Protests and the Citizenship Amendment Act
The protests throughout India in late 2019 emerged as a direct response to the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which was introduced by the Indian government. The CAA aims to offer expedited citizenship to migrants from neighboring countries—specifically Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan—who belong to six specific religious communities: Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jains, and Buddhists. This legislation has drawn significant criticism for allegedly being exclusionary and discriminatory against Muslims, prompting fears about their status in India, particularly when considered alongside the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The perception of the CAA as a potentially existential threat has galvanized widespread demonstrations across various states, with significant concentrations of dissent in urban centers like New Delhi.
Events escalated in New Delhi, where a series of anti-CAA protests took on a more confrontational tone. While many demonstrations remained peaceful, certain instances of violence did occur, including instances of protesters burning vehicles and engaging in stone-pelting directed at security forces. A notable protest took place in Shaheen Bagh, a locality in South Delhi, where demonstrators set up a blockade that effectively paralyzed traffic in the region. The sit-in protest there became emblematic of the anti-CAA movement, showcasing the determination of local residents, especially women, to voice their dissent against what they perceived as an unjust law.
Political Dynamics and Election Results
The political context surrounding the protests intensified with the Delhi Legislative Assembly election, held on 8 February 2020. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) emerged victorious, effectively defeating the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This election saw the continuous vocalization of incendiary rhetoric from BJP leaders, with some equating anti-CAA protesters to anti-nationals and issuing calls for violence against them. Prominent BJP figure Manoj Tiwari later attributed the defeat of the party to inflammatory statements made by fellow candidate Kapil Mishra, who was particularly known for his controversial slogans that incited tensions between communities.
In the days following the election, on 22 February 2020, a significant protest unfolded near the Jaffrabad metro station, where an estimated 500 to 1,000 individuals, predominantly women, initiated a sit-in. This demonstration obstructed a vital roadway and restricted access to the metro station. The protesters highlighted their alignment with the Bharat Bandh called by the Bhim Army, a social organization fighting for the rights of oppressed communities, which was set to commence on 23 February. In anticipation of potential unrest, police and paramilitary forces were deployed in large numbers at the protest site, keeping a close watch on the demonstrators.
As the situation in New Delhi evolved, the tensions surrounding the CAA and the accompanying protests underscored the complicated interplay of legislation, identity, and the political landscape in India. The events that followed eventually escalated into violence, culminating in the tragic and devastating 2020 Delhi riots, which would deeply mark the socio-political fabric of the city and the nation. These events continue to resonate within the broader discourse around citizenship, communal rights, and national identity in contemporary India.
Incitement and Escalation
On 23 February 2020, a significant escalation in tensions occurred during the Delhi riots, rooted in the ongoing debates surrounding the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Around 3:30 p.m., BJP leader Kapil Mishra, accompanied by a group of his supporters, arrived at Maujpur Chowk, a critical protest site, with the intention to confront the anti-CAA demonstrators. During a rally, Mishra delivered a speech that many interpreted as a direct incitement to violence; he explicitly threatened to take action if the police did not clear the protesters from the nearby Jaffrabad and Chand Bagh areas within a span of three days. This rhetoric, viewed by many as inflammatory, is often cited as a pivotal moment that contributed to the widespread unrest that followed. Despite the widespread condemnation of his remarks and their perceived role in inciting violence, Mishra has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
As tensions heightened, reports emerged around 4 p.m. that anti-CAA protesters began hurling stones toward the pro-CAA gathering at Maujpur Chowk, which included a volatile scene near a local temple. The situation deteriorated rapidly, and by nightfall, particularly between 9 and 11 p.m., clashes erupted in various neighborhoods including Karawal Nagar, Maujpur Chowk, Babarpur, and Chand Bagh. These disturbances led to significant destruction, with vehicles set ablaze and numerous shops vandalized and damaged.
In response to the escalating violence, police forces resorted to using baton charges and tear gas to disperse unruly crowds, determined to restore order. The chaos of the evening prompted an overwhelming number of emergency calls, with the police control room receiving about seven hundred reports. This figure underscores the panic and urgency felt by residents as they witnessed their communities erupt into violence. Analysts and observers have noted that the events of that day marked a substantial turning point in the weeks of tensions that had characterized the discourse around the CAA, illustrating how inflammatory political rhetoric can swiftly transform into real-world conflict.
Violent Escalation on 24 February
On 24 February 2020, tensions escalated dramatically in North East Delhi as pro-CAA groups confronted anti-CAA protestors at Jaffrabad. The morning saw pro-CAA demonstrators refusing to vacate the site, leading to intense confrontations with those advocating against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Around 12:30 p.m., clashes erupted between masked protesters brandishing swords and police forces attempting to maintain order. The situation deteriorated rapidly into violent confrontations across various neighborhoods including Gokulpuri and Kardampuri, resulting in heavy stone pelting and cases of vandalism against local properties.
The chaos compelled police to respond with measures such as tear gas and lathi charges in the Chand Bagh area. However, the pro-CAA protesters retaliated with stone attacks, marking a significant escalation in the conflict. Tragically, this violent clash accounted for the death of head constable Ratan Lal, whose death from a bullet injury underscored the perilous nature of the unfolding events. By that afternoon, protests took a violent turn in Bhajanpura as a large group of around 2,000 protesters, armed with petrol bombs, sticks, and weapons, launched an assault on a petrol station. They chanted slogans such as "Āzādī" (meaning 'freedom'), and engaged in aggressive acts, including the physical assault of the petrol station's owner and staff, looting cash, and igniting vehicles and petrol tanks.
As violence spread through areas such as Seelampur, Jaffrabad, Maujpur, Kardampuri, Babarpur, Gokulpuri, and Shivpuri, the police imposed Section 144, prohibiting assembly in these locales. However, enforcement appeared ineffective as confrontations intensified. In a concerning incident, an individual allegedly affiliated with the anti-CAA movement opened fire at the police in Jaffrabad, leading to his arrest days later in Uttar Pradesh. Reports of violence escalated in Shiv Vihar, where a Muslim mob set ablaze numerous shops and homes owned by Hindus, contributing to the destruction of a parking lot containing 170 vehicles. During the evening, a tyre market predominantly managed by Muslims was targeted, set alight as shouts of "Jai Shri Ram" filled the streets, exemplifying the communal tensions at play.
