THE FICTION OF FACT-FINDING
Manoj Mitta
HarperCollins; 260 pages; Rs 599
Like it or not, the Gujarat chief minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) prime ministerial nominee, Narendra Modi, is the fulcrum of the 2014 parliamentary polls. Whether Mr Modi and his supporters agree or not, it is undeniable that he would not have reached the position he is in today had it not been for the gruesome attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002. The riots in reaction to this enveloped every district of Gujarat except Jamnagar, Porbandar and Amreli in Saurashtra; and Valsad, Navsari and Dang in south Gujarat.
Mr Modi was on the back foot just before the Godhra carnage: he managed to get elected to the state Assembly but the BJP lost by-elections in the two other seats in February 2002. Had it not been for the Godhra carnage and the subsequent pogrom in the state, the BJP would not have secured the massive mandate it eventually did in 2002. The direct fallout of this would have been that the trajectory of Mr Modi's political career would have been completely different from what it has been over the past 12 years.
The carnage at Godhra would not have happened had it not been for the consistent campaign beginning from the mid-1980s on the issue of replacing the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya with a grand Hindu temple to deify Lord Rama. Despite the centrality of the 2002 riots to his growth, the persona of Mr Modi has become much bigger and ogre-like. His political discourse on the Delhi Sultanate, Shehzada and the Pink Revolution establishes that the debate over 2002 has been transcended by him and his supporters.
Attempts to pin him down solely to culpability for his omissions and commissions during the riots will take the focus away from the long-term social adjustment that has been done during his tenure. Unfortunately, this has been one of the primary deficiencies of the campaign against the BJP.
In the course of researching for Mr Modi's biography, he stonewalled every attempt to prise him open on his role and thinking during 2002. I spoke with several sources, both serving and former officers in Gujarat's security establishment. The uppermost question was if any court would ever find Mr Modi guilty of any charge relating to 2002. Most sources were evasive, but one of them was clear that nothing beyond dereliction of duty could be established against him. It then appeared that there were no tracks in the sand.
Despite this, books like the one by Manoj Mitta should be written. They must be written because the uncomfortable truth and cover-ups must be unearthed every now and then. Mr Mitta sticks to his core strength - a clinical analysis of the process of law. But this is also the downside of the book insofar as it seeks to frame Mr Modi within the legal process and implicitly projects legal culpability as more serious than political culpability.
The question that should be asked, as India gets ready to cast its vote in one of the most decisive mandates in the country's political history, is: how and why has Gujarat condoned 2002 and given Mr Modi not one but three mandates over a decade? This question is never asked, which prevents scrutiny of the deeper malaise that enables a system to first create a political and social bully and later perpetrate him. Unfortunately, by still trying to establish Mr Modi's guilt, his adversaries fall into his trap. Restricting Mr Modi to the discourse of 2002 enables him to consolidate his base in his core constituency.
The legal maze surrounding 2002 is complicated and still unravelling. Despite claims, renewed in December 2013, that Mr Modi was given a "clean chit" by the court, the legal process is incomplete. Zakia Jafri's petition is pending in the Supreme Court and there is no knowing the court's reaction and whether it would issue another directive.
Before the release of the book, when only excerpts were available, a thought occurred (and there were many others who shared it): was this book an indictment of Mr Modi or a meticulous scrutiny of R K Raghavan? The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is presented in the book as being instrumental in letting Mr Modi off the hook and not establishing his responsibility. The book questions whether the Supreme Court took an appropriate decision by appointing the SIT in the first place. But when the SIT was established in March 2008, most welcomed the move and projected it as a victory in the wake of the state government's stonewalling tactics. Most media reactions considered it to be a "step in the right direction" that would "provide succour to the victims".
Mr Mitta would be accused of pre-judging his subject. But then, on the issue of Mr Modi, especially when it comes to writing on him, everyone is judged even before a line has been read. Although one finds occasional arguments in the book to be on shaky terrain, the intent of the book is honest. Unfortunately, the book can become a tool in the hands of lazy opponents who do not want to do the hard work of politically combating an adversary and would rather let someone else prepare their brief.
