E/CN.4/2002/73 page 20 Inde 77. Nombre de situations ont été exposées dans les trois communications du Rapporteur spécial résumées aux paragraphes 39 à 42 du document de l’Assemblée générale. Huit d’entre elles ont fait l’objet d’une réponse du Gouvernement indien; ces réponses sont reprises ci-dessous. 78. Relativement à l’occupation le 26 novembre 2000 de l’Église évangélique d’Inde à Chhindia, district de Surat, Gujarat, à laquelle auraient procédé des militants hindous des partis Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) et Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (par. 39), l’Inde a répondu: “The dispute in this case started over the ownership and use of land belonging to one Mr. Puniyabhai of Chhindia village of Surat district. It may be added that Mr. Puniyabhai was a Tribal who converted to Christianity a few years ago but chose to reconvert to Hinduism a few months ago. After re-embracing Hinduism, he did not allow the use of his personal property by the Church authorities, i.e., the Evangelical Church of India. The Evangelical Church of India invited Bishop Ezra Sargunam, who happens to be the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Minorities Commission and also the Head of the Evangelical Church of India, to Chhindia. The Bishop camped in Chhindia village, Surat district and also went on a fast. This was given wide coverage by the Press. The actions of the Bishop created some communal disharmony. Due to certain developments which took place in Gujarat, the Bishop was advised by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 6 December 2000 to return to Chennai. However, the Bishop was adamant and even after the request made by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, he remained in Ahmedabad and continued with his provocative acts. His statements given to the press were published on 12 December 2000. Through his press statements the Bishop alleged, among other things, government sponsored vandalization of a prayer house of the Christians. Mr. Puniyabbhai filed a civil suit in the local court. The court prohibited the Bishop from entering the Vyara subdivision without the permission of the court. The matter is pending a decision by the court. Thereafter, the Bishop returned to his home state, i.e., Tamil Nadu (Chennai), on 14 December 2000. At present there is no communal disharmony or law and order problem in that particular region. The state government has no role to play in this individual property dispute and its use. Thus, it would be seen that this is a case of land dispute and not, as alleged, a case of religious intolerance and communal disharmony.” 79. S’agissant de l’attaque qu’auraient perpétrée le 26 novembre 2000 des extrémistes hindous contre le couvent Sainte-Marie dans le district de Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (par. 39), la réponse suivante a été formulée: “This incident took place in Hardwar district and not in Meerut district. The assailants decamped with Rs. 1,300 and other valuables. Their motive was to commit robbery. In this connection, a case was registered (26 November) at police station Jwalapur (crime No. 434/2000 under section 392 of IPC). The case is still under investigation. It would seem that it is a simple case of robbery by some unidentified persons and is not a case of atrocities on Christians by any extremist Hindu fundamentalist group.”