As darkness fell, the violence did not subside. A Hindu man and his elderly father, innocently traveling on a scooter, became victims of a mob assault wielding sticks, stones, and swords. Tragically, the son died on the spot due to the severe beating they endured. By the end of the day, the toll had reached five fatalities, including a police constable alongside four civilian lives. The chaos strained emergency services, with the police control room recording 3,500 urgent calls on that fateful day. The Delhi Fire Service responded to 45 emergency calls specifically from the riot-affected areas, with three firefighters injured amid their attempts to quell the fires ignited by rioters. The degree of violence was evident when a fire engine faced an onslaught of stones, and another was set ablaze, illuminating the ferocious clashes that marked this tragic chapter in Delhi’s history.
Escalation of Violence on 25 February
On February 25, 2020, the situation in Delhi escalated dramatically as reports of stone pelting emerged from Maujpur, Brahampuri, and surrounding neighborhoods. The violence was characterized by intense religious sloganeering from both Hindu and Muslim groups, marking the day as one of the most chaotic of the riots. To manage the unrest, the Rapid Action Force was deployed to the most severely affected areas, attempting to restore order amidst widespread chaos.
In Ashok Nagar, the tensions culminated in the vandalization of a mosque, where a Hanuman flag was disgracefully placed on one of its minarets. This act symbolized the growing sectarian hostility among the demonstrators. Disturbingly, prayer mats were burned, and torn pages of the Quran were callously scattered outside the mosque, highlighting the blatant disregard for religious sentiments. A mob, chanting slogans such as "Jai Śrī Rām" and "Hindūō̃ kā Hindustān," rampaged around the mosque before carrying out acts of arson and looting of nearby shops and residences. Witness accounts indicated that many assailants were outsiders, suggesting a well-coordinated attack rather than spontaneous local unrest. The police intervened by evacuating Muslim residents to nearby stations for their safety, but as they retreated, another mosque was set ablaze, underscoring the vulnerability of religious minorities in the area.
Confrontations erupted around 3 p.m. in Durgapuri, where mobs representing both communities clashed violently, resulting in stone-pelting and gunfire. Members of the rioting group visibly identified themselves with religious markings, such as tilaka on their foreheads, as they targeted shops and vehicles owned by Muslims specifically. The police's delayed response—taking almost an hour to arrive—allowed the situation to deteriorate further, raising serious concerns about law enforcement's handling of communal violence.
Tragedy struck with the death of an 85-year-old woman in Gamri Extension, who perished when her home was set ablaze by a Hindu mob. Elsewhere, in Karawal Nagar, paramilitary forces were attacked with acid by rioters, illustrating the volatility of the situation. The chaos claimed lives indiscriminately, including a Muslim man who was shot and burned alive in Shiv Vihar, with the attacking group again shouting nationalistic slogans as they executed these horrific acts. Communities in Bhajanpura, Chand Bagh, and Karawal Nagar reported individuals armed with sticks and iron rods patrolling the streets, instilling fear among local populations.
By nightfall, the toll from the day's violence was devastating, with reports indicating at least 13 fatalities and over 70 individuals suffering from gunshot wounds. The police, responding to the urgency of the situation, issued shoot-at-sight orders in areas ravaged by riots, underscoring the desperate measures needed to regain control. Amidst this turmoil, the body of a trainee driver from the Intelligence Bureau was discovered in a drain in Jaffrabad, raising alarms about his violent demise—post-mortem examinations revealed he had been repeatedly stabbed. The arrest of AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in connection with the murder further complicated the matter, highlighting the political dimensions intertwined with the violence. On that day, the police control room received an overwhelming 7,500 emergency calls, evidencing the community's desperation for help and the urgent need for intervention as the situation spiraled into tragedy.
Delhi Violence Response and Government Involvement
On February 26, 2020, in the wake of the violent riots that had erupted in North East Delhi, Ajit Doval, the National Security Advisor of India, took a proactive stance by visiting the badly affected areas in the evening. His visit underscored the seriousness of the situation, as the capital city grappled with rampant lawlessness and civil unrest. Throughout the night, various reports surfacing from sectors like Karawal Nagar, Maujpur, and Bhajanpura detailed incidents of violence, arson, and mob lynching. The atmosphere was tense and chaotic as communities found themselves divided amidst escalating hostilities.
The sheer volume of distress signals sent on that day is indicative of the public's fear and sense of urgency. Police control rooms received around 1,500 emergency calls, highlighting the desperation of local residents for intervention and assistance. Amidst the chaos, hospitals began to face a backlog of post-mortem examinations due to the surge in casualties, which drew attention to potential systemic inadequacies in responding to such a crisis.
Witness accounts from that night revealed the intense fear experienced by civilians. Some individuals testified that they were attacked by aggressive mobs armed with stones and swords, while others sought to pinpoint the root cause of the violence. Notably, some witnesses placed blame on political figures such as Kapil Mishra, suggesting that incendiary rhetoric may have incited the clashes. A particular individual recounted that they were assaulted while the perpetrators chanted the Takbir, a phrase commonly associated with Islamic prayers, further deepening the communal tensions that characterized the riots.
The events of that evening are a stark reminder of the fragility of communal harmony in urban contexts, raising questions about the roles of governance, accountability, and the media in such situations. As the violence unfolded, the Indian government faced increasing scrutiny regarding its preparedness to handle civil strife and the effectiveness of its emergency response protocols.
Clashes in Shiv Vihar
The period from February 27 to 29, 2020, marked a significant escalation of violence in certain areas of Delhi, most notably in Shiv Vihar. During the morning hours of February 27, a series of clashes erupted between different groups, resulting in diverse injuries among the participants. Reports indicated that at least three individuals sustained injuries, including one who suffered from bullet wounds, underscoring the severity of the confrontations. Amid the chaos, property was targeted as well—two shops, a motorcycle, and a godown were set ablaze, highlighting the destructive nature of the unrest.
Tragic Loss of Life
The violence took a tragic turn on February 28 when a 60-year-old rag picker, who ventured outside his home under the assumption that the situation had settled, was brutally attacked. The injuries sustained during the incident were severe, and he succumbed to head injuries while being transported to a hospital. This incident not only emphasizes the indiscriminate nature of the violence but also reflects the plight of vulnerable individuals caught in the crossfire of communal tensions.
