 |
||
|
||
|
||
Why we needed an 'interim report' on Godhra? Couldn't the judge have waited until the full report was ready?
If people think reporting is an easy job that anyone can do, they will have to think again, especially in the context of the Justice Banerjee report on Godhra. This was clearly brought home by Karan Thapar writing in Hindustan Times (January 23).
Why was Justice Banerjee chosen to head an investigative team? One theory is that Laloo Prasad Yadav knew before hand how the judge's mind works. But Laloo points out that Banerjee was one of the Supreme Court judges who denied him bail in the fodder case. What is not stressed is the fact that notwithstanding the fodder case Banerjee may have been chosen precisely because Laloo knew what the outcome of the judge's investigation would be.
Then there is the case of the timing of the release of the interim report. One theory is that the report was released to influence the voting in the Bihar elections to the state legislature. The Congress says very naively that the timing was pure coincidence.
Judge's intent
But The Hindu has revealed that way back in December, Justice Banerjee was told to submit the interim report by 15th January. Implied is the belief that our dear Laloo knew when the Bihar campaign would be under way.
According to one source Banerjee submitted his report without questioning the Gujarat Police or the Forensic Science Laboratory. Then Laloo announces that Banerjee had made several attempts to question the Gujarat police but the State government would not let him. But then the very next day The Indian Express revealed that three officers had indeed been cleared to meet Banerjee. So, what's the truth?
According to Banerjee the Railways failed to adhere to the norms of the Accident Manual. His principal charge is that an initial inquiry ordered by the Commissioner of Railway Safety was abandoned when the state government appointed its own. Then comes Minister of State Digvijay Singh who points out that Section 119 of the Railways Act requires that a judicial inquiry takes precedence. Now surely, as a former Supreme Court judge, Banerjee should have known this? How come he criticised the Railways?
According to Banerjee it is inconceivably that kar sevaks armed with trishuls would allow themselves to be burnt without a murmur of protest. But according to Arun Jaitley what the kar sevaks carried were not six foot tridents but only four inch long trishuls. Besides getting out of the burning coach was like jumping from the frying pan into the fire for hundreds of Muslims had surrounded the coach and throwing stones at it.
Moreover, those who were burnt to death were mostly women and children. If Banerjee is to be believed the blaze could not have been caused by inflammable liquid poured into the coach. But Jaitley provides unchallengeable evidence of how much petrol had been purchased the previous day and where it was stored, and who had conspired.
But what few have given thought to is why we needed an 'interim report'. Couldn't the judge have waited until the full report was ready, especially considering that his committee had been given an extension to draft it? Doesn't that sound suspicious? Karan Thapar says, for the life of him he can't think of an answer to why the judge couldn't wait for the final report to be presented.
Many would agree with him. And what is even more significant, a committee does not, on its own, invite the media and present it with a report. The report is first submitted to the Railway Minister. The Railway Minister then places the report on the table in parliament. None of these norms were followed, which, of course, makes the judge's intent and the intent of Laloo Prasad, highly suspicious.
Then there is the other question: when the Gujarat government has appointed a judicial commission to look into the matter, where was the point in appointing another committee? Secondly, Laloo Prasad Yadav's hatred of the BJP is well-known. Would anyone in his right mind ever believe that Laloo Prasad would appoint a man who would give a report favourable to the Gujarat government? What does Laloo Prasad think people are: fools? What has now happened is that - and that, probably, was exactly what Laloo Prasad Yadav wanted to achieve - the public is now sharply divided.
According to The Indian Express (January 19), "Justice Banerjee's premature announcement of the interim conclusions of his inquiry will turn out to be, at best, a mixed blessing" and "at its worst, it could unleash the kind of callous politics that so polarised the country along communal lines in the past". And the Express, very correctly, added: "The Banerjee Commission probably has raised enough questions to cast doubt on some of the wider conspiracy theories that surrounded Godhra. But the unseemly haste with which a press conference was called to reveal the interim findings of the commission will inevitably feed new conspiracy theories about the commission itself... Justice Banerjee may or may not have revealed the truth but he has certainly ensured that truth remains hostage to politics".
The strongly anti-BJP daily The Asian Age (January 19) gave high marks to Banerjee calling his report 'good work' though admitting that "the timing" of presenting it was "a little unfortunate". That surely is the under-statement of the year. According to the paper "a good sign is that Mr. Yadav was not present when the report was released". What the paper forgets to tell is that Laloo had his own copy of the report and was presenting it to the media on his own from his residence. That is what is called a double wham.
Throw him out!
The Hindu (January 19), too, was not way behind The Asian Age in supporting Banerjee, though to cover its back, the paper conceded that "a murderous conspiracy cannot still be ruled out". It condemned the Hindu Right's "highly divisive, morally corroding world view" but failed to take note that the "highly divisive secular Left" has its shortcomings too.
But one has to read what Vijay Phanshikar of The Hitavada has written about Laloo Prasad to know what the average citizen feels about the Bihar leader. Wrote Phanshikar: "Why should the nation endure such a buffoon for decades? It is high time that we threw him out. It is time we stopped giving him political patronage... He has no respect for law. He has also no respect for the people... he uses people to serve his petty, often criminal, ends. He is a tainted minister... yet the Prime Minister who is described to be an upright person is not able to touch him... The time has come for all of us to come together to ensure that Laloo Prasad Yadav is thrown out of the system... Time has come for the nation to ensure a quick dispensation of justice in all the cases Laloo Yadav is involved".
Yes, but who will listen to Mr.
Phanshikar? Certainly not the Congress and most certainly not the Leftists.
Power is all. It is a strange kind of tyaag that one holds on to power
with the help of disreputable people and parties.
|
||
|
||
|
||