Apart from the loss of over eight hundred innocent lives of both the communities and property loss of hundreds of crores, widespread riots of Gujarat have fractured the psyche of the nation in a number ways. Those who care for national integration and strive for forward march of India must take corrective measures earnestly.

The bulk of Muslim masses in India, are as peace loving as Hindus and others. Most of them have shaken from within individually and socially. Fear, frustration, alienation have once again crept in. Psychological dimension of loss of crores of Muslims is a matter of greater concern.

Contrary to this phenomenon, lacs of hardcore anti-Hindu and anti-India separatist Muslims, who put Islam over India and Indian constitution, have further hardened. They see an opportunity in this climate to further register a gain into their rank to destabilize India as per the grand plan of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). It is not yet established by the Indian intelligence that mega-provocation of Godhra was ISI planned conspiracy, but linkages are visible, though not in hand. It is most unfortunate that a mob of two thousand Muslims of Godhra became pawns in the hands of conspirators. This calls for introspection in depth on part of the Muslim society.

Roasting alive of 58 Hindu karsevaks, women and children including, was the worst communal shock after partition for all Hindus worldwide. It was bound to be an instant mega-provocation. Chain reaction was programmed in the Godhra conspiracy itself. What happened afterwards is recent bloody history?

National English media with its anti-Hindu secular habits as usual harmed the Indian image outside and damaged the Indian psyche inside. "Godhra and After" were bound to meet the same fate by habitual treatment by top Indian media with electronic speed and tornado of anti-Hindu parlance, in effect which caused anti-India image outside.

As a result of the Godhra carnage and the widespread backlash, the image of the nation took a severe beating in the international community. The most vital reason for the nation's image getting tarnished was the biased media coverage, which reflected inbuilt anti-Hindu angle of English media's cultivated secular tradition. Since the international community's medium of getting Indian information is English, they read only what the English media writes. If there was any other way of putting across the reporting of the local vernacular press coverage from the centers of the strife-zone, the international community would have got a balanced picture of the entire 'Godhra and after' violence. But in the given situation, foreign media confirms the Indian top media by India's own recycled stories. I would like to ask six questions to the English and electronic media about its role in this unfortunate series of events.

1. In the June 16 issue of internationally known "The Economist" starts its write-up with "India's Muslim minority has very little reason lately to trust the protection of law". The whole write-up dealt Gujarat riots in Ayodhya background. It did not mention mega provocation of Godhra even once. Another of its issue dated 23 March, mercifully mentioned "Muslim attack on Hindus in a train" (see the under playing tactics of the use of word 'attacked' and 'train') and dwelled liberally about "slaughter of Muslims". How did mega-provocation of Godhra i.e. roasting of the Hindu karsevaks alive vanished? Was it not the victim of "public opinion engineering" by top Indian media?
2. As per the anti-Hindu trait of the top media, when scores of Hindus are killed in a riot, reporters and sub-editors stick to press council rule, so that violence is very impersonal and the perpetrators remain unidentified and when Muslim are victims, the press council rules are forgotten. This happened in numerous news items in course of "Godhra and After". Our study has pointed out several examples. Why this double standards?
3. Even during the height of recent Gujarat riots there were number of cases where Hindus saved lives of Muslim neighbours, or even of far off areas, literally risking their own lives. Gujarati newspapers have been reporting it. Some examples are there in our report also. Why did top media totally ignore them? Do they not understand the positive impact of these stories in the interest of human harmony in a situation like Gujarat? Or were they working with a single-track mindset of public opinion engineering targeting their traditional whipping boy?
4. I was astonished by the zeal of a section of media, which went on applying the 'technique of the big lie' on Godhra carnage. Goebbels mastered the technique. It was published as to how karsevaks had some skirmishes with a vendor at Godhra, they caught the beard of the vendor, how his sixteen-year old daughter was forcefully pushed in the compartment etc. Firstly, how can one imagine that karsevaks traveling with their wives and children could do like this? I personally cannot think of a Ram Bhakta going to Ayodhya for ygana and while returning molesting a 16-year old girl in the presence of the family members and even children. But the story inched further in many newspapers. Ultimately I read a column by Prem Shanker Jha in Outlook dated March 25, in which he talked about a "mischievous e-mail". He reproduced it. It was a perfect example of 'big lie'. E-mail even gave the names of the Gujarat Samachar reporters and their telephone numbers (with one slip). Jha contacted them. There was no question of filing these stories by them or the paper publishing them. Then why even responsible newspapers contributed credence in building up this 'big lie'?
5. Wherever Hindus were victims, deliberately chosen soft words were used in reports, analysis, editorial and article, for obvious reasons, but while describing killings of Muslims, inciting adjectives were used with vengeance. Two thousand strong mob, which burnt the compartment with karsevaks, were either not identified, or they were referred to as 'local Ghanchies', a community, which had converted some centuries ago. But while describing Ahmedabad riots overstatements and repetitions were very much enthusiastic. One can recall rioters being called, "violent Hindu mobs" readily, but not the "Muslim killer mob" of Godhra even once. They were either 'local people' or 'Ghanchies' or they were burnt in a 'passive voice' where doer is not needed to be mentioned to complete the sentence. Top media used damning set of parlance for Hindu rioters and discriminatory language treatment with softer parlance for Muslim attackers. Why this double standards?
6. When VHP announced the 'Asthi Yatra' of the Godhra victims there were chorus of protests and rightly so for it had a potential to incite the sentiments of the aggrieved majority community. But were there no more virulent incitement in the cricket type commentary of the riot torn scenes by some television channels? Is it the case that my incitement is good but your is dangerous?
   
