The Supreme-Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which submitted a closure report on the probe into the Zakia Jafri petition levelling serious charges against Narendra Modi and 62 others in connection with the 2002 communal riots, has not found any evidence of the Chief Minister having promoted enmity among various communities on religious grounds.
In the section dealing with Mr. Modi in its 541-page report, the SIT on the contrary claimed that the Chief Minister had repeatedly appealed to the people for peace and had also taken due care for the rehabilitation and medical facilities for the riot victims in the relief camps.
The report has dismissed the suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt as a “tainted witness”, whose claims of Mr. Modi having “instructed” the police officers to “allow the Hindus to vent their anger” could not be relied upon, and held retired Additional Director General of Police R.B. Shreekumar's charges of having been “pressurised” by some government officials to draft his affidavits before the G.T.Nanavati-Akshay-Mehta judicial inquiry commission in a particular way to protect the interests of Mr. Modi and the State government, as an “afterthought and motivated”, brought out by him only after he was superseded and denied promotion as the DGP.
The SIT disagreed that there was any delay in deploying the Army in the riot-affected areas and came to the conclusion that the Army and the paramilitary forces were deployed to control the riot situation as soon as the force was available and in full measure, depending on the personnel available.
The SIT also did not agree that the decision to bring the bodies of the victims of the Godhra train carnage to Ahmedabad, which was alleged to have inflamed the riots, was Mr. Modi's “personal decision” but claimed that the decision was taken “unanimously” by the Ministers, government officials and police officers present in Godhra on the evening of February 27, 2002, and was also consented by the then Panchamahals district collector Jayanti Ravi. The SIT was also of the opinion that the bodies were brought to Ahmedabad in the dead of night and disposed of quietly the next day without being paraded before the riotous mob as was alleged by the Chief Minister's critics.
The SIT maintained that contrary to Mr. Bhatt's claim of being present at the crucial meeting at the Chief Minister's residence on the night of February 27, 2002, in which he allegedly passed the objectionable “instructions,” the suspended IPS officer was not present at the meeting. Similarly the then Minister of State for Revenue, Haren Pandya (since deceased), who was claimed to have given a similar statement before a Citizens' Tribunal, was also not present in the meeting and any such testimony could not be relied upon. It stated that none of the police and bureaucratic officials, “who definitely were present at the meeting,” have denied Mr. Modi having passed any such instructions and except the then acting chief secretary Swarnakanta Varma, who said she could not recollect now if Mr. Bhatt was present in the meeting, all others had categorically denied his presence in the meeting.
“Mr. Bhatt is a tainted witness and therefore, can not be relied upon keeping in view his background in the police department as he was involved in criminal cases of serious nature and departmental inquiries are also in progress against him,” the report said. There also was nothing to show that even if the Chief Minister had made such oral observations as alleged by Mr. Bhatt at the meeting, the same had been passed on to the subordinate police officials and that the police on the streets acted accordingly. Even Mr. Bhatt had pleaded ignorance “about the fact as to whether the Chief Minister's alleged instructions were passed on the subordinates and also as to whether the same was complied with or not,” it said. The Supreme-Court-appointed amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, however, had given due weightage to Mr. Bhatt's claims in forming his opinion that Mr. Modi could be prosecuted for promoting enmity among various communities.
The SIT report said after closely scrutinising all the telephone call details that it had come to the conclusion that the allegations that Mr. Modi and senior police officers had ignored the “frantic calls for help” from the slain former Congress member of the Lok Sabha in the Gulberg Society massacre, Ahesan Jafri, and deliberately allowed the riotous mob time to massacre the 69 people along with Mr. Jafri. The SIT report said neither Mr. Modi nor the then Ahmedabad city police commissioner, P.C. Pande, or his deputy, M.K. Tandon, and other senior police officers, had received any call from Mr. Jafri for help. The report said it had closely checked the mobile call records of all the concerned police officers and the personal secretaries of the Chief Minister on February 28, 2002, but there was not a single call from Ahesan Jafri's landline number, nor at any time of the crucial day were any of these mobile phones “switched off”, as was alleged. Mr. Jafri did not hold any mobile number, nor there was any other landline or mobile number in the entire Gulberg Society, it pointed out.
The SIT also gave a clean chit to Mr. Modi in respect of his having “instructed” two of his then senior Cabinet Ministers, the late Ashok Bhatt and I.K. Jadeja, to interfere with the functioning of the police forces here and at the State police control rooms on the “Gujarat Bandh” day on February 28. Though the Ministers did visit the police control rooms on that day for short durations for various reasons, there was no evidence that they were acting under Mr. Modi's instructions, nor was there any evidence that at any time they interfered with the police operations, it said.
