The next generation will not even know about half of what we discussed
today. – Christophe JAFFRELOT
In this Part-3 session, I conclude my discussion with Professor Christophe
JAFFRELOT, regarding his path - breaking book, “Gujarat Under Modi”. Back
in November 2013, no publisher was willing to publish this book and it took
finally 2024 for Westland to do that.
In this free flowing conversation, Christophe completely owns his
academic cap. In doing so, he invites us to reflect rather than to react. In
this episode, we recall the details of the horrific 2002 Gujarat pogrom and the
numerous fake encounters that followed. We highlight the names of the major
police officers and the RSS, Sangh Parivar members who brazenly colluded with the
Gujarat government. Also, we pay tribute to the many brave investigative
journalists, human rights activists, NGOs, politicians and committed police
officers who fought for justice and human dignity.
During the dialogue, the renowned author deftly demonstrates his
academic acumen by lucidly elucidating the conceptual terms such as a pogrom, a
terrorist, terrorism, targeted killings, subcontracted violence, polarization,
politics of fear and much more... Christophe gets into the psyche of the
politicians to fathom why would they administer fake encounters. Importantly, he
underlines the importance of processes over motives, facts over rhetoric.
Christophe delves into the deep links between the terror group Abhinav
Bharat, the RSS and the BJP. Watch the interview as well to know his answers to
my questions; “Can the RSS be termed as a terrorist organization? Can Narendra
MODI be held responsible for acts of terrorism?”
Here is Part 3 of an engaging series of interviews with Professor
Christophe JAFFRELOT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G7s5NZV-OA
Anubandh: Hello again! I am Anubandh KATÉ. I am a Paris based engineer and I am among the lucky ones who Christophe JAFFRELOT, the professor, has agreed to give interviews to. Thus, we will be continuing today, the third part and perhaps the last part of a series of interviews where we are discussing his very prominent and recent book, “Gujarat under Modi.”
Welcome, Christophe!
Christophe: Thank you, Anu, for the invitation.
Anubandh: You are welcome. So, I will skip most of your detailed introduction as we have already done that in our previous interviews. Yet, I will still say that you are a professor of South Asian politics and history at CERI, Centre d’Études et de Recherche International, Sciences Po, Paris. You are also a research director at the CNRS which is Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique. And I will keep repeating that you have written over 24 books on India and 7 on Pakistan!
Christophe, in this session I would like us to focus on two very important events of the history of Gujarat, in a way, a political history and those are the pogrom in 2002 and the fake encounters that followed. However, before we get into this, I have a preliminary question. In the last session, given the fact that there were these skirmishes between Pakistan and India, which started on 7th of May 2025, just before this day you had said that, it was important that between these two countries there should be at least some sort of a minimum, basic trust. I believe, when you talked about that trust you referred mostly to diplomats or to political establishments. However, this issue is also about the people - people of Pakistan and people of India, and the trust - or the missing, diminishing trust between them.
For instance, I will just cite two examples on X (Twitter). There was a Pakistani Twitter handler and she wrote, “What is heartbreaking is that many people in India simply do not want us - that means Pakistanis – to exist. They want us all dead.”
Second, “The Pakistan Experience” anchor Shehzad Ghias SHEIKH said, “We can feel the hate that is coming from India. This is what Zia Ul-Haq had done to many Pakistanis. If you attack us we will have no choice but to defend us and counter Attack.” I am sure there are similar expressions from the Indian side as well. But, how do you look at all this hate, how the media projected, twisted realities? They even declared that they had attacked Karachi, conquered Islamabad, Lahore and all that. Could you please comment on that?
