlier from the village. [22] Survivors of the Jolly Canal incident added that the policemen who were watching the assault did not help the victims, as they had said that 'they do not have orders to act'. [21] This Jolly canal incident aroused Jats to go on a rampage against Muslims with the claim that the latter were responsible for the killings. [22] This led to the riots, which killed around 43 people(including a news reporter and a photographer). [23] The casualties occurred before the Army was deployed and a curfew was imposed in Muzaffarnagar and its surrounding Shamli district. Even with the curfew and use of army the clashes continued for the next three days, with casualties increasing to 43 by 12 September 2013. A state home department official said that 38 people have died in Muzaffarnagar, 3 in Baghpat and one each in Saharanpur and Meerut. Sexual violence[edit] The first case of gang-rape was registered in the aftermath of the riots from the village of Fugana in Jogiya Kheda. [24] Later two more cases of rape were registered in October. [25] It was reported on 15 November 2013 that a total of 13 rape and sexual harassment cases were registered over the past two months of rioting and the report named 111 people in the incidents but no arrests had been made till then. [26]
Aftermath[edit] Mahapanchayat in Sardhana[edit] A Mahapanchayat (great council) of 40 villages was held in Sardhana on 29 September 2013 to protest against the Uttar Pradesh government charging the local BJP MLA Sangeet Singh Somunder the National Security Act. The crowd became violent when the police began to brandish sticks. The situation turned tense when a rumour spread that a youth injured in police action had died. Crowd set fire police jeeps and other vehicles. [27]
Repercussions[edit] On 30 October, 3 people were killed and 1 injured after a clash between two communities in Mohammadpur Raisingh village of Muzaffarnagar district. Police Forces were deployed and an alert was sounded in the entire district. The incident is widely seen as repercussion of the violence in September. [28]
Action[edit] Approximately 1,000 army troops were deployed and curfew was imposed in the violence-hit areas. 10,000 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel, 1,300 Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF) troopers and 1,200 Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel were deployed to control the situation. [29]
Around ten to twelve thousand preventive arrests were made by Police as of 11 September 2013. They cancelled 2,300 arms licenses, seized 2,000 arms, and filed seven cases under the National Security Act. [2]
Approximately 50,000 people have been displaced. [9] Some of them took shelter at ten state-run relief camps. [2]
Investigation[edit] Seventeen FIRs have been lodged against leaders including one for the Mahapanchayat (great council) which organised by the Bharatiya Kisan Union leaders. [4][30] The Uttar Pradesh Government announced a one-member judicial commission composed of Justice Vishnu Sahay, a retired Allahabad High Court judge on 9 September 2013. The commission has been asked to submit a report about the violence within two months. [31] The UP government also removed five senior officials of the police and the administration from Muzaffarnagar for their poor handling of the situation. [32]
Misuse of social media[edit] BJP MLA Sangeet Som was arrested for alleged involvement in fake video uploading case depicting Hindu youth brutally murdered by Muslim mob and making provocative speeches. [33][34][35][36]
Sting operation[edit] A sting operation done by Headlines Today revealed that UP Minister Azam Khan ordered Police Officers to release Muslims and not take action against them. [37][38] However, Azam Khan has denied the charges. [39]
Response[edit] Political parties such as Bahujan Samaj Party, [40] Bharatiya Janata Party, [41] Rashtriya Lok Dal [42] and Muslim organizations including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind [43] demanded the dismissal of rulingSamajwadi Party government and imposition of President's rule in the state. Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde informed the press that he had already warned the Uttar Pradesh government about the escalating communal tensions there, for which Akhilesh Yadav had promised preventive measures. [44]
Senior Samajwadi Party leader and Minority Welfare Minister Azam Khan was absent from Partys national executive meeting which was held at Agra. He is reportedly unhappy with the manner in which the district administration handled the situation in Muzaffarnagar. [45]
Sompal Shastri, who was a candidate of Samajwadi Party from Baghpat, refused to contest 2014 Loksabha polls. Bhopal disaster From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until thedispute is resolved. (December 2012) Bhopal disaster
Bhopal memorial for those killed and disabled by the 1984 toxic gas release Date 2 December 19843 December 1984 Location Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Coordinates 231651N 772438ECoordinates: 231651N 772438E Also known as Bhopal gas tragedy Cause Gas leak from Union CarbideIndia Limited storage tank Deaths At least 3,787; over 16,000 claimed Injuries At least 558,125 The Bhopal disaster, also referred to as the Bhopal gas tragedy, was a gas leak incident in India, considered the world's worst industrial disaster. [1] It occurred on the night of 23 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Over 500,000 people were exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals. The toxic substance made its way in and around the shanty towns located near the plant. [2] Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. [3] Others estimate 8,000 died within two weeks and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas- related diseases. [4][5][6] A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. [7]
UCIL was the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), with Indian Government-controlled banks and the Indian public holding a 49.1 percent stake. In 1994, the Supreme Court of India allowed UCC to sell its 50.9 percent interest in UCIL to Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL), which subsequently merged with McLeod Russel (India) Ltd. Eveready Industries India, Limited, ended clean-up on the site in 1998, when it terminated its 99-year lease and turned over control of the site to the state government of Madhya Pradesh. Dow Chemical Company purchased UCC in 2001, seventeen years after the disaster. Civil and criminal cases are pending in the District Court of Bhopal, India, involving UCC and Warren Anderson, UCC CEO at the time of the disaster. [8][9] In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former UCIL chairman, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by Indian law. An eighth former employee was also convicted, but died before the judgement was passed. [1]
