“Sur Mile Mera Tumahara

Woh Sur Baneh hamara…”

But after all the song and dances are over, have these nation states been able to resolve their ‘minority’ issues? A perfunctory look at the recent history would show that even in the twentieth century, the attitude of the majority towards the minorities was one of total domination. An excerpt from Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar’s book *” We or Our Nationhood Defined” *would establish this attitude without any ambiguity:

“German Race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by purging the country of the Semitic Races-the Jews. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by”.

“It is worth bearing well in mind how these old Nations solve their minorities problem. There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race. From this stand point, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion…”

In contest with this extreme Hindu nationalist position, the Congress promoted an ambiguous nation state theory: the soft Hindu state propagated by leaders like Purusotham Tandon and Madan Mohan Malaviya and the ‘secular’ state of Nehru. This ambiguity of the leaders of Congress towards secularism continues even till now and the slogan of “Sarva Dharma Samabhav” continues to deceive the minorities. At this stage, we may note some of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this subject:

“The word ‘secular’ is commonly understood in contradistinction to the word ‘religious’. Although the idea of secularism may have been borrowed in the Indian Constitution from the West, India has adopted its own unique brand of secularism based on its particular history.

The First Amendment to the American Constitution mandates that, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’.

Similarly, the Australian Constitution also prescribes that ,’the Commonwealth shall not make any laws for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion’. Under the Indian Constitution however there is no such ‘wall of separation’ between the State and religious institutions…”

The above observations of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, quite correctly sums up the dichotomy in the concept of the Indian secularism. This ambivalent attitude towards secularism is reflected in the judicial pronouncements also. In the case of Valsamma Paul (Mrs) v. Cochin University, the Apex Court felt that ‘pluralism of Indian culture and religious tolerance is the bedrock of Indian secularism. It is based on the belief that all religions are equally good and efficacious pathways to perfection or God-realisation. (Sarva Dharma Samabhav?) It stands for a complex interpretative process in which there is a transcendence of religion and yet there is a unification of multiple religions’.

As a contradistinction, we may extract another view of the Apex Court; in the case of *I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., the Court held that ‘the fundamental rights have always enjoyed a special and privileged place in the Constitution. Some of the rights in Part III constitute fundamentals of the Constitution like Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 15 which represent secularism, etc. The role of the judiciary is to protect fundamental rights. A modern democracy is based on the twin principles of majority rule and the need to protect fundamental rights.’ This judgment brings us to the moot questions- do the minorities get the equal protection of law in secular India?

Keeping aside the larger question of economic or social justice to the minorities, we may limit our discussions to the two basic questions: (1) affording equal protection of law to the minorities and (2) the efficacy of the criminal justice system of delivering justice to the minorities. At this stage it becomes necessary to recall some of the major events of violence in secular India to assess the extent to which the minorities get the “equal” treatment in law.

The Nellie massacre took place in Assam during a six-hour period in the morning of 18 February 1983. The massacre claimed the lives of 2,191 people (unofficial figures run at more than 5,000) from 14 villages of Nagaon district. Most of the victims were Bengali-speaking Muslim women and children who had immigrated to the region . A group of media personnel passing by the region were witness to the massacre. No one has been punished for the most gruesome genocide!

On May 17, 1984, rioting began in Bhiwandi and spread to Bombay. Rioting continued till May 27. According to official statistics, the riots left 278 dead, 1115 injured, and 11,453 arrested. The large majority of all three categories were Muslim.

The anti-Sikh riots in 1984 were four days of mayhem in the northern parts of India, particularly Delhi, in which armed mobs set fire to Sikh homes and businesses, killed unarmed men, women and children and attacked gurdwaras, Sikh places of worship. The violence, which left almost 3,000 people dead, was a reaction to the assassination of the country’s Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, on Oct. 31, 1984, by her two Sikh bodyguards, Beant Singh and SatwantSingh. After 28 years of the carnage, there are very few that have been punished for the heinous crime.

