Session 7 - Approver's Testimony

I found the piece by Shahid Amin to be interesting in how it finds a confession made by an untouchable who was part of a riot to become an extraordinary influence on the final decision by the judge. The first quote Amin picks from Shikari's testimony really struck me. It is without any hesitation or remorse that he seems to be selling out his partners in crime. His confession is very formal and robotic. It is almost as if he is being forced to say those exact words which is precisely what leads any reasonable person to question the autonomy of the confession. 

I feel like some of the points Amin makes with regards to the structure of courts, the contextualization of an approver's testimony within Judicial discourse and the qualification of an AT are worth mentioning. 

His main argument throughout the most part of the article is pulling evidence together to prove that the testimony is in fact not autonomous and actually constructed. Shahid Amin makes this point at various instances. The question in my mind about this was how is it so easy to put words in another person's mouth but Amin does a great job of explaining.

The first aspect to understand was the use of "I" and "we" being necessary in the testimony so the approver can implicate himself and his accomplices. Secondly the repeated question with more detail each time led to an elaborate series of events that were exaggerated. Considering that memory derives from the last time you remember the even rather than the event itself, it becomes difficult to be sure of the authenticity of the narration. Also, these confessions manage to make small and scattered events into what Amin refers to as 'risky moments' which are a defining moment for the narrative. Keeping all of these within sight the testimony becomes very difficult to deny. Yet, the structure of the courts from the committing magistrate to the sessions and the high court where the final sentence or acquittal is decided is crucial in transforming the testimony through the layers of the legal system. Each time, it seems to get finer and more acceptable. Amin refers to this as the directedness given to the story by the testimony. Regardless of this Amin points to an effort made to contextualize the AT within the Judicial Discourse by qualifying any unauthentic or partially false statements made by the approver. For example in Shikari's case when he is naming those as accomplices who he knows to be enemies, a question can be raised regarding a personal vendetta. But, the judge will qualify this by stating that the police may accuse him of protecting these men if he doesn't name them. 

All of this points to the very idea that the article begins with. Trials of most or all peasant riots rely heavily on the approvers testimony which is why the police had narrowed down three potential approvers and picked the best testimony out three. This is the major source of material for the judgement and yet it is not autonomous. Evidence for the construction of this narrative isn't found because the police and the prosecution can transform it very early in the investigation. He rightly points out that it is not important to understand what really happened but to understand how it was portrayed by the prosecution through the approver's testimony.