Sucked into a vortex of vengeance

So, finally, L K Advani has got off the fence. After keeping quiet on the Malegaon blast case for a couple of weeks, and letting Raj Nath Singh do the talking, he has now come out in support of "Sadhvi" Pragya. A tiger  can't hide its stripes for too long, and this particular tiger's stripes have always been a deep saffron which show through whatever robes he is wearing at the moment.

The robes he is displaying now is of prime minister-in-waiting. That's what he donned when he played host to the captains of industry last week, an elder statesman in thoughtful dialogue  with leading industrialists about the state of the nation. And then emerged Mr Hyde, railing and ranting at the government for "torturing" Pragya.  The basis of his allegations?  Pragya said so. (A little aside here: the 'Sadhvi' has not claimed she was subjected to physical torture, just that she was verbally abused and mentally tortured. What does she expect in an investigation into terror and killing of people? Soothing music? Scented agarbattis? Polite requests to tell the truth?)

Now the Chief Monster of the Gujarat violence, Narendra Modi, is saying that the government is maligning the Indian army because a serving officer is alleged to be the mastermind of the Malegaon blasts and possibly the explosion in the Samjhauta Express. Bal Thackeray too has been part of this chorus: "Countless Sadhvis will stand up to safeguard the interests of the Hindu community" is one of his less inflammatory statements. He also talks of "brilliant military officials" who have been "maligned on mere suspicion of having plotted bomb blasts" and "Efficient police officials who took on terrorists have been brought to disrepute by the Anti-Terrorist Squad".

The combined message of all this is clear: "No Hindu can be guilty of terrorism. No Hindu military officer can be guilty of terrorism. No Hindu policeman can be guilty of terrorism." There is an implied sub-text here which goes like this: "Any Muslim held for questioning in a terrorism enquiry has to be guilty because he is a Muslim. If a 'suspect' is questioned, then released because there is no evidence against him, it's okay to torture him because he is a Muslim".

Does this sound crude and extreme? Yes, it is crude and extreme but that in effect is what these gentlemen are saying. Remember poor Khwaja Yunus?  Arrested for the Ghatkopar bombing (a charge which has never been proved), he was killed in police custody by former police officer Sachin Vaze and three constables. So says the Maharashtra CID.  Vaze is now out on bail awaiting trial. So what happens to him? Why, the Shiv Sena welcomes him into its fold (presumably he is Thackeray's 'efficient police official').

And what about the young Muslim men who were arrested in Andhra Pradesh on suspicion of terrorism? They were kept in detention for months, tortured by the police, then finally released because they were innocent (a fact acknowledged by the Andhra government which has now said sorry and announced a compensation package for them).

Did LK Advani, prime minister-in-waiting, whose heart bleeds for 'Sadhvi ' Pragya, say anything about these terrible human rights abuses? He hasn't, has he? You will not find a sane person in this country  who will justify the despicable  acts of the Muslim terrorists who have bombed and killed our countrymen. They deserve no sympathy and they deserve no leniency in the punishment they will get. But the same impartial standards should apply to Hindu terrorists as well. In the end a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist; there is no such thing as a Hindu terrorist or a Muslim terrorist.

If the Hindutva brigade  tries to justify their Malegaon and Samjhauta Express bombings on the basis of retaliation, that's a dangerous route to take; Muslim youth are being indoctrinated to avenge Babri Masjid and Gujarat; Indira Gandhi was killed by Sikhs. Rajiv Gandhi by the Tamils in revenge too.

Where do we go from here? Into a black hole for sure. It's a shame that Messrs Rajnath, Advani and Modi can't see that.

The writer is a commentator on social affairs