Contents [hide] 1 The pre-event phase o 1.1 Earlier leaks o 1.2 Contributing factors o 1.3 Work conditions o 1.4 Equipment and safety regulations o 1.5 Safety audits 2 The leakage and its immediate effects o 2.1 The release 2.1.1 The gas cloud 2.1.2 Release theories o 2.2 Acute effects 2.2.1 Hydrogen cyanide debate 3 Long-term effects o 3.1 Long-term health effects o 3.2 Health care o 3.3 Environmental rehabilitation o 3.4 Occupational and habitation rehabilitation o 3.5 Economic rehabilitation 4 Union Carbide's defence o 4.1 Investigation into possible sabotage o 4.2 Safety and equipment issues o 4.3 Response 5 Legal action against Union Carbide o 5.1 Legal proceedings leading to the settlement o 5.2 Charges against UCC and UCIL employees 6 Ongoing contamination 7 Activism o 7.1 Local activism o 7.2 International activism o 7.3 Activist organisations o 7.4 Settlement fund hoax o 7.5 Monitoring of Bhopal activists 8 See also 9 Citations 10 References o 10.1 Union Carbide Corporation 11 External links The pre-event phase The UCIL factory was built in 1969 to produce the pesticide Sevin (UCC's brand name for carbaryl) using methyl isocyanate (MIC) as an intermediate. [5] A MIC production plant was added in 1979. [10][11][12] After the Bhopal plant was built, other manufacturers including Bayer produced carbaryl without MIC, though at a greater manufacturing cost. However, Bayer also used the UCC process at the chemical plant once owned by UCC at Institute, West Virginia, in the United States. [13][14]
The chemical process employed in the Bhopal plant had methylamine reacting with phosgene to form MIC, which was then reacted with 1-naphthol to form the final product, carbaryl. This "route" differed from the MIC-free routes used elsewhere, in which the same raw materials were combined in a different manufacturing order, with phosgene first reacting with naphthol to form a chloroformate ester, which was then reacted with methylamine. In the early 1980s, the demand for pesticides had fallen, but production continued, leading to build-up of stores of unused MIC. [5][13]
Earlier leaks In 1976, two trade unions complained of pollution within the plant. [5][15] In 1981, a worker was splashed with phosgene. In a panic, he removed his mask, inhaling a large amount of phosgene gas which resulted in his death 72 hours later. [5][15] Local Indian authorities had warned the company of the problem as early as 1979, but constructive actions were not undertaken by UCIC at that time. [5][13] In January 1982, a phosgene leak exposed 24 workers, all of whom were admitted to a hospital. None of the workers had been ordered to wear protective masks. One month later, in February 1982, a MIC leak affected 18 workers. In August 1982, a chemical engineer came into contact with liquid MIC, resulting in burns over 30 percent of his body. Later that same year, in October 1982, there was another MIC leak. In attempting to stop the leak, the MIC supervisor suffered intensive chemical burns and two other workers were severely exposed to the gases. During 1983 and 1984, there were leaks of MIC, chlorine, monomethylamine, phosgene, and carbon tetrachloride, sometimes in combination. [5][15]
Contributing factors Factors leading to the magnitude of the gas leak mainly included problems such as storing MIC in large tanks and filling beyond recommended levels, poor maintenance after the plant ceased MIC production at the end of 1984, failure of several safety systems due to poor maintenance, and safety systems being switched off to save money including the MIC tank refrigeration system which could have mitigated the disaster severity. The situation was worsened by the mushrooming of slums in the vicinity of the plant, non-existent catastrophe plans, and shortcomings in health care and socioeconomic rehabilitation. [4][5]
Other factors identified by the inquiry included: use of a more dangerous pesticide manufacturing method, large-scale MIC storage, plant location close to a densely populated area, undersized safety devices, and the dependence on manual operations. [5] Plant management deficiencies were also identified lack of skilled operators, reduction of safety management, insufficient maintenance, and inadequate emergency action plans. [5][15]
Work conditions Attempts to reduce expenses affected the factory's employees and their conditions. Kurzman argues that "cuts...meant less stringent quality control and thus looser safety rules. A pipe leaked? Don't replace it, employees said they were told...MIC workers needed more training? They could do with less. Promotions were halted, seriously affecting employee morale and driving some of the most skilled...elsewhere". [16] Workers were forced to use English manuals, even though only a few had a grasp of the language. [17][18]
By 1984, only six of the original twelve operators were still working with MIC and the number of supervisory personnel was also halved. No maintenance supervisor was placed on the night shift and instrument readings were taken every two hours, rather than the previous and required one-hour readings. [16][17] Workers made complaints about the cuts through their union but were ignored. One employee was fired after going on a 15-day hunger strike. 70% of the plant's employees were fined before the disaster for refusing to deviate from the proper safety regulations under pressure from the management. [16][17]
In addition, some observers, such as those writing in the Trade Environmental Database (TED) Case Studies as part of the Mandala Project from American University, have pointed to "serious communication problems and management gaps between Union Carbide and its Indian operation", characterised by "the parent companies [sic] hands-off approach to its overseas operation" and "cross-cultural barriers". [19]