Christophe: I would contrast that with what I see when a Pakistani and an Indian meet. Of course, preferably abroad, because it is not so easy to cross the border these days. But when you have any conference, any occasion to make Indians and Pakistanis meet and talk, they immediately realize that they come from the same milieu – cultural, historical milieu. In fact, my research since 2019 is in Kartarpur in Pakistan. Kartarpur is the place where Guru Nanak lived and created Sikhism. It is a place where you have pilgrims coming from India without any need for any visa. Of course, when they cross over for the first time, they are particularly nervous because they are in the number one enemy country. However, they come because of Guru Nanak. And not only Sikh people. You also have Hindus. You also have Muslims. You have all kinds of people. Very soon, they realize that these Pakistanis, especially when they are Punjabis, and when the Indians are also Punjabis, they speak the same language, eat the same food, dress the same way and therefore, are of the same cultural background stock. By the end of the day, this is something that they realize so much that they are very sad to leave so early. They would stay. You know, this is probably one of the reasons why it is so difficult to get a permit to cross over because governments do not want this realization of the common identity. In fact, that is there in Hindustan, in the South Asian part that is made of Pakistan and India. And it is the same thing on the Bengali side, of course. Therefore, I would certainly relativize these hate speeches but I would definitely not underestimate their impact. Especially because people cannot cross over so often, cannot meet the other so often. It is more and more difficult. Thus, the other becomes someone you do not even identify with you. You have this kind of otherness that is particularly true among the young generation because the generation that has experienced the Partition is vanishing. Therefore, those who have close links, family links, all kinds of links are leaving the scene and the new generations, if they never meet the other can easily demonize him or her. And it is one of the jobs we have as academics, to say that they come from the same stock.
Anubandh: I do agree. Even at the personal level I feel so lucky and fortunate that I can meet here (in France) people from Pakistan and interact. Yet, there is this reality that I, and they also represent a certain elite class of Indians & Pakistanis who could come outside of their country. I hope at least that the Sikh link will keep alive the friendship, the bonds of friendship between these two people.
Thank you for this comment.
Now let us get started on our topic of the Gujarat pogrom. The first question would be, is it a program or is it a riot? I know it is a very problematic question. However, it is an important one. Could you respond to it?
Christophe: Well, it is not so problematic if you apply proper definitions. You know this is what, again, social scientists are supposed to do - to use concepts, to use analytical notions. A pogrom is something we have seen in the past. The Jews were the main casualties in Europe, in the Middle ages, in the following centuries. The definition of a pogrom, then applies to what we saw in Gujarat in 2002, applies to what we saw in Delhi in 1984, applies to what we saw in Nellie in Assam in 1983. The same story always. A very large number of victims came from the same community. Therefore, it is not a riot because you do not have casualties on both sides. You have casualties mostly on one side. Further, it is with the help or at least the tacit support of the state. Thus, when the police do not intervene or when it (the police) helps the assailants, who belong to the majority community, you also have another factor, another criterion of what is a pogrom. When you have these two criteria, it is not a riot anymore. It is more than a riot.
Anubandh: Since we are on the conceptual level, I am tempted to ask you one more definition. It is about the word “terrorist”, as an individual as an organization. How would you define, certify a person or an organization as being a terrorist one?
Christophe: Well, again the only way out for this kind of definition is to look at processes and not so much at motivations. Terrorism is defined by the violence that is unleashed most of the time against very vulnerable targets, civilians. Certainly, civilians more than any other kind of groups, and with the intention to terrorize, to impress, to make a psychological impact. This is one of the reasons why suicide bombers have been also, if you want, promoted by some terrorist groups. Because when you have the courage to kill yourself, to kill others, of course, you terrorize even more.
Therefore, I do not need to refer to motivations, I do not need to refer to ideology, I do not need to refer to identity politics. Because you have terrorists among all kinds of groups. You know, the Tamil Tigers, the jihadists. So many groups. The Malegaon accused, Abhinav Bharat you know, they all resorted to terrorist methods. Now, that is for the terrorist groups. Some people say that terrorism also comes from the state.
There you have, state - statist - brand of terrorism. Well, incidentally the word “terror” was first used during the French Revolution, when under Robespierre, in the 1790s - early 1790s - you terrorized people by killing - in the name of the defense of the state, in the name of the revolution - dozens, hundreds, thousands of people. Thus, you can also apply terrorism to state actions but it is more complicated and usually we do not do it. Nevertheless, certainly, today you can consider Israel's war against the people of Gaza, as a form of terrorism. It is state terrorism after Hamas resorted to another kind of terrorism. However, the idea is really to terrorize. The idea is essentially to impress upon the victims and civilians again. The civilians have to be the main casualties.
Anubandh: Two quick comments on this because one of the counter accusations or arguments from the Pakistani defenders was that even Canada has accused the Indian state of terrorism when they killed a Canadian national of Sikh origin on their soil. So that was an act of terrorism for them. That is one argument.
