Editorial in The Hindu on Violence by Muslim groups in Bombay

From: The Hindu, August 13, 2012

Editorial

Déjà vu in Mumbai


Saturday’s arson and vandalism during protests by Muslim groups against the ethnic killings in Assam and Myanmar caught the Mumbai police on the wrong foot, and not for the first time. The violence erupted despite advance intelligence reports and the deployment of an 800-strong police force and is a sad commentary on the state of law and order management in the city. Inflammatory speeches by irresponsible Muslim ‘leaders’ goaded the crowds to go on a rampage, burning media OB vans and vehicles, smashing buses and paralysing South Mumbai for a while. The police itself bore the brunt of the mob’s fury. The manner in which the violence unfolded points to pre-planned disruption and even city police commissioner Arup Patnaik, who made an attempt to pacify the crowds, admitted it was a close call. The media too came under fire and had to run for cover with many photographers and TV crew assaulted. While the madness lasted, a sense of insecurity and terror prevailed in the city with protesters taking over local trains and, for a while, the roads in front of Azad Maidan. For a police force that had reasons to fear the rally might end in violence, the failure to deploy and plan adequately was glaring.

That is not to say that political protests — even those built around the emotional pull of religious solidarity — must not be allowed in the city. In the past too, the roads of Mumbai and the sprawling Azad Maidan have been jammed with Muslim groups demonstrating against the Iraq war and earlier over the Supreme Court's Shah Bano judgment. Despite the overwhelming numbers, the protests were peaceful except during the 1989 rally in Bhendi Bazar against Salman Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses, which resulted in nine deaths in police firing. After that, Mumbai witnessed its worst communal carnage in 1992-93 in which hundreds of Muslims lost their lives. In the 20 years after the riots, the city has witnessed many bomb blasts after its first in 1993, the terror strike of 2008 and the serial blasts last year. There is a sense of fear, especially among Muslims, after each bomb blast since they are on the radar of suspicion. The failure of the criminal justice system to punish the instigators and facilitators of the 1992-93 violence also rankles them. This is the emotional terrain that self-styled community leaders and aspiring politicians are quick to cash in on by playing on the insecurities of the Muslim community. Saturday’s violence could well be the result of such mischievous instigation. Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan must now take swift action against these vested interests and prevent the city from turning into a cauldron of hate.

Gujarat: 24 Teachers Accused Of Riots Are Back On Job

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10-years-after-Godhra-communal-violence-Gujarat-still-shielding-government-staff/articleshow/12063601.cms

EVADING ACTION
No lessons learnt
24 Teachers Accused Of Riots Are Back On Job, Finds RTI Query
Radha Sharma | TNN

Ahmedabad: A Right to Information (RTI) application by activist Usman Sheikh in Sabarkantha has revealed that 24 teachers teaching in government primary schools, grant-in-aid high schools and one even in a college were accused of rioting in 2002. Sabarkantha had seen violence in Prantij, Idar, Himmatnagar and other parts. All these teachers were charge-sheeted. Ten had got anticipatory bail while the rest spent time in police and judicial custody. Some cases are pending but all of them are back on the jobs, teaching the children.
Sheikh had sought details from the district police of people working with government and semi-government organizations who were accused of rioting in 2002 and if their departments or seniors were informed when they spent over 48 hours in police custody which forms the basis of suspension. Of the details of 45 people given by the police, 24 were teachers. Four of them teach in primary schools, one is a school principal, one head teacher. Two are retired teachers. The rest are all teachers in high school teaching students of impressionable age.
“Police officials have on record admitted that they did not inform the departments concerned or the senior officials of those charge-sheeted in rioting,” says Sheikh.
When he took the matter forward himself and sent RTI applications to schools whose teachers were charge-sheeted, all of them responded that none of their teachers was involved in post-Godhra communal carnage. “These teachers are teaching innocent minds. Whether they are being consciously protected or their seniors are really ignorant is a matter to be probed,” says Sheikh.
Director of Nyaygruh and eminent activist Harsh Mandar says information of a big number of teachers accused of communal rioting is deeply disturbing. “We have always believed that real battle against communalism will not be fought by police, it will be fought by hearts and mind of ordinary people. But if the minds of the teachers are communally biased, there is a high risk of them poisoning innocent minds in classrooms”.
Mandar said that no action against these teachers who continue to teach amounts to normalization of communal prejudice in classrooms which is more dangerous. “The government needs to take action against such teachers and cleanse the classrooms”, he said.
Nyaygruh state co-ordinator Preeta Jha says that involvement of teachers in rioting underlines communalization of education in Gujarat. It also debunks the myth that uneducated, poor people spontaneously went on a communal rampage to loot and kill. “These people were educated but some also in charge of educating the future of the state”, says Preeta.
Army man accused of rioting
An army man too figures in the list of government personnel accused of rioting. Mahesh alias Mayur Moti Patel of Nana Poshina village in Idar has been accused of being part of 11 people in a mob who set the house of Valibhai Mansuri afire. A case was filed against him in 2002 in which a summary closure was filed. Later, the case was re-opened following the SC directive. He is currently released on bail and villagers say that he is reported to be on duty somewhere in Jammu and Kashmir.

Karnataka: Hindutva groups attack journalist Shahina, K.K.

From: The Hindu
BANGALORE, December 11, 2011

Journalist attacked
Staff Reporter

Hindutva outfit blamed for the incident

Shahina K.K., a journalist from Kerala, who visited the Somwarpet tahsildar's office in Kodagu district on Friday in connection with a case, was allegedly attacked by a Hindutva organisation despite being under police protection.

According to Ms. Shahina, she was inside a van along with over a dozen policemen when activists of the Hindu Jagran Vedike stopped and surrounded the vehicle.

Shouting slogans

“Initially, they only shouted slogans. But, when the police did nothing to disperse them, they started throwing stones at the van,” she said.

Ms. Shahina, who is facing charges of criminal intimidation, interviewed K.K. Yogananda, one of the eye-witnesses in the Bangalore bomb blast case in which People's Democratic Party leader Abdul Nasser Maudany is an accused. After the interview was published, Mr. Yogananda accused Ms. Shahina of criminal intimidation.

She also alleged that the local police in Somwarpet refused to provide any protection earlier. “I had to call a senior police official in Bangalore to get protection,” she said.

Confirming that protection was provided to Ms. Shahina on his insistence, Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID) Mohan Das told presspersons that he could not comment on the attack as he was not at the spot.

Charges

Stating that the police had been treating Ms. Shahina badly ever since they filed the charges, her lawyer B.T. Venkatesh said: “We will lodge a complaint and also make the circle inspector a party in the case.”

The incident happened in Kodagu district
Police accused of inaction

Anyone serious about stopping carnage carnivals that are a familiar feature of the Indian landscape?

Conspicuous weaknesses of the Liberhan report : business of state inaction

Deccan Chronicle, December 2nd, 2009

Liberhan’s weak spot

by P.C. Alexander

It will be highly hazardous to attempt a review of Justice M.S. Liberhan’s report on the demolition of the Babri Masjid (hereafter referred to as the disputed structure) on December 6, 1992, without having had the opportunity of reading it.

I have some experience in assisting political bosses and the best that a former civil servant like me can do is concentrate on what strikes me as the most conspicuous weaknesses of the report.