The Bhagalpur riots that was sparked off on 24th October, 1989 was one of the series of riots organized by the Sanghparivar in connection with the Babri Masjid demolition movement. It was sparked off by a procession carrying bricks for Shilapujan for building the Ram temple in Ayodhya ,organized by BJP, VHP, Bajrangdal .116 persons were killed in the village Logai alone in Bhagalpur district on October 27, 1989.The rioters in Logai buried the bodies in a field and planted vegetables.The irony is that out of 1486 killed during October, 1989 in Bhagalpur, though 1383 were Muslims but it were the Muslims who were punished; the Court awarded life imprisonment for one and ten years imprisonment for 11 persons in 1996. Beside this, two dozen Muslims had earlier received similar punishments. The Mumbai riots started after the Babri Mosque demolition on 6 December 1992. This was followed by celebratory processions by Shiv Sena and BJP activists and targeting of Muslim localities. It is commonly believed that the riots occurred in two phases. The first was mainly a Muslim backlash as a result of the Babri Masjid demolition ..The second The second phase occurred in January 1993, with most incidents reported between 6 January and 20 January. Around 900 (575 Muslims, 275 Hindus, 45 unknown and 5 others) persons died in the violence and police firing.

The Gujarat violence of 2002 and thereafter

On 27-2- 2002, 58 passengers died in the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express which burned down to ashes near the Godhra Railway station following a altercation between the Karsevaks who were traveling in the train with the Muslim tea vendors of the Godhra railway station. 58 dead bodies were brought to Ahmedabad and paraded in the street of Ahmedabad .

By 10 am in the morning on 28-2-02 the saffron bands were on the road leading crowds upto 20 thousands – attacking everyone that was Muslim. At the end of the day, three of the most gruesome offence were committed at (1) Naroda Patia- 100 dead; (2) Gulberg Society-70 dead and eight girls are still missing; and (3) Pandarwada – 100 dead. By next two weeks, over 1000 innocent Muslim men, women and children were brutally killed. Several thousand had to run away, crores worth of property were destroyed in the cities, every single Muslim business establishment was specifically targeted; for the first time, the violence was taken to villages and Muslims of hundreds of villages had to run away.

No FIRs were allowed to be taken from any victim and police officers filed omnibus FIRs , carefully avoiding to give any details, sabotaging the very foundation of investigation. Investigating Officers at police station level refused to take orders from higher officers and listened only to the local BJP leaders. After sabotaging the evidence,the trial of the cases were handed over to Public Prosecutors. who were also VHP/BJP activist. (result – Acquittal like in the Best Bakery Case) . Bail was granted for asking in murder, rape and in cases of arson.

Matters didn’t end there….

The next phase of the plan started unfolding from the end of 2002: The plan was to profile the entire Muslim community of Gujarat as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorist. The Prevention of Terrorist Act (Pota) was thus used against innocent youth, and hundreds were picked up between April 2003 to December 2004. Gujarat never had terrorist ever before but, Gujarat Government used Pota, to create terrorist in Gujarat. POTA was thus used as the ” Production of terrorist Act ” and not as the “Prevention of terrorist Act”.

Next, it had to be put in the minds of the people that the Islamic terrorist were bent upon eliminating the “Great Savior” . Thus started the encounter program: Salim Pathan, Sadik Jamal, Javed , Israt Jahan, Shohrabuddin and many more were unfortunate innocent “terrorists” who had to be killed to established that Narendra Modi was in constant danger. Every six months one dead person was required to sacrificed at the alter of Modi and in every FIR that followed the encounter deaths of such hand piceked “terrorists”, a line was invariably added that “ the accused had come to Gujarat to kill the Chief Minister”! The Supreme Courts interference has now exposed this game plan fully.

Besides the above cases of mass violence, in the last decade, especially after the 9/11 event in New York, several cases of “bomb blasts” have taken place all over the country killing many innocents. The blame ofcourse was shifted on the Muslims ‘confirming’ their terrorist tendencies; the exposure of the Malegaon blast, Mecca Masjid blast at Hyderbad etc has however revealed the hidden agenda of the Hindu terrorist group to spread anarchy and hate against the minorities.

How has the Indian judiciary and other democratic Institutions reacted to the repeated instances of mass violence or the encounters and bomb blasts? At the lower rungs of the justice delivery system, the proximity of the police, prosecutor and the politician has as a rule, denied a fair deal to the minorities. In any communal conflict, the majority community has successfully turned the prosecution on its side and in severe situations like in Gujarat, even the judiciary in the State has faltered.

