[Reader-list] Gujarat Fake Encounters: The Spin Doctoring has Begun

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

(apologies for cross posting on Commons Law and www.kafila.org )

Gujarat Fake Encounters: The Spin Doctoring has Begun

The Gujarat Fake Encounter Story (which many of you may be following) is 
rapidly being scripted along the familiar lines of  the 'Corrupt 
Policeman-Corrupt Politician-Underworld Links' nexus. While this may be 
true, (and I do not doubt that Narendra Modi, who holds the 'Home' 
portfolio in Gujarat, must not be entirely un-involved in this matter) 
it would be unfortunate if the Gujarat 'fake encounter killings' , like 
'fake encounter' stories in Kashmir, Delhi or elsewhere are now spun 
into 'systemic aberrations'. Rather, they should be seen as evidence of 
how the system actually works, and how efficient it is.

Rajdeep Sardesai, our teflon television crusader, did his bit this 
afternoon in a CNN IBN special where he repeatedly tried to push the 
point that the 'encounters' were part of the BJPs 'communal' agenda, 
neatly handing them a stick with which to now go to town with. Of Modi 
and Vanzara as Hindu heroes, versus the tainted pseudo-secular English 
Media types.

In a story titled 'Has SC Pressure Unmasked Vanzara' Datelined, May 05, 
2007, 
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/has-sc-pressure-unmasked-vanzara/39827-3.html

the CNN IBN report says

"Which raises the question – was Vanzara acting on his own, or was he 
following a political agenda?For the last two weeks, Gujarat Chief 
Minister Narendra Modi has chosen to stay silent.Also remained quiet was 
the minister of state for home Amit Shah, widely seen in Gujarat as 
someone whom Vanzara directly reported to. According to an Intelligence 
bureau report, it was alleged that at a meeting held on January 30, 2006 
at the Circuit House in Gandhinagar, Amit Shah admitted in cavalier 
manner that Kauser Bi had been killed by Vanzara."

In this version, a high state of panic, a 'strategy of tension' about 
terrorism in Gujarat has served the BJP and Modi well, and so, encounter 
killings have been arranged from time to time to ensure that the public 
believes that Narendra Modi is in constant danger. Vanzara himself is 
said to have been involved in 9 Encounters that killed a total of 15 
people in recent years.

  I am not disputing the broad picture that this story paints. What I am 
not quite convinced about is the way in which it located the entirety of 
the authorship of this episode as something that has somehow transpired 
solely between a 'communalized political leadership' and some rogue 
senior police officers. Even for this to work, there have to be more 
people involved. Not all of them Gujarati, maybe not all of them 
communal or even tied to the simple agenda of keeping Modi in power.

Elsewhere, CNN IBN has said that Vanzara was allegedly paid to kill 
Sohrabuddin by 'Rajasthani Marble traders' in order to relieve them of 
Sohrabuddin's extortion.

[See - Marble lobby paid Guj cop to kill
CNN-IBN, May 2, 2007
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/ips-officer-vanzara-may-have-been-a-contract-killer/top/39619-3.html?xml

The question is not whether Mr. Modi sanctioned or did not sanction the 
killings (even presuming that he did), or whether Sohrabuddin was killed 
on the request of 'Rajasthani Marble Traders'. The question is, how 
could the Gujarat police (even if we assume that it acted under orders 
solely emanating from Modi's home ministry in Gujarat, or from the 
Rajasthani Marble Trade) successfully undertake an operation that needed 
to be fine tuned as far away as Hyderabad, just on its own resources. I 
have no doubt that Mr. Modi (or the deadly Rajasthani Marble Lobby) 
would have reason to be happy with the outcome, the question is, who 
else was happy?

If Rajdeep Sardesai and others of his kind want to make this an issue of 
Modi versus the good guys, they will be doing the greatest sevice to 
Modi (who delights in being taken on by the mainstream English media) 
and to those others, not necessarily in Gujarat,  who co-scripted the 
parts that Vanzara, Pandyan, Sohrabuddin, Tulsiram and Kausar Bi played. 
The Mainstream Media channels like CNN IBN will have done their duty of 
playing the tough investigators and will have won themselves kudos from 
the secular conscience keepers of our republic, the BJP will be happy to 
stage yet another polarization, and the hidden scritpwriters of the 
episode will stay safe and sound, where they belong. Sohrabuddin and 
Kausar Bi will become one party's martyr, Vanzara and Pandyan will 
become another party's martyr. Everyone who matters will gain.

Here is why I think the whole question of 'fake encounters' is a lot 
more complicated than simply a matter of some corrupt cops doing the 
bidding of some corrupt politicians with links to some underworld dons, 
or in pursuit of some 'communal agneda'. While all this may be true, it 
does require more than the corrupt politician of one state to bring into 
being an operation that involves the police apparatus of three states - 
namely, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh (one of which, Andhra 
Pradesh was not ruled by the BJP). Add to this the strange mix of small 
town underworld operatives, informers, safe houses and much else besides 
that points to a picture far larger than the B Movie of Cops gone bad 
and Netas gone crazy.

What is missing, or not commented on, in much of the discussion around 
the fake encounters is the fact that this kind of multi-state co 
ordination of police forces can only be done by Central bodies. The one 
central body uniquely equipped to bring such co ordinated efforts to 
fruition is none other than the Intelligence Bureau.

