Who Killed Judge LOYA?

 

On 1^st of December 2014, Justice Brijgopal Harkishan LOYA, who was appointed a special CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) judge by Supreme Court of India, was reported dead under mysterious circumstances. Judge LOYA was in the midst of hearing a politically sensitive trial in which India’s present Home Minister, Amit SHAH was accused of a partner in crime gangster Sohrabuddin SHEIKH’s fake encounter. Incidentally, within a month of LOYA’s death, the newly appointed judge, M.B. GOSAVI acquitted Amit SHAH of all the charges. Ever since, the family members of judge LOYA and many prominent personalities in India have alleged a foul play in Judge LOYA’s death and have insisted for a fair and thorough investigation. However, on 19^th April 2018, a bench of Supreme Court flatly rejected all the demands of an independent probe in this matter.

Niranjan TAKLE is an investigative journalist, who during a long period of almost 20 months, bravely weathered all possible hurdles to unearth the murky details of this affair. “Who Killed Judge LOYA?” is his quasi-biographical work that summarizes major events of those 20 odd months. When most mainstream journals refused to publish his investigative story in 2017 and later even to publish his book, Niranjan doggedly stuck to his journalistic duty. Through his work, he has relentlessly reiterated his commitment to truth and justice, upholding India’s constitutional and democratic values.

In this engrossing interview, Niranjan narrates to us how Judge LOYA bravely resisted all the pressures, luring and threats by the mighty. This book is certainly about one of India’s bravest CBI Judges as much it is about a daredevil investigative journalist. Niranjan’s presence of mind, street smartness and headstrong persistence seem to make any difficulty sweat and squirm. Albeit, the journalist had to pay a huge price both at professional (4 years without a salary) and at personal level (physical attacks, harassments).

In this interview, Niranjana underlines that as per the Indian law criticizing a Supreme Court’s judgement is not defamatory. He stresses that the book is written not to scare but to equip people with strategies to counter fascism. Nevertheless, he complains about the Indian civil society’s hypocrisy through its selective outrages that weigh in the political, financial and muscle might of the accused.

In this interview, we chronologically and minutely assess every important event related to this scandal.  Rather, Niranjan shares during this conversation many new and important aspects that are not part of the book. For instance, he reveals to us that he had watched the Ravi Bhavan (Nagpur) CCTV footage in which the auto rickshaw in which Judge LOYA was transported in the early hours of 1^st December 2014 could be seen! Do watch the entire interview to discover many more such revealing details.

Lastly, do find for yourself how Niranjan responds to my following tricky question:

“Does your impulsive, impetuous nature help or hinder your work?”

Note:

1) There are simultaneous subtitles in French and in Hindi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCVEd05Cv_A

2) Please consult the English, French, Italian, Marathi, Hindi, Bengali and Kannada transcripts of this interview at the below link.

 

Anubandh: Hello! My name is Anubandh KATÉ. I am a Paris based engineer. It is with immense pleasure that I invite today Niranjan TAKLE who is an investigative journalist. He has worked extensively on various important stories in the past and is with us today to discuss the book “Who Killed Judge LOYA?”, which he had published in 2022.

We will be discussing this book because Judge LOYA passed away on 1^st December 2014. We will be commemorating his death anniversary. Thus, this interview is a homage to his work and to this tragedy.

Niranjan, welcome!

Niranjan: Thank you.

Anubandh: I will introduce you briefly.

You are from Nashik, a town in Maharashtra. However, you also worked in Mumbai. In your ch ildhood, your grandfather had a publication house. You also ran a newspaper stall along with him. You were very influenced by the poem of Tagore, “Let My Country Awake” and your parents and your grandfather used to recite it to you. This really influenced you in a very positive manner.

Your education is in engineering. You did a Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics in 1987. When it comes to profession, you initially started with engineering. In 1994, you had a business logic solution company of your own for machine automation. You were also associated with Sam PITRODA in the telecom sector.

Talking about journalism, you worked at the CNN IBN and The WEEK. You also wrote articles for The Caravan and other magazines. You are an investigative journalist, as well as an author. This is one among other books that you have written. Besides, you have plans for more books that are in the pipeline. For instance, you happen to work extensively on Vinayak SAVARKAR’s political and personal life. You presented your work at the United States Congress at the invitation of the State Department. You held a discussion there on religious freedom along with Suniti VISWANATHAN of Hindus for Human Rights. Columbia University recognized your work with a gold medal for your journalism career.

Interestingly, in 2015 you took a GANDHI Yatra where you followed the same (train) trail that GANDHI had traveled in 1915. During this journey, in almost the same conditions (as those for GANDHI), you visited several Indian cities like Rajkot, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Kolkata, Haridwar, Patna, Delhi and others.

Further, talking about the major stories that you have covered: “A Lamb, Lionized” is the one that really highlighted your work and people started recognizing you. It was for The WEEK and that is how Nupur BIYANI (Judge LOYA’s niece) also contacted you.

You were also disguised as a (Muslim) cattle transporter to unearth the cattle extortionist racket by the Bajrang Dal in Gujarat. It was far from being an easy task. There, you were beaten by the goons.  

Among other stories, you covered the sand mafia, the Dhule riots, farmer issues, demonetization, free-ship for scheduled caste students and many more. You have a YouTube channel; EG News. You frequently comment on current affairs in Marathi, Hindi and in other languages.

Lastly, you have also your own publication house. This for obvious reasons. Since I understand that not many publishers were ready to publish this book, including Penguin, who denied and declined. Nevertheless, more than that, this publication house also helps publication of books which are difficult to publish for being on sensitive topics.

And then lastly, there is your book, “Mask of the mascot and secrets of the empire”.

Before we get into the details may I request you to present to my audience a brief summary or a context, a background of why this book came into being and how your journey was?

Niranjan: As you mentioned, after my SAVARKAR story was published that was titled “A lamb, Lionized”, it made his followers very furious since I addressed SAVARKAR as a lamb. They were very enraged. They started trolling me, they started abusing me, they started addressing me in the filthiest possible language. They were threatening me, my daughter and my entire family.

During that period, I happened to be in Pune for a different story. At this moment, Nupur BIYANI, niece of Judge LOYA who was a 19-year-old at that time, came to meet me along with one of our common friends. She said that if I am able to withstand the kind of pressure and the kind of threats that I was receiving that time, then she thought that I was the right person who could do a story on her uncle's death. I asked her why anybody would be interested in her uncle's death. Then, she said that he was murdered. I said, okay, so what? That she had all my sympathies but so many murders happen. Why would people be interested in knowing how and why her uncle was murdered? At that instance, she said that her uncle's name was Brij Gopal LOYA and he was presiding over Sohrabuddin’s fake encounter case. And that shocked me! Because, “he was presiding over Sohrabuddin’s fake encounter case”, this sentence made me understand the scope, the gravity and the seriousness of that particular case. Because this was a very famous— rather  infamous case in India.

This particular person, Sohrabuddin SHEIKH, his wife, Kausarbi and his associate Tulsi PRAJAPATI, all three of them were encountered. It was published that they were terrorists and they had come to kill Narendra MODI in Gujarat. However, later on, it came out that those were fake encounters. Amit SHAH, the present-day Union Home Minister of India was at that time the Home Minister of Gujarat state. He was the main accused in that particular case. This was the case in which Amit SHAH was jailed for four months. He was even barred from Gujarat state for two years. He was not allowed to enter Gujarat for two years. The case was transferred from Gujarat to Mumbai. The Supreme Court appointed a special CBI, a special court and asked the court to sit in Mumbai and hear the entire case.

Thus, Judge LOYA was presiding over that particular case and his niece was telling me that he was murdered. Of course, she did not have any evidence along with her. She was telling me a story which she had overheard from the discussions of her mother, her aunt, her grandfather and all that. So, she herself did not have any evidence and but constantly – I must tell you that she was talking to me for almost three and a half hours. During all the conversation – she used to cry number of times. However, whenever she cried, she would look down. She used to take a deep breath and then again look up and start telling me. That made me understand that this particular girl genuinely wants the truth to be revealed. She was taking a huge risk herself because her entire family was scared. At that time, I decided that I will, come what may, investigate this particular story.

Then another incident happened. I had gone to meet Judge LOYA’s son Anuj at his house in Pune. He was staying there with his grandfather. At that time, his grandfather was with him. His grandfather was 85-year-old and Anuj was sitting right opposite to me, all the time with his head down. He was staring at the floor. He never looked up at me, not even for a fraction of a second. I was constantly asking him questions and he would not look at me. He would look sideways at his grandfather and then his grandfather would answer the question. Therefore, at one point in time, I asked his grandfather why Anuj was not answering. After all, Anuj is Judge LOYA’s son. He said that none of them trusted the judiciary, the law and order, the people's representatives, elected representatives and even journalists anymore. They had very high hopes from all these institutions but they did not get justice. That is the reason why they did not have faith and trust in either the judiciary or the press.

That actually shocked me. While coming down the stairs of his apartment building I called my daughter and I told her that I had just met a guy of her age. Moreover, that he did not have any trust and faith in life. At this age he should have been full of enthusiasm, full of ambitions. Rather, he said that he did not have faith in life. He did not have trust in life. How  was he going to live? She asked me the context and I explained to her in brief what the situation was. She asked me what I had planned do about that. She said that I could not create trust about the judiciary or the law and order or the elected representatives. I could at the most try and create trust about my profession. Therefore, she suggested me to try if I could do that.

While sitting in an autorickshaw along with my photographer, I told him that I was going to do that story come what may. That I was going to dig out all the evidences. This is when the real investigation began! It went on for almost 16 months.

I still remember, after 16 months, on 27^th of February 2017 I filed the final draft of my story with The WEEK magazine where I was employed. However, they sat on the story until 6^th of November. I used to follow up every day. I knew for a fact that until the publication house where you are employed refuses to publish your story, until then it remains their intellectual property. Therefore, I wanted them to refuse it in writing.

In the meantime, I had done different stories. From February to November I was waiting for them to deny publishing the story in writing. It so happened that—and see the reason behind following up so much is also that when — it was my personal experience, when I used to move on the field, I used to develop sources. I used to nurture sources. I used to remain in contact with them. I used to — in fact I had tried a lot in convincing the family members to talk to me and to trust me. While doing that, unknowingly, you raise expectations in their minds. Then, it is they who start following up with you, with a recurrent question: “when was the story going to get published?”. Besides, in places like India when the story does not get published for 7-8 months, it becomes a question mark on the credibility of the journalist. That was another reason why I was following up so much. Because I did not want my credibility to get damaged. On 6^th of November, at around 10h45 in the morning, I received an email from The WEEK specifying that they were not going to publish it. And thus all the options thereafter were open to me. In reply to that email, in 6 or 10 seconds later, I wrote back saying I was resigning. It was a one-line email. I was resigning because afterwards that story would became my intellectual property.

Thereafter, I started following up with several publishers. I approached many reputed news organizations in India. Nevertheless, it so happened that The Caravan magazine and their editor at that time, Vinod JOSE and Hartosh Singh BAL called me. They said that they were ready to publish it. And then eventually on November 20^th 2017, the story got published. However, not a single mainstream media in the entire country, whether it was broadcast media or print media or digital media, none of them carried the story forward or did follow up stories. None of them. Then the petition was filed in the Supreme Court, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court heard it for 43 days. After 43 days, the Supreme Court denied granting permission to investigate the mysterious death. The denial was on very flimsy grounds. Nevertheless, the permission was denied. Meanwhile,  I had already lost my job in 2017 and since then I am not employed anywhere.

In 2021, during Covid, I suffered a heart attack. I still remember, it was on 1^st of May 2021. On that day, a bypass surgery was conducted on me. I was kept in an intensive care unit (ICU). After I came to consciousness, I was brought out from the operation theatre. When I gained consciousness, the first thought that came to my mind was that if I die, then the numerous stories that I wish to tell to people will never be known. I asked my wife to get my laptop to my bed. The next day, she brought the laptop and I started writing the story.

Anubandh: Thank you for this very fascinating narration!

It is indeed an engrossing read. Usually, one would not put the book down and one could finish it in just one sitting. In my case, it took me more time because I was simultaneously taking notes. Nevertheless, what I realized is that it is not just plain, dry professionalism. We also see human values, personal emotions and a sense of duty in your recital. It is all intermixed and intermingled. It indeed is a beautiful work of journalism. Not just plain investigative work but you took a step forward by narrating it in a book. The books is translated into several languages.

I believe that the readers deserve a broader view and a context. So, I have prepared a chronology of events and I wish to present it to you and to the audience. This sequence of events is quite extensive but we will run through it all in good time.

Niranjan: Yeah, sure.

Anubandh: I think Gujarat is the main beginning or main part of this story.

Niranjan: Yes, right.

Anubandh: So, I have begun from the 27^th February 2002 - Gujarat train burning.

We have the Gujarat pogrom that happened between February to June 2002.

26^th March 2003 - the Gujarat's former home minister, Haren PANDYA was killed by Tulsiram PRAJAPATI.

As per the Supreme Court of India, between 2003 to 2006 there were 22 extrajudicial killings in Gujarat, of which Sohrabuddin SHIEKH, Kausarbi and Tulsiram PRAJAPATI, being merely three.

Later, on 31^st December 2004 - The gang lord Hamid LALA was killed by Sohrabuddin SHEIKH, Tulsiram PRAJAPATI and two others.

23^rd November 2005 - the Anti-Terrorist Squad, ATS of Gujarat Police halted near Sangli, Maharashtra the luxury bus of Sohrabuddin SHIEKH, Kausarbi and Tulsiram PRAJAPATI. They took them to Gujarat.