Gradual Return to Normalcy
By February 29, a slight easing of hostilities was observed, as no new incidents of violence were reported to the police, signaling a tentative return to normalcy in certain areas. Some shops began to reopen as tension eased, illustrating a small step towards recovery for the affected community. However, concerns remained about the potential for resurgence in violence, as authorities reported the registration of thirteen cases against individuals disseminating provocative content on social media, indicative of ongoing communal tensions. In a troubling sign, one shop was set alight in the Welcome area, proving that while some progress was made, the underlying issues had not yet been fully resolved. The events of these days not only reflected a grave communal conflict but also pointed to the complex layers of social issues that underpin such crises in urban settings.
Attacks on Journalists during the 2020 Delhi Riots
The 2020 Delhi riots were characterized by widespread violence and chaos, which extended to the media personnel covering the events. Numerous reports emerged of mobs targeting journalists, reflecting a concerning trend of hostility toward the press in conflict situations. One alarming incident occurred on 25 February when a journalist from JK 24x7 News was shot by anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protestors while he was reporting in the Maujpur area, highlighting the grave risks faced by reporters in volatile environments. In another instance, two NDTV journalists and a cameraman faced a mob attack while documenting the burning of a mosque, resulting in severe injuries for one of the journalists. In a desperate bid for safety, one colleague had to convince the rioters that they were Hindus to avert further violence against them.
The situation escalated further that same day when a photojournalist from The Times of India encountered hostility from members of a group called Hindu Sena while documenting a burning building. The group attempted to place a "tilak" on his forehead to mark him as a Hindu, suggesting that this would grant him immunity from the violence directed at non-Hindus. They went as far as to question his motives for photographing the devastation and even called into question his religious identity by demanding to verify his circumcision status. This behavior demonstrates a deeply unsettling intertwining of religious identity and journalistic freedom amidst civic unrest.
Social media became a platform for several journalists to share their harrowing experiences, revealing a troubling pattern of aggression against reporters. A journalist from Times Now recounted a terrifying encounter with pro-CAA protestors, describing how she had to plead for her safety amid a threatening mob armed with stones and sticks. Others, including field reporters from Reuters, India Today, and CNN-News18, noted that they too were assaulted during their attempts to cover the riots. Such attacks not only endangered individual journalists but also raised serious concerns regarding the freedom of the press in the country.
The violence against journalists reached a point where The Hindustan Times reported that a motorcycle belonging to one of its photographers was set ablaze by a masked group while he was documenting the unfolding violence in Karawal Nagar. The mob not only destroyed his property but also threatened and assaulted him, seizing the memory card from his camera. In an alarming display of dominance, they demanded his identification and took a photo of it before allowing him to leave, underlining the dangers faced by media personnel on the ground.
In light of these attacks, the Editors Guild of India issued a statement on 25 February, expressing grave concern over the assaults on journalists, framing them as attacks on the very foundation of press freedom in India. They strongly urged the Home Ministry and the Delhi Police to investigate these incidents thoroughly and hold those responsible to account. The interruption of journalistic activity during such critical events reflects not only on the present violence but raises vital questions about the future of media independence in India.
Interfaith Solidarity Amidst Chaos
Amidst the turmoil of the 2020 Delhi riots, moments of interfaith solidarity emerged as a beacon of hope for those affected by the violence. Journalists from ThePrint observed that residents within mixed communities, particularly in the localities of Jaffrabad and Maujpur, expressed a strong sense of trust in their neighbors, attributing the violence to external forces rather than their own community members. The collective action taken by these residents to safeguard their neighborhoods was striking. Hindus and Muslims alike came together to barricade entrances to their streets, determined to protect their communal harmony from the hostile mobs that threatened to shatter it.
In an inspiring display of unity, families from both faiths took extraordinary steps to ensure each other’s safety. Hindu families opened their homes to Muslim friends and neighbors, providing them refuge until the violence subsided. One particularly heroic act involved a local Hindu man who sustained severe burns—70% of his body—while rescuing Muslim friends from a house engulfed in flames. This act of courage was not isolated. In Chand Bagh, Muslims visited their Hindu neighbors, offering reassurance and solidarity. Concurrently, in Noor-e-Ilahi, Muslims gathered protectively around the Hanuman Mandir, a Hindu temple, while Hindus stood guard outside the Azizya Masjid, demonstrating the strength of their interfaith bonds.
The ethnic and religious divides seemed to dissolve in times of dire need, illustrated by the actions of a Sikh father and son who heroically rescued approximately seventy Muslims trapped within a mosque and madrasa surrounded by a violent mob. Utilizing their motorcycle, they painstakingly transported individuals to safety, often ferrying two children at a time. The Sikh community further extended their kindness by welcoming those seeking shelter into their gurdwaras, emphasizing a culture of compassion over division in the face of escalating chaos.
Grief was also a palpable part of the experience as both Hindus and Muslims came together to mourn their loved ones lost to the violence. The emotional weight of their shared suffering served to further bond the communities, as they found solace in one another's presence during such trying times. On March 1, an organized peace march brought both Muslim and Hindu residents of Jaffrabad together, symbolizing their commitment to rebuilding trust and harmony. This sentiment resonated throughout the city, culminating in a powerful appeal from Anil Joseph Thomas Couto, the Catholic archbishop of Delhi. He called for peace and non-violence, which was echoed by clergy from various faiths—including Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Jain—who gathered in prayer at the Sacred Heart Cathedral in New Delhi. Such acts of unity and respect across religious divides ushered in a poignant reminder of the potential for communal harmony even in the most challenging circumstances.
Delhi Police's Response and Controversies
The performance of the Delhi Police during the 2020 riots has raised serious concerns regarding their ability to maintain law and order. Various sources have scrutinized the police's response, particularly on February 23, when violent clashes led to numerous fatalities. Multiple intelligence reports had warned of an escalating situation, primarily fueled by inflammatory speeches such as that made by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. Despite these warnings, the police force was accused of a lax deployment, contributing to the chaos that ensued. Eyewitness accounts from the riots revealed that when victims reached out for police assistance, they were often met with indifference, with officers reportedly claiming they were "busy." Furthermore, there were allegations that police personnel not only failed to protect residents but actively encouraged rioters, leading to violent confrontations with civilians.
