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.