Yes, Mr. Ashok Malik – It is Modi’s business

Dear Ashok Malik,
A few days back, I was watching the TV debate on Times now in which you were also present on the panel. Where at one hand Ms Meenakshi Lekhi accused (bluntly and shamelessly) Ms Zakia Jafri of being part of the game of some of the activists(Read Teesta Setalvad) against Mr Modi, on the other side, you with all your sophistication(while trying to sound reasonable) shifted the blame cleverly to the activists having some vested interests in opposing Mr Modi. And a day later your article appeared in “The Asian Age”(12 Feb 2012) where you have tried to exonerate Modi drawing parallel with Mr George Wallace of the US. Not impressed by your arguments and comparison (which I found preposterous), I felt the need to counter your views with my own views on the issue. When it comes to Modi, no amount of time and space is sufficient, but I will try to be short and direct.

Firstly, I found your comparison of Mr Narendra Modi with Mr George Wallace utterly absurd; for the simple reason that US is not India, and India is not US, where rule of law takes precedence over electoral politics. Secondly, one wrong doesn’t justify another wrong. Thirdly, the level of violence is itself incomparable. The way I see it, it was a desperate attempt by you to bring some respectability and acceptability to Modi despite his alleged role in 2002 Gujrat pogrom and denial of justice to victims which is a pre-requisite for any feeling of closure and restoration of faith in the system. You asked people to move on, certainly, one can’t hold everything to ransom on some past incident, but the question is, how?? With a feeling that Muslims/minorities of the nation should forget what happened in 2002 because justice will never be delivered to you?? It never happened in the past, nor will it happen in the future?? So just, move on ……..

Also, you have conveniently assumed Modi is himself a victim of propaganda by some vested interests because SIT (and two earlier probes) has not found “prosecutable evidence” against him. It didn’t matter to you that Amicus Curiae and SC itself has observed that its inferences don’t match its own findings. The only reason SC didn’t comment on Amicus Curiae’s and SIT’s report because it didn’t want the trial to be prejudiced to either the complainant or the accused, but it was played as if “Modi got a clean chit from the SC”, and the same is happening now, after SIT’s leaked report came out in media. I am a simple man brought up in a secure atmosphere but 2002 pogrom has not just shocked me but shaken my faith in the system and the nation’s capability to defend its own values (if not people) enshrined in the constitution. I have read several reports including of NHRC, NCW, EC, PUCL, PUDR, INSAAF etc, having details of what happened on the ground during those turbulent days with testimonies of innumerable victims of violence. All pointed towards visible bias of the state and unwillingness (quite often explicit support) of the state agencies to prevent the killings of the innocents. Coincidently, the day SIT submitted its report, HC also in a landmark judgment rapped Modi government for “inaction” “negligence” and failure to prevent attacks on religious structures asking it pay for repair of the same. I am waiting for the day when a court asks Modi to pay for all his sins, since 2002. Several judgments/observations of the courts, from SC’s remarks on him of being “modern day Nero” (transferring a few cases outside Gujrat citing lack of faith in state under him) to recent one, when SC asked for re-investigation of over 20 fake encounter killings that happened in his tenure (Amit Shah, his confidante and his hand-picked cops are under trial/jailed). All these cases don’t speak well for Mr Modi. He is being hailed for development, administration and “good governance”. I fail to understand if “rule of law” doesn’t come under the realm of “good governance”??

It was reported that, before the pogrom actually started some small groups indulged in petty vandalism to check the police’s response. As expected, police didn’t respond giving a clear signal to “go ahead”. What happened next is a shameful chapter in our history. The various reports that I mentioned give a full account of how victims call for help were turned down by police, there were writings on the wall –“yeh andar ki baat hai, police humaare saath hai”, FIRs not recorded/not properly recorded, biased pattern of arrests, prejudiced political response. This indicates that 2002 was not just an incidence that went out of control and a six-month old chief minister could not do much about it. It was part of a larger agenda of RSS of which he always is a loyal member. He clearly was responding to his sense of responsibility towards the Sangh than to the constitutional position he held.

