Once again this writer is taking a line of argument that will displease all the anti-Congress elements in the opposition. As one who has been for the past many decades the most consistent and unflinching critic of the Congress in media as well as in politics it will be doubly unpleasant to invite brickbats from readers generally tolerant. But it must be done because this writer does not seek cosmetic improvement in governance but a radical change to create a new India. Nothing less will be satisfying. And in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case the reaction of the opposition to the event reveals a pathetic state of mind that must be criticized.

What is that case?

Following a court direction the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probing a Gujarat police encounter in which four individuals, including a nineteen year old student Ishrat Jahan, were killed, concluded that it was a fake encounter and the four were killed in cold blood. Earlier in 2009 an inquiry into the same case by a Gujarat Metropolitan Magistrate had reached a similar conclusion. The only difference in the findings of the Metropolitan Magistrate’s report from the CBI was that it stated that the four were killed elsewhere and their bodies dumped at the spot later. The CBI stated that the four were killed on the same spot where the bodies were found. The Magistrate attributed the motive for the fake encounter to the desire of the guilty police officers to gain promotion. It implied that seniors were aware of the proposed fake encounter and were pleased by it.

The CBI report recalls the statement of a Gujarat police officer, Mr. DS Goswamy, deposing before a Mumbai Magistrate much before the CBI undertook its investigation that he had witnessed the accused Gujarat police officers claiming that the fake encounter had been cleared by their political bosses. The Ishrat Jahan encounter was the fourth fake encounter listed in Gujarat in recent years. Of these, in three of the alleged fake encounters the Gujarat police had claimed that Pakistani terrorists were aiming to assassinate Gujarat Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi. The main accused in an earlier case, the Sohrabuddin fake encounter, is the same police officer presently convicted and in jail, who is also accused in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. There is enormous confusion caused by motivated leaks by different sections of the government and the enormous media hype that has obfuscated the truth. But if the various media reports are correct, and that admittedly is a big if, the sequence of events can be conjectured. One makes no claim that this version is correct, only that it is reached after connecting the dots of what has appeared in different sections of the media.

On information provided by the IB the Gujarat police apprehended the four victims traveling together in a car. The police detained the two who were from Pakistan and had later confessed that they belonged to a Kashmiri separatist outfit. The police allowed the other two to go. The other two were one Javed and Ishrat Jahan who was employed by him. Javed was a Hindu converted to Islam. He was a petty criminal in Pune and was recruited by the IB to act as an informer and keep watch on the two Pakistanis. Later the police decided to eliminate the Pakistani terrorists. But possibly they thought that by then the IB informer had done his job and was expendable. His knowledge of a fake encounter by the cops could be exploited by him later. Therefore they decided to eliminate him too. There was a dispute among the cops about the fate of Ishrat. But since she had witnessed the others being taken into custody by the police she would know that they would have been killed in cold blood. Therefore the cops decided to eliminate her too. That the four were killed in a fake encounter was determined first by a Metropolitan Magistrate’s probe, later by a Special Investigative Team (SIT) appointed by the Gujarat government, and eventually by the CBI. The veracity of the encounter was all that the CBI had the brief to probe under the court’s orders at this stage.

Now consider how the opposition and large sections of the mainstream media reacted. They kept harping on the allegation that Ishrat was a terrorist and a suicide bomber and refused to address the fake nature of the encounter. They were aided by a leak by the IB quoting David Coleman Headley as having described Ishrat as a suicide bomber. On June 19th this writer commented in these columns: “The IB… to the media… released an FBI report from the US which quoted David Coleman Headley quoting a Lashkar terrorist leader quoting another Lashkar operative claiming that another Lashkar operator had recruited one Ishrat Jahan as a suicide bomber. This thrice removed hearsay was seized upon by IB as clinching proof that Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist.” The TV channels went to town with the IB leak. But what did the NIA actually convey to the IB regarding the information imparted by the FBI?

Paragraph 168 of the NIA report to the IB quoted David Coleman Headley stating:

“I state that in late 2005, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi introduced Muzammil to me. Having introduced Muzammil, Zaki talked about the accomplishments of Muzammil as a Lashkar commander. Zaki also sarcastically mentioned that Muzammil was a top commander whose every big ‘project’ had ended in a failure. Zaki added that Ishrat Jahan module was also one of Muzammil’s ‘botched up’ operations.”

In Para 169 of that report it was stated that “apart from this, he (Headley) had no other information/knowledge about Ishrat Jahan”. Forget evidentiary value of this text, does it by even the understanding of ordinary English suggest that Ishrat was necessarily a terrorist or a suicide bomber? Headley’s vague allusion, like Goswamy’s evidence, was pure hearsay. Not surprisingly the NIA in a subsequent appearance in the court echoed the views of this writer by informing the court that it had not described Ishrat as a terrorist because Headley’s statement was “only hearsay”.

Forget the media, how did the opposition react to this fake encounter? BJP leaders kept harping on the unsubstantiated and irrelevant charge that Ishrat was a terrorist. As if that would justify murder in cold blood. BJP President Mr. Rajnath Singh accused the Congress of misusing the CBI and creating hype for political advantage and said that there had been over 3000 police encounters across the nation. Of course the UPA government misuses the CBI! Of course it blackmails several regional leaders having disproportionate assets. But why should those who seek to replace this corrupt and motivated government expect conduct any different? The bottom line is, are the victims of CBI blackmail guilty or not? The bottom line in the present dispute is whether or not the Gujarat police encounter was faked.

Mr. Rajnath Singh’s reference to 3000 police encounters across India is mystifying. Even if many of these were fake encounters would it justify a similar encounter in Gujarat? Or does it call additionally for overall systemic reform? One recalls Indira Gandhi’s justification of corruption by her notorious remark: “Corruption is a worldwide phenomenon!” The BJP president and other political leaders of the opposition should appreciate that the people of India do not want to replace the UPA government by a successor operating under the same corrupt and undemocratic culture. People want genuine change. Bihar politicians would like to remove Mr. Narendra Modi’s government, Gujarat politicians would like to remove Mr. Nitish Kumar’s government, and politicians of both states would like to remove Mr. Manmohan Singh’s government. All these politicians miss the woods for the trees. The decline in India is far beyond a remedy through change of governments. A change of system is required. And no political party or leader is focusing on that.