The fact that the Modi camp rejoices over a few statements by a tainted former deputy general of police reveals the desperation to get a "clean chit".
In May 2002, KPS Gill was called in as security advisor to Narendra Modi. On October 31, 2013, over eleven years later, he says the Gujarat Chief Minister cannot be held responsible for the post-Godhra riots.
"In law and order situations, it is the police leadership which has to respond and not the political leadership."
It happened to be the anniversary of the anti-Sikh riots when he said this, so it sounds particularly unfortunate. For, then, people like Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler, who have been tried for their role in the 1984 riots, would also be seen as blameless.
Why should Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, or even Bihar CM Nitish Kumar, be made answerable for the recent Patna blasts, prior and during Modi's rally? After all, they constitute the political leadership.
Why question Akhilesh Yadav and Mulayam Singh for what happened in Muzaffarnagar?
When protestors are beaten with lathis and tear gas shells are used, why does the police force not take responsibility? Why does the matter reach the political leaders, including the President?
KPS Gill has got to have answers to these allied queries, for he cannot be selective.
He was appointed by Modi as security advisor, which is a political process and position, to an extent. It was three months after the riots. What did he do? Whose responsibility are compensations, rehabilitation? Who should visit the refugee camps?
"I realised that people of all political parties who were anti-Modi and anti-BJP were taking advantage of this mayhem and making all efforts to defame Modi one way or the other."
There is no denying that political parties always come in to take advantage, and the BJP is no exception. Could Mr. Gill explain how exactly does defamation of Modi take away his lack of intervention? The fact is that the matter did not end with the "mayhem" (interesting choice of word).
The report further states:
He charged the policemen and the administration had become communal after the incident in Godhra and Mr Modi, who had just become the chief Minister, did not have proper grip over the state machinery...he said that after taking charge as the security advisor of the state, he had visited all places where violence had taken place and policemen from top to bottom refuted having received any direction of the type being mentioned.
• The police deal with communal issues on a routine basis. They are not supposed to be communally prejudiced. The manner in which Gill is running down the Force is rather surprising.
• If Modi did not have a grip on the state, how does it matter? Why did he start using his remote powers? Don't they go against the former DGP's own thesis that it is not a political issue?
• There was much that happened soon after the riots, including the transfer of senior police officers. So, if the police leadership has to take responsibility, why were they shunted out? Would they not stand up for what they did? They did not transfer themselves, right?
Those cases are documented and the cops have served/are serving sentences.
• If they did not get any directions, why has no senior cop from Gujarat come out and said so in clear terms about the murders, the destruction of property, the encounter killings?
And why did Narendra Modi speak about action-reaction at the very beginning? Was he tutored by the cops?
There is a limit to the whitewash job.
Speaking of KPS Gill, even a whitewash job by him is not really capable of cleaning. He has, after all, served a sentence himself.
In 1989, he was charged for sexual harassment with 90 IAS officers signing the petition.
Rupan Deol Bajaj, an IAS officer herself, had persisted with the case and later said:
"Gill was convicted of sexual harassment charges by the Supreme Court and it's high time the government withdrew the Padma Shri award it gave him."
It is important to understand the mindset of such a man before taking his clean chit at face value.
"The rank and file of the Punjab police force feared him. I cannot say that they respected him. He was very supportive of his subordinates as long as they co-operated in achieving his goals. Even delinquents and evil-doers were tolerated if their actions fitted into his grand designs."
- Julio Ribeiro, who inducted Gill in the operations in Punjab
© Farzana Versey
It has now become amusing to see how a person can instantly become a hunted prey the moment s/he mentions anything that seems to show Narendra Modi in a positive light, however faint. Since it has become a sekulaar ritual (passage of rite?) over last eleven years, it fails to interest most - me excluded, of course! :)
The sexual harassment charge against Gill has no relevance to the matter at hand. I am astonished how a writer like you who weighs and measures her words carefully made such a casual connection. I cannot put it down to anything other than a pathological, illogical hatred of a certain individual that has eclipsed your objectivity. You must also understand that it is this blind, vicious, nasty sekulaar (!) bias that creates its own mirror image in terms of fanatic (!) online fans who virtually butcher anyone who dares to say a word against their deity.
I also noted with dismay, your use of the term 'Modi camp'. It is unfortunate that today, a person who takes a view slightly at odds with one's own, is condemned as belonging to the enemy camp. I suppose you recognise no distinctions such as BJP workers, RSS swayamsevaks, ordinary voters, blog-writers, commentators, activists, thinkers, artists, bureaucrats, political leaders etc, when it comes to Narendra Modi. Shoot at sight, take no prisoners. Is that it?
You are criticising Gill for being selective. Do you express yourself on every issue under the sun? What about your selectivity?
Please note that I am merely making an argument. Personally, I respect your right to decide.
Yesterday, Lata Mangeshkar also said something in praise of Narendra Modi. She is a film personality, so I am sure you will not fall short of past scandals to denounce her as 'tainted'.
Go write that post. One reader is guaranteed. :)
Correction in the above comment:
It should be "rite of passage" and not what it reads.
QUOTE: "...the desperation to get a 'clean chit'...."
I do not think the 'Modi Camp' is desperate or anything. Firstly, they
know it is a futile quest to seek clean chits from high-priests of
sekulaarism who have already passed death sentences without trial.
Secondly, the guys seem to be doing quite well with the chits they
have got! :)
QUOTE: "Why question Akhilesh Yadav and Mulayam Singh for what
happened in Muzaffarnagar?"
Sorry to say this but coming from you, it is just rhetoric. You haven't
ever put forth any questions and certainly haven't called them mass
Such an evocative term! No? Never mind the facts..
You have let Gill's statement about Gujarat 2002 being merely a
law-and-order issue, pass without contest. I suppose it was an
oversight. You can still atone. :)
It did not take support for Modi for Gill become "hunted prey". Check out his record in preying, and we've 'done' him before.
And to think you object to a term like "Modi camp" when those opposing any opposition are doing so precisely because of Modi.
The sexual harassment case against Gill is important as he was retained in the job despite it because some senior people thought he was a national asset. I like the way Objectivity is called upon at such moments. So, how about being objective about all cases of sexual harassment by the powerful?
(Again, I do not need someone's wrongdoing to get at Modi. He has enough in his kitty.)
If there was no desperation to get a clean chit, then why would the Modi camp rush to claim these certificates?
I have never called Modi a mass murderer. The fact that I use the Muzaffarnagar example makes it clear that I think governments are responsible.
Obviously, you choose to ignore that.
I was taking on Gill's specific statement about law and order. It does not mean there wasn't more.
PS: There are others who need to atone!