ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Articles Of Faith

It was six years ago that Bradford Morse found sudden fame in India. The book he and two colleagues authored then is still on my shelf, still up there among the most revealing books I have ever read. But while I thought it was a stunner -- it amazed me that I was unable to put it down -- I am positive that the name Bradford Morse inspired little affection in the corridors of power in the then Gujarat government. Nor, I suspect, in subsequent Gujarat governments.

Morse, you may remember, headed a World Bank-appointed independent Review of Gujarat's dam on the Narmada, the Sardar Sarovar Project. Their findings, in the so-called Morse report, is a damningly -- yes, pun definitely intended -- critical document, a scathing indictment of the project.

Now criticism of Sardar Sarovar never has gone down well in Gujarat, committed as its leaders have always been to that dam. As then chief minister Chimanbhai Patel often used to affirm, the dam is being built "as an article of faith."

Take a trip back six years, if you will, and put yourself in the chappals of Chimanbhai Patel for a spell. Here's a widely publicised report, written by a team of highly respected men. Theirs was an independent review, given free rein, beholden to nobody. The authors gratefully acknowledge the "open and full" participation and co-operation of authorities in the central and Gujarat governments while the review was in progress. The report is likely to carry a lot of weight with those who make decisions at the World Bank (remember that this was all before the World Bank decided to stop funding Sardar Sarovar).

You have put on those chappals, but you are also a busy chief minister. You don't have the time to read the whole report. So you want to know some of its salient points. What conclusions did the independent review reach?

Too many to list, but here's a thoroughly representative sample for you to consider:

* "Despite the stated priority of delivery of drinking water, there were no plans available for review."

* "There has been no comprehensive environmental assessment of the canal and water delivery system ... there will be serious problems with waterlogging and salinity. [M]any of the assumptions used in project design ... are suspect."

* "The compensatory afforestation approach being taken by Gujarat ... will lead to a steady decline in the quality of forests."

* "[T]he Sardar Sarovar projects will not perform as planned."

* "Gujarat is unlikely to be able to resettle a large proportion of oustees from Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh."

* "Continuing confusion about who [tribals being displaced] are, and persistent denials that they represent a distinctive part of the cultures of the submergence area, raises a large question mark over the very possibility of their being successfully resettled and rehabilitated."

* "The Sardar Sarovar projects are likely to perpetuate many of the features that the Bank has documented as diminishing the performance of the agricultural sector in India in the past."

As a responsible chief minister, how do you respond to such criticism? By initiating studies? By insisting that those building the dam perform the jobs they have been neglecting? Or, if you think Morse was wrong, by presenting evidence to counter all these points?

Don't know about you, but Chimanbhai Patel didn't consider any of those possibilities. He went instead to the throbbing heart of the matter, to what simply must be the most relevant issue of them all.

On October 4, 1992, he indignantly dismissed the Morse report by saying Morse had no right to tell us "whether tribals are Hindu or not."

He and his underlings repeated that charge on innumerable occasions. On one such that I attended, Sanat Mehta, then chairman of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Corporation Limited, told a July 1993 public meeting in Bombay that, had Morse visited India before Independence, he would have been "thrashed unmercifully." Practically apoplectic, the good chairman roared: "How dare this foreigner tell us who is and who is not Hindu?"

You see, Chimanbhai Patel and Sanat Mehta knew well: this was a convenient stick to beat the Morse report with. Never mind that it was an untruthful one. Never mind everything else the report discussed. Only one thing mattered -- this easy way to confuse and distract people from the real issues in the project, issues that remain so criminally neglected.

And no doubt, given the communally charged times we live in, then and now, Patel and Mehta knew just how effective this particular stick would be.

For the record, at no point does the Morse report state tribals are Hindus. Or that they are not. "The history and customs of tribal peoples ... has direct relevance to resettlement and rehabilitation policies", the report says. In this context, Morse studied their relationship to Hinduism. He found a great deal of overlap between their lifestyles and those of more mainstream Hindus. And even with this overlap, he found that these tribals "did not repudiate Hinduism; rather, they affirmed their separateness."

The elementary point Morse was making? Rehabilitating tribals can be successful only if you study and recognise their unique and distinct cultural heritage. Which, no surprise, is something dam builders have never cared to do.

But Patel and Mehta preferred to characterise this as an attempt by a foreigner to dictate to us about Hindus and Hinduism. This is what they preferred to harp on -- and lie about -- to the exclusion of all else in the Morse report.