A particularly disturbing incident that captured national attention involved a video circulated on social media on February 26, showing a group of men being assaulted by police while lying on the ground. The policemen demanded that these individuals sing the national anthem and chant "Vande Mataram." The families of those detained alleged that they were held in custody for two days, during which they were subjected to physical abuse. One victim, Mohammad Faizan, ultimately succumbed to severe gunshot wounds and died on February 29 in the neurosurgery ward of LNJP Hospital. Another victim reported serious injuries, which cast further doubt on the police's claims of acting in the best interests of the public during the unrest.
Compounding the situation was the coinciding visit of then-U.S. President Donald Trump, which led to a significant police presence directed toward ensuring the safety of dignitaries, rather than focusing on controlling the unrest. Reports indicate that the police conveyed to the Ministry of Home Affairs their inability to handle the riots effectively due to their thin spread, but these claims were reportedly dismissed by the Ministry. The perceived prioritization of international relations over local safety by the police has sparked a dialogue about their role and responsibilities during crises.
In a subsequent hearing on February 27, the Delhi High Court directed the Police to file FIRs against individuals whose provocative speeches instigated the violence. However, the response from the police was to resist immediate action, suggesting that arresting the speakers would not restore peace but rather exacerbate tensions further. They sought additional time for investigation—a stance that drew criticism from various quarters. The police's handling of the aftermath of the riots also raised eyebrows when lawyers visiting the Jagatpuri police station to inquire about detained anti-CAA protesters reported being verbally abused by the police personnel. In response, these lawyers formally appealed to the Delhi Commissioner of Police for accountability against the officers involved in the harassment, highlighting ongoing issues concerning police conduct in times of civil unrest.
Impact of the Delhi Riots on Health Services
The Jan Swasthya Abhiyaan (JSA), a prominent public health advocacy organization, released a comprehensive report on March 2, 2020, shedding light on the significant role that health services play during communal violence, specifically referencing the recent Delhi riots. The report is based on evidence gathered by volunteers stationed in local hospitals, who witnessed and documented the challenges faced by victims of the riots while seeking medical care. The findings raised serious concerns about the conduct of some medical personnel, with allegations that certain doctors harassed patients by referring to them as "terrorists," and questioned them about their understanding of controversial policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Moreover, the report outlined disturbing instances of medical negligence, where victims were not only denied urgent treatment due to bureaucratic hang-ups regarding medico-legal case documentation but also faced an environment of intimidation. The atmosphere in hospitals, strained by ongoing violence, resulted in insufficient care, with some facilities prioritizing their safety over the immediate needs of patients. The lack of transparency in medical reporting was particularly concerning, as families of the victims reported being deprived of detailed accounts of injuries and autopsy results, thereby hindering their ability to seek justice or closure.
In the aftermath of the riots, it was noted that citizens developed a pervasive fear of utilizing government health services, including ambulances and hospitals. Many patients opted to arrange for private transportation to reach private healthcare facilities, fearing potential mistreatment from authorities if they sought help from government sources. This sense of distrust was further exacerbated by reports of mobs preventing ambulances from accessing riot-affected neighborhoods, leaving critical situations unresolved and lives at risk. Additionally, the absence of functioning primary health centers and hospitals during the riots highlighted chronic systemic issues, as many of these institutions were already under-resourced and ill-equipped to deal with any form of medical emergency.
The issues raised in the JSA report underscore a broader crisis within the healthcare system exacerbated by communal tensions, revealing that the trauma inflicted by such violence extends beyond immediate physical injuries. The delayed issuance of post-mortem reports from several hospitals further compounded the grief of the victims' families, leaving them in a state of uncertainty. This fosters a critical need for systemic reform in how health services respond to communal violence, ensuring that medical facilities are not only safe havens for care but also resist becoming extensions of societal prejudice.
Government Response to the 2020 Delhi Riots
On February 24, 2020, following the eruption of violence in Delhi, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a statement indicating that the unrest appeared to be premeditated, coinciding intriguingly with President Donald Trump's visit to India from February 24 to 25. This assertion raised questions about the timing and intent behind the riots, suggesting a potential link between political events and civil unrest. Despite the escalating violence, the Ministry maintained its decision against deploying the Army to quell the disturbances, asserting that the presence of more than 6,000 police and paramilitary personnel in the area was sufficient to manage the situation.
However, as the riots intensified over the subsequent days, the situation rapidly deteriorated. By February 25, the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, publicly acknowledged the limitations of the Delhi Police, stating that their efforts had proved inadequate in combating the violence that claimed the lives of at least 23 individuals by that point. Kejriwal's request for military assistance reflected the mounting desperation to restore order, as clashes continued to erupt in parts of the city, affecting numerous communities and resulting in widespread devastation.
The riots not only underscored the fragility of communal harmony in the capital but also prompted broader discussions about the role of law enforcement, the effectiveness of governmental response during crises, and the underlying tensions within society that fuel such violence. The government's decision-making during this critical period faced scrutiny from various quarters, raising further concerns about the balance between maintaining order and ensuring the safety of all citizens, regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds. This moment in Delhi's history highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to address underlying grievances and prevent future outbreaks of violence.
Home Ministry's Meeting
On the critical morning of February 25, 2020, a pressing meeting convened under the leadership of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, gathering all party Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from the areas severely affected by the ongoing violence. The atmosphere was tense, as several MLAs voiced urgent concerns regarding the insufficient deployment of police personnel to handle the alarming situation. These concerns were not to be taken lightly, as escalating violence had raised fears among the local populace. The meeting was pivotal, leading to Kejriwal addressing these pressing issues in a subsequent encounter with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, which also included Delhi's Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal and senior police officials. A consensus was reached that all possible measures would be taken to mitigate the violence threatening the capital.
During this crucial meeting with Home Minister Shah, Kejriwal emphasized the need for heightened police presence in the affected areas. Shah reportedly assured the attendees that adequate police force would be dispatched to restore order and safety for the residents. The commitment made by the Home Minister was essential, considering the rapid escalation of violence in different neighborhoods, driven by ongoing communal tensions. This assurance instilled a sense of hope and urgency in the meeting, with participants recognizing the imperative of a coordinated response to the unrest.
