If Hindus Can't Be Terrorists, Was Godse Not a Hindu?
The ideological position that Hindus cannot be terrorists falls flat in the face of several other historical examples.
On July 21, the Bombay high court acquitted all 12 men accused in the Bombay pressure cooker blasts of 2006. All the accused were Muslims. Within two days of that verdict, the Maharashtra government chose to appeal to the Supreme Court against the acquittal of the twelve men – saying that that the judgement could impact other Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) cases. The top court passed a partial stay on the Bombay high court verdict.
Some ten days later, an NIA court acquitted Lt.Colonel Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya Thakur in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which seven people were killed and over a hundred wounded.
Within hours, a spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party held a press briefing, hailing the Bombay high court verdict and lambasting the Congress for floating the notion of "saffron terror."
Clearly, where the verdict in the matter of the 2006 blasts was looked upon by the BJP as a temporary event, reversible by the Supreme Court, the other verdict pertaining to the Malegaon blasts is sought to be stamped with finality.
The reason for this discordance is not a legal one, since a legal argument cannot uphold the view that one verdict is medial and the other final because such a view may suit an interested party. The reason lies in the ideological position that Hindus cannot be terrorists and that it is Islam alone that is prone to such shenanigans.
Thus, we must understand that Nathu Ram Godse was not a Hindu; that the LTTE in Sri Lanka, who invented the suicide bomber, were not Hindus; that Maoists, whom the right wing never tires of calling terrorists, are not Hindus; that Sikhs, whom Hindutva ideologues consider Hindus, could not be terrorists even if the Khalistan movement saw rampant terrorism.
Not to mention that many freedom fighters during the colonial rule, several of whom were Hindus, engaged in violent activities against the British and were called terrorists by the colonial oppressors.
As for the Malegaon blast case, it might be instructive to listen to what prosecutor Rohini Salian has confided to The Indian Express. Salian revealed how after change of government at the centre in 2014, an NIA officer asked to meet her, explicitly not to be told on the phone, and instructed her that as per advice from above, she was to go soft on the Malegaon case.
She has underlined how all the evidence previously gathered under Article 164 (given before a magistrate as admissible evidence) was set aside by the new NIA investigators, and revamped evidence adduced.
Salian said that the high court verdict acquitting Colonel Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya was one she had "expected." It remains to be seen if the government will think it right to appeal the Malegaon verdict in the Supreme Court with similar swiftness that it had displayed after the Bombay blast verdict.
Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump says Brazil's Lula can call him anytime
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva can call him anytime to discuss tariffs and other friction between the countries. 'He can talk to me anytime he wants,' Trump said of Lula, speaking to reporters at the White House. He added he was fond of the Brazilian people but 'the people running Brazil did the wrong thing.' Later, speaking with reporters in Brasilia, Brazil Finance Minister Fernando Haddad called Trump's remarks 'great,' saying he is sure Lula feels the same, and would be willing to receive a call from the US president. In a post on his X account, Lula said Brazil has always been open to dialogue, although he did not mention Trump nor his earlier remarks. Trump slapped a 50% tariff on Brazil, with many exemptions, starting next week to fight what he has called a 'witch hunt' against former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is on trial on charges of plotting a coup following his election loss in 2022. The US also announced sanctions on a Brazilian Supreme Court justice who has been overseeing Bolsonaro's trial. Lula has rejected both the sanctions and the tariffs, calling them 'unjustifiable' and an 'unacceptable' interference in Brazil's justice system. Haddad said his planned virtual meeting with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent next week will pave the way for an eventual meeting between Lula and Trump, but noted such a move would require preparation. Earlier this week, Haddad said Brazil needed assurance Lula would not face the same treatment as Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who came under fire from Trump and Vice President JD Vance during a heated exchange at the White House earlier this year.
NDTV
8 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Day Not Far When Himachal Pradesh May Vanish From Country's Map": Top Court
The Supreme Court has flagged the ecological imbalance in Himachal Pradesh and cautioned that the entire state may "vanish in thin air" if the situation does not change. Observing that the situation in Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse, the apex court said climate change is having a "visible and alarming impact" on the state. "We want to impress upon the state government and Union of India that earning revenue is not everything. Revenue cannot be earned at the cost of environment and ecology," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. "If things proceed the way they are as on date, the day is not far when the entire state of HP may vanish in thin air from the map of the country. God forbid this doesn't happen," it said. The top court made the observations on July 28 while dealing with a petition against an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which declined to entertain a plea challenging the state's June 2025 notification declaring certain areas as "green area". While refusing to interfere with the high court's order, the apex court said the obvious reason for issuing the notification was to curb construction activities in a particular area. "The situation in the state of Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse. The severe ecological imbalance and other environmental conditions have led to serious natural calamities over a period of years," the bench said. It noted the nature definitely is "annoyed" with the activities that are going on in Himachal Pradesh. "It is not right to blame only nature for the disaster in Himachal Pradesh. Humans, not nature, are responsible for phenomenon such as continuous land sliding of mountains and soil, landslides on roads, collapsing of houses and buildings, subsidence of road etc.," it said. The bench said according to experts and various reports, the major causes of destruction in the state are hydropower projects, four-lane roads, deforestation, multi-storey buildings, etc. It observed that Himachal Pradesh is nestled in the lap of Himalayan mountains and it is important to seek the opinion of geologists, environmental experts and locals before any development project is undertaken there. The bench said taking advantage of the state's natural beauty, the government started constructing four-lane roads to promote it as a tourist destination. "With forests encompassing more than 66 per cent of the total land area, Himachal Pradesh is renowned for its abundant beauty and greenery. But the danger to this natural richness is growing as a result of human greed and apathy," it said. The bench said unrelenting