On December 3, 2010 while the contents of the Special Investigation
Team’s May 2010 report (on the role of Chief Min-
ister Narendra Modi
and 61 other top politicians, civil servants and police officers in the
2002 genocidal targeting of Muslims in Gujarat) – which had been placed
before the Supreme Court – was yet to be made public, The Times of India
splashed “news” on the front page of all its editions headlined, ‘SIT
clears Narendra Modi of wilfully allowing post-Godhra riots’. Treating
this obviously planted “news” as gospel truth, TV news channels
mindlessly jumped on the bandwagon, announcing to the nation that Modi
had been given a “clean chit”.
Needless to say, the “news” brought great joy to the sangh
parivar camp. It inspired the BJP leader, LK Advani, to pontificate on
his blog: “In my 60 years of political life I have not known any
colleague of mine so consistently, so sustainedly and so viciously
maligned by opponents as Narendra Modi.” His eulogy of Modi ended with
the words: “The Times of India and several other papers have reported
that the SIT has found no evidence to substantiate the charge and has
exonerated the Gujarat chief minister. The country is eagerly awaiting
the full text of the SIT report to the Supreme Court.”
But Hindutva’s glee proved to be short-lived. Modi’s
manipulation of the media came to naught and the media itself was left
red-faced when Tehelka scooped the 600-page SIT report to show that,
far from a clean chit, the SIT had severely indicted Modi on a number
of counts. Dissecting the report, Tehelka proceeded to reveal how,
while indicting Modi, the SIT had damned itself as well. In 2010,
survivor eyewitnesses and CJP had petitioned the Supreme Court,
complaining that the SIT was not honestly adhering to the mandate it
had been given by the apex court. That the SIT’s work was, in part at
least, an exercise in rank dishonesty is now obvious from a perusal of
its own report made public by Tehelka.
The SIT report should be
read as a not-so-clever attempt at a balancing act. The SIT could not
possibly give a total clean chit to Modi without opening itself up to
national and international ridicule. After all, Modi and his
government are sponsors of India’s first mass killing in the era of
“Live TV”. Besides, there are several fact-finding reports – of the
National Human Rights Commission, of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal
headed by three retired Supreme Court and high court judges (Crime
Against Humanity), of the Editors Guild and by Communalism Combat in
its special issue, ‘Genocide: Gujarat 2002’ – to contend with. Also,
it is not for nothing that Modi continues to be treated as a pariah by
many within India, even BJP allies in the former NDA government, and
internationally (Modi is denied a US visa). And then there are the
depositions of several highly credible persons before the SIT itself.
So what does the SIT do? It severely castigates Modi on several
counts but, contradicting its own findings, concludes that “the
substantiated allegations did not throw up material that would justify
further action under the law”. But half-hearted investigations and
inexplicable conclusions notwithstanding, the SIT report still amounts
to a sufficiently damning indictment of the Gujarat chief minister.
Enough for the Supreme Court to take the justice process further.
Tehelka reported that the SIT found Modi guilty on several counts (see
box, ‘Truth talks’).
As Tehelka rightly points out, “It is significant to note that
the SIT probe against Modi and his government was severely limited in
its scope and authority. The report was merely a ‘preliminary
inquiry’. The inquiry officer had no powers to carry out search or
raids, effect arrests, interrogate the accused in police custody or
compel the government and individuals to produce crucial records. The
only method left to the probe officer was to record statements… The
inquiry officer has noted with pain that hardly any bureaucrat or
police officer was inclined to tell the truth, as most of them had got
lucrative government assignments after retirement and a few who didn’t
were still not willing to antagonise the powerful chief minister.”
The most telling example of the reluctance or the refusal on
the part of bureaucrats and police officers “to tell the truth”
pertains to the critical meeting on the evening of February 27, 2002
where Modi issued a firman before an assembly of eight top bureaucrats
and policemen, stating that in the aftermath of the death of kar
sevaks in the Sabarmati Express earlier in the day, Hindus must be
allowed to vent their anger. During their deposition before the SIT
the acting chief secretary, Swarna Kanta Verma, and the additional
chief secretary (home), Ashok Narayan, “pleaded loss of memory due to
passage of time”! Four officers – K. Chakravarti (DGP), K. Nityanandam
(home secretary), PC Pande (Ahmedabad police commissioner) and PK
Mishra (principal secretary to the chief minister) – categorically
denied that the chief minister had instructed the police not to
control Hindu mobs for some days. One officer, Anil Mukim (additional
principal secretary to the chief minister), simply denied having
attended this meeting at all.
Three different versions from seven
top officials – telltale signs surely, of an operation cover-up. As
the SIT chairperson, RK Raghavan, himself observes in his comments:
“the three officers (PC Pande, PK Mishra and Ashok Narayan) had been
accommodated in post-retirement jobs and are therefore not obliged to
speak against the chief minister or the state government” (page 4 of
chairman’s comments).
