Narendra Modi and the SIT
There was something that offended human sensibilities in the reports about Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi being interrogated by the SIT. One aspect that was offensive was the fact that it happened so late. The anti-Muslim pogrom was carried out in Gujarat in February-March 2002. And the investigations are still under way in February-March, 2010! Contrast this with the attack on Mumbai on November 26, 2008. The trial is over and the Honourable judge has set May 3, 2010 for pronouncing the judgment.
Lest it be misunderstood, I must make it clear that I am not quarrelling over the speedy trial in the Mumbai attack case. But then, I must also point out here that May 3, 2010 will not be the last day insofar as the Mumbai attack case is concerned. Ajmal Kasab will not give up his right to appeal and the due process of law will take its course. Well. The media, as it did with Kasab’s case in the trial court, will follow up the process in the next stages too and keep the nation’s interest and the ``national interest'' alive in that case.
This is where we find the jarring note of insensitivity in the case involving Modi. The SIT summons to Modi was reported in only a section of the media. And Modi had the temerity to deny that he had been summoned and that was also reported in the media including in the papers where the story of the summons was reported earlier. For some strange reason, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of The Hindu (that reported that Modi has been summoned) did not threaten to sue Modi when the Gujarat Chief Minister said that the story of the summons was an instance of imagination. The fact is that Modi was summoned by the SIT and hence he went to depose.
Now, it remains to be seen as to what happened during the interrogation at the SIT’s chambers on March 25, 2010. Unlike in the case of Kasab, where the details of the interrogation and the several confession statements by Kasab were transmitted through the nation day after day, nothing is known about the interrogation of Modi. I must add here that I have substantial reasons to believe that the SIT led by super-cop V.R.Raghavan did not resort to any physical or other means that the police are known to use while interrogating Modi.
Such images of interrogation by the police that we are used to see in cinema are indeed reflective of the truth. But then, the other simple truth is that torture during interrogation is meant only to ordinary people accused of petty crimes. Only in cinema does the good policeman (the hero) extract the truth from big time political leaders by resorting to such acts as laying the accused on an ice-slab or making him set on a revolving chair or beat him up and then record the confession on a video cassette. None of these happen to our political leaders in real life.
Let me clarify here that such methods must not be used against anyone. And it must not be used against Modi too. But then there is no denial of the fact that Modi is as much responsible for the torturous means that the Gujarat police had resorted to in the context of the accused in the Godhra train burning case. And it is the same obnoxious system that celebrated the murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Kausarbi by personnel from the Gujarat Armed Police. The then DIG, D.G.Vanzara was one of Modi’s favourites and the Chief Minister went on record defending Vanzara.
The simple point behind recalling all these is that there is very little that the SIT could have achieved by way of interrogating Modi. And there is very little that the SIT can do to Modi. All this is not to say that Modi must not have been summoned by the SIT or that Modi must be spared of all this and allowed to do what he likes. The tragedy is that our political system, for all the democratic façade, allowed Modi to conduct an anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat and did nothing about it.
His role in the violence was known to anyone and everyone. Some of those who believed that the Muslims did not deserve justice celebrated Modi and some who believed that Muslims were also human beings and deserved all the rights that fellow citizens from the majority community enjoyed hated Modi. But then, there is also a large section of the people who did not belong to either of the two sides and they do not care about what Modi did as long as Gujarat showed an upward stride in the graph showing industrial development.
The problem lies here. And the problem lies in the way in which the political establishment has dealt with leaders who have allowed and even carried out organised violence against religious or other minorities. Gujarat witnessed anti-muslim violence in 1969 when Indira Gandhi’s Congress ruled the State. Anti-Muslim violence rocked Meerut, Malliana, Bhiwandi, Bombay and Bhagalpur on many times since 1969 and 1989 and in 1992-93. Delhi and other towns witnessed anti-Sikh violence in 1984. And Modi’s guilt is as much as that of those who ruled when such violence happened over the years.
The sense of cynicism that marks my response to Modi’s interrogation by the SIT derives out of this short history and inherent or structural weakness of our administrative and judicial system when it comes to delivering justice. The powerful politician, whether in power or out, will manage to escape the noose come what may. And that is what makes me say that that there was something that offended human sensibilities in the reports about Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi being interrogated by the SIT.
