In India, commissions of inquiry are often established in response to instances of communal violence, with the stated aim of uncovering the truth about human rights abuses, acknowledging victims, and holding perpetrators accountable. These commissions have become a standard practice in transitional justice globally, often established in response to public demands for accountability. In theory, they serve to facilitate truth-telling, support reparations, and ensure non-repetition of violence. However, in practice, commissions of inquiry in India frequently fall short of these noble goals. More often than not, they are used to delay justice, limit public access to information, and shield powerful actors from accountability.
Based on research conducted with my colleague, Shivangi Seth we explored how these commissions function within India’s unique socio-political context, using recent examples, such as the violence between the Meitei and Kuki ethnic groups in Manipur, to explore the limitations of these inquiries as mechanisms of transitional justice.
The Manipur violence and India’s response
In June 2023, India’s Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah, announced the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry into the long-running conflict between the Meitei and Kuki ethnic groups in Manipur. This latest round of violence, which began in May 2023, resulted in nearly 200 deaths and the internal displacement of more than 60,000 people. The violence was marked by severe human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and sexual violence against women. International attention to the conflict intensified after a video surfaced showing two Kuki women being paraded naked and assaulted by a mob, with one reportedly gang-raped.
Amidst growing calls from local and international groups—including the United Nations, European Parliament, and various Indian civil society organisations—for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to investigate the violence and hold perpetrators accountable, the Indian government opted to establish a commission of inquiry. While this response may appear to be a step towards justice, India’s history with such commissions suggests a more complicated reality.
Commissions of inquiry: A global tool for justice
Commissions of inquiry are not unique to India. Globally, they are often established to investigate major incidents of violence or human rights abuses, particularly where there is pressure from civil society or the international community. These inquiries are designed to establish an accurate record of past events, hold perpetrators accountable, and offer closure to victims. They are also supposed to contribute to a broader understanding of societal violence and its underlying causes, thereby informing future prevention strategies.
In the realm of transitional justice, commissions of inquiry can play an important role. Transitional justice refers to the mechanisms through which societies address the legacies of large-scale human rights abuses, with a focus on accountability, justice, and reconciliation. These mechanisms can range from criminal trials to truth commissions, reparations, and institutional reforms. However, unlike truth commissions, which tend to focus more holistically on victim-centred narratives and reparative justice, commissions of inquiry are often tasked with narrower, state-centric objectives.
The limitations of India’s Commissions of Inquiry
While commissions of inquiry hold the potential to contribute to transitional justice, in India, they often serve as tools for denial and blame-shifting rather than mechanisms for genuine accountability. Since the 1980s, India has seen the establishment of numerous commissions of inquiry in response to episodes of communal violence, from the Nellie Massacre of 1983 to the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and the Gujarat riots of 2002. Despite the gravity of these events, the outcomes of the commissions have been largely unsatisfactory in terms of truth-telling and accountability.
A significant critique of India’s commissions of inquiry is that they tend to obscure the truth rather than uncover it. Although these commissions may compile extensive records of testimonies, their findings are often delayed, limited, or presented in a manner that protects state and political actors from scrutiny. In many cases, inquiries are criticised for their lack of independence, as they are often established by the very government that stands to be implicated in the abuses. This politicisation raises serious concerns about the impartiality of their investigations.
The delay in delivering findings is another significant issue. Commissions of inquiry in India are notorious for dragging on for years, sometimes even decades, before issuing their reports. By the time the findings are released, the momentum for accountability may have dissipated, leaving victims without justice. These delays also contribute to a broader strategy of denial, allowing the state to avoid taking immediate responsibility for the violence and its aftermath.
Denial and blame-shifting: Strategies to protect the powerful
In many instances, commissions of inquiry in India serve to protect powerful actors from accountability. This is done through various mechanisms, including denial and blame-shifting. For example, in the case of the Manipur violence, the government has already framed the conflict as an “ethnic” one rather than a “communal” one. By categorising the violence in this way, the state downplays the political, economic, and religious dimensions of the conflict, which would otherwise implicate the state’s failure to prevent and manage the violence.
Blame-shifting is another common tactic. By attributing the violence to deeply entrenched ethnic or communal rivalries, the government absolves itself of responsibility for failing to protect its citizens. This narrative not only shifts the focus away from the actions (or inaction) of state officials but also creates a false dichotomy that pits communities against each other rather than addressing the structural factors—such as political manipulation or economic marginalisation—that may have contributed to the violence.
In the case of the Gujarat riots, for example, the commission of inquiry failed to hold key political figures accountable for their role in inciting the violence, despite ample evidence. Similarly, in Manipur, early signs indicate that the commission may follow a similar path, focusing on ethnic tensions while ignoring the role of state actors in failing to prevent the violence.
Commissions of inquiry vs truth commissions
One of the key differences between commissions of inquiry and truth commissions lies in their focus. Truth commissions, as seen in South Africa and other post-conflict societies, are designed to provide a more comprehensive, victim-centred account of past violence. They are tasked not only with uncovering the truth but also with offering reparations, memorialising the victims, and providing guarantees of non-repetition. In contrast, commissions of inquiry in India are often more narrowly focused on establishing the facts of an event, usually without the broader mandate of ensuring justice and reconciliation for the victims.
Moreover, while truth commissions are often seen as part of a society’s healing process, India’s commissions of inquiry have rarely played this role. Their primary purpose has been to manage public outrage in the immediate aftermath of violence, rather than to foster long-term reconciliation. As a result, they often fail to address the root causes of communal violence or to offer meaningful reparations to victims.
Moving forward: Rethinking accountability in India
The establishment of commissions of inquiry remains a common response to communal violence in India, but their limitations as transitional justice mechanisms are becoming increasingly clear. If India is to address the deep-seated causes of communal violence and ensure justice for victims, it may need to rethink its approach to accountability. This could involve the adoption of more transparent, victim-centred mechanisms, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, which focus not only on establishing the facts but also on healing and reconciliation.
In the case of the Manipur violence, while the commission of inquiry may uncover some truths, it is unlikely to provide the comprehensive justice that victims deserve. Early indications suggest that the inquiry will be limited by the same issues of delay, denial, and politicisation that have plagued past commissions. Without significant reforms, commissions of inquiry will continue to serve as tools for deflecting accountability rather than as genuine mechanisms for justice.
Conclusion
India’s commissions of inquiry, while ostensibly established to address human rights abuses, often serve to obscure the truth and avoid accountability. They play a dual role, contributing to transitional justice on paper but failing to deliver meaningful outcomes in practice. To move beyond this impasse, India may need to consider alternative models of accountability that place the rights of victims at the centre and hold powerful actors genuinely accountable for their actions. Only then can India hope to achieve true justice and reconciliation in the aftermath of communal violence.
Renée Jeffery is a Professor of International Relations and Australian Research Council Future Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University.
This article is a synopsis of the journal article “Commissions of inquiry and transitional justice in India: accountability, acknowledgment, and truth in the aftermath of communal violence” published in Contemporary Politics written by Renée Jeffery and Shivangi Seth.