Few instances will suffice to establish this point. In the case of the death of the 58 passengers of the Sabarmati Express on 27th Feb, 2002, the session court awarded death penalty to eleven accused and life sentence to 20 more accused whereas in the Best Bakery case, all the accused were acquitted by the sessions court desp[ite the brutal murder of several persons. POTA was invoked in the Sabarmati express case and 100 or so accused remained in jail for over eight years as under trial whereas all the accused in most of the 3000 or cases involving the brutal murder of over 1000 Muslims were bailed out within few months. POTA was never invoked in such cases though the Muslims all over Gujarat were terrified and helpless against the mob-violence supported by the state.

Besides these cases during the main phase of violence, hundreds of Muslim Youth were detained under POTA in connection within Haren Pandya murder case, tiffin bomb case (no one was really injured in this case) and one omibus case strangely called the ISI conspiracy case. All the cases ended in conviction of the Muslim accused and several are undergoing life sentences.

It is must however said that the Apex Court has time and again intervened to protect the fundamental rights of the minorities but in a country of over a billion people with a sizable percentage of minorities, even with the best intentions, it would be impossible for a single court to protect the basic structure of the constitution and afford equal protection of law to the minorities when the players in the State themselves pitch for the majority community.

Secularism is therefore an ambiguous word slipped in the preamble of the Constitution during the dark days of emergency by way of the 42nd amendment of the constitution in 1976. In our country, it has become purely a political slogan for and against the minority during the elections.

In the international arena, the declaration of US of its resolve to wage a “War on Terror” after the 9/11 event, has forced the genuine secular force to retreat as otherwise they would be seen to be siding with the “Islamic Jehadis”. This political propaganda has hit the shores of all countries with their rightist forces queuing up to support the “war on terrorism” to please their western masters.

Interestingly, the campaign of the BJP led sangh parivar against the Muslims has also changed after the 9/11 event. Prior to 2001, the campaign used to revolve around demand demolition of the Babri Masjid and the building of the Ram temple as a retaliation to the alleged past oppression of the Muslim rulers. After 9/11, the campaign shifted in profiling the Muslims as terrorist and the death of the 58 karsevaks of the Sabarmati express was used to demonise the entire community.

Defenders of secularism must therefore take lessons from the reality of the present day. While we shall salute warriors like Shahid Azmi, we must realize that this struggle has to be waged by the masses as a part of their larger struggle for democracy.

What has kept you going for 10 years?
The riots and the subsequent denial of justice was leading to the alienation of an entire community. I think that was very dangerous. If the minorities in Gujarat lost faith in the basic democratic system, all of us would lose, not just the minorities. We wanted to remain as the thread between the community and the system. That was one of our primary goals. Though we faced an unresponsive judiciary and hostile administration, we never gave up hope. The only alternative was to remain quiet, be a spectator and watch the deterioration of the system. That was not an option.

A second goal, of course, was to help the victims get due justice, whatever that meant in the circumstances prevailing at the time. Things haven’t changed very qualitatively now either, but we do see some signs of hope, especially in the encounter cases. Till 2007, most people believed those killed to be terrorists; they bought the story dished out by the government. But the intervention of the Supreme Court in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case was the turning point. At one time, the only thing the minorities got were bullets. Now we are getting some faith back.

There was also a big political vacuum in Gujarat. The Congress was not doing anything. On the contrary, when we spoke up strongly against the injustice being meted out to the minorities, we saw them actually cringe and say Modi was going to take advantage of these resistance movements because he would pitch it as an attempt to malign the state. I think that is an extremely short-sighted view. Our own experience shows that there is a large fraction of the majority community that might prefer to remain silent, but given the right type of information, they can also react. That is one of the strong objectives we have. Let us use the democratic institutions we have to try and convince fence-sitters that they are not doing the right thing and must take sides in this battle. Slowly, there have been some breakthroughs.

What would you count as breakthroughs?
There have been some legal breakthroughs, though that alone is not enough. Legal breakthroughs are important primarily for two reasons. One is to restore the faith of the minority in the judiciary; make them feel that they don’t have to look outwards for help. That is always a very dangerous sign. And two, so people realise they can get some relief from the system. Like compensation and rehabilitation. Some of that has begun to happen. The HC has come down heavily on the government and directed it to rehabilitate the places of worship. Then the Sardarpura case. It’s the only major case to have been decided till today. There are quite a number of people who have been convicted for the riots.

