Electoral Mandate, Fake Encounters and Rule of Law

by R.B. SREEKUMAR

The Apex Court order (January 25, 2012) entrusting the inquiry to a retired Supreme Court judge, Justice M.B. Shah, of all 21 extra-judicial killings by the Gujarat Police from October 2002 to December 2006, is welcomed by all law-abiding citizens. This has confirmed the representation of the human rights activists that the Narendra Modi Government, since the days of the anti-minority carnage following the gruesome killing of 59 Hindus on February 27, 2002 in a train fire at Godhra, has unabashedly subverted the criminal justice system to delay and deny justice to the riot victims and carry out its false propaganda of high-voltage threat from the militants to Narendra Modi and the Sangh Parivar leaders. Earlier, the higher judicial bodies had intervened for equity and justice to the riot victims by ordering transfer of the trial of two riot cases to the Maharashtra State; reopening 2000 odd closed cases by the Gujarat Police; appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate nine major mass killing cases and the complaint by Mrs Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, brutally murdered by rioters in 2002; and directing the CBI to investigate the fake encounter killings of Sohrabuddin and others.

•

OF the 21 fake encounter killings, the first was in October 2002, a month before the Assembly elections in which the Gujarat electorate gave a massive mandate to the riot-tainted Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, and the BJP. Many factors contributed to the continuance of fake encounters by a set of police officers like DIG Vanzara from October 2002 to April 2007, when Vanzara and other police officers were arrested for extra-judicial killings.

Firstly, the Modi Government has been nurturing an ill-founded and audacious pre-sumption that the electoral mandate in 2002 and in 2007, despite its involvement in planning and execution of the anti-minority holocaust, is a blanket licence to further marginalise the spirit and practice of the rule of law. Any criticism of the riots, deviation from the cannons of justice delivery, stereotyped versions about the process of encounters, the identity, organisational linkup and antecedents of the victims of fake encounters were ultimately countered by the government spokesman on the ground of immense popular support in the elections and public approval of Narendra Modi.

Secondly, the mandatory post-encounter structural administrative response, like depart-mental and executive magisterial probe, under the provisions of the Gujarat Police and Revenue Manuals and regulations about the State Intelli-gence Branch’s (SIB’s) suo moto probe were conveniently flouted. Even hierarchically senior officers to the “the encounter experts” dared not inquire against these blue-eyed boys of the government and they deemed that the govern-ment, particularly Chief Minister Narendra Modi, did give his consent to all these fake encounters.

Thirdly, these fake encounters have been part of the satanic heritage of the Gujarat Police, since the killing of the notorious gangster, Abdul Latif of Ahmedabad city, in the late 1990s. These are treated as legitimate police action though the manner of this crime control strategy was illegal and unethical. The general public and community leaders often insisted upon extra-judicial killings of the alleged incorrigible and so-called desperate goons as a means of preventive action like proceedings under Sections 107 to 110 Cr.PC., externment under the Bombay Police Act and PASA/ POTA detentions. The bitter truth is that no goon or extortionist grows in stature, range of operation and extent of money-spinning organised crimes without the active connivance of the ruling political elite and their collaborating police officers. The killing of Abdul Latif in a fake encounter was actually to avoid the danger of his disclosing incriminating information about his mentors among politicians and police officers.

Reportedly, the gang of Sohrabuddin was used by the police and their political masters to extort money, irrespective of the community background of the victims. For reasons best known to the CBI, probe into nearly 200 petitions from the victims of extortion received by this agency, during the investigation of the Sohra-buddin case, was not carried out by the agency; instead these complaints were forwarded to the State Police which had allegedly coerced the petitioners into submission for withdrawal of the complaints. Were Sohrabuddin and his companions killed to obviate the risk of the gang exposing the culpable role of the powerful and mighty in the State Government who nurtured them? Of late, throughout India, organised crime is a lucrative economic activity; so, instead of merely conniving with the operators of crimes, unscrupulous politicians and police officers make investments in the “business”, that is, sale of illicit liquor, gambling, prostitution, drugs, illicit firearms, land grabbing and so on.