I am willing to forgive an honest and well-intentioned person who fails to live up to the expectations but not a dishonest and ill-intentioned person who succeeds in his evil designs (the fact is, he did succeed). Modi had just replaced Keshubhai Patel as Chief Minister after BJP kept losing elections at local and municipal level. Modi’s arrival could not stop the electoral losses and then unfortunately (fortunately for Modi) Godhra happened and riding on deeply polarized atmosphere Modi came out victorious in next elections. He was then hailed by pro-Modi, pro-Hindutva group, and now some sophisticated looking intellectuals (in addition to the likes of Tatas) hail him with a different mask of “development” and project as a “future PM”. What message are you sending out to the victims (don’t expect justice), perpetrators (carry on), future politicians (follow the precedent), to the nation and to the world???? That reminds me of a story of a thief, who thought of going for a big-robbery so that he doesn’t need to do anything for rest of his life. That never happened and I don’t think it will happen in the case of even Modi, because he hasn’t left the ideology, nor has he taken any step that could give that impression. The fact is he has built a constituency for himself and is trying to expand that constituency than bringing the other constituencies within its fold.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument that Modi is not guilty. Then, why I don’t see him taking any visible step correcting those wrongs? What stops him from acting against those officials and cops whose actions (inactions) during the pogrom brought him such a reputation? Why I see state shielding and even rewarding the cops accused by the victims. Why do I see him hounding the officials/cops who prevented riots in their area or arrested the rioters? Why he has not taken any action against the real perpetrators of the genocide? When did he try to reach out to victims? Why then, any victim who appears of TV, complains that “forget justice and rehabilitation, no one from the government or the party (BJP) ever tried to meet them and share their pain at least”. Why do I see that, anyone who talks of justice for the victims and tries to help them becomes his and his supporters’ natural enemy? And last but not the least, what did he do to change his “negative image” in a section? Doesn’t it bother him? No, it doesn’t, it helps him instead. The same negative image has earned him a following amongst a significant section and it works for him as a “positive image” amongst them. So, Mr Ashok Malik, do you really think that Modi has evolved? Mere absence of riots after 2002 doesn’t indicate that he has departed from the very ideology that created havoc in the lives of over a lakh innocent people. He hasn’t shown any remorse or any such sign yet. Let him take a significant step in this direction, and then only he or anyone else can talk of “moving on”. Moving on is must but not at the cost of justice and dignity.

Now coming to your charge that some activists are into “The Modi business” at the behest of some political parties (obviously Congress). Honestly, I would like so called secular parties to take on Modi directly and politically, because communalism can only be defeated politically. Activists (media) can make a noise, may be help in legal and other socio-political matter, judiciary can decide on cases that come its way. They can help but to create awareness on the dangers of communalism and can’t create a political atmosphere for it. (Too idealistic? let the law take its own course is similar, it doesn’t happen in certain cases). Anyway, but you have accused that they have made victims’ suffering as their business. But can’t we see who is standing with victims? And that in itself says who enjoys whose confidence. The fact is whatever little success that has been achieved so far in getting justice to the victims, was possible because of their consistent efforts. What is so wrong in that?? Do you want these cases to go as similar cases have been dumped in the past?? There have been various commissions appointed by the government but whose recommendations were never implemented, latest being the Srikrishna report dumped in a corner for the last few years. If there is a anti-Modi lobby (popularly known as pseudo-seculars, pseudo-intellectuals, anti-Hindu, anti-national, anti-Gujrat etc etc ), then there also exist a pro-Modi lobby (remove the prefixes and replace with pro where applicable) who desperately want him to become Prime Minister despite the kind of perception the nation and the world has about him. He even hired APCO Worldwide, a US based lobbyist firm to clear his “riot-tainted image”. APCO is reportedly paid $ 25,000 per month by the Gujrat government. He has significant supporters, both here and outside India including in US and UK. Also, even if there is some substance to your allegations against the activists, I don’t know to what extent they are true as I have seen them criticizing Congress for 84 and not being proactive in its commitment towards secularism. Even if true, I don’t see anything wrong if that helps victims.

Mr. Ashok Malik, in the end I would like to assure you that we all want that we “move-on” from this shameful episode of 2002. The only question is “how”? And this question itself throws some larger questions. @primary_red on twitter has brilliantly expressed them and I quote- “Mr Modi is a moral litmus for Indians. Debate on him reveals peoples character. We can finally see real Indian fault line. Do we seek an amoral India where numbers matter more than people, where diversity is deemed a weakness and where justice is a joke? Or, do we seek a moral India, where people matter more than numbers, where diversity is strength, and where justice is social glue?” Also, as Harish Salve once said- “It’s not about Modi, it’s about system, whether it can deliver or not????? ……….

Why this fuss over reservation for Muslims?

