So many stories coming from Gujarat, now that Modi has
decided to project himself as the BJP’s PM candidate. As the smog around him lifts,
it becomes more and more clear that Gujarat is hardly the exemplar of great
governance it is made out to be. At first, it was only the fake claims of
development: hugely exaggerated investment numbers courtesy Vibrant Gujarat, brushing-under-the-carpet
of the dark spots like HDI numbers, and of course, usurping of the state’s
prosperity and development, even though that predated his regime. But now, questions
of basic governance are being raised.
Take two stories which have come out in the news in the last
couple of days. Vanzara’s resignation letter is of course the most telling. As
if it required any proof, the point that Vanzara makes is that the political bigwigs
in Gujarat knew of the encounters (fake or otherwise). And its obvious isn’t
it? How can a police officer and his team just keep going about killing supposed
terrorists without the knowledge of their bosses? And how is it that such fake
encounters only started after Modi took over (Its not to do with Godhra as
Vanzara claims; anyone who has lived in Gujarat knows that the Hindu-Muslim
conflict existed from earlier times; encounters could have been orchestrated
even back then but they never were)? So the Gujarat government is in a trap now;
if Vanzara is right, it shows that the top leadership of the party was involved
in the heinous acts of crime against the minorities and if Vanzara is lying,
then what kind of governance is it when the Home Minister/CM don’t know what their
own police officers are up to? Either way, Modi’s governance gets questioned.
When Vanzara writes “The
Gujarat CID/CBI arrested me… for alleged fake encounters. If that is true, then
CBI investigating officers of all four encounter cases of Shohrabuddin,
Tulasiram, Sadique Jamal and Isharat Jahan have to arrest the policy
formulators as we, being field officers, implemented the conscious policy of
this government”, he is laying the blame straight on Modi’s doorsteps. When
he adds “I have to state ...that this
spineless government of Gujarat which is valiant only in words ... coward in
deeds and impotent in actions has ceased to command my allegiance, trust and
loyalty”, maybe he is angry, but this questions the carefully nurtured
“hardline” image of Modi’s. There is also a hidden threat embedded here. God
knows what Vanzara will spill out next. It’s like when a terrorist is arrested,
much more hitherto-unknown grist emerges.
The other shocker in the news is the PIL filed in the
Supreme Court alleging Modi knew of the fake encounter. According to firstpost (http://tinyurl.com/nlr55lz), “Journalist Pushp Sharma, who conducted the
sting operation, today told a press conference to have recordings which
indicated that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was aware that Prajapati
was killed in a fake encounter.” And also: “According to Sharma, he has recordings that indicate the BJP leaders
were successful in getting Narmada Prajapati, Tulsi’s mother, to sign at least
six blank vakalatnamas (documents which declare who one’s lawyer is). “These
documents which Narmada Prajapati signed are very crucial because with them it
allowed the lawyer to change the course of the trial the way the BJP wanted
to,” he said”. This is really really bad. Getting blank papers signed by
the mother is hardly the sign of a well governed state. It’s hardly an
endorsement of Modi’s governance.
Then again, the Lok Ayukta story – the Governor returning
back the state’s hurriedly enacted bill – brings to the fore the complete lack
of commitment of the Modi government and the BJP towards fighting corruption.
First Karnataka, where the party was routed for corruption. Now Gujarat, where
the CM, with all his smarts, wants to ensure that a strong Lok Ayukta never
comes about in the state. When Modi kept losing one legal battle after another
against the appointment of Justice Mehta as the Lok Ayukta, he enacted a new
law grabbing more powers for the ruling establishment to anoint the key functionary.
But why is Modi so worried about having an independently appointed Lok Ayukta?
Why has there not been any Lok Ayukta in the state for nearly ten years? What
would a Lok Ayukta find in the state? And can we expect Modi to enact a similarly
weak Lokpal Act at the center if he becomes PM? And if he does that, what will
he tell Anna Hazare? His party has already backtracked from the unified Lokpal-Lok
Ayukta Act commitment made to him. It’s strange, but I thought the BJP accused
the Congress of not bringing out a strong Lokpal. Here, the tables have been
reversed. Is this Modi’s brand of strong governance?
The real truth is that both of these stories paint a
picture of Modi which is hardly inspiring. He is hardly the guru of governance that
he is made out to be. His style of governance is one of muzzling dissent and
squashing any challenges to him or his government. With a solid majority in the
Assembly (and credit to him for that), he has built a great aura around
himself. But when we scratch the surface, we see a totally different picture.
And its very unsavory….
No comments:
Post a Comment