building, tunnel and road construction, frequently done without sufficient environmental planning, has increased the area's susceptibility to natural disasters and effects of climate change. Stating that Himachal Pradesh is often referred to as the "power state" of India due to its significant hydropower potential, the bench said, "While this form of energy is renewable and low-carbon, large-scale construction of dams, reservoirs, and tunnels comes with considerable environmental costs." It said the state has been witnessing rising average temperatures, shifting snowfall patterns and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. "These changes threaten not only the environment but also the livelihoods of local communities dependent on farming, horticulture, and eco-tourism deforestation and forest degradation are major concerns," it said. It also flagged forest fires, encroachments, overgrazing and expansion of agricultural and urban areas as contributing factors. The bench said pace of infrastructure development in the state has intensified in recent years, driven by the twin goals of connectivity and tourism. Projects like four-lane highways, ropeways, tunnels and urban expansions often bypass environmental safeguards, it said. The apex court also said that tourism is a major source of income in Himachal Pradesh but the uncontrolled growth of tourism has strained the state's environment. "If left unchecked, the pressure from tourism could severely undermine the ecological and social fabric of the state," it said. Referring to the peculiarities in the Himalayan region, the bench said there is a need for all the Himalayan states to collate resources and expertise so as to ensure that development plans are cognizant of these challenges. "All that we want to convey today is that it is high time the state of HP pays attention to what we have observed and starts taking necessary action at the earliest in the right direction," it said. The bench said the Centre also owes an obligation to see that ecological imbalance in the state does not get further disturbed and natural calamities do not occur. "Of course much damage has been caused but there is a saying that 'something is better than nothing'," the bench observed, as it directed the apex court registry to register a writ petition in public interest in this regard. "We expect the state to file an appropriate reply explaining whether they have any action plan to meet with the issues we have discussed and what do they propose to do in future," it said. The bench also said the registry shall notify the matter before it after obtaining appropriate order from the Chief Justice of India. It posted the matter for hearing on August 25.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Malegaon blast case rested on shifting sand: Court
MUMBAI: A day after a special Mumbai court acquitted all seven accused in the high-profile, 2008 Malegaon blast case, the 1,034-page judgment, made public on Friday, delivered a sweeping rebuke to both the agencies that had investigated the case. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted (HT Photo) 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the judgement noted. Referring to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that had probed the case, Special Judge AK Lahoti ruled that the case was built on 'suspicion, conjecture, and flawed assumptions', adding that 'suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof'. The acquittal of the seven accused came 17 years after a bomb exploded near a mosque at a crowded intersection in Malegaon, killing six people and injuring 95 others on September 29, 2008. It was alleged to be the result of a right-wing terror plot. Among the accused were former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Major (Retd) Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay. In its judgement, the special NIA court highlighted serious irregularities, contradictions and procedural misconduct by the ATS and NIA. The accused had been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. The court found the charges unsustainable due to unreliable witness testimony, inadmissible evidence and irreconcilable differences between the ATS and NIA investigations. At the centre of the case was the prosecution's claim that a right-wing extremist conspiracy, hatched by members of Abhinav Bharat in 2007-08, had led to the blast. The ATS alleged that Purohit had set up Abhinav Bharat to turn India into a 'Hindu Rashtra', procured RDX from Kashmir, and, along with others, planned the attack as 'revenge against Muslims'. They also claimed the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Thakur. The court found these theories legally untenable and procedurally compromised. A number of key witnesses either retracted their statements or contradicted themselves in court. Among them were Lt Col RK Shrivastava, who had implicated Purohit in inflammatory meetings; Major Ramesh Gadge, who described Abhinav Bharat's activities but later watered down his account; and Bhavesh Patel, Rajendra Shende and Rakesh Dhawde – all considered crucial to establishing the alleged conspiracy. Their reversal under oath proved fatal to the case. 'The NIA, despite having ample opportunity, did not take any steps against the hostile witnesses for giving false evidence before the court. This inaction raises serious questions on the commitment to secure justice,' the court said. It further noted that 'key witnesses pertaining to the conspiracy have not supported the prosecution,' leading the court to conclude that the case rested on 'shifting sand'. The contradictions between the ATS and NIA approaches drew special scrutiny. The ATS had charged the accused under MCOCA, citing continuity with previous blast cases. In contrast, the NIA's 2016 supplementary chargesheet discarded that link, sought discharge for several accused, and altogether withdrew MCOCA. The court held that this internal inconsistency corroded the credibility of the entire case: 'Two parallel investigations cannot proceed on divergent foundational premises. The contradiction between the ATS and NIA approaches creates serious doubt on the prosecution's reliability and coherence.' The court also dismantled the material and forensic evidence. Despite the gravity of the crime, the prosecution presented no fingerprints, DNA or dump-data linking the accused to the crime scene. Crucially, the court found 'nothing on record to show that Purohit had brought the RDX from Kashmir', as alleged by the ATS. Even the motorcycle alleged to belong to Thakur failed to connect her to the crime, with the court noting she had renounced material life two years prior and no longer had control over her possessions. Further procedural lapses were flagged in multiple instances. For accused Sameer Kulkarni, the court noted that his arrest-related paperwork was delayed and falsified: 'Signatures were taken on blank papers and documents were backdated. This is nothing short of manipulation of the criminal justice process'. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted. The court strongly criticised the prosecution for failing to obtain the required sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA from the competent Central government authority. 'No explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why the requisite sanction under Section 45 of UAPA was not obtained,' the court remarked, adding that the absence rendered the entire chargesheet 'void-ab-initio'. Additionally, the court ruled that the acts alleged did not meet the statutory definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.
