5th September 2013
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.
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.