The letter and its aftermath

Julio Ribeiro

The open letter I wrote to Delhi’s police chief got more publicity than I had thought possible. I had doubts about the intentions and the manner in which the investigations into the February riots in Delhi were being conducted. The figures showed that 753 cases were registered, 410 on the basis of complaints lodged by Muslims who suffered disproportionately in terms of deaths and loss of property as compared to Hindus.

Parties in power do try to protect their own. Police leaders should be able to hold the ground at such times, but they appear to buckle when they have to deal with strong leaders who tolerate no dissent.

On the first day of the riots, the Muslims did retaliate. But the next three days saw one-sided battles, with the sheer weight of numbers dominating the outcome. Some mosques were also attacked and damaged. The Delhi Police say that a couple of temples were similarly targeted.

One would have thought that numbers would tell their own tale. Yet, a conspiracy case was registered against 18 PhD students, some of them women. They were Muslim or Left-oriented, both anathema to the ruling dispensation. Hence, my doubt about fair inquiries. And hence, my open letter to the Commissioner.

I am a member of the Constitutional Conduct Group, some 150-odd former civil servants. The group had asked for a meeting with Mr Shrivastava. There was no response. It was then that we decided that I should address the police chief in an open letter which was released to the Press.

When he received my letter asking for fair play, he wanted to ascertain that it was I who had written the letter. He graciously spoke to me on the phone and tried to convince me that he had been even-handed in dealing with the complaints.

I told him that the truth would be established during trial. In particular, the charge of conspiracy against students, exclusively Muslim and left-leaning youngsters, smacked of a cavalier approach. I got the impression that the Commissioner was a trifle uncomfortable with the question why three BJP stalwarts had not been charged, despite making threats of violence against those who dared to oppose the CAA and the NRC.

I did not mention the Commissioner reaching out to me to more than a handful of my associates, but our interaction took a different turn when two days later, he sent an email to reiterate the assertions and released the email to the Press.

I have no personal animosity to the Commissioner. In fact, I learnt from the interview of a former Delhi Police Commissioner, Neeraj Kumar, that Shrivastava was a much more effective police leader than his predecessor. I respect the opinion of my friend Neeraj, an officer of integrity. Also, I have to admit that the political bosses Neeraj and I worked with in our days were markedly dissimilar to those that poor Shrivastava has to navigate.

When Shrivastava wrote the email, I knew that I had to state my position and the stand I would take. Here is my reply:

Dear Shri Shrivastava

Your gesture of personally phoning to justify your stand, and later putting down your say in an email is praiseworthy. I would have done likewise. There are doubts in my original open letter which you have not addressed. I realise that it is difficult, indeed impossible, to justify the licence given to the three BJP stalwarts I named — licence to rant, rave and threaten those who were peacefully protesting perceived wrongs. If the speakers were Muslims or Leftists, the police would have surely taken them in for sedition.

I have decided to put myself in your shoes! How would I dispel the doubts that your retired brother officers still have about Delhi Police investigations in the riots? I would quickly file the chargesheets in all 753 cases, including specially the conspiracy case registered by your special cell, and get the evidence tested in a court of law.

I would not prolong the UAPA case by arresting persons just a day or two before the time limit expires for filing the chargesheet.

You have doubted the patriotism of the three who I named as ‘true patriots’ — Harsh Mander, Prof Apoorvanand and me. I have not described anyone else as such and hence my surmise. Harsh and Apoorvanand are Gandhians. I should have remembered that Gandhians have lost favour with this regime!

With regards.

Here the exchange of letters needs to end. The evidence, he says he has against the conspirators, has to be tested in a court of law. He should ensure that the alleged conspirators are not kept in custody under the stringent UAPA without trial by misuse of a loophole in this draconian Act. If any more arrests are needed, according to the investigators, they should be over and done with before the expiry of the next time limit of three months. With the arrest of Umar Khalid a few days ago, the time limit was automatically extended by another three months. This tactic ensures punishment without trial, in truth turning the police into judges!

Any citizen who breaks the law should be hauled up. That is what police officers are there for. If the students, who are alleged to have conspired to instigate the riots, are truly guilty, let the police place the chargesheet in court. (This was done on September 16 against 15 accused.) I had urged the Commissioner to send up all chargesheets so that the evidence that was not shared with the accused and the public can be disclosed.

The fact that BJP stalwarts, including a minister in the PM’s Cabinet, had made communally charged speeches, heard on TV before the riots started, has not been taken note of by the police. Parties in power do try to protect their own even when they blatantly violate laws. The police leaders should be able to hold the ground at such times, but they appear to buckle when they have to deal with leaders who tolerate no dissent.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.