Then, I saw one Kashmiri resident, who was recently interviewed by a journalist and the journalist asked him, “Do you have in your family someone who is linked to the terrorist groups?” The respondent said, “I am sorry. I have no one related to the RSS.” So, the question again is, is RSS a terrorist organization? Can Narendra MODI also be held responsible of terrorism?
Christophe: Well, on the Khalistanis in Canada, or attacks on Khalistanis, in Canada and the US - the word “terrorism” is probably misplaced, because it is more of a targeted killing precisely. What you want to do is to eliminate someone. The method is not the same as a terrorist attack that intends to impact, to influence, to affect, to impress. You can say that it may have a decisive impact on others but it is really an individual who is selected. It is not the same thing as killing dozens of civilians. Primarily, because this civilian is definitely an ideologue or a militant. Secondly, he is alone. That is why I use “targeted killing” for this kind of an attempt at eliminating someone.
When you consider RSS as an organization, it is definitely a different modus operandi. Now, RSS prefers to subcontract violence to other groups rather than using - resorting - to violence itself. The idea is certainly to convert, to conquer the psyche of people. So, you may intimidate. You may certainly show muscle power and that is also why you have these processions of RSS volunteers, thousands of them showing their discipline, showing their force, sometimes showing weapons, including swords, not only lathis (batons). Yes, the idea is to impress, make an impact on the other but without resorting to violence, trying to avoid resorting to violence (directly). When violence is used, it is more because it has been subcontracted to other groups, which can report to RSS, which can be part of the Sangh Parivar. But, it is not RSS as such.
Anubandh: So, if I understood you correctly, therefore, the other affiliated groups could potentially be called as terrorist groups, but apparently not as directly RSS being a terrorist organization.
Christophe: And when you look at terrorist groups, for instance, when you look at Abhinav Bharat, it has been accused by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) and the NIA (National Investigation Agency) of being responsible for half a dozen bomb blasts. That was their modus operandi. Therefore, Samjhauta Express, Maleagon, Ajmer, Mecca Masjid… You have half a dozen kinds of cases. Abhinav Bharat was made of former RSS cadres, former pracharaks or somewhat dissident swayamsevaks. Saffron-clad yogis were individuals. You also had a former BJP Member of Parliament (Pragya Singh THAKUR) from New Delhi. Also, people who came from the Savarkarite tradition - including Himani SAVARKAR, who came from the same family. In addition, a couple of ex-army men or active army men including Colonel Prasad PUROHIT. It was a very heteroclite kind of organization and it is not easy to see a sense of direction when you look at their meetings. In fact, I was given the FIR (First Information Record) that an Indian journalist could lay his hands on and was too shy to use it himself. Thus, I could see the transcripts of their meetings because all these meetings were recorded. I wrote a longish article in EPW (Economical and Political Weekly) on this. I do not know if it is still available online because of course, censorship makes its own work. Nevertheless, I have used these sources to show how it originates. It is such a kind of bricolage without any clear line of conduct. However, you know, this is not so exceptional. Many terrorist groups are made by amateurs. They are not necessarily very well disciplined and organized. Therefore, the main criterion I retain, I repeat, is using violence against very vulnerable civilians and trying to make a very deep psychological impact on this community. That was it every time.
Anubandh: Okay, thank you.
Now let us get to the crux of the matter. One thing is about the burning of the Sabarmati Express. And that was an argument that was used by Narendra MODI as being the “action reaction” theory. Now, in your book there are different versions of investigations that you treated and you tried to dig in and look for the truth. So, to my audience, could you tell us, what really for you is the most plausible version of things, of events that happened?
Christophe: It is very difficult to say what is the most plausible sequence of events. There are indeed different hypotheses. Either the fire started from inside, and that is one of the investigation's results. It was not outsiders but insiders. The problem was that there were outsiders making it impossible for the people inside to leave the coaches. The other hypothesis of course is, attacks from outside, with some bombs - incendiary bombs - which were responsible for that. What is the most important thing for me is not so much the sequence of events. However, the interpretation you give to these events. The main question there is, was it pre-planned? Or was it a more spontaneous action or reaction? There was certainly some attack, making it impossible for the insiders to leave the coaches or responsible for the attack itself. Now, the bureaucrat in charge of the district – when they arrived at the platform in the station of Godhra, immediately considered that there was no evidence of any pre-planned action. That makes Narendra MODI's attitude more suspicious because he attributed this attack to Pakistan, to even ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) sponsored Pakistani assailants. In fact, he was not the only one. Several BJP leaders even in Delhi did the same. Then it became a political question. As a political scientist, I am more interested in the way something that is still unexplained is used, for political purposes. The same conclusion comes from the fact that the corpses of the 56 people who died were taken to Ahmedabad, shown on TV ad nauseam to make the needed impact in terms of polarization. You know, the keyword here is polarization. The idea is to polarize society for political aims. It works. I mean, it worked.
Anubandh: What we know for sure and certain is the political exploitation of this
event, because there are proofs of it given by Narendra MODI.
Nevertheless, a few things I would like to highlight - because
we do not have too much time, yet they are very vital - and which I learnt in
your book - is the fact that the train was coming from Uttar Pradesh if I am
not wrong. It had almost more than 50% - perhaps 70-75% - of karsevaks (meaning
“service doers” in Hindi) who were in a very aggressive mood. There was
constant heckling of other co-passengers, especially Muslims. I think one
family was also forced to get down, de-board and it all really reached a
crescendo when the train reached a Muslim dominated locality. There were
skirmishes and disputes. That is what we know.
Then there are different commissions. We have the
Nanavati Commission, which was in a way pro-Gujarat government's version of
things. The then Railway Minister Lalu Prasad YADAV, when he came to power, in
2005, when the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) won, he appointed UC Banerjee
Committee. It submitted a report in 2005, which concluded that the fire in the
coach that killed 59 in Godhra in 2002 was accidental and not premeditated. It
was accidental. Moreover, in March 2005, Gujarat High Court issued a stay order
against the implementation of the UC Banerjee report. In October 2006 the
Gujarat High Court declared the Banerjee Committee illegal. Therefore, there
was also politics on this.
You also talked about Ashish KHETAN’s Tehelka investigation where he revisited the theory that petrol was bought from the petrol pump, and the confessions by the Muslims who were picked up, were inconsistent.
So in general, how would you put in context all these investigation reports that did not really go much further? Lastly, would you hold the Congress, the UPA government responsible for not doing enough, to see that a fair investigation is done and the convicts are held responsible?
Christophe: Well, you know, police is a state subject and even the Supreme Court could not avoid the making of an SIT (Special Investigative Team), where the Gujarat police was in charge, largely. So, when the state judiciary, when the state police, when the state bureaucracy, have been captured, it is not so easy in a federation like India to do much more. What the Supreme Court could have done - they could have asked the CBI to investigate. If there is one mistake somewhere, I think this is where it is. However, you know, it was not even sufficient. Finally, when the fake encounters issues became really prominent, CBI was asked to do the job. Satish Chandra VERMA was responsible for putting Amit SHAH behind bars, and then he was not allowed to enter Gujarat for some time. Nevertheless, that was the peak. That was the peak because the rest was not accessible. By 2012 Amit SHAH was back in Gujarat and they could win the state elections and he could….This is precisely why I mention Gujarat as the laboratory of today's India. Because the way the state has been captured, and the main institutions of the state have been captured in Gujarat, have been the blueprint of the way the same institutions have been captured at the national level, gradually after 2014.
Anubandh: Yeah, indeed because this argument is often used, that even the Supreme Court gave a “clean chit” to the now prime minister (Narendra MODI).
Christophe: Yeah, clean chit is a big word because they did not go that far. But they did not insist on a complete investigation either. That was the beginning of the end for the Supreme Court of India, that is of course now even much lower.
Anubandh: Right and I would argue also that Narendra MODI continued being in office, and in a position of influence, while he was under trial, which is against any normal principle of justice.
Moving on, I am just going to highlight again a few other important aspects of this pogrom. You have written that what was remarkable this time was the urban-village spread. The violence was not limited only to urban areas but it also spread to the villages. Second, you also talked about the implication of Dalits and Adivasis, how they were instrumentalized, used by the BJP against killings of Muslims. You also mentioned that weapons were procured from Punjab. Therefore, there was some planning there. You also mentioned that the army was prevented from entering the scene. For several hours, there was no transportation provided for the army to come from the Ahmedabad airport to the city. The army chief - I forgot his name - but he said that he found that the Gujarat cadre was completely communalized and there was not much to be expected from them. Yes and, on the investigation finally, since there were so many problems, it was apparently only reduced to a few cases, like Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya, Bilkis Bano, and which was unfortunate because there were so many killings and other serious cases.
