What does it say about the Narendra Modi regime in Gujarat when it orders the arrest of an officer of the Indian Police Service of the state cadre who it had earlier suspended? That the Gujarat chief minister will brook no criticism, or that he is right to fix a “trouble-maker”, in today’s jargon a whistle-blower?
The story of Sanjiv Bhatt has been playing in the media for about six months. The police officer has said on record that after the burning of the coach of the Sabarmati Express in February 2002, in which 56 karsevaks were burnt alive, the chief minister called a meeting of senior officials and instructed them, in effect, to look the other way and let Hindus wreak vengeance on the Muslims. On the basis of political or ideological inclinations, it won’t do either to rebuff Mr Bhatt or to embrace his views. The issues he raises are far too serious for that. At root is the question whether governance is to be moulded on a communal basis (if a Muslim mob has killed, a Hindu mob must be allowed to take revenge), or be established on the basis of principles enshrined in the Constitution, and no other. Our Constitution permits individuals to be held guilty, not their communities, and the authenticity of the allegation made against the chief minister by Mr Bhatt can only be established through judicial procedure. Therefore, the police officer’s arrest on Friday, when these processes have not been exhausted, does raise uncomfortable questions. Last month the chief minister held a sadbhavna fast in an effort to apply closure to the violent anti-Muslim events of 2002, which were spread over many months. Looking at reactions in Gujarat when Mr Modi went on his much-publicised fast, it is clear that the effort went in vain. The scar of the targeted communal violence runs deep and is likely to take years to fade. The sordid saga shamed the state and the country, and led Atal Behari Vajpayee, the BJP Prime Minister of the day, to exclaim that “Raj Dharma” had been disregarded in Gujarat. The most high-profile cases of communal violence pertaining to the period in question — some of which seek to implicate the chief minister — are yet to be adjudicated. But common sense suggests that violence against a particular community on such a sustained basis, undertaken in broad daylight, day after day, is unlikely to have taken place without the collusion of important people at the political and administrative levels with arsonists and mass murderers. The narrative that Mr Bhatt advances has not been established. But in the light of what came to pass, it is not a bizarre tale. It is for this reason that Mr Bhatt’s arrest does not pass any litmus test. A chief minister sure of his ground would have permitted voices of criticism, not stifled them, especially when the law is still at work. Praise by high-net-worth individuals of the CM’s economic management does not douse doubts about recourse to unconstitutional means during his stewardship.