About the alleged delay in deploying army in the affected areas, the SIT found that the then Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Ashok Narayan, had alerted the Army headquarters on February 27 itself. There, however, was no Army personnel available in the Army headquarters here as they had been deployed in the sensitive border areas. After reviewing the situation on the riot day, Mr. Modi himself had made an oral request to the then Union Home Minister, L.K. Advani, for the Army in the afternoon itself, while an official request was also sent through the home secretary K. Nityanandam to the defence secretary. A high-level decision was taken by the Centre to withdraw some forces from the border areas and send them to Gujarat. Army personnel were airlifted from forward positions and they started arriving in the city from the midnight of February 28 and were promptly deployed in affected areas, depending on the developing situation and availability of the army personnel, from the next morning itself after arranging for its necessary logistic supports, it concluded.
Keywords: Godhra train carnage, Post-Godhra riots, suspended IPS officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, Zakia Jafri complaint, SIT report, Raju Ramachandran, amicus curiae report
Now we have to find some other enemy to vent our spleen. Let us find some other 'Hindu' leader to defame now that SIT has given him a clean chit. We cannot let our sales drop because SIT did not believe our lies. Let us get together and save the HINDU newspaper.
The bluff of the media is called. The paid media has been haunting Modi at the behest of
their paymasters and have concealed the truth thereby misleading the nation. Such media is
far worse than the corrupt politicians and they should be investigated for receiving business
favours in exchange of spreading lies. Will this media apologies to Narendra Modi and the
nation now ? I don't think they have such values, far from it !!
It is better late than never. The Hindu does deserve credit for publishing this report. As far as Mr Mody is concerned he has overcome these chorus of slanted media reports with commendable focus. Keep doing good work for Gujarat. Your continued excellent work is true response to congress party and its cohorts. Even if he is finally cleared by Supreme Court these elements will never give up their hatred.
I doubt that the Modi is such a fool that he might have given written instruction to allow killings. Even if verbal instructions were issued at that time, any story from witness will not stand as it is too late and can be linked to witness's malafied intentions.Amicus curiae observations only proves that bhatt could be there during the meeting. However, that does not rule out his absence in meeting. It is quite subjective and can be challenged easily. Strong evidences only can prove Modi's role. However, there is none. hence, police on duty at time of killing should be prosecuted to avoid reoccurence such incident. Otherwise, it is waste of time and money.
Thank you! for great reporting. It has unbaised, neutral tone. It is left on to the readers to make opinion about complicity. More importantly, none of the other media channels have the courage to respect thier profession and report both sides of the coin. But, imagine how many people read it? And how soon will this be removed from here.
Two reports, Thanks to Hindu as it came with more an unbaised observation giving both sides to their place.Regarding observations by Amicus Curiae, more of a belief on sanjiv bhatt and hypotheis rather than any facts.Sanjiv bhatt might be a senior IPS, but to challenge govt. based on facts or vested interest will bring serious governance issue if not discouraged,that will create a precedence where IPS officers in other states also will follow the same path for their own vested interest and challenge govt. for petty issues.Gujarat has seen many bloody riots, for 2002 it was more famous it was ruled by somebody from RSS, which is considered communal by its definition.Other than this i can see congress has supervised many serious riots with failure than any political party in the history from our independence.Being an indian i can say we should not be blind to the character based on only ideology.It is better to consume facts and form opinion on unbaised manner.
The hindu had negative approach for Modi earlier, Young India hate print and tv media because they made Modi culprit and wanted to hang him. Hope The Hindu brings out real inside story of NAMO which will destroy fortress of Ghandi's from Our Country.
SIT always tried to protect Modi. Even then PM was not happy with the way Modi was controlling the Riot. Now everybody praises Modi and he has become a saint and Hero. There is no future for truth and true secular people in India.
We have two issues here. a) whether Mr. Modi conspired to not enforce the law, and in net effect abet the three week long bloodletting in 2002. b) Did Mr. Modi promote in any form enmity between communities i) Mr. Modi's role in the riots: We have two reports arriving at contradictory opinions on whether there is enough grounds to prosecute Mr. Modi on his role in abetting the riots in any form. ii) Mr. Raju Ramachandran as the Amicus Curae feels that there is enough grounbds to try Mr. Modi on his role in promoting enmity between the two communities. I would like the readers to scan through Mr. Modi's speeches in the election that immediately followed in 2007 and arrive at your own conclusions. Suggested key words- words that were used in speeches belligerently to polarize- Mian Musharaf, Hum Paanch, hamaare pachees, and more.
