We witnessed, a few weeks ago, how the media launched a
broadside against the Congress and two leaders, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar,
based upon leaked reports from "sources" in the CBI and a flung shoe. The
situation was built into an expression of the ire of the Sikh community, the
candidacy of the two gentlemen was withdrawn by the Congress and top guns of the
media community got them and others to time and again apologise on air.
I am not trying here to defend these two gentlemen for what they
may or may not have done nor am I trying to judge the treatment meted out to
them. The events of 1984, as the targeting of any specific religious or ethnic
group anywhere in the world, is a matter for grave condemnation, reproach and
indeed the sustained search for redressal and justice. And it is truly
unfortunate that successive governments and dispensations of the CBI seem to
have failed to convincingly press for justice in this case.
However, I would contend that this search for justice must
remain within the realms of a judicial system that our, and indeed any other
nation, chooses to set up. It must not be based upon speculation and perceptions
rife in the media or the supposed "public space". My point here is to bring to
your attention the very different standards that are being used to judge the
Supreme Court’s queries into the actions of the Narendra Modi government of
Gujarat in the events of 2002.
Why is it that while Tytler and Kumar are pronounced guilty and
termed recipients of a "clean chit" thanks to the largesse of the present
central government, Mr Modi continues to be hailed as the most
development-oriented chief minister around despite the fact that the highest
court in our country deems it fit to include his name for investigation into
these dastardly events? Is this the model of development that we must extol and
cherish so highly, where a state high court may be judged unsuitable by the
Supreme Court to impart fair judgement?
Why, when interviewing Mr Modi, is a poignant silence allowed to
reign as he digs in his heels and refuses to answer questions about the riots of
2002? The footage of the man who must lead us in the future (if we believe the
BJP propaganda, endorsements of India Inc and that of some media houses too),
folding his hands, sulking and refusing to answer questions like a chastised
little boy, was truly unflattering.
I am by no means an expert on the law; however, even to a lay
person it should be evident that the fact that the Supreme Court of the country
sees merit in relocating the riot cases outside Gujarat, in setting up the
Special Investigation Team as its own impartial investigator for the cases and
now, finally, having it investigate the role of none less than the chief
minister in the events under scrutiny does bring into serious question the
entire administrative machinery of the state and its ability to administer
justice to its citizens, if not further its complicity in the acts of violent
crime.
Must we still uphold the Gujarat government as an epitome of
development when, in addition to being investigated for complicity in communal
violence, the government’s track record on various social and political
indicators such as health, education and land rehabilitation is more than
dubious, as evidenced by the reports from various social commentators and also
analysis of the government’s own published data. Additionally, most of the
financial IOUs signed at Mr Modi’s glorified "Vibrant Gujarat" shindigs too have
scarcely materialised into actual investments on the ground.
It may serve us well to remember that the regime of Hitler was
supported by most of the conservative governments of the West and in fact did
win a popular mandate at the polls too. His reign was marked by significant
architectural development, military growth and advances in the fields of science
and technology and industry at a scale and grandeur far in excess of Mr Modi’s
Gujarat thus far. Would we then grant Hitler the same leniency that we seem to
be bestowing in judging Mr Modi for having supposedly created development and
won an election?
You may call me opinionated or biased but I am unable to bring
myself to support this travesty in the name of the "popular".
If we must address the anguish felt by communities, as a
responsible rational society must, then it must be equally so for all
communities, not just those that may be convenient for us. The disaffection felt
by the Muslim community after repeated attacks upon its faith and, more
importantly, innocent members of its community, must also be addressed and
assuaged at least by public displays of being fair if not more sincere efforts
at finding justice. And certainly not by having the Hindustan Times in
its Delhi edition editorial (on April 28, 2009) claim that this new
investigation, instituted by none other than the apex court after a prima facie
examination, may in fact be an opportunity for Modi to prove his innocence and
rid himself of this "controversy". This raises the question then of why the
‘sources’ seem so silent this time around and why no harrowing interviews of the
‘morally deplorable politician blindly supported by his party’ seem to be
forthcoming with their rather virtuous and moralistic closing lines.