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

Modi:Mitta::Courier of the Dead

Last seen there were 58 dead bodies and some injured persons in Godhra by 9 a.m. on 27 February 2002; one of the injured would die later. They had been headed to Ahmedabad. Four of the dead got claimed by their relatives in the course of the day. The Government decided to have the remaining 54 bodies shifted to Ahmedabad.

It is well known, that the decision to do so was taken at a meeting chaired by Mr. Modi in Godhra. Mr. Mitta confirms that Mr. Modi has said so himself to the SIT headed by R K Raghavan.

The other option would have been to keep the bodies in Godhra until their families could be located and ferried in to claim possession per prescribed procedure, presumably after filling the paperwork in triplicate and establishing their bona fides!

The latter option is the one Mr. Mitta says Mr. Modi should have opted for. This is getting interesting. Maybe we will get a discussion on how that might have changed the course of events and how it would have helped cool tempers all round before they got to a boiling point.

No such luck. A whole chapter is instead devoted to the hapless Justice Nanavati commission's failure to pin the blame for the decision to shift on Mr. Modi.

How is Nanavati's failure relevant any longer, Mr. Mitta, after Raghavan's SIT asked Mr. Modi the question and got the answer?

Then there is the VHP functionary, Jaydeep Patel, to whom the dead bodies were released. Mr. Mitta can not understand how, from among the hordes of people he met that day, Mr. Modi does not recall meeting this all important person. Whom he has acknowledged knowing. And who was also present in the same building! Same building, dammit!!

How is this meeting so important, Mr. Mitta? They could well have conspired on the phone! Or through an intermediary! Or through a note written in vanishing ink! Or through a wink and a nod!

Mr. Mitta does not like the fact that the bodies were handed over to the VHP.  Or that a low level factotum of the government signed the release letter. Was it to misdirect attention away from the 'highest levels' that approved the transfer? Much verbiage is expended on the letter. However, in what way this letter being drafted or typed or signed differently would have influenced history remains a mystery.

Why was the VHP involved? VHP was not responsible for the dead or the injured, Mr. Mitta tells us. The fact that the kar sevaks were VHP volunteers is not relevant. That VHP was best positioned to identify and locate their families is besides the point. They should have waited for the families in Godhra, as per the bureaucratic procedure.

Mr. Mitta demands an explanation for this departure from the norm. What were the exceptional circumstances, he wants to know, that warranted it?

Mr. Mitta deserves an answer.

Next: The Post-Godhra Mayhem
Previously: Modi:Mitta::The Godhra Incident
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact &amp:Fiction