The picture that emerges from the accounts in the media about the Central government at that time is that it knew what was to be done, namely, the introduction of President’s Rule, but it was helpless and hesitant in taking the decision.
Let us examine how far Justice Liberhan had done justice to the evidence he had before him on this issue. Why was Justice Liberhan inclined to come to the conclusion that the Central government had no option but to continue to press the state government to make full use of the Central forces placed at its disposal, instead of assuming that power for itself and dealing with the situation in Ayodhya? Why was the Central government so reluctant to use the power it had to deal with the emergencies of the type which developed in Uttar Pradesh in 1992?

Let us briefly examine the legal and constitutional position regarding the introduction of President’s Rule in a state. Though maintenance of public order is included in the state list of the Constitution, the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the fact that situations might arise when a state government might be unable to carry on its functions according to the provisions of the Constitution. That is why adequate provisions have been made in the Constitution for the Central government to intervene in situations of emergency so that it never finds itself helpless in such situations.

The Constitution mentions three types of emergencies:

* when the security of the country is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion (Article 352);
* when the financial stability of the country is threatened (Article 360); and
* when there is a failure of the constitutional machinery in a state (Article 356).

There is no ambiguity whatsoever about the fact that the duty to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbance is squarely on the Central government.
Article 356 empowers the President (which means the Central government) to intervene when satisfied that the government of a state is unable to function in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. In such circumstances, the President can assume all or any of the provisions exercised by the governor of the state. Though the framers of the Constitution thought that this provision would be used sparingly, the Centre has resorted to action under this on more than 100 occasions.

The issue which the Central government had to decide, as 1992 drew to a close, was whether the situation in Ayodhya required invocation of the powers under Article 356. Unfortunately, there had been considerable hesitation on the part of the decision-makers within the Central government itself of taking on direct rule of Uttar Pradesh. It is a well-known fact that the Cabinet was sharply divided on this issue.

Some of the administrative steps taken by the Uttar Pradesh government in defiance of the advice given by the Centre in the weeks preceding the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya should have convinced the Centre that without the powers conferred on it under Article 356 it would continue to play an advisory role about preserving public order in the state.

Even without waiting for requests for additional forces, the Central government had been deploying large number of paramilitary forces in the hope that they would be posted at the Ayodhya complex. However, the Central government found itself helpless when the state used such forces in places other than Ayodhya and sent its own state police forces to be on duty in Ayodhya. The state government had also been posting to Ayodhya and its neighbourhood its “trusted officers” in various offices who had the responsibility for maintaining law and order.

The Union home ministry at that time had as its secretary a very competent Indian Administrative Services officer, Mr Madhav Godbole, who had prepared contingency plans of action which could come into force within minutes of approval by the Cabinet for placing the state under President’s Rule. He had been regularly meeting the Prime Minister and a few senior members of the Cabinet to warn them about the grave risks involved in postponing the decision about introduction of President’s Rule. However, the Centre chose to take no action as advised by its own home secretary and waited till the last minute of the proverbial 11th hour to do what it did.

Let me now deal with the state governor’s letters advising against imposition of President’s Rule. Introducing President’s Rule in a state is a matter on which the Constitution has given full powers to the President, i.e. the government in Delhi. The governor’s recommendation is nowhere mentioned as an indispensable condition for such action. Article 356 clearly states that a decision on introduction of President’s Rule can be taken even without a report from the governor. In any case, it is too much to say that the governor of Uttar Pradesh would have been better informed about the developments in the state than the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet. There was very little new that the governor could convey to the Centre on this matter. However, this letter became an excuse for postponing the decision and the Liberhan Commission appears to have justified this policy of “no action under Article 356”. The Centre appeared to have been confident that it could have the cake and eat it and continued the “No action under Article 356” policy till Mr Kalyan Singh himself submitted his resignation.

The so-called helplessness of the Central government was because of its own decision not to assume the powers provided for in the Constitution to deal with such situations. The Liberhan Commission chose to endorse this stand of the Central government in December 1992 and that is why this has to be described as the weakest part of the commission’s report.

* P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra

Inaction against communalists is a bigger cause of concern

Kashmir Times, 25 November 2009

Editorial

Ugly face of communalism
Inaction against communalists is a bigger cause of concern

A report in a national daily has pointed out how the Liberhan Commission probing the Babri mosque demolition has maintained that it was meticulously planned and indicted among other Lal Kishen Advani and even Atal Behari Vajpayee for inciting communal passion. The report has also not spared leaders of Muslim organizations for their irresponsible remarks and for not caring for the welfare of the Indian Muslims. The report has been lying pending with the government for over four months but there has just not been any forward movement on the case even as Babri mosque demolition, that sparked widespread riots throughout the country and caused an unbridgeable divide among the communities of the country, will be an 18 year old mishap next month. It is not simply the case of Babri mosque demolition alone. Anything that has communal overtones is something that successive governments in this country have dragged their feet over. Various courts and panel reports have been marked by either serious flaws or inordinate delays in filing reports on Mumbai riots that followed the blasts, the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 or the Gujarat carnage of 2002. Interestingly, in the Mumbai case, while action was indeed taken against perpetrators of the blasts, the riot hoodlums have been left untouched even as they caused acute panic among people, left many homeless and several killed or tortured. The Sikh victims of 1984 have not got any justice till date and the Gujarat victims continue to linger on in camps in neglect and face constant threat that is also state sponsored. The successive governments have virtually failed to act against irresponsive governments and take that much needed initiative in pursuance of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, it is said. When it comes to victimisation through communal discourses and violence, justice is not the only casualty. Inaction on part of the government legitimises the communal discourse and more significantly, it encourages a vicious cycle of greater tyranny and thus perpetuation of more victimisation at the hands of communalists, whose hands only get strengthened by the inaction. It needs to be recalled that the founders of free India like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had excessively cautioned against the majoritarian communalism being the greatest threat to the nation. The last three decades, with mounting cases of minorities being hounded in various parts of the country, amply demonstrate the perils to the country that Nehru talked about. Yet, the leaders who swear by his name or Mahatama Gandhi's fail to pay any heed.

Any police action on Bal Thackeray's call for Hindu fidayeen ?

The Statesman,
21 June 2008

Editorial

Rule of law

The Shiv Sena and its undisputed boss, Mr Bal Thackeray, may not tire of stirring the communal cauldron ever so often, but public patience is wearing thin. The latest shenanigan ~ calling for a Hindu bomb and Hindu fidayeen ~ fails to amuse in the least. What should ensue is prompt police action. There is enough inflammatory rhetoric in the Saamna editorial to warrant prosecution under a raft of charges, including perhaps waging war against the state, which incitement to terrorism undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, no government in India ~ and no political party or leader, for that matter ~ has the courage to take on such incendiary behaviour when it comes from a powerful person. No doubt, a number of excuses will be trotted out to explain inaction ~ pre-eminent among them will be the totally disingenuous plea that taking action against Mr Thackeray will prompt Shiv Sainiks to unleash mayhem in Maharashtra. That is a poor excuse ~ it amounts to the government virtually abdicating its role of maintaining law and order, one of its principal functions. Nothing, surely, prevents the law-enforcement agencies from resorting to widespread arrests to prevent people from breaking the law. This, of course, will not happen. We have seen in the past the government’s failure to act when a Muslim lawmaker from Uttar Pradesh offered a reward for the beheading of the Danish cartoonist who had supposedly depicted Prophet Muhammad in an insulting manner. Nor did it act when a Hindu organisation announced a similar reward over some imagined insult. Both of these are, to say the least, incitement to murder, punishable, needless to say, under law.
If it were a simple matter of cowardice it would be one thing. But the problem is bigger. No government, party or leader wants to act to uphold the law in cases such as this because they fear something more than a law-and-order situation ~ what they fear is that they will lose votes of hardline elements. Their perspective is so skewed that they do not see that hardliners are a small minority in both communities and that by acting according to its remit no government can fail to attract the support of the majority of right-thinking people.