Equipment and safety regulations The MIC tank alarms had not been working for four years and there was only one manual back-up system, compared to a four-stage system used in the United States. [4][5][17][20] The flare tower and several vent gas scrubbers had been out of service for five months before the disaster. Only one gas scrubber was operating: it could not treat such a large amount of MIC with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which would have brought the concentration down to a safe level. [20] The flare tower could only handle a quarter of the gas that leaked in 1984, and moreover it was out of order at the time of the incident. [4][5][17][21] To reduce energy costs, the refrigeration system was idle. The MIC was kept at 20 degrees Celsius, not the 4.5 degrees advised by the manual. [4][5][17][20] Even the steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes, was non- operational for unknown reasons. [4][5][17][20] Slip-blind plates that would have prevented water from pipes being cleaned from leaking into the MIC tanks, had the valves been faulty, were not installed and their installation had been omitted from the cleaning checklist. [4][5][17] AS MIC is water soluble, deluge guns were in place to contain escaping gases from the stack. However, the water pressure was too weak for the guns to spray high enough to reach the gas which would have reduced the concentration of escaping gas significantly. [4][5][17][20] In addition to it, carbon steel valves were used at the factory, even though they were known to corrode when exposed to acid. [13]
According to the operators, the MIC tank pressure gauge had been malfunctioning for roughly a week. Other tanks were used, rather than repairing the gauge. The build-up in temperature and pressure is believed to have affected the magnitude of the gas release. [4][5][17][20] UCC admitted in their own investigation report that most of the safety systems were not functioning on the night of 3 December 1984. [22] The design of the MIC plant, following government guidelines, was "Indianized" by UCIL engineers to maximise the use of indigenous materials and products. Mumbai-based Humphreys and Glasgow Consultants Pvt. Ltd., were the main consultants, Larsen & Toubro fabricated the MIC storage tanks, and Taylor of India Ltd. provided the instrumentation. [23] In 1998, during civil action suits in India, it emerged that the plant was not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal. [4][5][13][17]
Safety audits Safety audits were done every year in the US and European UCC plants, but only every two years in other parts of the world. [5][24] Before a "Business Confidential" safety audit by UCC in May 1982, the senior officials of the corporation were well aware of "a total of 61 hazards, 30 of them major and 11 minor in the dangerous phosgene/methyl isocyanate units" in Bhopal. [5][25] In the audit 1982, it was indicated that worker performance was below standards. [5][26] Ten major concerns were listed. [5] UCIL prepared an action plan, but UCC never sent a follow-up team to Bhopal. Many of the items in the 1982 report were temporarily fixed, but by 1984, conditions had again deteriorated. [26] In September 1984, an internal UCC report on the Virginia plant in the USA revealed a number of defects and malfunctions. It warned that "a runaway raction could occur in the MIC unit storage tanks, and that the planned response would not be timely or effective enough to prevent catastrophic failure of the tanks". This report was never forwarded to the Bhopal plant, although the main design was the same. [27]
The leakage and its immediate effects The release
Methylamine (1) reacts with phosgene (2) producing methyl isocyanate (3) which reacts with 1-naphthol (4) to yieldcarbaryl (5) The 1985 reports give a picture of what led to the disaster and how it developed, although they differ in details. [22][24][26]
In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning and many valves and lines were in poor condition. In addition, several vent gas scrubbers had been out of service as well as the steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes. Other issue was that Tank 610 contained 42 tons of MIC which was much more than what safety rules allowed. [5] During the night of 23 December 1984, water was being used to flush a blocked pipe, the water entered a side pipe that was missing its slip-blind plate and entered Tank E610 which contained 42 tons of MIC. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. [5] The resulting exothermic reaction increased the temperature inside the tank to over 200 C (392 F) and raised the pressure. This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the MIC holding tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases. About 30 metric tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) escaped from the tank into the atmosphere in 45 to 60 minutes. [2]
The gas cloud The gases were blown in southeastern direction over Bhopal. [5][28]
As of 2008, UCC had not released information about the possible composition of the cloud. Apart from MIC, the gas cloud may have contained phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide,hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, monomethyl amine (MMA) and carbon dioxide, either produced in the storage tank or in the atmosphere. The gas cloud was composed mainly of materials denser than the surrounding air, stayed close to the ground and spread outwards through the surrounding community. [5]
The nature of the cloud is still discussed. The chemical reactions would have produced a liquid or solid aerosol with high density. The concentrations at ground level would have been much higher than earlier published. [29]
Release theories Much speculation arose in the aftermath. The closing of the plant to outsiders (including UCC) by the Indian government and the failure to make data public contributed to the confusion. The initial investigation was conducted entirely by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Central Bureau of Investigation. Theories differ as to how the water entered the tank. At the time, workers were cleaning out a clogged pipe with water about 400 feet from the tank. They claimed that they were not told to isolate the tank with a pipe slip-blind plate. The operators assumed that owing to bad maintenance and leaking valves, it was possible for the water to leak into the tank. [5][17]
However, this water entry route could not be reproduced. [30] UCC maintains that this route was not possible, but instead alleges water was introduced directly into the tank as an act of sabotage by a disgruntled worker via a connection to a missing pressure gauge on the top of the tank. Early the next morning, a UCIL manager asked the instrument engineer to replace the gauge. UCIL's investigation team found no evidence of the necessary connection; however, the investigation was totally controlled by the government, denying UCC investigators access to the tank or interviews with the operators. [26][31]
