Recently I stumbled upon a post by Aakar Patel on X (formerly Twitter) where he declared that “locking up a man indefinitely without conviction is not democracy it’s tyranny.” It brought back memories of some of his earlier views that may have receded from the public consciousness. When considered collectively, it paints an unflattering portrait of the individual associated with Amnesty International India since 2015.
In June this year, Amnesty India posted, “Umar Khalid has been in jail without a trial for 1000 days. He was arrested under India’s draconian anti-terror law simply for peacefully expressing his opinions.” In August, Patel wrote on Rediff, The Bizarre Case Of Umar Khalid, which began with an incorrect detail stating that Khalid was arrested in September 2019 for making provocative statements during Donald Trump’s visit to India. However, Khalid was arrested in September 2020 in connection to the Delhi riots conspiracy case, not for peaceful expression of views. He wrote that Khalid is incarcerated because the Narendra Modi government continues to oppose his bail and even cited Jan Sangh’s opposition to the First Amendment as if to implore the government to remember its roots and not oppose the bail. Fortunately, he refrained from launching a tirade against the judiciary, as he had done in January 2021, labelling it the SC of Hindu Rashtra, Eunuch, and Har*mzada.
Let me quickly point out a few things. Firstly, the bail was denied because the Delhi High Court found a prima facie case against Khalid. Secondly, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail by the Delhi High Court, and upheld by the Supreme Court, in the Delhi riots case. It is difficult to believe that the judiciary harbours a special dislike for Khalid. Lastly, the judiciary is not perfect, but its imperfections affect everyone. Some people just outrage selectively. In June 2021, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Chandrachud, Reddy and Bhat rejected the bail application of a man arrested a decade ago for alleged involvement in the Maoist movement. I doubt that Amnesty India, Patel, or those who are quoted in his article, wrote about that man.
I am not in favour of draconian laws or indefinite denial of bail. However, this is not about my beliefs. This is not about Umar Khalid’s case. This is not about Amnesty’s funding sources either (from foundations that allegedly have a regime change agenda). This is about the troubling views of the person that Amnesty India hired.
One reason for hiring him could have been that Aakar Patel was considered an expert on Narendra Modi and his politics. It’s a different story that he rarely gets it right when it comes to Modi. In an article dated 27 January 2013, Aakar listed five reasons why Modi won’t be the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate. He very confidently asserted that Modi wouldn’t accept it even if asked. Before that, in May 2012, he predicted “the decline of the BJP and the fragmentation of its state units into regional parties based on caste” and “In Gujarat, the party will collapse after the autocrat exits.”
Not to rub it in, but in an article published in SouthAsia magazine in September 2012, I wrote that Modi would be the BJP’s PM candidate. In July 2014, I posted that Modi-Shah would ensure that in 2019, the Congress party’s performance is as bad as 2014, if not worse. Anyway, I will not hold it against Patel for getting it wrong, as it is common for those who dislike Modi to pass off wishful thinking as analysis.
Not-So-Attractive Views
Aakar Patel’s claim to infamy was his assertion that ‘Gujarati women find Narendra Modi very attractive sexually’ – an offensive generalisation that demeaned the intelligence and political understanding of Gujarati women. He repeatedly asserted this without facing any criticism from the feminists, who, in contrast, have been unforgiving of Modi for the use of terms like ma, behen or beti for women.
In his first job as a journalist, Aakar described his boss as: “…she was a demanding, rude and foul-mouthed creature whom I liked immediately.” He called her a tyrannical figure and admitted that once he became an editor, he often acted as a tyrant and enjoyed it.
In a September 2019 article in The National Herald, Aakar appreciated the Supreme Court judgement on dance bars. However, he found it strange that the apex court banned throwing currency notes on the dance performers.
Aakar Patel votes for Mayawati’s party. Why? In 1996, he read a report of her rally: “…rain, a large crowd, wet, and the bamboo barricades it was straining. Mayawati mounted the stage and said: “Chamari hoon, kunwari hoon, tumhari hoon” (I’m low-caste, single, yours). What a terrific line. I was seduced immediately.” I might have ignored the language if not for his habit of making inappropriate remarks.