Further enhancing the government's response, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval was appointed to spearhead efforts in restoring peace in the affected regions. His designation reflected the gravity of the situation and the necessity for a strong, strategic approach. On February 26, Doval took immediate action by visiting the violence-stricken locales, directly engaging with residents to assess the situation on the ground. During his interactions, he assured the local community that normalcy would be restored, emphasizing the government's commitment to safeguarding their lives and property. This direct approach was intended to reassure those affected by the violence while also gathering firsthand accounts of the ground realities, which would be vital in shaping effective measures to quell the unrest.
Relief Measures Post Riots
In the wake of the violent clashes during the 2020 Delhi riots, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal took significant steps to provide relief to those affected. On February 27, he announced the Farishta scheme, aimed at ensuring that individuals injured during the riots would receive free medical treatment in both government-run and private hospitals. This initiative was crucial, given the high number of injuries reported and the urgent need for medical care in the aftermath of the violence.
Beyond medical aid, the Delhi government collaborated with various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to facilitate food distribution in areas that were under curfew. The curfew was imposed to maintain law and order, making it challenging for many residents to access basic necessities. These efforts were instrumental in alleviating the immediate suffering of the affected populace. Moreover, Kejriwal announced a structured compensation plan to support those who lost loved ones or property. This included a compensation of ₹1 million (approximately US$12,000) for the severely affected, along with an ex-gratia payment of ₹100,000 (around US$1,200) for injuries, and ₹500,000 (approximately US$6,000) in cases involving the death of minors.
Additionally, the government established nine temporary shelters for those displaced by the riots, providing a safe haven for individuals and families who had been forced to flee their homes. For those whose houses had been completely destroyed, immediate financial assistance of ₹25,000 (approximately US$300) was announced to help them begin the process of recovery and reconstruction. The distribution of food and other essential relief materials was facilitated through efforts from resident welfare associations and various NGOs, creating a network of support for the marginalized communities.
In addition to government efforts, political leaders also participated in relief efforts. Notable figures such as BJP leaders Tajinder Bagga and Kapil Mishra organized crowdfunding initiatives that raised ₹7.1 million (about US$85,000) dedicated to supporting Hindu victims of the Delhi riots. Such engagement highlights the community spirit and the collective effort needed to overcome the aftermath of the violence experienced during this tumultuous time. Overall, the initiatives taken reflect a multi-faceted approach aimed at both immediate and long-term recovery for those impacted by the riots.
Reactions to the 2020 Delhi riots swept across India's political landscape and beyond, reflecting deep divisions and escalating tensions within the country. AAP leader Sanjay Singh released a video that captured BJP MLA Abhay Verma leading a crowd chanting slogans asserting the dominance of Hindu interests, which Singh condemned as incendiary given the ongoing violence. Singh accused Home Minister Amit Shah of hypocrisy, as he convened an "all-party meeting" to discuss restoring peace while BJP representatives were directly involved in inciting hatred. Verma, however, countered by stating that the slogans were spontaneous expressions by civilians rather than orchestrated calls for violence.
The political fallout from the riots escalated further when Indian National Congress president Sonia Gandhi demanded the resignation of Amit Shah, criticizing his failure to halt the violence. She emphasized the necessity for increasing security forces to protect citizens. Following her comments, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar responded by accusing both AAP and Congress of "selective silence" on the violence, arguing that they were politicizing the ongoing turmoil instead of addressing it constructively. The exchanges highlighted the frequent interplay of political rivalry and communal strife in India, especially during moments of crisis.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's delayed response to the riot—coming three days after the violence had erupted and under intense scrutiny following a state visit from President Trump—sparked criticism. Modi's call for peace on Twitter suggested an awareness of the international implications of the situation. Indeed, the events prompted concern beyond India's borders, with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom expressing "grave concern" about the violence and urging the Indian government to safeguard all its citizens, regardless of faith. Notable American figures, including Senator Bernie Sanders, raised alarms over the situation, prompting a strong rebuttal from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which labeled these observations as misleading and politically charged.
On the international stage, voices such as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet articulated concern about India's controversial citizenship laws and highlighted the peaceful opposition to these laws among diverse communities. The riots drew condemnation from various global leaders and institutions, including a warning from twelve prominent citizens in Bangladesh who cautioned that if the violence was not contained, it could have dire implications for regional stability and harmony. Adding a controversial note to the dialogue, Meghalaya's Governor Tathagata Roy drew parallels with the Tiananmen Square protests, suggesting potential lessons in state response to unrest.
Further international criticism came from Turkish President Erdogan, who characterized India as a nation where "massacres are widespread," specifically targeting Muslims. Meanwhile, on 2 March, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee went so far as to label the riots a "planned genocide," reflecting a narrative that aligned with rising apprehensions about the safety of minority communities in India. By 5 March, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Indian government to confront extremist Hindus and halt the violence against Muslims, warning that the international perception of India within the Islamic world could suffer significantly should the situation persist unchecked. These events encapsulate the complex interplay of internal and external factors contributing to the ongoing discourse surrounding communal violence and governance in India.
Investigation Outcomes of the Delhi Riots
On February 27, 2020, the Delhi Police announced the formation of two Special Investigation Teams (SITs) dedicated to probing the horrific violence that had erupted in the city. The responsibility of leading these teams fell to Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCP) Joy Tirkey and Rajesh Deo, respectively, who were supported by four Assistant Commissioners in each SIT. The Additional Commissioner of the crime branch, B.K. Singh, was designated to supervise the overall investigation efforts. The formation of these SITs underscored the police department's commitment to thoroughly investigating the riots and bringing those responsible to justice.
In the days that followed, specifically on February 28, forensic science teams were deployed to the various crime scenes to meticulously gather evidence. This effort was a crucial step in building a solid case against those implicated in the riots. As of March 7, 2020, the police had registered an astonishing 690 First Information Reports (FIRs) related to the violence, which saw approximately 2200 individuals detained. Many of those arrested included activists, several of whom were charged under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Concerns arose regarding the treatment of detainees, with allegations surfacing from friends and family members claiming that several individuals were subjected to torture while in custody.
During a parliamentary debate on March 11, 2020, the Home Minister, Amit Shah, revealed that authorities had managed to identify rioters believed to have traveled from Uttar Pradesh to participate in the violence. This statement highlighted the complexities involved in the investigation, as the unrest was not simply a local issue but one that appeared to have external elements involved. Following these developments, the investigation continued into 2021, particularly focusing on high-profile cases. Notably, arrests were made in connection with the murder of Delhi Police head constable Ratan Lal, including individuals named Mohd Wasim, Mohd Ayaz, and Khalid, along with an unnamed woman.