Its election time in UP and politicians are yet again at their best, wooing different sections of society including Muslims. And again, they are back with their most potent weapon- Reservation, as if that alone is going to solve all their problems. At the one hand SP has offered 18% and Congress 9% to the Muslims. On the other hand chauvinist BJP is out with its rants like “vote-bank politics”, “Muslim appeasement”, “it is against constitution” etc etc. VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders have given a call for mass-uprising and protest against the move. And this very attitude has prompted me write this blog. The whole intention is to question the rationale for opposing reservations to Muslims than advocating it per se. Both are different, and I am trying to question the rationale and if the criteria is applied uniformly to all or is it that everyone gets a cold feet when it comes to Muslims??? One may argue over the effectiveness of reservations in alleviating poverty and backwardness of a community but the kind of arguments I came across left me wondering whether these principles are being applied uniformly to all communities or is it an excuse to deny reservation to Muslims. I am being blunt here because with regard to BJP at least it is true. I don’t intend to provoke anyone but that is how it seems. Let’s look at the arguments.

First and foremost, it is said that the move is unconstitutional as our constitution doesn’t allow reservation on the basis of religion. The fact is, numerous studies, including the recent Sachar committee report has pointed out that Muslims have slipped even below dalits in government jobs, poverty line and literacy level. So the reservation is essentially because of their backwardness and disadvantaged position not because they happen to be Muslims. It is not something that is exclusively being brought for the Muslims, it is there for SC/STs and OBC, all that is being asked for is to include Muslims as well, on account of their backwardness. If one speaks of Constitution then let me remind that the constitution was amended for the first time for the purpose of reservation only when a clause 15(4) was added and it has happened over a hundred times since independence. All you really need is a political consensus. Also, when you say reservation is not permissible on religious grounds, aren’t you denying reservations on the religious ground? If I, as a Schedule caste am entitled for reservation, why should I be denied if I convert to Muslim or Christian? Isn’t this provision means it is meant for Hindus alone? Isn’t this against the constitution (article 14,15,16- for equality, against discrimination, for equality of opportunity)? A conversion doesn’t change anything in me other than my faith; leave alone my socio-economic condition. One may argue that there is no caste system in Muslims and Christians but that is a theoretical/scriptural position not a ground reality. Mandal commission has recognized as many as 80 backward castes amongst Muslims. The fact is most of Muslims and Christians are the converts from low caste Hindus and they continued with their same profession and the same socio-economic status. Also, theoretically there is no caste system in Sikhs and Buddhists, but Sikhs were included in 1956 and Buddhists in 1990. Another interesting objection that comes along is – Reservation to SCs/STs is given due to the historical wrongs committed to them because of their lowly caste in the caste system. I think, that could be the explanation for their present socio-politico-economic status and their disadvantaged position in society, not an excuse to grant reservation. The fundamental basis of reservation is backwardness, under-representation and disadvantaged position. That can’t be a valid reason either, for the simple reason that you cannot punish or reward a person on the basis of what his ancestors were. That goes against the principle of fairness and equality. Even the national commission for minorities, a statutory body, had appealed to the government to do away with the provision in the 1950 presidential order for the SCs and STs which uses religion as the criterion for deciding the SC status. According to Tahir Mehmood, the former chairman of the commission – there must be the recognition of absolute equality of all religions and religious communities under the constitution and laws.

Now, the argument from our liberal class, to which I agree in principle, that it’s the modern education that could remove the backwardness of any community and meritocracy should not be compromised. Well, in that case, why have the system of reservation for anyone. All backward communities must be given aid to the extent of their education, so that they can compete and get jobs on the merit. My simple point is “have it for all or none”. But I think that will be too idealistic, the fact is socio-economic inequality and discrimination is a reality. The policy of reservation is based on the principle of protective discrimination that we perhaps need, to balance negative discrimination with a positive one. Equality of opportunity in absence of equality of conditions would deepen the inequalities instead. We don’t live in an ideal world and ideal solutions may not work, though we must work towards making that ideal level-playing field.

The whole idea behind writing this article was to question the rationale behind denying a community a provision that already exists for backward communities. I don’t say that reservation has done wonders for SCs/STs, which has been enjoying it for five decades. The data suggest that it has marginally benefitted them. There are reasons and that need to be addressed. The fact is reservation alone will not do wonders for any community unless the very reasons for their backwardness are removed, whether internal or external. It has to be supplemented with other schemes that are aimed at expanding opportunities for the community. The role of modern education is definitely there and that should be made available through various schemes to all backward sections irrespective of whether one gets reservation or not. Reservation at best can be a short-term solution and not the only solution in itself.

CONFESSIONS OF A BOOTLICKER- THE TWITTER HYSTERIA

Last night while I was interacting with Group Editor, NDTV- Barkha Dutt , someone from the troll brigade picked up my tweet in which I was questioning media’s silence over tribal’s genuine concerns and reproduced it with hash tag “corrupt-media”. When I objected to it, he tagged me “bootlicker”. Strange, when I was questioning media, he re-tweeted my comment and when I refused to be a part of their hysteria, I was a bootlicker.

Since the Radia-tape issue erupted in the Open magazine in its 20 November 2010 issue, it has caught the social networking site like twitter by storm. To add to the problem, media’s silence over the issue further aggravated the situation. However, under intense pressure some TV news channels were forced to take up the issue, even NDTV where Barkha Dutt was questioned by four senior journalists. The issue has rightly put the media and journalists in the dock. Media is considered fourth pillar of our democracy. It surely needs to introspect and answer certain questions. But what I am witnessing here is that a group targeting different journalists, hurling abuses and accusations than asking any meaningful question or offering suggestion with real substance. Worst, few tweeted that Radia was doing her job and its Brakha Dutt who is at fault. And height of hypocrisy, the same brigade said that that lobbying is an accepted and legitimate practice in the west (who cares for its boundaries). Implying everyone else was doing their legitimate job and its only Barkha Dutt who transgressed her limits. What about other journalists who appeared to have gone too far in their claims. Barkha, being a celebrity became not just a soft target but also an easy target for she is active on twitter. Not to forget opposition to her for her kind of journalism which people from certain ideology could not tolerate and Radia-tape expose gave them a tool to go berserk against her.

There are corporate and their lobbyists, who want to subvert the process, install their men to a ministry to suit their interests and they are not at fault because they are doing their job. Barkha Dutt, who described Nira Radia as her news source was not doing her job. I revisited the open magazine site today and found Radia indeed fed her with some real information. The charge against Barkha Dutt that she acted as a messenger in a bigger conspiracy does not hold ground. One, she has denied it saying she was just using Radia as her news source. Two, tapped telephonic conversation between the two alone is not enough to pronounce her guilty. It is suggestive in nature not conclusive. One can argue that Barkha is not telling the truth but the fact is no one knows and no one tried to know to what extent she was involved in the game, if she really was. Throughout the conversation it was Nira Radia who was feeding her with information than Barkha providing anything substantial to her. Further, conversation between the two basically revolved around “talk to the right man” i.e. Karunanidhi. Even if she did pass the message (which she denied), it is of a very general nature than indicating her to be part of any bigger conspiracy. Manu Joseph said on NDTV that he didn’t get a convincing reply to his question that it was “story of the decade” and why didn’t she report it at that time only. Given the backdrop of post-election scenario, tug-of-war for ministerial berths, when every news channel was trying hard to get the latest on the rapidly changing political developments, I think if it didn’t strike her its understandable. Moreover, troll brigade’s own admission that Lobbying is an accepted practice tells it all itself, if it didn’t strike her.

Journalists in the course of their news gathering process come across many people with varying shades. Barkha had herself admitted looking back at the turn of events; she may have made a mistake and has learnt her lessons. I think the matter should rest there or else find enough evidence which can really establish the guilt. If she is guilty, she must pay for her sins. The idea is not to defend Barkha Dutt but question the very basis on which the hysteria has been created against her or anyone who doesn’t agree with their views. Unfortunately, amidst all this we are missing the larger issue of crony capitalism. Corporate lobbying is far more insidious and commercially collusive than the politician-criminal nexus. Lobbyists interfering in policy making process, influencing political parties or government to serve their interests is really a serious issue. It is a kind of crony capitalism posing a serious threat to our democracy. It must be seriously looked into. I am no expert on this.

Unfortunately, the abuses and wild accusations has not just kept the sensible and rational minds away from this frenzy but by indulging in such practices these people have abused the very cause they claim they are fighting for. Ask the right questions (in a right way) to get the right answers. One resort to abuse when he has nothing substantial to offer. And what does it yield? Take the yesterday’s incidence, me and my friend who tagged me bootlicker, were essentially doing the same thing, questioning media. He was ignored and perhaps blocked too. But Barkha not just heard me out but assured me to do a story on the issue that I raised. End does not justify means. Abuses don’t serve any purpose either but vitiate the very medium we are using. We need solution not empty rants.