26^th November 2005 - Killing of Sohrabuddin SHIEKH, Kausarbi was raped by Santaram SHARMA, Ajay PARMAR and Balakrishna CHOBEY in a farmhouse in Gujarat.

29^th November 2005 - Kausarbi was drugged and killed at the old ATS office in Shahibagh, allegedly under the instructions of Inspector General of Police D.G. VANZARA. Her body was burnt and ashes were thrown in the Narmada river.

September 2006 - The Inspector General Geeta JOHRI in an interim report alleged Gujarat Home Minister Amit SHAH's involvement in fake encounters and extrajudicial killings. It was claimed that Amit SHAH ran an extortion racket with the help of police officers as well as Sohrabuddin SHEIKH. They hired criminals to shoot targets.

November 2006 - Reporter Prashant DAYAL broke the story about the fake encounters of Sohrabuddin SHEIKH and Kausarbi.

28^th December 2006 - Tulsiram PRAJAPATI was killed in a fake encounter.

February 2007 - The Gujarat government admitted before Supreme Court the wrongful killing of Sohrabuddin SHIEKH and his wife Kausarbi.

25^th April 2007 - D. G. VANZARA, PANDIAN and Dinesh KUMAR were arrested in fake encounter cases.

October 2008 - The Hindu- Muslim communal riots broke out in Dhule district of Maharashtra. Those were covered by Niranjan TAKLE.

2010 - Niranjan TAKLE moved to Mumbai from his hometown Nashik.

Niranjan: There is only one thing. Before the Dhule riots in October 2008 – those began on the 2^nd of October. Three days earlier, on September 29^th 2008 the blasts in Malegaon had happened.

Anubandh: Right, with Abhinav Bharat!

Niranjan: Yes, with Abhinav Bharat. I had covered those. In fact, I was the one who broke the news that it was the Hindu right wing element (Abhinav Bharat) who had engineered those blasts in Malegaon. Three days later, the riots in Dhule began. Malegaon-Dhule is only 40 km. Therefore, I was asked to move from Malegaon to Dhule. That is how I went there.

Anubandh: Thanks.

Moving on, January 2010 - The Supreme Court transferred the investigation of Sohrabuddin case from the police in Gujarat to the CBI office in Mumbai.

July 2010 - Amit SHAH and senior Gujarat police officer Abhay CHUDASAMA were arrested in fake encounter cases. Amit SHAH got bail 3 months afterwards.

20^th September 2012 - The Supreme Court transferred the Sohrabuddin SHEIKH case to Maharashtra and stated that the trial should be conducted by the same judge. J.T. UTPAT was appointed as presiding judge.

April 2013 - Sohrabuddin SHEIKH, Kauserbi and Tulsiram PRAJAPATI cases were clubbed together.

May 2014 - The BJP under Narendra MODI came to power at the Centre and Amit SHAH became the BJP president.

6^th June 2014 - Amit SHAH failed again to appear in the court. Judge J.T. UTPAT reprimanded his lawyers for seeking exemption from appearing in the court.

Until June 2014 - Brijgopala LOYA was registrar of Bombay High Court.

I have a small question here.  What does being Registrar mean? Can a Registrar become a CBI judge later?

Niranjan: Rather, only a judge can become Registrar of the High Court. Moreover, he was already a Registrar!

He was initially a judge. He had climbed the ladder to become the Registrar of the High Court. This is equivalent to being a judge in the High Court.

Anubandh: OK. Thank you.

Later, 25^th June 2014 - Judge J.T. UTPAT took a transfer to Pune, at the directions of the Chief Justice of Maharashtra Mohit SHAH. This was just one day before Amit SHAH was expected to appear in the court. This transfer was in violation of 2012 Supreme Court order. Brijgopal LOYA was subsequently appointed in his place.

June to October 2014 - Unlike his predecessor, Judge LOYA allowed Amit SHAH to be exempt from appearing at the court in person, until the framing of charges. He however specified that this would be allowed except when Amit SHAH was already in the state of Maharashtra, where the case was being litigated. In fact,The Caravan had commented that this was more of a procedural concession and that judge LOYA was not necessarily being lenient towards Amit SHAH.

Further, during this period, the Chief Justice of Maharashtra Mr. Mohit SHAH was alleged by Anuradha BIYANI (Judge LOYA's sister) to have offered Judge LOYA hundred crore rupees in exchange for a favorable judgment in the Sohrabuddin case.

31^st October 2014  - When Amit SHAH failed to appear for a hearing while being in the city the same day, judge LOYA ordered SHAH's lawyers to ensure that he would be present at the hearings, whenever he was in the state.

Therefore, he repeated his stance and set the date of the next hearing to be 15^th December 2014 when the verdict would be given.

In the book you have written that during the trial in the Supreme Court you learnt an astonishing revelation. Just one week before his death, that is around 24^th November 2014, the bodyguard of Judge LOYA was removed. For me, in the articles that I have read and also in interviews that I watched online, this detail is much less talked about. Nevertheless, this is an important development.

27^th November 2014 - A judge named Vinay JOSHI wrote a letter to the Law and Judiciary Department of Maharashtra to book a suite in Ravi Bhawan under Judge LOYA’s name.

Now again, this is a critical detail.

29^th November 2014 - Judge LOYA was told to join fellow judge colleagues S.M. MODAK and Shrikant KULKARNI on a “sudden” trip to Nagpur. Again, I highlighted the word “sudden” because if we read this development along with the one before, it does not seem that sudden.

Niranjan: No. Judge LOYA was not even aware of the fact that Vinay JOSHI had written a letter to the Law and Judiciary Ministry, asking them to book a suite in his name in Nagpur. Therefore, it was completely not known to Judge LOYA that a suite had been booked. He had no plans to travel anywhere.

Anubandh: That is why I say the suddenness of the trip might seem from the point of view of Judge LOYA. However, if we keep taking into account these two developments, it does not seem as sudden for the larger scheme of plans.

Niranjan: And I would say Judge LOYA was insisted to join his colleagues.

Anubandh: By the way, do you have any news about what were the possible reasons behind the removal of the bodyguard of Judge LOYA and what was Judge LOYA's reaction to it? Do we have any information on that?

Niranjan: There is no information as such. The bodyguard was removed. Chief Justice Mohit SHAH used to call Judge LOYA at unusually odd hours in the night. He would ask him to come to Chief Justice's official residence in Mumbai. Mohit SHAH would insist that he should not bring his bodyguard along with. Had Judge LOYA and his bodyguard remained with him then even in Nagpur, the state government would have been forced to provide a bodyguard to him. Nevertheless, since the bodyguard was already removed in Mumbai the state government was not compelled to provide him a bodyguard in Nagpur. There was no need for the state to oblige.

Anubandh:  Thanks.

The official reason that was cited as to why Judge LOYA was in Nagpur was to attend the marriage of Sapna JOSHI, daughter of a fellow judge.