Furthermore, the case surrounding the death of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma also garnered significant attention. A man named Munjtajim was arrested in this particular investigation, stressing the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to resolve these sensitive cases linked to the riots. The thoroughness of the investigations aimed to not only bring justice to the victims but also to restore public confidence in the safety and security of Delhi. As more evidence unfolded and inquiries progressed, the actions taken by the police during this tumultuous period were closely monitored by both civil society and governmental agencies, reinforcing the importance of accountability in the wake of such violence.
Supreme Court Hearing on Delhi Riots
Amid escalating tensions following the 2020 Delhi riots, an appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of India by Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, and social activist Syed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi. They sought judicial direction for the Delhi Police to compile detailed reports concerning the incidents of violence that erupted starting from the night of 23 February. Their petition emphasized that the violence was not merely spontaneous but was allegedly incited and orchestrated by specific individuals, notably targeting a controversial figure who was described in the petition as having “incited and orchestrated the riots.”
During a pivotal hearing on 26 February, the Supreme Court bench, which included Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K. M. Joseph, expressed dissatisfaction with the responses from the Delhi Police regarding their handling of the situation. The judges criticized the law enforcement agency for their perceived inadequacies in preventing the unrest that resulted in significant loss of life and property, as well as deepening communal divides. Despite these criticisms, the Court refrained from taking further action on the petition, clarifying that the matter was under consideration by the Delhi High Court, thus necessitating patience with the existing judicial processes.
The 2020 Delhi riots, which lasted for several days, left a deep impact on the social fabric of the capital and highlighted the challenges faced by law enforcement in managing communal tensions. These events ignited widespread discussions on accountability, police conduct, and the need for comprehensive measures to address the root causes of such violence. The Supreme Court's decision not to intervene further at this stage indicated both the complexity of the issues at stake and the court's respect for the ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court, which were tasked with examining the broader implications of the riots and the governmental response.
Delhi High Court Hearing
In the aftermath of the violence that erupted on February 25, 2020, in Delhi, prominent activists Harsh Mander and Farah Naqvi took a significant step by filing a plea with the Delhi High Court. Their petition sought urgent action from law enforcement to identify and apprehend individuals responsible for the horrific events that led to extensive loss of life and injuries among civilians. The petition underscored the need for accountability and justice for the victims affected by the riots, which were fueled by ongoing tensions around the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The petitioners further urged the court to establish a Special Investigation Team (SIT) dedicated to thoroughly investigating the riots. They argued that a focused and impartial investigation was essential to uncover the truth behind the violence, hold the perpetrators accountable, and restore faith in the judicial system. Given the widespread outrage and demand for justice from various civil society groups, the creation of an SIT was seen as a crucial step in addressing the grievances of the victims and ensuring a transparent legal process.
In addition to calling for an investigation, the plea highlighted the urgent need to provide compensation to those whose lives were irrevocably changed due to the violence. Families who lost loved ones and individuals who suffered injuries often faced immense financial and emotional hardships, prompting calls for restitution to help them rebuild their lives. The activists emphasized that the government had a moral obligation to support those affected, reinforcing the idea that justice is not merely punitive but also restorative.
The plea also included a request for the immediate deployment of the Indian Army in the riot-affected areas. Given the volatile situation, the activists argued that military intervention could help stabilize the environment, prevent further violence, and ensure the safety of residents in the aftermath of the riots. With communities deeply divided and fear prevalent among the population, such a measure was seen as necessary to restore order and confidence in public safety.
The events of February 25 left a lasting impact on Delhi and raised critical questions about communal harmony, governance, and the role of law enforcement during times of crisis. The Delhi High Court's deliberation on this plea not only aimed to address the specific demands of the activists but also served as a broader reflection on the need for systemic change to prevent such atrocities in the future. As society grapples with the consequences of these riots, seeking justice and reconciliation will remain an ongoing challenge for both the legal system and the community at large.
== Court Hearing on 26 February ==
In the early hours of 26 February 2020, a significant court hearing took place when a bench comprising Justices S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh convened to address an emergency plea related to the ongoing violence during the Delhi riots. The court responded swiftly to the plea, issuing a directive for law enforcement to protect individuals affected by the riots and assist them in reaching the closest hospitals for medical treatment. This move underscored the urgency of ensuring the safety of victims amidst widespread chaos.
During the morning session of the hearing, DCP of the crime branch, Rajesh Deo, alongside Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, stunned the court by revealing that neither had reviewed the video of the inflammatory speech delivered by politician Kapil Mishra, a key figure in escalating tensions in the area. Their admission highlighted a troubling lack of oversight regarding inflammatory rhetoric that could incite violence. In contrast, DCP Deo acknowledged that he had watched speeches made by other politicians such as Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma, who also delivered contentious statements prior to the riots.
As the court proceedings continued, the judges took the unusual step of playing the video clip of Mishra’s speech for the court. This moment was pivotal in illustrating the gravity of the situation. The bench voiced its “anguish” over the Delhi Police's apparent failure to manage the riots effectively, as well as the authorities' negligence in registering First Information Reports (FIRs) against four prominent BJP leaders, including Mishra, Thakur, Verma, and Abhay Verma, who had reportedly incited violence through their messages. The judges emphasized the necessity to protect communal harmony and unequivocally stated that incidents reminiscent of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots must never be allowed to recur in Delhi, an essential reminder of the need for accountability and justice in times of communal strife.
== Transfer of Justice Muralidhar ==
On the night of February 26, 2020, a significant judicial event occurred when Justice S. Muralidhar was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This transfer took place on the same day that Justice Muralidhar had publicly criticized the Delhi Police for their ineffectiveness in managing the violent riots that had swept through parts of Delhi. He also expressed concerns about the lack of legal action against political figures from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who had allegedly made incendiary statements inciting communal tensions.
Justice Muralidhar's comments were perceived as a stern rebuke to the authorities, and many political analysts suggested that his pointed remarks about the police's inaction in such a pivotal public safety issue could have contributed to the timing of his transfer. However, the Indian Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, defended the move by asserting that it was merely a routine transfer that had been recommended by the Supreme Court two weeks prior to the riots. The Law Minister's remarks, however, did little to quell public speculation regarding the political implications of Muralidhar's reassignment.