That is on the legal front. Are there other breakthroughs?
Yes, there are other signs. Take the vernacular media. Often, the role they played during that period was one of direct instigator. There were papers urging Hindus to take revenge, pitting the killings in one place as a benchmark for another area to rise up to. Such direct instigation and provocation was being published almost every day. When the encounters took place, front pages flashed the news that LeT terrorists Mohammed, etc had come to kill Modi. Common people started believing all that. But now this trend has changed.

The judiciary is also definitely taking a turn for the better. And, to an extent, I see a large fraction of the legal community has now begun to see things more clearly. They don’t automatically assume Muslims are the worst creatures in the state. These are the positive signs. On the other side, of course, certain issues have not been resolved. Primarily, I have not seen much improvement in the state’s attitude towards the administration of justice. It continues to sabotage the system as far as possible.

Have you been changed in anyway by this long struggle?
We have become quite different. I can talk for myself. I come from a very academic background. I came here as a student of Physics, did my PhD. I never thought one day I’d be lawyer and that too involved with such volatile cases. But the journey has taught me a lot. We are much more aware of the kind of life minorities have to lead and are in a better position to communicate with them. We have also learnt better how to communicate with an ordinary Hindu. Because the Congress itself was toeing the soft Hindutva line, there was no one to tell ordinary Hindus that their problems did not lie with Muslims.

Take yesterday’s incident. It was the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Gulberg. We had specifically timed the rally for 5.30 pm, which is when Gulberg Society had been completely burnt. That day, Hindus and Muslims were completely hostile to each other, whereas yesterday there were hundreds of Hindus and Muslims together trying to hold the rally for justice and peace. There was just one common slogan: say no to any communal conflict. Instead of encouraging this effort, the government kept trying to obstruct us. After many caveats, it gave permission to hold the rally and then withdrew it without explanation just three hours before. We could not even communicate with the people. The police picked up hundreds of them, but it was a great day because the police van had both Hindus and Muslims shouting one slogan: “Nahin nahin kabhi nahin… (Never, never, never again)”. It was enormous for us to hear that. Ten years ago, it was exactly the opposite. Dead bodies were going in the police van.

What are some lessons you’d like Indians to take from all this?
First, we must remember history. I don’t like using words like fascist, etc, but we have to look at the type of politics, propaganda and hatred generated inside a movement squarely in the eye. And there are uncanny similarities with what happened in Germany in the 1930s. Second, we have to remember the strengths and weaknesses of a democracy. We have to understand that democracy is ultimately the rule of the majority. But the rule of the majority can easily — and dangerously — be converted into the rule of the majority community. Once that happens, democracy fails. And that is precisely what Modi did. He created a polarisation where the majority was not composed of the ‘majority’ but the majority of a single community. So his electoral victories shouted from the rooftops are actually not democratic victories. That is essentially a sign of a community projecting its communal trait. The third is that we have to learn from the problems of the judiciary and, instead of running away from it, I think we should engage with it.

In what way?
One of the biggest mistakes the NGOs continue to make is to berate the local judiciary all the time and try to talk about going away to other states and using the Supreme Court all the time. I have no problem with that. But the important thing is to lead the judiciary back into proper democratic line. If we can’t do this, the local democratic functioning will totally fail. Ultimately, it is the judiciary that protects our democratic values and rights. And we just can’t run away from that. I agree there are a lot of problems, that people in the local judiciary will get far more influenced by local events. All that is acknowledged. But we have to keep engaging with them.

The fourth point I’d like people to remember is that democratic institutions cannot just be disregarded like the commission was. People said the commission is appointed by the government and we cannot trust it. All commissions are appointed by governments to justify their actions rather than get to the truth. But that does not mean that we can boycott them.

The last point I’d like to make is the grassroots work. That is where the crux lies. We have to bring people together. Ultimately, a society functions on the basis of classes, not communities. What political leaders in Gujarat have been successful in doing is to suppress the class contradictions and highlight the communal ones. We have to reverse this.

