 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we're joined by Brindagara, a political member of the CPIM. And she's one of the latest in the long list of important people who have been named in various ways in connection with the Delhi riots in February. Now as you know, the Delhi riots led to the deaths of at least 53 people, hundreds were injured. However, the investigation of the police has taken a very strange turn to say the least. And we are here to talk more about this. Thank you so much for joining us. First of all, I wanted to ask when your name was mentioned, when the reports came from the name being mentioned in the business statement. Your first response was that this was not a charge sheet but a cheat sheet. And that really seemed to convey the spirit of the issue. So could you just tell us a bit more about why you called this a cheat sheet? Well, it's not only because my name was included in it. But I felt the entire investigation reflected in the various charge sheets specifically, the charge sheet which is under UAPA. It is nothing but a cheat sheet. And why do I say cheat sheet? Because who are you cheating? You're cheating the people of India. Such a serious series of incidents of a communal nature took place in which 53 people lost their lives. Over 585 according to the police reports were injured, some of them with very serious injuries. So much property, homes damaged and the social fabric itself was so seriously damaged. In such a situation, one would have assumed that if there was a government which is an impartial government, it would be committed to finding out the truth. So as to ensure that A, those who are responsible will be punished and B, that you learn lessons from it for the future to ensure something like this doesn't occur. And in most such cases, there have been independent investigations. But here you have an investigation directly under the Home Ministry only aim being to cheat the people of India by concealing those who are actually responsible. So therefore, I do not consider most of the charge sheets as charge sheets, but cheat sheets with the aim of concealing the truth, not revealing the truth. Absolutely. And just to take one step back and maybe look at the larger investigation itself, we've seen it happening over many months. So what do you see as the key patterns of this investigation or the key, say, signs of what exactly the Delhi police is doing in terms of the investigation itself? The country's Home Minister, Mr. Amit Shah, gave a statement in Parliament, I think it was on March the 12th or March the 14th, in which he set out this whole narrative, this chronology. You know, Mr. Amit Shah is quite well versed in setting out chronologies. And even before any investigation, he set out a chronology which tried to link the anti-CEA protests with the communal violence. And that was the framework which was set by the Home Minister and the entire investigation which followed was to tailor everything to fit the chronology set out in Parliament by Mr. Amit Shah. And therefore what did they do? The first thing they did was to link the anti-CEA protests in spite of the distance of time and space and geographical locations. By the slate of a hand, suddenly Jamia agitation in December was linked to the February 23rd incidents. There's no link between the two at all. Secondly, any kind of solidarity actions with the anti-CEA protests was considered to be anti-national. Thirdly, it was all seen as some kind of a conspiracy between a set of ideological platforms which are in fact and in reality totally opposed to each other. I mean, for example, urban axels, jihadis, fundamentalists, anti-imperialist forces, everything is all linked up together in a grand conspiracy and now the basic charge is that you wanted to overthrow an elected government. I mean, I just, it is so absurd and it's really so laughable except for the fact that they have got 20 people under the most draconian law in jail today and they've got a list and a target of a whole lot of more people who they want to put in jail, apart from threatening everybody else and basically demonizing the anti-CEA protests so that once the lockdown restrictions or the unlockdown restrictions are over, nobody will dare to raise their voice against the CNRC and NPR. So basically that's it and obviously the, as I said, it's, you know, by doing this you are concealing your own culpability, the fact that you ran the most toxic communal campaign. So, you know, none of those leaders form part of Mr. Amit Shah's chronology. Absolutely. And in this context, the conspiracy angle is also something we would like to look at because the strategy seems to be that drag as many people as you can and create an aura of, like you said, a conspiracy, an aura of suspicion around them. And it doesn't matter how absurd the connections are. So someone is somewhere, someone talked to somebody, becomes a legitimate reason to put away a suspicion over them. So are we also seeing some kind of a larger trend being built up also, which has very dangerous implications for in the coming years as well? It is very dangerous implications. For example, now the Kisan's are on a big movement. Now the Kisan's are doing chakka jam in