The transfer sparked widespread criticism from various segments of Indian society. Numerous citizens voiced their dissent on social media platforms, expressing alarm over the potential ramifications for judicial independence. The Congress party labeled the transfer a strategic move aimed at shielding the accused BJP leaders from accountability. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court Bar Association voiced its disapproval and called upon the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider and revoke the transfer decision, underscoring concerns about the integrity of the judicial system in the face of political pressure. This incident highlighted the precarious relationship between the judicial system and political narratives, especially in contexts marked by communal violence.
Justice Muralidhar's transfer became emblematic of broader concerns regarding judicial autonomy and the potential influence of political considerations on judicial appointments and decisions in India. As tensions persisted in the aftermath of the riots, the discourse surrounding Muralidhar's reassignment served to illuminate the challenging intersection of law, politics, and social justice in the country. The public outcry and political responses reflected a deep-seated anxiety about the preservation of a fair and impartial judiciary, especially in politically charged cases.
== Court Proceedings and Developments ==
On 27 February 2020, the judiciary in India took significant steps to address the allegations surrounding the Delhi riots, as a new bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.N. Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar resumed the hearings. Previously, the court had ordered the Delhi police to decide within 24 hours whether to file First Information Reports (FIRs) related to purported hate speeches made by four Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders. On this occasion, the government's counsel argued that the prevailing situation was not "conducive" and requested additional time to deliberate on the issue of hate speech. Surprisingly, the newly formed bench echoed the earlier dismissals of these urgency claims. Consequently, they granted the government more time to determine their course of action regarding the filing of hate speech cases. Despite pleas from the petitioners' lawyer for an expedited hearing given the rising death toll, the court decided to adjourn the matter until 13 April.
The following day, 28 February, the court escalated the situation by issuing notices to both the local and central governments, seeking their responses regarding the potential registration of FIRs against prominent Congress leaders, including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi, on allegations of delivering hate speeches. Additionally, the bench addressed another plea by serving notices to the Delhi police and the central government regarding the registration of FIRs against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan, actress Swara Bhaskar, and activist Harsh Mander, as well as leaders from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), such as Akbaruddin Owaisi, Asaduddin Owaisi, and Waris Pathan. This matter was also adjourned, with the court scheduling the next hearing for 13 April.
In a parallel development, AAP leader Tahir Hussain faced significant legal repercussions as he was denied bail. The court ruled that there was substantial evidence indicating his presence at the crime scene during the riots and that he was actively instigating the violence. The Karkardooma Court in Delhi subsequently framed charges of murder and conspiracy against Hussain and ten other individuals in connection with the murder of an Intelligence Bureau officer during the riots. The court noted that Hussain had allegedly been "supervising and motivating" the mob, asserting that these actions were deliberately aimed at targeting Hindus. In the broader context of the riots, a Delhi High Court Justice, Subramonium Prasad, later remarked in September 2021 that the violence reflected a "preplanned and pre-meditated conspiracy to disturb law and order in the city," characterizing the rioters' actions as a calculated effort to undermine governmental functions and disrupt the normalcy of life for the city’s residents. This assessment framed the violence not just as random acts of chaos, but as part of a larger, orchestrated effort that required comprehensive legal scrutiny and accountability.
Court Convictions
On March 13, 2020, a significant legal development unfolded as a court convicted nine individuals for their involvement in the violent riots that shook Delhi earlier that year. The court's ruling highlighted the defendants' intentions, emphasizing that they had joined a chaotic mob driven by communal sentiments. The aim of these convicts was starkly identified: to inflict the greatest possible damage to properties owned by members of the Hindu community. This particular focus on communal unrest underscored the underlying tensions that exacerbated the violence during the riots, reflecting a broader societal issue in the region.
In the following weeks, the legal process continued to address the ramifications of the riots, with two additional individuals receiving convictions related to the same incidents. The judicial response illustrated a commitment to holding perpetrators accountable for their actions amid the chaos that disrupted lives and communities. The court's decisions have been critical in not only addressing individual culpability but also in signaling a broader societal rejection of violence fueled by communal divisions.
The 2020 Delhi riots were part of a tumultuous backdrop marked by political and religious tensions, exacerbated by various socio-political factors that created an environment ripe for conflict. As investigations and prosecutions unfold, they serve as reminders of the historical complexities surrounding communal relationships in India. The convictions aim to foster a sense of justice among affected communities while prompting broader discussions about communal harmony and the necessity for tolerance within a diverse society.
Aftermath of the Delhi Riots
In the aftermath of the 2020 Delhi riots, a significant exodus of Muslims occurred from the affected neighborhoods. Many families, fearing continued violence and harassment, abandoned their homes with whatever possessions they could carry, often returning to their ancestral villages with no intention of ever coming back. This anxiety extended beyond the immediate sites of violence; Muslim families residing in parts of Delhi seemingly untouched by the riots also chose to leave, underscoring a pervasive sense of insecurity. Lawyers representing Muslim victims reported that many faced intimidation, with police threatening to falsely implicate them in various cases should they dare to file complaints against the rioters. As late as October 2020, numerous survivors lamented ongoing harassment from their neighbors, leading to significant distress and financial despair, resulting in many selling their properties at drastically reduced prices just to escape their torment.
Zafarul Islam Khan, former chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, highlighted alarming statistics, noting that approximately 1,300 Muslim youths had been arrested following the riots. There was an ongoing effort by authorities to manipulate narratives concerning these arrests, framing Muslim youth as the instigators of the violence. In a disturbing internal memo, the Special Commissioner of Police encouraged investigative teams to apply "due care and precaution" when apprehending Hindu individuals involved in the riots, indicating an intention to manage potential backlash within the Hindu community. This was particularly troubling given the police's own investigations that identified a WhatsApp group called "Kattar Hindu Ekta," purportedly created to coordinate violent riots against Muslim communities. Reports revealed that the police had filed multiple chargesheets in connection with brutally conducted murders of Muslims during the chaos, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to organized anti-Muslim violence.