That a cover-up is what it is all about is evident from the
account of the eighth officer who was also present at the meeting and
who told the SIT off the record that Modi did say: “There is a lot of
anger in the people. This time a balanced approach against Hindus and
Muslims will not work. It is necessary that the anger of the people is
allowed to be vented.” His name is Sanjeev Bhatt. Currently a deputy
inspector general, he was deputy commissioner of police in the State
Intelligence Bureau during the 2002 carnage.
Bhatt told the SIT that he attended the meeting as the next in
command because the state intelligence chief, GC Raiger, was away on
leave and the DGP had insisted on a senior intelligence officer being
present. But the SIT chose to disbelieve his claim of being there
simply because the other officers did not confirm his presence at the
meeting to which, the SIT presumed, so junior an officer could not
have been invited. But curiously, the same SIT had no problem
acknowledging the fact that this “too junior” officer was present at
another meeting called by Modi, on February 28, 2002, even though by
then Bhatt’s boss had cut short his leave and returned to Ahmedabad.
And just as curiously, Tehelka reports that during his own
deposition when Modi was asked by the SIT to name those who were
present at the meeting on February 27, he named the others and then
volunteered the information that Sanjeev Bhatt was not present. Why
was he proffering unsolicited information? Could it be that he was
aware of what Bhatt had told the SIT? How did Modi hear of what Bhatt
had said? The SIT however was content to conclude that Bhatt’s account
could not be given credence because his presence at the meeting was
itself in doubt.
Why did Bhatt make his statement about Modi’s diktat off the
record? Why did he choose not to put it on record? Here is the answer
in the SIT report: “He (Bhatt) has stated that he attended this
meeting in his capacity as an intelligence officer and as per his
belief, it would not be professionally appropriate on his part to
divulge the exact nature of discussions that took place during the
said meeting. However, he would be duty-bound to disclose the same to
the best of his recollection and ability as and when he is required to
do so under legal obligation.”
Significantly, Bhatt also told the SIT that though the slain
Gujarat minister, Haren Pandya, did not attend the meeting on February
27, he was very much there, sitting in an adjoining room. Pandya was
killed within weeks of it becoming public knowledge that while
deposing before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal in May 2002, he had
disclosed that such a meeting had in fact taken place, where Modi had
issued his totally unconstitutional and criminal directive that people
should be allowed to vent their anger.
The Tehelka report is commendable in that it highlights the
findings of the SIT which damn Modi even as it castigates the SIT for
its half-hearted job, its failure to pursue critical leads to their
logical end and for arriving at conclusions contrary to its own
findings: all to Modi’s advantage.
To cite a few examples:
“Top cop RB Sreekumar produces a mountain of evidence about
unconstitutional acts by Narendra Modi but the SIT says no other
bureaucrat is ready to corroborate his version of events.”
“By its
own admission, there are several crucial records that the SIT has not
examined. Mainly, they are:
Ø Phone call records of fixed
landlines and mobile phone records of crucial persons in the
government, including Modi.
Ø Television channel recordings of
critical events like the events at Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad,
where the victims of the Sabarmati carnage were taken.
Ø Logbooks
and station diaries maintained at police stations during the riots.
Ø Case diaries maintained by police officers investigating the
riots.
Ø Files pertaining to the appointments of public
prosecutors after the riots.
Ø Files relating to transfers of
different police officers immediately after the riots.
Ø Records
related to intelligence inputs both by the State and Central
Intelligence Bureaus both before and after the riots.
Ø Security
logs of the chief minister and other senior officials, showing their
movements during the riots.
Ø Records of the army and central
paramilitary forces showing not just their deployment but also
permission from civil authorities to use force and firearms. Just a
cursory glance at that list suggests there is a mountain of evidence
that has not even been looked at yet.”
Readers of Communalism
Combat are well aware of the magazine’s and CJP’s efforts in the
pursuit of truth and justice for the victims and survivors of the
worst communal carnage in India since 1947. To ensure a meaningful
investigation, we have ourselves analysed phone call records and other
documentary evidence and submitted these to the SIT at great personal
risk. This evidence reveals that subversion has included destruction
of crucial records – while the Supreme Court “watched” the case – by
itself a serious offence overseen by the Gujarat ministry of home
affairs headed by the chief minister. Here we applaud Tehelka for its
own dogged pursuit of the same objective over the years and for
holding up a mirror to the rest of the media.
The complete Tehelka reports can be read at www.tehelka.com:
‘Here’s the smoking gun. So how come the SIT is looking the other
way?’: February 12, 2011; ‘The Artful Faker’: February 12, 2011; ‘I
was there. Narendra Modi said let the people vent their anger’: DIG
Sanjeev Bhatt: February 19, 2011