India, The Modi Question, Review

Narendra Modi is one of the most controversial and paradoxical Prime minister, India ever had/having when it comes to his way of addressing Minority affairs in the largest democracy, so this documentary too.It starts with Mr. Modi's inflammatory speeches from the past in which he incites Hindu community to take a 'do or die' stand against India's muslim community. Then It flashes some protests against Citizenship amendment act in which Muslim community is evidently discriminated.

Story No.1

The first statement is of a man named Imran Yakoob who's family got attacked by a Hindu mob , that killed 8 of his family members. This tension started in February 2002 when lots of Hindu pilgrims , travelling in a train got attacked by another mob at Godhra(Gujarat). The mob set the running train on fire , that killed 59 Hindu pilgrims. This incident was alleged against the Muslim community as a whole, which made them the victims of community targeting for the next three days.

The film shows oral testimonies of Swapan das Gupta, a former BJP MP who claims that the then state government under Mr Modi had done its best to contain the situation within three days. But at the same time other spokespersons like Neelanjan Mukhopadhyay (Journalist), Ankar Patel (Amnesty International) and Prof. Christopher jafferolt (Author of Gujarat under Modi) opine with data, on the conspiracy that works behind this event in which Mr Modi after planning and knowing everything had done nothing to stop these events but simply pretended to be a mute spectator. Me. Mukhopadhyaya talks about a 'common enemy theory' that worked perfectly as planned against India's Muslim community. Prof.Jafferolt equated these events with the rise of fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany.

Story No.2

Imitiaz Pathan, a local man who sought shelter in a building with his 100 Muslim friends , including women and children to escape from the Hindu mob along with Mr.Jafri who was a politician. When the mob asked him to hand over these Muslims, he went to the mob and said -" you can take me, but please leave these people alone." The mob then slotted his neck and then attacked the Muslims. Later, Mr.Jafri was framed as the one who provoked the mob but years later, Honourable Supreme court ruled that Mr.Jafri was innocent. A senior policeman arrived at the spot two days later and confirmed that these events is just their inadequacy.

After all these incidents Mr.Modi addressed the Media and told that his Government can contain this situation within three days. But as the public reaction became so loud, he put his resignation to BJP. But BJP didn't accept his resignation but supported him and praised him for normalising the chaos brilliantly. There ends the 'Resignation Drama' according to Mr.Neelanjan mukhopadhyay.

International Reaction.

Me.Jack straw, the foreign Secretary of UK at that time says his Govt has initiated an enquiry into these issue of Minority targeting in India. It's report come up with some shocking observation that confirms Mr.Modi is responsible for the Gujarat riots. UK govt, then called for an Embargo on Mr.Modi that can be translated to a defacto travel ban. US Govt, as a self-proclaimed watchdog of World-democracy, revoked Mr.Modi's visa in 2005.

Story No.3

Human rights activists of Gujarat setup an independent Tribunal to enquire about Gujarat riots and Father Cedric Prakash was one among them. He says, he met a BJP Minister named Hareen pandya in a flight as he was sitting very next to him. Hareen pandya revealed that he had attended a secret Meeting called by Mr.Modi to give directions to the police force not to enter into whatever the Hindu mob is going to do for three days. The documentary also shows another BJP Activist who says Modi told the them to do whatever they want within three days. Another BJP Activist named Mr.Bajrangi is shown in as he says Modi changed the judge to hear his case to rule in favour of him that had given him an easy bail even though he was charged with massive evidence in connection with his involvement in the riots. R.B.Sreekumar, a higher police official who also testified against Mr.Modi by quoting that Modi told his supporters to vent their anger against Muslims. An IPS officer named Sanjiv bhatt disclosed about the secret meeting called by Modi prior to the riots and submitted his affidavit in Supreme Court of India. Among these people who testified against Modi, Hareen pandya found dead in a mysterious circumstances, Mr.Bajrang got jailed for the charge of another murder other than what all happened in the riot. R.B. sreekumar got arrested for fabricating evidences, and Sanjay bhat got Life imprisonment for fabricated case of custodial torture. So, all the voices that raised against Mr.Modi either eliminated or suppressed.

Further scenarios.

The more Mr.Modi got criticised the more he become stronger. In the very next 2011 election, he could effectively polarise the votes by giving enormous inflammatory speeches and become the longest serving chief minister of Gujarat. Meanwhile the secret meeting called by Mr.Modi became irrelevant and doubtful as those who have spoken about it were framed as absent in that meeting. Special investigations Team(SIT) setup by the Govt. found that Modi is not at all responsible for the Gujarat riots. Those who charged for the murder of Hareen pandya were all acquited by the court due to lack of evidence. All these things elevated the persona of Narendra Modi and India got 'Modified' in the then loksabha election that resulted in the biggest win for BJP and continued till today, Narendra Modi as Prime minister of worlds largest democracy. 

" After 20 years on, Gujarat riot is still a mystery. More than 2000 people died in an organised way of brutal massacre. Now, Modi is the Prime Minister of this country and it seems to me that the history will be rewritten."

NB: I just reviewed the BBC documentary named 'India, The Modi question" without any allegiance to the political motive of the one who aired this. I never fact checked it with other academic works on this topic because I strongly believe that Politics is not something that can be concluded on the basis of selective facts.