   When India First Foundation decided to organize the seminar, the prime concern was unity and integrity of the nation, for this riot too has weakened the national harmony in a big way. It has also tarnished the image of India. Media, particularly the top media have to go into introspection mode. The problem with the readers and the viewers is one - the best comes with the boldest bias.

The partition was imposed on the country by applying the Two-Nation theory. It led to horrendous communal riots. Nearly a million people were killed, maimed and burnt. The violence was organised and premeditated. It was the severest religious-quake the country had ever witnessed in its history.

Nevertheless the constitution of independent India not only proclaimed equal rights to all its citizens but also granted some privileges to minority communities. It could be possible because of its cultural traditions, which allowed greater social and philosophical scope for different faiths, sects and belief systems. It was presupposed that a national culture and scientific temperament would gradually prevail beyond identities like religion, language and regions. However, the subsequent events belied the hope.

In the British India riots between Hindus and Muslims were common feature. The British played the role of the Third party in the very pretext of liberalism, secularism and rule of law the colonial administration played one community against the other. The policy came to be known as 'Divide and Rule.' The decolonization of the country concomitant to the partition created an atmosphere of resurgence of Indian ethos of sarvadharma samabhava as a way of life based on the concept of primacy of the nation beyond all other allegiances rather than a temporary truce or communal contracts based on mutual agreement, compromise, concessions, appeasement and adjustments.

The riots in the past are not a justification for riots in the present. However, communal riots in India are not something uncommon. Riots in Aligarh, Kanpur, Merrut, Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, Bhagalpur, Bihar Sharif and Jamshedpur in Bihar, Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Surat in Gujarat, Ajmer and Jaipur in Rajasthan and Delhi in 1984 have been even bloodier, widespread and extended over weeks and even in some case for months.

In the case of the present riot in Gujarat, the provocation came after the horrendous massacre in the Sabarmati Express killing 57 karsevaks returning from Ayodhya after participating in religious rites. Even women and children were not spared. Fire brigade was not allowed to approach the burning bogies of the train. All this happened without any provocation. The act was committed not by a few but nearly two thousand people of a community. They were led not by unidentified people but local leaders. Things were planned meticulously. Petrol was arranged earlier.

Whenever these disturbances take place in a particular region, it is a localized event. However, when they are reported in the newspapers and electronic media their impact transcends the boundaries. Natural corollary to this the role of the print and electronic media becomes very significant. How the events should be presented is a major question during the riot-hit days. It virtually depends upon the perspective of newspapers or TV Channels. It is assumed that in a liberal democratic society their objective should be to preclude the intensity of riots both vertically and horizontally. The reports, photographs, editorials, news analysis, interviews and edit page commentaries as well as audio- visuals should be intended to demoralize communal elements and preventing communal divide from further deepening.

However, the experiences in independent India tell different stories. The English media failed to adopt an impartial and constructive approach and it seems that they perpetuated the legacy of the colonial administration of playing minorities against majority community on the pretext of secularism and liberalism. This is more than apparent in the case of Godhra and post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in February-March 2002. A study of the reporting, news analysis, displaying of photographs, interviews, editorials, edit page commentaries and audio-visual presentation reveal some facts, which need to be contemplated. Every event is a teacher as it guides our role in future and gives us an opportunity to correct ourselves. The present study and subsequent seminar are intended with this very optimism.

