When the State is biased

The Gujarat government’s actions over the years clearly show a marked slant in favour of the majority community.

Does the Gujarat government punish those whose actions seem to go ‘against’ Hindus? Consider two recent decisions. First, a Hindu constable who was abducted twice after she married a Muslim, was transferred to the very district where her parents reside, thereby putting her life in danger.

Second, police protection was withdrawn from witnesses whose testimony helped convict Hindus for the anti-Muslim violence that took place in 2002. Not just witnesses, but lawyers who helped them, and even a judge who convicted 32 Hindus have now been left without protection.

For the transfer of the constable, the DGP must answer the Gujarat High Court. But will there be any recourse for the 152 persons whose police cover has been withdrawn?

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) overlooking the Gujarat violence cases justified this withdrawal of protection saying that none of the witnesses complained of threats in the 15 years since the SIT’s formation. That’s a strange reason. The raison d’etre of the protection was to deter threats. Surely those who wanted to harm these people would have thought twice seeing armed men guarding them. Now that these people are on their own, would potential attackers hesitate?

Another reason given by the SIT is that these cases are now in the appeal stage. How does that change the threat potential? Whether the convictions are upheld or set aside, the witnesses who testified against the convicts during the trial would still be blamed for having done so. 

It is important to recall why the unprecedented step of providing police protection to witnesses was taken in Gujarat. In 2008, the Supreme Court, convinced that victims would not get justice if the 2002 violence cases continued to be handled by Gujarat’s police and lawyers, set up an SIT to handle nine major cases. But soon after the trials began, it became clear that witnesses would need to be protected if they were to depose truthfully. In 2009, the apex court ordered that protection be provided for witnesses.

Yet, a witness was killed, and a judge received threats. In 2011, Nadeem Sayed, an important witness in the Naroda Patiya (Ahmedabad) case, was killed despite police protection. His guards simply disappeared as he was stabbed 25 times right outside the Gujarat ATS office.

Despite this setback, it was the Naroda Patiya case, presided over by Special SIT Judge Jyotsna Yagnik, that made history. For the first time, a sitting minister was found guilty of communal violence. Maya Kodnani was an MLA when the 2002 violence took place; by the time she was convicted in 2012, then Chief Minister Narendra Modi had made her minister of state for women’s development. Describing the gynaecologist as the ‘kingpin and one of the principal conspirators’ of the Naroda Patiya massacre which resulted in the killing of 97 Muslims, Judge Yagnik sentenced her to 28 years’ imprisonment.

Babu Bajrangi, who had boasted in a sting operation conducted by journalist Ashish Khetan (and telecast by a national news channel) that he felt like Maharana Pratap while killing Muslims in Naroda in 2002, was sentenced to life imprisonment till death in the same case.

Three years later, after she retired and had her security downgraded, Judge Yagnik revealed that she had received 22 threatening letters and many blank calls since the judgment. Those convicted had meanwhile appealed; such was their confidence that some of them even approached high court judges hearing their appeals, resulting in seven judges recusing from the case.

Though informed about the threats by Judge Yagnik, the state government took note only after the media highlighted the situation, and restored her security only after the state intelligence confirmed her claims.

That was 2015. Has Gujarat changed since then? Consider just two actions of the state government. On Independence Day 2022, it let 11 men sentenced to life for having raped and killed unarmed Muslims in 2002, return to society with no conditions attached. Involved in that decision was every wing of the administration: the police, the bureaucracy, jail authorities, and the Union home ministry. In a welcome change and a blow to the Gujarat government, on January 8, the Supreme Court quashed the government order granting remission to the 11 convicts.

On October 4, 2002, the Gujarat Police publicly flogged six Muslims accused of having thrown stones at Hindus playing garba during Navratri inside a temple that stood opposite a mosque. The Gujarat government defended this act in court and outside it.

Bilkis Bano spoke of the fear that overwhelmed her when she heard that her rapists and the murderers of her family had been released. In 2018, Kodnani and 16 co-accused were acquitted. In 2019, Bajrangi got bail from the Supreme Court on medical grounds — the Gujarat government supported his plea.

Those who testified against them, the woman who convicted them, are now defenceless, thanks to the same government.

(Jyoti Punwani is a senior journalist.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.