Has there been any black moment when you felt like walking away from it?
No, I’m an incorrigible activist. I had a heart attack in October 2002. That set me back for a while. The second moment was a very personal one. My wife, who has been my partner through all the struggles, was diagnosed with cancer in 2005. Now we have overcome it and both of us are back in the struggle. Yesterday was the first time we got arrested together.

Source: Tehelka

After 10 years of the Gujarat violence, when Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM) put all efforts to bring both the communities together, over a thousand people gathered to hold the rally, the government without any reason whatsoever refused permission and came down heavily on the peaceful gathering. The message sent by the government is very clear that even after 10 years, they do not wish people of both communities to come together and wants to keep them divided.

Among those who are arrested are Dr. Mukul Sinha, Amrish Patel, Samshad Khan Pathan, Zakia Soman, Noorjahan Diwan, Nirjhari Sinha, Usman Qureshi, Ramesh Srivastava, Vishnu Kadam, Ramesh Makwana, Jignesh Mevani, Anjum Sayyed and several riot victims.

The JSM had made an application seeking permission for rally well in advance on 16.02.2012. Despite knowing the importance of the Peace Rally, the government without assigning any reason, refused permission only on 26.02.2012 such that no legal action could be taken. The representatives of JSM met the Police Commissioner Mr. Saikia on 27.02.2012 and had even agreed to change the route of the rally to Ashram road instead of the city area, suggested by the Police Commissioner. But, subsequently even that route was refused as late in the evening of 27th February 2012.

A large number of people of both the communities, when they came to attend the rally on 28th at 5pm were shocked to find hundreds of armed police force blocking the venue and within moments, at least 385 JSM activists were rounded up by the police. Out of which 185 have been detained in Shaher Kotada police station and around 200 in Ramol police station situated on the outskirts of Ahmedabad.

JSM unequivocally condemns the high-handed action of the government of preventing the Peace Rally and demand action against the police commissioner and Jt. Commissioner of Police Samsher Singh, who without any reason prevented the people of all communities to come together to raise only one slogan – “SAY NO TO COMMUNAL CONFLICT – NO RIOT EVER AGAIN!”

When the representatives of JSM reached their Paldi office to hold a press conference, they found the office premises cordoned off by hundreds of armed police force so as to prevent the press meet.

SH Iyer
Convenor, JSM

Date: 28th February 2012

What exactly is the reason for this stubborn opposition to the appointment of Lokayukt? Was the Chief Minister resisting the appointment of Justice R A Mehta (Retd) as the Lokayukt or was he against the functioning of the Lokayukt itself? If the opposition was restricted to appointment of a particular person, it would not explain as to why the Chief Minister did not appoint a person of his own choice between November, 2003 to June, 2004, the period in which the NDA Government was in the Centre and the Gujarat Government had a Governor of their own party. But no Lokayukt was appointed and the office remained vacant for no cogent reason. In the last phase, the Learned Judge Sahai in paragraph 96 of his Judgement has observed that:

“There was no good or cogent reason available to the Chief Minister for writing letter dated 18.8.2011 for not appointing Justice (Retired) R.A.Mehta a Lokayukt, except adamantly reiterating the trite and stale allegations made earlier on 16.6.2011 which after inquiry had not been accepted the Chief Justice.”

Perhaps the real reason of the antagonism is the fact that the present Chief Minster faces very little political opposition in Gujarat and he has no desire to create a statutory opponent. Despite the fact that the existing Gujarat Lokayukt Act, 1986 is a weak piece of legislation without any teeth, yet the mere existence of a Lokayukt can be troublesome. The scheme of the Act provides that any person can make a complaint against any public functionary regarding any action that is relatable to corruption or any action that lacks integrity. The definition of ‘public functionary’ includes the Chief Minister as well all his Minsters. In view of these provisions, the Lokayukt Act has the potential of throwing allegations against the Chief Minster and scoring political brownies.

The worst scenario ofcourse is when a strong person with high degree of integrity like Justice R A Mehta is appointed to the office of Lokayukt. A situation like Karnataka may arise; what the entire opposition of Karnataka could not do, the report of Justice Hegde did. It resulted in the exit of Yedurappa ! If we take the recent verdict of the court directing Essar to pay over 9000 crores as tax to the Gujarat Government, one can imagine what type of concessions are being given to the rich and an inquiry into one such case by the Lokayukt can set the political pot boiling.