The silence on Tehelka's exposure of the Gujarat Pogrom

Economic & Political Weekly
December 8, 2007

SILENCES AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONFABULATION AFTER GODHRA

by Amruth M

The silence on Tehelka's exposure of the state machinery's connivance in the anti-Muslim carnage in Gujarat is not as telling as the creation of an atmosphere where such silence is acceptable. And the opposition has let Narendra Modi set the agenda by arguing about development rather than his government's complicity in the post-Godhra murders and rape.

What follow are thoughts on a congealing paradigm of government in Gujarat. These are in resonance with a recent commentary in the EPW that challenged the validity of the "Vibrant Gujarat" electoral campaign by the Narendra Modi regime.1 While it is on grounds of the state's blatant refusal to treat victims of the 2002 carnage as citizens (let alone as internal refugees) that the authors countered the claims of develop- ment in the state, here the focus is on yet another symbol of the state's hegemony. This is posed in the aftermath of the weekly Tehelka bringing out new and tell-tale evidence of state connivance in the post-Godhra carnage and in the context of the ongoing electoral cam- paigns in the state.2 It is the near-total absence of discussions, or as I would prefer to call it, the impossibility of con- fabulation on the issue, that strikes an observer of these campaigns and func- tioning of the mass media in the state.3 Here effort is not to unearth the complex roots of this benumbing scenario, but rather to point out the tendentious nature of this void and its consequences.

Though Gujarat has a record of recurrent riots, the post-Godhra carnage remains distinct due to the unprecedented phenomenon of the connivance of state machinery in the killings.4 Pieces of evidence affirming the state's proactive role in the massacre have been accumulating over the last five years; the Tehelka account is the latest among them. It assumes special significance as it was released less than seven weeks before the first phase of the assembly polls.5

With the polls approaching, the manner in which the public, politicians, media and the regime have (dis)engaged with this disclosure defies simple explanation. The near-total refusal of the media and politicians (including the engineers of the carnage and the political opposition) even to acknowledge its gravity has been glaring. Many justify this as a strategic silence lest the issue potentially polarises votes in favour of the ruling regime. But this deafening silence, laying bare the inability to sustain a discussion on the injustice, is symptomatic of a disturbing pattern in society. For, this silence demonstrates an impossibility of critical public discourse on the topic. And for me, it is this impossibility that defines the problematic for the moment.6

silences, Meanings and Memories

Silence has the potential to assume multi- ple meanings (hence, silences). Here, on the one hand, the refusal to discuss the carnage in the context of the Tehelka ex- posure by the ruling regime clearly implies a shying away from acknowledging its role in the carnage and wrongfulness of the act. On the other, this amounts to hegem- onic valorisation of the violence and thus the creation of a fear factor. The ruling re- gime, instead, wants to project itself as a deliverer of development. It is obvious that the Modi regime is keen on filling the void it created with the claims of development. Thus, development has come to be a boldly written placard to cover its own blood- stained face for the regime.

Pitifully, even the opposition, while acknowledging its inability to sustain the issue of genocide or the criminality of the act as a central issue of campaign, has ended up reacting to the claims of the rul- ing regime and its failure to deliver devel- opment.7 This hesitation in speaking out with that of Modi's refusal to discuss the issue (he walked out of an interview on a national TV channel and has refused to discuss the carnage in interviews)8 and his contrasting eloquence on development and Gujarati provincialism, is not acciden- tal but foundational in the constitution of a particular mode of silence in society. While Modi's taciturnity may be easily interpreted as his losing ground on the issue, the very fact that his opponents were compelled to discuss the agenda set by him (development) proves that the con- verse is true. For the opposition, this amounts to adopting given idioms and figures of speech and, thus, the rules of the game itself.

It is disheartening to note that the situation renders true the fears aired by Tarun Tejpal (Tehelka editor) in his prophetic "Read, and Be Afraid" remarks on the issue, where he observed that soci- ety and politicians are indifferent and hesitant to keeping alive the memory of this injustice, the carnage.9 The current vicissitudes in the larger public morality making discussion an impossibility are a clear indication of the trend. Here, what is signi ficant is not "the silence" that is de- sired by the ruling regime, rather the created context in which the silence is perpetuated among the contesting and contending agencies on a serious issue pertinent to justice. silencing the Media The incidence of blackout of cable televi- sion networks during the broadcast of the Tehelka exposure (following directions by a senior civil servant) on grounds of the programme's conceived potential to create a communal flare-up and a sub- sequent ban on four television channels are instances of silencing the media.10 Jamming the cable network is being justified on the pretext of censoring the sensitive contents of the programme. What is invoked here is the idea of exist- ence of a delicate communal situation that is susceptible to a flare-up even at the slightest of provocations. This act of si- lencing, the silence thus sustained and the near-total failure of resistance are a clear reflection of the state's role in dampening critical discourses.

This, however, is only the tip of the pro- verbial iceberg, where the invisibility of the state's role in engendering these silences has wider implications for society. For instance the unofficial and off-the- record ban effected on the movie Parzania is a telling incident;11 a clear indication of the progressive muting in Gujarat's society. Strategies of silencing have now shifted from the visible to the invisible, record to off-the-record, vocal to silent, pre-empting and defying any attempts to bring it in front of the judiciary. This process is symptomatic and reveals the nature of the power structure and hege- mony that makes vocalising those topics for discussion impossible. How was this hegemony made possible? It is not only through the state police. The saffron cadre too functions as perpetuators of insecurity and threat and who have the ability to hold the minority to ransom. In short, the totalitarian potential of the state is decentralised to a near complete level of saffron foot soldiers. The result is an off- the-record regime of terror. Here is not a case of the state failing but a case of ex- treme consolidation of state machinery for cover-ups and rebuffs - in short, transmutation to an off-the-record para- digm of government where there is no hope for justice. state of exception The Tehelka exposure is said to have "revealed" nothing hitherto unknown to the public.12 The involvement of the state has been a public secret in Gujarat's society. This public secret has deeper implications as this public knowledge has been silenced, making society unforth- coming and hesitant to engage with the matter in discussions. This also constitutes a kind of insecurity - perpetuated through awareness of the state's ability to legiti- mise terror, persecution and yet another carnage and get away with it. All are aware of these capacities of the ruling regime either as witness, prey or predator of the pogrom. In this sense the 2002 carnage, the subsequent act of protecting the accused and trivialisation of the victims was stage-managed to produce a demonstrative effect on not only the spectators but also the predators and prey. This "real drama" turned out to be enormously successful in producing intended results such as production of fear and silence.

Another strategy of manufacturing fear and imposing silence involves perpetuation of a sense of impending insecurity in the state. A sense of existence of such a "state of exception" or "state of possible siege" is enabled by disproportionate pub- licity to the possibility that episodes similar to the 2002 carnage would be repeated by events of (false) encounters with "militants" in the state. We know very well that the declaration of a state of exception is a strategic excuse made by modern states to legitimise freezing of fundamental rights of their subjects by imposing special rules of law.13 Creation of such twilight zones in democracy has come to stay as a paradigm of government in the state.

