As debate rages on over a botched-up enquiry, the Ishrat Jahan case has once again become the focus of media as well as a political controversy. What the political squabbles have definitely achieved is diverting our attention from what the case is actually about.
To put things in context, the fresh hullabaloo pertains to the missing documents related to the two affidavits filed by the then UPA government, which first established and then denied knowledge about Ishrat’s alleged links with the LeT. The BJP has held fast to the claims of foul play, and insists that the missing documents related to the affidavits were part of a concerted attempt to malign the image of Narendra Modi.
No doubt, some procedural lapse, whether deliberate or unintentional, is evident.
But emphasising excessively on the missing documents invariably means we are giving in to the age old political blame game where real issues get sidetracked. This has been a convenient tool of this government and the one that preceded it- digress and leave the public clueless about the actual facts of the matter.
Tale of Two Affidavits
To get the facts right, CBI filed chargesheets against seven Gujarat State Police officers and four members of the IB for staging a fake encounter, after coming to a conclusion that it was a joint operation involving the IB and Gujarat Police. The rule of law does not, under any circumstance, permit cold blooded murder; and that is precisely what the CBI probe has concluded in Ishrat Jahan’s case. So, if law and order has to prevail, and citizens are to believe in the rule of law, the accused have to go through a due process of trial.
While evidence linking Ishrat Jahan to the LeT are highly doubtful, and bear scant relevance to the trial itself, it might give an interesting insight into how political bickering in India defies all logic and still ends up delaying due process of accountability. In reply to a writ petition filed by Ishrat’s mother, Shamima Kauser, the Union Home Ministry on August 6, 2009 filed an affidavit stating Ishrat was a ‘woman activist of LeT’. This was however, quite surprisingly, based on several reports published in Ghazwa Times- a mouthpiece of Jamaat-ud-Dawa.
Two months later, in September 2009, the Home Ministry went on to admit, in a second affidavit, that the statements in the previous affidavit did not constitute valid ‘intelligence input’ and inferences drawn from them were ‘needlessly misinterpreted’.
Verifying Sources
These are the two affidavits in question that have brewed allegations of conspiracy. The BJP’s relentless faith in statements made by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, whether in their mouth-piece or in their fake Twitter handles, ought not to be surprising. Only months ago, Rajnath Singh sent shockwaves by indicating terrorist involvement in JNU. His statement was based on a tweet by Hafiz Saeed, which was later found to be from a fake account.
One thing is for sure- our political leaders never cease to stir controversy by making irresponsible statements based on unverified sources. What is unfortunate is the fact that they never seem to learn from their previous mistakes, or understand the seriousness of the consequences of their reckless statements.
Encounter or Cold Blooded Murder?
In Ishrat Jahan’s case it is highly doubtful that the affidavits submitted by the previous government would amount to credible proof in substantiation, or denial, of the victim’s terrorist links.
It must, however, be a matter of real worry for the citizens when their government blindly sets itself to work according to the whims and statements published in mouthpieces of terrorist organisations. Nevertheless, to give the benefit of doubt to the government, any enquiry on the affidavits is welcome; but this should not come at the cost of accountability.
To reiterate Ishrat Jahan’s case is one of cold blooded murder; the CBI investigation, a magisterial report by KS Tamang and Satish Verma’s SIT report have all come to the same conclusion.
More importantly, the CBI probe revealed the victims were already ‘taken into illegal custody’ by the Gujarat police and state IB days before they were allegedly killed in encounter. It was a murder based on suspicion and doubt; an outright denial of due recourse to legal provisions. It is, therefore, apparent that Ishrat Jahan’s links to any terrorist organisation are not really the hurdle that is delaying the trial, despite all attempts to give it such an impression.
The hurdle is government’s refusal to let CBI prosecute the four members of IB. Also, the IB maintains that the very nature of intelligence gathering requires them to be involved in intelligence sharing with police, and they need some sort of immunity, especially when the police chooses to act upon the shared information in ways that are not sanctioned by law.
Manipulating Public Opinion
This is also linked to attempts made by political camps to obtain tacit approval of the public. By going back again and again to Ishrat Jahan’s alleged terrorist links, political camps manipulate public opinion in favour of such staged encounters for national security. The modus operandi appear to be fairly identical whether it is Ishrat Jahan or more recently JNU– first make flimsy and far-fetched claims, then bring out tenuous evidence and finally sell fear through stooges in the media.
The outcome is that public opinion goes astray and accountability is lost in the controversy. This is exactly what has gone wrong in Ishrat Jahan’s case. Twelve years after she was murdered in cold blood, and after the necessary investigations are finally concluded, justice still seems far away.
(The writer is scholar of Medieval and Early Modern History at Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
Also read:
Ishrat Jahan Documents Still Missing, Chidambaram Clueless
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)