From the moment Parveen Azad alleged that her husband and Deputy Superintendent of Police Zia-ul-Haq had been killed at the behest of Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiyya, television channels indignantly demanded to know why the Uttar Pradesh politician was not being arrested then and there.
Not a day went by thereafter without that demand being reiterated. It appeared that the heavyweight leader and independent MlA needed to be arrested, not because the rule of law said so, but because the news channels were saying so. This is not to assume that Raja Bhaiyya is innocent in the brazen torture and killing of an upright police officer, nor is it to claim that he is definitely guilty. The reference is made in a bid to point to the power of the electronic media to coerce unwilling authorities to act. This power can be used, and has so often been used, for a good purpose. But, have the television news channels done the right thing in launching the ongoing campaign against Raja Bhaiyya purely on a statement by the aggrieved wife of the slain officerIJ
It must be admitted at the outset that the MlA from Kunda in Pratapgarh district of Uttar Pradesh does have an unsavoury reputation, and therefore, he becomes the prime suspect in almost every sort of lawless activity that takes place in his constituency and in the district. He has been in recent times accused of various kinds of crimes including abduction and murder. He holds the dubious distinction of being jailed under the draconian and now no longer existent Prevention of Terrorism Act. Nobody believes he is a saint, and certainly none doubts that he has a tendency to flex muscles and intimidate opponents and ‘erring' Government servants who don’t do his bidding. ‘Don’ for the English media and ‘bahubali’ for the Hindi Press, Raja Bhaiyya is respected and admired (for helping the distressed), and feared and loathed (for terrorising his opponents). But he has not tried to refurbish this mixed image, because it seems to have until now done his political career no real harm. It has landed him in trouble though, on many occasions.
Still, we cannot let this image dictate our judgement either way in the case at hand. It would be best to approach the issue from the perspective of the emotionally shattered Parveen Azad and of the accused Raja Bhaiyya. We will begin with her. Soon after the killing of her husband, Parveen Azad accused the Kunda legislator of masterminding the murder. She said her husband had been under pressure to go soft on certain people who were possibly involved in earlier crimes, and in the killing of a village pradhan, because those people were close to Raja Bhaiyya. She also alleged that the MlA did not like her husband because the latter had refused to do haaziri — pay obeisance to the strongman. She added that her husband had been killed as part of a larger conspiracy and not by a stray bullet when he had gone to the village to investigate the murder of the Pradhan.
There cannot be smoke without at least some fire. There is no reason why Parveen would lie. She has no motive to do so. Yet, it is just as equally possible that she is not entirely correct in her allegation. For instance, it may be true that Raja Bhaiyya and her husband shared an uneasy relationship because the latter had refused to give the MlA the importance that the ‘don' is used to. It may also be a possibility that the police officer must have received adequate hints that Raja Bhaiyya wanted him to go soft on the probes against certain people. And, it is absolutely possible that the MlA must have wanted the police officer out of the scene. Yet, does that mean he plotted the killingIJ It is not appropriate to answer in the affirmative on the basis of the material at hand.
Now, let us look at the issue from Raja Bhaiyya's perspective. He does not deny (although he does not confirm either) that he had issues with the police officer. He remarks, though rather haughtily and much in keeping with his imperious image, that, if he had wanted to get rid of the officer, he could have got him transferred. Why (he wondered) would he get into the messy affair of having someone killedIJ He also says that there is not even prima facie material to suggest that the mob which killed Zia-ul-Haq had been acting at his behest. He acknowledges, though, that some of the people involved in recent cases that the officer was probing, are known to him.
Raja Bhaiyya's defence, to an extent at least, makes sense. The police officer had not caused any grievous personal harm to the dabang MlA that the latter should have ordered his elimination. From all accounts, Zia-ul-Haq had proved to be a nuisance to him, and that nuisance could have been effectively tackled by simply getting him posted elsewhere. After all, don't politicians all the time threaten Government servants who refuse to be pliant, with pack-up ordersIJ
People who have followed Raja Bhaiyya closely are evenly divided on the issue. Some believe that he can go to any extent in his anger, while others say he is more mellowed and certainly not prone to ordering executions at the drop of a hat. Meanwhile, as the Central Bureau of Investigation begins its probe into the police officer's murder, politics is being played out. The Bahujan Samaj Party has lashed out at Raja Bhaiyya and the ruling Samajwadi Party which is backing the accused. BSP supremo Mayawati wants people to remember that she had put Raja Bhaiyya behind bars under Pota when she was the Chief Minister. What she says is true, but she cracked down on the Kunda MlA not because she wanted to rein in criminals; she wanted to teach him a lesson because he had reportedly tried to wean away BSP legislators when the coalition between her party and the BJP collapsed a little over 10 years ago. It must be remembered that the Kunda MlA has been close over the years to every political party that matters in the State.
Meanwhile, in Uttar Pradesh, Raja Bhaiyya is both Robin Hood and gangster. You can take your pick, depending on your inclination and the side of the fence you are on.