The claims of development in Gujarat, (in references to Chandhoke et al (2007)), should necessarily invite the question of who are included and who are excluded from the process. Or more precisely one should ask, "development for whom"? For the victims of the carnage and the displaced this development signifies denigration to a second-class citizenry, and worse still, losing citizenship itself. These victims are unqualified by birth for the best manifestations of governance, the national destiny - development. If development here means also social justice and equality, they are ineligible for these too. The state machinery's refusal to provide the victims access to customary services such as power, water, public distribution system, education, healthcare, justice, etc, signifies denial of their rightful citizenry.

We hear of the plights of victims stripped of even the last remnants of legal and political privileges and becoming a legal and political non-entity.14 In other words, these are bare lives dumped along
with the wastes of galloping urban consumption in India's "most prosperous state" where the ruling regime projects itself as the messiah of development.15

They are also bare lives whose extermination the state would not care to stall or lament. It is a paradox which society has already come to terms with. And the silences and silencing function as an effective mechanism to engineer social exclusion once again demonstrates how development as an empty signifier can contain so many contradictory meanings.

controlling grammar

The silence also points to the perpetuation and reinforcement of an existing structure of hegemony that is effected through violence. The basic features of these structures of hegemony are mutual exclusion or segregation and extreme imparity in accessing facilities and amenities among communities. This gradually leads to the production of different contexts of experiences and meanings. By structures, here we refer not only to urban life, work and commercial spaces, public services, and financial institutions but also to discourses such as development, justice, citizenship, and equality. For instance, the spatial segregation of urban living, work and commercial spaces is extreme between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Ahmedabad. And this divide is not limited to the material realm alone, but extends to the symbolic realm as well, i e, there are walls of segregation everywhere dividing the meanings and experiences between communities.

The structures of everyday experience of the communities have become so segregated that a particular kind of normalisation has been taking place. And this segregation is productive of majority and minority subjectivity or a "majority becoming" of the Hindu community and a "minority becoming" of the Muslim community.

This polarisation has, thus, simply enabled production of often diametrically opposite meanings, so much so that it is impossible to hold a shared discourse. This divide cannot be seen separately from the silences we are referring to but these are integral to the divide itself. This particular silence and silencing undercuts preconditions for viable civil society discourses, validity of representational electoral process, and efforts to create a more inclusive society. Instead, here the impossibility of shared experiences becomes an instrument for a vocal mode of social exclusion.

Making the cry Heard

Given these conditions, elements of civil society discourse in existence in Gujarat are but too fragmented and unable to generate a coherent grammar for sustaining counter-discourses.16 This is at the same time cause and consequence, constituting and constitutive, mutually reinforcing of the silence and silencing. So the effort here should be to create a space for viable civil society discourse. The modalities with which such a space can be created would necessarily mean adoption of a variety of strategies from reclaiming of the subsumed biographies, giving voices to erased minority subjecthoods to recre- ating new structures of experiences. Any such effort should also include founding institutions to keep alive those painful memories of the injustice and suppression of voices. And it is time to discuss the modalities with which we should go ahead. For we know adequately that the absence of viable civil society dis- course is one of the preconditions for failing "programmes to improve human conditions"; it is no surprise that such a failure would worsen human conditions under an oppressive regime.17 Because in Gujarat, with suppression of discussion on carnage, now development is going to be the new rhetoric demanding human sacrifice.

Here, one feels terrorised at the pros- pects of this particular assortment of situ- ations - national security and develop- ment forming the hollow buzzwords of the regime, simplification or levelling of society by ignoring its inherent heterogeneity, conception of the social change and deve lopment as an instant mix concoction (for selected sections of society), weak- ening of the civil society institutions,18 and a regime that denies possibilities of polyphony and refuses to engage with the dissenting voices. As James Scott candidly explains to us through cases quoted from histories of modern western nations, here we have all these potencies ready in Gujarat and the warning of Tarun Tejpal looms large - "Be Afraid"!


I am thankful to Viswanathan, Sunny Jose, Amita Shah, Jharana Pathak, Tommasso and Ghanashyam Shah who shared with me their observations on Gujarat and especially to Keshab Das and Sanal Mohan who patiently went through a previous draft and made many suggestions for improvements; however, any shortcomings are entirely mine.

Amruth M (amruth@gidr.ac.in) is a social scientist with the Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad.

Notes

1 Neera Chandhoke, Praveen Priyadarshi, Silky Tyagi and Neha Khanna, 'The Displaced of Ahmedabad', Economic and Political Weekly, October 27, 2007, 10-14.

2 A set of stealth video accounts of vainglories aired by
predators about their role in the 2002 carnage, re-2002 carnage, re-
leased by the Tehelka weekly (on internet see:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=
Ne031107gujrat_sec.asp) and telecasted on Aaj Tak television channel (on October 25).

3 Voters in Gujarat's 182 legislative assembly constitu- encies are to vote on December 11 and 16.

4 Observers of the Gujarat society have pointed this out. Another distinct feature of the 2002 killings was lack of spontaneity and these killings were virtually one-sided, in which the attackers and causalities were almost completely communally segregated so much so that to describe it with any word that would mean "riot" involving two communal groups would be totally misleading.

5 There is widespread disagreement about the appropriateness of the timing of the exposure, but our concern is not the appropriateness of the timing of the exposure but rather to look at its impact/ reception.

6 These observations are based on the author validat- ing his experiences with observations on Gujarat so- ciety by academicians from the state. Besides obser- vations by journalists are also consulted. For instance see Prashant Jha, 'Gujarat as Another Country: The making and Reality of a Fascist Realm', cover story, Himal Southasian, October 2006.

7 Times of India, 'Congress Wary of All-out Attack', October 27, 2007.

8 He walked out of an interview on October 19, 2007 after having been asked questions pertaining to post-Godhra carnage. For more details on the interview please visit the following web page: http://www.hin- duonnet.com/2007/10/22/stories/2007102254891100.htm. It is known that one of the conditions for grant- ing an interview with the chief minster is that no questions on the post-Godhra carnage will be asked.

9 Tarun Tejpal, Tehelka internet edition: http://www. tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107 Tarunspiece.asp

10 The district collector of Ahmedabad, who also holds judicial powers, ordered four TV channels off the air on October 25, 2007. The channels were: CNN-IBN, IBN7, NDTV and Aaj Tak - CNN-IBN.2007. "Govern- ment to meet on news channel blackout in Gujarat. On Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 07:56 in Nation sec- tion CNN-IBN, published on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 07:56 in Nation section.

11 The release of the movie was effectively torpedoed by Hindutwa outfits without there being any official ban against it as different from the case of Fanaa where the state officially banned the movie. See Urvish Kothari, 'Parzania and the Dictator, of Gujarat: Who Was Responsible for the Ban on the Release of Parzania in Gujarat? Apparently Nobody', Himal South Asian, March 2007. For the mechanism of effecting such censorship see Amardeep Singh, 'The Communalisa- tion of Censorship', Himal SouthAsian, August 2007. 12 As early as March 2002, when the post-Godhra killing was still on, political observer and columnist Praful Bidwai had explicitly alleged state collusion in the killings. See article: Praful Bidwai, 'End the Butchery, Sack Modi', Frontline: Volume 19-Issue 06, March 16- 29, 2002. Also see Concerned Citizens Tribunal - Gujarat 2002. Crime against Humanity:
An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat, List of Incidents and Evidence, three vols, published by Anil Dharkar, for Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai. Many reports in the print as well as visual media also explicitly brought out evidences in the same direction.