Did the Supreme Court at any time care to appoint an Amicus Curiae for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984? Perhaps Mr. Raju Ramachandran should volunteer himself and show his sympathy for the accused as he did in the case of poor Ajmal Kasab.
Thanks The Hindu... for saving Mr Modi from a discriminatory media. I am aware I was there then in 2002 it was horrific but what any government could do was done by Gujarat Government in best interest of nation and state both!!!! I fail to understand on what counts Mr Ramachandran has made observation of prima facie evidence. There is not evidence only statements those too have changed time and again by so called witness. Indian Judicial system should not allow it to be circumvention by mere allegations.
Kudos to "The Hindu" for publishing this report. It needs to be mentioned here that the SIT report(submitted on Feb 8 2012) that the article is mentioning was written after taking into consideration the final report of the SC appointed Amicus Curiae(submitted on July 25, 2011) though both the reports are being made public at the same time. So, to again quote Amicus Curiae doesn't make much sense as the findings in the report are after consideration of Amicus Curiae's views.
I compared this report with the report giving the findings of amicus curiae. The most ridiculous observation of that report was "In my opinion, despite the aforesaid background, it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation against Mr. Modi, the Chief Minister of the State, without some basis". The reports/findings are supposed to be based on facts and not what one believes. And it becomes more annoying when this is the sole ground for claiming that allegations against Mr. Modi are true and he can/should be prosecuted. The report of SIT seems more legit in the sense that it talks about facts not opinions. All in all a nice report by 'The Hindu'. At-least gives people a chance to look at both sides of the coin.
we should fight against this congress conspiracy to defame modi. there
is no iota of doubt this is well staged conspiracy to keep modi busy in
such cases and keep him out of national politics. we will miss the great
service of modi to nation if we do not stand united against congress'
ulterior motive. lets be one on this issue and fight till congress gives
up and hides.
Thanks for bringing this report out, none of the electronic media houses has guts to put this on their websites, they were on the top of their voice just a day back and now all of a sudden they've choked throat. It is sad to note that there was a systematic campaign against Modi, this can be recorded in the annals of history that a criminal Kasab is given a royal treatment where as Modi was victimised by "Opinions" of few.
I could not get the observations of SIT in any media or print report.The Hindu should be appreciated for giving both the sides for the readers.This is a great example of unbiased reporting.
It is immaterial that Rajiv Gandhi was given clean cheat,but congress has earned a stigma of corruption.Likewise Modi may be remembered as a better personality,but it is next to impossible that communal flavour is totally absent where sangh parivar is on the limelightt.
Great article by "The Hindu". While Mr Raju Ramachandran's views on the incident had some very clear points on why Mr Modi can be booked, publishing the crucial sections of the SIT report to clear the air on those very points is welcome. As a reader i am able to form my own opinions / judgements on this issue. Hope Mr Modi's good work continues unabated in Gujarat.
Modi cannot claim sole responsibility for the development of Gujarat. Even before he assumes office as CM, Gujarat was one among the most industrialized states in india. Without modi also gujarat can do better, no matter who is at the helm of affairs. Coz the infrastructure and technical know how is like that there. It is like captaining a cricket team of windies in the 80s and Australia in the late 90s and early 2000s. Even a ranji trophy captain is enough to lead those teams. Skill sets was like that.
Germany under Hilter was also a developed Country. Could we support Hitler and Nazi govt for that? Same should be the yardstick for Modi also. Even their ally, the JD(U)in Bihar refused the compaign offer from Modi.
All the incidents happend infront of our eyes and we watched the Gujarat riot over the TV. There is no need for justifying the in action of police and the army. It is not only modi and also the central govt at that time need to be enquired and punished.
May be, Mr Modi an efficient administrator; yet how he handled the sensitive situations alone decides his eligibility to be a leader. Many a leaders who did care for only a section of his subjects have never been hailed as a great leader. Pity is that Mr Modi is treated to be one in spite of his 'performance'.
Now a days most of the TV news anchor and print media want to publish sensational news irrespective of their correctness. It is very-very dangerous trend and there is need to stop this trend. It’s for the general public to boycott such news channel and print media. Its our right to get correct and honest news not MASALA news. Thanks to Hindu for giving unbiased news.
"Satyamev Jayate". But our definition of Satya has also changed as till we get the desired verdit, it's justice denied and delayed and the same is not accepted. Now will the anti Modi and anti Gujarat gang stop their malign propaganda? It is pathetic to know the limits of baseless allegations, good that SIT has reported the matters very factually making it crystal clear to all. The guilty must be punished unless proven otherwise. Therefore, can we now get back to our business and work for the cause of Peace, Progress and Prosperity of Gujarat and Nation at large please?