Times of India, New Delhi

Sajjid Shaikh, Mob Attacks Gujarat Train, 55 Die, February 28, 2002.

Shaikh describes karsevaks misbehaving with the washerwomen of signal Falia as one of the reason for the Godhra massacre. Besides, it also cites the rumour of an attack on a religious place in Dahod as one of the reason for the Godhra incident.

Comments

This primary lead news report from the very initial stages focused the blame on the karsevaks and not attempted to investigate how the train was stopped at signal Falia where a mob of 1000 was already waiting with sticks, fuel, missiles and stones. There have been many such reports later carried on by this daily which have presented several unconfirmed or speculative theories on karsevaks role in the Godhra incident but not one on the responsibility of the Muslims whose in the light of the prima facie evidences draw attention.

Unless the newspaper can establish the truth, such reporting goes against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste (Section 14, Press Council Act). In any case it will have a prejudicial effect on public order. Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code deals with the promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and deals with acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. This applies to the entire set of reports wherever the reports have not been based on hard facts.

Siddharth Vardarajan, BJP Fiddles While Gujarat Reels Under Killings, Arson, March 1, 2002.

"…dastardly attack on train passengers in Godhra…' 'While official inquiry will establish the extent to which the attack on the Sabarmati Express was premeditated, there can be no doubt about the planned nature of the violence directed against Gujarat's Muslims on Thursday.

'At a time when Muslim Indians are already feeling alienated and victimized, the carnage in Gujarat will drive them to the wall.'

This news report was carried just two days after the Godhra carnage and the gruesome murder of the karsevaks is mentioned only once in the 450 plus word report. Not only this, the karsevaks were called 'train passengers', and the entire report was focusing on how the Muslims have been brutally killed in the aftermath and how suppressed the Muslims feel in India. Unfortunately, the present crisis has diverted the attention of the entire nation from the killings in Kashmir and elsewhere by the Muslim terrorist who are carrying their agenda in the name of Jihad and none of the so called secular and liberal Muslim forces question the Muslim leadership in Kashmir and at the Jama Masjid. It is an irony that Muslims are reported as being the suppressed community whereas if Vardarajan had a little knowledge of facts he would know that the killings of Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, their eventual flight from the valley, article 370, the rejection of the Supreme Court Verdict on the famous Shah Bano case the image bear testimony to the contrary. Such biased and tilted reporting would only breed further bitterness between the two communities and invite further literary backlash and criticism.

Siddarth Varadarajan is a typical example of secularist mindset, which has drawn comments by people like Vir Sanghvi, editor, Hindustan Times. Vardarajan in a news report (from New Delhi) about riots in Gujarat in his 'contemplative' language argues that the attack on Sabarmati Express was not planned but riots in the aftermath of Godhra massacre were. To quote him, "…While official enquiry will establish the extent to which the attack on the Sabarmati express was premeditated, there can be no doubt about the planned nature of violence directed against Gujarat's Muslims on Thursday…."

70 Killed as Riots Rock Gujarat, March 1, 2002.

'About 70 people were killed, a majority of them in Ahmedabad, in the worst-ever violence in Gujarat on Thursday during the state-wide bandh organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and backed by the ruling BJP. The killings were in protest against the attack on the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on Wednesday in which 58 people, mostly karsevaks were killed.'

Comments

The report lacks factual foundation and research. The recent riots are referred to as 'worst-ever communal violence in Gujarat', which is not true. Besides the report chooses to use a soft word 'attack' for the Godhra victims whereas the death of Muslims in subsequent riots is referred to as 'mob entered houses' 'butchered', and 'burnt alive'. In the end the report merely uses the word 'killing' for the ghastly act in which 60 karsevaks, including women and children were burnt alive.

'Heads of Muslim organizations through out the country have termed the killing of 60 train passengers as barbaric and brutal'.

Comments

Again this report refers to the burnt karsevaks as 'train passengers' in a casual manner and tries to underplay the fact that they were all karsevaks and were brutally burnt alive.

Modi May Dissolve Assembly, Play Hindu Card, March 11, 2002

This report says, " a section of the BJP has put up inflated figures like "winning up to 150 seats" out of total 182 seats in the assembly polls, if polls are held immediately." The correspondent puts words in the mouth of the PCC chief Amarsingh Choudhary , "I have also heard the rumors that the BJP is keen on playing Hindu card."

Comments

The 'rumors' as the PCC president himself calls becomes an important story for a national daily. Whose purpose and whose cause and what objective it served are a few questions need to be answered.

Manas Dasgupta, 57 Killed as Mob Torches Train in Gujarat, February 28, 2002.

'Eyewitnesses said that about 1,200 'Ram sevaks' were traveling in the train. The local people in the Muslim-dominated Godhra town had been "irritated" by the "abusive language" used by the "Ram sevaks' while they were going to Ayodhya by the same train a few days ago. They had reportedly raised slogans as the train approached Godhra on the return journey this morning.'

Comments

In The Hindu, statements or testimonies have been given, in quotes and with the names. But in this piece the reporter writes that witnesses told him about the behaviour of the 'Ram sevaks', which was the primary reason for the eventual tragedy on February 27. But as per the initial reports there was an alleged altercation between a vendor and the karsevaks. This means that either one of the vendors or one of the railway officials must have been the eyewitness. Now the point is if it was the vendor(s) either they should have been named or at least made clear by the reporter that it is the testimony of the vendor with whom the altercation took place. In case it were one of the railway officials, then their names and designation should have been mentioned. Since they are government servants they have an obligation to record their testimony. However, subsequent reports and investigations have revealed that the station master who is presumed as the primary eyewitness had denied any such incident to have taken place. If it were one of the onlookers or passengers on the station they must have left the spot by the time Manas Dasgupta must have reached there.

The argument is that instead of looking at the entire sequence of events and examining them as per the available and prima facie evidences, the reporter is levying serious charges in the name of some 'eyewitnesses' whose statements are not presented in quotes, let alone naming who these eyewitnesses are. This is irresponsible reporting and only smacks of a dangerous bias on part of the entire daily. This goes against the spirit of Section 14, Press Council Act.

'Insiders in the BJP admit that the police were under instructions from the Narendra Modi administration not to act firmly; apparently he wanted to please his RSS and VHP brethren in return for the help he received from the saffron brigade to acquire the top post and in the Rajkot-II Assembly bye-election despite heavy odds'.

'The sensible people in the State feel that the ruling party was deliberately to reignite the "Hindutva" sentiments taking advantage of the Godhra train carnage…'

'…It is to cash on this sentiment that Mr. Modi, even risking criticism, had tried to virtually "justify" the vandalism on the bandh day as the "natural outpour of anguish of the people" for the "terrorist-type pre-planned attack" on the "Ram sevaks" in Sabarmati Express.

Comments

Manas Das Gupta throws a serious accusation without providing evidences, establishing a highly objectionable generalization and showing the readers that it is the saffronization of the polity and state administration which is responsible for the entire mess and that the responsibility rested solely and purely on Mr. Modi and his regime. Das Gupta also wrote the 'insiders' in BJP admitting the Modi-administration nexus. The question, which should be asked, is that who are these 'insiders' and why are they not named just as he named Minister of State for Home, Gordhan Jhadaphiya, on one aspect of the riots. The reason for the 'insiders' are not being named could be that there were no such 'insiders' who could have made such an irresponsible and serious allegation. It is the prejudice and bias of Das Gupta, which he pens down in the name of 'insiders'. Otherwise if he could quote Jhadaphiya by name, it would not have been difficult to do so in case of the 'insiders'.

Again, Das Gupta uses an abstract word 'sensible people', who he writes, believe that the 'ruling party was deliberately allowing the situation to deteriorate...' The question, which immediately arises is that what he means by 'sensible people'? Those belonging to the community of the victims of Godhra, or those, for whom the story begins only after the torching of the train, or may be those who in the name of secularism create the two classes-oppressor and victims and subtly use them on their political chessboard? What makes people 'sensible and insensible'? Their ideology, education, color of the skin, religion or political affiliation? If Das Gupta can reflect on this it would lend at least some credibility to his reports.

