Press Release

We argue in the present SLP, how, the order of the Gujarat HC records that the Magistrate has considered the Closure Report of the SIT and found no substance in the complaint of the Petitioner dated 8.6.20106. Thereafter the Court erroneously goes on to say that the Magistrate provided detailed grounds for not accepting the Protest Petition of Ms Jafri. This, in our submission, is factually incorrect.

It is our case that the Magistrate wrongly held that it was beyond the scope of his powers to direct further investigation. Besides, key and vital issues placed before the Magistrate, detailing our case and making out a sound and substantiated case of criminal conspiracy and abetment, we argue,  have been not duly considered by the Magistrate or the High Court.

The SIT filed a Closure Report in 2012, without giving an audience to Ms Jafri as is her legal right. Thereafter she had to petition the SC again in a fresh SLP (Nos 8989/2012) to acquire the full and complete Investigation records, reports and documents. These we obtained by order of the Supreme Court on 7.2.2013 after which we were given two months to file the protest petition.

It is only after that order of the SC in February 2013,  that the CJP legal team analysed close to 23,000 pages of documents that became the basis of the detailed construct and narrative of the Protest Petition. It is through this Protest Petition that the Petitioner has drawn out the lacunae in SIT’ s Investigation and constructed a more comprehensive and prima facie case for large conspiracy, abetment, dereliction of duty by First responders and Hate Speech, which in the Petitioner’s opinion, is squarely made from the documents on record.

In the present case before the SC we argue that it will be abundantly clear from a close perusal of the Protest Petition that the Ms Jafri has substantiated further acts of a larger Conspiracy by detailing evidence about the Prelude and Build Up of a volatile atmosphere prior to 27.2.2002, the post mortems being conducted in the wide open in violation of statutory provisions, no Preventive Arrests and Delayed Implementation of Curfew in Ahmedabad Despite Widespread Violence from 27.2.2002 Onwards among other issues.

Besides, we argue that, an analysis of Police Control Room (PCR Records) Shows Dereliction of Duty by First Responders. The conspiracy, as constructed in the Protest Petition also provides proof of the also Reporting and Misleading Constitutional and Statutory Authorities and the  Destruction of Records Relating to Minutes of Meetings, Police Logbooks, Wireless Messages  by those at the helm of power in 2002.

The Gujarat High Court notes in its Order dated 5.10.2017 that,
 

Undoubtedly, the Complaint given in writing to the DGP of the State of Gujarat by Ms Zakia Jafri on 08.6.2006 was for the period between February 27, 2002 to May 2002 where it is alleged that the larger conspiracy of officers and bureaucrats (63 in numbers) for committing the offence under section 302 read with 120(b) of te IPC has resulted into the loss of thousands of lives. Such acts, according to the said complaint, allegedly indicate larger conspiracy for the entire State which has not been restricted to particular case or incident of riot.”

 
However, despite recognizing that the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 and the Protest Petition dated 15.4.2013 dealt with events between February 27 and May 2002, we argue that she however leaves us remedy-less on the vital aspect of no adequate Investigation into the larger conspiracy and disregarding of the same by the Magistrate.

It is on these issues as also on the conscious and erroneous clubbing of the Zakia Jafri complaint with the single incident at Gulberg society (that took place on 28.2.2002 and according to us is just one of 300 incidents and one link In the wider conspiracy) that the lower courts have erred and we seek correction and remedy.

CJP Trustees
 

Related Legal Resources:

Zakia Jafri Protest Petition

Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Part 1
Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Part 2

SIT Preliminary Report

SIT Preliminary Report May 12 2010 (in SLP 1088/2008, Zakia Jafri & CJP versus State of Gujarat)

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Interim and Final Reports

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Interim Report
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Final Report

SIT Closure Report dated 8.2.2012

Volume 1

SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 1 to 100
SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 101 to 200
SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 201-270

Volume 2

SIT Volume 2 Page 271-370
SIT Volume 2 Page 371-458
SIT Volume 2 Page 459-541
The following India Today piece was on the basis of EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION by our team (CJP) for the Zakia Jafri Protest Petition. The probe uncovered the messages from the police control room and the state intelligence bureau reports showing that the cops had received various inputs about crowds being mobilised and warnings of the possibility of major riots breaking out.
Probe reveals Gujarat Riots were not spontaneous and sudden

Related Videos:

Adv Mihir Desai explains Genesis of the Zakia Jafri Case
Advocate Mihir Desai explains how the SC dealt with the Zakia Jafri Case
Adv Mihir Desai talks about the Evidence Unearthed in the Zakia Jafri Case
Adv Mihir Desai explains the Legal Technicalities in the Zakia Jafri Case

Related Reports (NHRC, CEC, Editors’ Guild 2002)

NHRC Reports (March – July 2002)

NHRC Report July 2002
NHRC INterim Report April 1- 2002

CEC Report (August 2002)

CEC Report on Gujarat Violence
Election Commission August 16 2002 Order Postpones Elections

Editor’s Guild Report 2002

Excerpts from Editors Guild Report 2002
Judgement Primer on ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHAIKH V/S STATE OF GUJARAT 2004
The 2004 Best Bakery Judgement and its Significance
 

The post Zakia Jafri Case back in the Spotlight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

अब्बा, एक वक्त मैं अपना बहुत कुछ गंवाने के बाद पूरी तरह परेशान हो गई थी जब मैं लगातार खुद से पूछ रही थी कि मेरे ही पिता क्यों…! उन्हें ही क्यों…! लेकिन यह आपके बताए रास्ते का हासिल है कि वाकयों को उसके बड़े दायरे में देखो और अपनी जिंदगी को भी बड़े फलक पर देखो। मैंने महसूस किया कि मेरी तरह तो हजारों हैं, मर्द, औरतें और बच्चे, जिन्होंने अपने सबसे करीबी और अजीज लोगों को खो दिया और वे भी यही पूछ रहे हैं कि क्यों उन्हें ही..!

बड़ी तादाद में बच्चे अनाथ हो गए और बड़ी तादाद में मां-बाप अपने बच्चों से महरूम हो गए। मैंने यह भी महसूस किया कि मेरी तरह के कुछ लोग गोधरा और कश्मीर में भी हैं। उनकी तकलीफ हमसे जरा भी कम नहीं है। उनका नुकसान हमसे कम नहीं हैं। उनकी मासूमियत भी हमसे कम नहीं है। इसलिए मैं उनसे पूछती हूं जो सत्ता में हैं। उन्होंने उस कत्लेआम को होने दिया था। और फिर समय-समय पर इंसानियत के खिलाफ अपराध होते रहे। और तमाम विनम्रता और संजीदगी के साथ मैं खुदा से पूछती हूं कि क्यों वे नहीं जो नफरत का पाठ पढ़ाते हैं? क्यों वे नहीं, जो सांप्रदायिक असहनशीलता फैलाते हैं? क्यों वे नहीं, जो उसकी बनाई दुनिया के खिलाफ हिंसा का प्रचार करते हैं?

मेरे प्यारे अब्बा, मुझे आपकी बात याद है कि दुनिया में बहुत दुश्मनी है, लेकिन बहुत सुकून, मेलजोल और प्यार भी है। दुनिया में दुख है, तकलीफ है, लेकिन सुख समृद्धि और आगे बढ़ने के रास्ते भी हैं। दुनिया में जंग और बर्बरता है, लेकिन भाईचारा, सुकून और शांति भी है। यह इस बात से तय होता है कि आप कहां से और कैसे इस दुनिया को देखते हैं।
​
यह आपकी उम्मीदों और सकारात्मक सोच के साथ तैयार मेरी शख्सियत है कि मैंने देश में प्यार, भाईचारा, सुकून और सांप्रदायिक सौहार्द के हालात को देखना पसंद किया है, चुना है। मैंने यह भरोसा चुना कि गुजरात में हमने जो हिंसा और सांप्रदायिक असहनशीलता देखी, वह महज एक तात्कालिक विचलन थी और उसके गम जल्दी ही गुजर जाएंगे। आपस में बांटने के एजेंडे के साथ नफरत का कारोबार करने वाले हारेंगे और भारत में लोग अपने मजहब और नस्ल, रंग और जाति, सियासी बुनियाद या आदर्श की परवाह किए बिना एक दूसरे के साथ आएंगे, आपके और आपकी तरह के लाखों लोगों के उन सपनों के लिए जो एक, प्रगतिशील, समृद्ध, धर्मनिरपेक्ष और गर्व करने लायक भारत में बसता है।

मेरे प्यारे अब्बा, आपकी दी हुई सबक मुझे यह ताकत देती है कि मैं गुजरात कत्लेआम के दौरान हजारों बेघर हो चुके लोगों, औरतों और बच्चों की मदद के लिए आगे बढ़ूं, जो जिंदगी के बेहद असह्य और तकलीफदेह हालात में जी रहे हैं। मेरे दिल में किसी खास व्यक्ति या समुदाय के लिए कोई कड़वाहट नहीं है। मैं आपके दामाद नाज़िद हुसेन के साथ हूं और अपनी काबिलियत के मुताबिक बेसहारा लोगों की मदद के लिए बहुत बेहतर काम कर रही हूं। हमारे साथ कई लोगों, संस्थाओं और संगठनों की भी मदद है। हम लोगों के पुनर्वास, उनकी सुरक्षा की गारंटी और गुजरात में इंसान सुनिश्चित करने के लिए काम कर रहे हैं।
​
हमें हिम्मत दीजिए अब्बा! और इस देश को भी हौसला दीजिए, जिसके सम्मान के लिए आपने बिना किसी भेदभाव और बिना किसी स्वार्थ के जिंदगी भर काम किया। हमें आशीर्वाद दीजिए और राह दिखाइए, ताकि हम हम आपके दिखाए रास्ते को साफ-साफ देख सकें, उस पर चल सकें। दया और संवेदना का रास्ता, एकता और अखंडता का रास्ता, शांति और सौहार्द का रास्ता, ताकि हम गुजरात की उस त्रासदी को दोहराए जाते नहीं देखें।
​
शुक्रिया… हम आपसे प्यार करते हैं… हम हमेशा आपसे प्यार करेंगे… हम हमेशा आपको याद करेंगे…!