30^th November 2014 - Judge LOYA arrived in Nagpur, along with his two judge colleagues. At 11 pm at night he talked to his wife, Sharmila over telephone for around 40 minutes. Incidentally, Chief Justice of Maharashtra, Mr. Mohit SHAH was also in Nagpur on the same day.

Now, the major events happened on 1^st December 2014. I have taken details from an article published in the Scroll on 2 December 2017.

It is claimed that Judge LOYA started getting chest pains at around 4:00 am in the morning. He was brought to Dande Hospital in an autorickshaw by the two accompanying judges. From there he was moved to Meditrina Hospital where Judge LOYA was declared “death or died on arrival”. He was later taken to Government Medical College for post mortem.

So, this is Ravi Bhavan.

And this is Dande Hospital.

This is Meditrina.

And we shall see later, this is where the post mortem at the government hospital happened.

 

And now I will take you to this Google Map screen shot from The Caravan article.

Niranjan: Yes.

Anubandh: I see Ravi Bhavan, Dande Hospital and Lata Mangeshkar Hospital here.

There is one more image, and then I invite your comments. This gives us a different angle.

We have Wockhardt Hospital here. Wockhardt Heart hospital and Meditrina Hospital. Do you have any comments on this?

Niranjan: Allegedly, when Judge LOYA complained of having chest pain, the two brother judges who were with him, took him by an autorickshaw. That is what my story says. And that is what Judge MODAK and Judge KULKARNI had told the family of Judge LOYA, that they took him to a hospital in an autorickshaw.

Now, I have been to Ravi Bhavan several times. Ravi Bhavan is a VVIP (Very Very Important Person) guest house. People in Maharashtra know that every year, the winter session of the Assembly happens in Nagpur. This is the reason that this VVIP guesthouse is in Nagpur. All the IPS (Indian Police Services) and IAS (Indian Administrative Services) officers, the entire bureaucracy comes to Nagpur. They all stay in Ravi Bhavan. It is meant for them. Therefore, it is a VVIP guesthouse where an ambulance and a fire brigade vehicle are permanently stationed.

Moreover, the same Ravi Bhavan premises also has the official bungalow of the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. It is called “Saudamini” which is also in the same campus. Since it is a VVIP guesthouse, all the VIPs who stay in Ravi Bhavan, they have their own government vehicles with them. That is the reason, even during the day, you do not find an autorickshaw in a radius of 3 km from Ravi Bhavan. And here, these judges were claiming that they took LOYA to the hospital in an autorickshaw at 4 am in the morning!

Moreover, when the story broke out, the present Chief Justice of India BHUSHAN GAVAI spoke with a newspaper where he denied that Judge LOYA was taken by an autorickshaw. He instead claimed that it was him, Justice GAVAI himself, along with Judge SHUKRE and BARDE who took Judge LOYA in their car to the hospital.

Judge SHUKRE, BARDE and GAVAI were based in Nagpur. We call these judges as “learned judges”. Yet, it is beyond comprehension why these learned judges from Nagpur took a cardiac patient, a heart patient, to an orthopedic hospital! Dande Hospital is an orthopedic hospital. It is not a cardiac hospital. Therefore, he was taken to the orthopedic hospital where very precious amount of time was wasted. For instance, when the petitioner went to the Supreme Court, there was a judge named RATHI. He wrote to the Supreme Court saying that he was there in Dande Hospital when Judge LOYA was brought there. I would quote him, he said, “precious one and a half hours were wasted.” Further, the nodes of the ECG (Electro Cardio Graph) machine were broken in Dande Hospital. Thus, the ECG of Judge LOYA could not be taken. Therefore, nothing happened in Dande Hospital. From there, after one and a half hours, he was taken to Meditrina Hospital. Judge LOYA passed away while going to the Meditrina Hospital. And this hospital declared him dead on arrival.

Anubandh: Well, the least we can say here is that there are very contradictory versions that have emerged. This affair logically deserves a fair, a thorough and an independent investigation. Unfortunately, this was precisely denied by the Supreme Court. We shall visit that later.

Thank you for this explanation.

I continue. Thus, this was the first part.

The second part of 1^st December 2014 is when the family members of Judge LOYA started getting calls, at around 5:00 am onwards in the morning from Vijay Kumar BARDE who identified himself as a local judge in Nagpur. On the other hand, LOYA’s reported death on the post mortem was at 6:15 am! This is a glaring contradiction here. 

As per the post mortem report, the procedure started at 10:55 am and ended at 11:50 am. However, in some articles I also saw it to be until 11:55 am. Importantly, this was not video recorded, as is required by the law in Maharashtra.

Further, an ambulance with Judge LOYA’ s body reached his ancestral home in Gategaon, near Latur, Maharashtra at around 11:30 pm. None of the judges, Judge LOYA’s colleagues had accompanied the body. Only the driver had.

There is one detail I would like to add here. In the book, you have written that a journey from Nagpur to Gategaon would take around 16h. Let us say the post mortem was completed at around 12:00 pm. Then, this is less than 12 hours of travel time! It raises a question mark here. How do we explain that a journey that normally would have taken 16h was actually completed in less than 12h? This makes us think that perhaps the ambulance had left from Nagpur earlier on 1^st of December. This needs to be investigated.

Further, Anuradha BIYANI, sister of Judge LOYA asked for a second post mortem, the same night in Gategaon. However, Ishwar BAHETI, an RSS worker and apparently also a friend of Judge LOYA rejected her suggestion, along with other of LOYA's friends and colleagues. By the way, someone had even stopped local journalists from coming to Gategaon. However, we do not know who that someone was.  

Niranjan: There is one more thing that needs to be added here. Anuradha BIYANI asked for a second post mortem, after she saw a wound on the back of Judge LOYA's head. Further, she saw that his clothes were soaked in blood. These were sent along with the body in a separate polythene bag. His shirt was soaked in blood, from left shoulder to left waist. Even his jeans had blood on it. So, after seeing that she demanded for a second post mortem.

Anubandh: Right. To add to that, Anuradha BIYANI is a doctor by profession. Therefore, she knows what she was talking about. She had stated and this was as well confirmed by others that the post mortem procedure does not lead to any blood coming out of the body as the lungs and the heart have stopped functioning.  

2^nd December 2014 - Dr. GAWANDE from Meditrina Hospital, where Judge LOYA was declared dead or died on arrival received an ECG chart from the Dande Hospital. This was one day after his death. There again goes a contradiction. Why was it not received on the same day? The same night? This could be a question.

3^rd December 2014 - Members of Parliament of Trinamul Congress staged a protest outside the Parliament in Delhi. They demanded an inquiry into Judge LOYA's death.

4^th December 2014 - Rubbabuddin, Sohrabuddin’s brother wrote a letter to the CBI expressing his shock at Judge LOYA's death.

