Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: April 28, 2005
URL: http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/apr/28guest.htm
Now that the hullabaloo over the
US denial of a visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has died down,
it would be worth our while to scrutinise the actions and motivations of
Narendra Modi's tormentors, which resulted in this denouement. Because
while political analysts admit that the post-Godhra riots were no worse
than riots that had previously rocked the state after Independence, social
activists in Gujarat claim that media reports of 2,000 dead are false since
compensation claims filed by next-of-kin of those who died number around
700.
The possibility that 1,300 'victims'
never existed certainly calls for a rethink on the Gujarat imbroglio.
Indeed, with hindsight one can discern
an NGO-media synergy in targeting the Modi regime throughout the riots
and thereafter, and taking considerable liberties with the truth while
doing so. With opinions being paraded as facts, it is time to ask some
hard questions, especially since the issue has been internationalised in
a manner detrimental to national dignity.
Aside from the actual number of
victims in the riots, we must begin our quest for truth by scrutinising
'facts' we have not been allowed to question hitherto. The most critical
of these is the so-called 'Face of the Riots,' which has been splashed
across the national and international media for three long years.
Media reports claim the Rehmatnagar
chawl of Gomtipur, Ahmedabad, was attacked by a mob on March 1, 2002 (after
the Godhra carnage). One tailor, Qutubuddin Ansari, was immortalised as
a cameraman took a picture of him standing with folded hands, tears in
his eyes, pleading for mercy. The bloodthirsty mob supposedly threatening
him is never shown in any picture of this incident, though it is inconceivable
that a cameraman would shoot any a single frame of such a poignant event.
Yet the picture was so powerful
that it silenced many who felt that the widespread nature of the Gujarat
rioting indicated deeper societal tensions and could not be explained as
State-sponsored violence against minorities. Hence it was something of
a shock to discover that Mr Ansari was alive and well, and was desperate
to evade continuing media publicity and usage of his picture. Far from
perishing in the riots, he made his way to Mumbai, lived there for three
years, and in February this year returned to his native city to resume
his old way of life.
The media has never told us how
Qutubuddin Ansari made it out of the chawl alive, why he alone from his
family fled to Mumbai, who settled him there, and who indicated it was
safe to come back. Since the Ansari family has also survived, and now wish
to spurn the media, the question may legitimately be asked: was there a
mob at all?
The second sensational, and international,
face of the riots is Zahira Sheikh, who lost several family members in
the attack on the Best Bakery, owned by them. Zahira famously damned Narendra
Modi when she surfaced dramatically in Mumbai, claiming that her testimony
in the Vadodra fast track court that led to the acquittal of 21 accused
persons was inspired by fear.
A combined media-NGO synergy whipped
up such a campaign that the National Human Rights Commission jumped into
the fray, roundly condemned the state government and petitioned the Supreme
Court to transfer the riot cases out of the state. The apex court sent
the Zahira and Bilkis Bano cases to Mumbai, and asked the Gujarat government
to re-examine all other cases.
Now, however, it seems that the
Gujarat government may have the last laugh as Zahira Sheikh accuses Mumbai
activist Teesta Setalvad of physically controlling her from July 6, 2003
to November 3, 2004 and tutoring her to give a certain type of testimony
in the court. The state government also pounced upon the fact that an affidavit
submitted to the NHRC in the name of Zahira was actually signed by Teesta
Setalvad.
When Zahira Sheikh turned against
Teesta Setalvad last year and insisted she had not signed any affidavit
before the NHRC seeking transfer of the Best Bakery Case outside Vadodra,
the NHRC discovered that the 600-odd pages of documentation filed by Setalvad's
Citizens for Peace and Justice, did not contain a single signature by Zahira.
They were, as Zahira sneered, mere
pamphlets, and it is truly shameful that the NHRC was so swayed by NGO-cum-media
rhetoric that it moved the Supreme Court to take the cases out of Gujarat
without scrutinising the records placed before it! The apex court has appointed
a probe committee headed by Registrar General B M Gupta to ascertain the
truth.
Zahira is therefore within her rights
to demand the right to cross-examine the NHRC chairperson on this matter.
She claims she visited the Commission along with Setalvad, who 'tutored'
her on what to say there, and that she made an oral submission which was
recorded by the chairperson and two other members. Zahira wishes to examine
them because she says her oral testimony differs from the record which
NHRC has presented to the Supreme Court. This is a serious charge and the
probe committee would do well to summon the NHRC records and permit examination
of the chairperson and members, if justice is to be seen to be done.
In this connection, Zahira is justified
in demanding a probe into Teesta Setalvad's post-Gujarat assets, particularly
since Setalvad and her NGO-media friends have spared no efforts in maligning
Sheikh, insinuating that she had been 'purchased.' That Zahira is an intelligent
and educated woman is obvious. She has compelled Setalvad to admit that
Communal Combat is not an NGO, but a business venture of a privately-owned
company called Sabrang Publications.
I think things went wrong for Setalvad
because Zahira was a 'bad' victim. She just did not know how to act oppressed.
Not satisfied with having made mincemeat of her former benefactress, Zahira
has gone on to take potshots at the US State Department for calling Best
Bakery a 'notorious case' in communalised Gujarat in its 2003-04 report.
As America has assigned millions
of dollars to fund litigation on behalf of Gujarat Muslims, the riots'
most irrepressible witness quipped: 'I am applying to this programme for
aid and assistance so that I may be able to explain to the world at large
the exploitation in the name of secularism and protection of Muslims.'
Zahira's guts and gumption give
us much to think (rethink) about. Those who lament that well organised
NGOs made the Bush administration deny Modi a visa should ponder if it
was the other way round, namely, that the White House nudged certain groups
to protest so that it could act in a pre-decided manner. The latter strikes
me as far more likely, for if genuine public anger could not stop the invasion
of Iraq, a couple of well-heeled NGOs could hardly make President Bush
wag his tail on the Modi issue if he didn't want to.