(समाप्त)

अनुवाद- अरविंद शेष

अब्बा, हमें हौसला और हिम्मत देना- 2

अब्बा, हमें हौसला और हिम्मत देना- 1
 
 

The post अब्बा, हमें हौसला और हिम्मत देना- 3 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

आपकी लाइब्रेरी में कानून, साहित्य, दर्शनशास्त्र, इंसानियत, धर्म, राष्ट्रीय एकता और आपकी अपनी कविताओं की हजारों किताबें जो आपने अपनी अगली पीढ़ियों के लिए संभाल के रखी थीं, वे आपको समझने के लिए काफी थीं। वे सब खाक में तब्दील कर दी गईं। आपके दफ्तर में अब गौरैया नहीं हैं, उनके घोंसले जला दिए गए। मुझे याद है कि आपने अपने दफ्तर में गौरैयों को घोंसला बनाने, अंडे देने, उनके चूजों को उड़ान भरना सिखाने के लिए कितनी मेहनत की थी। आप अपने दफ्तर की एक खिड़की हमेशा ही खुला छोड़ देते थे, तब भी, जब हम सब समूचे घर को बंद कर कहीं बाहर गए होते। सिर्फ इसलिए कि गौरैया हमारे घरों में आजादी से आवाजाही कर सकें। जब वे गौरैया घोंसला बनाने के दौरान कुछ गंदगी फैलाती थीं, तो दिन में कई-कई बार आप अपने दफ्तर की सफाई खुशी-खुशी करते थे। जब उन गौरैयों को नन्हे चूजे होते थे, तो आप घर के पंखे चलाने वाले बिजली के स्विच पर टेप लगा देते थे, ताकि गलती से वे चल न जाएं। पंखों से चूजों के घायल होने की बनिस्बत आप गरमी को बर्दाश्त करके काम करना पसंद करते थे। हम आज भी उन गौरैयों को याद करते हैं।

मुझे याद है कि एक युवक कालिया जब अपने पांवों के जख्मों की तकलीफ से तड़प रहा था, तो आप उसे डॉक्टर के पास ले गए और खुद उसके घावों की मरहम-पट्टी की थी। उसने बताया था कि जिस वक्त कोई उसे छूने तक के लिए तैयार नहीं था, तब आपने उसे कुर्सी पर बिठा कर खुद नीचे बैठ उसके पांवों को देख रहे थे और तब वह खुद को शर्मिंदा महसूस कर रहा था। उन सालों के दौरान आपने जिनकी मदद की, उनमें से दर्जनों लोग आपकी रहमदिली और उदारता की याद दिलाते हैं। उनमें से कई यह भी जानते हैं कि कैसे आप उन्हें घरों का रंग-रोगन करने, दरवाजों को पेंट करने, किचेन या टॉयलेट या घर में गैराज को नई शक्ल देने के बारे में बताते थे। यह सब इसलिए नहीं कि वह जरूरी था, बल्कि इसलिए कि आप चाहते थे कि वे अपनी जिंदगी को बेहतर बनाने के लिए खुद कुछ काम करें। वे सभी आपको याद करते हैं।

अब्बा, मैं जानती हूं कि अगर आप चाहते तो अपनी वकालत की प्रैक्टिस और अपने सियासी कॅरियर के जरिए काफी पैसे कमा सकते थे। लेकिन इसके बजाय आपने हमारे हिंदुस्तानी स्वभाव के मुताबिक बिल्कुल सादा रहन-सहन और ऊंचे खयालातों की जिंदगी चुनी। अगर आप चाहते तो एक बहुत ताकतवर और रसूखदार सियासतदां हो सकते थे। लेकिन इसके बजाय आप अपने गुरु और आदर्श महात्मा गांधी के मूल्यों के साथ बने रहे और आपने देश के लोगों के लिए काम करने का रास्ता चुना। सांप्रदायिक एकता और सौहार्द, राष्ट्रीय एकता और इंसानी गरिमा पर आपकी लिखी कविताएं आने वाली पीढ़ियों को रास्ता दिखलाती रहेंगी।

यह आपकी उम्मीदों और सकारात्मक सोच के साथ तैयार मेरी शख्सियत है कि मैंने देश में प्यार, भाईचारा, सुकून और सांप्रदायिक सौहार्द के हालात को देखना पसंद किया है। मैंने यह भरोसा चुना कि गुजरात में हमने जो हिंसा और सांप्रदायिक असहनशीलता देखी, वह महज एक तात्कालिक विचलन थी और उसके गम जल्दी ही गुजर जाएंगे।
​
आपने न जाने कितने दिलों को छुआ। ज्यादातर हिंदुओं और मुसलमानों ने साथ आकर आपके लिए दुख जताया। आप शांति के एक दूत थे, इंसानियत और इंसानी गरिमा के पैरोकार थे। खुद को हिंदू मानने वाले चंद भटकाए गए लोगों ने गुजरात और गुलबर्ग सोसाइटी में आपके और हजारों मासूम निर्दोष लोगों के साथ जो किया, उस पर हमारे ज्यादातर हिंदू दोस्तों ने अफसोस और शर्मिंदगी जताई। गुनाह का एहसास और उसका बोझ अपने दिल पर लिए ये दोस्त अक्सर हमारे पास आकर गुजरात कत्लेआम के लिए हमसे माफी मांगते। मगर जैसा आप भी करते, उसी तरह हमने उन्हें कहा कि आप वे नहीं हैं जिन्हें इसके लिए बोझ महसूस करना चाहिए।

यह हिंदुत्व नहीं है। उस कत्लेआम के लिए यह हिंदुत्व जिम्मेदार नहीं और इस पर आरोप नहीं लगाया जाना चाहिए। भटकाए गए कुछ अतिवादी दरअसल चरमपंथी हैं और चरमपंथ के पीछे चलने वालों का अपना ही मजहब होता है। हिंदू दरअसल मासूम, रहमदिल, भगवान से डरने वाले और कानूनों के मुताबिक चलने वाले नागरिक होते हैं, ठीक उन मुसलमानों की तरह जिन्हें उन चरमपंथियों ने गुजरात में निशाना बनाया और मार डाला। हमने यहां और सभी जगहों पर अपने सभी दोस्तों को यही बताया है। हम उन्हें प्यार करते हैं, उनकी और हमारी तहजीब के लिए उनकी नेकनीयती की इज्जत करते हैं। यही तो आपने भी किया था। हम उनके सराकारों को साझा करेंगे और इस समाज और देश में फासीवाद और नफरत का जहर फैलाने वालों के खात्मे के लिए काम करेंगे।

(जारी)……

अब्बा, हमें हौसला और हिम्मत देना- 1

The post अब्बा, हमें हौसला और हिम्मत देना- 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

मैं पूर्व सांसद एहसान जाफरी की बेटी हूं, जिन्हें गोधरा घटना के बाद शुरू हुए गुजरात कत्लेआम के दौरान 28 फरवरी, 2002 को उनके ही घर में बर्बर तरीके से जला कर मारा डाला गया। मेरे लिए आज भी यह यकीन करना मुश्किल है कि अब वे नहीं हैं, उन्हें इस तरह बेवक्त हमसे दूर कर दिया गया, बेहद क्रूरता और बर्बरता के साथ। चूंकि उन्हें जिंदा जला दिया गया और हमें उनका शरीर भी नहीं मिला, तो मैं अब भी उनकी मौत के बारे में नहीं सोचती। गुजरे तमाम दिनों के दौरान मैं भरोसे और नाउम्मीदियों, भाईचारे और इंसानियत में अविश्वास, हमारी विरासत के मूल्यों और ज्ञान के साथ-साथ गुजरात में अधर्म या अनैतिकता और कत्लेआम के सरेआम नाच के बीच बेतहाशा झूलती रही। इस बीच मैंने अपनी जड़ों और मजहब का सामना किया। मगर मेरे पिता से मिले सबक और मेरे परिवार को मिली ताकत का शुक्रिया कि मैंने फिर से अपना भरोसा और संतुलन हासिल किया है। बहुत थोड़ा ही सही, मैं अपने दुख से उबर सकी हूं।
​
बहुत थोड़ा, क्योंकि आज भी मैं अपने जज्बातों पर काबू रखने में नाकाम हो जाती हूं, जब मैं यह सब सोचने लगती हूं कि तलवार से कैसे उन्हें चीर डाला गया, वह आग जिसमें उन्हें जिंदा जला दिया गया, वे लोग जिन्होंने उन्हें मार डाला। लेकिन अब मैं आपके साथ अपने पिता की उन यादों को साझा कर सकती हूं कि वे मेरे लिए क्या थे, अपने परिवार, देश के लिए उन्होंने क्या-क्या सहा और कैसे हम सबको उन्होंने फख्र करने लायक बनाया।
​
वे मेरे हीरो थे। जिस पल भी मैं आंखें बंद करती हूं, मेरे बचपन के दिनों से लेकर मेरी शादी और विदेश जाने तक की मेरी जिंदगी के तमाम दौर किसी रील की तरह बार-बार दौड़ने लगते हैं। उस जिंदगी में वे हर पल मेरे साथ थे, और अब जब मैं यह चिट्ठी लिख रही हूं, वे मेरी हिम्मत और हौसले की शक्ल में मेरे साथ हैं।
​
मेरे प्यारे अब्बा, मैं आपसे बहुत प्यार करती हूं। हम सब आपसे प्यार करते हैं। हम सब आपको बहुत याद करते हैं। हम सब आपकी प्रतिबद्धता, आपके भरोसे, आपकी हिम्मत, आपके मूल्यों और त्याग के लिए आपका शुक्रिया अदा करते हैं। आपने हमें निस्वार्थी बनना और केवल खुद के बारे में नहीं सोचना सिखाया। अम्मी उस वाकये को याद करते हुए कभी नहीं थकतीं जब आप अपने पुराने घर के एक कमरे में सो रहे थे, तो एक लालटेन बिस्तर पर गिर गया था और बिस्तर में आग लग गई थी। उसी बिस्तर पर आप और अम्मी एक ओर सो रहे थे। अचानक महसूस होने पर आप जैसे ही जगे और आपने आग देखा, तो तुरंत बिस्तर पर से भागने के बजाय आपने अम्मी को जगा कर बचने के लिए कहा। लेकिन जब वे जगीं और आग देखा, तो तुरंत ही दरवाजे की ओर भागीं। उन्हें यह ध्यान नहीं रहा कि आप कहां थे और उन्हें क्या कहने की कोशिश कर रहे थे। अब इसके चालीस साल से ज्यादा गुजर चुके हैं, लेकिन अब भी वे उस वाकये को याद करती हैं और अफसोस से भर जाती हैं कि आग देख कर दरवाजे की ओर भागते हुए उन्होंने आपका हाथ क्यों नहीं पकड़ा।
​
लेकिन अट्ठाईस फरवरी को उस वक्त वे घर में ऊपर थीं, जब आप पर बर्बरता ढायी गई और जिंदा जला दिया गया। आप तब उन सैकड़ों मर्दों, औरतों और बच्चों को बचाने की कोशिश कर रहे थे, जिन्होंने हिंसक और कातिल भीड़ से जान बचाने के लिए आपके घर में पनाह ली हुई थी। वह अफसोस अब उनके लिए बर्दाश्त करने के काबिल नहीं है। उन्होंने देखा कि कैसे एक अलग हालात में चालीस साल पहले का वह वाकया फिर से सामने आ गया।          (जारी)…..

