Title
Quote:
“When
Human Right reports suppress facts, mutilate math, and mount well
timed political attacks, Justice becomes victim.”
Summary:
On May 2014, in
the midst of India's election campaign, Stanford Law School’s International
Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic rakes up 12 year old event. It publishes a controversial
report "When justice becomes victim" allegedly targeting prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. Report's conviction rate was widely reported
in media.
In its main conclusion,
Stanford report stated that Conviction rate in 2002 Gujarat riots is
between 0.21% and 1.18% but Stanford erred in division. After
correcting for error, The recalculated Conviction rate is estimated
between 20% and 40%.
| Event Name | Stanford's Estimated Conviction Rate | Recalculated Estimated Conviction Rate |
| Gujarat – 2002 riots | 0.21% to 1.18% | 20% to 40% |
| Gujarat – 2012 | 9.6% | 9.6% |
| India -2012 | 18.5% | 18.5% |
Note: Recalculation is
based solely on Stanford's data found in report's Endnote 222.
Division
problem:
Stanford
report claims that 50 Guilty Verdicts/4252 Total Criminal Cases filed = 1.18% Conviction
rate in Carnage. It is calculated from numbers found in report's
Endnote 222. Endnote 222 lists 50 guilty verdicts, sourced from "gujaratriots.com" , and 4252 total criminal cases filed, sourced from ”gujaratfiles.net”. Stanford also claims 0.21% as low range of
estimate but provides no data, or facts, supporting it.
1.18 quart/100 ounce <> 1.18% & 50 Guilty Verdicts/4252 Total Criminal Cases Filed<>
1.18%:
Stanford report assumes that mathematical relationship between criminal case filed and verdict is 1 to 1 but that is not true. I searched and downloaded 2
judgments from web, and found out that One verdict can cover several criminal cases filed with police.
For example, 1 Godhra Train Massacre Verdict = 19 court cases.
In another example, 1 Naroda Patia Verdict = 8 court cases = 27 F.I.R = 120 police complaints. All 8 case numbers, 27 F.I.R, and 120 complaints are clearly listed in verdict. Stanford report repeats word “Naroda Patia” 135 times and devotes several pages to “Naroda Patia Attack” yet goes with 1 to 1 assumption.
Internationally
accepted formula of Conviction Rate is Number of Convictions divided
by Number of Cases Completed. Stanford report is using this formula
for 2012 India conviction rate calculation but for 2002 Gujarat riots
conviction rate calculation it probably switched the formula and erred with
numerator, denominator and unit of measurement.
Recalculation
of Estimated Carnage Conviction Rate:
Based on 1 Verdict = Many Police Compliant fact found in copies of carnage related court Judgments, Conservatively Estimated relationship is as follow:
1 Verdict = 2.5 Court Cases = 4 FIRs = 22 Police Complaints
Based on 1 Verdict = Many Police Compliant fact found in copies of carnage related court Judgments, Conservatively Estimated relationship is as follow:
1 Verdict = 2.5 Court Cases = 4 FIRs = 22 Police Complaints
Based
on Stanford's data, Here is a reasonable estimate:
* Number of Guilty Verdicts = 50; Therefore, Number of
convicted court cases is conservatively estimated at 100.
* Number of Completed court cases is difficult to estimate. It
is conservatively estimated between 240 to 500.
Here 4252 total police complaints >> 3354 valid police
complaints >> 300 to 600 F.I.R(1) >> 240 to 500 total
court cases >> 240 to 500 completed court cases.
* Number of Guilty Verdicts = 50; Therefore, Number of
convicted court cases is conservatively estimated at 100.
* Number of Completed court cases is difficult to estimate. It
is conservatively estimated between 240 to 500.
Here 4252 total police complaints >> 3354 valid police
complaints >> 300 to 600 F.I.R(1) >> 240 to 500 total
court cases >> 240 to 500 completed court cases.
* Conviction rate 100/240 = 41.6%, or 100/500 = 20%
(1) As per Ahuja Committee report,1984 Delhi riots had 587 F.I.R Therefore, Estimated 2002 Gujarat riots F.I.R can be 587/3= 195 F.I.R.