13 Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, tr Kevin Attell, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2005. In India a variety of constitutional provisions and special laws such as 'Prevention of Terrorism Act' (POTA) has been the latest among the special laws that has been in force with provisions to detain and suspend the fundamental rights in the pretext of pro- tecting of National security.

14 Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, tr Daniel Heller-Roazen, Stanford Univer- sity Press, Stanford, 1998.

15 See the relevant portion Neera Chandhoke et al, 'The Displaced of Ahmedabad', Economic and Political Weekly, October 27, 2007, where the internally dis- placed is shown to be forced to live beside the urban waste dump in Ahmedabad.

16 This is not to ignore the significant role played by a handful of concerned groups, individuals and NGOs. But for their efforts many a victim could not have accessed the judicial system, and society outside Gujarat would not have known the carnage. But here it is to state their state-crafted structural constraints in reaching to a wider public.

17 James C Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve Human Condition Have Failed, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998. 18 For instance see Express News Service, 'Sibal: Modi to be Booked If Cong Comes to Power', The Indian Express, posted online: Friday, November 02, 2007. which accuses that the "...post of Lokayukta is lying vacant since 2003; the Deputy Speaker has not been appointed since 2002; the State Human Rights Com- mission is headed by a Chairman but no members have been appointed".

Gujarati society have their own reasons for keeping quiet after the TEHELKA exposé

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 4, Issue 47, Dated Dec 08 , 2007
CURRENT AFFAIRS
essay

A Criminal Silence Speaking

Different sections of Gujarati society have their own reasons for keeping quiet after the TEHELKA exposé, says GHANSHYAM SHAH
Illustration: Sudeep Chaudhuri

TEHELKA’S OPERATION KALANK exposes the depressing socio-political situation in today’s Gujarat. Among other things the sting revealed the confessions of fanatic mass-murderers and rapists of their barbaric actions, the clear partisanship of the state and the questionable integrity of the judges who are supposed to carry out an impartial investigation of the 2002 carnage. The culprits do not have any sense of guilt about their actions. In fact they shared their information with pride. They are confident that they were safe under the present regime and that no one would touch them.

Such chilling revelations ought to have generated outrage among those who believe in civilisation, the rule of law and the common good. Alas, instead what we see is silence in the civil society in Gujarat. It is as if nothing had happened. There is no anger or anguish, particularly among those who write and talk day in and day out about morality and social values. This is indeed painful but not surprising for anyone who has observed Gujarat’s civil society in the last two decades. In fact, the line between the state and civil society has been blurred here because of economic development, the Hindu hegemony and the subjugation of the minorities. Civil society carries deep-rooted prejudices against Muslims, which they have imbibed in the course of their socialisation in family, neighbourhood and education.

To earn approval, popular writers, teachers and religious gurus reproduce their perception about the “others” not only uncritically but also with imaginative additions. Spicy anecdotes are blended to appear scholarly in their ‘creative’ literature, newspaper columns, public speeches and private conversations.To be fair to them, most of them do not subscribe to the Hindutva ideology and the moral policing by the VHP and Bajrang Dal. They did not endorse the inhuman violence against minorities in the post-Godhra rampage. But they do not feel a need to interrogate these ideas or events, nor do they feel a need to join public protests against the fanatic forces they do not support. Considering themselves nonpolitical, they refrain from taking a stand on public issues including political ideology, the functioning of the state or public violence.

They are largely guided by the Gujarati idiom “Mare shu? Maru Shu?” (Why should I bother? What would I get from this?). Such an attitude is euphemistically called pragmatism. Their cynicism is pervasive. At the same time they do not hesitate to agree with Narendra Modi that as per Newton’s law every action has a reaction, thus justifying the post Godhra massacre. “For the first time Hindus, who have otherwise been meek and mild have shown courage,” they say. Such conclusions have been reiterated after every riot since 1969. They adore Modi for his firmness, his Machiavellian statecraft and for promoting economic development. They believe that “his future is like the rising sun.”

There are of course a few individuals in mainstream Gujarati society who had, at various points in the past, publicly criticised the 2002 massacre. They also conceded Modi’s partisan role in the carnage. But, for them, neither the mass violence nor the abdication of Raj Dharma by the chief minister were compelling enough to take a stand against Modi. They, therefore, do not hesitate to shower praise on Modi for his leadership and support him in the forthcoming polls.

A tiny segment of civil society, which has always stood for secular politics and has vehemently criticised the post-Godhra carnage, has slowly expanded. Quite a few individuals who had maintained silence in 2002, are gradually raising their voices in public against the reduction of autonomy of universities and institutions such as the Sahitya Akademi and the Sangit, Nrutya and Natak (music, dance and drama) Akademi. They also joined protests against the rowdy elements who (with the tacit support of the state) prevented the release of the film Parzania and also harassed artists of MS University, Baroda. They also extended support to the programmes of some NGOs which are involved in the rehabilitation of the 2002 victims.

The TEHELKA exposé made them angry at the State as well as the Hindutva brigade both of which have become increasingly intrusive in the running of academic institutions in Gujarat. Operation Kalank has provided new ammunition to those civil society organisations which have been actively fighting for justice for the victims of the 2002 riots. Though the facts revealed by the sting were not unknown to them, their disgust at the Hindutva forces has magnified. They immediately felt a need for raising a collective voice of protest against Modi’s fascism. They called upon all the right-thinking people of Gujarat to break their silence and register their protest against the brutal and barbarous acts of Hindutva lunatics. They emphasised, “What is at stake is not merely the survival of constitutional values and the rule of law but the survival of civilisation itself in this country.”

On November 1, more than 250 concerned citizens in Ahmedabad staged a public protest.The TEHELKA exposé is not just a moral crusade for justice. It has a political dimension in the context of Gujarat’s present situation. I do not attribute motives other than highly professional ones to TEHELKA for their investigation. Nor do I subscribe to any conspiracy theory. The evidence is, no doubt, very valuable for a legal battle. But its potential for provoking a public outcry and political action remains limited.

Given the state of politics and civil society, the timing of the exposé is also significant. We are at the eve of elections in Gujarat. For most secular organisations and individuals the defeat of the BJP in general, and Modi in particular, is crucial in their long battle for the restoration of rule of law and justice in society. Therefore, some of them have expressed their strong objection to others’ demands for invoking President’s rule in Gujarat. They fear that such an act would help Modi in the election campaign. Some of them even felt that Modi must have been behind the sting operation as the footage of the sting operation told Hindus that only Modi protects them. Therefore, they are wary of taking up the revelations of the exposé as grist for the anti-Modi campaign.

Even active pro-Hindutva elements of civil society were stunned after viewing Operation Kalank. They were initially at a loss to react to the admissions BJP party members and Sangh Parivar activists had made in front of the camera. But then they decided their strategy would be to use Operation Kalank in their favour without ever publicly commenting on the evidence. I have subsequently learnt from certain sources that when Operation Kalank came to light, BJP workers prepared themselves to bring the issue of Hindutva to the centrestage again. They were, predictably, very keen to take the issue to the streets, if Muslims were to react the way they had after the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.

