2002 Revisited

In Gujarat, the media only speaks to riot victims, not the perpetrators

The stories written by many journalists reflect their own anxieties, stereotypes and ideological leanings rather than what they have seen.

A few hours after Gujarat's polling booths opened last Wednesday, a local editor called to ask if I could write an election report for his newspaper. He and I spoke a few days earlier and I told him I would be happy to do so but instead of writing about Juhapura, I wanted to roam around the city and interview first time Hindu voters.

That idea no longer interested him. “I was wondering, Zahir, when women in Juhapura wear the burqa, how do they vote? I mean do they remove their veil? I think this would make for a great story,” he said.

I have invited this editor many times to have dinner with me in Juhapura to show him that not everyone here keeps a four-inch beard or wears a burqa. He has never taken me up on this offer and if he did, perhaps he might see that during dinner, women who wear the burqa simply lift up their veil. No one notices, because no one thinks there is anything to notice.

In writing about these elections and meeting those covering it, I have learned that people often write their story before they reach their destination. As a result, the stories they produce often reflect more about their own anxieties, their stereotypes and ideological leanings.

In March, a photographer called me from Bangalore. I admire her work and when she asked for my help to do a photo feature on Juhapura’s residents, I gladly obliged. We met outside my apartment building, where many had gathered for my neighbor Mutassim’s wedding. The photographer’s disappointment was evident when she arrived. There was no biryani or qawalli. Most men wore shiny suits. At one point, a stage was set up and the hosts invited a dwarf to dance for the guests. My neighbor’s 12-year old daughter Sifa wore heels for the first time. She cheered the loudest when the music began.

“These are not the images I wanted,” the photographer said. “I want to show the conditions of Muslims, to show how people are facing hardships under [Narendra] Modi’s Gujarat.”

I smiled. “The only suffering in Juhapura tonight,” I told her, “is that the DJ is playing far too many Enrique Iglesias songs.”

She did not laugh.

When the photograph does not fit the frame

I understand that photography is a visual medium. The problem was that the photographer had already developed the images of Juhapura before she arrived — she just needed to take the pictures. When I introduced her to Sifa’s dad, she immediately asked him about the 2002 riots and Modi. If she had not walked away when he said the riots did not affect him, she would have learned that Sifa’s dad is worried what will happen when his daughter is ready to start secondary school. The Gujarat government has failed to provide schools in Juhapura and Sifa’s dad cannot afford the area’s private schools or the transportation fees to send her to a school in a nearby Hindu area. I tried to convince the photographer to relax and enjoy the evening. It was a wedding, I reminded her, but like others I have met, she was careless about respecting people’s privacy and trauma.

In December 2012, as Gujarat held its state elections, a German journalist asked if I would introduce him to some survivors of the 2002 pogrom. He had covered Afghanistan and Iraq and I thought he might understand what questions not to ask. I took him to meet my friend Salma, a courageous woman who helped counsel many women since 2002. On the night of the tragic Godhra train attack, Salma began receiving text messages from Muslim friends who, like her, lived next to Hindus. When she heard that they had to flee their homes, Salma grabbed a bucket, filled it with water, and waited by her door. Her husband clutched a cricket bat. They stayed in that position throughout the evenings of February 27 and 28.

“I was worried they would rape me,” Salma said.

The mob never came to her street but she was shaken by the news of her friends who were killed. On March 1, they moved to Juhapura, where they continue to live. She does not like living in Juhapura. She has lost touch with many of her Hindu friends; some told her she was being “too sensitive” for shifting.

“So technically you were not forced out?” the journalist asked.

Salma wore a light purple salwar, her dupatta scarf wrapped around her neck, her hair uncovered. She did not respond.

“I mean no one made you leave, right?” the journalist asked.

When we left her apartment, I asked the photographer why he did not take her picture. “Oh I am looking for something else,” he told me. Later when he allowed me to scroll through his photos, I could see a pattern: nearly all the photos of the Muslim men he took had beards; almost all of the Muslim women were wearing hijabs.

The journalist kept probing. “So do you think you can introduce me to someone who was more directly affected by the riots, maybe someone whose husband was killed? That would be a great story, especially if they were like, you know, a first-time voter too,” he asked me.

In the arithmetic of suffering, worrying about being raped was not enough.