The failure of the long arm of law in booking the real plotters and perpetrators of the anti-minority bloodbath in 2002, particularly in the hey days of fake encounters (as of today the SIT arrested only one Police Inspector rank officer from the official hierarchy for the riots resulting in the death of nearly 2000 people), had emboldened the encounter experts to go ahead with their killing spree for catering to the nefarious political machinations of their masters, career advancements and corruption. The impact of the media, public opinion and judicial vigilance had thankfully resulted in the arrest of the encounter specialists. This had not only driven them out of the euphoria of immunity from accountability and punishment, due to their proximity to the ruling party, but had also sent the right and pungent message to potential sycophants and rouguish careerist officers from indulging in more such fake encounters. Hence no extra-judicial killings took place since the arrest of Vanzara and company in 2007. This aspect also will disprove the baseless propa-ganda about Muslim militants dispatching armed assassins for attacking Narendra Modi and the Hindu leaders. Are the leaders of the Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed afraid of imprisoned encounter specialists than when they were on active duty?

Fourthly, fake encounters were executed with obvious unholy political and unethical adminis-trative objectives. The political strategic aims of 1) maintaining the publicity of high intensity threat from Islamic jehadists against Narendra Modi and the Sangh Parivar leaders; 2) silencing critics of Narendra Modi in the BJP and NDA; and 3) generation of sympathy and support for Modi and his followers for their unprecedented “brave action” to project and protect Hindu honour and image among the bulk of the Hindu community throughout India are discernable. The men close to the CM in the police were also keen for one-upmanship in comparison with the police forces of other States through fake encounters and elimination of so-called jehadi elements. They also did indulge in “victim shopping”, namely, arresting alleged Islamic militants from other States and bringing them to Gujarat for interrogation and their subsequent extra-judicial killings. Strangely, the Gujarat Police or Central agencies had not succeeded to bring out any collateral or circumstantial evidence relating to the “terrorists” killed in encounters like unearthing the network of these persons, their financers, weaponry, shelters, communication channels, training centres, so on. Let us not forget that in none of these cases any relevant information was unearthed so far. The basic professional requirement even in the arrest of a pickpocket or a thief is to trace out his abettors and associates, up to the disposers of the booty. Why did even the Central IB, which reportedly supplied information about the terrorist links of many victims of fake encounters, fail to unearth the relevant incriminating collateral information? This should unravel the deceitful unveracity of practically all encounter stories by the Gujarat Police.

•

IN fact the fake encounters by the right-hand men of the Chief Minister were an extension of the official policy of the State Government. The Chief Secretary, G. Subba Rao, in May-June 2002 wanted the DGP and Additional DGP (Intelli-gence) to organise encounters as a preventive action. The evidence about such illegal verbal instructions was advanced by me to the Justice Nanavati Commission probing into the riots, and SIT in my Third Affidavit (April 2005). The fake encounters by the Gujarat Police began after my transfer from the post of ADGP (Intelligence) in September 2002. Another relevant fact is the reluctance of senior police officers to initiate any inquiry about alleged undesirable activities of DIG Vanzara. A report in September 2002 about this officer allegedly planting illicit firearms on members of the minority community in Ahmedabad city on the eve of the rathyatra was not acted upon by the Commissioner of Police. Strangely, the Chief Secretary had started an enquiry against the ADGP (Intelligence), who sent this sensitive information to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city. Had the government acted on this information and corrected Vanzara, the right message would have gone to the police officers and they would not have indulged in extra-judicial killings which brought such incalculable infamy to the Gujarat State Govern-ment.

The agility of the media and human rights activists like Javed Akhtar, Teesta Setalvad and B.G. Verghese coupled with the alacrity of the Apex Court to order a probe on all fake encounters had energised the rule of law in Gujarat. This will have a deterrent impact on all the conscienceless politicians and knavish police officers from denying the right to life and liberty to the innocent citizens of India.

The author is a former Director General of Police, Gujarat.