THE BUSINESS OF EDUCATION - International Indian

[ THE INDIA COLUMN ]
Futility of Inquiry Commissions
“How long can the governments fool people by temporarily calming their anger by
setting up commissions, which are nothing more than tokenism?”
[ By VISHAL ARORA ]
It is typical of state governments in
India to set up inquiry commissions
under the Commission of Inquiry
Act of 1952 after incidents of largescale
communal violence. But, is this
exercise fruitful? There are at least
thee reasons why it is not.
One, commissions take too long
in submitting reports and recommendations.
For instance, March
2010 is likely to mark half a century
of the extension of the Justice M.S.
Liberhan Commission, which continues
to probe the 1992 demolition of
the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya (Uttar
Pradesh). On September 30, its term
was extended for the 47th time by six
more months.
The Liberhan Commission was set
up by the then P.V. Narasimha Rao government
10 days after the demolition of the
mosque on Dec 6, 1992. The order setting
up the commission stipulated that it complete
the inquiry “as soon as possible but not
later than three months”. Regrettably, the
three months’ deadline has been stretched
to 16 long years.
One fails to understand how an inquiry
panel can investigate a crime months or years
after its occurrence? It is simple logic that
the longer one waits, the lesser the chances
of gathering evidence against the perpetrators.
But, the fact that the Liberhan Commission
has recorded statements of several
senior BJP leaders, including L.K. Advani,
Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati, and
former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan
Singh, suggests why there is such a delay.
Two, the independence and neutrality
of commissions are questionable. For
example, five days before the term of the
Liberhan Commission was extended, the
first part of the Nanavati Commission report
was tabled in the Gujarat state assembly.
The report said the burning of the S-6
coach of the Sabarmati Express train on
February 27, 2002 near the Godhra railway
station was an act of some local Muslims.
It also absolved the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) government, which was believed to
be behind the gory anti-Muslim violence
that ensued. In other words, the report stated
exactly what Chief Minister Narendra
Modi wanted to hear and advertise on the
eve of general elections.
The Nanavati Commission report, which
gave a clean chit to the chief minister
who was called a modern day Nero by the
Supreme Court of India for failing to protect
the lives of Muslims, contradicted the report
of a committee set up by the railway ministry
under the leadership of Lalu Prasad Yadav
and headed by former judge U.C. Banerjee.
In its interim report submitted in January
2005, the Banerjee Committee stated the
train fire was an accident and that there was
no evidence to suggest that it was planned.
Besides, numerous independent inquiry reports
held the Modi government guilty of
allowing extreme Hindu nationalist groups
to perpetrate violence on Muslims with almost
total impunity.
The Nanavati Commission report
dismayed the minority Muslim
community in India, but there
was nothing surprising about it. For,
the Commission, which was set up
by the Modi government in March
2002, comprised of two justices,
G.T. Nanavati and K.G. Shah. Justice
Shah expired earlier this year,
and the government appointed in his
place former judge Akshay Mehta,
who is believed to be close to Modi.
The appointment of Justice Mehta
and the time of the submission of the
report that was still incomplete raise
doubts in the minds of people about
its neutrality.
Lastly, the findings and recommendations
of inquiry commissions
are not binding. Take for example
the Justice Srikrishna Commission,
which in 1998 clearly indicted the Shiv Sena
in the infamous incident of communal violence
against Muslims in Mumbai in 1992-
93. It made several recommendations, but
they have neither been accepted nor acted
upon by any Maharashtra government since
then. This, despite loud hues and cries being
raised by numerous non-governmental
organisations.
If commissions take years to come up
with findings, if they are not shielded from
a possible influence of ruling governments,
and if their recommendations are not binding,
who needs commissions of inquiry?
How long can the governments fool people
by temporarily calming their anger by setting
up commissions, which are nothing
more than tokenism? Two years ago, the
Supreme Court rightly observed that commissions
were appointed for only mere
political reasons “knowing fully well that
nothing will come out of it”.
Vishal Arora is a freelance journalist
based in New Delhi.
8
THE INTERNATIONAL INDIAN