The reviewer is author of Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times (Tranquebar, 2013)
nilanjan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com
Manoj Mitta
HarperCollins; 260 pages; Rs 599
Like it or not, the Gujarat chief minister and the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) prime ministerial nominee, Narendra Modi, is the fulcrum of the 2014 parliamentary polls. Whether Mr Modi and his supporters agree or not, it is undeniable that he would not have reached the position he is in today had it not been for the gruesome attack on the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002. The riots in reaction to this enveloped every district of Gujarat except Jamnagar, Porbandar and Amreli in Saurashtra; and Valsad, Navsari and Dang in south Gujarat.
Mr Modi was on the back foot just before the Godhra carnage: he managed to get elected to the state Assembly but the BJP lost by-elections in the two other seats in February 2002. Had it not been for the Godhra carnage and the subsequent pogrom in the state, the BJP would not have secured the massive mandate it eventually did in 2002. The direct fallout of this would have been that the trajectory of Mr Modi's political career would have been completely different from what it has been over the past 12 years.
The carnage at Godhra would not have happened had it not been for the consistent campaign beginning from the mid-1980s on the issue of replacing the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya with a grand Hindu temple to deify Lord Rama. Despite the centrality of the 2002 riots to his growth, the persona of Mr Modi has become much bigger and ogre-like. His political discourse on the Delhi Sultanate, Shehzada and the Pink Revolution establishes that the debate over 2002 has been transcended by him and his supporters.
Attempts to pin him down solely to culpability for his omissions and commissions during the riots will take the focus away from the long-term social adjustment that has been done during his tenure. Unfortunately, this has been one of the primary deficiencies of the campaign against the BJP.
In the course of researching for Mr Modi's biography, he stonewalled every attempt to prise him open on his role and thinking during 2002. I spoke with several sources, both serving and former officers in Gujarat's security establishment. The uppermost question was if any court would ever find Mr Modi guilty of any charge relating to 2002. Most sources were evasive, but one of them was clear that nothing beyond dereliction of duty could be established against him. It then appeared that there were no tracks in the sand.
Despite this, books like the one by Manoj Mitta should be written. They must be written because the uncomfortable truth and cover-ups must be unearthed every now and then. Mr Mitta sticks to his core strength - a clinical analysis of the process of law. But this is also the downside of the book insofar as it seeks to frame Mr Modi within the legal process and implicitly projects legal culpability as more serious than political culpability.
The question that should be asked, as India gets ready to cast its vote in one of the most decisive mandates in the country's political history, is: how and why has Gujarat condoned 2002 and given Mr Modi not one but three mandates over a decade? This question is never asked, which prevents scrutiny of the deeper malaise that enables a system to first create a political and social bully and later perpetrate him. Unfortunately, by still trying to establish Mr Modi's guilt, his adversaries fall into his trap. Restricting Mr Modi to the discourse of 2002 enables him to consolidate his base in his core constituency.
The legal maze surrounding 2002 is complicated and still unravelling. Despite claims, renewed in December 2013, that Mr Modi was given a "clean chit" by the court, the legal process is incomplete. Zakia Jafri's petition is pending in the Supreme Court and there is no knowing the court's reaction and whether it would issue another directive.
Before the release of the book, when only excerpts were available, a thought occurred (and there were many others who shared it): was this book an indictment of Mr Modi or a meticulous scrutiny of R K Raghavan? The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is presented in the book as being instrumental in letting Mr Modi off the hook and not establishing his responsibility. The book questions whether the Supreme Court took an appropriate decision by appointing the SIT in the first place. But when the SIT was established in March 2008, most welcomed the move and projected it as a victory in the wake of the state government's stonewalling tactics. Most media reactions considered it to be a "step in the right direction" that would "provide succour to the victims".
Mr Mitta would be accused of pre-judging his subject. But then, on the issue of Mr Modi, especially when it comes to writing on him, everyone is judged even before a line has been read. Although one finds occasional arguments in the book to be on shaky terrain, the intent of the book is honest. Unfortunately, the book can become a tool in the hands of lazy opponents who do not want to do the hard work of politically combating an adversary and would rather let someone else prepare their brief.
The reviewer is author of Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times (Tranquebar, 2013)
nilanjan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com