5^th December 2014 -  Ishwar BAHETI handed over Judge LOYA’s two mobile phones to LOYA’s family with data erased. Perhaps, we could add here that Judge LOYA had received an SMS from someone, days before his death. This SMS cautioned him to be vigilant with regard to the imminent danger. This SMS was also deleted from his mobile. Judge LOYA had confided the existence and reception of this SMS, at least to one of his sisters.

15^th December 2014 - A new judge M.B. GOSAVI resumed hearing the trial and concluded it in two days afterwards. To be taken cognizance here of the fact that this trial involved over 100 witnesses, a charge sheet greater than 10,000 pages and more than 100s of call data records. However, it was swiftly concluded within 48 hours.

On the same day Judge M.B. GOSAVI admitted the discharge petition filed by Amit SHAH's lawyer. This petition previously had been denied by Judge LOYA. Judge GOSAVI allowed the defense lawyer to argue for three days. While the prosecution agency, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) was allowed a mere 20 minutes. I believe, this was narrated to you by advocate Mihir DESAI and his colleagues.

17^th December 2014 - An order was passed by Judge M.B. GOSAVI. He concluded the hearing and reserved his order.

30^th December 2014 - Amit SHAH was discharged. Judge M.B. GOSAVI cited “political motivations” behind these allegations.

My question here is how does one prove “political motivations”? Because political motivations could be in the motivation in filing the case. However, once the petition was filed, these allegations were rejected by the ruling political party (BJP – Bharatiya Janata Party). So, can we not say that the rejection of the demand for an investigation into this matter is also politically motivated? How do we equalize that? How do we say that the political motivation is only from one side?

Niranjan: The very funny part of this statement is that it ignores the fact, that the entire investigation was conducted by the CBI, the Central Bureau of investigation. The investigation was not monitored by the Central Government. The investigation was monitored by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this judgement actually makes an allegation against the Supreme Court that the charge sheet was politically motivated.

Anubandh: Exactly, which in a way is an inadvertent admission that the CBI is under the influence of the ruling party!

Niranjan: No, this investigation done by the CBI was not monitored by any political party, not by the ruling government either. This investigation was monitored by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, to say that Amit SHAH was charge sheeted with the political motivation is an allegation against the Supreme Court itself.

Anubandh: I agree. Well, we will visit that later although we have to keep in mind, the date is 30^th December 2014. Hence, that was just the beginning of the MODI rule. However, these days we commonly say that most of the institutions in India, be it the judiciary, be it the CBI, be it the educational institutions, be it the Enforcement Directorate (ED), that they all are under pressure from the ruling dispensation. Anyway, this question is important because the same argument of “political motivations” was later given by Supreme Court as well.

Incidentally, on the same day, cricketer Mahendra Singh DHONI retired from international cricket. Those who follow cricket in India would know the impact and importance of this news. However, what was interesting here was that it was in the middle of a test cricket match.

Niranjan: Well, this has a context. Judge LOYA had noted this down (in his diary) that whenever he was offered money or whenever he was threatened, he was assured by the then Chief Justice that there would be some other big news, which would occupy the television screens when he would discharge Amit SHAH. While the discharge of Amit SHAH would at the most remain in the ticker, in the scroll, the bigger news would occupy the television screens for hours. On 30^th December 2014 when Amit SHAH was eventually discharged, Mahendra Singh DHONI's test cricket retirement was announced. Now again, India was on a tour to Australia for a three test match series. The second test match was on going. On the third day of an on-going test match, his retirement was announced by the secretary of the Gujarat Cricket Association! Not by DHONI himself but by the secretary of the Gujarat Cricket Association. However, Mahindra Singh DHONI did not play for Gujarat. He played for Jharkhand in domestic cricket. He belonged to Ranchi. He never played for Gujarat. So, why was his test cricket retirement announced by the secretary of the Gujarat Cricket Association?

Anubandh: That is indeed a valid argument. I believe, there are some serious questions as well to be asked to Mahendra Singh DHONI, regarding the context in which his retirement was announced.

Niranjan: Absolutely!

Anubandh: Moving on, on February 2015 – The fellow accompanying judges Shrikant KULKARNI and S.M. MODAK met Judge LOYA’s family. This was after at least two months from the death of Judge LOYA. In the same month, Chief Justice of Maharashtra, Mohit SHAH met the family members of Judge LOYA, in particular Judge LOYA’s son, Anuj LOYA.

18^th February 2015 - Anuj LOYA wrote a letter, after his visit with Chief Justice of Maharashtra, Mohit SHAH. He mentioned that he had asked the Chief Justice to set up an investigation in the death of his father. He declared twice in that letter that Mohit SHAH would be responsible if anything untoward happened to him or to his family members.

Then, between 13^th to 16^th March 2015, the main accused of the CBI in the Sohrabuddin case, Amit SHAH, stayed at Ravi Bhavan in te month of March for 3-4 days. He stayed there with the Supreme Court Justice Sharad BOBDE, Justice Uday LALIT and Bombay High Court Justice N.W. SAMBHRE. CBI lawyer Anil SINGH, prosecution lawyer of the Sohrabuddin trial was also there. No public events or official duties during this stay for Amit SHAH were scheduled. Therefore, this was an incognito meeting.

March 2015, Rubabuddin SHEIKH, brother of Sohrabuddin, filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court challenging Amit SHAH's discharge.

24^th January 2016 - Publication of the article, “A Lamb, Lionized” on Vinayak SAVARKAR by Niranjan TAKLE in The WEEK magazine.

2^nd February 2016 - Nagpur police wrote a letter to an Executive Magistrate informing him about a post mortem that had happened back in 2014. However, they did not mention any head trauma or blood. I suppose, this letter was about Judge LOYA’s death.

June 2016 - Nupur BIYANI, Judge LOYA's niece contacted Niranjan TAKLE in Pune. 

8^th November 2016 - Demonetization was declared in India by Narendra MODI. This is important to note here because in a way, it hampered your plans of investigation, visits and interviews.

Niranjan: Yes. 

Anubandh: Early 2017 - Niranjan TAKLE sent questions to Amit SHAH and to Chief Justice of Maharashtra Mohit SHAH while no replies were ever received. To those who are students of investigative journalism, this part is very important. We can see that it is essential to give every stakeholder a chance to express, to respond so that it does not become a one sided story or follow up.

Niranjan: Yes.

Anubandh: 27^th February 2017 - Niranjan TAKLE submitted his story on Judge LOYA's death for publication to The WEEK. However, this was not published.

June to September 2017 - While you waited for your story to be published, you worked on the investigation of the illegal cattle extortionists that was run by the Bajrang Dal in Gujarat. You were disguised as a Muslim cattle transporter. During this investigation, you were bullied and beaten by cattle extortionists. The Kopardi gang rape case and effects of demonetization were as well the stories covered by you.  

2^nd July 2017 - The WEEK called Amit SHAH a Modern Chanakya.

