COMMUNAL VIOLENCE

PUCL Report on Communal Incidents, Nagore, Tamil Nadu, July, 1996

On 3rd July, 1995 at about 10.35 am, a parcel bomb burst when Mrs. Thangam Muthukrishnan, wife of the District Convenor of Hindu Munnani of Nagapattinam, Mr. Muthukrishnan, opened a parcel addressed to her husband at their house. The blast caused severe injuries to the lady who succumbed by about 1.30 p.m. of the same day at the Nagapattinam District Government Hospital. However, closely following the bomb blast, by 11.00 a.m. itself looting and pillaging of Muslim houses in Hindu dominated areas, and of Hindu shops in Muslim areas, and a series of murders were reported in the press. There were also reports of police excesses in Muslim areas and also about their inaction when the mobs were looting properties. In view of the communally sensitive nature of the matter PUCL- Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry decided to send a Fact-Finding Team (FFT) to Nagore Town to enquire into the entire issue (led by) Prof. A. Marx, Tanjore.

The bomb blast sparked off communal violence in Nagore town. The situation was used by gangs of rowdy elements and lumens to loot and ransack houses.

The communal incidents varied in nature, intensity and extent of destruction between the Hindu dominated areas and Muslim populated areas. While not a single Hindu house suffered damage in the Muslim dominated area, a large number of Muslim families suffered great loss with their houses and shops looted and all their belongings burnt.

In the main bazaar road, about 10 Hindu shops were targeted for attack by Muslim rowdy elements and suffered monetary damage. The killing of Murugan... and attack on Shankar and Moorthy Dalit youths was based on a conflict of interest between certain rich Muslims and landless Dalits. Thus, the assault on Dalits by the Muslims is different in nature from the communal clashes between the Muslims and Caste Hindus in other parts of Nagore town.

There was clear-cut evidence of police excesses in Muslim parts of Nagore town. In particular there was large scale damage of Muslim household properties in streets close to Mohideen Mosque, and abusive treatment and attack on womenfolk including molestation of some women. Although there were many senior police officials including the Addl. DGP (L&O) who had camped in Nagore town for several days, no attempt was made by them to visit affected Muslim houses and shops. In fact, most of these affected houses had not been assessed or their damages recorded by Revenue officials until the day the FFT visited Nagore.

Members from both communities complained that whoever went to the police station to record complaints were arrested and put behind bars. This caused a fear psychosis (and) it inhibited them from making public the losses suffered by them. The neighboring fishing villages who were all Hindus, had this time consciously decided not to take part in the clashes. This was a major factor which prevented the continuation of the communal conflagration. Number of instances were quoted by both Hindus and Muslims when members of the other community gave shelter and protection. A marked feature was the failure of the police to immediately. provide patrols in sensitive areas inside the main part of the town. Another aspect was the openly exhibited anti- Muslim feeling amongst many police personnel.

All the three sections, Hindus, Muslims, and Dalits unanimously held the Inspector of Police, Mr. Indrajit responsible for the escalation of communal violence. All sections also complained of excessive violence used by him against all those arrested. Compensation has been granted only to Hindu shop owners. None of the Muslim affected persons have been compensated at all. Similarly, a larger number of Muslims numbering over 140 have been arrested compared to only about 40 odd Hindus. Recommendations:

1.The entire coastal Nagapattinam QM District has proved to be a very communally sensitive district for the last 10 years. It is imperative that the Government evolve concrete action programme to prevent the outbreak of communal violence.

2.Rehabilitation measures should be taken to ensure that the displaced are given protection to return to their places.

3.There should be permanent police pickets in pockets identified to be communally sensitive. Reserve Protection Force should be stationed in the HQs at 24. hours alert, particularly during festival times. In such places police and revenue officials of both communities should be appointed.

4.Leaders from both communities who have a record of giving inflammatory speeches should be banned from holding meetings.

5.The Government should immediately ban the newly started Vinakaya Chaturthi Process in Nagapattinam- Nagore and other parts. Similarly, Milad-e-Nabi procession should also be banned.

6. Losses suffered by victims in previous clashes have not yet been compensated. Further looted property has not yet been recovered in most cases.

Prompt action (should be) taken in this regard.

7.Muslim leaders agreed to suggestion made by the FFT that the disputed lands meant for housing Dalits should be made over to them in a gesture of goodwill by withdrawing cases. The Government should take immediate action to ensure the issuance of house site pattas to the Dalits.

8.Innocent persons, old persons, and mentally retarded people allegedly arrested by the police should be immediately released. Similarly, people held hostages (for) accused persons should be released forthwith. Further, all those who have been arrested under Preventive detention should be released immediately or else remanded to judicial custody.

9.Action should be taken against policemen responsible for the excesses.

10.Of paramount importance is human rights education to police personnel and training to decommunalize the police force. (Source: The BUCL Bulletin, October, 1996)

J&K High Court on State Liability for Loss of Life in Riots

State of Jammu & Kashmir, Appellant v. M/s Jeet General Store and others, Respondents.

M. Ramakrishna, C.J. and V.K. Gupta, J. Constitution of India, Articles 226, 21 - Right to life -Liability of State-Communal riots-Petitioners suffering losses of properties due to riots - Allegations not constituting negligence, dereliction of duty on part of State in protecting properties of citizens-State not liable to pay compensation-Mere grant of ex-gratia relief does not amount to admission on part of State of its culpability.

 Whenever a communal riot or a disturbance takes place all of a sudden, without any notice or warning and without any preparation or pre-meditation and if as a result, the disturbances taking place in a very very short spell of time, and if consequently some property is damaged, surely the State cannot be blamed for not protecting citizen's property.

The existence of the fundamental right of life and liberty is one thing but the extent of the obligation of the State to protect the life and liberty is a slightly different matter. The balance, therefore, is to be struck between obligation of the State to protect the property of its citizens in absolute terms and the need to protect the property in the light of the sources available as also the practical problems and difficulties faced in the day-to-day administration of the State. The concept of reasonable care in turn gives rise to an equally important concept of negligence on the part of the State. In the instant case, the petitioners failed and omitted to level any allegations against the State for not either taking proper care to protect the properties or for being negligent in the discharge of its constitutional obligations of protecting the life and liberty (including properties) of the petitioners and, therefore, State would not be liable to compensate the petitioners for the losses suffered due to communal riots. Further grant of ex-gratia relief cannot amount to any admission on the part of State. There are cases galore where the State grants ex-gratia relief to citizens in some tragic situations and events, where it even indirectly had no role to play with such events or happenings. For instance, the cases of floods, earthquakes or plain road accidents involving motor vehicles wholly owned by private parties. In all such unfortunate incidents and happenings, where the State is not connected with any act, it does grant ex-gratia relief to the citizens so that they tide over their immediate difficulties. This is not done by the State because it thinks that it is or was responsible for any such act. This is done only because the State being a welfare State thinks that it should help citizens in their hour of need by some assistance, in one form or the other because the citizens have suffered and they need help in their hour of difficulty. Hence directions issued to State to pay sums of money in absence of any allegations constituting culpability on part of State would liable to be set aside.

(Source: AIR 1996 Jammu and Kashmir 51)