THE murder of Satyendra Dubey showed how insecure and vulnerable honest men in the system are. Dubey, an engineer with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), was killed on November 27, 2003

, one year after he wrote a letter to the then prime minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee exposing financial and contractual irregularities in the implementation of his pet Golden Quadrilateral project.
Seven years after the gruesome murder of the whistleblower, the special CBI court in Patna convicted three persons on Monday, but on the petty charge of robbery. If the court verdict is an indicator, the CBI did not find any conspiracy angle or hands of the contractors in his killing. As though in a formality of fulfillment of the promise made to the country by Mr Vajpayee–“those responsible for his death, wherever they may be, will not be spared”–the court convicted Mantu Kumar, Udai Kumar and Pinku Ravidas. But Mr Dhananjay Dubey, brother of Satyendra feels it is simply a cover-up by the CBI and the verdict had ‘really disappointed’ him as the real culprits are still on the loose.
Mr Dhananjay’s suspicions are not unfounded. The role of the CBI has always been under scanner. On February 2, 2004, the Bihar police registered an FIR against the CBI team probing the Satyendra Dubey murder case on the complaint of the father of one of the two persons, who allegedly committed suicide after interrogation by the agency, charging the CBI had poisoned them to death during questioning. Intriguingly, three days after this incident, the CBI had ruled out any change in the team probing the killing of Dubey. It is really incomprehensible why did the CBI not change the team members? Whom was it trying to save? Its role becomes more suspicious in the background that the CBI probe was ordered by Mr Vajpayee himself.
The manner in which the CBI conducted the probe reinforces the belief that it held the brief on behalf of someone. Else, how could it not probe into the leaking of Dubey’s letter written to Mr Vajpayee? Significantly, in his second letter to the PMO, Dubey had said his first letter was leaked exposing him to pressure and threats. In fact, two days after Mr Vajpayee ordered the CBI inquiry, the Minister of Road Transport and Highways blamed ‘lawlessness’ in Bihar for Dubey’s murder! It was a tactical move to send out a message to the CBI. Contrary to the misinformation spread, the Director General of Bihar police had observed: “Dubey’s murder highlighted how big development projects in the state have become playgrounds for criminals and mafia.”
The seriousness of leaking of the letter could be gauged from the simple fact that on December 10, 2003, the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission issued notices to the Bihar police and the National Highways Authority of India asking them to explain why Dubey’s identity was not protected. It is intriguing how the CBI could treat it as a simple case of robbery when the ground realities and evidence strewn around point to the involvement of big contractors and NHAI officials? There is little doubt that Dubey was killed by vested interests after he brought to light glaring irregularities in the execution of the Golden Quadrilateral Project. Nevertheless, the manner in which the CBI handled the Dubey case makes it abundantly clear that its primary task is to serve the interest of the politicians. The interest of the country is the secondary objective for it. It has failed the country and its people.