Denial and Obfuscation:

The Report of the Justice D P Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry

India’s tradition of religious tolerance was cruelly mocked earlier this year when Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons, Timothy and Philip, were burned alive inside their jeep by a mob in Manoharpur village in the Indian State of Orissa.  The event was widely perceived as the culmination of a year of unprecedented violence against Christians.  Released on 5 August 1999, the eve of India’s national elections, the Report of the Justice D.P. Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry (the Commission) has served to politicise the killings rather than to reassure minorities.  The Commission has vindicated Hindu fundamentalist organisations—including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—despite strong evidence of their complicity, and has sought to downplay attacks against Christians by deeming them a media fabrication.

On 25 August 1999 the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) released a report entitled Report of the Justice D.P. Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry: Judicial Commission or Injudicious Cover-up?* The Report provides a comprehensive evaluation of the Commission’s findings in light of the Written Submissions of Counsel for the Commission Gopal Subramanium, the evidence before the Commission and the national context of the Staines’ killings.  The report of SAHRDC calls into serious question the Commission’s methodology and conclusions.  The  Commission’s report is inadequate as an investigation into a criminal incident; as an inquiry into the broader context of the Staines’ murders, it is morally and politically irresponsible.

The Commission concludes that Rabindra Kumar Pal, alias Dara Singh, led the mob of Adivasis (tribals) that murdered the Staines.  Dara Singh, an individual motivated by “misplaced fundamentalism,” was actively pursuing an anti-Christian crusade in the Manoharpur area. Specifically, Dara Singh alleged that missionaries such as Staines were forcibly converting Adivasis to Christianity.  The Commission quotes one of his appeals to locals for assistance:  “Christian pastors are destroying the Hindu religion.  They have come to Manoharpur and we shall assault to kill them and set fire to their vehicles and the Church as well.  All of you kindly help me.”  Dara Singh is still at large.

Widespread press reports linked the killings, as well as Dara Singh, to Hindu fundamentalist groups including Bajrang Dal which has been operating in Orissa since 1993.  Bajrang Dal is the youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a member of the Hindu Fundamentalist Family of Organisations known as the Sangh Parivar.  The Sangh Parivar also includes the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—a group widely believed to have been involved in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi—as well its mainstream incarnation, the BJP.

Despite substantial evidence to the contrary, the Commission found that  “[t]hat there is no evidence that any authority or organisation was behind the gruesome killings” (Report of Justice D.P. Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry, page 111).   This conclusion contradicts much of the testimony presented to the Commission, as well as many of its own statements.  There is substantial evidence that Dara Singh was a supporter, if not a member, of Bajrang Dal.  Indeed, the Commission’s report notes that seven witnesses attested to Dara Singh’s connections with Bajrang Dal, and four others to his connections with the BJP.  The Commission’s own Investigating Team found that Dara Singh was a Bajrang Dal activist, had attended RSS rallies, and had campaigned for the BJP in Patna during the 1998 parliamentary elections.

In addition, numerous police officers, including the Director General of Police for Orissa and the Superintendent of Police of the neighbouring Mayurbhanj District, testified that Dara Singh was a Bajrang Dal worker.  Similarly, investigations conducted by the Revenue District Commissioner in Orissa, the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Minorities all linked Dara Singh to either the BJP or Bajrang Dal.  The Commission’s own Investigating Team concluded that Dara Singh was an activist and supporter of Bajrang Dal, although it could not find any documentary evidence that he was an official member of the group.

The Commission’s report does not mention the numerous other witnesses belonging to the Sangh Parivar who testified that Dara Singh is a member of Bajrang Dal and the BJP.  This evidence is found only in the Written Submissions on behalf of Counsel for the Commission.  Inexplicably, the Commission neither incorporates this evidence into its findings nor provides any reason for discrediting the testimony.  The submissions of Gopal Subramanuim, on the other hand, do evaluate this evidence and unsurprisingly reach conclusions contrary to those of the Commission.

