http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=29083 Manoj Mitta
Narendra Modi wants to dig out records of how India
has dealt with riot and terrorism cases right from
Independence. In his open letter to the president,
Modi expresses the confidence that if such data is
compiled state-wise and year-wise, it will expose
‘‘the vested interests that have targeted not only
Gujarat but have tried to weaken the democratic fabric
and reputed institutions of the country.’’ He has long
been insinuating that any demand for justice to the
riot victims in his state was somehow an affront to
Gujarati pride. The latest twist is his suggestion
that any concern over the collapse of the Best Bakery
case only diminishes democratic institutions. This
formulation is as contrived as his attempt to pit
Gujarati pride against the rule of law. For, the
NHRC’s special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme
Court has laid bare a covert but systematic effort by
the state government to weaken the Best Bakery case.
One shocking example of this is the manner in which
the prosecution used a key witness called Lal
Mohammad, who lives in the neighbourhood of the Best
Bakery site. When the police first recorded his
statement within a few days of the attack in March
2002, Lal Mohammad implicated the accused. But three
months later, Lal Mohammad gave a supplementary
statement to the police saying that when his premises
was attacked, he and his family were sheltered by some
of the accused persons. ‘‘This dramatic volte face by
Lal Mohammad,’’ the NHRC felt, ‘‘ought to have put the
investigating agency on caution that external pressure
was being already brought upon the witnesses to the
crime.’’ In fact, this is the earliest available
evidence of the Best Bakery witnesses being under
pressure. Yet, the police made no effort to instil
confidence in him. Instead, the prosecution produced
Lal Mohammad as a prosecution witness ‘‘although it
was plain’’ from his supplementary statement to the
police that he was going to speak in favour of the
accused.
Thus, even as it pretended to be doing its duty under
law, the prosecution willfully damaged the case by
producing Lal Mohammad in the court. The trial judge,
H.U. Mahida, quoted extensively from Lal Mohammad’s
testimony to substantiate his finding that the accused
were actually innocent. The Lal Mohammad example
exposes the complicity of the prosecuting agency in
what has rightly been described by the NHRC as a
‘‘farce’’ of a trial. Modi is now posing as a champion
of democratic institutions in a desperate bid to cover
up their subversion in Gujarat.
Unfortunately, the damage he did to help the culprits
of the Best Bakery case get away was not confined to
the prosecuting agency. The NHRC has also brought out
errors of omission and commission by the trial court
leading to the acquittals. Judge Mahida conducted the
trial as if the law condemned him to the role of a
mute spectator even as witness after witness turned
hostile. As a result of this ‘‘misplaced’’ perception,
Mahida failed to avail himself of any of the statutory
remedies such as the power to hold the proceedings in
camera, power to recall and re-examine witnesses and
power to order further investigation. Little wonder
then that Mahida came up in his judgment with this
self-serving justification: ‘‘The court of justice is
not a court of justice in the real sense but a court
of evidence.’’ Interestingly, despite such a dubious
background, Modi complained to the president that
human rights defenders do not ‘‘hesitate to point
fingers at institutions like the judiciary in the
state.’’
The outcome of the Best Bakery case no doubt conforms
to the general pattern of acquittals in riot cases
around the country. ‘‘When group clashes and communal
riots occur in many parts of the country, why is there
such focus on Gujarat?’’ Modi asks the president, in a
suprisingly serious tone. His question is misplaced
because ever since the massacre of Sikhs in 1984,
there hasn’t been a comparable instance where the
ruling party members have been so widely accused of
engineering violence. It is a matter of eternal shame
for India that Congress leaders have got away with the
1984 massacre. But, thankfully, our system has since
evolved to a stage where it does not seem so easy
anymore for any ruling party to organise a massacre
with impunity. The NHRC itself came into being only in
1993 and, for whatever it is worth, has established a
mixed record of monitoring human rights violations. It
could have done a lot to prevent the collapse of the
Best Bakery case. Its post facto intervention in the
case is by far the boldest move it has ever made. The
BJP camp is understandably uneasy about the SLP. But
it is grossly irresponsible on their part to call the
NHRC ‘‘anti-Hindu’’ and allege that it has overstepped
its limits. If Modi really respects democratic
institutions, he should welcome the NHRC’s initiative.
But that’s being unrealistic.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indiathinkersnet/message/3698