The recent spate of communal violence in the Capital claimed 53 lives and left more than 200 people grievously injured. Thousands were displaced from their homes in the wake of the vandalism and arson that engulfed houses, shops and places of worship in north-east Delhi.
The response of both the Central and Delhi governments in the aftermath of violence has laid bare the lack of an institutional framework governing relief and rehabilitation in such situations. While the Centre is yet to act, much of the response of the Delhi government has been marked by ad hocism.
It became amply clear by the second day of the violence that a very large number of people had fled their homes in a bid to save their lives. Yet, no relief shelters were set up to accommodate them. A visit to the affected areas nearly a week after the violence broke out revealed that most people were taking refuge in houses of private individuals who opened their doors to them. Others had moved in with their relatives or fled to their villages.
Eventually, nine centres were designated by the Delhi government as relief camps. There were no takers for eight of them, which were gender-segregated night shelters for the homeless in temporary tented structures located on the roadside with little security. Well-publicised guidelines defining the minimum standards for setting up relief shelters would have served as a benchmark to hold the government accountable for providing proper facilities.
Tents were subsequently erected by the Delhi government on the premises of the Idgah in Mustafabad and a relief camp was set up for 1,000 people. The camp filled up overnight. Despite heavy rain flooding the tents, the camp has been functioning at full capacity.
Unfortunately, no comprehensive policy framework appears to exist for addressing the immediate, medium and long-term shelter requirements of those displaced. Based on the extent of damage to property, it is critical that an assessment be made for shelter requirements. To this end, the role of law enforcement agencies, like the Delhi police, is important in ensuring that strong measures are taken to prevent recurrence of violence in affected areas and safe passage is provided to people willing to return to their homes.
The importance of a well-structured compensation package for victims of communal violence cannot be overemphasised. While the Delhi government was quick to announce a compensation scheme, and disburse the initial instalment to many survivors, there were glaring procedural gaps. Compensation forms were primarily distributed, filled and collected by volunteers and public-spirited individuals. Since these were not numbered and no proof of submission of the compensation claim was provided to the survivors, there is no way to ascertain whether forms were registered in the government system. A standard protocol for issuing receipts, public disclosure of details of forms and compensation dispensed could have prevented confusion among the survivors.
A standardised system for calculating the quantum of compensation with differentiated slabs would go a long way in addressing arbitrariness in compensating survivors. Next of kin of those killed in Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013 were given a compensation of ₹15 lakh. Seven years later, in an urban setting, an ex gratia compensation of ₹10 lakh to families of deceased announced by the Delhi government appears woefully inadequate.
As the Capital struggles to recover from the violence unleashed on some of its poorest and most vulnerable, the state cannot abdicate its responsibility of providing proper compensation and time-bound relief, including access to medical facilities, counselling and assistance for restoring official documents destroyed in the riots. Unless governments actively step in to create an environment where survivors feel secure and justice is delivered, the process of healing cannot begin.
(The author is a social activist associated with Satark Nagrik Sangathan, a citizens’ group working to promote transparency and accountability in government)