6^th November 2017 - The WEEK sent you an official rejection email about your Judge LOYA story. This in turn relieved their stake on it as an intellectual property. Instantly, you sent a resignation letter since you were expecting this email from your employer.

9^th November 2017 - You flew to Delhi at the invitation of journalist Paranjoy GUHA THAKURTA. Incidentally, I happened to interview him for the Rafael scandal few months before. You met The Caravan team there. Vinod JOSE who was the Executive Director - Hartosh SINGH BAL - Political Editor, Ananth NATH - Editor of The Caravan and Atul MANDHANE - Associate Editor. You were very impressed with their professionalism, the way they received you and your story.

15^th November 2017 - The WEEK officially relieved Niranjan TAKLE from work.

18^th of November 2017 - Niranjan TAKLE recorded an interview with Harkishan LOYA, Judge LOYA's father and Sarita MANDHANE, Judge LOYA's other sister at Aurangabad, Maharashtra.

20^th November 2017 - Publication by The Caravan of an article titled “A Family Breaks Its Silence: Shocking details that emerge in the death of Judge presiding over Sohrabuddin case”. So, this was your story.

Niranjan: That was my 50^th birthday.

Anubandh: Indeed. I remember you mentioned it in the book.

21^st November 2017 - The next day, publication by The Caravan of a second article which was titled, “Chief Justice Mohit SHAH offered Rs. 100 crore to my brother for a favourable judgement in the Sohrabuddin case, late Judge LOYA’s sister.”

23^rd November 2017 - A physical attack on Niranjan TAKLE by five goons in Mumbai near Chatrapati Shivaji Terminal (CST) station. 

I forgot to mention that somewhere you were also chased in the Toyota Qualis cars. That was in November. Was it the same year?

Niranjan: No. It was in 2015, after I had interviewed Judge LOYA’s father for the first time in Gategaon.

Anubandh: Perhaps, it is time to also talk about that. You were as well harassed in Nagpur by goons. The tactics you employed there to deal with them, with your presence of mind were quite incredible. We will talk later about the difficulties you had in the follow up of this story.

To continue, on 23^rd November 2017 - An unofficial inquiry was conducted by the Maharashtra State government under CID Chief Sanjay BARVE. It lasted 48 hours. This resulted into several letters from Judge LOYA’s family claiming no suspicion about his death. It was claimed by them that Niranjan TAKLE recorded interviews while they were unaware. They alleged that you took answers as you wanted. These letters were part of the eventual judgment by the Supreme Court but were never deposed via affidavit. Thus, this was a stunning contradiction again.

24^th November 2017 - Niranjan TAKLE lost all contacts with members of LOYA family. They blocked you and refused to respond to your calls and messages.

25^th November 2017 - Niranjan TAKLE met Sharad PAWAR and Supriya SULE, who are politicians from the NCP party in Maharashtra. This meeting was in Mumbai upon their invitation to discuss the story. The possibility of them issuing statements in support of the LOYA family or meeting them in person did not materialize till date.

27^th November 2017 - The Indian Express published an article with a title, “CBI Judge B. H. LOYA's death in 2014: Nothing suspicious, say two Bombay High Court judges who were at the hospital”, along with an electrocardiograph (ECG) of Judge LOYA issued at the Dande Hospital, Nagpur. The ECG was also reported by NDTV. The Caravan found several inconsistencies with this ECG and claimed it to be unverified, possibly fabricated.

28^th November 2017 - Anuj LOYA sent a letter to Bombay High Court Chief Justice Manjula CHELLUR, supporting the claims made in the Indian Express article.

1^st December 2017 - At the suggestion of journalist Paranjoy GUHA THAKURTA, Niranjan TAKLE met Delhi Chief Minister Arvind KEJRIWAL at the latter's residence. KEJRIWAL offered to take up this issue and sit on a hunger strike demanding an investigation into Judge LOYA's death. Nevertheless, this never happened.

January 2018 - Two PILs were filed in the Bombay High Court. One by an activist and another by the entire Bombay Lawyer’s Association, seeking investigation in Judge LOYA's death. Former Supreme Court judge A.P. SHAH publicly demanded the same.

11^th January 2018 – A lot of things happened here. Two petitions (PIL-Public Interest Litigation) were filed directly at the Supreme Court seeking investigation in Judge LOYA's death. One by Tehseen POONAWALA whose advocate initially was Dushyant DAVE. While another petition was filed by Bandhuraj LONE. His advocate was Pallav SHISHODIA who had represented Amit SHAH in the Sohrabuddin case earlier. So, again, things to worry or to question.

Dushyant DAVE was told by the Chief Justice of India Dipak MISRA to list his petition to a junior judge named Arun MISHRA. Dushyant DAVE was not happy with this.

On the same day, Chief Justice Deepak MISRA approved lawyer Pallav SHISHODIA’s PIL and agreed to hear the matter himself. He started the proceedings from the very next day. This was quite a swift action there.

12^th January 2018 - Bombay High Court heard the two PILs; the one by the activists and another by the Bombay Lawyer’s Association. The next hearing was scheduled on 23^rd January 2018.

The same day, four Supreme Court judges; Jasti CHELAMESWAR, Ranjan GOGOI, Madan LOKUR and Kurian JOSEPH held a press conference at the residence of Jasti CHELAMESWAR. They declared their disagreement with the Chief Justice Dipak MISRA regarding the assignment of Judge LOYA’s Case, among other issues.

13^th January 2018 - A public spat erupted between Tehseen POONAWALLA and his lawyer Dushyant DAVE. DAVE asked POONAWALLA to withdraw his petition before Justice Arun MISHRA as he suspected it being a self-serving petition at the instance of Amit SHAH. DAVE alleged close relations between Justice Arun MISHRA and top BJP leaders. DAVE decided not to appear for POONAWALLA and instead later chose to represent the Bombay Lawyer’s Association.

14^th January 2018 - Anuj LOYA did a press conference at Mumbai, Mittal Towers where he claimed that he did not have any suspicions regarding the death of his father and neither did any of his family members. Therefore, we see that there were also a lot of attempts of creation of different narrations.

22 January 2018 - Bombay High Court PILs were transferred to the Supreme Court. A three-judge bench including Justice D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, Justice A.M. KHANWILKAR and Justice Dipak MISHRA began hearing of the judge LOYA case. The Caravan was not made party to this trial and thus could not represent its evidences. I think it was the case also for you. Were you not involved in this trial?

Niranjan: I was not.

Anubandh: Which is very surprising because it was you who broke the story!

30^th January 2018 - Admiral L. RAMDAS along with Youth Bar Association filed interventions with lawyers Indira JAISING and Prashant BHUSHAN respectively for these interventions in the Judge LOYA case.

9^th February 2018 - Rahul GANDHI along with 114 Parliament members walked from the Parliament to the Rashtrapati Bhavan. They met the President of India, Ram NATH Kovind and demanded setting up of a Supreme Court monitored Special Investigation Team, SIT.