For those left homeless or who fled in fear, makeshift relief camps sprang up across the city, often accommodating victims in temples, madrasas, and even hospitals. The largest of these camps was established at the Idgah, gathering individuals from neighborhoods affected by the riots. Over time, these camps became crowded and overwhelmed with the sheer number of refugees. Volunteers stepped in to offer vital support, helping with legal assistance and basic necessities. Health care workers provided essential medical services; however, many victims suffered from chronic skin issues, respiratory ailments, and significant psychological distress. The continued presence of COVID-19 exacerbated the crisis, making it nearly impossible to adhere to health guidelines such as social distancing. In a particularly distressing turn of events, the Delhi government evicted residents from the Idgah camp by the end of March, leaving many without any shelter despite promises of financial assistance for lodging.
In light of the violence, various community leaders stepped in to provide help. Anil Joseph Thomas Couto, the Archbishop of Delhi, reported that Catholic churches were mobilizing resources to feed and shelter those affected by the riots. The Holy Family Hospital played a pivotal role, facilitating medical assistance to those in need, especially during the season of Lent, when many were eager to help. The civil unrest led to a tangible rift between Hindus and Muslims, with businesses in affected areas boycotting Muslim traders and workers. Allegations that Muslims instigated the riots fostered an environment of fear and retribution, resulting in communal barriers being erected and violent vigilantism as communities braced themselves against future attacks.
Hindu politicians attempted to capitalize on the strife by staging peace marches in which they highlighted the injuries of their constituents, framing them as victims of Muslim aggression. Rallies organized by Hindutva groups levied incendiary rhetoric against Muslims, further entrenching the divisions in society. The inflammatory themes of these rallies served to stoke animosity, with calls to actions that threatened violence against Muslims becoming increasingly vocal. Calls for civic harmony were drowned out by Tamil Nadu political backlashes as accusations flew among entrenched partisans.
As public debate over the riots unfolded, governmental narratives often downplayed the severity of the violence. In a parliamentary discussion led by Home Minister Amit Shah, condolences were expressed for victims while simultaneously shifting blame towards Muslim leaders and opposition parties for allegedly inciting the violence. Contradictions in official reports further confused the discourse, as the Delhi Police initially stated a deceptively low number of fatalities and arrests compared to figures shared by junior ministers. The tragedy of the Delhi riots not only reverberated through the immediate impact on communities but established a troubling precedent for social unity and civil rights in the country.
Fact Finding Reports on Delhi Riots
The violence that erupted during the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi has been the subject of various fact-finding reports produced by different organizations and committees. A notable report from the Delhi Minority Commission, titled “Report of the DMC Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020,” was published on June 27, 2020. This report aimed to analyze the violence through the lens of minority rights and the grievances faced by the Muslim community. It provided insight into the socio-political context that led to the riots and emphasized the need for accountability and restorative justice.
Another significant contribution came from a group led by Supreme Court advocate Monika Arora, which submitted its findings in a report entitled “Delhi Riots 2020: Report from Ground Zero – The Shaheen Bagh Model in North-East Delhi: From Dharna to Danga” on March 11, 2020. This report attributed the unrest to what it described as an "Urban-Naxal-Jihadi network," framing the violence as a pre-planned operation carried out by a radicalized minority. Such allegations contributed to polarized narratives surrounding the riots, reflecting a stark divergence in perspectives regarding the motivations and actors involved in the violence.
The Call for Justice (CFJ) group also released a detailed report titled “Delhi Riots: Conspiracy Unraveled” on May 29, 2020, led by retired Justice Ambadas Joshi. This document contended that anti-national extremist Islamic factions orchestrated targeted assaults specifically against the Hindu community. The report pointed to systematic planning and coordination, thereby alleging that a web of radical groups was involved in stoking animosity and violence. This narrative further intensified the communal tensions already present in the broader societal context.
Human Rights Watch shed light on systemic discrimination through its April 2020 report, “Shoot the Traitors: Discrimination Against Muslims under India's New Citizenship Policy,” emphasizing the implications of policies that marginalized Muslim communities amidst rising communal violence. Similarly, the preliminary fact-finding report by Youth for Human Rights Documentation titled “An Account of Fear & Impunity” highlighted the experiences of those affected within the communal violence landscape, further documenting the human rights abuses that ensued.
In a critical exploration of the events, Nupur J Sharma and Kalpojyoti Kashyap's publication, “Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots of 2020: The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019,” aimed to frame the riot's narrative in the context of ongoing tensions that had been escalating since late 2019. This work sparked discussions about the balancing of rights and perceptions between communities during a period of extreme polarisation.
Furthermore, Amnesty International India issued a report on August 28, 2020, focusing on the impunity enjoyed by the Delhi police even amidst credible evidence of human rights violations. The report called attention to the structural issues within law enforcement, raising concerns about accountability mechanisms for acts of violence during the riots.
In October 2022, a committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur reviewed the role of authorities during the riots, with findings indicating delays from the Union home ministry in deploying additional forces to address the escalating violence. The committee's conclusions underlined that from February 23 to 26, 2020, communal riots persisted, highlighting failures in operational response that could have mitigated the scale of violence. These reports and ongoing assessments continue to contribute to the public discourse surrounding the tragedies of the Delhi riots, as well as the broader implications for communal harmony and human rights in India.
Books on the Riots
In August 2020, the release of "Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story," co-authored by advocate Monika Arora and academics Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra, stirred significant controversy. Original publisher Bloomsbury India faced backlash from writers and human rights activists, leading to their withdrawal from publishing the book. The withdrawal highlighted the sensitive and divisive nature of narratives surrounding the Delhi riots, which occurred in late February 2020 and resulted in widespread violence, loss of life, and property damage. The riots erupted amid tensions surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), with various communities deeply divided over these policies.
Following Bloomsbury's decision, Garuda Prakashan stepped in to publish the book, noting a substantial public interest with 15,000 pre-orders recorded by 24 August. This number indicated a significant demand for alternative narratives concerning the events of the riots. The book aims to present a perspective that challenges mainstream interpretations of the riots, which some view as politically motivated.
The Delhi riots also prompted a flurry of academic and journalistic inquiries into their causes and repercussions, leading to the publication of numerous other texts. These works often aim to analyze the sociopolitical context, the implications of communal violence in India, and the role of media, politicians, and law enforcement during such crises. The timeline of the events and their aftermath continues to be a subject of investigation, reflecting ongoing discussions about communal relations and the stability of Indian democracy. As scholars and writers approach this topic, the complexities of representing such a fraught event remain a significant challenge, prompting debates over freedom of expression and responsible journalism in contemporary India.