It may be recalled that the IB has from time to time made it known that 
there were plans afoot to assasinate Modi and other BJP, VHP leaders in 
Gujarat.

Once a prediction is made, it can be seen as effective only if the facts 
follow suit, so, if no specific plot to arrange for Modi or Togadia's 
assasination can be found, then a few dead bodies (some unidentified, 
some of small time extortionists like Sohrabuddin can be conveniently 
placed for a photo opportunity). Some other dead bodies like that of 
Kausar Bi, can be made to disappear.

We need to remind ourselves that Rajkumar Pandyan, IPS, one of the 
people arrested with IG (Border Range) Vanzara, is a superintendent of 
police with the Intelligence Bureau.

[ See - Three IPS officials arrested for fake encounter
PTI Report in Hindustan Times, April 24, 2007
<http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=5858d3db-47f5-489a-9f15-663af678200f&ParentID=4219a6c8-ca27-44a4-8240-cff6294c9cbe&&Headline=3+IPS+officials+held+for+fake+encounter>]

Vanzara was chief of the Anti Terror Squad of the Gujarat Police, while 
Pandyan was his deputy during the time when Sohrabuddin was killed and 
Kausar Bi disappeared.

Anti Terror Squads of sensitive states like Gujarat are always directly 
handled by the IB from the centre. Which means that though Modi may have 
been involved, the question of who co-authored the orders to arrange so 
many 'encounters' to protect Modi may have come from sources quite far 
away from Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar.

Remember that the CNN IBN report I quoted mentions 'IB Reports' saying 
that "at a meeting held on January 30, 2006 at the Circuit House in 
Gandhinagar, Amit Shah (Gujarat's minuister of state for home affairs 
and key Nody point man, admitted in cavalier manner that Kauser Bi had 
been killed by Vanzara."

How exactly does CNN IBN lay its hands on IB reports, and to what extent 
should we treat the entire contents of an IB report as news. Especially, 
when one of the people indicted in the episode happens to be an IB 
operative (Pandyan). A fair amount of reading between the lines is 
necessary here. A news channel quotes an IB report (without giving a 
source) about an episode where an IB functionary is directly involved in 
a murder. Why then is the IB willing to countenance a leak about 
something that compromises one of its own. Perhaps the answer could be 
found in a strategy of 'selective information delivery'. You say a few 
things that are so shocking that they temporarily inhibit us from asking 
a harder question. So, in the 13 December case, when the heat was high, 
CNN IBN delivered a piece of 'selective information' - of Davinder SIngh 
of the STF having tortured Afzal (which had been known all along) mainly 
to distract attention from the question of how Afzal got to be where he 
is today. So, here too, an IB report, mentions people who are quite 
close to the IB, in a shocking episode, probably in order to shield 
other less dispensable functionaries and more important processes.

It is time to revisit the story of Ishrat Jahan and Javed Sheikh (the 
Malyali Hindu convert to Islam from Pune who was presented as an earlier 
would be assasin). It is time to ask just how many people the IB was 
cultivating, and is cultivating today, in different places, in order to 
make sure that the right kind of dead bodies turn up with routine 
regularity.

Incidentally, now that Vanzara and Pandyan have been arrested, the IB 
has once again made it known that theire lives are in danger in 
Sabarmati Jail in Ahmedabad and that they should be taken elsewhere.

[See - Sabarmati jail inmates could pose threat to Vanzara: IB
Times of India, 5 May, 2007
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India 
Sabarmati_jail_inmates_could_pose_threat_to_Vanzara_IB/rssarticleshow/2005953.cms>]

Two possibilities emerge from this prediction - one, that the IB is only 
trying to look after its own, and two, that once again, this prediction 
might disturbingly come true, that someone might actually 'take out' 
Vanzara and Pandyan in Sabarmati Prison. Either way, the IB stands not 
to lose. If Vanzara and Pandyan are safe, they will be safe because the 
IB has made sure that they are safe, and they will then be vulnerable to 
pressure of the kind that they do not spill the beans over much. If they 
are 'taken out' then once again, the truth departs with them.

All of this goes to show, that the game is far more complex than even a 
Narendra Modi can play. We should ask, not who Narendra Modi controls, 
but rather, who controls Narendra Modi.

We should begin considering the fact that the IB, RAW and other agencies 
of stealth are as vital to the political scenario in India today as the 
underworld and policemen are, and their job is not just that of offering 
convenient pre-election predictions to the powers that be. There is a 
state within the state in India, what is called a 'deep state' in 
Turkey, and every encounter killing shows just how far and wide the writ 
of that state within the state runs.

Perhaps a concerted effort to make the decisions of the Intelligence 
apparatus in this country acquire a degree of transparency and 
accountability is in order. Unless that is done, many more 
Sohrabuddin's, Kausar Bis, Tulsirams, Ishrat Jahans (and countless 
others in Kashmir and elsewhere) will meet their encounter with a Bullet 
that may or may not be accounted for in the ordinance and ammunition 
registers of many different police, counter-insurgency, intelligence and 
anti terrorism deparments.

best,

Shuddha