Fresh allegations made against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi by an IPS officer of the state cadre, Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt, are of an extremely serious nature. Claiming to be present at a meeting where the chief minister issued thoroughly objectionable instructions, Mr Bhatt has said in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that
Mr Modi wanted Muslims to be taught a lesson, and the Hindus given the opportunity to “vent their anger”. The backdrop is the charring to death of 59 karsevaks at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002. Mr Bhatt is a serving officer and must know the meaning of being untruthful on oath, and the penalty that goes with it. On the other hand, if the court finds substance in the allegation he has levelled against the chief minister, then what we are looking at are observations that are derogatory in the extreme to the notion of citizenship in a democratic dispensation, one of whose basic principles is that all citizens are equal before the law. The statements attributed to the chief minister by the officer, who is of senior rank, also militate against the idea that it is individuals who must be charged with a crime, not communities. Thus, all Muslims cannot be held responsible even if some Muslim individuals are charged in a particular case. In India, this principle is easily effaced in caste and communal riots unless the political leadership and the administration hold firm. Most notably we saw the ugly face of the communal divide during the Gujarat pogrom against Muslims and the massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere in north India by Hindu mobs in the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by a Sikh bodyguard. Caste animosities also lead to similar situations on a lesser scale, especially when the administration and police collude with trouble-makers, or look the other way at the behest of the political leadership. It is all the more necessary in this country that the political leadership, and the civil administration, especially the police, are particularly watchful in situations where there is a likelihood of primitive group loyalties trumping individual responsibility and autonomy, the latter being a relatively new idea in our society although our Constitution embraced it right after Independence when we became a sovereign, self-governing people,
Mr Bhatt’s allegation against Mr Modi makes the point that the chief minister used his authority not to help restore calm — which he should have done under his constitutional oath — when there was every fear that the society would get into turmoil on hearing of the Godhra massacre of Hindu pilgrims, but to inflame communal sentiments and to instruct top officials to permit anti-Muslim group violence to spread and be fanned, in effect. The Gujarat chief minister has been generally accused of Hitlerian methods by Muslim victims and by his political opponents. A police officer has now stepped forward. Rising above technicalities, the Supreme Court is called upon to arrange for ascertaining the veracity of the charge levelled by Mr Bhatt. Another senior police officer, R.B. Sreekumar, had spoken out against the chief minister earlier. Mr Bhatt’s allegations are of the same broad kind as those made by Mr Sreekumar. Appreciating that the judicial process and the justice administration in Gujarat could not be relied upon to deal fairly with the Gujarat pogrom cases, the Supreme Court had a special investigation team (SIT) instituted to probe the more serious of the Gujarat cases. Mr Bhatt has said that the SIT showed him “unconcealed hostility” when he deposed before it. It is incumbent on the apex court to judge whether its chosen instrument has gone about its work with sincerity and due diligence. The course of justice in a matter that has stained India’s reputation depends on this.