Manas Dasgupta, uncharacteristically, seems to be making a motivated
attempt to protect Narendra Modi by repeating the old news to reduce the
devastating impact of the amicus curiae report on Narendra Modi's
credibility culpability. However, Modi is immune to all this. How many
strictures, critical comments etc have already been made against the
"Nero who was fiddling while Rome burned" by the various courts
including the Supreme Court?
This article is written in a "neutral" tone-leaving it to readers to
decide on the merits of SIT's report. Congratulations to Manas
Dasgupta. Infact, I appreciate this article and your reporting style
even more (so i came back to leave a second comment!) after reading a
report on this story as reported by "India's largest english media
house". What a difference between the best and the bad - "times" have
changed. However, thankfully, we still have the hindu to rely on!
The SIT report comes as a slap in the face of the Congress party which
has repeatedly tried to malign Modi. Good sense should prevail on all
community members and political parties not to politicize the ghastly
events of 2002. At the same time, it is important to ensure that those
who carried out the attacks in Gujarat (or elsewhere), irrespective of
their religion, should be brought to task, and not be allowed to go
scot free. We should forever be vigilant against the communalizing
practices of political parties, and not allow the secular (separation
of state politics from religion) fabric of our country be affected.
What is the relevance for recapitulating this month-old news now,
when the amicus curiae's report to the apex court has completely
demolished the patently incredible findings of the SIT about
Narendra Modi's complicity in the Gujarat genocide? Even earlier,
it was reported that the SIT closure report runs contrary to the
amicus curiae's findings, based on the very same investigations
carried out by the SIT. Repeating these untenable arguments after
the release of the full documents seems to be a motivated attempt
to safeguard Modi's interests under pressure. But it is not in
keeping with the standards of The Hindu or Manas Dasgupta. Rather
intriguing.
Its commendable that despite its left leanings, The Hindu has courage
and honesty to publish salient points of SIT report. Many other media
houses are still selectively quoting the reports to form a manipulated
impression about culpability of Modi. The credentials and journalistic
ethos of The Hindu stand tall.
The report smells of tutoring from start to finish. When CM acted
blemishlessly,why more than 1000 people were killed. The people who gave
evidence against CM are tainted, the officials who concealed the truth
were accommodated in cushy jobs. Why this aspect was not seen by the SIT
? The Chairman of SIT should hang his head shame for presenting such a
one sided report and if possible shall be prosecuted for concealment of
truth.
The congress mafia's attempt to malign one of the two decent leaders has been finally ended. Hopefully they will stop playing more of the caste and religion politics. We need more people like Nitish and Modi - to stand up to them.
In the para where mention is made regarding 'allegedly objectionable instructions passed on by Mr.Mody, the sentence reads - "It stated that none of the police and bureaucratic officials,who were definitely present at the meeting, have denied Mr. Mody having passed any such instructions ......"; it appears that the sentence does not convey the intended meeting. It may need correction.
Am very glad to "THE HINDU", because I didn't found this news in any other major newspapers, they all are busy with discussing amicus curiae report.
Thanks Mr Manas Dasgupta for bringing the truth forward. It sounds all crystal clear and agree that justice can not be done on opinions. Justice says that you can let 100 criminal go but innocent should not be punished though it is usally opposite in our country.
What about other newspapers and TV channels, who have already
declared Modi culprit and presented facts in distorted manner. When
objections of amicus cure were already investigated before
submitting final SIT report why are these channels are shouting
about his objections.
I really appreciate the Hindu for publishing this article. There are
two sides of a coin and only the hindu has brought out both the sides
in this case -i.e. views of Mr. Raju Ramachandran and SIT. It is sad
that all other media were happy with Mr. Ramachandran's report and
conveniently neglected about SIT's report. It is a great concern for
neutral audience like me that , increasingly news media is not
reporting the plain news (as this article) but onstead dish out
opinion pieces of editors or the publishing house in the guise of
news. Although the Hindu is known for its left-of-center opinions, it
has not shied away from publishing the stand of SIT. Bravo! Keep
doing this good work!!
Why cant good sense prevail upon the Congress Government to leave Mr. Modi alone? Given the fact, that he is one of the very few Chief Ministers in this country who has taken upon himself to put the Country in a progressive mode, it is understandable that many western countries (esp.US) who want to see India as a "poor" developing" Third World Country, would try to put him down.
When the SIT is working with aim to save Mr. Modi, it can interpret all the observations/evidences in a biased way. If not so, then why and how could amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran,come up with opposite conclusions based on the same information. Also, I see this report biased in favor of SIT/Modi.
Please Email the Editor