COMMENTARY

Justice Somasekhara Report :

[Between August and October 2008, BJP-ruled Karnataka witnessed over fifty attacks on Christian institutions across the state, with the attacks peaking around September 14-15 when simultaneous attacks took place at around 18 places in different districts. Having examined some 57 instances of attacks on Christian institutions in Karnataka in 2008, the Justice Somasekhara Commission submitted its final Report in January 2011. Liberation reads between the lines of the highlights/summary of the Report (the full Report is yet to be made public) released by the Commission.]

It is most striking that this summary Report does not tell us who actually was responsible for these attacks, which is what the Commission was set up to find out. But it goes out of its way to give a sweeping clean chit to the State Government, BJP and Sangh Parivar, concluding that “There is no basis to the apprehension of Christian petitioners that the politicians, BJP, mainstream Sangha Parivar and State Govt. directly or indirectly, are involved in the attacks.” Similar statements exonerating the ‘Govt/BJP/Sangh Parivar’ are sprinkled all over the Report, giving a strong sense of “protesting too much”. 
White-Washing Sanghi Involvement 
On close reading, we find that the Report itself contradicts its own sweeping assertions of the innocence of the BJP, State Government and Sangh Parivar. In its Church-wise summary of its findings, for instance, the Report itself indicates the involvement of organized Hindutva groups at no less than 15 places (Bajrang Dal at 9 places, Hindu Jagaran Vedike at 3) and does not rule out Bajrang Dal involvement at two other places. One Mahendra Kumar, Convener of Bajrang Dal, is named repeatedly for his leading role in several of the attacks. How, in the face of such evidence, does it rule out Sangh Parivar involvement? It tries to suggest that Hindu Jagran Vedike is not really ‘Sangh Parivar’ but a “self styled extremist” group; and it is silent on the antecedents of the Bajrang Dal, which after all is well known nationally to be the most lumpen brigade of the Sangh Parivar.
Apart from the above 17 instances, in many of the remaining instances, the report states that the attackers could not be identified; at many others, the Report identifies and even names the attackers. In all such cases, however, the Report states quite categorically that the ‘Sangh Parivar/Bajrang Dal’ are not responsible. When the attackers are yet to be identified, or when the identified attackers have not been questioned by the Commission, how is the Report able to assert so confidently that the attackers do not belong to the Sangh Parivar? Yet, not only does the Report do so, it explains away all such attacks by blaming them on “political busy bodies probably to demoralize the ruling party and the Govt,” without giving any evidence or basis for such a speculation.    
Evidence of Communal Bias and Harassment  
The Report concludes that “The impression and allegations that the top Police Officers and the District Administration had colluded with attackers in attacking the churches or places of worship has no merit.”
Yet, in the Church-wise findings, the Report itself acknowledges a number of instances of bias and hostility on part of District Administration and police towards the Christians. At one church in Jadegalli, Belgaum district, the Report holds that the police’s treatment of the Christians’ police complaint as “a flagrant violation of established law.” At Nituvalli, the Report notes that the police, corporation authorities with the support of District Administration were “totally unjustified” in locking a prayer hall and preventing devotees access to it, and also further baselessly harassing the Pastor. Yet the Report lays the ground for further such harassment by suggesting that the Pastor is involved in illegal conversion and needs surveillance! At another church in Nituvalli and another at Davanagere, the Report notes that the District Administration, police and gram panchayat authorities “acted unreasonably, cruelly and illegally.” At another prayer hall in Davanagere, the District Administration and Corporation Commissioner’s conduct was “unreasonable, biased and negligent and “clearly repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution of India,” and their resorting to Section 107 proceedings against the Christians “unnecessarily interfered with the fundamental rights of the petitioner and other worshippers.” At Harapanahalli, the police along with “some persons of Hindu religion prevented the Petitioners from holding prayers.” At another church in Channagiri taluka, the police and gram panchayat are shown to have illegally issued notices “to stop prayers”, which “amounts to attack on the Church in law.” At another church in Harihara taluka, the gram panchayat chairman along with local police themselves are held to be “responsible for the attack and harassment meted to the Petitioner,” including disconnecting of electricity supply to the petitioner’s home for over a year, and that the District Administration ignored the complaints! The Report fails to ask why and under whose pressure there was so much ‘cruelty,’ ‘bias,’ ‘harassment’ and ‘hostility’ in so many cases by the district administration and police? The most likely sources of such pressure - organised communal forces or the ruling BJP and the Government – are summarily acquitted by the Report without any serious enquiry.  