According to them, TEHELKA’s sting operation has turned Narendra Modi-the-hero to Narendra Modithe- superhero. One of the active pro-Hindutva columnists commented that the post-exposé situation has “proven Congressmen and BJP rebels to be pygmies… It (the sting) should be taken as a fortunate event that has given a new lease of life to the Hindutva wave that had been receding. Hindus has been becoming careless. The operation has again united all Hindus.” Though such observations may be taken as wishful thinking and propaganda on the part of Hindutva brigade, the fact remains that after the exposé, the VHP and the RSS have become mild in their opposition to Modi’s role in the coming elections.

Shah is a social scientist from Ahmedabad

WRITER’S E-MAIL
gshah18@hotmail.com

Tehelka: why is Congress silent?

Dawn
November 10, 2007


Tehelka: why is Congress silent?

by Prof Ram Puniyani


TEHELKA'S sting operation, codenamed Kalank, has brought into open the truth about Godhra and Gujarat violence. This investigation further confirms the truth as revealed in the earlier findings. Most of the probes undertaken by several human rights activists had also come to the same conclusion: the state leadership and RSS had joined together to unleash the pogrom against Muslims, to burn their properties and destroy their dargahs, etc. What is new in this documentary is that one could see live the perpetrators of the crime gloating over their shameful acts, from opening the womb of Kausar Bano to hacking to death of Ahsan Jaffri!

In a civilised society, this is enough for a drastic action. In India, this was enough for the central government to dismiss the Modi government and to register cases against those who are seen confessing in front of the camera. But, it is ironic to note, that the top leadership of the Congress has chosen to be indifferent to it as if some minor incident was being reported by Tehelka. Only Laloo Parshad Yadav has been vocal and has demanded the arrest of Modi for being responsible for this mass murder.

The response of the BJP was more revealing. While its top leadership kept quiet, its spokespersons opted to doubt the very motives of Tehelka behind the sting, its timing, the powers behind the expose and all that. In fact, the main burden of the crime, committed by the BJP supporters, was dodged, bypassed and defended indirectly.

It is amazing to note how low a section of society in India could stoop while pursuing the games of power. Now, that even the gloating of the killers is being accepted and defended, the rule of law seems to have given way to communal fascism �� the real label for the politics of Hindutva. And it is a mockery of the lofty values of Hinduism, as represented by eminent figures like Kabir and Gandhi.

That the BJP has identified its politics with Hindu religion is the worst abuse of rich Hindu traditions and exploitation of religious emotions. The RSS-Modi combine has deliberately associated their social agenda with the word Hindu so that they can get away with their crimes under the cloak of faith. Their goal is to polarise Indian society along religious lines, do away with the concept of human rights, and pave the way for suppression of the rights of weaker sections like dalits, adivasis, women and workers, while demonising and attacking the minorities, Muslims and Christians in particular.

Why is the Congress silent? Is it the fear of losing Hindu votes? Should we keep judging the events of such tragic proportions in terms of electoral gains? Does the human tragedy, violation of law, trampling of human rights, the plight of minorities not matter to us in the first place? Communal forces have caused religious divides in society.

We must realise how the leaders of India�s freedom movement in the early years would have thought and done in a situation like this. Had they behaved the way Congress leaders are now doing? Imagine Mahatma Gandhi seeing the tapes and keeping quiet for the fear that he may lose his undisputed social status of bapu. Imagine Jawaharlal Nehru looking the other way around when Babu Bajrangi is proudly describing his crimes? Imagine him exonerating Modi for giving three days to the RSS goons to unleash horrible mayhem in Gujarat? It is obvious that erosion of secular values in India has taken place at various levels. The communalisation of mind, the institutionalisation of bias against minorities, relegation of minorities to second class citizenship has gone on through various mechanisms. Pandit Nehru's warning to Congress that the communal elements have entered its ranks and were posing a threat to the values which Congress should uphold seems to have fallen on deaf ears. That seems to be the reason why the Congress coalition elected twice in Maharashtra, on the promise that it will implement Shri Krishna Commission�s recommendations, has shamelessly kept the report in cold storage.

The issue is not just a defence of minorities. It is the overall system of democracy and its accompanying values. The growing erosion of rule of law in the state machinery, affecting all its wings is what has to be addressed urgently. The misuse of religious identity for political purpose by the RSS and its affiliates needs to be resisted. The argument that minorities should forget the past and get on with life is too simplistic. Can there be peace without justice?

When a section of minorities starts saying that they no longer want to look back at the past, it does not mean that they have overcome the grief and sense of injustice. It only means that they are surrendering to the politics of the dominant sections, having come to realise that they cannot live in India as equal citizens. The test of democracy is that even the tiniest minority can live there with as much dignity and honour as any one else.

While the leadership in Maharashtra is too 'shrewd' and has been avoiding the implementation of the Shri Krishna report despite the promises, the likes of Modi will try to distract the whole issue and consolidate their vote bank by instilling a sense of fear amongst the majority community.

Time has come for India to face the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent, irrespective of religion and caste. In Gujarat state, if the state government has failed to prosecute the guilty, it is a breach of the oath taken by the political leadership and it has to be dealt with as violation of constitutional obligations by the state government.

The state officials who were aiding, abetting and participating in the crime must be treated as criminals. The judiciary and the central government must devise a mechanism so that the rule of law is brought back in Gujarat.

The writer is General Secretary, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai and a recipient of Indira Gandhi award for national integration.

Public individuals and corporations in India should be ashamed of their silence

Tehelka Magazine, Vol 4, Issue 44,
Dated Nov 17, 2007

Will The Nation Stand Up?

Public individuals and corporations in India should be ashamed of their silence

KUNAL BASU
Writer

IN 1985, UNRULY students at Columbia University, Cornell and Syracuse set up shantytowns on their campuses that resembled poor black settlements in South Africa, and demanded their university divest funds from companies that did business with the apartheid regime. Companies like Pepsi, General Motors, Nestlé, Citibank, Mobil, and Union Carbide. Within a month, the campus fire had raged like an inferno through America: ordinary citizens, faith leaders and unions echoed the divestment cry. It was the single biggest push, Desmond Tutu said later, that was needed to topple the white regime. More than 100 companies were forced by their shareholders and customers to leave, and the capital flight was estimated to be around $10 billion. Apartheid South Africa and Gujarat — the similarities are striking. Both purveyors of surging economies, both rotten to the core: proud owners of brute power based on false logic (White Supremacy and Hindutva), and machineries that work best when there are people to kill and murderers to hide. Both with a middle class that was in perpetual denial, politicians who danced the polka at election time, and a few conscientious objectors. There is a key difference, of course. South Africa had the ANC; a Mandela is yet to be born in the land of the Mahatma.