The post अब्बा, हमें हौसला और हिम्मत देना- 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on Mar 5, 2014

Says film maker Rakesh Sharma:

"I've filmed inside the Gulberg society on multiple occasions – twice in 2002, once in 2007, and thrice in 2012. Each time, it is an eerie experience, standing inside the Jafri home, imagining February 28, 2002, with people packed inside seeking shelter. Mr Jafri desperately ringing up everyone he could. The mobs launching their multiple attacks…and that moment of decision when Mr Jafri decided to hand himself over to the mob, hoping all  others would be spared….

Here, in this sequence filmed in 2002, listen to the eyewitness accounts of the 2 young men who were helping Mr Jafri make calls. They specifically speak of calls to Sonia Gandhi and her political secretary, Mr Ahmed Patel of Gujarat. Presumably, they tried to reach Modi to arrange for protection to their own ex-MP. Listen to the boys speak of the call to Modi's office itself."

This is an excerpt from Final Solution, the national award-winning film that probes politics of hate. The film, premiered at the Berlin film festival, has over a dozen international awards, including the Berlinale's Staudte Prize (now known as the Golden Bear for Best Debut).

The original version certified by the Indian Censor Board (CBFC) was over 3.5 hours long. A year later, a shorter 2.5 hour version was made (separately certified by CBFC) for public screenings.

Mr Modi, in his responses to SIT claimed he did not know of the Gulberg massacre till late evening 830 pm. He also said that he did not know who Mr Jafri was. Narendra Modi's statement can be read here.

A little known fact: Less than a week before, Modi won his by-election from Rajkot  with a small margin of approx 12,000 votes. The rather spirited Congress campaign in the constituency was handled, among others, by Mr Ehsan Jafri, Congress leader and former Member of Parliament. (Zakia Jafri Protest Petition, April 15, 2013)

Narendra Modi has, by and large remained mum about the massacres, especially Ahsan Jafri and Gulberg Society  The first time was in an interview to Zee TV on March 1, 2002, just a day after the massacre. The second time was during his interrogation by the special investigation team (SIT) set up by the Supreme Court to examine the role of the chief minister and other senior officials – a demand that was made by Zakia Jafri, widow of former MP and prominent Gulberg society resident,  Ahsan Jafri, who was killed by the mob on February 28. Zakiua Jafri's complaint and plea were backed by citizens legal aid group, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

In both instances, his words are worth recalling.

To Zee TV, Modi cited press reports that Jafri had opened fire on the mob outside the housing society’s gates. Jafri’s ‘action’ of firing, Modi said, had angered the mob, leading to a ‘reaction’ in the form of the massacre. ‘Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chahate hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya. (“What is happening is a chain of action and reaction. What I want is that there should be no action and no reaction”).

He then linked the riots to the original “action” at Godhra, in which train passengers had been killed on February 27, 2002:

“Godhra main jo purso hua, jaha par 40 mahilaon aur bachon ko zinda jala diya, is mein desh mein aur videsh mein sadma pahuchna swabhavik tha. Godhra ke is ilake ke logon ki criminal tendencies rahe hain, in logon ne pehle mahila teacher ka khoon kiya aur ab ye jaghanya apradh kiya hai jiski pratikriya ho rahi hai.” (“It is natural that what happened in Godhra day before yesterday, where forty women and children were burnt alive, has shocked the country and the world. The people in that part of Godhra have had criminal tendencies. Earlier, these people had murdered women teachers. And now they have done this terrible crime for which a reaction is going on.”)

Confronted with this damning ‘action-reaction’ theory by the SIT in 2010, Modi, who was still chief minister, said this by way of explanation:

“Those who have read the history of Gujarat would definitely be aware that communal violence in Gujarat has a very old history. Since long and even before my birth, Gujarat has witnessed series of incidents of such communal violence. As per available history, from 1714 AD to up till now, in Gujarat, thousands of incidents of communal violence have been recorded.

“So far as the Zee TV interview of 1st March 2002 is concerned, today, after a period of eight years, I do not recollect the exact words. But I had always appealed only and only for peace. I had tried to convey to the people to shun violence in straight and simple language.

“If my words cited in this question are considered in the correct perspective, then it would be evident that there is a very earnest appeal for refraining from any kind of violence. I deny all the allegations levelled against me in this regard.”

The SIT also asked Modi whether it was true that Jafri had called him to ask for help. Several residents of the Gulberg housing society – including Rupa Modi, a Parsi woman whose 14-year-old son Azhar went missing that day and is presumed dead – testified in court in 2009 that Jafri told her and others he had “called up Modi but had received only abuses in return”.

Modi’s reply to the SIT on this point:

“In this connection I would like to add here that no such phone call had been received by me.” (emphasis added)

Could Jafri’s call have been answered by one of the chief minister’s aides? Sadly, the SIT did not ask a follow-up question on this point.

Astonishing claim

The SIT also asked Modi: “Did you receive any information about an attack by a mob on the Gulberg society? If so, when and through whom? What action did you take in the matter?”

To this, Modi replied:

“To the best of my recollection, I was informed in the Law and Order review meeting held in the night about the attack on Gulberg society in the Meghaninagar area and Naroda Patiya.” (emphasis added)

A shocking claim, using any yardstick. The violence in Ahmedabad had started in the morning soon after the bodies of the kars evaks were brought to the Sola Civil hospital and two funeral processions with angry mobs alklowed. Nearly 200 Muslims had been massacred at both locations by the afternoon. Yet Modi was saying that as chief minister, he first learned of these attacks only at night! Despite the fact that Modi prefaced his answer with the tell-tale caveat “to the best of my recollection”, the SIT chose to accept his version at face value rather examining its plausibility based on other evidence on record.

The post Gulberg: When No One Responded to Ex-MP Ahsan Jafri’s Distress Calls (An Excerpt from Final Solution) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I am the daughter of the former Member of Parliament, Ehsan  Jaffri, who was brutalised, burnt  in his own house and killed on February 28 during the Gujarat violence that took place in the wake of the Godhra incident. It was hard for me even to believe that he is no more, that he was taken away so untimely and with such cruelty and brutality. As he was burnt and we did not find his body, there is no closure for me on his death. During the past 5 months I have swung wildly between the extremes of faith and hopelessness, brotherhood and utter disbelief in humanity, our ancient values and wisdom, and the displayed dance of immorality and violence in Gujarat. Over this time, I even confronted my roots and religion. But thanks to the power of my father’s teachings and the support of my family, I have now regained my balance, overcome my grief, even if only partially.

Partially, because I still fail to control my emotions while thinking about the sword that ripped him, the fire that burnt him, the people who killed him. But I can now share with you my memories of my father, what he was to me, what he endured in the services to his family, his country, and how proud he has made us all.

He was my hero. The moment I close my eyes the entire period of my life from my early childhood to the day I got married and left my family in India, plays back. Repeatedly. He was with me every moment of that life and he is with me, in spirit, now as I write this letter.

My dear Abba, I love you. We all love you. We all miss you. We thank you for your devotion, your faith, your courage, your values, your sacrifice. You have taught us to be selfless and not put ourselves first. Ammi is never tired of recounting the incident when in the bedroom of your old house while you were sleeping, the small kerosene lamp on the side of the bed fell off and the curtain caught fire. You were sleeping on the side of the fire and Ammi was next to you. As the heat woke you up and you saw the fire, instead of jumping out of the bed immediately, you first woke Ammi up and asked her to get to safety. But when she woke up and saw the fire, she thinks she quickly jumped out of bed and ran to the door without even knowing where you were or what you were trying to tell her. It is more than 40 years since, but she still remembers and regrets that incident and feels guilty of putting herself first that day and not grabbing your hand as she ran to the door.
In the wake of what happened on February 28, as she was upstairs in the house while you were being brutalised and burnt in your efforts to save the lives and honour of over a hundred men, women and children who had gathered in your house seeking protection from the violent mob, the guilt has become unbearable for her. She sees that 40 year old incident replayed yet again if under different circumstances and with not so bearable consequences.

Thousands of books in your library, the books on law, literature, philosophy, humanity, religion, national unity and your own poems articulating your understanding of all that, have turned into ashes – the treasure you had safeguarded and saved for your children and grandchildren. The sparrows in your office are no more — their nests burnt. I remember how you used to encourage and assist the sparrows to make their nest in your office, lay eggs, rear their chicks and teach them to fly. You would keep one office window open all the time, even when we went out and locked up the entire house. Only so that the sparrows could get in and out freely. Several times a day you would happily clean the mess the sparrows made in your office in the process of making their nests. When the sparrows had little chicks, you would put a tape on the fan switch never allowing it to be turned on even by mistake. You would work in the heat rather than risk injuring the chicks by the fan blade. We also miss those sparrows.

Kaliya, the young boy who had foot infection, cries and recalls how you took him to the doctor and used to personally dress and bandage his wounds. He also talks of how he, whom no one else would even touch, used to feel embarrassed to sit on the chair while you would sit down and tend to his feet. Dozens of those whom you helped over the years also come and reminisce about your kindness and generosity. Many of them also know how you asked them to white–wash the house, paint the doors, or remodel the toilets, kitchen, or garage in our house, not because that was needed, but because you wanted them to work and make a living for themselves. They all miss you.
Abba, I know if you wanted, you would have earned a lot of money through your practice of law or your political career. But instead, consistent with our ethos, the Indian ethos, you chose to lead a life of simple living and high thinking. If you wanted, you could have become a very powerful and pragmatic politician. But instead, consistent with the values of your mentor and ideal Mahatma Gandhi, you chose to serve the people of our country. Your poems on communal unity, national integrity and human dignity will continue to guide generations.

Thanks to your optimism and my upbringing with a positive outlook, I choose to see love, brotherhood, peace and communal harmony in India. I choose to believe the violence and communal intolerance we saw in Gujarat was only an aberration that will soon pass.

You have touched many hearts. A majority of Hindus and Muslims have come together in mourning you. You were an apostle of peace and an advocate of humanity and human dignity. Most of our Hindu friends express regret and shame over what a few misguided radicals who believed they were Hindus did to you and to the thousands of other innocent people in Gulberg society and in Gujarat. Bearing a feeling of guilt, these friends often come and apologise to us for the Gujarat violence. But we tell them, as you would have, that it is not they who must feel guilty.

It is not Hinduism that is responsible for the carnage and should not be blamed. The misguided radicals were extremists, followers of extremism, which is a religion in itself. Hindus are as innocent, as kind, as compassionate, as God–fearing and law-abiding citizens as those Muslims who were made targets and killed in Gujarat by those extremists. We tell this to all our friends, here and everywhere. We love them, respect them and respect their sincerity and faith in our values just as you did. We share their concern and resolve to work together to eliminate the monster of fascism injecting and spreading the poison of hate in our society, our country.
Abba, there was a time when I was totally overwhelmed with my loss, when I repeatedly kept asking myself, why my father? Why him? But thanks to your teachings, the teachings of always seeing the bigger picture of events and the bigger picture of our lives, I have recognised that there are thousands of others like me – men, women and children – who have lost their near and dear ones and who are also asking why them? Scores of children have become orphans and scores of parents have become childless. I also recognise that some of the likes of me are in Godhra and in Kashmir. Their pain is no less than mine. Their loss is no less than mine. Their innocence is no less than mine. So I ask of those in power who have carried out this carnage and who from time to time commit such crimes against humanity, why us? And with all humility, humbleness and a sincere heart I ask God, Why not those who preach hatred? Why not those who spread communal intolerance? Why not those who propagate violence against His creation?

