Thoughts on economics and liberty

Vanzara’s letter – its authenticity and the speculation about its motives

A commentator (Suren Patil) made this startling comment: "As to Vazara’s letter, it remains to be seen who is behind this and the fraudulent purpose the manner in which it has been written, considering the articulately usage of English language and denial by his lawyer that he is not aware of the letter." [Source]

This was a real surprise, so I checked and found the following speculation on the internet:

A careful reading of the Letter throws open the below questions some of which were posed on Social Media by Legal Experts who have been closely following the Gujarat Encounter Cases in the Courts.
  • Who drafted the resignation letter for Mr Vanzara in perfect English, without a mistake of even a comma? This could not have been done by Mr Vanzara himself.
  • Mr Vanzara's lawyer said that he was also unaware of the letter and he came to know about it only through the media.
  • Why did Mr Vanzara choose to release the letter now since as recently as last month after the interrogation by Abhin Modak (who probed Adarsh Housing Scam) the media was informed that Mr. Vanzara was "cooperative".
  • It is noteworthy that Mr Vanzara has been in jail for last seven years, while other officers who ‘cooperated' with CBI are released on bail.Madhu Kishwar said: "CBI did practice legal third degree on many such officers to make them go against the government."

Further: Mr. Vanzara's letter both the advance copy and the actual copy were sent to the CBI Director in Delhi for "kind information and necessary action" raising more questions on the timing and the motives behind the release of the letter. [Source]

It is amazing that questions are being raised about the authenticity of Vanzara's resignation letter (I've uploaded a copy on my server just in case the original is lost from the internet). So let me go through these speculations:
 
1. Who drafted the letter? It is apparently in perfect English. I, for one, did not get any sense of that when I read the letter. It is written in bureaucratised English, not in standard English. It has numerous grammatical issues, as well e.g. "Some of them are released on default bails".  This should perhaps have read: "Some of them have been released on default bails" [or whatever else is appropriate]. It is a myth that an IPS officer, a DIG, can't draft such a simple English letter (which he would have definitely reviewed many times before signing).
 
2. Lawyer was unaware. It is true that there are matters in the letter that could affect the case in which the lawyer is defending Vanzara. It would have been prudent for Vanzara to have consulted his lawyer. However, from the tone of the letter, Vanzara is operating on a different plane – of philosophical/existential matters and angst at the treatment he is receiving. In such an emotional state, it is not necessary to expect Vanzara to have consulted with his lawyer.
 
3. Vanzara's cooperation with his investigation is now expected – given the tone of his letter. I would expect very significant truths to now emerge [assuming that matters Vanzara is hinting at, are true].
 
4. Madhu Kishwar has seriously lowered her status (as independent thinker) in my mind by suggesting that the letter is the result of third degree methods, and therefore (by implication) the allegations made in the letter are false. Instead, EVERYTHING in the letter is consistent with widely held views (and evidence) about complicity of the Modi government at the highest levels in the post-Godhara riots and extra-judicial "encounters". Instead of defending INDIANS' human rights and opposing killings by people like Vanzara, she seems to be intent on shielding Modi. How does SHE know all this? She has little clue about how governments work. I have been a senior field officer (e.g. Deputy Commissioner) and know how governments/police actually work. Vanzara's claims are entirely plausible.
 
My conclusion
1) The letter is authentic.
 
2) Vanzara has not had a genuine change of heart. He had a clear objective of killing Muslims – an objective which he cleverly disguises by saying that he was against terrorists. The fact is that he almost certainly killed INNOCENT Muslims. No public servant ever considers the politicians "God". His job is to observe the requirements of the Constitution. Vanzara has shown himself CLEARLY through this letter as a violent "Hindu" zealot.
 
I have seen some such officers in the IPS myself (indeed at the DIG level) – who have severe grievances against Muslims and Christians. Such advisers are generally very close to politicians. An IPS officer with such views (who was DIG of the region that covered Barpeta district when I was DC) was very close to Prafulla Mohanta. I know the precise kinds of communal discussions that are held behind closed doors.[In this case I had such a discussion in CM's house, in the presence of this DIG, where the DIG was talking against Christian missionaries – and also in the Barpeta circuit house in presence of another Minister from AGP government – in that case it was the Minister who was expressing his happiness with mass killings by the police of Bodos by Kokrajhar police). There is NO doubt that there are many criminals in the guise of IPS in India.
 
3) All he is saying is that despite his being such a good violent "Hindu" zealot, why has Modi (his government) abandoned him?
 
4) He is likely to become a cooperative and tell the truth about many things. Unfortunately, it is almost certain that (given his criminal approach to policing) Vanzara destroyed most evidence of the direct involvement of Modi (in order to protect Modi, his God) and now will be faced with the problem of providing evidence against Modi to justify his claims.
 