In Praise of Zia (ul Haq)
In August 2012, Aakar Patel wrote an article, In Praise of Zia, and offered a sympathetic view of Pakistan’s military dictator.
“Zia reminds me of Aurangzeb. Zia had his rival Bhutto executed judicially… exactly like Aurangzeb did away with Murad Baksh. The big similarity is of course the laws they introduced. Jaziya, the penalty for being born Hindu, went after Aurangzeb died… The laws of Zia will remain longer. Fundamentalists have their softer side. Aurangzeb liked quality chinaware…Zia was fond of Bollywood movies and Hindi music…”
Aakar dismissed the Pakistani columnists who blamed Zia for Islamisation and religious intolerance. He argued that the Hudood laws – despite the fallout such as the shooting of Salmaan Taseer – were popular and hence retained even after Zia.
“The Quaid-e-Azam and Ziaul Haq… knew what Muslims wanted and gave it to them.”
I wonder if he would be this understanding towards any Indian leaders who try to deliver what the Indian majority wants.
Blatantly Biased and Unprincipled
Aakar Patel’s May 2012 article, Why the Congress represents Indian values best, is a good read to understand how brazenly biased he is. Some excerpts:
“We are a Congress-minded nation… Indian values are best, and I would even say, only represented by the Congress. These values are religious accommodation, comfort with racial and linguistic diversity, acceptance of caste in politics, comfort in dynasty and a preference for compromise over principle. This flexibility has kept India democratic, and it is a Congress trait.” (emphasis added)
“The party’s (BJP) three ideological thrusts are all negative: Muslims shouldn’t keep their family law, Muslims shouldn’t keep Ram Janmabhoomi, Muslims shouldn’t keep separate status through Article 370 in Kashmir.” “The CPM is an ideological party. The BJP is a party of resentful Hindus.”
He wrote, and I am not kidding, that Nitin Gadkari would have had difficulty in becoming even district president in the Congress, and then he added that the Congress under the Gandhis, and later the Vadra-Gandhis, will remain our one great national party.
He also ridiculed “the Hindu middle-class fantasy that India will become a world power tomorrow, though most of us are illiterate and hungry and will remain so in our generation, and the next and the next.”
In his July 2012 article titled Congress can break Modi’s Gujarat with cash, not caste, Aakar Patel delivered another shocker. He advised the Congress party to use money power to beat Modi in the state assembly election. He wrote that “Congress should provide the ammunition for these spent guns (BJP rebels like Keshubhai and Zadafia). And by that is meant cash.”
Unlike others, who act as if the 2002 riots were the first in the history of India, Aakar Patel does not hide the blood on the Congress hand. He acknowledges the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom. He writes about the Congress-era riots in Gujarat – “historically, the Congress has never been above using a little slaughter to appease Hindus, like in Ahmedabad in 1969.” He also accepts that the 1969 riots were as bad as the 2002 riots.
Yet, he supports the Congress against the BJP because according to Aakar Patel, in the pre-BJP era, “We used to do riots in more civilised fashion in Gujarat.” Maybe Amnesty International could explain what exactly is a civilised fashion of rioting.
Aakar Patel gets invited to the West to speak on topics like human rights, majoritarianism, and democracy, where he demonises India. He has the backing of Amnesty India. With the 2024 general elections approaching, it is natural to be concerned about what opportunistic and unprincipled measures Aakar Patel might be willing to suggest, or employ, to help the Congress party make gains against the Narendra Modi-led BJP.
Amnesty Values?
Aakar Patel is willing to compromise democracy to achieve favourable outcomes – whether through a kangaroo court against a democratically elected leader or by advocating unethical means to defeat the BJP. He does not shy away from tarnishing the judiciary if its decisions do not align with his biases. He is indifferent to communal riots and their casualties, including among Muslims. He seems to adore tyrants of a particular shade and even enjoys being a tyrant himself (though he claims to have changed). His primary grievance that has been driving him for two decades is that Narendra Modi did not lose electorally after the 2002 riots. One can only wonder if Amnesty International was unaware of his views at the time of appointing him, or hired him precisely because of them.
Aakar Patel once wrote about the BJP that ideology is something you stand for, not against. Ironically, Aakar Patel stands for nothing; he only stands against Narendra Modi and the BJP.
