15.4.09

This is about Gujarat. Not Teesta

It appears to be just the sort of impetus the Sangh Parivar is looking for.

The Special Investigative Team in Gujarat has submitted a report to the Supreme Court accusing NGOs, and specifically Teesta Setalvad, of "cooking up" (interesting terminology this) stories regarding incidents during the 2002 riots in the state.

There are many who are ready to jump the gun with their one-line verdict of "those bloody NGOs and Teestas and Arundhatis". You know what? All of you who are getting into this mode are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable to face the truth and listen to the wails. Because it suits your original POV that it couldn't have been so bad with your poster boy taking Gujarat to Nano-moto heights. This is your fake utopia and that's how you like it.

Now come out of the comfort zone. Forget the NGOs and their "spicing up" for a while. Let's talk facts and ask a few questions:

* Have you wondered about the timing of the release of the SIT report? Why was it not produced earlier?

* If false charges, it is now claimed, were levelled against police chief P.C.Pandey, then why was he together with seven senior officers transferred by the Election Commission's fact-finding group on October 15, 2007?

* If these are false charges, then what about the 78 Muslims who were arrested after the Godhra train burning? What about the Rs 1 crore that was immediately handed over to 25 victims' families?

* Why did the government use the pictures of the burning train to get mileage when the findings tell a different story? What about these falsifications?

To get back to the NGOs, it would be stupid to outright deny that they are capable of exaggeration. However, isn't it puerile to accuse the affidavits of being "stereotypical"? What did the SIT expect - variety in each episode? Isn't one burnt house, a broken limb, a dead person much like any other?

I have said often enough that victims can be used by politicians and anyone with an agenda. Local groups tend to get smothered by outside "well wishers". No one bothers to check on who funds them and why. Everyone is too busy looking for heroes and villains, one or two faces, they can put up as representatives and voices and send on junkets.

Dissent and the citizens' movement have become a farce precisely because of this shameless promotion of selective ideals and morals.

No one gives a damn about the real victims. If you do, then don't curse individuals. Ask yourself whether you had asked these questions when they needed to be asked. It might have been a voice in the wilderness but some of us have ears for it.

---

I cannot provide links due to reasons mentioned in the post below, but there is a detailed piece of mine here dated 30-10-2007.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who are you to say why we cant curse teesta?Liars and rogues. Vote Modi!!

Arjun said...

here is farzana accepting without questions a report that suits her political bent..

http://www.countercurrents.org/guj-versey171006.htm

The state government's 'every action has a reaction' theory – an uncivilised way of justifying the riots that followed, to begin with – had been turned to smithereens when the Banerjee interim report pronounced, "With the elimination of the 'petrol theory', 'miscreant activity theory' as well as the ruling out of any possibility of 'electrical fire', the fire in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express can at this stage be ascribed as an 'accidental fire'.''

FV said...

Anon:

Curse who you want. Your mouth. And no one is telling you who to vote for.

Arjun:

Thank you for the link. If you had bothered to read this blogost AND the article completely you'd see they are saying pretty much the same thing. And the article is full of questions. And do read the one of 30-10-2007: 'How not to Sting Modi' about the judiciousness of the Tehelka probe. Pronouncing judgements with selective excerpts does not serve any purpose. People can read the before and after.

FV said...

And one more thing. It was I who consistently questioned how the Zahira Sheikhs, Bilquises were being used by activists. Since you are so good at research you won't need to look far; it is repeated in the comments on the 'Mallika rules...' post.

kb said...

Your title says it all and it is good to see through these ngos also but many are doing good work.Who to trust?Indian elections start and more dirt will come out

Anonymous said...

So many people died and even 7 yrs after that they are fighting for justice, shameful India shining!!

mstaab said...

For Arjun et al:http://farzana-versey.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-not-to-sting-modi.html

Cheers, Ms. Versey.

FV said...

KB:

There is no denying the good work being done, esp by local organisations. We DO need voices outside the system that work without fear or favour of/from Anyone.

Anon:

Catch phrases are never the solution and the ordinary citizen does not even know them. Yes, it is always justice delayed.

mstaab:

Thanks, that helped! Cheers to you too. Am hoping to write soon on deconstructing sculptures to entice you into an enlightening discussion :)

Arjun said...

Farzana wrote an article about a modi sting? good for her.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the point being made..that she accepts reports that suit her without questioning and when the reports aren't to her liking, she questions the motivations behind the report.

FV said...

The fact that you fail to see any connection is eloquent enough to reveal your pre-scripted bias.

It is always about the individual. Get out of it.

Arjun said...

It doesn't work that way. It's my contention that you accept official reports selectively. To prove that, I have posted a link to a previous column. It would be quote mining if I hadn't pasted the link. with a link, anyone who wants to see for themselves can do so.

Now please tell us how an article about a sting disproves my point.

FV said...

In my first response to you I gave the 'Sting' link saying that it raises pretty much the same points. It questions the Tehelka probe, the repetition of incidents.

The current blogpost has counterquestioned the SIT report based on what I had already said. If the SIT is accusing anyone of cooking up stories then why were the same standards not applicable then?

It is for the courts to finally judge an individual/system. I have not rushed to support the individual only because it would suit my POV.

Do I accept reports selectively? I have an opinion on some issues and put them forward. One does not always have a report ready to buffer one's case. I wrote about the Gujarat riots even before that. But if a report does raise the questions that I would then most certainly it would be used.

However, it is easy to take sides and belong to coteries. I don't, just in case you haven't noticed.

It is a person's choice to agree or not with me, but I do not take kindly to my nationality being questioned. Keep that in mind.

Thanks for the "quote mining" link. I did not know about it.

Here, I do try and provide labels so people can and do check for themselves.
----

General info:

I have discovered that some links in the sidebar and those linking my old articles do not work. I am glad I uploaded the pieces since this blog started, but some of the past ones have been removed or are difficult to access. I have no clue and marvel at the pettiness of those responsible for running mainstream newspapers.