A word called 145;genocide146;

Exactly two years later, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide came into being. According to it, all the contracting parties agreed that 8216;8216;genocide8230;is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish8217;8217;. It also tries to define what constitutes genocide. Article 11 of the Convention lists, inter alia, that killing members of a group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, as genocide.

According to Article VI of this Convention, 8216;8216;persons charged with genocide shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunals as may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction8217;8217;. India, incidentally, has ratified this Convention. While the Ministry of External Affairs MEA may haughtily dismiss international concern over Gujarat, the fact is that India in principle recognises that there are some actions that constitute crimes against humanity and therefore necessarily invite international scrutiny. How much more effective, therefore, would have been our MEA spokesperson8217;s observations if she had stated instead that India is committed to ensuring that such heinous acts of mass violence do not occur and that those guilty of committing them will be promptly brought to justice.

The fact is that no government today can duck its responsibilities to protect its people under the guise of 8216;national sovereignty8217; in a post-World War II globe that is rapidly evolving an international jurisprudence to deal with crimes against humanity. Developments in Rwanda and Yugoslavia in the nineties have only expedited this. But instead of this driving nations into the defensive mode, it should in fact goad them to ensure that their own systems of criminal justice function both promptly and effectively.

What this means for India, vis-8230;-vis Gujarat, is clear. For starters, the National Human Rights Commission8217;s observations could provide a basis for action. The NHRC has strongly indicted the Gujarat government for not preventing the Godhra carnage and the ensuing communal violence. It expressed lack of confidence in the state government8217;s ability to bring the guilty to book and asked for the transfer of all 8216;8216;critical8217;8217; cases to the CBI, a demand that the intransigent Gujarat government has made short shrift of. The NHRC has also noted the need for collating information on the Gujarat developments by all agencies, both state and citizen8217;s initiatives, so that the guilty can be punished.

From all evidence, what occurred in Gujarat amounted to genocide, or near-genocide. The clinching factor is the deliberate nature of the attacks. A women8217;s panel, sponsored by Citizen8217;s Initiative, Ahmedabad, stated in its fact-finding report that 8216;8216;there was pre-planning, organisation and precision in the targeting.8217;8217; A point confirmed by 8216;A Report To the Nation8217;, another report on the carnage. It said: 8216;8216;Certain crucial aspects of the carrying out of the pogrom required systematic planning well in advance of the Godhra incident. The lists the rioters possessed and used to target the Muslim community must have been compiled over time8230;8217;8217;

There is no getting away from it. Gujarat will continue to haunt India for years to come. It signified, as the NHRC observed, a violation of the constitutional rights of life, liberty, equality and dignity of all citizens. We have let ourselves, and the foundational tenets of India, down.