Cites five instances where CM promised punishment for train attack as proof of lack of bias
In its closure report filed in the Zakia Jafri case, the Special Investigation Team appears to have mixed up the Godhra and post-Godhra violence, citing Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's promise to ensure justice in the former case as proof that he could never have asked his officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger against Muslims in the wake of the 2002 Godhra carnage.
Apart from insisting no official present at the February 27, 2002 meeting where the Chief Minister allegedly gave this instruction corroborated the charge, the R.K. Raghavan-led SIT says there is evidence in the form of the Chief Minister's public statements made on February 27, 2002 and February 28, 2002, which establish his commitment to punish the guilty and uphold the law. The content of the statements disproves the allegation that he passed any illegal order against Muslims, it says.
But far from proving that Mr. Modi could not have given the alleged instruction, the speeches the SIT produces are only likely to fuel suspicions about what might have happened at the February 27, 2002 meeting.
The SIT cites five speeches in defence of Mr. Modi only to come to this conclusion: “At least on five occasions, which are fully documented, during 27.02.2002 and 28.02.2002, Chief Minister addressed Media, Assembly and General Public and every where the genesis and intention was the same, i.e., to punish the culprits responsible for the Godhra incident in an exemplary manner so that such incident did not recur ever again.” (emphasis added)
The SIT is unable to cite a single speech — or statement — where Mr. Modi warns against retaliatory violence and threatens punishment to anti-Muslim rioters. Admittedly, there was a valid context to Mr. Modi's sense of outrage immediately following the Godhra carnage, in which 59 train passengers, all Hindus, were killed. Any administrator would vow to bring to justice the perpetrators of a crime so horrendous. However, by all accounts, reprisals had started within hours of the incident, and by the afternoon of February 28, 2002, the violence had turned into a full-blown anti-Muslim pogrom.
The SIT should have been able to show some evidence that at least after February 28, 2002 — by which time Muslims had been killed and rendered homeless — Mr. Modi sent out a strong message to communal hotheads taking the law into their own hands. But there is no speech where Mr. Modi warns against revenge attacks and threatens exemplary punishment to the rioters.
In her complaint, Ms. Jafri accused Mr. Modi and 61 others of direct involvement in the anti-Muslim violence. The charge that the Chief Minister instructed his officials to allow a ‘Hindu backlash' to Godhra was central to her complaint because, according to her, the administration derived its mandate from this instruction.
Setting out to demolish her charge about February 27, 2002, this is what the SIT says: “Even before this meeting, when Chief Minister visited Godhra on 27.02.2002 evening, he addressed the media at [the] Collectorate and asserted that the culprits would not be spared and the victims would be paid Rs. 2 lakh. The CM also appealed to the public through media to maintain peace. Furthermore, on 28.02.2002, that is within less than 12 hours of the alleged meeting that took place on the night of 27.02.2002, the CM has stated on the floor of the Assembly, where the Opposition was also present, that the “State Govt. has taken this heinous, inhuman and organised violent act very seriously and is committed to give exemplary punishment to the culprits so that such incident never recur anywhere.”
Further, “The Chief Minister repeated almost the similar facts in his press conference held on 28.2.2002 afternoon at the circuit house, Annexe, Ahmedabad. It would not be out of place to mention here that in his appeal made to the public through Doordarshan on 28. 02. 2002, Chief Minister reiterated that Gujarat will never tolerate any such incident and the guilty will be punished for their heinous crime. He also said that the culprits would be awarded such exemplary punishment so that no one would dare to involve himself in such incident.”
In this entire sequence, Mr. Modi is shown as making a single, token appeal for peace — in Godhra, not in places where the rioters are on the rampage.
The SIT concludes: “In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the interpretation made on alleged illegal instructions … appear to be without any basis.” Because, “everywhere the genesis and intention was one and the same, i.e., to punish the culprits responsible for the Godhra incident in an exemplary manner, so that such incidents did not recur ever again.”
