LETTER FROM INDIA
Shaking Off the Horror of the Past in India
By MANU JOSEPH
Published: February 15, 2012
He is a talented Indian, who lives in the United States with his talented wife. He is an engineer with an M.B.A. and works in a credit ratings agency. He is a law-abiding man, a good father and a good husband.
Ten years ago it might have been unthinkable that such a person would admire a man whom some have accused of responsibility for the violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of people, who were stabbed, beaten or burned alive. But the talented Indian does, even as the 10th anniversary of the carnage falls this month.
That is the achievement of Narendra Modi, the chief minister of the prosperous state of Gujarat, the most popular face among the leaders of the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party, and the man who the talented Indian believes will one day become the prime minister ofIndia. Mr. Modi has managed to endear himself to a vast section of India’s economically powerful urban middle class and business community, at home and abroad, by resurrecting Hindu pride as a form of patriotism.
Mr. Modi’s rise is a consequence of two horrific events, which occurred in Gujarat months after he was appointed chief minister of the state.
On Feb. 27, 2002, almost 60 people, most of them Hindu pilgrims, were burned alive in a train compartment near the town of Godhra. Various investigations into the event came up with conflicting conclusions as if to suit every ideology and associated theories.
Secular Indians, whom Mr. Modi sometimes refers to as “pseudo-secularists,” wanted to believe a report that determined that the fire was a tragic accident. Others wanted to believe the reports that said a Muslim mob had planned the attack and set the train on fire, a line that Mr. Modi took in the aftermath of the incident. Last year, a special court convicted several people of murder and sentenced them to death or to life in prison.
In the days that followed the burning of the coach, riots broke out in Gujarat that left hundreds dead, most of them Muslims. As the massacre continued, journalists, activists and several senior police officers in Gujarat who spoke to the news media on the condition of anonymity said that Mr. Modi’s government was complicit in the violence. Mr. Modi, for his part, asserted that the violence was “a spontaneous reaction of the Hindus.”
While reporting from Gujarat on the aftermath of the riots, I stumbled upon the fact that a senior minister in Mr. Modi’s cabinet, Haren Pandya, had testified in a shroud of secrecy before a tribunal that was investigating the cause of the riots. When I approached Mr. Pandya about this, he told me that he had told the tribunal that on the night of Feb. 27, Mr. Modi held a meeting with senior police officers and bureaucrats during which he is alleged to have instructed the police to allow the mobs to vent their anger on Muslims. It is a charge that Mr. Modi has consistently denied.
Mr. Pandya, who was a political adversary of Mr. Modi, told me that he did not attend that meeting, but that other people who were present had told him what had happened.
Months later, Mr. Pandya was found shot dead in his car. When Mr. Modi went to his house to pay his respects, Mr. Pandya’s widow told him he was responsible for her husband’s death and asked him to leave. But a few months later, several Muslim youths were arrested in connection with Mr. Pandya’s killing, and their motive was said to be vengeance for the riots. Twelve of them were later convicted of murder by a special court and sentenced, but the Gujarat High Court overturned the murder convictions, alleging flaws in the investigation. The Gujarat government and an investigating agency have since challenged this in the Indian Supreme Court.
Last year, a senior police officer in Gujarat, Sanjiv Bhatt, alleged in an affidavit to the Indian Supreme Court that he had evidence that pointed to Mr. Modi’s involvement in the killings of Muslims. But, a few days ago, the Special Investigations Team appointed by the Supreme Court to investigate Mr. Modi’s role said that it had no “prosecutable evidence” against him.
It is unlikely, though, that the matter will be allowed to rest.
When the violence had just subsided in Gujarat, I met Praveen Togadia, a leader of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a rightist Hindu organization, at his home in Ahmedabad. But he told me he would not let me enter his house because, he presumed, I was Christian. (Weeks later, in a telephone conversation, he seemed friendlier.) He gave the interview sitting on a swing outside. He said that the English language news media had demonized Mr. Modi, but that he was happy about that portrayal. Every minute of criticism on the television channels, he said, would win Mr. Modi thousands of votes in the approaching state elections.
He was right. In 2002, Mr. Modi emerged from the polls stronger than before.
Mr. Modi has grown in stature since. He has portrayed himself as a man who can get things done fast for the people in his care — a man who could be prime minister. He has even reached out to Muslims through public meetings, though recently, when a Muslim leader offered him an Islamic cap, Mr. Modi refused to wear it.
Still, nothing has diminished the popularity of Mr. Modi, which has only continued to grow. More than ever, the talented Indian sees a modern leader in Mr. Modi — an efficient man who can build roads and industries with great speed, even though, somehow, 10 years ago he was not efficient enough to save hundreds of Muslims from the “spontaneous reaction of the Hindus.”
Manu Joseph is editor of the Indian newsweekly Open and author of the novel “Serious Men.”
No comments:
Post a Comment