Protecting Amit Shah will not help BJP

“What do you want me and my men to do with a man like Sohrabuddin?” Narendra Modi asked the Ahmedabad crowd in his usual rhetoric style. The crowd roared-“Kill him”. The scene was frightening in its own way. A Chief Minister justifying the fake encounter openly says a lot about his mindset and what does he think of the “Constitution of the nation” which he is supposed to protect (he didn’t do it in 2002 so there is no point expecting him to do it now when only three lives have lost). The way Modi used Sohrabuddin episode in the rally, it became a political tool since then, but considering the kind of politics he plays & highly polarized figure that he is, its not surprising. Yes, Anything for votes.

To be fair with Mr. Modi, that time even I thought that what is the harm in eliminating a criminal? How does it really matter whether encounter is fake or real? But with time, as the story unfolded, some serious questions surfaced that need to be answered. Its about Politician-criminal-police nexus which is not being emphasized enough. As you look at the bigger picture, the whole argument by BJP of Sohrabuddin’s criminal record & police eliminating a criminal falls flat. There are others ridiculous arguments as well, which in one side looks childish and on other side shows disrespect to the rule of law.

Before I come to those arguments, this whole drama from the beginning was a based on just lies. After Sohrabuddin’s encounter, Gujrat police claimed that he was a L eT terrorist who was planning to kill Chief Minister.(the same theory was played for Ishrat Jehan also and coincidently the players are same). Now when SC has absolved his name from this charge, BJP spokesperson still calling him terrorist is absurd. Now, the argument is put forth that Amit Shah could not be called guilty without being given a fair trial. Fair enough, but by the same logic Sohrabuddin also deserved a fair trial. Why was he denied the same right and labeled a terrorist? If Sohrabuddin’s encounter was justified (considering his criminal background), what justifies killing of his wife Kausar Bi and another witness Prajapati? Who is criminal here? Only Sohrabuddin? Was the whole drama and exercise was an honest attempt by Gujrat Police to keep the society criminal free? It seems unlikely. As the chargesheet filed by CBI reveals, Amit Shah and a coterie of police officials ran an extortion racket themselves and Sohrabuddin was also a part of it. If actions of Sohrabuddin makes him a criminal then why not Police official who were too in the same business be considered criminal too? Why different set of standards for different people? As a CBI official claimed-after 10 days of his encounter they extorted Rs 5-6 crore from builders and businessmen. There are other witness accounts too which confirms the claims of CBI. Gujrat CID report also says that the calls made by the minister are not part of official decorum. Their frequency is unnatural and uncommon in nature. In another case Gujrat govt has buried its own report in Ketan parekh case where Amit Shah was bribed.

Interestingly, CBI has been termed as “Congress Bureau of Investigation” which to some extent is true. CBI is losing its credibility fast. The reasons are obvious, it has allowed its officials to be used by politicians. But Gujrat government had been accused of misusing its police & other institutions for its political purposes too. How can Gujrat government forget, SC transferring a few cases out of Gujrat for lack of trust. And in this particular case too, it is Supreme Court which directed CBI to investigate the matter categorically expressing its doubt about the manner it was being investigated by state agencies. Congress, being at the centre may have considerable influence over the CBI, but CBI has to probe and report to Supreme Court not Congress. It’s a different matter, using some cases as political tool or not investigating properly a case to protect someone and entirely different matter to implicate someone of the stature of Amit Shah in a false case in as serious a crime as murder. As if Narendra Modi will allow it to happen. Moreover, in such a high profile case, can CBI really manipulate the whole thing to look stupid in the end? Supreme Court will tear apart the whole organization. Or is it that BJP doesn’t trust SC even? Not surprising because they never trusted anyone but themselves. CBI going after Amit Shah, a right hand man of Chief Minister without proper evidence seems unlikely for various reasons. BJP itself is a big political party and Narendra Modi’s clout in it is no less. His silence in this entire episode in itself raises so many questions. BJP is part of NDA and none of its allies coming in support of him is again a big fact. Or is it they too are blind of the fact of misuse of CBI? A look into the rise of Amit Shah to his present status tells a different story. Shah apart from being home minister handles nine other departments including law, jails, prohibitions, police housing, parliamentary affairs, transport. He was aptly rewarded for his crucial role in engineering unceremonious removal of Keshubhai Patel from the CM’s office in October 2001, and Modi was made CM by the BJP. Shah has a considerable clout in the state government. Shah emerged as a key handler of crucial cases that could hurt his mentor, Narendra Modi. Modi delegated all the dirty work to Shah who executed it with ruthlessness. In light of this Narendra Modi’s silence till now could be seen as an attempt to maintain his so called clean image. But if BJP can question Prime Minister for the acts of his cabinet minister, Modi too is answerable for conduct of his minister. His minister was literally underground for the past three weeks and Modi unaware of these happenings doesn’t go down well. But then It is for CBI and Supreme court to decide whether Amit Shah is guilty or not. What worries me is conduct of BJP in this entire episode. Least BJP could have done is to make Amit Shah resign from the responsibilities he enjoys in Govt and cooperate in investigations with CBI no matter how partisan they claim CBI is or at least approached courts with facts on why they think CBI is partisan. Then his taking on CBI and congress would have made any sense. But BJP is playing its old victimhood card once again. I fail to understand why Supreme court, CBI, Media or anyone speaking against BJP minister is biased and not they themselves. Why behaving like Modi or Shah are some Godly figures that can commit no sin as if they are like Jesus and are being crucified for being on the path of truth. Why can’t they come out with some hard facts to counter CBI allegations than indulging in all digressive talks from CBI misuse to Bofors. None of these arguments justifies the alleged conduct of its own ministers.