There was something that offended human sensibilities in the reports about Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi being interrogated by the SIT. One aspect that was offensive was the fact that it happened so late. The anti-Muslim pogrom was carried out in Gujarat in February-March 2002. And the investigations are still under way in February-March, 2010! Contrast this with the attack on Mumbai on November 26, 2008. The trial is over and the Honourable judge has set May 3, 2010 for pronouncing the judgment.
Lest it be misunderstood, I must make it clear that I am not quarrelling over the speedy trial in the Mumbai attack case. But then, I must also point out here that May 3, 2010 will not be the last day insofar as the Mumbai attack case is concerned. Ajmal Kasab will not give up his right to appeal and the due process of law will take its course. Well. The media, as it did with Kasab’s case in the trial court, will follow up the process in the next stages too and keep the nation’s interest and the ``national interest'' alive in that case.
This is where we find the jarring note of insensitivity in the case involving Modi. The SIT summons to Modi was reported in only a section of the media. And Modi had the temerity to deny that he had been summoned and that was also reported in the media including in the papers where the story of the summons was reported earlier. For some strange reason, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of The Hindu (that reported that Modi has been summoned) did not threaten to sue Modi when the Gujarat Chief Minister said that the story of the summons was an instance of imagination. The fact is that Modi was summoned by the SIT and hence he went to depose.
Now, it remains to be seen as to what happened during the interrogation at the SIT’s chambers on March 25, 2010. Unlike in the case of Kasab, where the details of the interrogation and the several confession statements by Kasab were transmitted through the nation day after day, nothing is known about the interrogation of Modi. I must add here that I have substantial reasons to believe that the SIT led by super-cop V.R.Raghavan did not resort to any physical or other means that the police are known to use while interrogating Modi.
Such images of interrogation by the police that we are used to see in cinema are indeed reflective of the truth. But then, the other simple truth is that torture during interrogation is meant only to ordinary people accused of petty crimes. Only in cinema does the good policeman (the hero) extract the truth from big time political leaders by resorting to such acts as laying the accused on an ice-slab or making him set on a revolving chair or beat him up and then record the confession on a video cassette. None of these happen to our political leaders in real life.
Let me clarify here that such methods must not be used against anyone. And it must not be used against Modi too. But then there is no denial of the fact that Modi is as much responsible for the torturous means that the Gujarat police had resorted to in the context of the accused in the Godhra train burning case. And it is the same obnoxious system that celebrated the murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Kausarbi by personnel from the Gujarat Armed Police. The then DIG, D.G.Vanzara was one of Modi’s favourites and the Chief Minister went on record defending Vanzara.
The simple point behind recalling all these is that there is very little that the SIT could have achieved by way of interrogating Modi. And there is very little that the SIT can do to Modi. All this is not to say that Modi must not have been summoned by the SIT or that Modi must be spared of all this and allowed to do what he likes. The tragedy is that our political system, for all the democratic façade, allowed Modi to conduct an anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat and did nothing about it.
His role in the violence was known to anyone and everyone. Some of those who believed that the Muslims did not deserve justice celebrated Modi and some who believed that Muslims were also human beings and deserved all the rights that fellow citizens from the majority community enjoyed hated Modi. But then, there is also a large section of the people who did not belong to either of the two sides and they do not care about what Modi did as long as Gujarat showed an upward stride in the graph showing industrial development.
The problem lies here. And the problem lies in the way in which the political establishment has dealt with leaders who have allowed and even carried out organised violence against religious or other minorities. Gujarat witnessed anti-muslim violence in 1969 when Indira Gandhi’s Congress ruled the State. Anti-Muslim violence rocked Meerut, Malliana, Bhiwandi, Bombay and Bhagalpur on many times since 1969 and 1989 and in 1992-93. Delhi and other towns witnessed anti-Sikh violence in 1984. And Modi’s guilt is as much as that of those who ruled when such violence happened over the years.
The sense of cynicism that marks my response to Modi’s interrogation by the SIT derives out of this short history and inherent or structural weakness of our administrative and judicial system when it comes to delivering justice. The powerful politician, whether in power or out, will manage to escape the noose come what may. And that is what makes me say that that there was something that offended human sensibilities in the reports about Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi being interrogated by the SIT.
posted by Krishna Ananth at
10:52 AM
1 Comments:
As somebody from Gujarat, I totaly agree with you sir. What is most appalling is the indifference of the community as a whole. Leave apart the ones who idolize Modi, the real perpetrators of crime and injustice is the section of the Gujarati community that talks about the ongoing growth and development in the state to compensate the mass murder of humanity.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home