The Amit Shah tapes: Why BJP's 'worried father' defense is lame

Accused of using state police to keep track of a woman architect, the BJP has chosen to hide behind the statement of her father who says that he personally asked Modi to keep a watch on her. Unfortunately for the party, they couldn’t have picked a worse defence. The woman’s father, Pranlal Soni, said in a statement that his daughter, who was based in Bangalore, had come to Ahmedabad when her mother was to undergo a surgery. She was forced to commute at odd hours between the hospital and a nearby hotel, which was a matter of concern to him. He had, therefore, verbally requested Modi, “with whom we have long-standing family relations” to “take care” of her. He expressed his shock that some “vested interests” were twisting facts in the media in this regard. This weak explanation does little to let the BJP off the hook, and may lead the party and its anointed leader into greater trouble. Until now, there has been little direct evidence on the involvement of Modi apart from the person alleged to be former Minister of state Amit Shah’s references to a ‘Saheb’ on the audio tapes. (Cobrapost and Gulail also claim that Modi met ‘Madhuri’ – an architect from Bangalore – in 2005 during a public function of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation.) [caption id=“attachment_1233353” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Just following orders? Amit Shah has chosen not to respond to the allegations. AFP[/caption] In the tapes, this person constantly refers to the watchful eye of the ‘Saheb’ who seems to be step ahead of even the police in knowing what ‘Madhuri’ is doing. He also seems to be constantly checking as to why the police isn’t doing its job as completely as it should be. The father’s statement, however, directly ties Modi to the illegal surveillance since the claim is that this ‘protection’ was offered in response to a direct request to the Gujarat CM. The Times of India reports that the person purported to Amit Shah in the tapes was particularly interested in knowing who ‘Madhuri’ was meeting, dating or planning to get engaged to. One of the men is reportedly IAS official Pradeep Sharma who was in 2005 the Municipal Commissioner of Bhavnagar and is reportedly against the Modi regime. He had even alleged in 2011 that he was being targeted because he knew of the architect’s links with a prominent person in the government, the report said. Cobrapost and Gulail have hinted that Sharma’s arrest could be linked to his meetings with ‘Madhuri’ given the person purported to be Amit Shah tells Singhal that one of the men meeting the architect should be thrown into jail. Sharma was arrested in 2010 in connection with irregularities in the allocation of for a wholesale market in Bhuj after it was destroyed in the 2001 earthquake. He was subsequently released on bail by the Supreme Court. According to a petition filed in the Supreme Court on his behalf by the Human Rights Law Network, Sharma had claimed that he was being victimised because of his brother’s role in getting Amit Shah arrested in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake shootout case. Sharma’s brother, Kuldeep Sharma, was Additional Director General of Police. Whether the reference on the tapes is to Sharma or someone else, if the audio recordings are authentic, the state has no right to arrest anyone because of a personal relationship – more so as part of ’taking care of’ a friend’s daughter. What the father’s defence exposes instead the propensity of powerful politicians to use state machinery – in this case, no less that the Anti-Terrorism Squad of the Gujarat Police – as personal property, . The very claim that any father would ask a CM to keep his daughter under constant and intrusive surveillance – which included tapping her phone and those of her family – is outright bizarre. The use of state machinery to ’take care’ of a private individual isn’t unusual in a country where political connections are often used to garner favour but in this case it makes very little sense. The architect seemed to have had no problems flying to Bhavnagar alone, going to malls, travelling alone or meeting people and seemed to be pretty secure. And yet her father felt she needed to secretly tailed and tapped for her own protection? Why not just ask for a security detail? It would be still a misuse of taxpayer money but at least constitute a logical request from a worried father? And even if the father did ask Modi to keep such a close watch over his daughter – clearly without her knowledge – it is still a violation of her right to privacy as an Indian citizen. No parent has the authority to cede the basic civil liberties of their child, more so an adult one. The Gujarat government, particularly its home department which is directly under Modi’s control, has long been under a cloud for suspected violations of human and civil rights. This time around, however, BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate cannot blame the CBI or talk up the threat of terrorism. Nor can he pretend that a full-on, round-the-clock surveillance by the state’s anti-terrorism squad of a private citizen is just a ghar ka mamala.