[Reader-list] Gujarat's secular development

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Bipin bhai

I have read the Sachar Committee Report, which is why I stated that most of
the achievements being talked about with respect to Muslims in Gujarat have
been the handiwork of those CM's who were there prior to Modi. Modi at best
has ruled for about 9 years in Gujarat. He came in September/October 2001 to
the best of my knowledge. Before that, for around 50 years, other CM's had
ruled. Is the achievement in health and education indicators of Muslims an
achievement of Modi or of those CM's who ruled before him, even if the
figures are of 2005-06?

This can only be Modi's achievement if there has been a quite huge
difference in the figures of 2001 Census and 2005-06 figures as obtained
through any survey. Instead of putting forth figures for the same, you are
trying to say that everything in Gujarat which is good is Modi's achievement
and nobody else has any contribution in this achievement, something I do not
subscribe to.

Secondly, I am very happy that the Sachar Commitee came out, and by the way,
it's the Sachar Commitee which advocates reservation for Muslims as a way of
empowering them. I wonder if people like you would be fine with supporting
that, as also the BJP, just because it portrays Muslims in Gujarat in a
positive light in comparison to those in so-called secular regime states
like West Bengal.

Also, it was not Sonia Gandhi but Rajiv Gandhi who was in politics at that
time as far as the Congress is concerned. When Manmohan Singh apologized, he
was the Prime Minister of India. Moreover, my argument was that by this
sorry, at least the PM of India was accepting that 1984 is a blot on India
and on their own party and that they were unable to save the lives of Sikhs
who were Indian citizens and not terrorists as was being proclaimed then. Of
course, the story does not and should not end here, but should end with
justice being done for the victims.

But when I see 2002, there is no remorse or guilt among those who indulged
in violence or colluded with the perpetrators in any form whatsoever. Modi
does not have any guilt or remorse even in the fact that he was unable to
prevent violence from taking place. Instead, he revels in this and instead
uses other means to divert questions. Similar tactics are being used by you.


Moreover, your own understanding of development has seemed skewed to me at
various times, and it's highly dubious of you to claim that Gujarat has
undergone secular development. I have earlier too challenged that if Modi is
a wonder as a CM, let him become the CM of Bihar and transform it. We can
also see for ourselves what's so wonderful about this man who is being
claimed as the best CM of India and as PM material.

Your justification that if Godhra would not have occurred, then post-Godhra
would not have happened is akin to saying that if Indira Gandhi would not
have been assassinated, the violence which targetted Sikhs after that would
not have occurred. I would have agreed with you if the violence had indeed
been spontaneous. It wasn't, in both cases. The violence had a systemic
pattern whereby police colluded with those indulging in violence and in many
cases either silently watched or even targeted minority community
individuals who were resisting attacks on themselves, in order to bring
about death of people and destruction of property. In the case of 1984, the
propaganda that Sikhs had poisoned the water of Delhi had been used
massively to teach them a lesson. In the case of 2002, the Godhra incident
had been used in an incisive manner to state that mass rapes of Muslim women
are right because they deserved it.

I condemn such attitude. While Godhra was wrong and tragic, post-Godhra was
equally wrong. And moreover, unlike the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the
incident of Godhra lies in the shambles of investigation since the Modi
govt. and the Gujarat police could not even prove that the train had been
burnt by Muslims, which is why the SIT was also given the work of
investigating Godhra by the Supreme Court.

My final comment on Gujarat's secular development is this: Any process which
terms itself as 'development', if it means that, will be secular. If not,
then that definition of 'development' is incomplete. It has to be. There is
no need for secular to be used separately. And as for Modi's achievements, I
said clearly a single thing:

If Modi wants to take credit for his achievements, fine, but he must learn
to take credit for what has gone wrong as well under his regime. He can't
say that the agricultural growth attained is his achievement and the Muslims
killed is a failure of the Gujarat police and the Muslims themselves. If the
agricultural growth rates attained is his achievement, then the failure to
protect the Muslims and even Hindus during 2002 post-Godhra incidents of
gruesome violence testify as his failure.

And that is the truth, no matter what Modi or sympathisers of him like you
wish to claim.

Rakesh