Christophe: That was also because NGOs considered that it would be more realistic not to pursue all the cases. And finally, they also agreed that to reduce the number to eight. For them, it would be enough for making a point, for making history. In fact and that is why I would be more nuanced than the image you have just given - In fact, for the first time in the history of communal riots in India, some people were declared guilty and went to jail! They were made free subsequently. Babu BAAJARANGI for instance, went to jail. You had very courageous Judges - women, in many cases - who went to that extent. Similarly, what needs to be highlighted also is the role of the police officers, who did their job properly. Nevertheless, some of them are in jail now, or on bail. Many of them are abroad. They have left. They have been sidelined. They have been of course punished. However, they did their job. They tried to do their job properly. That is something that needs to be highlighted as well.
Anubandh: Indeed. Now, last question on the pogrom, and then we move to fake encounters. On this issue, there are several prominent books by journalists, especially like Siddharth VARADARAJAN has written, we have Ashish KHETAN who has written, we have a book by Rana AYUB, we have a book by Harsh MANDER. I am not sure if Sanjeev BHAT has written a book-- perhaps?
Christophe: No, he has not.
Anubandh: Ok. So, the question is how do you look at these books? Are there others you would recommend? Would you like to respond to that?
Christophe: These books are very well informed. You know the way they worked as journalists or activists because Harsh is an NGO man. And the others are excellent journalists, investigative journalists. Therefore, the books are very rich and I was able to use them. I was able to use interviews but I never mentioned anyone because you do not want to put people in danger. However, the kind of information you got in print there was first class because they are indeed, very professional, competent journalists.
What academics do is somewhat different. They do not only inform the way journalists inform the people. Academics try to interpret as well. Why has it happened? What is the reason? And the main reason, I repeat, was polarization. Because Narendra MODI, as soon as he could dissolve the State Assembly, did it and tried to organize elections as fast as he could. The Election Commission came and said how can we organize elections when more than 150000 people are homeless? However, L. K. ADVANI was Deputy Prime Minister and also Home Minister. He pushed, he insisted and finally elections could take place. That was the main reason all these things happened. BJP could win these elections with a fascinating correlation that many of my colleagues doing electoral studies have highlighted. It is in the districts, in the constituencies, where you have had the largest number of casualties, that BJP won the largest number of seats. This is polarization for electoral purposes.
Anubandh: Indeed. Now, one last thing is about an article I stumbled upon today. It was in 2017 in “India Today” about Sanjiv BHATT. I am just going to read those few lines –
“Sanjiv BHATT alleges that a young investigative journalist was forced into changing the script of her book for fear of getting shamed publicly for her amorous relationship with an IPS Officer. He further says, the young journalist according to BHATT, wrote a titillating and fanciful account of her journalistic exploits in Gujarat but took exceptional care to gloss over the role of the then chief minister in engineering the Gujarat carnage. In return, the book was allowed to be published and publicized without any hindrance whatsoever. He said, what could have been an end of the political road situation for the political duo” -- and I think it is Amit SHAH and MODI that he is referring to from Gujarat – “an end of the journalistic road situation for the young investigative journalist became a win-win situation for both sides.”
If I am not wrong, he is making reference to Rana AYUB. What do you think about this?
Christophe: I do not know, I have no idea. I usually do not go into these personal vendettas, really. I am not interested in this kind of polemical issues.
Anubandh: Ok.
Now let us get started with the fake encounters which took place after the riots. There are many cases. I propose to share my screen. I have picked a few cases just to show you a summary. I have summarized them and I later would request your comments.
So, we have Sameer KHAN, Kasam JAFAR, Haji Haji ISMAIL, then Sadiq JAMAL, Ishrat JAHAN, Shoharabuddin SHEIKH. That was an extortion case against him. Tulsiram PRAJAPATI - he was part of Soharabuddin's racket and witnessed his killing as well.