In rejecting the suggestion of Dara Singh’s involvement with the Sangh Parivar, the Commission relies on two witnesses. The first witness, an RSS member and follower of Dara Singh, claimed to have no knowledge of Dara Singh’s involvement with RSS.  The second witness testified that Dara Singh was not a member of Bajrang Dal; but this witness was not cross-examined on this point.  This questionable testimony provides little support for the Commission’s conclusions. The only other evidence relied on by the Commission was Dara Singh’s taped denial in a television interview conducted after the murders. In short, the Commission had no sound basis for disregarding the overwhelming evidence that Dara Singh was indeed linked to the Sangh Parivar.

The evidence, or perhaps the lack thereof, speaks for itself: the Wadhwa Commssion of Inquiry had no compelling reason to conclude that Dara Singh was acting alone. In fact, the Counsel for the Commission, concluded that the evidence of Dara Singh’s involvement with the Sangh Parivar  “suggests strongly in favour of a further inquiry/investigation by the [Central Bureau of Investigation] into all aspects of the conspiracy” (Written Submissions on behalf of Counsel for the Commission, Volume 2, Submission (h), page 555).  The Commission, however, ignored the advice of its own Counsel and issued a blanket absolution of the Sangh Parivar.

The Commission’s conclusion, however, cannot be attributed solely to investigative incompetence.  An examination of the full report indicates that it is clearly tied to a political agenda as well.

While the Commission states that the Staines’ murders cannot be termed an isolated incident, the Report never once refers to the widespread anti-Christian violence which occurred one month earlier in the Dangs district of Gujarat.  Indeed, the Commission does not mention the fact that there were more attacks against Christians in 1998 than in the 51 years since Indian independence combined.  Nor does the Commission mention that, at the time of the killings, India was in the throes of a national debate on conversions at the behest of the BJP Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee.  Nevertheless, the Commission found that allegations of Christians converting locals motivated the attack against the Staines, even though Graham Staines was not personally involved in conversions.

The Report fails to assess the Staines’ killings as part of the growing problem of violence against Christians in India.  To the contrary, the Commission analysed four alleged anti-Christian incidents that occurred in areas near the Staines’ murders and concluded that these events were either fabricated, or were not religiously motivated.  Remarkably, the Commission’s Report seems to suggest that Christians have nothing to fear because alleged attacks against them are simply a media beat-up. Even a cursory review of the facts, however, belies the Commission’s suggestion.

Furthermore, the timing of the report could not be better for the political fortunes of the BJP.  At a time when the BJP is attempting to move into the political mainstream, the Commission’s Report seeks to assuage fears of religious minorities and tolerant Hindus that the BJP is unable or unwilling to control militant groups such as Bajrang Dal.  The Report simultaneously strives to placate the BJP’s ideological brethren by refusing to expose the involvement of these groups and investigating allegations of forced conversions.  Moreover, the Commission holds the Congress State Government of Orissa responsible for the crime—casting them as weak on law and order.  While the policing effort leading up to and immediately after the Staines’  killings was unquestionably poor, it was unreasonable for the Commission to conclude that "an efficient and responsive administration could have prevented this unfortunate incident" (Report of the Justice D.P. Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry, page 142).  This untenable conclusion smacks of party politics.

The Commission’s findings seem aimed at defusing anger from all sides by holding that Staines was not involved in conversions, and that the Sangh Parivar was not responsible for his murder.  Neither Christians nor Hindu fundamentalist groups were guilty, only one deranged individual.  Whether or not this political balancing act will satisfy the BJP’s comrades and the mainstream electorate is unclear, but what is certain is that the Commission has done nothing to reassure minorities that their rights will be protected in accordance with international law and the Constitution of India.  Instead, the Hindu Fundamentalist instigators and perpetrators of anti-Christian violence have gotten away with it.  Yet again.

---

---