UCC claimed that a "disgruntled worker" deliberately connecting a hose to a pressure gauge connection was the real cause. [5][31]
Acute effects
Reversible reaction of glutathione (top) with methyl isocyanate (MIC, middle) allows the MIC to be transported into the body The initial effects of exposure were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. People awakened by these symptoms fled away from the plant. Those who ran inhaled more than those who had a vehicle to ride. Owing to their height, children and other people of shorter stature inhaled higher concentrations. Many people were trampled trying to escape. Thousands of people had succumbed by the morning hours. There were mass funerals and mass cremations. Bodies were dumped into the Narmada River, less than 100 km from Bhopal. 170,000 people were treated at hospitals and temporary dispensaries. 2,000 buffalo, goats, and other animals were collected and buried. Within a few days, leaves on trees yellowed and fell off. Supplies, including food, became scarce owing to suppliers' safety fears. Fishing was prohibited causing further supply shortages. [5]
Within a few days, trees in the vicinity became barren, and 2,000 bloated animal carcasses had to be disposed of. Lacking any safe alternative, on 16 December, tanks 611 and 619 were emptied of the remaining MIC by reactivating the plant and continuing the manufacture of pesticide. Despite safety precautions such as covering the plant in wet hessian and having water carrying helicopters continually overflying the plant, this led to a second mass evacuation from Bhopal. The Government of India passed the "Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act" that gave the government rights to represent all victims, whether or not in India. Complaints of lack of information or misinformation were widespread. An Indian government spokesman said, "Carbide is more interested in getting information from us than in helping our relief work". [5]
Formal statements were issued that air, water, vegetation and foodstuffs were safe within the city. At the same time, people were informed that poultry was unaffected, but were warned not to consume fish. No one under the age of 18 was registered at the time of the accident. The number of children exposed to the gases was at least 200,000. [5]
The acute symptoms were burning in the respiratory tract and eyes, blepharospasm, breathlessness, stomach pains and vomiting. The causes of deaths were choking, reflexogenic circulatory collapse and pulmonary oedema. Findings during autopsies revealed changes not only in the lungs but also cerebral oedema, tubular necrosis of the kidneys, fatty degeneration of the liver and necrotising enteritis. [32] The stillbirth rate increased by up to 300% and neonatal mortality rate by around 200%. [5]
Hydrogen cyanide debate Whether hydrogen cyanide (HCN) was present in the gas mixture is still a controversy. [32][33]
Cyanide concentrations of 300 ppm can lead to immediate collapse. The non-toxic antidote sodium thiosulfate (Na 2 S 2 O 3 ) in intravenous injections increases the rate of conversion from cyanide to non-toxic thiocyanate. Initial reports based on the autopsies of victims' bodies suggested cyanide poisoning based on which UCC's Dr. Bipan Avashia advised amyl nitrate and sodium thiosulphate. [34][35] Treatment was tentatively used on some people, with mixed results. [5][36]
Critics argue that both the Indian government and Union Carbide tried to avoid mentioning the emotionally provocative word "cyanide". [35]
Exposed to high temperatures, MIC breaks down to hydrogen cyanide (HCN). According to Kulling and Lorin, at +200 C, 3% of the gas is HCN. [37] However, according to another scientific publication, [38] MIC when heated in the gas-phase starts to break down to hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and other products above 400 C. Chemically, HCN is known to be very reactive with MIC. [39] HCN is also known to react with hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and methylamine (also produced in tank 610 during the vigorous reaction with water and chloroform) and also with itself under acidic conditions to form trimers of HCN called triazenes. Laboratory replication studies by CSIR and UCC scientists failed to detect any HCN or HCN-derived side products. None of the HCN-derived side products were detected in the tank residue. [40]
Long-term effects Long-term health effects All data about the health effects are still not available. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) was forbidden to publish health effect data until 1994. [5]
A total of 36 wards were marked by the authorities as being "gas affected", affecting a population of 520,000. Of these, 200,000 were below 15 years of age, and 3,000 were pregnant women. The official immediate death toll was 2,259, and in 1991, 3,928 deaths had been officially certified. Others estimate 8,000 died within two weeks. [4][5]
The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. [3]
Later, the affected area was expanded to include 700,000 citizens. A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. [7]
A cohort of 80 021 exposed people was registered, along wirth a control group, a cohort of 15 931 people from areas not exposed to MIC. Nearly every year since 1986, they have answered the same questionnaire. It shows overmortality and overmorbidity in the exposed group. However, bias and confounding factors cannot be excluded from the study. Because of migration and other factors, 75 % of the cohort is lost, as the ones who moved out are not followed. [5][41]
A number of clinical studies are performed. The quality varies, but the different reports support each others. [5]
Health care In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the health care system became overloaded. Within weeks, the State Government established a number of hospitals, clinics and mobile units in the gas-affected area to treat the victims. Since the leak, large number of private practitioners were opened in Bhopal. In the severely affected areas, nearly 70 percent were underqualified doctors. Medical staff was unprepared for the thousands of casualties. Doctors and hospitals were not aware about proper treatment methods for MIC gas inhalation and they were directed to give cough medicine and eye drops to the patients. [5]