The Sensex is shameless. In the very week that we heard Bajrangi boast about the womb murder on TEHELKA tapes, it climbed to an obscene 20,000 points. Actually, it tells a poignant tale: we are no longer a civilisation, just an economy, an ‘emerging economy’ as experts would have us believe. Year after year in Oxford where I teach, I meet the emerging citizens — those that make their parents proud by earning foreign degrees, and none among them would dream of building a shantytown that resembled the burnt hovels of Naroda Patiya. Give them a hint, and they’d rattle off the names of the top ten Indian billionaires; few would’ve heard of Teesta Setalvad — the pride of a victory on the cricket pitch far exceed the pride at justice delivered.
Illustration:Anand Naorem

Just as the companies were forced to leave South Africa, kicking and screaming against their will, it’s time to hold them culpable for their presence in Gujarat — both Indian and foreign firms. What does Ratan Tata have to say about the first genocide on Indian soil? Why has Mukesh Ambani, the richest man in the world, displayed such poverty of words? Where have all the ‘leaders’ of corporate India vanished when we are at a crossroads? How much business risk is involved in uttering disgust at inhumanity? If the example of the divestment movement is any measure, it’s the grassroots that have to lead, to take the fight from Parliament Street to Dalal Street.

Forget the likes of Tatas and Ambanis, the sound of silence has been deafening. What about those whose names linger forever on the lips of both the victims and the perpetrators? Why hasn’t Amitabh Bachchan spoken up? Why hasn’t Lata Mangeshkar? Why has the Master Blaster chosen not to unzip his kits? If they aren’t a part of Civil Society, then to which society do they belong? Shah Rukh Khan might be ‘too handsome to be in politics,’ is he too handsome too to lash out against those who regret killing just a few hundred and not a thousand innocents?

It isn’t unusual for mega stars to make major noise about injustice Marlon Brando boycotted the Oscars in 1972, and sent a Native American woman in his place to denounce the genocide of indigenous peoples. The winner of the best actor award for The Godfather showed he was a true Shahenshah when push came to shove. Not counting the likes of Dylan and Baez — products of rebellion themselves — successful artists have time and again walked on fire and paid the price. Chaplin had to leave Hollywood because he fought McCarthy; Nadine Gordimer, Pedro Almodóvar, Garcia Marquez, Arundhati Roy, have all erred on the right side of the cost-benefit equation of protest.

THERE’S NOTHING more shameful than to be impartial at the time of cholera. Remember Tommie Smith and John Carlos? In 1968 in Mexico City when the Star-Spangled Banner was playing, they raised their black-gloved fists from the medal stand to salute a martyred Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, and were crowned not simply the fastest men in the world, but as icons of their age. While it’s heart-warming to hear that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has denounced the demons of Gujarat, we are still waiting for quite a few big guns to fire. It’s time for a Sen-Naipaul treatise to be hand-delivered to Raisina Hill; for the ‘Coffee’ and ‘Rendezvous’ shows to invite the real heroes of our society — the likes of Ashish Khetan; having done the patriotism bit, for AR Rehman to now set Inqilab Zindabad to tune.

But why do we need the stars? First, as the much flaunted ‘glue’ to our national identity in post-colonial times, they themselves should be concerned if there’s risk of that glue wearing off. Also, there is no denying the shock, and (hopefully) dawn of good sense if Tendulkar, Bachchan, Mangeshkar, Ambani and others were to write an open letter to their fellow citizens saying they were pained by the suffering of innocent people. In the absence of a god, maybe the demigods could do some good. It could tilt the balance a wee bit away from pure demagoguery. Yes, they’d have to bear some risk: burning of movie halls where their films are screened, a sudden wave of booing from the crowd, a drop in share price, irate demonstrations before their homes — the kind of things that Aamir Khan had to endure following his public stand on the Narmada dam. But then, why shouldn’t they take the risk? Why shouldn’t they put their mouths where their money comes from — from the wretched of India? Why should all the risk be borne by a young journalist, recently married and with a young child? Why should the sword hang on him when a slip wouldn’t merit more than a few lines in the papers?

As in a bomb blast, it’s the aftermath which is crucial — what’s lost, what can be and should be recovered, what precautions, and how soon justice. And so the TEHELKA probe should unleash forces that have hitherto lain dormant. It must pit collective goodwill against the masters of subterfuge. It’s important to keep plugging for public protests, divestments, judicial probes — fighting silence with shock. It’s vital to go over the top. The alternatives might be closer than we think — Satyagraha or civil war.

Naked and unashamed: The horror of 2002 continues in Gujarat

(The Tribune, 11 November 2007)

Naked and unashamed: The horror of 2002 continues in Gujarat

by B. G. Verghese

Bob Dylan was right. There are so many times, everywhere, when men turn their heads, pretending they just do not see. But there is no escape from the truth, for the answer is indeed “blowing in the wind”. And so it is in Gujarat where Tehelka has in a chilling exposure reconfirmed the gory, gloating details of the 2002 pogrom in the first person singular.

BJP critics have cried foul, castigating the sting as entrapment. This it was not, as no money or allurements were offered. Tehelka’s Ashish Khetan won the confidence of the BJP, the VHP, Bajrangi and RSS actors by pretending to be an acolyte eager to learn and record the heroic deeds of the faithful. The ploy worked.

The conspirators found catharsis in boasting of their exploits, their raw emotions uncorked for the first time in five years in what they thought was the safety of time and the subversion of truth and justice by their mentors in the party and the state.

The BJP-VHP allegation of a dark media-Congress conspiracy to overthrow Narendra Modi's government was unsustainable and soon discarded in favour of the “democratic” argument that Modi had been re-elected with a thumping majority after 2002 and that the electorate would no doubt once again give a fitting answer to Tehelka’s latest sting this coming December. The argument is perverse. The Gujarat pogrom involves grave issues of criminal justice whereas general elections mandate political choice. None can commit murder and claim criminal exoneration if elected.

Some have argued that the Tehelka revelations should not be pursued as this will reopen old wounds and revive communal tensions. This suggests that anybody able to evade justice should gain immunity on the plea that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. This is specious reasoning.

Still others have argued the case for imposing President's rule in Gujarat or at least launching proceedings against functionaries who stand self-condemned. That a Commission of Inquiry is sitting is irrelevant. It is no more than a fact-finding body and has no trial or penal powers whereas those caught on the Tehelka tapes have indicted themselves criminally and confessed on camera.

Why President’s rule today if it was not imposed in 2002? No action was taken in 2002 because the Centre was not just supine but complicit, with the then Home Minister, L.K. Advani showering testimonials of good governance and law and order management on Modi. Every canon of administrative duty, the rule of law and common humanity were systematically flouted, with not a word of regret or restraint from the government. Prime Minister Vajpayee lamented the loss of Raj Dharma but backed down abjectly when the RSS intervened. Modi conducted a Gurav Yatra, trumpeting hate, and won an electoral victory.

Modi spoke to the people of Gujarat over Prasar Bharati on February 28, 2002. He said, “Gujarat shall not tolerate any such (Sabarmati Express) incident. The culprits will get full punishment for their sins. Not only this, we shall set an example that nobody, not even in his dreams, thinks of committing such a heinous crime like this…” And later, “If raising issues of justice or injustice adds fuel to the fire, we will have to observe restraint and invoke peace”. In effect, he promised to teach the Muslims (who for him were the culprits) a terrible lesson, telling them that “peace” demanded their craven submission.

That was the motto the administration adopted. In the interests of “peace”, FIRs were watered down and, rendered vague where specific, if registered at all. Parivar loyalists were appointed state prosecutors. Lawyers and witnesses were intimidated. Relief camps were discouraged. The economic boycott of Muslims was tolerated. Compensation was denied, delayed or minimised. Innocents were picked up on random charges while named criminals were granted bail. Indeed, the situation was so bad that the NHRC and the Supreme Court were compelled to take adverse notice.