In the end, I would like to say that BJP is the main opposition party in parliament. The role of opposition is very important in democracy. It will do no good to the party to blame everybody else and not looking within themselves. We, the citizens of this country need a responsible political party as an alternative to Congress. If BJP doesn’t trust SC, CBI or any other institution, How would a common man trust any institution? There are problems no doubt but what we need is to address those problems to restore their image as fair and just institutions. Blaming institution to save their leader doesn’t serve any purpose.

Book review-Recalcitrance authored by Mr. Anurag Kumar

There is nothing better than getting lost in a good historical novel. Recalcitrance is not just a historical novel but a journey into what we consider the first war of independence and how it affected our city Lucknow. Anurag presented his work in almost as personal in tone as a memoir.

Before I embark on some beautiful things about his work, its pertinent to mention how I got interested in his work, Recalcitrance. One day I met him in a tweet up get together at Lucknow. While he talked about his research on 1857 uprising, I was amazed to see the passion with which he spoke. Given the kind of research Anurag has done, its like a history given a fictional treatment. Then interactions with him on twitter and a few reviews in his blog generated enough curiosity in me to give it a try.

Soon, I embarked on a journey to the events through Anurag’s character as alive as to compel us to care about them and turn pages quickly to discover what happens to them next(I finished reading this book in two consecutive nights is a testimony of this fact). The story is delivered in well timed chapters interspersed with contemporary events during those turbulent times. As the story unfolds, I came across some beautiful characters, who were unique in their own way. These characters who belonged to different religions and caste, united for the cause of our motherland. At its core it is a story of ordinary human beings doing what they must to survive and restore honor of this great nation. The story starts with a highly charged atmosphere and kept me engaged with its tautly written plot throughout. Anurag wraps his story in a stony silence with a grim reminder that mission at hand (and heart too) is not over yet.

What I liked most about the novel Recalcitrance is, it is not about some superhero kind of characters. If I recollect my knowledge of 1857 uprising, it just revolves around a few kings of those times. Here is this novel which presents a different perspective through the eyes of common people, their fear, confusion, agony and then their excitement and patriotism against all odds. As one anonymous character white turbaned man puts it in an address- Many of you might not have even heard of a fire of the bullet. These people rising to the occasion to take on the mightiest empire of those days is incredible. It was a different experience altogether as if I was living those moments, those feelings through its characters. This novel has put forth a very important question- Whether history is about people or just a few individuals as it is currently made out to be? A serious thought needs to be given into this.

Anurag presents his story in a language easily comprehensible (you don’t need to keep a dictionary beside). He has deliberately used some crude hindi terms in between which add to the authenticity of his work. He has highlighted some social realities of those days normally absent in history works. He succeeds in his argument that a mere historical work would not have allowed him to say all he managed through his novel.

In the end, I would like to conclude that I have deliberately not dwelled on the story and its characters for I want the readers to go through every emotion and feeling themselves as I went through. I feel it is a must read for anyone to see the events through the eyes of ordinary common people. This book has enriched me with knowledge and understanding of my own city, Lucknow. Given the kind of enrichment this novel offered, I feel privileged to recommend it to every Lucknowite for it can change your vision about this beautiful city and every person in general who have respect for this nation, its history and its values.

Jai Hind.

Akhtar Hussain