My dear Abba, I remember you telling me there is animosity in the world, but there is also peace, harmony and love. There is pain and misery in the world, but there is also happiness, progress and prosperity. There is fighting and brutality in the world, but there is also brotherhood, peace and tranquillity. It also depends upon where and how you look at the world. Thanks to your optimism and my upbringing with a positive outlook, I choose to see love, brotherhood, peace and communal harmony in India. I choose to believe the violence and communal intolerance we saw in Gujarat was only an aberration that will soon pass. The hate–mongers with a divisive agenda will be defeated and the people in India will come together, regardless of their religion or race, regardless of their colour or caste, regardless of their political orientation or ideology, to realise your dream and the dream of millions of others like you — that of a united, progressive, prosperous, secular and proud India.

My dear Abba, thinking about you and your teachings revitalises my resolve to go out and help thousands of those homeless men, women and children produced in the wake of the Gujarat massacre who have been suffering what is insufferable, who have been enduring, what is unendurable. I am not bitter against any individual, or community. Following in your footsteps, I with your son–in–law, Najid Hussain am working to the best of my capacity and capability, to help these destitute people. We have help from several individuals, institutions and organisations. We are working to provide those people rehabilitation, guarantee their safety and security and work to ensure justice in Gujarat.

Bless us Abba. And bless the country you served all your life with distinction, honour, and a selfless devotion. Bless us and guide us so that we can clearly see and tread the path you showed us — the path of kindness and compassion, of unity and integrity, of peace and harmony – so that we never have to see Gujarat repeated ever again. Thank you. We love you. We will always love you. We also miss you.  

Archived from Communalism Combat, September 2002, Anniversary Issue (9th), Year 9  No. 80, Bless us, Abba!            

The post Bless us, Abba! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Now, after nearly two years of the SIT saying that these records, as per the government of Gujarat’s version, are destroyed, you mentioned when I (Teesta Setalvad) brought this to your attention to be recorded in my 161 statement, that then commissioner of police PC Pande has, after the hon’ble court directed the SIT to go into the report filed by the amicus curiae, thereafter produced the entire documentary record that he had scanned and kept aside before they were ‘destroyed’! You also mentioned that there was 3,500 pages of such evidence which the SIT is now, after nearly two years of the inquiry, examining.

We wish to express, as co-petitioners and co-complainants, our distress and consternation at what we believe is a belated attempt by Shri Pande to save his skin or those of his political bosses, as all this while – including in the report submitted by yourself and Shri Raghavan to the hon’ble Supreme Court – you have maintained that these records have been destroyed. Shri Pande has, we have been given to understand, twice before been examined by the SIT in the Zakiya matter, between May 2009 and May 2010. Surely in the 12-month period he ought to have produced this record that he had so carefully scanned and preserved?

It may be assumed that if the inquiry had not reached this stage i.e. if the hon’ble Supreme Court had not impelled or compelled the SIT to go further, Shri Pande’s sudden and generous manoeuvre would have never happened, that is, the “destroyed” records would have remained buried!

Sir, We were particularly disturbed by your interpretation of the actions of Shri Pande, which seemed to be interpreted as his astute generosity (Shri Pande’s) in actually scanning and producing these records at this belated stage. The following questions arise that we wish to place specifically before you:

1. The timing of the “destroyed” records “reappearing” in the action of Shri PC Pande suddenly handing over the scanned CD of all destroyed documents to you post-March 15, 2011 i.e. the last directions of the hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Since Shri Pande’s role of collusion in the conspiracy has been specifically alleged, we at least cannot see this either as a stray or innocent act and would therefore urge that a hard, objective inquiry into the previous evasion and suppression of evidence, and thereafter the sudden disclosure, takes place and offences against Shri PC Pande are also registered for the earlier suppression and subsequent disclosure.
3. When a senior officer like Shri Pande states that records are destroyed, in the preliminary inquiry, and thereafter turns up with the vanished documents, what are we to make of this? Similarly, we believe that videos will turn up.
4. Shri Pande’s role in the overall conspiracy and his subsequently being rewarded for his silence and suppression make him liable to be inquired into. His personal assets and accounts and those of his family members as also the assets and accounts of other IPS and IAS officials who have been favoured by the government of Gujarat need to be part of the inquiry.
5. We thought it imperative that this matter be placed on record…

I would like to end by stating that the fresh revelations by Shri Pande amount to an effort by a highly placed officer of not merely attempting a cover-up of his suppression of crucial records for nine-plus years but subverting the inquiries into various cases by not making available these records in the individual trials and thereby committing grave contempt of the judicial process. We would like to state that though partial records in the Gulberg cases (police control room and fire brigade, etc) were made available, this happened only after applications under 173(8) were filed by witnesses and did not logically form part of the charge sheet as they should have done from the very beginning. Why were Shri Pande and other senior officials suppressing these records? Allegations of high-level involvement and complicity have been made by victim survivors since immediately after the incidents. Was this suppression related to protection of the mighty and powerful?”

The SIT in 2010

“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots… No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept” (p. 13 of the Preliminary Inquiry Report).

The SIT makes this observation but recommends no action for this criminal act.
 

 
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2012. Year 18, No.165 – Introduction, Gujarat 2002

The post Destroyed records resurface appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Modi and 62 others face investigation for mass murder

Almost three years ago, on June 8, 2006, a mammoth 119-page complaint was sent by Zakiya Ahsan Jaffri to the then director general of police (DGP), Gujarat, PC Pande, who, ironically, is listed as accused number 29 in the document. The legal action group, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), through its secretary and trustee, Teesta Setalvad, had provided her with legal assistance in assimilating the material required for the historic exercise, which took over five months to draft. Although token gestures were made by the Gujarat police – the DGP sent the additional director general of police (ADGP), Mahapatra, to meet the complainant – despite 2,000 pages of devastating evidence, the Gujarat DGP saw nothing prima facie of incriminatory substance in the complaint.

Eight months after the Gujarat police refused, in spite of clear directives in law and practice, to register a first information report (FIR) and investigate the offences, the complainant and CJP jointly filed a petition in the Gujarat high court praying for directions from the court ordering the state police to register an FIR and investigate the complaint. The petition also argued for an independent investigation by the CBI since top echelons of the police hierarchy in the state were personally involved in the crimes that were alleged to have been committed. Advocates MM Tirmizi and MS Ganesh argued the matter over two days in September 2007 while advocate general, Kamal Trivedi, for the Gujarat government, strongly resisted the petitioners’ arguments. A week before judgement was delivered the petitioners had through an additional affidavit argued for the transcripts of the Tehelka exposé following its sting ‘Operation Kalank’ (made public on October 25, 2007) to be treated as extrajudicial confessions in the matter of the overarching criminal conspiracy and investigated. In November 2007 the Gujarat high court rejected both the petition and the affidavit.

Months later the petitioners filed a special leave petition in the apex court challenging the high court order. On March 3, 2008 – the first date of hearing – the apex court not only issued notice to the state and union but also appointed counsel, Prashant Bhushan, as amicus curiae to assist the court. Recognising the specificity and enormity of the complaint, the Supreme Court had observed, "What does a citizen do when it has such voluminous evidence and the police simply refuses to investigate? What is the remedy available for a citizen?"

After the usual logistical delays the matter was ultimately heard on April 27, 2009. By then the Supreme Court had also, on March 26, 2008, directed the appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former CBI director, Dr RK Raghavan, to not only reinvestigate the eight other major trials but to oversee prosecution of the accused in these trials as well.

Acknowledging the worth and magnitude of this complaint, the Supreme Court, in a historic move, ordered the SIT to investigate the allegations and submit a report to the apex court within three months. Advocates Aparna Bhat, Ramesh Pukhrambam, MS Ganesh and Sanjay Parikh appeared for the petitioners during the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Of the 63 persons named as accused in this complaint, 12 are politicians who were, in 2006, holding the rank of cabinet ministers in the state cabinet. Four of these 12, including Narendra Modi, the chief minister himself (who also holds several cabinet portfolios, including home, transport, industry and information and broadcasting), Amit Shah (minister of state for home), Indravijaysinh K. Jadeja (minister for roads and buildings) and Prabhatsinh Chauhan (minister of state for tribal development), continue in positions of power and authority. Ashok Bhatt, minister for law and judiciary until 2007, is currently the speaker of the state assembly.

Of the 63 persons named as accused in this complaint, 12 are politicians who were, in 2006, holding the rank of cabinet ministers in the state cabinet. Four of these 12, including Narendra Modi, the chief minister himself, continue in positions of power and authority

Of the remaining accused, three are MLAs from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), seven are office-bearers of the state BJP, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal (including Dr Praveen Togadia, international general secretary of the VHP), 10 are officials of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and 28 are Indian Police Service (IPS) officers.

Accused number 23 in the complaint, Keshavram Kashiram Shastri, former chairman of the VHP’s Gujarat unit and editor of the Vishwa Hindu Samachar, published from Paldi, Ahmedabad, is dead. He had in the now infamous interview given to rediff.com in March 2002 proudly claimed a badge of honour for himself and his organisation, for the selective loot and destruction of Muslim lives and properties. "Karvunj pade, karvunj pade (It had to be done, it had to be done). We don’t like it but we were terribly angry. Lust and anger are blind." He had also outlined in graphic detail how VHP and Bajrang Dal workers had been provided with ownership details of key properties and establishments, which made their task of selectively targeting Muslim-owned ones somewhat easier.

As we go to press, the SIT begins this historic investigation, a first of its kind. Interestingly, the complaint of June 8, 2006 also lists a dozen or so witnesses in order to facilitate investigation. These witnesses are all from the Gujarat state IAS and IPS cadres. The material submitted as primary evidence along with the complaint includes affidavits and depositions by police officials that contain startling revelations made before the Nanavati-Shah-Mehta Commission of Inquiry.