One very interesting thing which is noticeable in Das Gupta's report is that all the views expressed by the BJP or VHP or their leaders, he puts in quotes ("natural outpour of an anguish of the people", "terrorist-type pre-planned attack" "Ram sevaks") to make categorically clear that they are views of a particular person or party and therefore do not reflect the views of the majority. Whereas when he himself throws any accusation in the garb of 'insiders' or 'sensible people' they are not in quotes, as if what he concocts and writes is a well established truth and belief.

Both his February 28 and March 3 reports, in which he has used words such as 'eyewitness', 'insiders', senior Government servant' amount only to rumour mongering (Section 14, Press Council Act).

Prasad Chacko, part of group from St. Xavier's Social Service Society, able to go around the city for the first time since the rioting started, to see if they could help, asked angrily "is there actually a government in Gujarat? A senior civil servant answered this question for us (writes Anjali Modi), "as far as this government is concerned it's Muslims who have died, or been injured. This is a Government that does not even consider them citizens."

Comments

Anjali Modi also presents a serious statement in the name of 'a senior civil servant'. Why

is it that wherever in the entire newspaper such statements are reported there are no mentions of names? Repeatedly such "orphaned statements" and testimonies, which bore far-reaching significance and overtones, were carried by the daily. But when it came to the statements of the Narendra Modi or L.K.Advani or any other BJP leader the names are mentioned and used repeatedly. One can only pity such reporting style, which would only question the credibility of the entire daily. Coming on the merit of this concocted statement, this is widely known that the Article 370, non-compliance of the Supreme Court verdict on the famous Shah Bano case by the Muslim clerics and non-acceptance by the Muslim community on 'religious grounds' were instances in which their individuality and identity were respected. Besides, religious, social and political freedom extended to the Muslims especially women, under the Indian constitution, finds no parallel even in the Islamic world. Hence the argument of 'muslims not being considered as citizens' does not stand any ground.

Gujarat Hit by Ayodhya Backlash, February 28, 2002

This was the banner headiline of Godhra roasting of 58 Karsevaks by Muslim mob. By evening every TV channel, TV commentators and vote bank politicians were echoing the same linkage theory. This was further persecution of the victim's community. Gujarat Hit by Ayodhya Backlash established an immediate link between the Godhra massacre, and the larger issue of Ayodhya dispute. Had the Sabarmati Express passed of peacefully, just as other trains of hundreds of other karsevaks did, would one have thought of such a linkage? The issue that should have been highlighted and investigated was the Godhra incident, but the headline (February 28) skips it and creates a link between the riots and the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. It is wrong to see Godhra and riots in from such an angle. For argument sake one could very well establish a link between the recent riots and the 1947 partition. Such rhetoric lead nowhere but towards breeding ill-feelings, distrust and further violent eruptions.

Chandan Nandy, And Now, a Set of Riot Vows, March 5, 2002

How a reporter instead of suppressing the mischief gives publicity and legitimacy is obvious from this report. It says, "It reminds one of Nazi bashing. Ever since communal riots broke out in Gujarat the VHP cadres are allegedly circulating a letter among "fellow Hindu brothers" that ask them "to impose economic and financial sanctions on Muslims and anti-nationals." The report further gives a denial by the VHP Gujarat and Ahmedabad Chief Kaushik Mehta. It reminded of one such letter circulated by Deendar Anjum in Bangalore against the Christians on behalf of the VHP.

Can Modi, Gujarat Live With It, March 10. 2002.

The report quoted one Rustam Ansari saying that the mob was crying "maro saale miaan ko." The entire report contains filthy language allegedly used by rioters. Ansari was further quoted, "I stabbed one man wearing Khaki sorts. I could have cut his throat but I also wanted to escape."

Comments

The reporter justifies Ansari's provocation and highlights 'khaki shorts". A message, which he wants to convey, draws a parallel with Tamas, the TV series by Bhisma Sahni. Such sort of fiery comments aggravate and may well ignite another backlash. This is a dangerous trend, which should not be followed by the editors.

Indian Express, New Delhi

Virinda Gopinath, There was Failure and Complicity on the Part of the Government' Indian Express, March 3, 2002.

Virinda Gopinath , a Delhi staffer of the daily, does the same thing when she tries to put

words in the mouth of Nirmala Deshpande. She asked Deshpande, "What about the role of political parties and disruptive groups like the VHP and Bajrang Dal? But Deshpande refused to oblige her and instead raised the question of the role of the media when she replied, "all citizens have here failed abjectly. And so has the media."