The UPA took office after Modi's re-election but could hardly intervene at that stage. Meanwhile, the derailment of justice and suborning of witnesses continued and the state has admitted to continuing extra-judicial killings during 2003-05, instances of which are before the Supreme Court. It is in this context of Modi's unremitting “peace” process that the Tehelka tapes must be seen.

The horror of 2002 continues in 2007. This unprecedented and unremitting breakdown of the constitutional machinery surely merits President's rule. Elections should appropriately follow a clean up.

Sadly, the Congress, like other political parties, has lost moral authority having tolerated all manner of disgraceful conduct in other states even by its allies. There is also a strange electoral calculus that trumps constitutionalism, good governance and decision making at every turn. The Liberhan Commission on the Babri demolition has been granted its 42nd extension since 1992!

There is an inexplicable fear of elections on the part of the so-called democratic parties and leaders for whom power for pelf and grandstanding means more than principle or purpose. Never has politics in India fallen so low. We are all naked but unashamed. Beware, it is later than we think.

Time of speak up after the Tehelka sting

(outlookindia.com - Web only feature
November 7, 2007)

Time To Speak Up

The response that the Tehelka sting has evoked from some among us is both shameful and dangerous. I have read Chandan Mitra and I am constrained to say that I am happy not to have ever known or met him. ......


by Mahesh Peri


Being the publisher of a large magazine is a blessing as well as a curse. You are in an enviable position to be a social change agent. However, you are supposed to treat all other media -- including good journalism -- as competition and treat them with suspicion.

Post the Tehelka sting, planned and executed at Tehelka's offices and later aired on Aaj Tak and Headlines Today as a joint operation, many media-watchers have asked me a very common but sinister question: "Why now? Don't you think it is motivated?" Every questioner was looking at an answer that wanted me to ignore the content and focus on the motives behind the operation. And motives, we know, can always be insinuated, even imputed.

I have known Tarun and Aniruddha Bahal (now operating CobraPost, which has aired many exposes on many other channels), the founders of Tehelka, for long. As their publisher when they were at Outlook, I used to be both excited and fearful of their exploits, but never saw any reason to doubt their motives. At Outlook, we believe in following a story and putting it in the public domain, without bothering about the after-effects. Even at the cost of sounding immodest, I implicitly assume that the people groomed at Outlook continue to follow the same philosophy. And, even if I hadn't ever known Tarun or Tehelka, I would still go with the contents of the sting and not look at excuses to rubbish the operation.

And lastly, if they have tried to recover some of their costs by selling it to any television channel, and that too a channel as big as Aaj Tak, I don't have a problem. Tehelka is a commercial enterprise whose survival depends as much on making their work viable as on credible journalism. And let's remember the power of television which is important in reaching a larger number of people.

However, the response that the sting has evoked from some among us is both shameful and dangerous. And when it comes from leaders -- the so-called intellectuals and especially editors who are supposed to mould public opinion -- it is despicable. I have read Chandan Mitra and I am constrained to say that I am happy not to have ever known or met him. I think I am freer than him because I can see, hear and process everything that is said on camera not through the prism of my own magazine, organisation or people.

Mr Mitra wants you to investigate Godhra and the 1984 riots before the current operation is taken at face value. Just because the infamous Delhi schoolteacher sting was a contrived operation, he would have you rubbish this sting as well. He wants you to justify the timing of the operation before the contents are accepted at face value.

It just doesn't end there. Elected representatives and public officials seem to be excused on the grounds of being 'braggarts' (and no, I will not say anything about his research at Oxford University) -- 'small-time, small town politicians who are known to exaggerate their importance given half a chance'. He seems more bothered about the money that Aaj Tak paid Tehelka and the money made by mobile phone operators than the contents of the sting operation.

Both the BJP and the Congress are spreading the word about the sting operation having been done at the other party's behest. No one wants to take the issue further; it is vote bank politics at the worst. Even a statesman that our prime minister is supposed to be has not uttered a single word condemning the contents of the expose.

Under the Press and Registration of Books Act (which regulates the publishing industry in India), as a publisher you are responsible for everything that is printed in your publication. At the same time, following the basic tenets of editorial freedom, I get to know about all the stories published in Outlook along with millions of our readers. And no matter what the laws say, that is how it ought to be and I am proud to be working in such an environment.

Being a publisher with tens of cases filed by Raja Bhayyas and Narendra Modis, I have become immune to cases filed by certain kinds of people, especially politicians. So perhaps I should not be too concerned by their reactions to the Tehelka expose. But when I see people becoming immune to tragedy, death and human suffering, I think it is time for the average Indian to speak out.

Have we as a country fallen to such a state that murders, rapes, wrenching the foetus out of a pregnant woman, hacking a person bit by bit and then burning him alive have all become part of 'bragging'? If this is the country that Mr Mitra thinks he represents as a parliamentarian, then our leaders have failed us in creating a civil society and on that charge alone, they must be driven away.

Have we fallen to such a state that every political party in this country -- the stung included -- would benefit out of a systematic dehumanising of our collective conscience? Can't we as a country prevent people from benefiting out of mass rapes and murders? Do we need to see even the most despicable things that happen around us through a prism of caste, creed, religion, political parties, competition, business, sex, region, and so on?

The political compulsions are such that the stung party that should be ashamed seems smug and even jubilant whereas the opposition Congress, that should have been creating a hue and cry, looks visibly shaken and most unhappy. A day after the contents were aired, we had a union minister belonging to the Congress claiming it to be a Bharatiya Janata Party operation to 'encash the sentiments of the people through an overexposed Godhra episode'.

Tehelka Investigation on Gujarat riots evoke no response from Govt or courts

'Media failing in duty to uphold the truth'

by Pamela Raghunath, Correspondent
Gulf News, November 09, 2007

Mumbai: The groundbreaking investigation of the Gujarat riots of 2002 by Tehelka, an English weekly newspaper, should have by now evoked some kind of response from the prime minister or the home minister or, still, piqued the media's interest.

"What is sad is that even the courts have not taken cognizance of the tapes on which we have mass murderers talking on camera for the first time," says Harinder Baweja, Editor, News and Investigation, Tehelka.

"There was one MLA who boasted that he had a factory to make bombs and had even succeeded in putting together a rocket launcher. Such terrible disclosures have been made and yet nothing has happened. At one level, we should hang our heads in shame, but Tehelka will carry on its work."

Baweja was speaking at a discussion on "The Media And Quest For Truth, The Tehelka Gujarat Expose" organised by Communalism Combat, a magazine published by Sabrang Communications.

Since Tehelka's tapes are first-hand accounts from the men who plotted and orchestrated the killings in Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Sabarkantha, they no longer remained Tehelka's property alone, she said.

"The press and media have to get out of their crazy television rating points game and ensure they stay in the business of seeking out the truth in the public interest," she said.

"If Tehelka can do it, so can other newspapers or television channels."

It is not just financial corruption that has to be tracked down but the media must bear in mind that "our politicians can do anything to subvert the process of justice", she said seeking to remind her audience why mass crimes had gone unpunished in the first place.

Kumar Ketkar, Editor of the Marathi daily Loksatta said that secular-minded journalists, though in the minority, would have to assert themselves.

Former Gujarat Additional Director General of Police R.B. Sreekumar, who had faced discrimination for criticising Chief Minister Narendra Modi's government for its handling of the Gujarat riots, recalled how he had been shunned by his fellow officers at the time.
More from ......