'Tripura govt resorting to whataboutery on violence'

NEW DELHI: Advocate Prshant Bhushan, appearing for PIL petitioner Ehtesham Hashmi who is seeking an independent probe into the alleged communal violence in Tripura during the state civic body elections last year, slammed the northeastern state on Monday in the Supreme Court for resorting to ‘whataboutery’ in its affidavit by questioning bona fides of public spirited persons for allegedly keeping silence during the post-poll violence in West Bengal.
While seeking time for petitioner Hashmi, who has sought independent probe into the violence on the basis of a fact-finding report co-authored by him, to file rejoinder to Tripura’s affidavit adopting ‘call a spade a spade’ approach, Bhushan turned the heat on the BJP-ruled state for resorting to cheap arguments based on whataboutery.
At the fag end of the day, when a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari was hard pressed for time, Bhushan said, “The state’s reply is based only on whataboutery and questioning the bona fide of the petitioners just because they kept silent during the post-poll violence in West Bengal. This does not show the state government in a good light. Whataboutery is suited to C-grade newspapers and TV channels and cannot be resorted to by a state government.”
Whataboutery is a weapon that is conveniently used by most when the judicial heat is on them, as is evident from Bhushan’s response affidavit before the SC when it had sought his defence on the issue of quantum of punishment after convicting him in a contempt case in August 2020, for tweeting against the SC and then CJI.
In his August 24, 2020 affidavit, Bhushan too had appeared to have asked — “What about my past services to the institution?” Refusing to tender an apology, either conditional or unconditional, he had said he never flinched in offering an apology for his mistakes and wrongdoings. “It has been a privilege for me to have served this institution and brought several important public interest causes before it. I live with the realization that I have received much more from this institution than I have had the opportunity to give it,” he said.
Recording his unabashed regard for the SC, Bhushan had said, “I believe that the SC is the last bastion of hope for the protection of fundamental rights, the watchdog institutions and indeed for constitutional democracy itself. It has rightly been called the most powerful court in the democratic world, and often an exemplar for courts across the globe. My tweets represented this bonafide belief that I continue to hold. Public expression of these beliefs was, I believe, in line with my higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of this court.” The trigger for Bhushan’s outburst against the BJP government in Tripura was its two-day old affidavit, which said “the petition by Hashmi is a result of and is based upon such self-serving report ‘Humanity Under Attack in Tripura’, which is a unilateral, exaggerated and distorted version of incidents in Tripura and has no veracity in the eyes of the law. The situation in the state had always been under control of law enforcing machinery.”
The Tripura government had said, “It is very surprising to note that just a few months back, a series of pre-poll and post-poll violence took place in West Bengal which were definitely wider in geography and very severe in magnitude. The ‘so-called public spirit’ of the petitioners did not move a few months back in larger scale communal violence (in West Bengal) and suddenly their ‘public spirit’ got aroused due to some instances in a small state like Tripura.”