Darshan Desai, Where the Trishul is Held High, March 3, 2002

The Indian Express correspondent Darshan Desai shows his 'objectivity' while reporting
on Gujarat when he borrows the phrase used by anti hindutva votaries. He calls Gujarat "Sangh Parivar's laboratory of Hindu nationalism".

Debashis Bhattacharya, Loot levels, Death Divides, March 3, 2002.

The popular and usual portrayal by the newspapers that only the Muslims were targeted was negated by this a report. Debashis Bhattacharya reported, "The religion of neighbours made no difference when a Marching mob of 3000 crying out Jai Shri Ram looted and burned down their homes in the shanty down of Naroda two days ago." He adds, "They took everything cash, clothes, television set even the bowls and pans then they took kerosene from our stove and burned down our homes", said one Mukesh Bhai.

Amit Bhai, a neighbour told, "His other Hindu neighbours in the shanty town had their homes looted and torched too. They did not spare us. These rioters vandalized my shoe shop before setting it on fire."

This was a revealing report which brought to our doorsteps the reality that killing and looting in Naroda were acts of miscreants rather than of Hindus or Muslims. It also categorically mentioned, unlike other dailies, that Naroda had mixed populations of Hindu and Muslims and it was not exclusively Muslim locality. Bhattacharya's report was in a contrast to a report in the HT (Can Modi, Gujarat Live With It, March 10). That quoted one Rustam Ansari saying that the mob was crying "maro saale miaan ko."

Special Reports and Analyses

Times of India, New Delhi

Train From Ayodhya, Blood on the Tracks, Violence in the Air, a State in Surrender SPECIAL REPORT, March 3, 2002.
Ranjona Bannerjee, Gujarat: Liberal but Never Secular

This analysis quotes Praveen Patel, a sociologist at Vadodara's M.S. University: "…violence in society is aggravated by economic crises and Gujarat is in such a crisis, as the rest of the country. People are divided and frustrated and what is latent becomes manifest." Bannerjee writes later 'the large number of temple builders from Gujarat he (Patel) attributed to this frustrated class.

Comments

Why does Bannerjee not put this assertion of Patel in quotes that temple builders belong
to the 'frustrated class'. May be because he never said it, otherwise Bannerjee would have easily put such a serious statement in quotes immediately. She makes this inference and labels it as the views of Patel. Is this irresponsible journalism?

Rajesh Ramchandaran, Government Ignored Warning Signals on Godhra, March 3, 2002.

"It was a regular feature to see VHP cadre getting down at Godhra station and shouting provocative slogans," while quoting a railway official.

Comments

The reporter has been deliberately portraying the VHP cadre as lumpens by presenting selective quotes. But this is not the sole reason for the current Hindu-Muslim clash. There is no mention of why a Hindu is scared to catch a bus from Godhra?

Blame It on Newton's Law: Modi, March 3, 2002.

'…And what did the chief minister have to say about what was happening? He said. "The five crore people of Gujarat have shown remarkable restraint under grave provocation." He went on to blast the Godhra killing of karsevaks while brushing aside the equally brutal retaliation that was taking place against Muslims…'

Well, how about the role of the media itself, which is supposed to take a non-partisan stand during such crises. The use of strong words such as 'lynched', 'torched to death', 'burnt alive,' 'hacked to death,' while reporting the riot, but using killing for the Godhra train massacre is reflective of a biased and malignant media reporting.

Are VHP, BJP Workers the Culprits? March 4, 2002.

'Workers of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the BJP have been booked for murder in FIRs filed in Naroda-Patia carnage of Friday which claimed nearly 65 lives.'

Comments

The report mentions five 'active' VHP and BJP members by name and tries to paint the entire VHP and BJP. This deliberate fact selection and presentation forces one to ask why has the report not tried to investigate the role of the Godhra massacre culprits namely Mohammad Hussain Abdul Rahim Kalota, president Godhra Municipal Corporation (GMC), Saleem Abdul Gaffar Sheikh, corporator, Abdul Rahman Abdul Majeed Dhamtia Upakhya Jambura, corporator, Kankatto and Farooq Bhan, Secretary Panch Mahal Congress Committee. Affiliation and links of all the above mentioned with the Congress party raises the role of the latter in the Godhra massacre and subsequent riots, which was neither questioned nor investigated.

