Many people have asked for a judicial enquiry. I am not rigid about this. I formulate it as a need to establish compliance with due process. Let me make one thing very clear. I make a clear distinction between culpability and due process. Culpability is a matter for the police to establish in a court of law. Who are we to decide whether a set of people are terrorists or not? But we do have a right to insist on due process. We want to know the details of the encounter, whether procedures were followed as mandated by the law of the land. You cannot just say we are dealing with terrorists, and therefore don’t ask questions. Or dismiss us as anti-national. Please don’t call us anti-national.

India is a civilised country with the presumption of innocence strongly rooted in its law. That is why POTA (The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002) is repugnant to us. That is why the Congress opposed it. We are not the Bharatiya Janata Party, and I urge the Congress not to speak the language of the BJP.

If a large number of people feel aggrieved by what happened and how it happened, and believe due process was not followed, we need to address their concerns.

Give them a listening post. Order an inquiry or share the facts with them. You can say a judicial enquiry is not required, it is not the most sensible thing in the circumstances. In that case show them that you have a better way of satisfying them. It could be a detailed police briefing or government briefing, or a white paper. I have a simple request. Give me the facts. I want transparency.

In our meetings with the Prime Minister, he was categorical that we do not have to go by what anyone else might have said. He assured us that our questions are legitimate and that he will find the best way to address our concerns.

If the government comes out with the decision that a judicial enquiry is not necessary, we will respect that decision, but it has to be based on reason. We must have an objective, reasonable response to take to the public, which at the moment is insecure, angry and confused by the wildly varying accounts of the encounter.

My problem so far is not that facts being given are unacceptable. My problem is that no facts are being given. Why do I have to read bits and pieces in the newspaper? Why cannot I hear from an authoritative voice that this is what happened?

It is not my intention to tarnish the police. They were doing their job in difficult circumstances. They were under pressure and they had some intelligence. It is possible they were not expecting something as big as this.

The police’s job is to apprehend a suspected criminal and bring him before a court of law. If the police are unable to do that, and instead take recourse to force, they must justify why they had to use force. They must give a reason.

That said, would you honestly say that the police in this country qualify as the best run, most honest, and most efficient force? The Supreme Court says no. The examples of the Sohrabuddin (Sheikh) case, the Rizwanur Rahman case, the 1997 Connaught Place encounter of innocent businessmen which resulted in the conviction of 10 senior policemen, do not inspire confidence. Then there are the daily revelations of extortion and harassment of innocent people by top-ranking investigating officers.

How do the British do it? There is a standard procedure in all such cases. It takes less than five minutes to convince a rational person that these are the guidelines and this is how we followed them.

For the community the incident was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. The ferment was simmering underneath. It is a social phenomenon that has grown to the level of a crisis. The community wants to blame somebody and the obvious target is the government. If the government ceases to be the target of disquiet and dissent, we will have a civil war. As a government we should not be afraid to be targeted. It shows our democracy is working; it is a reassurance that there are legitimate channels for receiving complaints and grievances.

Muslims do not deny that there is terrorism. They are worried about terrorism. But every Muslim is not a terrorist, and every guy picked up or killed is not a terrorist. By shutting us up, by not answering legitimate questions, you are in fact empowering the terrorist. It is an issue of philosophy and psychology. The philosophy is that an honest person must not be punished. The psychology is that if somebody is seen to be killed without valid reason, then you spawn more of that kind.

Yes, the party needs to address this issue. It needs to draw up a sort of a pre-manifesto which can be carried to the minority sections as a positive and reassuring message. The Sachar committee and other pro-minority measures were phenomenal steps. If the Congress is going to allow a single turmoil to undo all this, it will be tragedy for the party and the country.

There are several strains of thought in the community. There is the voice of Imam Syed Ahmad Bukhari (Imam of Jama Masjid). There is the moderate voice; the Congress’ Muslim leadership represents this. And thirdly, there is the perception of the common Muslims.

Those of us in the Congress who are raising our voices, our view cannot merge with the Imam Bhukari’s. We are committed to merging our view with that of the government. But this requires that the government be transparent with us. We need a message to carry to the people. If the Bhukari line prevails, it will do irreparable harm to the community, the Congress and the country. Injustice breeds contempt. Justice breeds respect. My plea is very simple: please show us that you have done justice.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail