Click to play videoHer family recalls her patriotism, the Gujarat government insists she was a terrorist and political parties call for Chief Minister Narendra Modi's resignation. The death of Mumbai college student Ishrat Jahan five years ago continues to polarise the country, a day after a court report said she was killed in a "fake encounter".
On June 15, 2004, Ishrat from Mumbra in Thane district and her three friends - Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai, Amjad Ali alias Rajkumar Akbar Ali Rana and Jisan Johar Abdul Gani - were shot dead by Ahmedabad Police's Crime Branch (Detection) on the outskirts of the city.
The Gujarat government still maintains Ishrat was a terrorist killed in a gunbattle, but a metropolitan magistrate has ruled that she was innocent. The state government has rejected the report. Meanwhile, Ishrat's family says they want strong punishment for those behind the fake encounter.
And that leads to the question that was asked on CNN-IBN's Face The Nation: Ishrat Jahan probe – are fake encounters a result of anti-Muslim bias?
To try and answer the question on the panel of experts were Health Minister and Spokesperson of the Gujarat government, Jay Narayan Vyas; Senior Advocate Gujarat High Court, Mukul Sinha; former Mumbai police commissioner, M N Singh; and lawyer and human rights activist, Colin Gonsalves.
At the beginning of the show, 43 per cent agreed that fake encounters are a result of anti-Muslim bias while 57 per cent disagreed.
Targetted killings in Gujarat?
The Gujarat government has gone into denial mode saying that the Ishrat Jahan encounter was not a fake encounter. It was a genuine case and she was a terrorist, says the state government.
This is not the first time that the Gujarat Police has been accused of carrying out fake encounters. Some other controversial cases: Sohrabuddin and Kauserbi.
Opening the debate, Jay Narayan Vyas said that there was no need to link the Ishrat Jahan case with other cases.
"Each case has its own merits and can be discussed separately. I would rely on the affidavit filed by the Government of India's Home Ministry on August 6, 2009 which clearly defines what was Javed's (one of the three killed with Ishrat Jahan) background, how he adopted the name Javed after he converted to Islam, why he held two passports in different names. He had a chequered and criminal history of staying at Mumbra in Mumbai and then he went to Dubai where he had contacts with these people. The Lashkar-e-Toiba website had carried the news that she was their activist. The other two people killed in the encounter had a history of a run-in with the Jammu and Kashmir Police. There was also a Home Ministry report that they had advised the Gujarat government that there is this network active which is interested in creating some kind of disturbance by terrorism in the state of Gujarat and Maharashtra."
"The facts are that the people involved in the encounter had definite links with terror outfits. They had criminal backgrounds, so where does the Gujarat Police come into the picture," he asked.
Mukul Sinha, who is the counsel for Ishrat Jahan's mother, responded to this saying, "Mr Vyas should understand that those are allegations made by the Gujarat government which find their way into the Central Government affidavit. The Central Government affidavit was pressed into service in the Gujarat High Court but after hearing the Gujarat High Court did not accept it and ordered another investigation. Secondly, the Tamang Report is a 176 statutory enquiry report in which Justice Tamang has gone into complete detail - he has the entire ballistic report, the PMO report, the statements of people - and thereafter a prima facie judicial opinion has been formed that the encounter was fake and they were actually forcibly removed from Maharashtra to Gujarat on June 12, killed on June 14 and thereafter shown as an encounter on June 15."
"I think it is a most detailed report ever given by a judicial officer. I personally think that the government of Gujarat should welcome a judicial opinion of this type and use this for further investigation," he added.
No public shock
Anywhere else in the world, an encounter killing would be unacceptable - there is no law, no trial, just a gun taken and people killed. The public doesn't seem to be horrified though and even the judiciary has not come down on these encounter killings.
Colin Gonsalves however, said that the public will soon turn against people for all the “rubbish” that they do.
"It's been going on for too long and I don't think people are going to tolerate this for much longer. As far as the judiciary is concerned, in the '80s and early '90s, the courts were very strict with the police. The last 10 years or so, the judiciary has become very slack and the reason why policemen feel that they are above the law is partly because they feel they can get away in court. These officers find it easy to manufacture antecedents of people they kill - especially if the people are Muslims and can be bracketed as Pakistani or part of the Taliban or whatever," he said.
He said that even if some person was guilty of a petty crime, the police could make a huge case against them and then kill them in a fake encounter.
"I think to some extent the public and courts have been gullible for all this while and have accepted this. But I don't think the public is going to accept this anymore. Killing in cold blood is not accepted anywhere in the world. India is a country where there is a license to kill and the police just get away with it all the time," he stated.
And it is not just the BJP. In Congress-ruled Manipur too encounter killings were taking place as well as in Mumbai. Gonsalves cited the example of a case had a few days ago of 12 policemen being given a contract to kill a man.