Media Not Playing a Constructive Role: PM, March 5, 2002

A day after his televised address to the nation regretting the "disgraceful" violence in Gujarat, Prime Minister Vajpayee told a group of concerned citizens that the media was presenting an "exaggerated" account of the situation in the state.'

'…Vajpayee told them on Sunday (March 3) that it was incorrect to suggest that the whole of Gujarat was burning, when the violence was limited a few places…Vajpayee said the media has not played a constructive role by showing scenes of carnage; and that instead of complaining to the government the delegation should ask the media to play a better role…'

'…The Sabarmati Express was attacked on February 27. It took Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi over 24 hours to ask the Army to be deployed to take control of situation.'

'On February 28 at 6 pm, the state government asked for Army deployment, The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) met the same evening to clear the decision to deploy troops. Why, then did it take the Army another 24 hours to start its operation?'

Comments

To start, the picture, which Mohua Chatterjee tries to portray, is that the deployment of the Army was needed with immediate effect, as there were no security forces in the areas hit by violence. There were 11 companies of para-military forces assisting the local police to tackle the situation. This is normal process when any trouble erupts, the local police deals with it and their failure in tackling the situation paves the way for the para- military. But if even the para-military forces are not able to control the situation the army is called in, which was the case in Gujarat. When the deployment of Army was being formalized and executed, the local police and the para-military were dealing with the situation.

If all this took 24 hours for the army to be deployed into far and wide areas under curfew, that too given the present pre-occupation of the army with the situation on the border, engagement in Kashmir and reluctance to deal with incidents of civil nature, and considering the past records of the riots and eventual army deployment, it was not slow at all, as the report alleges. The report shows a complete ignorance about the constraint on army deployment in local situations.

The piece also puts the blame on the Karsevaks, VHP and BJP for the entire carnage as well as riots but does not question the role of the muslim elements behind the Godhra massacre.

Harish Khare, Will the Conflagration be Contained? March 1, 2002.

'…The level and nature of violence, according to some officers, has surpassed the carnage witnessed during the 1969 communal riots and the violence that erupted on October 1990…'

'…Mr. Modi and the rest of the BJP are reaping the harvest of hatred and divisiveness they have sowed over the last decade…'

Comments

It is so astonishingly sad that after reading the reporting style of The Hindu's reporters one is forced to believe that perhaps the daily's employment terms and conditions makes it mandatory for its reporters to use abstract terms while making a serious statement or charge. Just like his colleague Manas Das Gupta, Harish Khare also presents his own prejudices and biases and calling them the views of some vague officials or office bearers. Here he uses the term 'some officer' and justifies a fact which is not based on historical evidences and authentic research. May be he is aware of this shortcoming but his own prejudices overcome his journalistic ethics. But the advice for Khare is that presenting unverified facts, even in the name of 'some officers' would speak more of his lack of journalistic acumen rather than the knowledge and awareness of those 'officers'.

It would have been better if Khare had given some facts about the 1969 riots, its duration, number of casualties, quantum of property loss and extent of the disturbed area. It would have been useful to throw some light on the media coverage then.

Similarly, very immaturely he writes without a basic understanding of the history of Hindu-Muslim divide that 'Mr. Modi and BJP are reaping the harvest of hatred and divisiveness they have sowed over the last decade.' If Khare reads even the basic history textbooks he would know that the genesis of the Hindu-Muslim divide in modern India dates back to 1906 when the Muslim League was formed. In fact, it began much earlier, with Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan's exhortations to boycott the Congress and to profess loyalty to the British rule. Formation of Muslim League was just the culmination of the process started by him. With subsequent unfolding of events during the freedom struggle, the Muslims only got more polarized as an anti-thesis to Hinduism and Hindustan. The partition in 1947 was just one important date on which this divide got formalized. And since then the relation with Pakistan, its role in Kashmir and the incessant killings of the Hindus by Muslim terrorist have only widened this gulf. Therefore, the history of this divide does not begin in 1990, but in 1906. I am not taking you back much further in the medieval period, which is full of instances that would prove that the Hindu-Muslim divide is much older than what Khare thinks.

Anjali Modi, Investigating Godhra, March 10, 2002.