11^th February 2018 - Doctor R.K. SHARMA, former head of forensic medicine and toxicology department at AIIMS Delhi and CBI consultant, in a Caravan interview responded to the existence of dura matter in Judge LOYA’s brain. This is an outermost layer surrounding the brain. He explained that the congestion of the brain is usually after some kind of physical assault on the brain.

10^th March 2018 - AIIMS Delhi sent a letter distancing itself from the Caravan story that published Doctor R.K. SHARMA's views on the death of Judge LOYA. R.K. SHARMA backtracked claiming he was grossly misquoted by The Caravan.

The Caravan released WhatsApp screenshots of conversation with Doctor R.K. SHARMA.

19^th April 2018 - A bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice India Dipak MISRA dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, seeking an independent probe into Judge LOYA's death. It stated the death to be natural and such petitions to be an attack on the judiciary. Further it added that these were politically motivated and in criminal contempt. Therefore, again, the same question that I raised earlier.

30^th July 2018 - Advocate Surendra BORKAR who had on Twitter publicly made bold claims of possessing video footages of Judge LOYA’s murder died owing to a heart attack in the CBI court in Mumbai. Niranjan TAKLE was scheduled to meet him the same day. Later, his wife called you and that is how you came to know about it.

20^th November 2020 - Niranjan TAKLE met Sharad PAWAR, where a possibility of appointing a Judicial Commission by Maharashtra State government, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act was discussed. This was your suggestion and request. The requisite political will to do so did not manifest.

16^th December 2021 - Supreme Court Judge N. V. RAMANA lamented about the death of investigative journalism in India. This made you very angry. This prompted you to change the text of your introduction to the book.

And very lastly, 9^th May 2022 - You published this book, “Who killed Judge LOYA?”. Later, it was translated into several languages.

I would like to have your comments now.

How do you look at all these sequences? How do you look at this story, the judgment, the investigation that did not happen? Would you write the book differently? Would you do things differently? How would you respond?  

Niranjan: No, I would not do anything differently. I would have done the same things which I did. It also shows the very sorry state of affairs in the judiciary, in the executive, in the elected representatives, in the political parties and in my fraternity as well. And also about the civil society in India.

I have always had this complaint against the Indian civil society. If you remember, the infamous Nirbhaya rape and murder case had happened in 2012 in Delhi. At that time, there were protests and agitations in more than 600 cities across the country. People had taken out candlelight marches and all because probably, the civil society thought that the person who did that crime inside a bus at 12:30-1 o’clock in the night must have been a very petty criminal. Therefore, they took out marches and lit candles and everything. However, when the news of Judge LOYA’s death appeared, not a single candle was lit. Nobody took out a match. Nobody held a protest. Nothing. Because they knew that in this case the perpetrators were extremely powerful.

Therefore, if the Indian civil society starts to choose battles that suit them, then we cannot blame the political parties. Everybody now complains that fascism is taking over, that fascism has arrived. It has arrived because the civil society has chosen suitable roles to play! We have to safeguard our democracy. And just imagine; a judge who was threatened, intimidated, lured with bribe still withstood all the pressures and refused to compromise. Had the civil society in India stood behind the family of Judge LOYA, his son or his sister, then probably we would have seen justice happening. However, we have not seen that because nobody stood in support of the family. They simply got abandoned.

There are so many shortcomings in all this that you have put together in the timeline. For example, it is a rule that anyone who has to depose before the Supreme Court has to depose through an affidavit. Secondly, Maharashtra government was not even a party in that public interest litigation. In spite of that  the Maharashtra state government deployed two of the most costly lawyers in India - Harish SALVE and Mukul ROHATGI. Mukul ROHATGI charged some 11 lakh rupees for one day. He appeared there for 43 days. While 35 lakh rupees were spent on Harish SALVE and a chartered flight from London to Delhi every time he came here!

Anubandh: All this with the exchequer's money, with the public money!

Niranjan: Yeah, with the exchequer's money, with the taxpayer’s money. The state government spent almost 18 crore rupees to not get the investigation appointed!

Then the Supreme Court. You mentioned about that unofficial inquiry. It began on the 25^th of November. Now, the funniest part is that, first, they announced in the media that it would be an “unofficial inquiry”. Thus, I questioned whether they will be implementing “unofficial methods” for inquiring into this? Then they said no, this is a “discreet inquiry”. Now, under which provision of law was this investigation appointed? There is no provision of law as such.

Anubandh: I think we also have to distinguish words here. There is one that says “inquiry” and another is “investigation”. Actually, the whole petition was requesting an investigation. And if the Maharashtra state government initiated an inquiry which means they agreed to that logical demand.

Niranjan: Yeah, absolutely.

Then, you mentioned about the letters written by judges and family members. Now Judge LOYA's sister and father gave letters to that particular investigation officer. His name was Sanjay BARVE. Other 4-5 judges gave letters to him. This included Justice BHUSHAN GAVAI, Justice BARDE and Justice SHUKRE. Justice MODAK, Justice KULKARNI and Justice RATHI. These are the six judges who gave letters to that particular officer. The investigation officer submitted those letters to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court admitted those letters as part of evidence.

First of all, all that submission should have been through an affidavit where the person takes an oath. Supreme Court did not ask them to give affidavits. It admitted the letters as part of evidence. But denied permission to cross examine those individuals. If you are admitting something as part of evidence then you should allow the interveners to cross examine them. The Supreme Court denied permission for that. Throughout the case and during the hearing no material evidence was ever submitted by the state government.

If Justice GAVAI was saying that Judge LOYA was taken in his car to the hospital, then they should have provided the CCTV footage of the Ravi Bhavan guest house, which is a VVIP guest house. It has a numerous CCTVs installed in the premises. They should have given it. They did not! They did not submit it to the court because they knew that they were lying. I was hundred percent sure that he was taken in an autorickshaw because I had seen the CCTV footage myself! Therefore, the Supreme Court of India denied natural justice to the intervening lawyers.

Dushyant DAVE had given a list of 11 persons for cross examination to be granted, including me. However, that permission was never given.

Anubandh: What I think, when I listen to you is that there are more questions which remain after this judgment than answers.

Niranjan: Absolutely, yes!

Anubandh: Whenever there is a government, which is concerned for the democracy and the constitution, for the good of the people, it would and should take up this investigation. Moreover, your book really has done a tremendous job in that direction.

We are reaching the end of this interview. I have a few final comments.

When one looks at the work that you did and all the difficulties that you had to face professionally as well as at the personal level, at the family level, then one is compelled to recognize the importance of this work. I am tempted to think about the movie “Jaane Bhi do Yaaro” and how the journalists in that film at the end got what they did not really deserve. There is another film, “Umbartha” in Marathi in which the actress Smita PATIL says “me khachnar nahi” (मी खचणार नाही) - I will not give up.

