What the Silence Over Rana Ayyub’s ‘Gujarat Files’ Tells Us BY MANOJ MITTA
First, a
disclosure. I was given an advance copy of Gujarat Files as I
was due to be on the panel discussion a few weeks ago marking its release
in Delhi. On reading the advance copy of this explosive
book based on a sting operation, I suggested to its author, Rana
Ayyub, that she put the video tapes in the public domain. This would
demonstrate the fidelity of the transcripts published by her. After all,
the sting was about highly polarising crimes that had taken place on
Narendra Modi’s watch, in his earlier avatar as chief minister of Gujarat.
It would be but natural, I thought, for Modi partisans to insist on seeing
the persons on the receiving end of the operation actually say the damaging
things attributed to them in the book. While Ayyub had her own good
reasons for disregarding my suggestion, I could not have been, in
retrospect, more inaccurate in my forecast.
The silence of
trolls and VIPs
Far from clamouring
for the videos, those partisans, who include a substantial part of the
mainstream media, have maintained a studied silence. This is despite the
fact that the sting featuring key members of the erstwhile Modi regime in
Gujarat punches holes in the carefully constructed official narrative on
the post-Godhra carnage and the fake encounters. Nobody from the government or
the ruling party has apparently been provoked enough to react to the book,
let alone challenge Ayyub to submit her videos for forensic examination.
Modi’s supporters have turned out to be more cowardly than I thought they
were. Though my book on Gujarat too had been greeted with silence from
them, I assumed it was because my study was based primarily on official
documents, which are hard to contest. But as stings are a controversial
source of information, I thought Modi supporters would be emboldened to
question the rigour of Ayyub’s book in the absence of any
video corroboration. That they instead steered clear of her book betrays a
slide into a post-truth world, even as their leader revels in invoking the
national motto of satyameva jayate.
Equally telling is the
silence on the part of the dignitaries who had been inveigled by Rana
into speaking their mind before spy cameras – in the process committing
indiscretions that show themselves and Modi in a bad light. The persons
featured in the operation who have remained tight-lipped in the
month since the publication of the book include Ashok Narayan, who was the
home secretary of Gujarat during the riots, K. Chakravarthi, who was the
state police chief at the time, and P. C. Pande, who was then the police
commissioner of Ahmedabad, the worst-hit area. Such silence, among
the persons in the sting as well as in the larger community of Modi bhakts,
is ironic given the hurdles Ayyub faced in bringing to light the undercover
investigation she had conducted more than five years ago.
No support from
Tehelka or publishers
The first hurdle was
that Tehelka, the publication most reputed for its sting
operations, baulked at carrying this one despite sending Ayyub to Gujarat
on such a hazardous mission. Then, when Ayyub turned her transcripts into
a book manuscript, a succession of publishers apparently backed out
from publishing, forcing her eventually to self-publish it. Had they known
that this sting, whatever its shortcomings, was actually going to stun the
affected sections into silence,Tehelka and the book publishers
would perhaps have been less apprehensive about taking it up. After all, the
book stormed onto the bestseller list on Amazon, despite the low rating found
to have been given by Modi trolls without even reading it. For all its
rough edges owing to a lack of editorial support, the self-published book
has resonated widely as it arrived at a time when the people of India have been
increasingly disenchanted with the prospect of achhe din promised
by Modi.
Tehelka’s calls off
the sting
There are more
important “what if” questions relating to Tehelka, which
commissioned the sting and is therefore the legal owner of the master
tapes. Tehelka came into possession of the entire set of the
master tapes for the sting, which stretched over eight months, by April 2011.
That was when its then editors, Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhary, called
off the sting. This was shortly after Ayyub had (with Pande’s unwitting
help) managed to meet even Modi. As a result Ayyub, posing as a
documentary filmmaker from the US, could not go beyond an introductory meeting.
Displaying a couple of
books on Barack Obama on his table, Modi apparently called the
American president his inspiration. Had she met him again, as apparently
was scheduled shortly thereafter, Ayyub might have recorded Modi talking
about things more relevant to the operation. With its decision to
scrap the sting in April 2011, Tehelka appears to have missed an
opportunity to effect a course-correction in the Supreme Court-monitored SIT
probe into allegations of high-level conspiracy behind the post-Godhra
violence.
The opportunity arose
from the sheer coincidence that while Ayyub was in the thick of her sting,
the Supreme Court in November 2010 appointed senior advocate Raju
Ramachandran as amicus curiae to tender independent
advice on the course of the SIT probe.
When Ramachandran recommended
further investigation against Modi in his interim report three months later, it
was solely on the testimony of police officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who had
claimed to have seen his superiors being instructed by the chief minister,
at an official meeting, to let Hindu mobs avenge the Godhra incident. But,
according to the book, the officers stung by Ayyub debunked Bhatt’s allegation
even as they made statements incriminating Modi otherwise. When he had any
illegal directions to give, Modi, they said, did so quietly on a
one-on-one basis with those close to him.
A missed
opportunity for the amicus curiae
Had Tehelka not
withheld the publication of the sting, Ramachandran might have gotten to see
its sensational contents before he submitted his final report on July 25,
2011. Instead of relying only on Bhatt’s allegations, the amicus
curiaemight have considered the wealth of other evidence on record to
back his inference that Modi had not taken “any decisive action” on the first
day of the post-Godhra massacres. Such a change in approach from the amicus
curiae might in turn have made it harder for the SIT to get away
with a blatant cover-up.
The tone and substance
of what two of the highest officers of the Modi regime in 2002, Narayan
and Chakravarthi, said about their chief minister in the course of the
sting operation also calls for a review of the question posed by Rajdeep
Sardesai in his book on the 2014 election. Was Modi just “incompetent” (as
he had then been in office for just five months) or was he “complicit” (due to
his proximity to the VHP)? While Sardesai gave him the benefit of the
doubt, Narayan and Chakravarthi clearly considered Modi complicit in the
violence. Modi’s followers did too, which is why they hailed him asHindu
hriday samrat in the wake of 2002. They are unlikely to have regarded
him so unless they thought he had put Muslims in their place. Little
wonder then that they have shown no curiosity to see the videos
of Ayyub’s sting. They have already accepted its truth. That said, I still
believe the book will have a greater impact if and when Ayyub makes the
videos public.
Manoj Mitta is the
author of The Fiction of Fact-Finding: Modi and Godhra
See also:
Full
Text of Mrs. Zakia Jafri's Protest Petition
Gujarat Genocide: The State, Law And Subversion
Did Narendra Modi, Amit Shah know of the Ishrat Jahan encounter in advance?
ex-DGP Sreekumar writes open letter to Modi
'Modi-phobia' has gripped Gujarat police: Ex-DGP R B Sreekumar
Ishrat Jehan's mother appeals for justice // CBI Probe Nails IB Officer’s Role
Gujarat Genocide: The State, Law And Subversion
Did Narendra Modi, Amit Shah know of the Ishrat Jahan encounter in advance?
ex-DGP Sreekumar writes open letter to Modi
'Modi-phobia' has gripped Gujarat police: Ex-DGP R B Sreekumar
Ishrat Jehan's mother appeals for justice // CBI Probe Nails IB Officer’s Role
1984
carnage - 5 convicted, main accused Sajjan Kumar acquitted
Public Appeal by R.B. SREEKUMAR, FORMER DGP, GUJARAT
Public Appeal by R.B. SREEKUMAR, FORMER DGP, GUJARAT
‘(the counter
revolution)… tried many forms and devices, but soon learned that it could come
to power only with the help of the state machine and never against it... in the
centre of the counter revolution stood the judiciary.’ Franz Neumann
