The controversial remarks of Narendra Modi, who is the prime ministerial candidate of India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party for this year's parliamentary elections, sparked a political uproar in the country last year. In an interview with Reuters news agency, Modi compared Muslims to a "puppy" while referring to the 2002 riots which claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Muslims who were burnt or beaten to death at the hands of Hindu communalists in the western Indian state of Gujarat where Modi was then the chief minister, a post that he continues to hold until now. In the interview, Modi said: “If we are driving a car or someone else is driving a car and we're sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is. If I'm a chief minister or not, I'm a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.” These remarks drew massive outrage and protest not only from Muslims but also from a large section of the people of India. A number of political leaders, including the secretary general of the ruling Indian National Congress party, demanded that Modi apologize to the entire nation. The Janata Dal-United Party leader described him as a dangerous person. These remarks were followed by the communal clashes in Muzaffarnagar in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh in which scores of people were killed and thousands displaced. Most of the riot victims were Muslims. It was alleged that police did not act in time to quell the riots and that they even connived with the attackers, and as a result the army has been deployed in the city. There were reports that dozens of children died due to extreme cold in relief camps for the riot victims. Communal clashes occur in India at regular intervals. In most cases, victims of these riots are mainly Muslims, especially due to the laxity on the part of the security forces in taking timely action. The irresponsible statements of hardline political leaders and the lack of penal action against the culprits, including the mobs who commit atrocities or the politicians and police officials who give protection to the perpetrators are apparently among the reasons for such riots recurring. The BBC recently carried a report about the deadly incidents that rocked the city of Hyderabad after the country won independence from British colonial rule. The Nizam of Hyderabad refused to surrender sovereignty to the new Indian republic and instead insisted on remaining head of the princely state as he had been during British rule. Consequently, the Indian Army invaded Hyderabad and annexed it. In the so-called “police action” the Nizam's forces were defeated after just a few days without any significant loss of civilian lives. But word then reached New Delhi that arson, looting and the mass murder and rape of Muslims had followed the invasion. Determined to get to the bottom of what was happening, an alarmed Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru commissioned a small mixed-faith team to go to Hyderabad to carry out a thorough investigation. The team, led by a Hindu congressman Pandit Sunderlal, prepared a comprehensive report after investigating all aspects of the situation and then presented it to Nehru. However, the report that bore the name of Sunderlal was never published. Nehru directed that the details of the report not be disclosed and thus no one knew about its content. The BBC report pointed out that historian Sunil Purushotham from the University of Cambridge obtained a copy of the report as part of his research in this field. According to the report, Sunderlal's team concluded that between 27,000 and 40,000 died in the violence. The Sunderlal team visited dozens of villages throughout the princely state. In each village, the team carefully chronicled the accounts of Muslims who had survived the appalling violence and massacre. The report said: “We had absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the effect that there were instances in which men belonging to the Indian Army and also to the local police took part in looting and even other crimes. During our tour we gathered, at not a few places, that soldiers encouraged, persuaded and in a few cases even compelled the Hindu mob to loot Muslim shops and houses.” The team reported that while Muslim villagers were disarmed by the Indian Army, Hindus were often left with their weapons. The mob violence that ensued was often led by Hindu paramilitary groups. In other cases, the report said, Indian soldiers themselves took an active hand in the butchery: “At a number of places, members of the armed forces brought out Muslim adult males from villages and towns and massacred them in cold blood.” The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims. In confidential notes attached to the Sunderlal report, its authors detailed the gruesome nature of the Hindu revenge: “In many places, we were shown wells still full of corpses that were rotting. In one such we counted 11 bodies, which included that of a woman with a small child sticking to her breast. We saw remnants of corpses lying in ditches. At several places, the bodies had been burnt and we could see the charred bones and skulls still lying there.” The BBC concludes its report by pointing out that no official explanation was given for Nehru's decision not to publish the contents of the Sunderlal report. It was unclear why this file remained under wraps for so long.
The Sunderlal report, although unknown to many, is now open for viewing at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi. There were demands to make the report more widely available so that people would know what really happened there. There was also apprehension that the disclosure of the details might risk igniting tension between Muslims and Hindus. Some people still wonder what really prompted Nehru to keep the report, prepared by a panel constituted by him, a secret. Did he really want to refer the entire file to a court for disposal? Was he afraid of the political damage caused by its disclosure or by referring it to the judiciary? Was he haunted by the apprehension that disclosure of the details might ignite more tension between Hindus and Muslims? All of these questions need to be answered by analysts and observers in order to reveal the truth as well as to thwart any misinformation campaign and promises made by politicians who want to be elected. This would help one to know who treats people like human beings and who behaves to them like beasts.
— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at [email protected]