Now you may wonder why I have spent so much of this column putting you in the six-year-old chappals of a man who is, in fact, not with us any more. That's because today there's another report out. In its own way, it is just as much of a stunner as the Morse report was. Its author is certainly just as unlikely to inspire affection in corridors of power as Morse was, though the corridors, this time, are in Maharashtra.

I refer, you knew, to Justice Srikrishna's report on the Bombay riots of 1992-93.

Like Morse, Justice Srikrishna reaches a number of damning conclusions in his report. I've referred to some of them in previous columns; here are a few more.

* "The immediate causes of the riots on 6th December 1992 were (a) the demolition of Babri Masjid; (b) the aggravation of Muslim sentiments by the Hindus with their celebration rallies; (c) the insensitive and harsh approach of the police while handling the protesting mobs which initially were not violent."

* "From 7 December 1992 ... large mobs of Muslims came on the streets and there was recourse taken to violence without doubt. ... [T]he Muslim mobs [were intent on] mounting violent attacks as noticed from their preparedness with weapons of violence."

*" On 1st January 1993 there was an article in Saamna under the caption ' Hindunni Akramak Vhayala Have,' openly inciting Hindus to violence."

*" On 4th January 1993 a big mob of Hindus led by [present state home minister] Shri Gajanan Kirtikar, Shri Ramesh More and other Shiv Sena activists took a morcha to the Jogeshwari police station complaining of lack of security for Hindus. Some of the people in the morcha attacked Chacha Nagar Masjid and the Muslims in the vicinity and injured them."

* "[On 7 January 1993] A taxi in which two Muslims were travelling was set on fire in Pratiksha Nagar ... resulting in the two Muslims being burnt alive."

* "[On 8 January 1993] Some Hindu residences [in] Radhabai Chawl in Jogeshwari jurisdiction were locked from outside and set on fire by miscreants. [Six] members of a Hindu family and their neighbours were charred to death and three other Hindus sustained serious burn injuries. ... This incident was sensationalised by the media in giving exaggerated and provoking reports."

* "When the police searched Al Madina Mansion, not only did they recover petrol bombs, but they also seized certain quantity of materials useful for making crude bombs from the terrace. [Senior PI Tikam admitted] that this might have been stored [there] as a plan to attack on the Hindus and the police and that such an act would be an offence. Strangely, no offence has been registered, nor is the officer able to give any explanation as to why none was registered. ... [I]n this instance at least, [the Sena's] grievance appears justified."

* "The attacks on Muslims by the Shiv Sainiks were mounted with military precision, with list of establishments and voters' list in hand."

* "From 8 January 1993 ... the Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of the Shiv Sena from the level of shakha pramukh to the Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray, who, like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims."

* "From the conversation which could be heard by [witness Yuvraj Mohite, at Thackeray's house during the riots], it was clear that Thackeray was directing Shiv Sainiks ... to attack the Muslims, to ensure that they gave tit for tat and ensure that 'not a single landya would survive to give oral evidence'... [T]his witness was extensively cross-examined by [Sena counsel] Adhik Shirodkar ... There is no contrary evidence adduced by Shiv Sena or Bal Thackeray. The Commission sees no reason for not accepting the testimony of this witness."

Justice Srikrishna ends his report by saying he "sincerely hopes" that the riots will "serve as eye-openers and lead to introspection and that all concerned attain the maturity to accept constructive criticism and mend their ways."

So, how did the government of Maharashtra react to the report? Did Chief Minister Manohar Joshi do any of that introspection? Accept the constructive criticism? Act to bring too-long delayed justice to victims of the riots?

Silly questions. No, he went to the pulsating heart of the matter instead. He and his colleagues called the report and the judge himself "biased" and "anti-Hindu"; it would, they said, produce "false propaganda" about Hindus. Saying all this, Joshi indignantly dismissed the Srikrishna report.

Indeed. In these communally heated times, the charge of being "anti-Hindu" -- never mind the truth -- is a potent one indeed. Joshi knows that, just as well as did Chimanbhai Patel, six years ago.

And in these communally heated times, two reports that would do your country -- your country -- a power of good are simply thrown away. Never mind the truth.

Now that's an article of faith.

How Readers reacted to Dilip D'Souza's recent columns

Dilip D'Souza