Christophe: Those who want to know the details can definitely read the book. What the idea always is, the Gujarat Police has “identified terrorists” coming from Pakistan or supported by some Pakistan based organization like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) or Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and declares that these people have come to murder Narendra MODI. That is why they have killed them. What the post mortem has shown in many cases, is that they were not killed in the back while they were running away. They were clearly executed. In addition, a certain number of policemen have been implicated in, something like half a dozen cases. You have given most of them here. The most prominent IPS officer there was Mr. VANZARA. The investigation resulted in the arrest of more than twenty policemen. VANZARA and these 20+ policemen were sent to jail where they spent quite a long time. Such a long time that, at one point of time, VANZARA wrote a long letter, accusing Narendra MODI and Amit SHAH of letting them down. The letter is a really interesting letter, showing what had happened, why all these things were orchestrated, engineered.
Anubandh: Christophe - sorry to interrupt you because you have mentioned about this letter in the book. I propose to read just a small portion of this letter, because I think it will highlight what you are saying.
[So, September 2013, VANZARA, who had just been rearrested because of his role in the Ishrat JAHAN case resigned from Gujarat Police. In his resignation letter, he said that he had suffered silently until then only because of “my supreme faith in and highest respect for Narendra MODI, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, whom I used to adore like a god. But I am sorry to say that my God could not rise to the occasion under the evil influence of Amit SHAH.”
VANZARA’s letter is revealing of the implications of the reigning collusion. He said that he assumed that mutual protection and reciprocal assistance was the unwritten law between police and government in such cases. Indeed, VANZARA had benefited from the government's benevolent attitude. In only five years from 2002 to 2007, he was promoted from Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Crime Branch of Ahmedabad city to Deputy Inspector General of Police in Anti-Terrorism Squad, Ahmedabad and then Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police Border Range, Kutch Division.]
Christophe: So, you see again, as a political scientist, there are two things I am very interested in.
One of course is the motivation of the policemen. The motivation of the policemen may well be to please the political masters, to get promotion. They may even, on their own, decide to be very zealous and anticipate the expectations of the politicians, that these politicians may not even have. That is for the policemen’s side and it is not too complicated to understand, really.
Now, on the politician's side, why would they do that? Why would they orchestrate fake encounters? What is their objective? The objective might well have been what we call politics of fear. And that is a concept we use in political science. Politics of fear mean you try to propagate a sentiment of vulnerability, a sentiment of fear, because if people are fearful, if people feel vulnerable, then they need even more urgently a protector, a savior, a strong man, a “chowkidar” (a guardian), to use a word that will come back. However, that was there in Gujarat already. The idea that MODI was a “chowkidar” of Gujarat was already there in the years 2009-2010. Therefore, you have this orchestration of fake encounters for cultivating a sentiment of fear, a politics of fear that in fact has the same result as the pogrom. Polarization. The idea is constantly to show that there is a threat and in reaction to these threats, the government is doing the right thing.
Anubandh: So, in general the attitude we see is punishing the honest policemen, rewarding the complicit, so that is the incentive. And you also had instances of fixing the judiciary.
But now, I have made a list of prominent politicians who were accused in all these fake encounters.
Of course, we start with Narendra MODI, the then Chief
Minister. He was petitioned by Zakia JAFRI.
Then we have Amit SHAH. He was the Home Minister. He was accused of fake encounters. Also, in extortion racket involvement of Soharabuddin. Senior police officer Abhay CHUDASAMA. Amit SHAH was arrested in 2010. We have Maya KODNANI. She was an MLA. She fired with her pistol, instigated the mob during the pogrom. She was sentenced to 28 years in prison in 2012.
Since we are talking about politicians. I just would like to also take names of two Congress politicians. There is Arjun MODHWADIA and Shakti Singh GOHLI that you mentioned in the book who constantly raised questions and criticized the government over the handling of fake encounters and the pogrom.
Christophe: No, certainly the opposition party did its job and the NGO people did it too. I mean there was a constant investigation by not only NGOs, but by journalists. In fact, we know about the Soharabuddin story because of a journalist who resisted all kinds of intimidations. And of course policemen. I have mentioned Satish VERMA. He was certainly a very important one.
Yes, Prashant DAYAL is the man I referred to.
Anubandh: Since you mentioned it, I am sharing the screen. Prashant DAYAL is the
one who did it in the case of the fake encounters. The others dealt more with the pogrom. And yes, NGO activists also played a major
role. We have Ashish KHETAN there, Siddharth VARADARAJAN, Rana AYUB and
Prashant DAYAL that you talked about.
