These columns have highlighted how Antulay was feeding into a very real and genuine apprehension amongst large sections of the population about the credibility of police investigations. But interventions like Antulay’s do not engage constructively with those apprehensions; they instead fan those apprehensions and nurture a political constituency based on a fearful distrust of the state, or the official version as it were. Certainly in his personal capacity, he would be as free as any other citizen of India to say what he wanted. The prime minister must liberate him from the Union cabinet to be able to do so.

Because as long as Antulay remains a minister, whatever comments he makes draw in his government too. Can the government afford it? Can it afford to be worried about doing the right thing — letting a minister whose views on a key matter it cannot support — for fear of losing a perceived vote bank? Perhaps the question needs to be reframed. Can the government afford a play to a perceived vote bank — only perceived because in fact any number of Muslim leaders have rebuffed Antulay’s overture — and in the process increase the cost of eventual action? It did just that with the anti-terror law, after all, taking the timid political course only to be compelled by circumstances to eventually give in. In the meanwhile, there is nothing stopping the government from assuring the country that the Malegaon probe will continue purposefully.