List of witnesses:

1. KC Kapoor; in 2006, principal secretary (home).

2. Manoj D. Antani; in 2002, superintendent of police (SP), Bharuch.

3. AS Gehlot; in 2002, SP, Mehsana.

4. Vivek Srivastava; in 2002, SP, Kutch.

5. Himanshu Bhatt; in 2002, SP, Banaskantha.

6. Piyush Patel; in 2002, deputy commissioner of police, Vadodara.

7. Maniram; in 2002, ADGP (law and order).

8. Vinod Mall; in 2002, SP, Surendranagar.

9. Sanjiv Bhatt; in 2002, SP (security), State Intelligence Bureau.

10. Jayanti Ravi; in 2002, Collector, Panchmahal.

11. Neerja Gotru; in 2003, special investigating officer assigned to reopen investigations in some riot-related cases.

12. Rahul Sharma; in 2002, SP, Bhavnagar.

13. RB Sreekumar; in 2002, ADGP
(intelligence).

Archived from Communalism Combat,  May 2009 Year 15    No.140, Cover Story 1

The post The Accused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Accused number one: Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat

The BJP’s rumour machine coupled with the Indian mass media’s tardiness to investigate has allowed the impression to grow that there are no specific allegations against Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the complaint currently being investigated by the SIT.  Nothing could be further from the truth. The carefully constructed complaint lists more than 100 specific charges against Narendra Modi.

Major charges

Misconstruing Godhra

February 27, 2002. The tragic killings in the fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express train at Godhra were used and manipulated to justify a pre-orchestrated massacre which enjoyed the sanction of the constitutionally elected government in Gujarat.

The district magistrate (DM) and collector of Panchmahal (Godhra), Jayanti Ravi, called the incident at the station an accident, as did the then prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, making his official statement in Parliament at about 4 p.m. on February 27. By the evening of that day however, Modi – who arrived in Godhra around 2 p.m. surrounded by VHP confidants like Dr Jaideep Patel – had decided otherwise. At about 7.30 p.m. he said on an Akashwani Gujarati radio broadcast that the incident at Godhra was a preplanned ISI-driven conspiracy (executed by local Godhra Muslims, no doubt!). In the days that followed the union ministry of home affairs, manned by none less than Modi’s mentor, LK Advani, did its best to instil into public perception the theory of a conspiracy behind the Godhra incident. To date conspiracy has not been proven.

Modi did not stop at that. He expressed his intention to have the burnt coach transported to Ahmedabad, a move that DM Jayanti Ravi strongly opposed. Irritated, Modi did the next best thing. He assembled a motor cavalcade, ordered that the bodies be handed over to the then VHP state general secretary, Jaideep Patel, and sent them to the Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad. There the bodies were paraded around. The next morning, on February 28, 2002, the Gujarati daily, Sandesh, carried a gory seven-column colour photograph of the burnt bodies wrapped in white shrouds, a trishul lying beside them.

Undeterred by the impact or fallout, unconcerned by facts, Modi set his Machiavellian plan into motion.

Secret meetings to plan carnage

February 27, 2002. Gandhinagar, Lunawada, Godhra. Late in the evening of February 27, Modi called a secret meeting in Gandhinagar, which he attended along with some members of his cabinet and top bureaucrats. At this meeting illegal instructions were issued, where policemen and bureaucrats were in fact instructed to perform illegal acts.

According to the report of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal – Gujarat 2002 by a panel including Justices VR Krishna Iyer and PB Sawant:

"The chief minister, Narendra Modi, took an active role along with at least three cabinet colleagues to instruct senior police personnel and civil administrators that a ‘Hindu reaction was to be expected and this must not be curtailed or controlled’."

"What is worse or as bad as the occurrences themselves is the now almost incontrovertible pointers/evidence, including statements made by a former cabinet minister of the state of Gujarat, that a high-level meeting was convened by the chief minister at which then chief secretary, Subbarao, and then [additional chief secretary (home)] Ashok Narayan, and senior policemen were summoned, at which clear instructions were given ‘not to deal with the Hindu rioting mobs’. Thereby clear sanction and sponsorship was given by the state to brute violence that included sexual violence of girls and women" (Crime Against Humanity, report of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal – Gujarat 2002).

A minister from Modi’s cabinet had testified about these details before the tribunal in mid-May 2002. His identity was kept anonymous. Soon after the report was released in November 2002 however, one of the panel members revealed Haren Pandya’s identity to Outlook magazine. Within months, Pandya was killed.

Other illegal meetings

There is other primary evidence of similar meetings to plan killings that were held in Lunawada and Godhra on February 27, 2002 at which cabinet ministers like Prabhatsinh Chauhan and others were present. Each of those present will need to be interrogated and investigated at the time of the SIT investigation.

Taking control of policing

The illegal attempts by senior members of the chief minister’s cabinet (Ashok Bhatt, accused number 2 in the complaint, and Indravijaysinh K. Jadeja, accused number 3) to influence the police were part of the collective design of the chief minister and his colleagues. Several reports in the press during that period described how the ministers sat in the police control rooms at Gandhinagar and Shahibag and actually subverted police rules and protocol by instructing policemen not to function and manipulating instructions in many cases to aid crimes and the destruction of evidence. Bhatt, state law minister in 2002 right up to 2007, is today the speaker of the Gujarat assembly. As head of Gujarat’s law and judiciary department, he had complete control over the appointment of public prosecutors until 2007 (see accompanying story, ‘Wheels of injustice’).

Proof of both the February 27 meeting as also the illegal activity of ministers located inside the Ahmedabad city and Gujarat state control rooms to influence police functioning, have corroborative evidence.

Modi’s ‘revenge’

February 28, 2002. The Tehelka tapes contain a confession or, rather, a gloating admission from a rapist from Naroda who speaks of Modi arriving in Naroda not long after 112 persons were humiliated, butchered and burnt, and euphorically congratulating the army of marauders even as he was surrounded by Black Cat commandos (who are therefore witnesses as well).

"(Suresh) Richard: [On the day of the massacre] we did whatever we did till quite late in the evening… at around 7.30… around 7.15, our Modibhai came… Right here, outside the house… My sisters garlanded him with roses… Tehelka: Narendrabhai Modi… Richard: Narendra Modi… He came with black commandos… got down from his Ambassador car and walked up here… All my sisters garlanded him… a big man is a big man after all… Tehelka: He came out on the road? Richard: Here, near this house… Then he went this way… Looked at how things were in Naroda… Tehelka: The day the Patiya incident happened…

Richard: The same evening… Tehelka: February 28… Richard: 28… Tehelka: 2002… Richard: He went around to all the places… He said our tribe was blessed… He said our mothers were blessed [for bearing us]… Tehelka: He came at about 5 o’clock or at 7? Richard: Around 7 or 7.30… At that time there was no electricity… Everything had been burnt to ashes in the riots…" (August 12, 2007, www.tehelka.com).

‘Operation Kalank’ was a sting operation carried out by Tehelka over several months and made public in October 2007. The tapes, recorded conversations with several persons who were in some way involved in the Gujarat genocide of 2002, have now been verified by the CBI and have the status of extrajudicial confessions.

The contents of these conversations are stark and revealing. Apart from brazen admissions of mass murder and rape, they describe the transportation of arms from other states and preparations for the Godhra and post-Godhra violence that were underway for several weeks before February 27, 2002. They also describe the chief minister, Narendra Modi’s direct role in fuelling mass rape and murder. These revelations call for the SIT to re-examine the veracity/authenticity of the recordings. The SIT must question/interrogate all those persons who spoke to Tehelka as well as the individuals they name no matter how powerful they may be.

One such conversation is with a man who worked in the accounts office at the Maharaja Sayajirao University, Vadodara. He also speaks of direct orders from Modi and Modi’s street operator, Babu Bajrangi.

The chief minister did not visit the riot-affected areas to meet the bruised and battered victims who had taken refuge in nearby relief camps. He went there, it seems, as a victorious messiah of evil.

Secret undocumented meetings held by Modi

Not only were no minutes or records kept of the infamous meeting held at Chief Minister Modi’s office on February 27, 2002 but several other such irregular meetings convened by higher authorities and attended by the following officers also went undocumented:

• Sanjiv Bhatt, the then SP (security), attended several such meetings as staff officer to GC Raiger, additional director general of police (ADGP) (intelligence), but failed to record the instructions he received.
• KN Sharma, the then inspector general of police (IGP), Ahmedabad range, under whose jurisdiction many people were killed in the riots, also attended such illegal confabulations.
• Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara range, under whose jurisdiction the Godhra incident had taken place and, moreover, many incidents of mass killing and other atrocities against minorities occurred, is also said to have participated.
• MK Tandon, the then assistant commissioner of police (ACP), Ahmedabad, under whose jurisdiction many gruesome incidents of mass murder (Naroda Patiya, Gulberg Society, etc) had taken place was a part of the close-knit group. Tandon was present when the survivors of Gulberg finally escaped to safety and when the bodies of the 70 slaughtered victims were still recognisable. Three days later, at the mass burial of 133 dead (including victims from Gulberg and Naroda), the bodies had been reduced to dismembered pieces. One of the accused in the Gulberg Society massacre, Madan Chawal, is on record as saying (during Tehelka’s ‘Operation Kalank’) that the accused played cricket with the skulls of the Gulberg dead. The moot question is whether Tandon also connived and participated in the dismembering of corpses?
• Amitabh Pathak, the then IGP, Gandhinagar range, under whose jurisdiction many people were killed during the post-Godhra riots, for instance, in Sardarpura in Mehsana district and several places in Sabarkantha district, was also part of this conspiracy.
• Shivanand Jha, the then additional CP, Ahmedabad, under whose jurisdiction many notorious atrocities against the minority community were committed, was a close confidant of the chief minister. Between 2004 and 2006, as home secretary, he filed several misleading affidavits on behalf of the state government in the Supreme Court. Ironically, today he is part of the SIT appointed by the apex court.
• DD Tuteja, the then commissioner of police (CP), Vadodara, under whose jurisdiction over three dozen incidents of violence, including the Best Bakery case, took place.

The superintendents of police in the districts of Mehsana, Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Patan, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad rural, Anand, Kheda, Vadodara rural, Godhra and Dahod, where mass killings were reported during the riots, all need to be specifically interrogated for their roles as also their failure to document illegal and unconstitutional instructions from the chief minister and other representatives of the state government.

No minutes of the meetings held by the chief minister and senior bureaucrats were recorded and such questionable instructions were mainly conveyed by telephone.

Not keeping minutes served the twin objectives of 1) field officers carrying out the conspiracy to execute a pogrom against the minorities and 2) avoidance of the subsequent monitoring of the actions of jurisdictional officers in the field.

The tragic killings in the fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express train at Godhra were used and manipulated to justify a pre-orchestrated massacre which enjoyed the sanction of the constitutionally elected government in Gujarat

Further corroboration of the unconstitutional meeting: February 27, 2002

Former DGP, Gujarat, RB Sreekumar, states in para 84 of his fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission that on February 28, 2002 his senior, the then DGP, K. Chakravarti, also told him about the late evening meeting on February 27. The meeting was held in Modi’s office after his return from Godhra. At this meeting the chief minister is reported to have said, "In communal riots police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one-to-one basis. This will not do now, allow Hindus to give vent to their anger." None of the officers present at the meeting (which included PC Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad, Ashok Narayan, additional chief secretary (home), etc) objected to these verbal instructions from the chief minister.