Victims can also be prosperous

When people visit, it is not so much that they want to see more agony than what really exists but rather it is that they envision agony to look a certain way. I wrestled with the idea of what I was seeing (and not seeing) when I attended an NGO conference in Khartoum, Sudan in 2004. One afternoon, a doctoral student took me to visit the relief camps where tens of thousands had been displaced after the Sudanese government’s brutal assault on Darfur.

The refugee camps were horrific but it was not what I expected. One person had a larger TV than me. But there is a problem in looking at people’s experience solely through the lens of class. In the refugee camp, this Sudanese man had many things that others in the world do not have — access to a clean toilet, a TV, even a refrigerator nearby. Unlike others though, he also watched his village burned down by men on horses.

The size of his TV — or indeed the size of a bungalow in Juhapura — is not the point. The issue is how a people are made to feel, how they are pushed off to the side, how they are blamed for their own conditions, how their story is trivialised, perhaps unintentionally, when we tell them that people elsewhere are worse off.

But it is not only journalists who have to be careful of how they understand an area. I have seen heads of Gujarat-based NGOs exaggerate the conditions in Juhapura to convince sceptical donors. I do not condone this activity but I understand their reasons as Juhapura is an area that the state neglects and I have seen the benefits of NGO work here.

Muslim groups do the same. The worst example was when a family friend who runs an Islamic charity came to visit last year. I introduced them to about a half a dozen teenagers, each of whom articulated their needs. Later that day, this same family friend asked if I could take him to meet a particular sub-caste of Muslims that he and I both belong to so that he could distribute his money within “our own community,” a phrase I have come to hate. I refused and I asked what was his purpose in meeting other children if he only wanted to help this particular sub-caste in the first place?

“I just wanted to see,” he said. He did not donate any money.

I understand the good intentions behind these visits as well as the limitations of journalism. Writers these days have to file more stories in shorter amounts of time, leaving little time for depth; donors have limited funds. I also recognise the interest in this subject, given Modi’s role in the 2002 pogrom and his tenuous relationship with Gujarat’s Muslims.

And I accept my own culpability. In my articles and on social media, I have told people to visit Juhapura, to see Modi’s development model from a different angle. I am happy that many more are writing about the 2002 riots and Juhapura. These stories are important, as are the articles about the displacement of Kashmiri Pandits and gender-based violence, because they challenge us to view ourselves in new, difficult ways.

What we can't see

Yet we have failed to expand our imaginations. We go on Dharavi slum tours in hopes of capturing their “squalor” but we seldom ask Mumbai’s elite how they justify encroaching on other people's land with wide-spread impunity from the state.

Likewise, journalists who want to see a “riot-affected” space in Gujarat almost always visit Gulbarg or Naroda Patiya, where some of the most ghastly massacres happened in 2002. But what chilled me about witnessing the riots is that middle class mobs drove SUVs and also attacked the upscale Muslim-owned business like Pantaloons and Metro Shoe stores on Ahmedabad’s posh CG Road. Today this area is almost all Hindu and few see it as a riot-affected area. Almost no one asks shop keepers on CG Road what those days were like.

This is our collective failure — we do not interrogate the displacers, the ones who carried the trishuls, the people who stood idly by as their neighbors homes burned. Instead we place the burden of these stories on the “victims” and we grumble when they do not want to speak.

I have learned to examine the limitations of my gaze. Over the past few years, I thought I made every effort to understand the experiences of women in Juhapura. But it was only when a doctoral student named Charlotte Thomas, who has been studying Juhapura since 2009, came to visit that I learned how much I had missed. Was I asking the wrong questions? Yes, partly. But it was also that as a woman, Charlotte was able to witness things—the marginalisation and sexual abuse of women, for example—that I could not access.  Much of what Charlotte described I had never seen but that was her point: as a male in a patriarchal society, why would I see these things?

Last year, a Palestinian friend told me an expression that best describes my experience living in Juhapura: if you spend a week in Palestine, you will write an article; if you spend a month, you will write a book; if you spend a year, you will be too confused to do anything. I have learned to embrace my confusion. And I have learned to recognise that each time I ask questions of others, I have to ask many more to myself.

Often when I begin writing these days, I try to remind myself of these ethical questions by listening to the Palestinian poet Mahmood Darwish whose seminal work, “Passport,” was masterfully turned into a song by the Lebanese oud player Marcel Khalife.

They didn’t get to know me in the shadows that soak up my color in my passport.
And my wound for them was like an art gallery for a tourist who is enamored with collecting pictures.

 
We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.

Play

In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.

Play

Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.

Play

The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.

Play

The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.