The Government of India had focused primarily on increasing the hospital-based services for gas victims thus hospitals had been built after the disaster. When UCC wanted to sell its shares in UCIL, it was directed by the Supreme Court to finance a 500-bed hospital for the medical care of the survivors. Thus, Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) was inaugurated in 1998 and was obliged to give free care for survivors for eight years. BMHRC was a 350-bedded super speciality hospital where heart surgery and hemodialysis were done. However, there was a dearth of gynaecology, obstetrics and paediatrics. Eight mini-units (outreach health centres) were started and free health care for gas victims were to be offered till 2006. [5] The management had also faced problems with strikes, and the quality of the health care being disputed. [42][43] Sambhavna Trust is a charitable trust, registered in 1995, that gives modern as well as ayurvedictreatments to gas victims, free of charge. [5][44]
Environmental rehabilitation When the factory was closed in 1986, pipes, drums and tanks were sold. The MIC and the Sevin plants are still there, as are storages of different residues. Isolation material is falling down and spreading. [5] The area around the plant was used as a dumping area for hazardous chemicals. In 1982 tubewells in the vicinity of the UCIL factory had to be abandoned and tests in 1989 performed by UCC's laboratory revealed that soil and water samples collected from near the factory and inside the plant were toxic to fish. [45] Several other studies had also shown polluted soil and groundwater in the area. Reported polluting compounds include 1-naphthol, naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residue, mercury, toxic organochlorines, volatile organochlorine compounds, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachloroethane, hexachlorobutadiene, and the pesticide HCH. [5]
In order to provide safe drinking water to the population around the UCIL factory, Government of Madhya Pradesh presented a scheme for improvement of water supply. [46] In December 2008, the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided that the toxic waste should be incinerated at Ankleshwar in Gujarat, which was met by protests from activists all over India. [47] On 8 June 2012, the Centre for incineration of toxic Bhopal waste agreed to pay 250 million (US$4.1 million) to dispose of UCIL chemical plants waste in Germany. [48] On 9 August 2012, Supreme court directed the Union and Madhya Pradesh Governments to, take immediate steps for disposal of toxic waste lying around and inside the factory within six months. [49]
A U.S. court rejected the lawsuit blaming UCC for causing soil and water pollution around the site of the plant and ruled that responsibility for remedial measures or related claims rested with the State Government and not with UCC. [50] In 2005, the state government invited various Indian architects to enter their "concept for development of a memorial complex for Bhopal gas tragedy victims at the site of Union Carbide". In 2011, a conference was held on the site, with participants from European universities which was aimed for the same. [51][52]
Occupational and habitation rehabilitation 33 of the 50 planned work-sheds for gas victims started. All except one was closed down by 1992. 1986, the MP government invested in the Special Industrial Area Bhopal. 152 of the planned 200 work sheds were built and in 2000, 16 were partially functioning. It was estimated that 50,000 persons need alternative jobs, and that less than 100 gas victims had found regular employment under the government's scheme. The government also planned 2,486 flats in two- and four-story buildings in what is called the "widow's colony" outside Bhopal. The water did not reach the upper floors and it was not possible to keep cattle which were their primary occupation. Infrastructure like buses, schools, etc. were missing for at least a decade. [5]
Economic rehabilitation Immediate relieves were decided two days after the tragedy. Relief measures commenced in 1985 when food was distributed for a short period along with ration cards. [5] Madhya Pradeshgovernment's finance department allocated 874 million (US$14 million) for victim relief in July 1985. [53][54] Widow pension of 200 (US$3.30)/per month (later 750 (US$12)) were provided. The government also decided to pay 1500 (US$24) to families with monthly income 500 (US$8.20) or less. As a result of the interim relief, more children were able to attend school, more money was spent on treatment and food, and housing also eventually improved. From 1990 interim relief of 200 (US$3.30) was paid to everyone in the family who was born before the disaster. [5]
The final compensation, including interim relief for personal injury was for the majority 25,000 (US$410). For death claim, the average sum paid out was 62,000 (US$1,000). Each claimant were to be categorised by a doctor. In court, the claimants were expected to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that death or injury in each case was attributable to exposure. In 1992, 44 percent of the claimants still had to be medically examined. [5]
By the end of October 2003, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation had been awarded to 554,895 people for injuries received and 15,310 survivors of those killed. The average amount to families of the dead was $2,200. [55]
In 2007, 1,029,517 cases were registered and decided. Number of awarded cases were 574,304 and number of rejected cases 455,213. Total compensation awarded was 15465 million(US$250 million). [46] On 24 June 2010, the Union Cabinet of the Government of India approved a 12650 million (US$210 million) aid package which would be funded by Indian taxpayers through the government. [56]
Union Carbide's defence Now owned by Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide denied the allegations against it on its website dedicated to the tragedy. The corporation claimed that the incident was the result of sabotage, stating that safety systems were in place and operative. It also stressed that it did all it could to alleviate human suffering following the disaster. [57]