Police Atrocities
At the St. Sebastian Church, Permanur, the Report acknowledges police atrocities on Christians including forcible entry into the church in violation of norms and damage of the Church building with butts of guns and denial of medical aid to the injured. Referring to a similar instance of police lathi charge and tear-gassing of Christian protestors at the Milagres Church, Mangalore, the Report justifies the police action. At the St. Joseph’s Church, Bajpe, where also police had attacked people gathered for protest, the Report says the entry of police into the Church was illegal and unconstitutional, “allegations of Police excesses in the Church Premises are true,” and the “bursting of tear gas shells and lathi charge by the police on the protestors in the Church premises was not justified and excessive.” The Report admits that reports of the collusion of Bajrang Dal cadre with the police “may be probable and true”. Yet the Report goes out of its way to declare that these actions of the police were “not motivated or influenced by any other force or organization” and was only “an imprudent, unreasonable and inexperienced act.” Inexplicably, after stating that even lathi charge and tear gas was unjustified, the Report praises the police for being “restrained” in “not resorting to firing which could have been  normally justified in such situations admittedly” and suggests that “Mr. Satish Kumar and his Police team should be complimented in this regard”! 
Blaming the Victims
The Report repeatedly invokes the bogey of ‘conversion,’ to virtually justify many of the attacks. Strangely, instead of blaming police for failing to be vigilant in protecting the Christian institutions in a communally charged situation, the Report actually blames the Christian victims of the attacks at some places for their “negligence” in failing to warn police about the attacks! At Chickkaballapur District, the Report blames conversions through inducements and foreign funding for the attacks for having provoked the attackers. At the Saint James Church, Mariyannapalya, Bangalore City, the Report comments that “Christians (are) in brute majority in the area and Hindus in hopeless minority.” Interestingly, the fact-finding report of PUCL and other rights groups ‘From Kandhamal to Karavali – The Ugly Face of the Sangh Parivar’ published in the wake of the attacks notes that at both Chickkaballapur and Mariyannapalya were exceptions among all the places attacked, because here “nobody knew or could guess who committed these attacks,” and all local people be they Hindus or Christians ruled out the involvement of local villagers, and Hindus decried the attacks publicly. Such a response from local people does not lend credence to the theory of attacks by Hindus enraged by conversions. Rather, as the report of human rights groups observes, “These attacks more than any indicate planned involvement of motivated organizations” who launched a planned attack from the outside.
The Somasekhara Report also launches a virulent attack on one of the petitioners, Melvil Pinto of the Janadhwani PUCL, Mangalore, saying that his conduct “reflects his cynical, cryptic and vilifying attitude” and “blasphemous expressions,” “against the Govt./Ruling BJP/Top Officers in the District Administration and specially certain persons said to be or may be opposed to Christian minorities.” The Report approves of the Goonda Act cases against Pinto, and even calls for legislation to curb the activities of those who “demoralise” the District Administration. Such excoriating language is conspicuously absent when Justice Somasekhara speaks of Bajrang Dal leaders like Mahendra Kumar who boasted of having led attacks on Christians. It seems that for the Justice, scathing criticism of the Government is “goondaism” but communal violence is not!

The highlights of the Report released by the Somasekhara Commission are enough to show that the Commission has failed to properly investigate or draw conclusions from the available evidence regarding the attacks on Christian minorities, and its sole concern has instead been to give a clean chit to the Government, BJP and Sangh Parivar. Such a Report should be rejected and a time-bound CBI enquiry or enquiry supervised by Supreme Court should be ordered to ensure that the guilty are identified and punished.