FINDINGS of the Prakash Singh Committee, set up by the Haryana government to probe the violent Jat agitation for reservation, continue to generate criticism from various quarters including political parties -- both ruling and opposition. Even the Punjab and Haryana High Court questioned the validity of the committee headed by Singh, a retired police officer. Its report has become a laughing stock. A former Haryana minister has gone to the extent of demanding that a Supreme Court judge look into its findings. In the meantime, Jan Ayog or Citizens’ Tribunal, a commission with a difference, released its report on the violence at a public event in Rohtak on May 15. The event was organised by Sadbhawana Manch, a platform of citizens committed to social amity, on whose initiative the tribunal was formed. The seven-member Citizens’ Tribunal, headed by former director general of Haryana Police Vikash Narayan Rai, was formed to bring out the facts and sequence of events leading to the unprecedented violence witnessed in several districts in February.

The tribunal members were drawn from academia, legal profession, civil services and social movements. Besides Rai, it included former Gurgaon divisional commissioner T K Sharma, writer and college principal Shubha, retired IFS officer Mehar Singh, retired professor Rajender Chaudhry, social activist and Supreme Court advocate Ram Mohan Rai and advocate Rajiv Godara. The 80-page report based on meticulous public hearings has held the political leadership and top echelons of bureaucracy of the state squarely responsible for the unabated week-long violence which took the lives of 30 people and led to destruction of public and private properties, besides leaving a schism wide open in the social fabric of Haryana.

It is precisely this very indictment that the BJP regime wanted to escape from and, hence, it refused to order an inquiry by a sitting judge, a demand raised by various quarters and other stakeholders. The Citizens’ Tribunal, therefore, had to be constituted as the BJP government on one hand allowed a narrow scope to the Prakash Singh Committee limiting its role to probing only the response of police and civil administration officials during the agitation and on the other refused to order a judicial probe. However, an inquiry by a retired high court judge justice S N Jha had to be later announced though it is yet to begin work.

Based on 25 public hearings held with prior announcements, the tribunal has highlighted the aspect of divided voices in favour and against reservation among all major political parties including BJP, Congress and INLD, purely on caste affiliation of the leaders as another factor contributing to escalation of the agitation. It has found that the ruling BJP and the state apparatus virtually vanished at a time when it was needed the most. Mobs were let loose to storm towns and indulge in wanton loot and arson even as the army remained a silent spectator for want of clear orders.

Conclusions drawn by the tribunal relying on 181 witnesses who deposed during 25 hearings spread over 15 cities and towns do warrant a serious consideration by all concerned. The comprehensive report makes a brief analysis of the scenario prevailing in Haryana in the spheres of political, economical, social, employment etc. It has importantly acknowledged the positive role as well played by some sections and individuals especially the example of women folk of Siwah village who came in strength on G T Road and successfully prevented a huge crowd of this large village to storm the nearby Panipat town and eventually averted a catastrophe to happen in this vast industrial centre. The tribunal has rightly commended this example as ‘Siwah Model’ for emulation.

The report has gone into the crucial question of increasing demand for reservation despite systematic and massive loss of jobs and educational opportunities as a result of ruthless pursuit of neoliberal policies in the past three decades. It has emphasised the accentuation of agriculture crisis (a mainstay of the state’s economy), informalisation of employment and privatisation of education as vital factors for compounding of the pent up anger, particularly among the youths who always remain vulnerable as a source of violent eruption.

The tribunal underlines the need for a special credible inquiry into the disturbing reports of sexual assault of stranded women commuters near Murthal. With lack of logistic support at its disposal, the tribunal could not undertake a deeper probing beyond talking to local dhaba owners and others. Yet it has strongly hinted at cover-up attempts at the level of the district administration, most likely on instructions from the top. It has also mentioned independent efforts of an All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) team making a visit to get inputs from local sources. It is surprising that the Haryana government remained in total denial over media reports of occurrence of such crime but had to finally accept existence of victims when confronted in the High Court.

The tribunal’s report makes 16 concrete recommendations of short-term and long-term implications. It sought an end to damaging policy of providing political patronage to caste- based institutions like dharamshalas at the cost of state resources. It wants a pro-people policy shift to redress farm crisis and joblessness along with special quota for women in jobs. It has asked the government to discharge its duties instead of indulging in Hindutava rituals like havans and yajnasfor restoring a sense of security among citizens by ensuring justice to the suffering people. In the opinion of the tribunal, the aggrieved families of all the 30 deceased persons should be given financial support on humanitarian grounds regardless of how they lost their lives as it is the families who have to suffer the trauma. All injured persons and those who lost their livelihood as a result of large-scale violence and arson also need to be financially supported, the report recommends.

An appeal has been made in the concluding part exhorting the people to re-forge their unity for building democratic, secular and progressive institutions in order to generate healthy value system in society. It has urged the people to remain aware of opportunist and divisive politics and isolate rumour mongers. The tribunal has sharply criticised the hate speeches made from the dais of a government-sponsored so-called ‘Sadbhawna’ gathering in Rohtak on March 3 in the aftermath of the violent stir.

Sadbhawna Manch, in the meantime, has taken upon itself the task of organising public discussions at various places on the contents of the report so that people can be mobilised around real issues and isolate the caste and communal forces. It is true that no sensational mystery was expected to be unravelled by the tribunal as most of the facts were known to the public even before the inquiry, yet the findings do carry a definite level of credibility to what the media and other agencies have been holding so far. However, what is really needed is the follow-up component. To make the government listen and act, it is necessary that the truth must be told and retold as French Nobel laureate Andre Gide had stated, “Everything has been said already; but since nobody listens, we must always begin again.”