many places. There are many support groups in favor of the Kisan's. Now just suppose there is some violent incident somewhere. Now all that, if you go by what they're trying to do with the anti-CA protests, tomorrow all that can be a legitimate method of the government to intervene and to say that this is part of a wider conspiracy, the elected government. So if the Bhartya Janta Party has a pro-temple movement in which it forms all these groups and has a national campaign for that, then of course it is not at all anti-national. But if a single group is formed, a solidarity group to support a movement, to collect money for that movement, that's considered anti-national. And if you do have proof that any money has come from dubious sources, which I'm not saying that in any movement, you know, they are not fundamentalist forces or Islamists who would like to utilize a movement for their own benefit. So pinpoint that, give the proof and evidence for that and take action. But how can you damn an entire movement and all the solidarity for that movement? So what you're basically saying is every section of society fights for itself and you have no right to organize solidarity. So today in India, under the Modi government, the entire charge sheet or cheats is nothing but sending a message, no more solidarity will be tolerated. Now this is very serious implications for any democratic movement because it's a straight assault on the right to expression and the right to support each other. We do support each other. But they're saying if you dare to support each other, I mean, this is what a classic method is, not only dividing people in the name of religion, but where secular forces are uniting on a particular issue. You know, it's demonized and now being criminalized, in fact. And in this context, could you talk a bit also about how the legal system is handling it because you're one of the earliest people to approach the courts even before the violence, of course, and all these months you've been continuously taking up these issues in quotes but nothing much has happened. Well, you're absolutely right Prashant because my first FIR request for an FIR to be filed was to the police commissioner of Delhi. And when the police commissioner didn't even have the time or the interest to respond to that. In any of the Thanas in Delhi, I had to go to the magistrates court. And it was a good hearing and the entire arguments were heard. And then, since some people had gone to the High Court, the magistrate said the case, and what was the case, the case was a case of hate speech against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma. So that slogan became the war cry, Goli Maru Saluko, became the war cry of the Hindutva mobs which were on the streets of northeast Delhi. But after the High Court sent the case back, surprisingly, the magistrate said that, well, you know, unless you get permission because 153A you require permission. Unless you get permission, we can't follow up the case. So then we said, but why did you hear all the arguments then? You heard the entire arguments. The Delhi police never once said that you can't do it without getting permission. Never once because FIRs can be filed. It's only at the charge sheet stage under 153A that you have to get permission, not for an FIR. That's why Delhi police didn't. So that was one unfortunate experience that we did have. Now, obviously, we're, you know, taking the legal aspect forward. The other aspect is that there have been a large number of petitions which have been filed before the High Court, but they haven't really gone anywhere. And the response given by the Delhi police, according to, you know, any sensible reading of it, is just so atrocious. Because, again, it's just a cut and paste job of the narration they are giving and saying that everything was an anti-national conspiracy and therefore, and even the role of the police, you'll be shocked to hear that in the Delhi police didn't respond to my petition and other petitions which were filed, similar ones. They said we have found nothing to indicate that the police played a partial role. And we have nothing to indicate that the people mentioned in our petition including Kapil Mishra have done anything to cause communal tension or disturb communal harmony or to cause communal violence. Now, I don't think any court can accept that kind of thing. So we're waiting for the courts. We can't say because we don't know what the courts are going to do since everything is so delayed. And the earlier instance in which Justice Murli Dharan had called out the Delhi police and, you know, heard the tapes in open court and asked the Delhi police to file FIRs against hate speeches made by BGP leaders within 24 hours and then he was transferred. Now, those cases which he had said that FIR should be filed, they're still pending before the court. So I think that does not add to the credibility of the judicial system. It does not add to it. On the other hand, we have the Allahabad High Court, which gave a very important judgment in the case of Dr. Kapil Khan, where, again, the judgment gives all the details of the speech he made and putting it out of the public domain. Justice Justice Murli Dharan played it