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
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
