Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 16, 2004
Two events relating to Gujarat happened
almost simultaneously. The first, which still reverberates in news columns,
was Zaheera Sheikh's second volte-face in the Best Bakery retrial. The
second, largely ignored by our Hindu-hating media, was the demand by Hyderabad
Naxalites for the unconditional release of Maulana Naseeruddin, recently
arrested by the Gujarat police in the Haren Pandya murder case. Ramakrishna,
secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), went so far as to demand
that the Andhra Government ban police entry into Muslim homes or ghettoes
without permission. Only the Kanchi Shankaracharya can be shamelessly arrested
on Diwali eve for a case that does not require his presence in jail.
Even those of us who resist intimidation
by the so-called secularists have failed to note the insidious growth of
a trend to secure deferential treatment for the Muslim community in the
realm of criminal law. The Sharia-based personal law has already bequeathed
a grim legacy of inequality, as witnessed in the tragedies of the old Shah
Banu and the young Gudiya. And now the criminal law of the land is sought
to be tailored to an agenda that renders the Hindu community even more
unequal vis-a-vis the Muslims. This calls for scrutiny of the motivation
and funding of groups engaged in such activism.
The Zaheera Sheikh case is appropriate
for such a study. Zaheera sprang into the limelight after her testimony
in a Vadodara court led to the acquittal of 21 accused persons and outraged
the secularists. Virtually hijacked by Mumbai activists, she then made
headlines with her claim that a BJP MLA had intimidated her and she could
not testify freely unless the Gujarat riot cases were transferred from
the BJP- ruled State.
So loud was the din created by those
determined to wrest a particular kind of judgment from the courts that
the Supreme Court concurred with the exercise of tarnishing the reputation
of the entire Gujarat judiciary, and took the unprecedented step of transferring
the cases to Mumbai. Nemesis came close on the heels of the Congress Party's
installation of its Government in Maharashtra: Zaheera accused Teesta Setalvad
of virtually imprisoning her in the latter's Mumbai home, forcing her to
sign documents she could not read, pressurising her to give a certain type
of testimony, and generally threatening her in the guise of organising
her legal defence.
Setalvad and her fellow travellers
managed a stupendous feat in getting the cases transferred to their chosen
state (Maharashtra) on the strength of an orchestrated outcry and a conniving
media. This same media has now launched a witch-hunt against Zaheera and
is trying to pre-empt the judiciary by declaring her testimony valueless.
An activist of Setalvad's impugned NGO, anticipating snags in the cosy
relationship with the judiciary, has made the staggering demand for an
out- sourcing of the judicial process itself to NGOs with secret agendas
and no public accountability.
The Indian judiciary's encouragement
to activists with covert agenda's and no locus standi has placed it in
an unenviable position. Concerned citizens are now raising questions that
deserve an answer. For instance, does Setalvad's alleged behaviour amount
to intimidation and prompting of a witness? But the real challenge before
the learned judges is rebutting the media campaign against Zaheera and
her testimony. The allegation that Setalvad pressurised a witness to name
innocent persons is too serious to be shrugged aside without proper investigation,
especially when a massive cover-up operation is already underway. The currently
emerging view that the riot cases were transferred on faulty premises must
be addressed and norms laid down to prevent the hijacking of justice in
future.
Judicial activism is now a serious
public concern. There is a feeling that the judiciary is prone to taking
up high-profile cases out-of-turn, which perpetuates backlog and imperils
impartiality. Best Bakery superceded the infamous St Kitts case involving
the PMO under the late Rajiv Gandhi. If out-of-turn allotment of Government
housing or petrol pumps is a malpractice, what is the judicial merit in
selecting court cases out-of-turn?
Zaheera has asked the Vadodara Collector
for protection from Setalvad and her NGO colleagues. Given the gravity
of the charge that she was taken to Mumbai forcibly and the Mumbai police
were unresponsive when approached for help, the judiciary must immediately
remove other witnesses from the care of NGO-activists. Press reports suggest
that other witnesses have been pushed underground by NGOs, and this may
result in doctored testimony.
Some facts in the Zaheera case are
being obfuscated by a partisan media. To begin with, she was accompanied
to the Vadodara press conference by all her family members, which means
that her retraction is not an individual whim. Her lawyer hinted that her
relatives had been kept hostage the last time she appeared before the media,
and this cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. Secondly, the testimony of witnesses
who have testified in the Best Bakery case must be evaluated independently
by the judiciary, and not pre-judged by the media.
Zaheera's specific allegation
that a friend of Setalvad threatened that she would be "lynched" if she
returned to Vadodara appears to have merit as an organised group burnt
her effigy there after she reiterated her initial testimony. Even if we
posit a margin of exaggeration in the claim that Setalvad and her colleagues
told Zaheera she must lie for the sake of her community, one must take
cognisance of the assertion that Heena (wife of Zaheera's brother) was
at her maternal home when the Best Bakery incident took place, and was
falsely made an "eye-witness" by the NGO. If memory serves me correctly,
Zaheera said this previously also, when the said sister-in-law made a public
statement after the riots. An honest investigation by the police should
easily clarify the picture in this regard.
The unmistakable lesson of this
unsavoury episode is that there is a well-funded and well-organised extra-constitutional
caucus serving ends that have little to do with justice or national interest.
Worse, it synergises perfectly with political parties and bureaucrats and
is treated with rare indulgence by pillars of the State, such as the judiciary.
What is most disturbing in the present case is the sheer brazenness with
which they have pursued an overtly communal agenda with the specific objective
of humiliating and denouncing the Hindu community as a whole.
Weak and poor Muslims like Zaheera
and her family have been used as fodder in a grand design to ensure special
treatment for the Muslim community in the matter of criminal law, to further
embed and empower political votebanks. The NGO crowd would like the Hindu
community to pretend that Godhra never happened and that the Gujarat riots
were not a reaction, but an independent act of aggression. Victims unable
to identify culprits (who may have died in subsequent police firing) can
be hijacked in their own interests (sic) and made to testify against their
wishes.
In this scenario, there is no need
for justice for Hindus and special yardsticks can be applied to Muslims
such as non-arrest in the face of heinous crimes like political assassination,
as suggested by the Andhra Maoists. NGOs have run amuck for too long. The
Supreme Court would do well to scuttle their covert agendas by questioning
their locus standi and transferring the Gujarat riot cases back to the
State.