Chakravarti also observed in his conversation with Sreekumar that the chief minister’s attitude was proving to be a major obstacle to police officers in initiating action against Hindu communal elements who were on the rampage against minorities. He added that the act of parading the dead bodies of those killed in the Godhra train fire in Ahmedabad, including those who did not belong to the city, was highly objectionable and had made the situation more volatile by provoking rage among Hindu communal elements against the minority community. He also said that PC Pande had objected to this parading of dead bodies in Ahmedabad but the commissioner’s objections had been overruled by the chief minister.

Although Sreekumar suggested to Chakravarti that the latter should issue instructions to jurisdictional officers to act in accordance with the law, and follow the appropriate instructions regarding the strategy and tactics to be employed while handling communal riots, nothing of the sort was done.

DGP Chakravarti was quite critical of the presence of a cabinet minister, IK Jadeja, in his office during the days following the Godhra train fire and complained that this was adversely affecting his supervision of the riot situation. He also said that officers in critical situations were carrying out the verbal orders of leaders of the ruling party instead of following the directives of jurisdictional officers.

There is further corroboration of the meeting in the chief minister’s office.

Sreekumar, who bore the designation of additional director general of police at the time, was posted as head of the Gujarat state intelligence wing from April 2002. From April 2002 until September that year he maintained a contemporaneous record (a personal register) documenting the illegal instructions issued by Modi and his own superiors in the police department. These instructions were aimed not towards arresting the violence and booking the guilty but shielding the real accused and concocting false evidence. He got this document cross-signed by his immediate boss, OP Mathur, the IGP (administration and security).

In this register, Sreekumar documents that on June 7, 2002 PK Mishra, principal secretary to the chief minister and accused no 31 in the FIR, asked him, as chief of intelligence, to find out which minister from the Modi cabinet had met a private inquiry commission of which retired Supreme Court judge, VR Krishna Iyer, was a part. Mishra told Sreekumar that Haren Pandya, the then minister of state for revenue, was suspected to be the man concerned. He also gave Sreekumar the number of a mobile phone (98240 30629) and asked him to trace the call records.

Five days later, on June 12, 2002, Sreekumar informed Mishra that Haren Pandya was believed to be the minister concerned even as he stressed that the matter was a sensitive one and outside the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB)’s charter of duties. Call details of the above-mentioned mobile phone which, it turned out, did belong to Pandya, were however handed over to Mishra through IGP OP Mathur.

Modi was obviously keeping a close watch on any information leaks or dissent within his cabinet or hierarchy of officials.

The Charges

Charge One
Conspiracy and abetment to commit multiple offences of murder (Section 120-B, 114 r/w 302 IPC)

Charge Two
Furnishing false information (Section 177 IPC)    

Charge Three
Injuring and defiling place of worship (Section 295 IPC)

Charge Four
Outraging religious belief (Section 295-A IPC)

Charge Five
Criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC)    

Charge Six
False statement as evidence (Section 199 IPC)    

Charge Seven
Giving false information about offences committed (Section 203 IPC)

Charge Eight
Obstructing public servant in discharge of duties (Section 186 IPC)

Charge Nine
Omission to assist public servant (Section 187 IPC)    

Charge Ten
Promoting enmity between peoples on grounds of religion (Section 153-A IPC)

Charge Eleven
Uttering words to wound religious feelings (Section 298 IPC)

Charge Twelve
Disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person (Section 166 IPC)   

Modi forgives his men

No action was taken against officers like K. Chakravarti, the then DGP, Gujarat, PC Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad, Ashok Narayan, the then additional chief secretary (home) or a large number of other senior functionaries in the state government for failure to act and control the violence. These are also the officers who filed incomplete, inaccurate and inadequate affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

More Modi mischief

Ø Modi’s interview to the press in which he quoted Newton’s third law of motion to justify the atrocities against the Muslim community: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

Ø There was no direction from Modi to Hindu organisations against the observance of a bandh on February 28, 2002.

Ø There was an unnecessary delay in the requisition for and deployment of the army even though anti-minority violence had broken out in the cities of Vadodara, Ahmedabad, etc on the afternoon of February 27 itself.

Modi failed to act against hate writing

No action was taken against the print media for carrying communally inflammatory reports despite the fact that the SIB and some field officers had recommended such action (as noted in Sreekumar’s first affidavit dated July 6, 2002 and during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on August 31, 2004).

It is the state home department that is empowered to give clearance for initiating action to prosecute the errant media. Modi was Gujarat’s home minister then as he is even today.

More Tehelka revelations on Modi

Ø"To get me out on bail Narendrabhai changed judges thrice." – Babu Bajrangi Patel, Bajrang Dal leader and prime accused in the Naroda Patiya massacre case.

Ø "His rage was great." – Ramesh Dave, sangh diehard.

Ø "He has done what no CM ever has… he openly said that we had three days to do what we could… he said he would not give us time after that." – Haresh Bhatt, Bajrang Dal leader, Godhra.

Ø "Were Modi not a minister, he would have burst bombs." – Arvind Pandya, Gujarat government counsel before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

Ø "Revenge was his promise…" – Rajendra Vyas, VHP Ahmedabad president.

Punish the good, reward the bad

The transfer of officers from field executive posts, in the thick of the 2002 riots, despite the DGP’s objection to these transfers, amounted to Modi, as chief executive, deliberately interfering in their duties.

The transfers were effected to facilitate the convenient placement, in crucial positions, of those persons among the IPS and IAS who were willing to subvert the system for personal benefit.

Similarly, Modi rewarded those senior officials who gave incomplete and questionable evidence before the Nanavati-Shah Commission with undue benefits. PC Pande, a Modi favourite, was rehabilitated into the CBI when Advani was home minister in February 2004, just when citizens’ groups were pleading for independent investigation into the riot cases. In a clear-cut directive, the Supreme Court ruled in October 2004 that he should be kept out of handling Gujarat 2002 cases. Defiant and undeterred, in 2006 the Modi government appointed him DGP of the state, a post that he occupied until six weeks before his retirement. A subsequent challenge to his appointment, by CJP in the Supreme Court, was rejected, after extensive arguments, in February 2009.

Another equally glaring example of rewards for the bad was the post-retirement appointment of Ashok Narayan, the then additional chief secretary, home department, to a two-year post as State Vigilance Commissioner, which was followed by further rewards in the form of five extensions of his tenure.
 

Courtesy: deshgujarat.com        All the chief minister’s men
 

Modi’s speeches during the gaurav yatra

Becharaji, Mehsana: Modi makes inflammatory speeches demonising Muslims in his build-up to the 2002 election campaign and then does his best to deny information about the same to the National Commission for Minorities (see box, ‘Tongue of flame’).

Modi ignores state intelligence reports

The Gujarat state intelligence department had sent cautionary and detailed reports to the state home department manned by additional chief secretary, Ashok Narayan, and home minister, Narendra Modi. These were dated April 24, June 15, August 20 and August 28, 2002. No follow-up action was taken by the home department on these reports, copies of which were appended to Sreekumar’s second affidavit dated October 6, 2004 before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

These were not simply ignored by the government. At first, Modi tried to get Sreekumar to redo his reports in accordance with the state government’s ideological interpretation. This was recorded by the former intelligence chief in his personal register. When that did not work, and the ADGP (intelligence) actually provided an independent view to the Chief Election Commission (CEC) and the National Commission for Minorities (on Modi’s speech at Becharaji), Sreekumar was transferred out of this sensitive post.

What did the SIB reports say?

April 24, 2002: This candid five-page appraisal speaks of the strong resentment felt by the Muslim minority, given the disproportionate destruction of Muslim life and property as also the connivance of the state government through its police and law and judiciary department to protect the accused. The report details that "as on April 23, 2002, 636 Muslims were killed in the riots (of these, 91 were killed in police firing) as against 181 Hindus killed (76 in police firing). Nearly 329 Muslims had sustained injuries in arson as against 74 Hindus… Significantly, this trend of loss of life and damage to property is heavily weighted against Muslims in Ahmedabad city where 278 Muslims were killed in riots (including 57 in police firing) as against 91 Hindus (30 in police action). The persons injured in stabbing and arson, etc comes to 408 in Muslims as against 329 Hindu victims of stabbing and arson."

The report details the victim community’s deep animosity towards the police and the state for doctoring FIRs (not registering actual names of the accused) and clubbing together FIRs in order to reduce the magnitude of the crimes, for not seizing the property of Hindu accused arrested for serious non-bailable offences and for the appointment of partisan public prosecutors who belonged to the ruling party and extremist Hindu organisations.

On May 7, 2002 Modi summoned Sreekumar to his office and, on the pretext of asking for his assessment of the continuing violence in Ahmedabad, criticised the intelligence chief’s note of April 24, saying that it had drawn the wrong conclusions based "on partial data and defective presumptions". Modi told Sreekumar that the violence unleashed by Hindu mobs after the Godhra incident on February 27, was a natural, uncontrollable reaction that no police force could control. Sreekumar argued with the chief minister, saying that the authorities could not take such an attitude, especially not the police department whose primary duty was to maintain public order. Modi then became defensive, laying the blame on the DGP and CP, Ahmedabad, who had been given powers, he said, to control the violence. He then asked Sreekumar to concentrate on Muslim militants. Sreekumar urged the chief minister to take steps to restore the confidence of the minority community as outlined by him in his note. This included immediate and concrete steps to arrest the subversion of the criminal justice system, arrest the guilty criminals and initiate confidence building measures between the two communities. Instead of doing this, the police watched silently as VHP and Bajrang Dal criminals openly extorted monies, promoted the economic boycott of Muslim establishments and so on.

Modi was now visibly annoyed at Sreekumar’s suggestions and argued that it was Muslims who were on the offensive. Quoting statistics on high casualties among Muslims due to police firing during the riots, Sreekumar appealed to him to see reason and acknowledge that it was Hindus who were on the offensive. The chief minister instructed him not to concentrate on the sangh parivar, as they were not doing anything illegal. Sreekumar replied that it was his duty to report accurately on any developing situation and provide advance, actionable, preventive, real time intelligence that may have a bearing on public order and the unity and integrity of India even if that meant keeping tabs on the sangh. Understanding the significance of the response, the chief minister tried one last time to throw his weight around. Modi asserted that he (Modi) should be the intelligence chief’s "source" in tracking the sangh parivar and that Sreekumar need not look for sources elsewhere. (It was a clear hint that Sreekumar should not bother to collect data on the sangh parivar.)

The face-off continues

June 15, 2002: The Gujarat state intelligence department gave a detailed and critical report to the state home department advising against the government proposal to allow the annual Jagannath rath yatra and warned that given that sentiments were still raw following the recent widespread violence, there was a possibility of communally volatile situations developing. The intelligence department had also warned of simmering resentment within the minority community which had been at the receiving end of the violence and could mean the risk of attacks on the rath yatra.