Investigation into possible sabotage Theories differ as to how the water entered the tank. At the time, workers were cleaning out pipes with water. The workers maintain that entry of water through the plant's piping system during the washing of lines was possible because a slip-blind was not used, the downstream bleeder lines were partially clogged, many valves were leaking, and the tank was not pressurised. The water, which was not draining properly through the bleeder valves, may have built up in the pipe, rising high enough to pour back down through another series of lines into the MIC storage tank. Once water had accumulated to a height of 6 metres (20 feet), it could drain by gravity flow back into the system. Alternatively, the water may have been routed through another standby "jumper line" that had only recently been connected to the system. Indian scientists suggested that additional water might have been introduced as a "back-flow" from the defectively designed vent-gas scrubber. However, none of these postulated routes of entry could be duplicated when tested by the Central Bureau of Investigators (CBI) and UCIL engineers. [17][24][26][58]
Union Carbide cited an investigation conducted by the engineering consulting firm Arthur D. Little, which concluded that a single employee secretly and deliberately introduced a large amount of water into the MIC tank by removing a meter and connecting a water hose directly to the tank through the metering port. [4][5][6][31] Carbide claimed that such a large amount of water could not have found its way into the tank by accident, and safety systems were not designed to deal with intentional sabotage. Documents cited in the Arthur D. Little report stated that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with UCIL engineers tried to simulate the water-washing hypothesis as a route of the entry of water into the tank. This test failed to support this as a route of the water entry. UCC claims the plant staff falsified numerous records to distance themselves from the incident, and that the Indian Government impeded its investigation and declined to prosecute the employee responsible, presumably because that would weaken its allegations of negligence by Union Carbide. [59]
Safety and equipment issues The corporation denied the claim that the valves on the tank were malfunctioning, and claimed that the documented evidence gathered after the incident showed that the valve close to the plant's water-washing operation was closed and was leak-tight. Furthermore, process safety systems had prevented water from entering the tank by accident. Carbide states that the safety concerns identified in 1982 were all allayed before 1984 and had nothing to do with the incident. [60]
The company admitted that the safety systems in place would not have been able to prevent a chemical reaction of that magnitude from causing a leak. According to Carbide, "in designing the plant's safety systems, a chemical reaction of this magnitude was not factored in" because "the tank's gas storage system was designed to automatically prevent such a large amount of water from being inadvertently introduced into the system" and "process safety systemsin place and operationalwould have prevented water from entering the tank by accident". Instead, they claim that "employee sabotagenot faulty design or operationwas the cause of the tragedy". [60]
Response The company stressed the "immediate action" taken after the disaster and their continued commitment to helping the victims. On 4 December, the day following the leak, Union Carbide sent material aid and several international medical experts to assist the medical facilities in Bhopal. [60] Union Carbide states on its website that it put $2 million into the Indian prime minister's immediate disaster relief fund on 11 December 1984. [60] The corporation established the Employees' Bhopal Relief Fund in February 1985, which raised more than $5 million for immediate relief. [61] According to Union Carbide, in August 1987, they made an additional $4.6 million in humanitarian interim relief available. [61]
Union Carbide stated that it also undertook several steps to provide continuing aid to the victims of the Bhopal disaster. The sale of its 50.9 percent interest in UCIL in April 1992 and establishment of a charitable trust to contribute to the building of a local hospital. The sale was finalised in November 1994. The hospital was begun in October 1995 and was opened in 2001. The company provided a fund with around $90 million from sale of its UCIL stock. In 1991, the trust had amounted approximately $100 million. The hospital catered for the treatment of heart, lung and eye problems. [57] UCC also provided a $2.2 million grant to Arizona State University to establish a vocational- technical center in Bhopal, which was opened, but was later closed by the state government. [62] They also donated $5 million to the Indian Red Cross after the disaster. [62] They also developed a Responsible Care system with other members of the chemical industry as a response to the Bhopal crisis, which was designed to help prevent such an event in the future. [61]
Legal action against Union Carbide
Victims of Bhopal disaster asked for Warren Anderson's extradition from the USA Legal proceedings involving UCC, the United States and Indian governments, local Bhopal authorities, and the disaster victims started immediately after the catastrophe. Legal action against UCC dominated the aftermath of the disaster. Other issues have continued to develop including the problems of ongoing contamination and associated criticism of the clean-up operation undertaken by UCIL. Legal proceedings leading to the settlement On 14 December 1984, UCC's Chairman and CEO Warren Anderson addressed the U.S. Congress, stressing the company's "commitment to safety" and promising to ensure that a similar incident "cannot happen again". The Indian Government passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Act in March 1985, allowing the Government of India to act as the legal representative for victims of the disaster, [61] leading to the beginning of legal proceedings. In 1985, Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, called for a U.S. government inquiry into the Bhopal disaster, which resulted in U.S. legislation regarding the accidental release of toxic chemicals in the United States. [63] In March 1986 UCC proposed a settlement figure, endorsed by plaintiffs' U.S. attorneys, of$350 million that would, according to the company, "generate a fund for Bhopal victims of between $500 600 million over 20 years". In May, litigation was transferred from the United States to Indian courts by U.S. District Court Judge. Following an appeal of this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer, judging, in January 1987, that UCIL was a "separate entity, owned, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in India". [61]
