‘Trial’ of Narendra Modi

In India there is politics in mass deaths. Whether it is the Bhopal gas tragedy or the Sikh riots in 1984 or the post-Godhra violence in 2002, every incident of mass deaths is graded not on the number of casualties but on its political worth. As soon as a new incident occurs, the previous one assumes mere archival significance to be quoted as a footnote in subsequent discussions. 1984 riots became a footnote in the discussions on Narendra Modi’s role in the anti-Muslim violence in 2002; I fear the day when 2002 will become a footnote!

India is a country where individual and collective morality is accorded prominence. From Arjuna’s fight in the epic of Mahabharata to Pandit Nehru’s strategy of non-alignment, the argument of morality dominates in India. Given the complexities of modernity this tendency is creating more problems than solutions. The legal and judicial process has succumbed under the weight of billion plus moral compasses in India. Fans pass a judgment when celebrities kill homeless on pavements while driving under influence, political parties pass judgment against the party in power when riots or terrorist attacks take place, social activists pass judgment when industrialists launch new ventures. The media and public assault is considered as ‘punishment enough’ and thereafter the individual or group alleged to have ‘committed the crime’ becomes an object of sympathy. While the judicial system is struggling to amass the evidence, the trial is conducted and verdict is passed in the public domain. Such moral proceedings have no enforcement of punishment but simply hope that the heart of the ‘convict’ would have changed after the public intervention.
Recent furor over Narendra’s Modi’s appearance before the SIT is a reminder of the above trends.

�
Siddharth Varadarajan’s article shows how incidents of mass deaths become mere reference points, “But if the Congress prefers to forget the history of 1984, the BJP and its leaders act as if history ended that year. In their telling, 2002 either didn’t happen or pales in comparison with what preceded it. And so begins the sordid exercise of weighing the suffering of victims and, worse, of playing the plight of one set against another. Mention the suffering of the Muslims of Gujarat and the BJP will start talking about the plight of the Pandits, driven by terrorism from their homes in the Kashmir Valley in 1989 and 1990. Try talking about the injustice done to the Sikhs of Delhi and the Congress will insist on speaking only of Gujarat. And the minute the microphones in the studio are switched off, the politicians are quite happy to forget about the shared travails of all victims.”

�
To get a sense of how the moral prosecution is conducted outside the courts read R. Jagannathan’s article “The naked secularist”.  Jagannathan observes, “India’s humbug secularists have personalised the definition of secularism for narrow political ends. It corresponds to no dictionary meaning of the word. Secularism is defined as the opposite of what the Sangh parivar stands for. Like Pakistan defining itself as “not India,” secularists define themselves as “not the Sangh parivar”. The Sangh is the unspeakable “other”, the demon they are trying to exorcise in themselves. And in Modi they have found the perfect personification of all that they hate in themselves.”
Do moral judgments hamper the due process of law?

�
P.S. Here is how Narendra Modi reacted after the SIT investigations: “Friends, The Supreme Court appointed SIT (The special Investigating Team) and its marathon inquiry lasting till one in the morning has naturally worried you. I have, in all humility, tried to respect the law of our great land and endeavored to respect the supremacy of the law by my behavior. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your good feelings and concerns that you showed for me during the difficult moments of yesterday. May the God, after this event, instill further strength in me.