June 25, 2002: The chief minister convened a conference of senior officers of and above the rank of SPs from all over the state. In his address to the officers, he asked them all to enforce the law according to their (Modi’s) reading of the situation. In his personal register, Sreekumar observes: "This is unethical and illegal advice because the police department has to work as per law and not according to the political atmosphere prevailing in the state." Sreekumar also records how Modi asked the "police not to be influenced by the JNU brand of secularism." The chief minister’s tacit message was that police officers should function as committed ideologues of the ruling party and not soldiers of the Indian Constitution.

August 20, 2002: Following a telephonic request from PS Shah, additional secretary (law and order), on August 20, 2002, the SIB submitted its own independent review of the law and order situation in the state. It is obvious that the state government was seeking acquiescence to enable it to justify its decision on July 19, 2002 to dissolve the state assembly and call for immediate elections.

In this report, the SIB observes that:

a) Incidents were reported from "993 villages and 151 towns covering 284 police stations (out of 464 police stations) spread over 54 assembly constituencies out of 182 assembly constituencies."

b) The communal divide between the Hindus and Muslims had widened to an unprecedented degree. The interaction between the two communities was practically negligible in social, commercial, financial and cultural fields. Large sections of the minorities, being the major victims in the recent riots, were still to develop adequate faith in the administration, police department and criminal justice system. The minorities also continued to complain that many rioters belonging to the Hindu community had not been arrested, as they held important positions in Hindu organisations.

c) The minorities were also dejected about non-implementation of most of the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and National Commission for Minorities. They were also upset about the fact that of the 302 dargahs, 209 mosques and 30 madrassas damaged during the riots, only a handful had been repaired and restored to their original condition.

d) In many places, riots victims belonging to the minority community could not restart their commercial activities, or the small businesses they ran before the riots, due to a constant feeling of insecurity. In one incident that took place as late as July 4, 2002, a (Muslim) man and his son were murdered upon their return to their hometown in Vadodara district.

e) An estimated 75,500 persons from 13 districts had been shifted to other places and had yet to return home. If elections were to be held in this heightened atmosphere of insecurity, these persons would remain practically disenfranchised in the event of an election being held before their return to their hometowns. According to information that was received, interested political parties would in all probability collect such persons in large numbers and insist upon their voting rights on polling day. This would lead to confrontations between rival political groups and a resultant disruption of public order.

‘The chief minister, Narendra Modi, took an active role along with at least three cabinet colleagues to instruct senior police personnel and civil administrators that a Hindu reaction was to be expected and this must not be curtailed or controlled’

f) During the communal riots 10,472 houses, 12,588 shops and 2,724 larri/gallas were damaged or destroyed due to arson while 1,333 shops were ransacked. In this process thousands of people have lost all their documents of identity. Unless prompt remedial measures were taken, they would also pose a problem with regard to their re-enumeration as electors and subsequently, in exercising their franchise.

g) With so many persons having fled, it was unlikely that the elections would be free or fair.

August 28, 2002: In another report on the law and order scenario, the SIB once again details the atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between communities and the danger posed by the propagation of fundamentalist literature on both sides that could widen the gulf. Hence it advises that the state home department issue specific instructions to district collectors/district magistrates ordering them to take strict action against the projection of communal issues in the campaign and to rigorously observe the law and guidelines on assembly of persons so as to avoid any clashes.

Additional chief secretary (home), Ashok Narayan, took exception to the SIB’s assessment, as reflected in deputy inspector general of police (DIG) E. Radhakrishna’s report of August 28, 2002 where he questions Sreekumar on this. Sreekumar replies on August 30, 2002. He states that the Election Commission of India has observed that SIB appraisal of the communal situation was in consonance with the inputs received by the commission as evident from its order dated August 16, 2002. In response to Narayan’s query on "whether the SIB’s assessment was based only on the input from some of your field officers or the input from other government officials and others connected with the administration of the state were taken into consideration", Sreekumar replies that the SIB assessment was "based on the intelligence gathered by SIB functionaries, including senior officers, and also data received from jurisdictional police officers. We did not collect any data from any non-police departmental sources."

Modi misleads CEC

The Gujarat state home department gave the CEC misleading reports about the ‘normalcy’ in the state in a crude bid to push for early assembly elections, riding high on a massacre. SIB chief, Sreekumar gave an opinion contrary to the "official version" in early August 2002. The assessment of the Gujarat state home department was adjudged to be false by the EC in its order dated August 16, 2002. Modi, as home minister, headed this department.

In his personal register, Sreekumar records that he was directed by home department officials to give favourable reports about the law and order situation so as to facilitate the holding of early elections. He chose instead to follow his conscience.

Modi’s government lies to the NHRC

The Modi government failed to create a situation conducive to the rehabilitation of riot victims notwithstanding its claims to the contrary in reports to the NHRC. Instead, the riot victims were pressurised to compromise with the perpetrators of the violence as a condition precedent to their safe return and rehabilitation.
 

Shah Alam Relief Camp
 

Ruthless suppression of evidence

On July 20, 2004, faced with a hostile government in New Delhi which had threatened to set up a parallel central commission of inquiry into the genocidal carnage of 2002, the Modi government expanded the terms of reference of the Nanavati-Shah Commission. The second term of reference requested the commission inter alia to inquire into the "role and conduct of the then chief minister (Narendra Modi) or any other ministers in his council of ministers, police officers, other individuals and organisations" relating "to the facts, circumstances and course of events of the subsequent incidents in the aftermath of the Godhra incidents."

But this was obviously a mere formality, meant only to appease the public. It is odd that the Nanavati-Shah Commission did not insist that the commission’s terms of reference be honoured by the state government and its representatives. RB Sreekumar and Rahul Sharma were among the few who deposed on this critical question. Meanwhile, senior officials who are also accused in this complaint conspired with Modi and his men to suppress the truth about 2002.

The following persons are conspicuous for their role in suppressing key evidence:

1. Ashok Narayan, the then additional chief secretary (home).

2. PK Mishra, the then principal secretary to the chief minister.

3. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP, Gujarat.

4. K. Nityanandam, the then home secretary.

5. PC Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad.

6. KR Kaushik, in his capacity as ADGP (crime), supervising investigations into the Godhra train fire, and later, as CP, Ahmedabad, in May, 2002.

7. AK Bhargava, the then ADGP (administration) and later, DGP, Gujarat.

8. Maniram, the then ADGP (law and order), in charge of maintaining law and order across the entire state during the protracted riots in 2002.

9. GC Raiger, the then ADGP (intelligence), during the crucial period of the Gujarat riots i.e. from February 27 to April 9, 2002. He was among those who attended secret meetings convened by the chief minister, the chief secretary and additional chief secretary, Ashok Narayan.

Modi intimidates his officials: Do not tell the truth before the commission

Modi misused his power and the office of chief minister to pressurise and intimidate his officials into withholding critical evidence and not testifying before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

The complaint quotes extensively from the affidavits of the then ADGP, Sreekumar, regarding the manner in which he was asked to withhold evidence and falsely testify before the commission.

After newspapers carried reports on Sreekumar’s first affidavit dated July 6, 2002, which he filed before the Nanavati-Shah Commission in mid-2002, the chief minister used his clout, and marshalled the services of senior IPS officers, to approach the ADGP with clear attempts to pressurise him into giving false evidence before a commission of inquiry set up under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 in the public interest.

On August 21, 2004 a middle-level officer in the home department, the then undersecretary (budget and coordination), Dinesh Kapadia, tried to persuade Sreekumar, who was to appear before the commission on August 31, to give a deposition favourable to the government. Kapadia told Sreekumar that no purpose would be served by telling the truth before the commission since its recommendations would not be accepted and said that all commissions were paper tigers. Three days after this endeavour, one that had obviously been carried out with Modi’s blessings, GC Murmu, the then secretary (law and order), home department, summoned the ADGP. On the evening of August 24, 2004 a "briefing session for tutoring Sreekumar" was held.

Murmu was ably aided and abetted in this illegal effort by Arvind Pandya, advocate for the Gujarat government before the commission. They directed this police officer to avoid making any statements that could embarrass the government. They stressed that they had similarly briefed all witnesses i.e. government officials on how to depose before the commission without harming the Gujarat government’s interests. When Sreekumar did not oblige, he was threatened… if he gave a statement that went against the interests of the state government, he would be declared a hostile witness and dealt with suitably later.

Sreekumar taped this blatantly illegal effort and has appended the tape and its transcript to his third affidavit before the commission.

Modi has protected the accused, had the evidence tampered with or destroyed, worked hard to ensure the impotence of the Nanavati-Shah Commission and subverted the justice process. In fact, having presided over the genocidal pogrom, he is now misusing his powers to ensure that justice is not done
 

This briefing and the directives issued by Murmu and Pandya were patent efforts to intimidate a witness and tamper with evidence, both of which are serious offences under the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, these actions were in total violation of the letter and spirit of the terms of reference of the commission as specified in the government notifications dated March 6, 2002 and July 20, 2004. In these notifications, the state legal department among other things stressed on inquiring into the "role and conduct of the then chief minister or any other ministers in his council of ministers, police officers, other individuals and organisations" in the Godhra and post-Godhra violence.

Instead of encouraging officers to assist the commission in arriving at the truth behind the collapse of law and order and the pogrom against Gujarat’s Muslims, at this in camera meeting attempts were made to influence and intimidate a senior officer of the Indian Police Service and a prime witness before the commission. He was being directed, at Modi’s behest, to lie under oath and avoid telling the whole truth.

Needless to say, Sreekumar refused to comply with these unlawful demands. Retribution came swiftly, however. He was denied his rightful promotion to the top police post in the state even as vicious attempts were made to charge-sheet him. He was separately charge-sheeted for sharing confidential government records before an inquiry commission investigating the cause of the outbreak of violence in 2002 and the persons responsible for it. He fought both cases and emerged vindicated. A day before his retirement on February 28, 2009 he was reinstated as DGP and thus retired in the very post that his vengeful political bosses had sought to deny him.

These are the instructions that Sreekumar received from the government’s emissaries:

1. Conceal the facts before the commission.

2. Accept the conspiracy theory with regard to the fire in coach-6 of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002.

3. Do not reveal any data on acts of omission and commission by government functionaries and other senior officers.

4. Avoid any comment on the government’s inaction on reports he had submitted as ADGP (intelligence) from February to September 2002.

5. Do not provide additional facts which could result in the commission summoning more government functionaries for deposition.

6. He was warned that he would be made answerable to government through a departmental inquiry if he deposed in a manner contrary to the Gujarat government’s interests.

7. The duo also made critical remarks about the Supreme Court.

8. Undesirable comments were also made about the Gujarat high court.

9. Sreekumar was told that officers like him should be committed to the interests of the government, even at the cost of adherence to truth and so on.

It is unlikely that Murmu and Pandya acted on their own initiative. Two years after the carnage, the message they carried was clear. Conceal the truth about 2002 or else… Such intimidation by representatives of the government is unlikely to have occurred without Modi’s blessings.

Intimidation of witnesses

Over the past seven-and-a-half-years the discreet and overt intimidation of witnesses continues under the current Gujarat dispensation.

Contempt of the justice process

Despite recommendations by the CBI, which investigated the Bilkees Bano case, the state’s home department under Narendra Modi did not initiate departmental action against Jadeja, the then SP of Dahod district, for gross misconduct and destruction of evidence in this case. Aided by state-appointed doctors, the police officer had worked hard to destroy evidence of the murder of Bilkees’s daughter, Saleha, and sought to bury her body without proper investigations.

In August 2004, almost five years ago, Rahul Sharma submitted a critical piece of evidence, a CD containing the cellphone call records of BJP leaders and senior police officials, to the Nanavati-Shah Commission. It was only in 2008-2009, after the Supreme Court had appointed the SIT headed by Dr RK Raghavan, that some of these call records were verified by the SIT and the roles of influential accused in the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society cases (whose names had mysteriously vanished from the charge sheets) were exposed. In the two years prior to 2004 the investigating officers in these cases simply did not probe into the contents of this CD, which clearly suggests that they had received clear-cut instructions not to investigate the role of ministers, MLAs and leaders of the VHP and Bajrang Dal in the violence.

Slack review of 2,000 cases

Review of the 2,000-odd post-Godhra riot cases, as ordered by the Supreme Court in 2004, was conducted in a slack and unprofessional manner. This was achieved by entrusting the job to those senior officers who were either willing or constrained to act in accordance with the partisan interests of the BJP and the chief minister.

2004: Indictment by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court severely indicted the Gujarat government and the high court for the injustices done to the minority community and riot victims in the investigation of riot cases. The apex court transferred two cases, the Bilkees Bano case and the Best Bakery case, out of Gujarat, to Maharashtra.

Partisan investigations

The Gujarat government under Narendra Modi is guilty of betraying prejudice against riot victims belonging to the minority community, as revealed by Rahul Sharma, the then SP, Bhavnagar, during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2004. He stated under oath that the then home minister, Gordhan Zadaphiya, reprimanded him for taking action against a mob that was about to set fire to a madrassa with 400 children inside.

Further indictment by the Supreme Court

Amit Shah, the then minister of state for home, along with Madhu Srivastava, a sitting MLA (formerly BJP) from Vadodara, influenced the key witness, Zahira Shaikh, and her immediate family while the Best Bakery trial was underway in Gujarat. After she fled to Gujarat in October-November 2004 (while the retrial was on in Mumbai) Shaikh was given commando protection and secretly housed at the Silver Oak club in Gandhinagar, which was closed to all other guests. Allegations were hurled at me (Teesta Setalvad, as secretary of CJP) and I approached the apex court for an impartial inquiry. On August 25, 2005 a report by the registrar general exonerated me completely and instead accused Zahira Shaikh of being bribed by Madhu Srivastava. But the Gujarat government under Narendra Modi initiated no action against Srivastava who was found guilty by the Supreme Court’s registrar general of intimidating and bribing witnesses.

2005: Mass graves dug up in Lunawada

After trying for three years to locate the remains of their near and dear ones, victim survivors of the Pandharwada and Kidiad massacres unearthed, in December 2005, the remains of their loved ones who had been illegally dumped in forest wasteland near the Paanam river outside Lunawada town. The Gujarat high court ordered the human remains to be sent for DNA testing and analysis, to be carried out at the forensic laboratory at Red Hill, Hyderabad, under CBI supervision. Overnight an FIR was registered against the victim survivors for illegal digging and they had to give their blood samples under threat of arrest. Instead of showing concern for relatives searching for the remains of their lost ones, the administration was vindictive. Seven months later the test results showed that samples from nine body remains matched the DNA samples taken from relatives of the massacre victims. Yet, three-and-a-half years later, the remains of those who were killed have still not been handed over to the victim survivors. In late 2007 CJP approached the Supreme Court for a directive that would enable quick access to the remains, which are still lying in Hyderabad, in order to ensure speedy burial. The apex court only directed CJP to approach the trial court in Godhra.

2006: Best Bakery retrial

The judgement of the Mumbai fast track trial court in the Best Bakery case sentenced nine accused to life imprisonment and also indicted senior police officials in Gujarat for their conduct during the trial, which amounted to suppression of evidence. These include the then CP, Vadodara, Deepak Swaroop, the IG (intelligence), K. Kumarswami and PI Pargi, who recorded doctored statements from the hostile witnesses while they were state guests of the Gujarat government!

2008: Bilkees Bano judgement

Judgement was pronounced by the Mumbai fast track court investigating the Bilkees Bano case where a total of 12 people were convicted, 11 of them being sentenced to life imprisonment. The 12 include three officers of the Gujarat police who were convicted for suppression of evidence. Speaking to the press after the judgement was read, Bilkees Bano said that she was still not safe in Gujarat.

Conclusion

The fact that the victims of the 2002 genocidal pogrom were predominantly from the Muslim community indicates that the criminals who committed the crimes and officers of the police and administration who were directed by politicians in power all worked together in pursuance of a conspiracy, to achieve the objectives and design of the chief minister, Narendra Modi.

The offences detailed in the complaint now being investigated by the SIT are wide-ranging and extremely grave. They establish prima facie that the accused number one had violated and is violating his oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India. Modi has done this by shaping the narrative of the Godhra train fire into one of preplanned conspiracy thus creating a climate conducive to "Hindu revenge". In short, he has, through the illegal use of the human and material resources at his command in a constitutionally elected post, protected the accused, had the evidence tampered with or destroyed, worked hard to ensure the impotence of the Nanavati-Shah Commission and subverted the justice process. In fact, having presided over the genocidal pogrom, he is now misusing his powers to ensure that justice is not done.

How far this investigation goes is a robust test for the Indian system.

Archived from Communalism Combat,  May 2009 Year 15    No.140, Cover Story 2
 

The post Villain of the piece appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Accused number 29: PC Pande, former commissioner of police, Ahmedabad

PC Pande, the former commissioner of police (CP), Ahmedabad, and later the DGP, Gujarat, who continues to enjoy special favour with the Modi dispensation, sent a confidential written communication to the then DGP, K. Chakravarti, on April 19, 2002. The letter implicates Bharat Barot, the then minister for food and civil supplies in the Gujarat government, as he directly instigated well-known gangsters of the Bajrang Dal and VHP to arson. Another such letter by the CP, written ten days later, was addressed to both DGP K. Chakravarti, and the then additional chief secretary (home), Ashok Narayan (accused numbers 25 and 28 respectively).
 

Both these letters were submitted to the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2006 as appendices to the then ADGP, Mahapatra’s affidavit. Despite attempts by the commission to prevent copies of the letters from coming out, CJP managed to access the documents in 2006 itself and they were part of the Zakiya Jaffri petition in both the Gujarat high court and the Supreme Court.
 

On April 15, 2002, four days before Pande’s first letter to the DGP, a mob had gathered near the Amba Mata temple, near Kapadia High School outside Delhi Darwaja in Ahmedabad. This was at 9.30 a.m., in broad daylight. Bharat Barot, then a cabinet minister, drove up in a white private car, had a whispered confabulation with some members of the mob (named below) and drove off. As soon as he left, incidents of arson took place outside Delhi Darwaja and near Idgah Chowky.
 

The commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, while referring to this incident in the letter to his boss, the DGP, states that Harshad Panchal, Dipak Goradia and Dinesh Prajapati, all workers of the Bajrang Dal, were part of the mob. Pande, who was part of Narendra Modi’s major cover-up operation in 2002, also says that known leaders of the VHP and Bajrang Dal such as Raju Ravji Thakore, Kamlesh Babu Thakore, Bholiyo, Virambhai, Paresh Langdo and Mahendra Bachubhai were part of a mob that had launched attacks in the Madhavpura locality.
 

What steps did the police take? PC Pande, instead of booking the minister for incitement and abetment, politely requests his boss "to bring this matter to the knowledge of government" and to make arrangements to ensure that "Hon’ble ministers of government may not do (sic) such activity."
 

Yes, Pande does write the letter. But what more does he do? He keeps it under wraps until it is produced before the Nanavati-Shah Commission four years later.
 

Shielding extortion by the VHP/Bajrang Dal

Ten days later, on April 29, 2002, Pande makes other significant revelations in a second written communication, this one addressed to both Chakravarti and Ashok Narayan. This document, which was also accessed by CJP, was submitted to the Gujarat high court in 2007 as an annexure to the petition filed by Zakiya Jaffri and CJP, seeking directions from the court for registration of an FIR against Modi and 62 others. In 2008 it was also filed in the Supreme Court, in the litigation challenging the appointment of PC Pande as DGP of Gujarat.
 

In this letter, while reporting on the continued misbehaviour and criminal actions of the VHP and Bajrang Dal in Ahmedabad, Pande says "one and three quarter months (after the Godhra and post-Godhra violence) …when the situation in Ahmedabad is limping back to normal, some ugly activities are being carried out by parties that have the support of the government."

Why did the commissioner of police restrict himself to private pleas and in-house communications instead of acting to book the criminals for their illegal activities?
 

Specifically, he states that workers of the VHP and Bajrang Dal in Ahmedabad city were extorting money from businessmen under the pretext of providing them protection from the minority community. Though forced by the bullying tactics of the VHP and Bajrang Dal into paying out the amounts demanded, the businessmen had nonetheless complained about these illegal activities in public and also to the police.
 

Worse still, Pande also makes reference to complaints received by the police of threats faced by the minority community when they went to majority-dominated areas for work or work-related activities. Here too he says that the police had noted the active role played by workers of the VHP and Bajrang Dal.
 

(This from a man who suffered a sudden lapse of memory during his deposition before the Nanavati-Shah Commission and one who has protected the state government before and since.
 

Why does the commissioner of police restrict himself to private pleas and in-house communications instead of acting to book the criminals for their illegal activities?)
 

Pande also states in this letter that attempts were being made by criminals belonging to the VHP and Bajrang Dal to seize the properties of minorities after their homes had been destroyed by goons belonging to the majority community. He says that members of the minority community were not allowed to reclaim their properties and were being threatened if they did return.
 

Pande reveals all in confidential communications to his superiors but takes no steps to book the criminals, register complaints and protect the victims. He privately acknowledges the criminal activities of groups that enjoy the patronage of the top men in government as seen in these letters. He even appeals to the state government to stop their patronage and protection of criminal groups like the VHP and Bajrang Dal. Why does he do nothing more?

Archived from Communalism Combat,  May 2009 Year 15    No.140, Cover Story 3

The post The silent conspirator appeared first on SabrangIndia.