The Government of India refused the offer from Union Carbide and claimed US$ 3.3 billion. [5] The Indian Supreme Court told both sides to come to an agreement and "start with a clean slate" in November 1988. [61] Eventually, in an out-of-court settlement reached in February 1989, Union Carbide agreed to pay US$ 470 million for damages caused in the Bhopal disaster, 15% of the original $3 billion claimed in the lawsuit. [5]
Throughout 1990, the Indian Supreme Court heard appeals against the settlement from "activist petitions". In October 1991, the Supreme Court upheld the original $470 million, dismissing any other outstanding petitions that challenged the original decision. The Court ordered the Indian government "to purchase, out of settlement fund, a group medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 persons who may later develop symptoms" and cover any shortfall in the settlement fund. It also requested UCC and its subsidiary UCIL "voluntarily" fund a hospital in Bhopal, at an estimated $17 million, to specifically treat victims of the Bhopal disaster. The company agreed to this. [61]
Charges against UCC and UCIL employees UCC chairman and CEO Warren Anderson was arrested and released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on 7 December 1984. Anderson was taken to UCC's house after which he was released six hours later on $2,100 bail and flown out on a government plane. These actions were allegedly taken under the direction of then chief secretary of the state, who was possibly instructed from chief minister's office, who himself flew out of Bhopal immediately. [64][65][66] Later in 1987, the Indian government summoned Anderson, eight other executives and two company affiliates with homicide charges to appear in Indian court. [67] In response, Union Carbide balked, saying the company is not under Indian jurisdiction. [67]
In 1991, the local Bhopal authorities charged Anderson, who had retired in 1986, with manslaughter, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. He was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on 1 February 1992 for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant. Orders were passed to the Government of India to press for an extradition from the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the decision of the lower federal courts in October 1993, meaning that victims of the Bhopal disaster could not seek damages in a U.S. court. [61]
In 2004, the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Indian government to release any remaining settlement funds to victims. And in September 2006, the Welfare Commission for Bhopal Gas Victims announced that all original compensation claims and revised petitions had been "cleared". [61] The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the dismissal of remaining claims in the case of Bano v. Union Carbide Corporation in 2006. This move blocked plaintiffs' motions for class certification and claims for property damages and remediation. In the view of UCC, "the ruling reaffirms UCC's long-held positions and finally puts to restboth procedurally and substantivelythe issues raised in the class action complaint first filed against Union Carbide in 1999 by Haseena Bi and several organisations representing the residents of Bhopal". [61]
In June 2010, seven former employees of UCIL, all Indian nationals and many in their 70s, were convicted of causing death by negligence and each sentenced to two years imprisonment and finedRs.100,000 (US$2,124). All were released on bail shortly after the verdict. The names of those convicted are: Keshub Mahindra, former non-executive chairman of Union Carbide India Limited; V. P. Gokhale, managing director; Kishore Kamdar, vice-president; J. Mukund, works manager; S. P. Chowdhury, production manager; K. V. Shetty, plant superintendent; and S. I. Qureshi, production assistant. Federal class action litigation, Sahu v. Union Carbide and Warren Anderson, sought damages for personal injury, medical monitoring and injunctive relief in the form of clean-up of the drinking water supplies for residential areas near the Bhopal plant. The lawsuit was dismissed and subsequent appeal denied. [68]
Ongoing contamination
Deteriorating portion of the MIC plant, decades after the gas leak. Contributor to ongoing contamination. Chemicals abandoned at the plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater. [55][69][70][71] Whether the chemicals pose a health hazard is disputed. [72] Contamination at the site and surrounding area was not caused by the gas leakage. The area around the plant was used as a dumping ground for hazardous chemicals and by 1982 water wells in the vicinity of the UCIL factory had to be abandoned. [5] UCC states that "after the incident, UCIL began clean-up work at the site under the direction of Indian central and state government authorities", which was continued after 1994 by the successor to UCIL. The successor, Eveready Industries India, Limited (EIIL), ended cleanup on the site in 1998, when it terminated its 99-year lease and turned over control of the site to the state government of Madhya Pradesh. [57][61]
UCC's laboratory tests in 1989 revealed that soil and water samples collected from near the factory were toxic to fish. Twenty-one areas inside the plant were reported to be highly polluted. In 1991 the municipal authorities declared that water from over 100 wells was hazardous for health if used for drinking. [5] In 1994 it was reported that 21% of the factory premises were seriously contaminated with chemicals. [45][73][74] Beginning in 1999, studies made by Greenpeace and others from soil, groundwater, wellwater and vegetables from the residential areas around UCIL and from the UCIL factory area show contamination with a range of toxic heavy metals and chemical compounds. Substances found, according to the reports, are naphthol, naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residues, alpha naphthol, mercury, organochlorines, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachlorethane, hexachlorobutadiene, pesticide HCH (BHC),volatile organic compounds and halo-organics. [73][74][75][76] Many of these contaminants were also found in breast milk of women living near the area. [77] Soil tests were conducted by Greenpeace in 1999. One sample (IT9012) from "sediment collected from drain under former Sevin plant" showed mercury levels to be at "20,000 and 6 million times" higher than expected levels. Organochlorine compounds at elevated levels were also present in groundwater collected from (sample IT9040) a 4.4 meter depth "bore-hole within