out in court. The Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court gave the entire speech verbatim in the judgment and said, there is nothing here which is seditious. So I would say that it depends really on a case by case. And also it depends on whether the courts are able to see it in a wider context and put it in that wider context. Otherwise the processes of justice are being really, I would say diluted. And some would say that today all institutions are being subverted, including parliament. I mean, what happened in parliament in the last Rajasabha session? It was unprecedented. So this is a trend, which is something we have to be aware of. We have to identify and we have to unitedly fight against. And I think that is what is happening in Delhi, in India today. So that's good. There is a big resistance growing. Exactly. Actually, that was my last question as well, because one of the key aspects of this whole probe has been how young people have been targeted. And there's been a very consistent young activists, students who are in the forefront of these movements who were trying to figure out their place in democracy, who were trying to express themselves, who were being looked up also in many cases, of course. And there's been a very concerted attempt to suppress these young voices and make them say, like you said, part of a larger conspiracy. So also, how do you see resistance itself in this point of time, when even the act of expression of solidarity itself is being demonized, is being made into a conspiracy as itself. Even in the university campuses, on so many important issues, before the communal incidents and violence in Delhi, we had already seen a series of attacks on students, on the rights of students, the rights of student unions. And on many of the issues the students were raising pertaining to education, educational policy, the issue of democracy within campuses, and we had already seen how the Bhartya Janta Party government under Mr. Modi and Mr. Amit Shah were trying to place people whose only merit in important positions in campuses, whose only merit was that they subscribed to the ideology to which the present ruling regime belongs. And that was the only degree that they required. Now that already had a very bad impact on democracy in the campuses, and we saw how student agitations were being suppressed. And that has now sort of become full blown, I would say, and therefore already the attack on campuses, the attack on academic standards, the changing of syllabuses, the push to the right of the entire discussion, academic discussion, and to replace debate and discussion with dictates and dictates. That was already happening in the campuses. And this now has been extended to questioning and suppressing the linkage between student support to the anti-CA movement and to the defense of India's secular principles, constitutional secular principles, which are totally opposed to any change of citizenship definitions, as the CA does. So I think it's not something which is happening right now. Of course, it is being taken much further with the use of UAPA. But it's and the danger here is that a secular movement is sort to be linked with a communal agenda. That I think is what is new. That is what is really disturbing, because the Bhartya Janta Party fears a secular response to its Hindutva agenda. Very comfortable Prashant, when Islamists and Islamic fundamentalists and they have a match with each other, that suits both of them. It suits both of them. What it doesn't suit them is when large sections of society, Hindu and Muslim come together on a secular platform to challenge their communal understanding and challenge polarization. That is something which they are terrified of. And that is what this movement was all about. I mean, I want to say, we do disagree with many of the slogans which were given by different sections or some of the tactics they used etc. Yeah, you can disagree with it, but the fact of the matter is it was totally peaceful. It was totally peaceful. It was totally secular. And they were also very jealous of protecting, they I mean those who are running the anti-CA platforms, of protecting that secular character. And that's why this chart sheet is so very odd because it says, oh, they had the Constitution in their hands, they had the national flag in their hands, and that is they were concealing their real thing. So either you have the Pakistan flag in your hands, which is what they would love, but when you're so clearly opposed to that, and you have your entire movement based on constitutional principles, they are terrorized by that. They said, oh my God, this is what's going to affect our base. And that's the chart sheet also has that as its aim. So young people who came out on those platforms, they want them to pay the price for it. And it is shameful. It is shocking. And I think all political parties of the opposition need to come out very, very strongly against this targeting, because it's actually not targeting of this or that individual, but targeting the fundamentals of secularism and the right to dissent and to protest. Thank you so much for talking to us. Thank you. Thank you. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching.