Modi:Mitta::Opportunity wasted?

Were investigations into Godhra and post-Godhra events shoddy? It seems they were. Were they tardy? Obviously. Were they malafide? Maybe. Did people try to influence and subvert them? Probably.

I am sure Mr. Manoj Mitta's book is well received among people who were waiting to hear exactly what he has to say because it reinforces what they already knew and supplements what they suspected.

He does go on for some 250 pages implying criminality where scores of highly motivated people, whom he admires and who helped him, failed to establish any. He pooh poohs the few successes of the legal and investigative system. By resorting to unfettered exaggeration and malicious implication throughout his work he has lost a golden opportunity to present a credible critique of the events, the people and the processes for a neutral reader.

We expected something more than what the news media, the gossip mills and the "I was there" brigade had already given us. We end up a bit wiser but also less trusting of people who presume to investigate on our behalf. The meat of what he has to say occupies the equivalent of some 50 pages. If there is some earthshaking revelation, it is lost in all the padding.

About a thousand people died. Some three-fourths of them Muslims. Not a small number of them Hindus. The man who accuses everyone of religious bigotry does not find any time for the Hindus. Selective empathy is patently fake.

About the burning train at Godhra, he is surprised that the VHP has never been brought to book for instigating the killings.

We are fed bilge like:
"On the eve of the post-Godhra violence, the Modi regime had colluded with the very group that allegedly went on to unleash mass killings of Muslims..."

and,
"The confidential note bristled with investigative leads as it turned out to be a bare account of all the allegations made before the NHRC...". This along with "substantive recommendations".... "constituted the first ever indictment of the Narendra Modi regime by a statutory body!!!"

and,
a report by Raju Ramachandran, amicus curiae, "Neither the CM nor his personal officials have stated what he did on 28.02.2002. Neither the top police nor bureaucrats have spoken about any decisive action by the CM".
quickly becomes in Mr. Mitta's recital: 
"incisive observation that he had not taken any decisive action".

and, back to the amazing Bhatt, 
"Ramachandran pointed out the absence of any 'indisputable material' establishing that Bhatt could not have been present at the controversial meeting" at which presumably Mr. Modi indicated that the maurauding mobs could be given a free hand.

Tell you what Mr. Mitta, there is also no "indisputable material" establishing that Superman could not have been present at the meeting.

I end with a word to another endorser, historian Ramachandra Guha: Sir, you have developed a reputation as a responsible historian. Be careful what you endorse and make sure it is not used to promote something altogether different.

Notes: 
For those who have not read the book, I would like to add that stuff within quotes is verbatim from the book. Stuff attributed to the book without quotes is a faithful summary rendition.

This commentary is, by definition, not comprehensive. It is a look at a book, not a book on a book. But the rest of the book is in the same vein.

Of course, my comments and queries are my own and I have no religious or political leanings.

If you are interested in the subject do read the book. I did.

Previously: Modi:Mitta::Kodnani:Convicted
Starting post-  Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Kodnani Convicted

To be fair, for all his dislike of Raghavan, Mr. Mitta does acknowledge that Raghavan managed to get convictions in the Godhra as well as the post-Godhra cases. He also admits that Raghavan made many negative or critical observations against not just the Gujarat government but also against Mr. Modi.

In fact everyone against whom the SIT found evidence that could stand in a court of law was convicted. Now one of those convicted in the post-Godhra cases was Maya Kodnani, a Minister in Mr. Modi's cabinet. A key player and inciter in the post-Godhra mayhem. The highest level hindutva brigadist to be convicted.

But Mr. Mitta is unhappy about something here. You see, Kodnani was placed in and around trouble spots partly based on her cellphone call records. Many pages are devoted to the cellphone call records that appeared and disappeared through the years. Investigators are castigated, rightly, for not promptly analysing them and losing sight of them for long stretches of time. Presumably wilfully; at the instance of the sinister ones.

We learn in great detail about who zipped which file and carried what CD to whom and not finding them there brought it back only to...etc.

Turns out that that particular number did not belong to her. It belonged to the BJP. And there is no record of who in BJP was allocated the number.

Mr. Mitta is surprised that no one thought of verifying that she was indeed the user by simply looking at her letterhead or visiting card or even by asking her friends and foes how they contacted her. He does not tell us, however, how come he did not do so in the course of hunting out thousands of leads and documents and meeting hundreds of people. Just to satisfy himself. And us.

Most of Mr. Mitta's angst, however,  derives from the fact that with unlimited leads staring them in the face, all the government investigators and all the Supreme investigators and all the amicus curiae and all the human rights saviours and all the private lawyers and the private investigators did not even manage to get everyone else charged much less convicted of any crime.

One can feel his frustration for he has unearthed all the lapses in investigative zeal, competence and  motivation as also successful machinations and manipulations of the perpetrators and their protectors that have brought things to this dreadful pass.

Next: Modi:Mitta::Opportunity wasted?
Previously: Modi:Mitta::Investigator Indicted
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Investigator Indicted

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

Modi:Mitta::Post-Godhra Mayhem

The broad facts about what followed the Godhra burnings are fairly well known. The news spread like the proverbial wild fire. The VHP, whose volunteers were the victims, went into overdrive. It escorted the bodies to Ahmedabad with official consent. It declared a bandh.

The government, on its part declared a curfew in Godhra but not in other cities. Some 300 or so preventive arrests were made in the light of mounting tensions, about two-thirds Hindus and one-third Muslims.

However, there were big-time systemic failures which allowed the post-Godhra mayhem to start and then to go out of control. Over a thousand people died, Mr. Mitta confirms. About three-fourths of them Muslims. All this accompanied by rape, child burning, looting and destruction of properties in what some have called a pogrom or even ethnic cleansing.

While it is happening, the rest of the country watches from afar as if in a foreign country. No emergency intervention from the centre. The number of people, including "people like us" who think what is happening is "not all that bad a thing" is frightening.

The BJP at the centre does not cover itself in glory. Prime Minister Vajpayee makes some appropriate sounds but is seemingly helpless.

The general, and abiding, impression one carries is that the authorities - whether governing, or maintaining law and order or, subsequently, investigating or maybe even judging - were neither quite unbiased nor very competent.

A commission of enquiry headed by a Gujarat High Court judge set up by the Gujarat government is generally seen as a friendly puppet. Subsequent augmentation with a retired Supreme Court judge to head it does not enhance its credibility because the gentleman selected is considered quite pliable too and not very competent to boot. This commission is still ambling along and has submitted a report on the Godhra incident. Its report on the post-Godhra happenings is still awaited. As I write this, it has been granted another extension.

The years between 2002 and 2008 were marked by a lot of media noise; breast-beating about the barbaric ways of the VHP, the BJP and Mr. Modi in particular; witnesses deposing and recanting; claims and counter-claims of evidence tampering, witness coaching and whistle-blower propping; global denouncements of Mr. Modi; and some legal action but very little tangible result.

Finally sometime in 2008, the Supreme Court constituted a special investigation team, SIT, headed by R K Raghavan a retired cop and former CBI chief to sort fact from fiction.

Hey wait a minute, R K Raghavan? How could the SC pick this man? Isn't he the guy who was mandated to protect Rajiv Gandhi in Sriperumbudur and totally failed? Call yourselves Supreme?
How could you?

Next- Modi:Mitta::Investigator Indicted
Previously- Modi:Mitta::Courier of the Dead
First- Modi:Mitta::Fact &amp:Fiction