I started this series with a comment about linguistic over-reach of some journalists. Mr. Mitta is no simple over-reacher. He has a very reader friendly writing style. But he plays fast and loose with the language, including legal terms, to suits his narrative predisposition.
He starts out by burnishing his "club of the righteous" badge by letting us know that he was helped by Anupam Gupta to make his book "sharper and more rigorous"; said Gupta being an advocate who was in Ashok Khemka's corner as he "...had dared to thwart property deals of ...Robert Vadra".
Really? Thwarted? Thwart has specific meanings: stop, prevent, oppose successfully! Far from being thwarted Mr. Vadra happily enjoys the just fruits of his labours. Mr. Mitta knows the meaning well for he, correctly, uses the exact same word to describe how Vajpayee wanted to act against Mr. Modi but was thwarted by his colleagues. But this is a minor matter. As is his liberal use of "telling" and "tell-tale" to add gravitas to speculative statements and flights of fancy.
Where Mr. Mitta really goes to town is with his cavalier use of the words "indict" and "indicted". In legal parlance indictment means "formal accusation" which must be brought before a judicial authority or, in the United States, before a grand jury, and charges framed or dropped.
Mr. Mitta has a visceral dislike of R K Raghavan, the SIT chief. It is on display all through the book. Raghavan, an Inspector General, was "barely into his last decade in office" when he was "entrusted with the task of ensuring security" during Rajiv Gandhi's visit to Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, in 1991 where he was assassinated. Remarkable observation. Really Mr. Mitta, how many years do you need to be into your last decade at work before being given an important task?
An "inquiry" into security lapses that fateful day becomes an "indictment" of Raghavan which merits a whole chapter. Since there is no actual indictment it is variously described as a "diluted indictment" and an "apparent indictment"; but not as a "non-existent indictment" for that is what the twenty-seven page chapter reveals. There was no indictment. But only, mind you, because the "damaging contents" of Raghavan's "own affidavit" were "glossed over" by SC Justice J S Verma who headed that inquiry commission.
And what, we ask, is the damaging revelation of said affidavit which escaped both the affiant, Raghavan and the inquisitor, Justice Verma? The former because he is an idiot and does not know he is incriminating himself. The latter because he obviously can't read. Well, Mr. Mitta can. He does and goes on to tell us the contents of the hitherto buried document.
Shorn of innuendo and suggestive twists to innocuous facts, it turns out Raghavan is guilty of three major sins. One, he did not escort the PM himself: inexcusable. Two, he looked away at the exact moment that the blast occurred: obviously securing a VIP is no different from surveilling a crime suspect. Three, his subordinate who saw what happened, told him what happened and he believed her: this is ridiculous, how can you trust your subordinates?
As a result, everything he reported as having been told become his "claims", his "insinuations" and his "allegations". The observant lady SI's veracity, however, does not seem to have been questioned by anyone, including Mr. Mitta.
But hey, just because the rest of the world has rigorous standards for usage of legal terms does not mean that Mr. Mitta should be so constrained! So Raghavan forever stands indicted.
However, Mr. Mitta confirms honestly that this manufactured indictment, was triggered by Raghavan citing him for "strategising with" and helping draft the affidavit of the miracle man Sanjeev Bhatt who could recall things he had not witnessed.
Coming up: Modi:Mitta::Kodnani Convicted
Previously: Modi:Mitta::The Post-Godhra Mayhem
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction
He starts out by burnishing his "club of the righteous" badge by letting us know that he was helped by Anupam Gupta to make his book "sharper and more rigorous"; said Gupta being an advocate who was in Ashok Khemka's corner as he "...had dared to thwart property deals of ...Robert Vadra".
Really? Thwarted? Thwart has specific meanings: stop, prevent, oppose successfully! Far from being thwarted Mr. Vadra happily enjoys the just fruits of his labours. Mr. Mitta knows the meaning well for he, correctly, uses the exact same word to describe how Vajpayee wanted to act against Mr. Modi but was thwarted by his colleagues. But this is a minor matter. As is his liberal use of "telling" and "tell-tale" to add gravitas to speculative statements and flights of fancy.
Where Mr. Mitta really goes to town is with his cavalier use of the words "indict" and "indicted". In legal parlance indictment means "formal accusation" which must be brought before a judicial authority or, in the United States, before a grand jury, and charges framed or dropped.
Mr. Mitta has a visceral dislike of R K Raghavan, the SIT chief. It is on display all through the book. Raghavan, an Inspector General, was "barely into his last decade in office" when he was "entrusted with the task of ensuring security" during Rajiv Gandhi's visit to Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, in 1991 where he was assassinated. Remarkable observation. Really Mr. Mitta, how many years do you need to be into your last decade at work before being given an important task?
An "inquiry" into security lapses that fateful day becomes an "indictment" of Raghavan which merits a whole chapter. Since there is no actual indictment it is variously described as a "diluted indictment" and an "apparent indictment"; but not as a "non-existent indictment" for that is what the twenty-seven page chapter reveals. There was no indictment. But only, mind you, because the "damaging contents" of Raghavan's "own affidavit" were "glossed over" by SC Justice J S Verma who headed that inquiry commission.
And what, we ask, is the damaging revelation of said affidavit which escaped both the affiant, Raghavan and the inquisitor, Justice Verma? The former because he is an idiot and does not know he is incriminating himself. The latter because he obviously can't read. Well, Mr. Mitta can. He does and goes on to tell us the contents of the hitherto buried document.
Shorn of innuendo and suggestive twists to innocuous facts, it turns out Raghavan is guilty of three major sins. One, he did not escort the PM himself: inexcusable. Two, he looked away at the exact moment that the blast occurred: obviously securing a VIP is no different from surveilling a crime suspect. Three, his subordinate who saw what happened, told him what happened and he believed her: this is ridiculous, how can you trust your subordinates?
As a result, everything he reported as having been told become his "claims", his "insinuations" and his "allegations". The observant lady SI's veracity, however, does not seem to have been questioned by anyone, including Mr. Mitta.
But hey, just because the rest of the world has rigorous standards for usage of legal terms does not mean that Mr. Mitta should be so constrained! So Raghavan forever stands indicted.
However, Mr. Mitta confirms honestly that this manufactured indictment, was triggered by Raghavan citing him for "strategising with" and helping draft the affidavit of the miracle man Sanjeev Bhatt who could recall things he had not witnessed.
Coming up: Modi:Mitta::Kodnani Convicted
Previously: Modi:Mitta::The Post-Godhra Mayhem
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction
Vey well put Anil. It is interesting how some 'journalists' would use verbal gymnastics to blow their own trumpets without any shred of evidence to support them
ReplyDeleteI have wondered how Raghavan has managed to wipe his record clean. Second, his SIT report on the case against Modi and gang was based on partial facts and the inquiry did not take into account many other facts. His almost blind worship of Mr Modi during and on his election shows clearly his bias. The SC just referred his report back to the lower Court and did noit exonerate MOdi as is claimed. The case is yet to be heard. The amicus curae for the Shorabuddin case has already been disqualified by MOdi to be a SC judge though nominated by the Collegium. We can espect more such instances with Mr Modi in power.
ReplyDelete