When we read you, we also recognize that you are not merely concerned about this story alone, but you are also concerned about the future of this country and of the young generation. You are concerned about what your profession should and would mean to them. Therefore, there is also a value system in your reflections. I believe that this value system is not only limited to India or to Maharashtra. It is very universal in nature. I am living in France since few years and I can say that journalists, investigative journalists in particular here as well face similar problems but at different levels. Nevertheless, the challenges are common. And that is the reason perhaps why we should all work together.

Now, I really wish you to give us a concluding word where you would tell us about your future projects, your job challenges and what you plan for the future.

Niranjan: First, to continue what you just said. I have written this book as if this is an autobiography of a journalist for 18-20 months. Life of a journalist in India during those 20-odd months. That is the reason why I have written everything; what my family was going through, what was happening behind in the office, in our professional realm, what was happening with my daughter, my wife and everything. Because most people, when they read such stories, they do not realize what went behind uncovering that story. Therefore, people should understand what a journalist goes through while doing such stories. That is very important.

Second thing is that the first paragraph of my prologue in the book talks about the Defamation Act. Because when I started writing the story and when I was talking to the publishers, every publisher would tell me that the Supreme Court would object to this. And how one cannot criticize the Supreme Court's judgment. Therefore, I have given that entire provision of the act which states that criticizing a Supreme Court's decision is not defamatory. Thus, from the first paragraph to the last paragraph of the book, the entire thought behind writing this book was to make people understand that this book is not to scare you. To the contrary, this book is written to give you hope and courage. Courage that an ordinary person can stand against such a system.

Anubandh: And also strategies, because I think it is important.

Niranjan: Absolutely!

Anubandh: About strategies, how to counter, how to anticipate. And that is a vital aspect.

By the way, I forgot to ask you one difficult question. I think I should ask you a difficult question and I hope you will not mind it.  

Niranjan: I do not.

Anubandh: Thanks. I ask this question because you have written about it in the book. So, we all have our personal traits and characteristics. We have our tendencies that make us unique. You have given an impression in the book and you have also written that your nature is a bit impulsive, impetuous. At times you become hot tempered easily. You are given to provocation.

My question would be; to what extent this helped or hindered you in your work? How do you look at this personal trait of yours? Because we see that also in your interviews which you do on EG News on YouTube. We see a concern there and you do not mince words. You are quite straightforward. So, how would you respond to this argument?

Niranjan: Anybody would get an impression that I am very impulsive and hot tempered. Yes, I am hot tempered. That is for sure. Nevertheless, as I have written in the book as well, when I was on the field to do a story, I used to prepare a lot. For a day, I would prepare for half a day in advance. It would take almost 5-6 hours for me to prepare for what to do tomorrow, for every possible situation that may arise while doing the story.

For instance, once I was walking on the streets in Nagpur, suddenly four bikers came and stopped me. They started questioning about where I was going. I replied to them, “Come, let's go to your house!”. And I sat on his bike. It may appear that it was an impulsive act. However, I had prepared for that kind of a situation. I knew that I would be doing something which the other person does not expect. If I do what he expects then I am walking into his trap. Therefore, I will not do anything that he is expecting. It was a well thought out act. In the book it might appear that it was an impulsive act, but I had thought about it.

Otherwise, in my videos, I do appear very angry, at times very hurt. I even cry. I still remember the video which I had done after Manipur incidence. Throughout I had tears in my eyes. I am a human being. I was not raised in my family saying that the male should not cry. No. I was told that yes, whatever your feelings are, you should express them. Moreover, that it is not a weakness. It is the strength that you are sensitive. Therefore, being sensitive is a strength. That is what I feel. Many a times, I feel that I get angry while talking because I do not mince words. This is because my family has never taught me to be afraid of anything, to be scared of anything. Rather, the caption of my book is, “Tell the truth and shame the devil”. I believe, this is the responsibility of a journalist.

Anubandh: Sorry to interrupt. Two things that I take out from what you just said. I think if someone is sensitive in India then it is very hard to survive. Yet, that does not mean we stop being sensitive. Since being sensitive is the most important aspect of our human existence.

Niranjan: I do not think so. I mean, we have seen extremely sensitive people like Mahatma GANDHI and Dr. AMBEDKAR not only survive, but also succeed. They shaped our country.

Anubandh: Yes. What I meant is that it is a challenging task and not everyone succeeds in doing so, like you did. Second point, when most of or many people in India who are concerned about the constitutional values, democratic values, they kind of seem helpless since 2014 regarding how to counter the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), how to counter BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party), Narendra MODI and Amit SHAH. Through your book, you have possibly given some answers, tactics and ways. I really admire that. That is at least one important and serious way to think about.

Now, to conclude this interview. I sincerely thank you for having talked to me because I consider a book to be a supreme, sacred gift of human expression. You certainly have worked on this book several times, you have written a manuscript, perhaps you scratched it, you wrote it again. Therefore, it is a final product that you are presenting to us as readers and we are lucky to receive it. I believe, every person reads a book differently. Therefore, I feel very happy that the author has agreed to talk to me! I wish a great success to all your future endeavours. Do you have a concluding word?

Niranjan: No. I have a manuscript ready for my next book that is titled “A Lamb, Lionized”. It is on the life of SAVARKAR and how he brought this fascist idea of Hindutva to the Indian politics. Hindutva is a word which he had coined. It was never in practice in the past. Luckily, he wrote that Hindutva has nothing to do with religion. Hindutva is a political doctrine based on hatred. Therefore, I know for a fact that hatred has an expiry date. It is love, compassion, liberty, democracy, truth, nonviolence that are timeless values. Thus, the hatred will end one day on its own.

Anubandh: Yes. So, on these beautiful words, let us say we stop for now.

Once again, I wish your books are translated and read in several Indian languages and not just. I hope one day your book is also published in French, so that the audience here gets a chance to read your book and your thoughts. Thank you again Niranjan TAKLE and I hope to talk to you soon.

Niranjan: Thank you.

Niranjan TAKLE

 

Niranjan TAKLE is India’s leading investigative journalist from Maharashtra. Trained as an electronics engineer, his passion for journalism made him to dive into the adventures of investigative journalism. He has worked in the past at news portals such as CNN-IBN, The WEEK, The Caravan and several others. At present, he works as a freelance journalist and also runs his widely watched Marathi YouTube news channel, EG News. Niranjan is well appreciated for some very important stories such as the one on Vinayak SAVARKAR and the one on Judge LOYA’s mysterious death.  

His other important stories cover the unraveling of a cattle extortionist racket by the Hindu extremist group Bajarang Dal in Gujarat, sand mafia, Malegaon blasts, Dhule riots, farmer issues, demonetization, free ship for scheduled caste students and many more.

He owns a publication house that not only publishes his own books but as well supports publications of other deserving authors working on critical issues. He is an eloquent speaker and is keenly listened all over India.

 

Anubandh KATÉ is a Paris based engineer and co-founder of the collective, “Les Forums France Inde”.