We Have No Orders to Save You - Human Rights Watch

transmitted diseases. Moreover, a lack of access and protection in relief camps limited nongovernmental relief
workers’ assistance to victims. In January 2003, then-chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) Justice J.S. Verma deplored the failure to provide adequate relief to victims of the violence stating that
“a lot more ought to have been done by the Gujarat Government.” The recommendations of the NHRC, issued in
April 2002, have yet to be implemented.
A series of state government orders following the violence, issued in part as a result of public pressure,
established guidelines for compensation for injury, and loss of life, property, employment, or livelihood. By and
large, however, victims received paltry sums in compensation for their losses. Most people interviewed by
Human Rights Watch received negligible amounts to compensate for the destruction of their homes, ranging from
a few hundred to a few thousand rupees (less than one hundred dollars). Sixty-year-old R. Bibi, a former resident
of Naroda Patia told Human Rights Watch that the government demanded proof that her son was killed before she
could receive compensation: “They want proof, where am I going to go to get proof? My life was taken away
when they shot my son. Everything has been taken away and now they want evidence, where will I get the body
from? I wasn’t even able to see his body.” Of the dozens of people interviewed by Human Rights Watch in
January 2003, none had been compensated for injury or loss of employment or livelihood.
Independent nongovernmental groups estimate that as a result of the large-scale destruction of homes, properties,
and businesses in Gujarat, the Muslim community has suffered an economic loss totaling Rs. 3,800 crore, or
approximately U.S. $760 million. The prolonged closure of shops, industries, and commercial establishments in
Gujarat also hurt the economy as a whole and added to soaring unemployment rates.
Muslims in Gujarat, already among the poorest populations in the state, have been further economically
marginalized. Ongoing economic boycotts instituted by Hindu nationalist leaders with the support of local
officials are crippling the community as a whole. Many remain unable to farm their fields, sell their wares, return
to their businesses, operate commercial vehicles, or retain their jobs, including in the public sector. The violence
has also proved a successful catalyst for the community’s “ghettoization.” The reconstruction of homes, carried
out almost exclusively by nongovernmental and charity groups, has largely taken place along communal lines.
Muslims cannot work, reside, or send their children to schools in Hindu dominated localities. As the segregation
of communities continues, hopes for community dialogue or reconciliation have dissipated.
Following the violence in Gujarat in February and March 2002, more than 33,000 children were forced into relief
camps throughout Gujarat, representing one-third of the total displaced population. In addition to the children
who were direct victims of the mobs, children were witnesses to horrifying violations and deaths of family
members. Human Rights Watch spoke to several children who have yet to fully resume their education and have
received no psychological counseling. Many suffered severe burn injuries that still cover their arms, legs, and in
some cases, their entire bodies. Children’s drawings are replete with images of bombs, guns, swords, burning
homes and mosques, and mutilated bodies.
Communalism as a Political Strategy
Although different from one another in many respects, sangh parivar-affiliated groups have collectively and
violently promoted the argument that, because Hindus constitute the majority of Indians, India should be a Hindu
state. Nationwide violence against India’s Muslim community in 1992 and 1993 following the destruction of the
Babri Masjid (mosque) in Ayodhya, and against India’s Christian community since 1998, including in the state of
Gujarat, stemmed in large part from the violent activities and hate propaganda of these groups.
The attacks and other activities in Gujarat benefited the Bharatiya Janata Party by consolidating the Hindu votebank.
In December 2002, the BJP won by a landslide in state elections in Gujarat. Using posters and videotapes
of the Godhra massacre, and rhetoric that depicted Muslims as terrorists intent on destroying the Hindu
community, the party gained the most seats in areas affected by the communal violence. A total of thirty-six
winning candidates have prior criminal cases pending against them. Many have been implicated by witnesses in
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 7 JULY 2003, Vol. 15, No. 3 (C)