I also made a small list of NGOs that were involved. We have “Citizens For Peace and Justice”, ANHAD (Act Now for Harmony and Democracy), and Janvikas. And the activists, you have Teesta SETALVAD, Harsh MADAR, Shabnam HASHMI, Gagan SETHI, Father Cedric PRAKASH, Mukul SINHA, Shiv VISHWANATHAN who along with R.K. RAGHAVAN, wrote to the SIT Chairman. We have Mallika SARABHAI, Javed AKHTAR, B.G. VERGHESE and some others.
Christophe: No, this is a great list. I prefer not to expose the others.
Anubandh: Okay, never mind. I have also compiled the role of RSS-VHP ideologues and activists who were either accused or involved in this.
This is now again,
I am going back to the pogrom. We have here Pravin TOGADIA, VHP leader. Babu
BAAJARANGI. I would like to talk about Babu BAAJARANGI a bit because he was… as
you mentioned in our last conversations that the BJP is not a homogeneous
family as it is made out to us. There are tensions, at times between Narendra
MODI and the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), TOGADIA. And this is to the extent
that apparently, the Gujarat government went against the cancellation of the
conviction of Babu BAAJARANGI. Therefore, that speaks for it. Today, he is out
of jail I think.
Christophe: Yes.
Anubandh: Next, we have Swaminathan GURUMURTHY. He is linked to RSS. We have Jaideep PATEL, a VHP leader who led attackers in the Naroda area. Do you have any comment on these ideologues and activists?
Christophe: They are not ideologues really. GURUMURTHY, yes. The others are more activists. And on the one hand, they did the “dirty job”, especially Babu BAAJARANGI. He incidentally was not only fighting Muslims, but also fighting Inter-caste marriages. When we look at the “love jihad” question, you know. Love jihad has become a battle of the Sangh Parivar in India at large today. However, it was there in Gujarat many years before MODI took over power at the centre. Therefore, he was involved in this. What it shows also are tensions between individuals, in competition, for power. Definitely, Narendra MODI and Pravin TOGADIA were locked in a kind of competition. Nevertheless, there were others. There were others. For instance, Sanjay JOSHI and Narendra MODI were also in a form of competition. And yes, it shows that there is indeed, some heterogeneity, some tension within the Sangh Parivar. MODI prevailed and no one could resist his rise to power. Definitely, after 2007 when RSS resigned to support him. In 2007, many RSS people were not supporting him during the election campaign. However, he wins and he wins with a big margin. So, even the Bharat Kisan Sangh, which was an organization that had fought against Narendra MODI, became redundant. After that, there is no real opposition left within the Sangh Parivar except Keshubhai PATEL. Keshubhai PATEL will try to win power within the BJP and of course, he will be marginalized.
Anubandh: One more instance of this rivalry and it is perhaps unbelievable, but it is true, is the fact that you wrote that Narendra MODI allegedly in an anti-encroachment drive, destroyed more than hundred temples in Gujarat to score points against the VHP! And he was also accused by the VHP leaders of being anti Hindu. That is perhaps very difficult to believe today.
Moving on, I would like to take a few names of the 2002 pogrom and fake encounter accused police officers. As you know, Christophe, not many of these police officers have been booked, have had a fair trial.Many of them are rather acquitted. Therefore, at least through this book that you have written it is important that we highlight those names. I am just going to read those, and then also (names of) some other committed police officers and afterwards, we shall stop.
