By Kashif-ul-Huda, TwoCircles.net,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Sr. Journalist and author Manoj Mitta delivered the Omar Khalidi Memorial Lecture at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on Sunday night.
In his hour-long talk Manoj Mitta who is the author of When a Tree Shook Delhi (published 2008) and The Fiction of Fact-Finding (published 2014) drew parallels between the government response and investigations following the anti-Sikh violence in Delhi in 1984 and anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002.
Mr. Mitta talked about a tale of two speeches that shows the complicity of the government and a tale of two commissions that shows cover ups by the administration and investigating authorities.
A tale of two speeches.
First speech he talked about was a public speech given by Rajiv Gandhi in November 1984. The official casualty figure of Anti-Sikh violence in Delhi was 2,733 but Rajiv Gandhi first public speech as a Prime Minister makes no mention of this horrific violence. “Rajiv Gandhi’s speech didn’t show any remorse for the violence that Delhi just saw,” observed Mitta.
“This speech then set the tone for the election campaign that was to follow which Congress won by huge mandate.” The next Lok Sabha met in January which passed a resolution mourning the death of Indira Gandhi but it had no mention of anti-Sikh violence that followed the former PM killing.
Second speech is the peace appeal that the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave on Doordarshan on February 28, 2002. Mr. Mitta called this speech “more dangerous” that Rajiv Gandhi’s speech.
Fifty-nine people were killed in Godhra train burning on February 27, 2002. The same evening Mr. Modi rushed to Godhra and gave a statement that train burning was a “result of a terror attack.” Next morning attack began on Muslims, especially in Ahmedabad.
On February 28, 6pm Modi recorded a peace appeal on Doordarshan but by that time post-godhra violence had already killed more people than Godhra. “His concern, just like Rajiv Gandhi focus on his mother, was on what happened on Godhra and not the aftermath. His appeal didn’t condemn the violence that killed Muslims.”
A tale of two commissions
It was six months after the carnage that Rajiv Gandhi accepted the demand for an enquiry and that too because he was seeking an alliance with Akali Dal.
Justice Ranganath Misra held all the proceedings in camera but public & media was not present during recording of statements. The report was tabled in 1987 but no debate on the report was held in the parliament.
Manoj Mitta holding his book “Fiction of fact-finding”
A fresh enquiry was ordered in 2000 by the Vajpayee govt. This enquiry was headed by retired judge GT Nanavati. Proceedings were held in public and report was submitted in 2005.
“Nanavati was closer to the truth,” said Mr. Mitta adding that the report “indicted Jagdish Tytler, a minister and Sjjan Singh, Cong MP. HKL Bhagat was spared because of his old age.”
Manmohan Singh government initially rejected the Nanavati Report. But pressure from allies & opposition led to Tytler ouster.
Only in 2005, finally a discussion on Delhi 1984 carnage took place in the Parliament.
Narendra Modi appointed same judge Nanavati to enquire about Gujarat 2002. The enquiry is still going on but Narendra Modi has never been called by the Commission for interrogation about his role.
In the case of 1984 violence only 30 convictions has happened in 30 years while there have been more than 100 convictions related to violence in Gujarat in 2002. All this happened because of Supreme Court’s intervention.
In the famous Best Bakery Case, Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittals given by the lower court. The Supreme Court then decided to hold a fresh trial in Bombay. This was followed by many other cases that were also heard outside Gujarat. It is those trials that have led to convictions. (http://twocircles.net/2014mar27/gujarats_politicized_bureaucracy_prevented_justice_genocide_2002_cases_researcher.html)
Similarly for Bilquis Bano Case, a fresh CBI enquiry was ordered by the Supreme Court followed by the trial. This also led to convictions. Many of these cases were earlier closed by the Gujarat police or led to acquittals in Gujarat courts.
Nine cases were referred to Special Investigation Team headed by R K Raghavan was set up by the Supreme Court. Following Zakia Jaffrey complaint SIT interrogated Narendra Modi.
“Questions put to Modi shows the farcical nature of the investigation,” said Mr. Mitta. SIT team did “no follow up to evasive or contradictory replies of Modi.”
In reply to the SIT question Mr. Modi claimed that he was unaware of two big massacres (Gulbarg Society and Naroda Patiya) till 8:30pm that night. While SIT “clean chit” argued that Modi was in control of the situation, there is no explanation by SIT or Modi how can he be in control while he seemed to be unaware of the large-scale killings of Muslims.
Manoj Mitta looked at the facts gathered by official reports and found that Modi held his law & order meeting between 4-4:30pm on February 28th. By that time a number of Muslims have been killed and it is unthinkable that Modi recording his peace appeal at 6pm is not aware of these killings.
During the q&a Mr. Mitta clarified that a wrong impression has been spread that Modi has been given clean chit by the Supreme Court. SC has not commented on SIT report that exonerated Modi, Zakia Jaffery appealed against that report was rejected by a magistrate and now that appeal is in Gujarat High Court.
This lecture was organized in memory of Dr. Omar Khalidi (1952-2010), eminent Indian Muslim scholar and author of several books including famous ones Khaki and Ethnic Violence in India: Army, Police, and Paramilitary Forces During Communal Riots (2003) and Muslims in Indian Economy (2006)
The talk was jointly sponsored by Alliance for a Secular and Democratic South Asia, TwoCircles.net, and Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC).
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khalidi