"Can you imagine that? Policemen being hired to kill someone," he said.
Executing without a sentence
Are special cells and units sensitised to differentiate between prejudice and trying to sniff out criminals and terrorists. Are these people trained in elementary policing or are they just trigger-happy individuals?
M N Singh joined the debate at this point saying that this was being unfair to the police.
"Don't say that the entire police is like that. There have been cases of course of misuse of power by police officers which has resulted in the killing of innocent people and that certainly has to be condemned. The guilty officers must definitely be punished. However, surely there has been some public support to the encounter killings in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Manipur etc and no police officer can go on an encounter without the support of the state government," he stated in what was a very troubling line of argument.
He added that the police had a very tough task to perform in a country like India. "The Gujarat government is in a tight corner. They must accept the judgement of the High Court and the officials who are guilty of killing innocent people and especially guilty of killing a woman cannot be tolerated by a civilised society," he said trying to justify his line of reasoning.
Gonsalves said that it was shameful that a former police commissioner was using such words.
M N Singh flared up at this saying that he objected to being referred to like this.
"I am not justifying the killing of innocent people. I am all for punishment for officers who have indulged in fake encounters. That is a very firm statement from me. The government that prompts officers to indulge in fake encounters must also be held accountable. Encounter killings are not possible without the tacit support of the government of the day in any state," he stated angrily.
So can the Gujarat government escape responsibility in the Ishrat Jahan killing, especially since G G Vanzara - the officer involved - was close to Chief Minister Narendra Modi?
To this Vyas said, "The role of a Chief Minister is that of a democratically elected leader and I don't see anything beyond that. The Central Government's affidavit of August 6, 2009 tackles all these issues. I suggest you read that."
Gonsalves interrupted here saying, "Even assuming they had a chequered background, do you have the right to arrest them, keep them in custody and execute them? Is that what you are saying? Can you take people, shoot them, take them somewhere else, put pistols in their hands, take photographs, fabricate evidence because they had a colourful past? Have become God? An executioner?"
Mukul Sinha agreed saying this was a pattern that is being followed in Gujarat now. He said that in every FIR, one statement seen with consistent regularity was that the terrorist came to kill Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
"When Modi knows - especially after the Sohrabuddin murder case, which he has admitted was a fake encounter case and where he has agreed to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation - has he ever enquired into this regularity of encounters committed on his own name with the police saying the 'terrorist' had come to kill Modi?" Sinha wanted to know.
He said that the people were dying and the ones killing them were doing it in the name of the Chief Minister. What right do they have to kill these people when even someone like Kasab was going through a trial, he wanted to know.
Human rights concerns
Everytime human rights activists raised concerns, they were rubbished - they do not always have a political agenda.
Vyas said, "I respect human rights activists and their work, but let them also understand that in terror activities, it is the innocent who gets killed. Don't the people who get killed in bombings have human rights? Human rights are not only for those who have chequered pasts are they? I think somewhere human rights activists also have to see reason."
The point is that courts are dilatory and people do want to see a resolute government and a tough police.
Gonsalves said, "I think people want quick justice but they also don't want the police catching hold of people and executing them. I think they want the justice system and prosecution to move quickly. They want to see real terrorists being put behind bars for the rest of their lives. Our justice system has failed miserably and that is the frustration and I don't see it improving. But that doesn't give the police the right to kill."
"Mr Vyas says that when there is a blast, human rights activists don't protest - of course we protest. We want the person who made the bomb caught and punished. I don't understand why a bomb blast should be linked to a fake encounter. In a democracy there is no such right," he said.
Isn't there a fear that if encounter killings are continued, Muslim youth may be drawn more towards violent and extremist ideology? It could create a vicious cycle.
To this M N Singh said, "That is exactly what is happening. If everything was ideal then these people would be punished."
Gonsalves interrupted here saying, "Mr Singh you are really the limit. You are saying let us kill people because the judiciary is not doing its job. What a shameful thing to say Mr Singh. A top police officer saying something like this on national television is shameful. You have become so brazen that you don't even realise what you are saying."
Singh fired back saying that he was not insinuating that at all.
"You are a very biased person and a very theoretical person. You have a very closed mind where the police is concerned. You will have to listen to me. Is the police doing this only for their pleasure and for their benefit? Who is asking the police this - the society and the government. Certainly the government has given the police the go ahead. You have to be realistic and practical. Political parties are using the police as football," he said.
Encounter killings are not the way a democratic country should run. The judiciary, government and citizens of the country should be horrified at the way these killings have been executed.
Final results of the SMS/Web Poll: Ishrat Jahan probe: Are fake encounters a result of anti-Muslim bias?
Yes: 48 per cent
No: 52 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
More on IBNLive Right Now
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