Failure
to see elephants in the room:
2012
Conviction rate is calculated from numbers found in Endnote 223.
Endnote 223 refers Crime Statistics India-2012, National Crime
Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, India. It provides Crime
Statistics of all states. I am reproducing the same statistics here:
Number
of cases alleging riot-related offenses per capita (2012 only):
| STATE | Population (census data 2011) | Riot Cases reported in 2012 | Riot Cases per Capita | Performance vs. India (lower is better) | Performance vs. Gujarat (lower is better) | SUMMARY |
| PUNJAB | 27704236 | 1 | 0.000% | 0.001 | 0.001 | Top 2 Best Performers |
| RAJASTHAN | 68621012 | 573 | 0.001% | 0.135 | 0.287 | |
| GUJARAT | 60383628 | 1758 | 0.003% | 0.472 | 1.000 | Stanford Target |
| INDIA | 1210193422 | 74633 | 0.006% | 1.000 | 2.118 | Average |
| ASSAM | 31169272 | 5077 | 0.016% | 2.641 | 5.595 | Bottom 2 Worst Offenders |
| KERALA | 33387677 | 10938 | 0.033% | 5.312 | 11.253 |
Observation: Compared to Gujarat, Riot Cases per capita is 11 times higher for Kerala, and 5.5 times higher in Assam.
Conviction rate in cases alleging riot-related offenses (2012 only):
| STATE | Cases in which trials were completed | Cases convicted | Conviction Rate (Higher is better) | SUMMARY |
| PUNJAB | 2 | 2 | 100.0% | Top 2 Best Performers |
| RAJASTHAN | 1427 | 877 | 61.5% | |
| KERALA | 5471 | 1379 | 25.2% | |
| INDIA | 39415 | 7281 | 18.5% | Average |
| GUJARAT | 863 | 83 | 9.6% | Stanford Target |
| ASSAM | 1335 | 68 | 5.1% | |
| WEST BENGAL | 1894 | 38 | 2.0% | Bottom 2 Worst Offenders |
| KARNATAKA | 4922 | 94 | 1.9% |
Observation: Compared to Gujarat, Conviction rate is 5 fold lower for West Bengal and Karnataka.
Conclusion: Assam with its high riot cases per capita, and low conviction rate is the biggest elephant in the room. The other elephants are Kerala, Karnataka and West Bengal.
Failure
to see the obvious solution in the room:
Punjab, which has about 40%
minority population, stands out as top performance in both charts.
Punjab has seen decades of communal terrorism which was far worse
than anything Gujarat has ever experienced. There were no NGOs and
Human Rights Groups peddling one-sided, and divisive, anti-Sikhtva
propaganda. There were no global denouncements of Sikhtva in UNHRC,
U.S Congress, and EU. If Punjab was targeted the way Gujarat is being
targeted then Punjab would be still burning. Gujarat's current peace
is not because of divisive propaganda but despite of divisive
propaganda.
Failure to make apples to apples comparison:
Stanford
report should have added at least one comparison between 2002 Gujarat
riots and one other communal incident, like Delhi riots, Mumbai
riots, Kashmir anti-Pandit violence, Assam riot, Bihar riot, Uttar
Pradesh riot etc. For example:
Source:| Event Name | # of Persons Killed | # of Persons Arrested | # of rounds fired by Police | # of Civilians killed in Police Firing | Total # of F.I.R Filed | # of Persons Convicted |
| 1984 Delhi Riots | 2733 ( nearly all Sikhs) (d) | 496 (b) | 343 (b) | 0 (b) | 587 (d) | 442 (c) |
| 2002 Gujarat Riots | 1103 (790 Muslims, 313 Hindus) (a) | 35552 (a) | 10000 (a) | 170 (a) | Unknown | 443 (e) |
b)
Approximate numbers aggregated from Justice G T Nanavati CommissionReport
e)
Source quoted in Stanford reports namely "gujaratriots.com" and ”gujaratfiles.net” endnote 222 and 223.