the former UCIL site". This sample was obtained from a source posted with a warning sign which read "Water unfit for consumption". [78] Chemicals that have been linked to various forms of cancer were also discovered, as well as trichloroethylene, known to impair fetal development, at 50 times above safety limits specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). [77] In 2002, an inquiry by Fact-Finding Mission on Bhopal found a number of toxins, including mercury, lead, 1,3,5 trichlorobenzene, dichloromethane and chloroform, in nursing women's breast milk. A 2004 BBC Radio 5 broadcast reported the site is contaminated with toxic chemicals including benzene hexachloride and mercury, held in open containers or loose on the ground. [79] A drinking water sample from a well near the site had levels of contamination 500 times higher than the maximum limits recommended by the World Health Organization. [80] In 2009, the Centre for Science and Environment, a Delhi-based pollution monitoring lab, released test results showing pesticide groundwater contamination up to three kilometres from the factory. [81] Also in 2009, the BBC took a water sample from a frequently used hand pump, located just north of the plant. The sample, tested in UK, was found to contain 1,000 times the World Health Organization's recommended maximum amount of carbon tetrachloride, a carcinogenic toxin. [82] In October 2011, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment published an article and video by two British environmental scientists, showing the current state of the plant, landfill and solar evaporation ponds and calling for renewed international efforts to provide the necessary skills to clean up the site and contaminated groundwater. [83]
Activism Since 1984, individual activists have played a role in the aftermath of the tragedy. The best-known is Satinath Sarangi (Sathyu), a metallurgic engineer who arrived at Bhopal the day after the leakage. He founded several activist groups, as well as Sambhavna Trust, the clinic for gas affected patients, where he is the manager. [5] Other activists include Rashida Bee, Rachna Dhingra and Champa Devi Shukla, who received the Goldman Prize in 2004, and Abdul Jabbar. [84][85]
Local activism Soon after the accident, representatives from different activist groups arrived. The activists worked on organising the gas victims, which led to violent repression from the police and the government. [5]
Numerous actions have been performed: demonstrations, sit-ins, hunger strikes, marches combined with pamphlets, books, and articles. Every anniversary, actions are performed. Often these include marches around Old Bhopal, ending with burning an effigy of Warren Anderson. International activism Cooperation with international NGOs including Pesticide Action Network UK and Greenpeace started soon after the tragedy. One of the earliest reports is the Trade Union report from ILO 1985. [26]
In 1994, the International Medical Commission on Bhopal (IMCB) met in Bhopal. Their work contributed to long term health effects being officially recognised. Important international actions have been the tour to Europe and United States in 2003, [86] the marches to Delhi in 2006 and 2008, all including hunger strikes, and the Bhopal Europe Bus Tour in 2009. Activist organisations At least 14 different NGOs were immediately engaged. [5] The first disaster reports were published by activist organisations, Eklavya and the Delhi Science Forum. Around ten local organisations, engaged on long term, have been identified. Two of the most active organisations are the women's organisationsBhopal Gas Peedit Mahila- Stationery Karmachari Sangh and Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sangthan. [5]
More than 15 national organisations have been engaged along with a number of international organisations. [5]
Some of the most important organisations are: International Campaign For Justice in Bhopal (ICJB) Coordinating international activities. Bhopal Medical Appeal Collects funds for the Sambhavna Trust. Sambhavna Trust or Bhopal People's Health and Documentation Clinic. Provides medical care for gas affected patients and those living in water-contaminated area. Chingari Trust Provides medical care for children being born in Bhopal with malformations and brain damages. Students for Bhopal Based in USA. International Medical Commission on Bhopal Provided medical information 1994 2000. Settlement fund hoax
Bichlbaum as Finisterra on BBC World News On 3 December 2004, the twentieth anniversary of the disaster, a man claiming to be a Dow representative named Jude Finisterra was interviewed onBBC World News. He claimed that the company had agreed to clean up the site and compensate those harmed in the incident, by liquidating Union Carbide for US$12 billion. [87][88] Immediately afterward, Dow's share price fell 4.2% in 23 minutes, for a loss of $2 billion in market value. Dow quickly issued a statement saying that they had no employee by that namethat he was an impostor, not affiliated with Dow, and that his claims were a hoax. The BBC later broadcast a correction and an apology. [89]
Jude Finisterra was actually Andy Bichlbaum, a member of the activist prankster group The Yes Men. In 2002, The Yes Men issued a fake press release explaining why Dow refused to take responsibility for the disaster and started up a website, at "DowEthics.com", designed to look like the real Dow website, but with what they felt was a more accurate cast on the events. [90]
Monitoring of Bhopal activists A release of an email cache related to intelligence research organisation Stratfor was leaked by WikiLeaks on 27 February 2012. [91] It revealed that Dow Chemical had engaged Stratfor to spy on the public and personal lives of activists involved in the Bhopal disaster, including the Yes Men. Regular, even daily emails to Dow representatives from hired security analysts list the YouTube videos liked, Twitter and Facebook posts made and the public appearances of these activists. [92] Stratfor released a statement condemning the revelation by Wikileaks while neither confirming nor denying the accuracy of the reports, and would only state that it had acted within the bounds of the law. Dow Chemical also refrained to comment on the matter. [93]
Ingrid Eckerman, a Swedish family physician and a member, in 1994, of the International Medical Commission on Bhopalin, published The Bhopal Saga: Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster in 2004. [5] Since 2008 she has been denied a visa to visit India. [94]