Vanzara is no one's hero. He is a criminal who is peeved at not being "protected" by his gang's leaders. He will now try to implicate them. That will at least get us the real truth about Modi – although such matters are ALWAYS hard to prove. After all, consider the evidence I cited above regarding the DIG  (who made severely communal statements), Prafulla Mohanta (who was only smiling, so I can't determine whether he was actively communal), and an AGP minister's severely communal (against Bodos) statements. None of that, taken in isolation, would be admissible in court (unless it had been tape recorded). Such statements require documentary evidence, but there is no such practice of people recording their communal views and directives in writing.
 
I have no doubt that Modi has a very bumpy ride ahead. He is very vocal on many things, but extremely quiet on KEY issues regarding the post-Godhara riots. It is almost as if he is afraid that if he says too much then he could provoke MANY more Vanzaras to come out against him.

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
10 thoughts on “Vanzara’s letter – its authenticity and the speculation about its motives
  1. VK

    Hi Sanjeev,

    Few questions:
    1) Why do you call vanzara criminal
    2) Will according to you KPS gill (and Narsimha rao)i s also criminal because many encounter happend in punjab
    3) Why do you link anything negative with hinduism, calling hindu zealot, will you link any negative aspect of usa, europe to christianity, last week there was a news that nypd and mosques, what will you call that
    4) You did not reply to my earlier comment on guns in USA
    5) About your point on christian missionary, is not true that many times there is a geopolitical angle to that

    VK

     
  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Vanzara allegedly killed INNOCENTS in the name of killing terrorists. He is a fanatic since he considered Modi to be his “God” so he was blinded and did not treat all Indians with the equality of status under the law that they deserve.

    One can never conclude when a case is sub-judice. But if he did kill (and he seems to admit it in his letter), then he is a criminal.

    Let’s never mix two criminals together. KPS Gill too would be a criminal to the extent he directed the killing of innocent Sikhs. But since there are no cases against him, I assume he did not authorise extra-judicial killings.

    s

     

     
  3. Amit

    In Author so called clarification on question raised on some site. Author have mentioned ‘He had a clear objective of killing Muslims’. My Question to Author is how many Muslims are killed in encounter. The state policy is clear Zero tolerance on Terrorism.

     
  4. Kishan Sharma

    Pls Sanjeevji, get the poison cleansed from your mind before you can claim to be objective. “Objective of killing ‘innocent’ Muslims” give away your clouded thinking.

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Kishan Sharma, the letter clearly indicates a very strong view about terrorism, which is fine. But then Vanzara goes and kills innocents. How do you explain that? Do innocents not have any right ot life in India?

     
  6. Kishan Sharma

    Who was innocent ? Sohrabuddin ? A notorious criminal/smuggler? Ishrat Jahan? She was a part of the gang to spread terror in Gujarat. Prajapati? Was he an innocent Muslim? I think Prajapati is a Hindu name and is a backward caste in Gujarat/Rajasthan. He was also a criminal wanted by police of many states.
    As I wrote earlier, unless the decrepit justice system is fixed, such encounters will keep happening all over India. But the ‘paid media’ will keep highlighting only Gujarat and people like you will happily join the chorus. And no ‘rights’ have any meaning in absence of speedy justice.

     
  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Kishan, many murky things have happened during Modi’s time. Some prime witnesses (Hindus) have also been killed. Modi’s own Home Minister Haren Pandya was killed. Tulsi Prajapati was a witness in one such crime by Gujarat police.

    Re: who is innocent? Why not let the law take its course? Vanzara is definitely a major suspect – so I presume there must be a lot of data regarding his involvement in crimes.

    s

     
  8. Kishan Sharma

    Yes, let law take its course but how long will that course be? Vanjara is already in jail for many years but no progress on trial.
    You have conveniently ignored my objection to your use of phrase ‘killing innocent Muslims’.
    Just a little digression.There was news that NIA now,after Aseemanand has been in Jail for many years, that he was not involved in Malegaon Blast. That is the Indian justice system for you.

     
  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Kishan,

    This justice system was created by the miserable people who run India.  I fully sympathise with your view. But that’s why we need a party with a clear vision and a PLAN to fix the problem.

    Till India can find good leaders, it will have to live with what it has.

    s

     
  10. K Therie

    As long as Vanzara do not disown the statement, there is no question to doubt about the content of letter.

    Modi surely is serious crime suspect. Two senior IPS officer statement are prima facie evidences. It is the moral responsibility of Modi to come out clean before the nation. One cannot imagine of having criminal PM.