Zaheera’s Jihad

Zaheera Sheikh’s face rested on the model’s perky breasts at the Lakme Fashion Week. It was T-shirt time for designers, prêt/couture and otherwise. The catwalk is now also about walking the talk, the ideology.

Why on earth does anyone expect Zaheera to have an ideology? If you saw your home burned down, your sister and uncle being killed, four little children being roasted alive, would you be sane enough to think straight? Would you forget the fact that you have been cringing on a rooftop as a hundred people are urged by a police officer to finish everyone off as they threw bricks and petrol on your premises? This was home and livelihood.

Was Zaheera really brave?

“We’ll burn you alive as well,” they told her. A young woman in her circumstances should have been put under psychiatric care. Instead, she was made into a pawn. The question being asked is: if she was so afraid, then how did she manage to depose before the court?

Let us not forget that together with fear, there was also the feeling of being wronged. It was a personal thing, not an ‘issue’, with her. She identified the 21 accused by name.

She was obviously afraid to return to Hanuman Tekri, the area in Baroda where she lived, because it was a Hindu-dominated locality. She sought refuge with relatives, but no one can support you for long.

At that point in time she could have tried to make her peace with the enemies; it is said she was offered quite a lot of money. She chose, instead, to approach the Anjuman Bahami Imdad Committee. Most of the welfare organisations had received large sums as donation from foreign agencies for the rehabilitation of riot victims. Homes had been built. Yet she was asked to fork out Rs. 50,000.

Under these circumstances, and the fact that there were no Muslims present in the court to support her when she gave the evidence, she copped out. She said it was too dark and smoky for her to recognise the attackers. “I had two choices: to speak for my dead relatives or to keep quiet for my living ones,” she said. She chose the living.

Suddenly, her bravery is being forgotten and she is being called just another opportunist.

She was one of 41 witnesses who had changed their statements; soon afterwards, the case collapsed. Why is no one pointing fingers at the others? Narendra Modi’s government gets re-elected ‘democratically’, he becomes a star symbol for the death of 2000 people – why is no one pointing fingers at him? If Zaheera made a turn-around, 21 people walked free. Compare the figures.

Who made her into a star witness and what was the underlying agenda?

Who benefits most from Zaheera?

They are asking why the Gujarat government is ‘protecting’ Zaheera now. This is a strange query. She has gone on record to say that her life was in danger; she has no doubt done a flip-flop before the court, but she has not denied that people were killed. She is only refusing to identity the attackers.

If the opinion is that her turning hostile won’t affect the cases, then why make her into a cause celebre? Who has to gain from it either way? I am amazed when I hear comments that it is not a Muslim issue. It darned well is. Look at Zaheera’s earlier pictures, with her two oily plaits, her head uncovered. And see her recent ones, wearing a burqa. Watch as the others like Bilkis say they ‘won’t do a Zaheera’.

Is there a competition going on here? Who is prompting them? And why are people shirking away from calling it a Muslim problem?

Is the BJP going to benefit? If anything, this party is already looking stupid. The trial had moved from Gujarat to Mumbai. They may host Zaheera’s press conference, put her up in a fancy resort, but they are the accused. She has ‘turned hostile’, 2000 people have been killed with the State looking on, and their hypocrisy and pressure tactics come out so transparently, it is not funny. Only someone who is terribly naïve will believe that this will help the BJP or that the party is doing anything to assuage the minority community, or even Zaheera’s sentiments.

The Gujarat High Court had observed that Zaheera ‘‘can easily fall prey to anyone and play in the dirty hands of anti-socials and anti-national elements.’’ Why did the BJP not pursue that line of thinking? Why was it being generous to this one woman?

Did the “parallel investigation” help the BJP? I am fully aware of the important role NGOs play. If the State is looking the other way, then who will bring the culprits to book? What is the history of judicial enquiries? Several reports have not even been published. They are called commissions to act as a palliative rather than offer any remedies. But the government commissions do not even take off the ground.

The purpose should be to bring out a report when the issue is still relevant. Besides, the activists have realised the limitations of judicial enquiries.
- They take a long time.
- There is no obligation for them to publish the findings.
- There is fear of the official machinery, so people are not so forthcoming and ready to depose.

This is where voluntary agencies come into the picture. Who are they? A bunch of ideologically rigid upright citizens thrusting their views down unsuspecting throats? Or are they genuinely interested in getting people to act? The ultimate test is whether the government will accept their recommendations. One shudders at the amount of paperwork and wonders how mere recorded statements can prompt action, since newspapers are already full of the gory details.

What Zaheera has said had already been reported. The court trial of a few individuals does not reveal the true extent of the connivance of the Establishment.

What about the politicisation of these organisations? Can an outfit, so alive to people’s needs and with a well-charted direction, really be apolitical? During the riots in Mumbai in 1992-’93, a Human Rights tribunal had been set up. P.A.Sebastian, an activist and lawyer, was extremely candid then: “It is a misconception that human rights have nothing to do with politics. The right of freedom of expression is itself a political right. It comes with its own checks and balances. I am allowed freedom of movement but does that mean I can cross the road whenever I want? In a democracy views differ. There is no absolute truth. Ideally, my right must stop where yours begins.”

Could this logic not be used also in minority-majority rights? A young worker in a NGO said, “We are not interested in minority or majority. We cannot predetermine whether we will find Muslim victims or Hindu victims. One looks at it issue to issue. We cannot ask, is this a communist or rightwing or communal problem? But, is it right or wrong? The option is barbarism. We are not making any ideological statement but trying to make things better.”

What I have noticed is sometimes what is deemed better could be missionary zest, temple-mosque funds, income tax exemptions. From my own experience I know of people who provide ‘rehabilitated’ sex workers to ministers. Some causes become trendy. At one time the fight against drugs was the in thing. I was in the office of one such NGO and for my reference I was given a brochure; it was printed on glossy paper and had great pictures. Just as I was about to leave, the director of the organisation asked me to return it, handing me another one in newsprint with faded photographs. “This is for you, the other one is for the foreign market.” Many organisations toe the ideology of the donors and somewhere along the way lose perspective.

It isn’t only NGOs that come under such pressure; governments do too. And we have to make a calculated choice. As Sebastian had told me, “We are not interested in issues where individuals are concerned. If the State itself commits violations there is no superior authority to prevent it. If I assault you, it is a crime, but no one can say it is a violation of human rights. But at our cells we have people coming with grievances against the State. Instead of acting as an impartial arbiter, it was downright partisan. Forget about the parties involved. The issue is about human rights. You have a right to stay in your house without being assaulted.”

The incessant knock on the door has become more regular. The reassuring baton becomes the threatening stick. Police connivance is obvious. Everywhere.

Sebastian says, “It all depends on the conscience of the government of the time.”

Have you seen a government weep or hold your hand?