The question turned telling on May 5 during the Congress General Secretary’s interaction with media in New Delhi. Political observers had, much earlier, guessed his hidden hand in the party’s refusal to play ball with the S.P. leadership which was expecting a seat-sharing deal in U.P.
While responding to the pointed question by the newshounds, the young Gandhi was forthright, to-the-point, honest and somewhat different. Equivocation, hypocrisy and double-dealing was conspicuous by absence. He praised Mr. Chandrababu Naidu whose contribution to his State has now been almost forgotten. He also touched the raw nerve of the Left. Many feel, after the poll results, the Congress would be a different party.
However the basic point agitating the mind of the Muslim leadership is: would he, like his late-lamented grandmother and father as well as his mother, also like to pursue the soft-Hindutva line? This sailing in two boats blunts the edge of the Congress and secularism and, in ultimate analysis, transforms the Congress into the B-team of the Saffron conglomerate.
In the meantime the Muslims of Gujarat are asking: Is justice now in the sight of the 2002 riot–victims? Even the chronic pessimists now feel Mr. Narendra Modi is approaching his Waterloo. But the cynics point out it is, in fact, the Waterloo that is approaching the alleged brain behind the mayhem. Anyway, nemesis is knocking at the door of Mr. Modi, nay saffron as a whole.
GLIMPSE OF HOPE
Thanks to the Apex Court that now, after about seven years, the riot-widows, the riot-orphans and the riot-displaced have seen a glimpse of hope. Otherwise, the alleged accused, his callous protectors in the then NDA dispensation in the National Capital, as well as the insensate fence-sitters in the secular UPA, that later on took charge of New Delhi, tried their level best to let the culprit go scot-free.
The Hindu (May 4) noted editorially: “Thanks to the partisanship and even involvement of the State administration and its officials during the horrific anti–Muslim violence – and the refusal of the BJP-led government at the Centre to intervene on the side of the Constitution and humanity – the Apex Court became the sole refuge of the victims.”
Hats off to the Supreme Court, the highest palladium of justice which has, to the utter discomfiture of the Saffron, once again, saved the face of plural Bharat. One really does not know how many incarnations – as their philosophy goes – are needed for them to see the ground realities of a heterogeneous set-up!
The Asian Age (May 3) noted with pain: “Seven years on justice seemed nowhere on the horizon for those who had suffered. More frightening, the perpetrators of the post-Godhra communal violence, that still raises shudders, were on the loose. Supreme Court decision to set up a special investigation team headed by R. K. Raghavan, a former CBI director with resounding credentials to visit Gujarat massacre cases gathering dust over the years was the opening salvo in upholding the majesty of the law, which had been trampled upon with disdain on Narendra Modi’s watch. This could happen because police officers looked over their shoulders and tried to gauge the mood of their political masters. They weren’t registering cases, making arrests, filing meaningful charge sheets. Public prosecutors were plainly not doing their duty on behalf of the state and were allowing easy exit to the defence side. It was as if the monster was walking the earth.”
Since Independence in 1947, the various off-shoots of the Saffron have challenged the rule of law. The Gujarat genocide was just one of them. What they in their misconceived exuberance forget, and have forgotten, is their image, their credibility and their future. Neither any individual nor any nation puts its future in the hands of the suspects. The actions and the strategies of the various saffron forces do not ensure their bright future. Are apologists for Mussolini or Hitler or Stalin available anywhere on the surface of the globe?
RULE OF LAW
In April, first the Supreme Court of India ordered probe against Mr. Modi for allegedly being “architect of a criminal conspiracy to subvert the constitutional governance and the rule of law.” The Apex Court levelled identical charges against 15 MLAs and 47 others, who were “answerable for the utter collapse of the constitutional governance.
Some leaders of the BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal were also ordered to be probed. Almost all the collectors and SPs of the riot-affected areas were put under lens.
FAST TRACK COURTS
Then, on April 27, the Supreme Court ordered setting up of fast track courts for the day-to-day hearing of the pre- and post-Godhra tragedies. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been permitted to file additional charge sheets. The SIT will take the final calls on issues like the protection of witnesses and selection of the prosecutors. Although the court did not accept the plea to shift the trial out of Gujarat, it made it clear that it was not closing the option. As rightly pointed out by the Times of India (may4) editorially: “Many people, especially the victims, fear that justice is hard to obtain in the riot cases if they are tried in Gujarat. Trials of two cases – Best Bakery and Bilkis Bano – were shifted out of Gujarat because of such fears. The apex court has assumed, and rightly, that the solution to ensuring a fair trail is not to shift cases elsewhere – thereby seriously damaging the credibility of the judicial system in the States – but to institute check and balance at every stage of the legal process to ensure there is no subversion of justice.”
DIRECT REPORT
The Bench comprising Mr. Arajit Pasayat, Mr. Sathasivam and Mr. Aftab Alam said: “If required some witnesses could be given security by paramilitary forces, and if the threat to their life was grave, they could be relocated to other states, under and arrangement to be worked out by the Centre. The court also addressed the issue of competence of prosecutors – a prerequisite for free and fair trail – stating that experienced lawyers familiar with the conduct of criminal trials alone would be appointed as PPs in consultation with the chairman of SIT. The SIT would, note it, report direct to the Supreme Court.
The only point now to be honestly pondered over by the collective Saffron leadership is: Is their image commendable in the eyes of the highest palladium of justice? Is it with this image in backdrop that they aspire to rule over the heterogeneous, plural, multicultural Bharat?
BASIC QUESTION
Leaving the question to be answered by the concerned at leisure, the lesson of the story is: the truth does not die with the closure of a file. Now popular expectations, particularly those of the Muslim minority are quite high.
Simultaneously, the younger generation of our bureaucracy has to be clear about some basic questions. Their ultimate loyalty has to be towards the all–powerful Chief Minister or the Constitution of India?