With the 2012 elections to the Gujarat assembly round the corner, it is unthinkable that the Gujarat Government would risk the appointment of any person as the Lokayukt let alone Justice R A Mehta. True, the judgment of the learned Judge Shri Sahai is of high degree of reasoning and erudition but the path of justice is long and arduous. The judgment is perhaps already before the Apex Court and no one can really predict when the legal journey would be over.

Appointment of Commissions to “look into” allegations of corruption may be a much safer bet. Delay is the best game plan irrespective of whether the allegations are related to riot matters, encounter issues or appointment of Lokayukt. The decade long pendency of the Nanavati commission has establish this point. Corruption is a congenital defect of the capitalist mode of production. Globalisation has only metastasized it in every organ of the State. The political masters are the beneficiary of this spread. Good governance will thus always be the victim.

Shahid Azmi, a 32 year young lawyer based in Mumbai, was shot dead by some ‘unidentified’ persons at his office on 11th February 2010. According to his close friends, Shahid was not just another advocate who practiced law to earn his livelihood. He was fighting many terror related cases, including for those falsely accused in the Malegaon blasts.

The lecture will be chaired by noted scholar, Prof. Jairus Banaji, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The other speakers for the occasion are: Ajit Sahi, Senior Journalist, Advocate Mihir Desai, Mumbai High Court, Maulana Ghulzar Azmi, Secretary, Jamiat Ulama Legal Cell, Maharashtra and Arif Azmi, eldest brother of Shahid Azmi.

The order came less than two weeks after the court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) concluded the trio were shot dead before June 15, 2004 — the day the police had claimed the trio were killed in a gunfight.

The police had claimed they were Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives on a mission to assassinate Narendra Modi.

Today, the court asked SIT chairman R.R. Verma to file a fresh FIR within two weeks against the accused policemen and hand over the report to the CBI.

The central agency has been directed to form a team that should be headed by an officer of the rank of DIG. The team can seek the assistance of SIT member Satish Verma, who had told the court in an affidavit this January, long before the team’s report on November 18, that the encounter was staged.

Ishrat’s family had favoured a probe by the SIT itself or by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) but the court held that the investigation “is beyond the charter of the NIA” as the SIT’s report had confirmed it wasn’t a terror case.

But eventually, the family expressed satisfaction with the outcome. “We are happy with the CBI. This judgment is very good. The CBI has been told to approach the court in case there was any interference from any side,” said I.H. Saiyed, the advocate for Ishrat’s mother.

Rauf Lala, the uncle of the 19-year-old Mumbai college girl, also believes the truth would come out now.

“We are not just hopeful but absolutely confident that the real culprit and mastermind behind the murders will be known after the fresh FIR is registered. We will know the motive, why they killed Ishrat. We will also know the faces of those black sheep in Maharashtra police who helped Gujarat police carry out such horrendous crime.”

The families of the other three victims also welcomed the order. One of them was Mukul Sinha, who represented the father of Pranesh Pillai, among the three others killed. Sinha had initially opposed the CBI probe on the ground that it would “unnecessarily politicise the issue” and wanted the SIT itself to be given the probe.

Sinha was particularly pleased with the court asking the CBI to take the help of SIT member Verma, whose inclusion in the SIT was opposed by the Narendra Modi government.

Twenty-one officers are accused in the case. These including the now-retired K.R. Kaushik, who was then Ahmedabad police commissioner, and the current additional director-general of police P.P. Pandey. He had overseen the encounter as joint commissioner.

Two other accused, deputy inspector-general D.G. Vanzara and deputy superintendent N.K. Amin, are already in jail in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

This is fourth fake encounter the CBI has been asked to investigate in Gujarat. It is probing the Sohrabuddin and Tulsi Prajapati cases, both handed over by the Supreme Court. The third, about the 2003 killing of alleged criminal Sadiq Jamal, was given by the high court in June this year.

This could spell trouble not only for the Gujarat police officers, but also for the central intelligence agencies as they are believed to have faked inputs that led to the encounter and open Narendra Modi’s government to the charge of shielding officers involved.

