Oh! Is It So, Sirs!
A future historian studying 20th and 21st century India in details may get himself choked up by a sudden fit of coughing caused actually by a gush of laughter while reading Indian news papers of the 13th September, 2003 . And I beg pardon for the conduct on his behalf; because the news, which may create such an emotional outpouring, is regarding the Supreme Court's reprimanding the Gujarat Government, something that law abiding ladies and gentlemen should receive with due graveness and importance. And so I begged excuse for such a demeanour on his part, but nonetheless, it demands an explanation.
His lordship the Chief Justice of India Mr. Khare made some very caustic ( ksharakiya ?) remarks, let me quote just a sentence from the 13th Sept.'s Times Of India: "I have no faith left in the Gujrat Govt.". Oh! Is it so sir! But from when you lost all faith on Modi et al. ? Only after getting informed (by the honourable ex-CJI, and now chairman of the NHRC Mr. Anand, or/and from other sources) about the badly written 'appeal' by the Gujarat govt., or from before? Or is it not a pertinent question at all? But the question is there, and one cannot avoid it sir. Because not petty citizens like us, but eminent and widely respected personages, to name a few: Nirmala Behn (Deshpande), Mallika Behn (Sarabhai), etcetera could not hold their calm, were deeply agitated, anguished and expressed their mind through an written appeal (perhaps to the Supreme Court, I do not quite remember now) about the last year's State Govt. sponsored anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat. Reputed journalists and photographers of the big-bourgeois media made tons and megabytes of vivid reports on the post-Godhra planned massacre; including Godhra, which one may describe as the Reichstag on the Railways , or a manufactured plea of the Indo-Nazis according to some reports published much after that incident. What the S.C. did then? Couldn't their lordships open up a suitable case suo moto much before if they had, by then, lost their faith on the Gujarat govt.?
Or, couldn't their lordships take appropriate actions when the said govt. attempted obliquely to hinder smooth functioning of the of the NHRC regarding cases of 'riots', a word now in vogue to cover up the real picture of the pogrom, or anti-Muslim genocide! Isn't it astoundingly agonising for the 'secular' citizens of India [of course the Indian brand of 'secularism' that we are talking about] to find none of the State Machinery coming to act in due time to punish the Hindu-fascist culprits; to realise in disappointment and despair the truly non-secular nature of the entire State Machine of India? And then just a legal reprimand! It took long eighteen months to loose faith on the Modis!! 'O Mis?re' would perhaps be a more sober exclamation, but involuntarily what may as well flash in the mind of that future historian is 'C'est ridicule', and may generate in him a gush of ironic laughter.
Or perhaps this is the way their lordships are bound to behave, not to know things 'a priori' what are well known to all, or, at least, what are known to all well informed persons, before their lordships take those things into cognisance in the due process of a legal procedure. Our readers know about a published research paper of Mr. Vibhuti Narain Rai IPS, sponsored by the National Police Academy , Hyderabad , (we published excerpts of that paper in our Oct. 2002 issue, what we got from www.india-seminar.com/1994/483). Papers like that one and reports of dozens of commissions probing riots chaired by eminent ex-justices certainly point to a covert collusion of administration-political leaders in govt. chairs-communal forces etc. It is indeed amazingly difficult after all these and so many allied things regarding the Gujarat mass-murders to take so much time to loose all faiths on the Modis.
And there were some talks about democracy also in the court. The Additional Solicitor General of Gujarat govt. audaciously commented that the govt. of Gujarat is democratically elected and so does not depend on the mercy of others (pointing certainly to the S.C.) to stay in force. The honourable CJI only remarked: Democracy does not mean you'll not prosecute anyone. Is that a muh torh jawab, a fitting reply at all that was needed to answer such a comment, a sixer-over-the-head-of-the-long-on to humble down the bowler? Or is that a gentle-defensive-on-the-back foot which only makes the bowler more adamant! Or, are their lordships not 'permitted legally' to say: We've seen all such manufactured democracy and elections , we've seen lots of Kashmir elections in the past 50 years; we've seen Mussolini- s and Hitler- s of the past getting democratically elected , we've seen the Bonaparte- s in the mid nineteenth century? so stop talking rubbish. Sir, those comments of yours, can they make a dent in the arrogance of the fascists? And do you sincerely believe that your gentle scolding will make the Gujarat govt. really anti-Hindu-fascist, really secular!!?
The 'secular' opposition parties, all the opposition bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties would certainly be happy with their lordship's comments; they've got their material for electioneering propaganda. And why not! They are all [including the Supreme Court] content with the Indian brand of secularism, which is a far away thing from the real secularism ? a term to mean that everything concerning religion must be kept outside the orbit of the State functioning; whereas the Indian brand of secularism means, de jure, encouraging all religion equally, and, de facto, encouraging most the majority religion relegating the others almost as second class citizens. They are all happy to be able to maintain their secular fa?ade even after it is badly worn out, happy in their dream of defeating Indo-nazis democratically through parliamentary elections.
While the Modis of today, the bosses of the Nazi Sangh Paribar , emboldened by the incapacity of their so-called secular adversaries in the State Machinery of India, perhaps muttered, on the 12th evening, - xxxxxx [Dammit?], wait for some more time, and "we" are going to change laws/bend laws democratically; "we'll" change the way you people, and all others reason , "we'll" change your 'pseudo-secular' logic architecture by implanting some real Hindutva-chips manufactured by our YVTs (Young Vedic Techies); and if that fails to fit with somebody? "we'll" throw that fellow to our own armed forces' Intensive Care Units. Isn't it so, sirs?
Comments:
No Comments for View