I cannot figure out why actor Amitabh Bachchan and the top industrialists are bent upon giving credibility to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi when the Supreme Court of India is doing its best for the exposure of his misdeeds. He is said to have planned and executed the killing of more than 2,000 Muslims in his state in 2002, some eight years ago.
Only last week did the Supreme Court order the reopening of the case of false encounter in which Shahabuddin and his wife were killed. The Supreme Court has been so horrified over the intentional closure of riot cases by the state machinery that it has constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the cases of ethnic cleansing which Modi's plotters had covered up.
When Modi knows that the state's involvement is an open secret, why does he not cooperate with the SIT and give the information sought? The SIT had to seek the Supreme Court's intervention to get even a copy of his speech made soon after the carnage. His lawyer's plea that the speech is not relevant to the investigation is a hindrance to the process of probe.
The text of the speech is required because Zakia Jafri has complained that her husband Ahsan Jafri, a former Congress MP, was killed by a mob in the Gulbarg Society. Her allegation is that the communal riot was allowed to go on in the state with the chief minister, cabinet ministers, police and the bureaucracy abdicating their constitutional duty to protect the life of citizens irrespective of their caste and religion.
That Modi is doing everything to block the probe or to prove that the business is as usual is understandable. But why should those who enjoy clean reputation associate themselves with him? I am at a loss to understand why Amitabh undertook the journey to Ahmedabad to call on Modi. The apparent reason of the actor's visit was to screen his movie, Paa, for the chief minister. There must be something more than what meets the eye.
Amitabh's visit gave credibility to a person whose hands are tainted with blood. Modi is shunned by the liberals and human right activists because he wears communalism on his sleeves. Amitabh is not so naïve that he does not know the crimes committed by Modi and the furore his doings have created not only in India but also around the world. Amitabh's own credentials on secularism are not in doubt. But when he meets Modi for the sake of a film, if that is all, the actor spoils his good name and he will have to live down with that image for the rest of his life. He has tried to condone the murders committed by the Gujarat state led by Modi and Amitabh should realize it.
I must admit that Amitabh's visit came at a time when I had not regained my composure after the concerted support extended by the captains of the industry, including Ratan Tata and Sunil Bharti to Modi. They specially gathered at Ahmedabad to pronounce their judgment that he should be India's prime minister. With their vision limited to making money, they have no idea of the country's ethos.
 |
| All for Paa: Amitabh meeting Gujarat strongman Modi, who is accused of plotting the anti-Muslim riots in 2002 |
Pluralism is not a matter of policy but of faith with us. We would not be able to develop ourselves as a powerful nation if we do not ensure that the minorities in the country have the same status and the opportunities that the majority enjoys. The constitution has consecrated the ideas and the industrialists should have faith in secularism. Incidentally, software giant Wipro's chairman, Azim Premji, a Muslim, correctly stayed away from the gathering.
The industry captains argue that Modi's state was the best administered. I do not know how Gujarat comes under that category because Muslims do not feel safe. The government has not yet rehabilitated thousands of Muslims who were looted and uprooted during the riots. When the minorities do not feel protected and when there is no law and order for them, how the state can be classified as a well-administrated state?
In fact, the industrialists' support for Modi makes them ungrateful since the billions they have made is due to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's economic reforms. His policy of globalization has benefited them, although he has conveniently forgotten the word "socialist" included in the preamble of our constitution. I think the industrialists never had so good and despite Manmohan Singh's repeated assurance of an inclusive economy, the development by and large, is exclusive. And it goes without saying that the industrialists who gathered at Ahmedabad did were conscious of the credibility which they were giving to Modi. Their unthinking act has not only sullied their image but has also given justification to Modi's pogrom.
I wish I had faith in the Nanawati Commission looking into the Gujarat riots. Whatever it has said on the killings so far has not touched the core problem of Modi's involvement. Justice Nanawati was evasive in his report even on the 1984 Sikh riots and felt shy of naming the person who inspired the riots. However, Nanavati admitted that the Sikh riots were planned and executed with the help of the state machinery.
The only hope is the Supreme Court which has reopened many cases. Its observations are an eye-opener. In a recent case, it has said: "We cannot shut our eyes and allow the state police to continue with the case." The court further said that Gujarat police probe "was not impartial."
This is the severest indictment of any government. It looks as if many more skeletons will tumble out of Modi's closet. No doubt, he wants to establish that the state is normal. In a way, it is. But normalcy does not mean that the 15 percent of minorities should live in fear. For that, the government of India is responsible. It has not lifted even a finger to arraign Modi for his complicity in the Gujarat riots. The inaction by the BJP government was understandable, but not that of the Congress. Politics of votes has disfigured the country's ethos of pluralism.
(The writer is a veteran Indian journalist, former high commissioner to London and member of the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament.) |
E-mail