'THE POLITICAL leadership in New Delhi and Gandhinagar decided that the barbaric burning of the Sabarmati Express on February 27 was a ``terrorist attack''. They said it was ``pre-planned'', ``pre-meditated'' and engineered by the ISI, that there was a nexus linking Godhra, a town of some two lakh people, with Karachi, now home to some of India's most wanted underworld dons.'
"But, there is now a criminal investigation on and it is its business to catch the culprits and attach blame. Officialdom has descended on Godhra to uncover the truth and in the process ask: "What triggered the attack?"
"Despite the certitude of the political establishment, investigators in Godhra and Ahmedabad are keen on stressing that there is nothing open and shut about the case. But they said the ongoing investigation did not have the evidence to suggest there was pre-meditation or a "grand conspiracy to destabilise and break up the country".
'Speaking on condition of anonymity, they said any suggestion that there was long pre-planning in the Godhra attack would need certain proofs: of a conspiracy, leaders of this conspiracy, proof of why the train was delayed, telephonic messages about the progress of the train. None of this evidence had yet turned up. Besides, there was nothing that appeared to link Godhra to a network of international terror.'

'…In the context of the train attack, an investigator said the passage of karsevaks left a trail of communal tension in its wake, that there was "always trouble when karsevaks moved". The atmosphere in towns and railway stations through which they passed did get surcharged. In Godhra, where the area on either side of the railway station is home to a large Muslim population, and a very fragile peace is maintained, there was always a possibility of conflict. The passage of karsevaks had vitiated this peace in 1990 and 1992 when the VHP was conducting Ram shila poojas and after the demolition of the Babri Masjid.'
'…Officials say they are considering the possibility that an altercation on the station platform led to a clash that spiraled out of control. They were studying reports of an "altercation" at Godhra station between a tea vendor and a kar sevak. Words were exchanged. The train began to move. The vendor is believed to have hopped onboard and pulled the chain. As the train began to move again the chain was pulled for a second time. By now a crowd had collected.'
'…The time of the attack on the train was also just after the morning prayers and so, they said, people were already out in significant numbers. Adding to them was no great feat. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Bawa also said there were women and children in the crowd. Which, he admitted, hardly made for a pre-planned terrorist encounter.'
'…There is some suggestion that some in the crowd tried to enter the train in the belief (possibly rumour) that either the tea vendor or someone from their group was on the train. When they failed to get in, fiery missiles - possibly rags soaked with petrol or some solvent procured from the many garages or repair shops abutting the station - began to be thrown at the train.,

Praful Bidwai, The Ayodhya Blackmail, March 7, 2002.

It is not new for Bidwai to write such steeply slanted views in the name of secularism and progressiveness. In the past also he has written in such lopsided manner on issues ranging from the colour of the socks to the crack in the Great Wall of China. The result of this pseudo-secularist and pseudo-progressive writing has been that now it fails to evoke a response from the readers. In The Ayodhya Blackmail Bidwai has again failed to present his views in a non-partisan manner. He has tried to sound like a true champion of secularism who is determined to stop the juggernaut of the Hindutva forces. He has touched upon on almost all fronts starting from 'Gandhi's assassination by Hindutva forces', 'Golwarkar's dream of turning non-Hindus into second-class citizens', 'murdering secularism', 'temple/mosque dispute, "NCERT', 'madarsa syllabi', 'Sants' Chetavani Yatra', 'cultural nationalism', 'awakening of the majority' to the 'Gujarat pogrom', Modi Massacre Machine', and 'centre's complicity'. But in his over 800 plus word article, Bidwai who would bet anything for his pseudo-secular/progressive writing has not mentioned the word Godhra once. May be he did not subscribe to the newspaper on the 28th and which could only justify his blatant overlooking of the Sabarmati carnage from where the entire debate of the Hindu-Muslim divide has resurfaced. May be Bidwai wants to tell the readers that the gruesome murder of 60 men, women and children in Godhra is too minor an incident considering the greatness of his quest to see India as his type of secular nation.

Indian Express, New Delhi

Hussain Haqqani, Extremists in Backyard, March 6, 2002.

The Indian express has given a political colour all through, to riots in Gujarat as if the BJP had engineered the burning and killings of karsevaks in the Sabarmati Express. Hussain Haqqani wrote, "It is ironic that the communal riots in Gujarat have come soon after the BJP's poor performance in UP and ahead of next year's election in Gujarat'.

Mushirul Hassan, Restore Dignity of India, March 6, 2002.

The article by Mushirul Hassan, a pioneer name in the liberal Muslim intelligentsia, author several book on the Hindu-Muslim question and partition and communal riots in the