Are we so naïve that a Tehelka exposed actually opened our eyes? We had a very fair idea - to put it mildly - of what Tehelka threw right into our faces. The Supreme Court in Zahira Sheikh case took serious note of what has been time and again described as a 'pogrom' sponsored and supported by the state. The Tehelka expose has pushed the idea beyond doubt. Now, Indian democracy has to answer the bigger questions pertaining to law, governance, secularism and democracy. And this is not going to be easy, which is clear by the deafening political silence on the issue. Not a word from the Prime Minister, not a whimper from the de facto political apex of the ruling coalition.

The soul of Indian Constitution is Part III, which deals with the Fundamental Rights. Take it away and the rest has no meaning, no worth. Gujarat 2002 saw a thorough shredding of the Constitution. Fundamental Rights are primarily guaranteed against the state because despite being the enforcer, the state on account of its colossal might is capable of violating them unless there is an effective mechanism in place to check such violations. The state across the world is looked upon with suspicion in this respect. Gujarat riots demonstrated what monstrosity the state was capable of unleashing on its own people.

The wheels of injustice rolled when Hindu goons with police support and, in many cases, with active participation, killed, raped and looted the members of the minority community. The protectors egged the killers and rapists on. And then cooled down, but after 5 years it seems injustice has been perpetuated with most of the killers either acquitted or roaming free on bail. In many cases, the defence and the prosecutors worked towards a common goal - of getting the accused out.

Dilip Trivedi VHP's general secretary for the Gujarat unit and is also the senior pleader with a team of around a dozen public prosecutors under him. During the riot trials, Trivedi instead of opposing the bail applications, which was his job, helped the accused get bail. Talking to Tehelka (June 15, 2007) he boasted that the though the allegations against him were true, nothing could be proved "on paper".

In Sabarkantha, Tehelka met public prosecutor Bharat Bhatt. He is VHP's district president and these days he had turned into a deal-maker pushing for out-of-court settlements.
And then there is Gujarat's Advocate General Arvind Pandey, who is firmly on the side of the rioters. About Nanavati-Shah Commission, he told Tehelka (from the published transcript):

Nanavati is a clever man...He wants money... Of the two judges, KG Shah is intelligent... woh apne wala hai [he is our man]... he is sympathetic to us... Nanavati is after money...

He further says quite boastfully (from the published transcript):

The style of working is different... I am the one who has created this whole mood of the Commission... that is why all these lectures the Muslims give to their activists... It's written in many lectures, some have also been recorded by the IB [Intelligence Bureau] that if a Hindu or a Hindu leader gets involved then it is dangerous, but if Arvind Pandya gets involved it is 2,000 times dangerous...

So, the equation is that the members of minority community were maimed, raped, killed and burnt alive with state complicity and now the state is subverting the system to get the accused off the hook. The Constitutional guarantees have been thrown to the wind, and Modi's retention of power in 2002 has pitched democracy against secularism, to put it in constitutional terms.

Agreed, we are a secular democracy. Does it mean that we are secular only so long as the democratic opinion, which is majority opinion, remains in its favour? Would justice be understood in accordance with what the majority considers right? Can we really say that there has been no breakdown of constitutional machinery in Gujarat simply because there is a democratically elected government in place? If Modi comes back as the Chief Minister, which is very much possible, would it mean that the pogrom was democratic? In what proportion are we secular and democratic, and which one can be sacrificed for the sake of other? These are the questions we need to answer. And this time it is not about Indian democracy but about democracy itself and the challenges it could rise to or fail to meet. India may just be about to become a 'laboratory' of democracy.