“Three senior IPS officers, nominated by the Centre, refused to head the Ishrat SIT,” said advocate Mukul Sinha who is representing the family of one of the victims. “This is clearly to save the skin of senior central IB officials involved in the case.”

This is the third shootout by Gujarat police that has turned out to be fake – the first two were of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his accomplice Tulsiram Prajapati, while a fourth encounter of Sadiq Jamal Mehtar is under investigation by CBI. All of them were declared terrorists and killed by the same set of cops led by now-jailed deputy inspector general D G Vanzara.

Sinha also alleged that the encounters were staged for political gains as they helped Modi give the impression of being the toughest fighter against terrorism.

As many as 21 policemen, including IPS officers, are involved in the encounter. Among the IPS officers are the then Ahmedabad joint police commissioner (crime branch) P P Pande, then assistant commissioners of police G L Singhal and N K Amin besides Vanzara, who along with Amin is accused of murdering Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausar Bi.

Ishrat, a 19-year-old student of Khalsa College in Mumbai, and three others – Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar – were proclaimed Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists on a fidayeen mission to kill Modi when they were killed on June 15, 2004.The three members of SIT probing Ishrat’s encounter comprised additional director general of police (ADGP) of CISF R R Verma, ADGP of Gujarat police Mohan Jhaand inspector general of Gujarat police Satish Verma.

After the verdict, Ishrat’s mother Shamima Kausar demanded capital punishment for her daughter’s killers and blamed the officers for forcing the family to live with the stigma of having terrorist kin.

In 2009, magistrate S P Tamang had investigated into the encounter and declared it as fake. He had held 21 police officers, including former DGP K R Kaushik, ADGP P P Pande, D G Vanzara and other crime branch officers responsible for the “cold-blooded murder”.

Banking on the SIT’s report submitted last week, a bench of Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari asked for a separate FIR to be filed against all the named police officers. During the hearing on Monday, the judges repeatedly mentioned that another probe was needed to find out the motive behind the murders.

They observed that the date, venue and time of the encounter, mentioned by the crime branch in its FIR on the day of the killing, did not match with other investigations. The bench noted though that not all officials shown in the FIR may be involved in the encounter. “Somebody else may also be behind the encounter,” the court observed while discussing the need for further investigations.

The judges wanted the SIT to continue with the investigation, for “it is well-versed with the case”. The court also considered options of central agencies like CBI and NIA for further probe and sought opinions of all parties involved in litigation. The court has fixed Wednesday for further proceedings, when the Centre is supposed to inform the court whether it is ready to spare the SIT chairman for further probe and to extend infrastructural support to SIT. The same query has been put forth to the Gujarat government in relation to Verma and Jha.

A bench of acting chief justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and justice J B Pardiwala asked the government to explain the issue on the basis of a PIL filed by the convener of civic rights organization Jan Sangharsh Manch, Shamshad Pathan.
A government resolution was passed on May 3 amending the rules of Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Certification Examination. With the new rules, during exams, students of Standard X in mediums like Urdu, Sindhi, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Oriya etc. will be given question papers in English/Hindi/Gujarati only. The students can answer the paper in their own respective languages.

For students of Standard XII with regional languages as their medium, the schools will be providing question papers in English/Hindi/Gujarati, and students will also be required to answer the papers in only these three languages and not in the medium, they are taught.

On July 11, the education secretary intimated schools that they should be conducting exams in 2012 as per the amended rules. Many schools made representations against this in August, but the government did not reply. This led JSM to move the HC, where the petitioner’s advocate Mukul Sinha contended that the state government’s decision was not only arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions, but it would severely affect students’ career.

The petitioner highlighted that in Ahmedabad alone there are seven Urdu medium and five Sindhi medium schools offering higher education. He contended that there are hundreds of students, who study in languages in Gujarat apart from Gujarati, Hindi or English. Advocate Sinha argued that it is impossible for a student to comprehend and write examination in subjects like mathematics and science in a language that is not his medium of learning.

After hearing the petitioner, the bench observed that it would be “gross injustice” to students, if such rules are made and implemented in such a short deadline. The bench asked the government to explain the issue next Thursday.