This time Modi is right. Why target only Gujarat and not othet states? His adminstration could be using diversionary tactics, and while one size does not fit all in matters of justice, there's got to be a trial room for everyone.
Having recorded their version, I'd like to know if the Modi government is using this as justification? Is there no difference between underworld dons and people arrested at random? The use of the term clean up reveals the modus operandi. Is the Gujarat government conceding such a possibility?
As far as details are concerned, it is spot on:
They still are. From 'Shootout at Lokhandwala' to the supposedly more realistic 'Black Friday', the cops are the heroes to the anti-heroes. Interestingly, you cannot tell the difference.
Around the time-frame mentioned, a few of these officers would routinely pose for pictures with their 'kill'. It was and is a known fact that, besides being feted in the media, promotions are largely dependent on the quota of bodies.
The underworld has primarily operated from Mumbai and their close connections span across drug lords overseas, intelligence agencies, politicians, industrialists, film financiers, and the media.
The arrest of Jigna Vohra in the J.Dey murder case due to what has been played out as professional rivalry had to do with two rival gangsters.
Arun Gawli, the "daddy" of Byculla could contest elections from jail. Politics is not just a refuge for these gangsters but a logical move.
The cops rarely get the big guys. It is a tacit arrangement.
So, if we keep the peeve of the Gujarat government in mind, then indeed Maharashtra and other states need to be given the same treatment.
However, outside of the partisan stance of activists and human rights organisations, is Narendra Modi willing to accept that encounter killings did take place and the criminal officers were transferred?
If yes, then the Supreme Court can pull up the other states and alongside take this as an admission to similar culpability in Gujarat.
We have Modi's word for it, although he hasn't quite said it.
(c) Farzana Versey
The Narendra Modi government on Friday moved the Supreme Court and sought an independent probe into encounter cases in all states in last 10 years, while venting its ire at Mumbai based human rights activists accusing them of focusing only on incidents in Gujarat. To press its case, the Modi government said, 'It is a matter of record and cannot be seriously disputed that between 1998 and 2000 special squads of Bombay Police ‘cleaned up’ (the expression then used) about 300 strong Bombay underworld dons with an average of 100 encounters a year'.
Having recorded their version, I'd like to know if the Modi government is using this as justification? Is there no difference between underworld dons and people arrested at random? The use of the term clean up reveals the modus operandi. Is the Gujarat government conceding such a possibility?
As far as details are concerned, it is spot on:
The Gujarat government argued that 'The Bombay police went by the Israeli strategy of ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘tooth for a tooth’ as was being unofficially claimed then. Officers who undertook this operation 'clean up’ were feted as super heroes and even immortalized by films.
They still are. From 'Shootout at Lokhandwala' to the supposedly more realistic 'Black Friday', the cops are the heroes to the anti-heroes. Interestingly, you cannot tell the difference.
Around the time-frame mentioned, a few of these officers would routinely pose for pictures with their 'kill'. It was and is a known fact that, besides being feted in the media, promotions are largely dependent on the quota of bodies.
The underworld has primarily operated from Mumbai and their close connections span across drug lords overseas, intelligence agencies, politicians, industrialists, film financiers, and the media.
The arrest of Jigna Vohra in the J.Dey murder case due to what has been played out as professional rivalry had to do with two rival gangsters.
Arun Gawli, the "daddy" of Byculla could contest elections from jail. Politics is not just a refuge for these gangsters but a logical move.
The cops rarely get the big guys. It is a tacit arrangement.
So, if we keep the peeve of the Gujarat government in mind, then indeed Maharashtra and other states need to be given the same treatment.
However, outside of the partisan stance of activists and human rights organisations, is Narendra Modi willing to accept that encounter killings did take place and the criminal officers were transferred?
If yes, then the Supreme Court can pull up the other states and alongside take this as an admission to similar culpability in Gujarat.
We have Modi's word for it, although he hasn't quite said it.
(c) Farzana Versey
FV,
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: "...is Narendra Modi willing to accept that encounter killings did take place..."
Gujarat govt has already accepted in its affidavit that Sohrabuddin was killed in a fake encounter.
--
I am happy that you are conceding the truth in Gujarat govt's position here. Hope you do it in case of 2002 riots also.
F&F:
ReplyDeleteWhat of the riots? That because they happen elsewhere they are allowed to in Gujarat and there is no justice? I keep emphasising 1984 and 1993, and will do so about 2002.
I have conceded a point with a few questions. And one of them remains: why did Modi transfer the officers?
FV,
ReplyDeleteHundreds of govt officers (including the ones in central services) are transferred evry year - if not month - in every state. Many of them are shunted out for political reasons - or at least reasons that have nothing to do with either merit or administration.
Now please explain what it is that distinguishes Gujarat govt here, if at all.
F&F:
ReplyDeleteThese cops were transferred after their role in encounters and riots came to light. There is a huge difference.
FV,
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: "There is a huge difference."
1. As I have said before, the truth about Gujarat 2002 is what one WANTS to believe. And it applies to both sides.
2. Do you realize you are letting go of the broader issue here, in your stubborn refusal to concede a petty point in a minor aside?