So, there is K.M. VAGHELA, Inspector Tarun BAROT. I do not remember now but they had worked with Ketan TIRODKAR, a Mumbai-based journalist. We have J. G. PARMAR - Inspector, Noel PARMAR - Police Officer, P.B. GONDIA – Police Officer, We have Ramesh PATEL - Police Officer. There is Rajeev KUMAR - Joint Director of the Central Bureau of Intelligence (CBI) in Gujarat, IB (Information Bureau) officer, accused in Ishrat JAHAN case by the CBI. We have Abhay CHUDASAMA - Senior Police Officer extortion case with Amit SHAH and Soharabuddin. We have Ashish BHATIA - former Additional Commissioner of Police in Surat - SIT Appointment. You have Shivananda ZH - former Additional Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad - Home Secretary SIT appointment. You have K.G. ERDA - Police Officer in charge of Gulberg Society area. Later, D. G. VANZARA - Chief of Detection of Crime Branch - Anti-Terrorist Squad Chief. P.P. PANDEY - Chief of Crime Branch. Narendra K. AMIN, VANZARA’s Deputy, J.G. PARMER, Inspector. You have M.K. TANDON - Police Officer, You have K. K. MYSOREWALA, Police Inspector in charge of Naroda Patiya area, Rakesh ASTHANA, part of SIT - became Additional Director of CBI in 2016. You have Y.C. MODI who probed MODI's role in Gujarat riots, appointed by SIT, investigated the murder of Haren PANDYA, became Additional CBI Director in 2015. Praveen SINHA, Gujarat cadre of 1988 batch, became CBI Acting Director in 2021. G.L. SINGHAL, Assistant Commissioner of Police in Crime Branch, CHAKRABORTY, DGP accused in Samir KHAN fake encounter along with Amit SHAH.
And the last slide is about the committed police officers.
You have R.B. SREEKUMAR, who has the complete list of IPS cadres, who those who were complicit. The access and closeness they enjoyed with Amit SHAH and Narendra MODI. Satish VERMA - SIT member - investigated fake encounters, accused other SIT members of not allowing the probe to be done in an unbiased way. You have Geetha JOHRI. She was Inspector General, Gujarat's first female officer, part of CID. Her report mentioned, “the collusion of the state government in the form of Shri Amit SHAH, Minister of State for Home. And said that this case makes a complete mockery of the rule of Law and is perhaps an example of involvement of the state government in a major crime.” She pointed out the collusion between politicians, criminals and policemen. Nevertheless, her appointment later in the Special Investigative Team (SIT) was criticized.
Sanjeev BHATT. We talked about him. Senior Police Officer. He gave statement against Narendra MODI and mentioned about the infamous meeting held on 27th February 2002 at MODI's residence. Tirth RAJ, Inspector ofPpolice who investigated Sameer KHAN case. Rahul SHARMA, Superintendent of Police, submitted CDs of conversations to the Nanavati Commission, and surprisingly the commission did not ask for it! Earlier in April 2002, he was Deputy Commissioner of Police. S.P. TAMANG, Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajneesh RAI, Deputy Inspector General (DIG), investigated fake encounters in charge of arresting D.G. VANZARA. Sorry for this long list. However, I think it was important. Your comments, please.
Christophe: Well, for those who want to know more, the book is there with all the details and the sources. It shows that everything was accessible. The book is based only on open sources. There is absolutely no confidential document, and when they are, they are cited in annexure for being fully accessible. This is what I found so interesting because when in 2013 the book was submitted to the publisher, it was not publishable, in spite of everything being available already in the public domain! Therefore, I think it would be interesting to understand how a story like MODI's Gujarat, perceived by the Gujaratis in the first place and beyond Gujarat retrospectively. What kind of moment of Indian history this is and why is it obliterated in such an effective manner? I think the next generation will not even know about half of what you have said today.
Anubandh: That is why your book is precious!
Christophe: Yeah, exactly, books are for that – archives. This is a book that equals a book by a Pakistani colleague, K.K. AZIZ. The title of his book was “Murder of History”. How history is erased. Precisely we do books, for understanding, for interpreting, for analyzing but also for not forgetting, for remembering. That is one of the other jobs of academics.
Anubandh: Indeed, Christophe, there are a lot of other questions I had for you
but I now leave that to the audience to discover their answers on their own in
the book which is a great read. Once again, I thank you a lot for doing this
discussion with me. Because writing a book and reading it, are two different
experiences. And when you have the author himself discussing it with you, it is
very special! I feel really lucky that you reposed your confidence in me and
shared your time. I thank you for that.
I hope we will have many more such occasions. Thank you, Christophe.
Christophe: Thank you.
Christophe JAFFRELOT is a permanent Consultant at the Direction de la Prospective of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
He has written more than 24 books on India and 7 on Pakistan.
Christophe JAFFRELOT is a frequent columnist in major
Indian news publications such as The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Wire.
Anubandh KATÉ is a Paris based engineer and is the co-founder of the association,
“Les Forums France Inde”.
No comments:
Post a Comment