Stanford
Report ends up creating 'pogrom' impression that hardly any Hindus
were killed and Gujarat Government did not take any action but that
is simply not true. Gujarat riots, with 790 Muslims deaths, 313 Hindu
deaths, 35,552 arrests, and 170 deaths in police-firing, does not fit
dictionary definition of 'pogrom' but others, like 1984 Delhi riots
or 1980s anti-Pandit violence, might fit.
Stanford
report vs. Conviction Ratio:
Stanford
report states that “When attacks were reportedly perpetrated by
Muslims against members of the Hindu majority community....the cases
were promptly prosecuted by State” but this is not reflected in
conviction numbers found in Stanford report's endnote 222. On the
contrary, Endnote 222 shows that Gujarat State did a better job at
persecuting Hindus accused of attacking Muslims:
| # of Muslims killed | # of Hindus Convicted | Conviction Ratio for Hindu Accused. |
| 790 | 332 | 42.03% |
| # of Hindus killed | # of Muslims Convicted | Conviction Ratio for Muslim Accused |
| 313 | 111 | 35.46% |
Note:
Conviction ratio, which is a division based on number of persons and
an imprecise measure, is not to be confused with internationally
accepted term 'Conviction rate' which is a division based on Cases.
Controversial
'Title Quote':
As
soon as I clicked on stanford report link, I saw the 'Title Quote':
"Indian
Supreme Court Judgment in the 'Best Bakery' Case: ('When the
investigating agency helps the accused, the witnesses are
threatened....there is no fair trail....')"
This
'Title Quote' is one of the many allegations made by a controversial Supreme Court Judge Arijit Pasayat in a re-trial judgement . This re-trial judgment, which over-ruled double jeopardy defense and moved retrial venue to
Mumbai, was based on affidavit and testimony of 'star
witness', and victim, Zahira Sheikh. Subsequently following facts came out:
1) Zahira Sheikh stated that she was tutored by Ms. Teesta Setalvad, and her testimony as well as affidavit were false. An inquiry was ordered by the Supreme Court and proceedings were initiated against Zahira Sheikh. Judge Arijit Pasayat found her guilty and showed no leniency. He sentenced her to one year’s imprisonment. Thus, So called human right activist made hay, victim ends up in prison and due process damaged.
2)
Based on similar presumption of guilt, Judge Arijit Pasayat took unprecedented step of ordering a Supreme Court monitored Special
Investigation Team. SIT formation was an exception to all
conventions, contrary to prima facie information, and past
precedents. The decks were stacked against Mr. Modi but SITs
comprehensive 541 pages report found those presumptions of guilt, and associated allegations, baseless. In its clean chit for Mr Modi, SIT stated "Law and
order review meetings were held by Modi and all the things was done
to control the situation... the Army was called on time to contain
the communal violence". SIT report proved that many Arijit allegations, like "Modi is a modern day Nero", are wrong but it was too late. Character assassination of Modi, Gujarat High Court, and Hinduity, was a fait accompli.
Stanford selectively quotes SIT in it's report. Stanford is aware of SIT content, Yet uses Judge Arijit Pasayat's allegation as title and title quote.
Stanford selectively quotes SIT in it's report. Stanford is aware of SIT content, Yet uses Judge Arijit Pasayat's allegation as title and title quote.
Conspiracy
theories suppress facts:
Further
looking at Stanford report. It seems that report relies on stories,
and conspiracy theories, of controversial Ms. Teesta Setalvad. There
are some very serious charges of witness tempering/tutoring, fake
testimonies, misappropriation of funds, cooking up macabre tales of
killings etc. against Teesta. Check wikipedia for details.
Questions:
Why the report was published 12 years later in midst of an election campaign?
Who financed, or inspired, it?
Is 'Stanford Conflict Resolution Clinic' acting like 'Conflict Escalation Facility'?
Does acting like kangaroo court lead to conflict resolution?
A version of this post was also published in Niticentral: Stanford report on Modi mutilates math, kills truth Mayank Patel
Questions:
Why the report was published 12 years later in midst of an election campaign?
Who financed, or inspired, it?
Is 'Stanford Conflict Resolution Clinic' acting like 'Conflict Escalation Facility'?
Does acting like kangaroo court lead to conflict resolution?
A version of this post was also published in Niticentral: Stanford report on Modi mutilates math, kills truth Mayank Patel