Ms. Jafri charged Mr. Modi with passing an anti-Muslim order that resulted in no punishment being given to the post-Godhra rioters. In response, the SIT shows the Chief Minister wanted maximum, exemplary punishment for Godhra. Was this merely a misinterpretation?
On September 9, 2002, Mr. Modi made a speech which was included in Ms. Jafri's complaint and which left no scope at all for misinterpretation. Yet in its closure report the SIT dismisses the speech. Stopping by at Becharaji in Mehsana district as part of his state-wide Gaurav Yatra, Mr. Modi made an implied attack on Muslim polygamy — “hum paanch, hamare pachhees (we are five and we have twenty-five) — and made fun of refugee camps. This, at a time when thousands of Muslims were languishing in refugee camps across Gujarat.
The Gujarat government withheld the speech from the SIT. In January 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the government to hand over the speech and other documents to the SIT “without further delay.” This is the verbatim reproduction of what Mr. Modi said: “My dear brothers, we built the (Sardar Sarovar) dam and so water is available. Let me ask a question to my Congress friends, if water is brought during Shravan month … what is paining them? Since we are here, we brought water in Sabarmati during the month of Shravan, when you are there, you can bring in the month of Ramadan (the holy month for Muslims). When we brought water in the month of Shravan, you feel bad. What brother, should we run relief camps? Should I start children-producing centres there? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the policy of family planning with determination. Ame paanch, Amara pachhees! (we are five and we have twenty-five) … Can't Gujarat implement family planning? Whose inhibitions are coming in our way? Which religious sect is coming in the way? ...”
In its preliminary report submitted in 2010, the SIT took a serious view of the inflammatory words, which Mr. Modi explained away as a general speech on India's growing population. The SIT said, “The explanation given by Mr. Modi is unconvincing and it (speech) definitely hinted at the growing minority population.”
But in its closure report of 2012, the SIT concluded: “No criminality has come on record in respect of this aspect of the allegation.”
Anyone with an understanding of Hindutva-speak would know the communal context of “paanch aur pachhees.” Indeed, Mr. Modi is not its original author. The “paanch aur pachhees” reference first cropped up in the speeches of Sadhvi Rithambara and Sadhvi Shiva Saraswati who campaigned for the Bharatiya Janata Party in 1996. Said Sadhvi Shiv Saraswati: “Hinduon ke liye, hum do, hamare do, aur Muslamaanon ke liye hum paanch aur hamara pachhees (For Hindus it is we are two, we have two; for Muslims it is we are five, we have twenty-five).”
Keywords: Godhra riots, post-Godhra riots, 2002 riots, Zakia Jafri, SIT probe, Narendra Modi, Zakia Jafri case
The job of an investigative agency is to collect as much evidence as
is available in order to frame a charge sheet. RK Raghvan's stand is
preposterous precisely because of the implication that there is not
enough evidence to even frame a charge sheet! The Amicus Curae (a
practicing lawyer, unlike Raghavan) feels that the SAME evidence
(that Raghavan finds insufficient) is good enough to frame charge
sheets against Modi under several sections of the IPC.
At the stage of investigation, there is no "presumption of innocense" -- rather one ought to be looking for even faint possibilities of guilt, just enough to frame a charge sheet and arraign the accused before a court of law. It is ONLY for the court to give the "benefit of doubt", if the available evidence is not conclusive. No one is saying Narendra Modi should not be given the right of legal defence in a court of law. He is entitled to this as much as Ajmal Kasab is...
Gujrat CM Modi advised by his party stalwart Mr. Vajpayee to practice Raj Dharma to protect the innocent people from butchered at the height of the conflict. The Proud CM of 4.5 Crore Gujaratis never visited the crime scene, refugee camps, hospitals to comfort the victims till this day. This alone will show how biased and full of hatred he nurtures against Muslims. He doesn't have any bhavna, sympathy for the victims of post Godhra riots. They all still live in sub human condition without any civic amenities in their areas. Those areas where muslims live are deprived of any development and it is evident. Those who visit the Muslim localities can see there are ghettos, shanty towns in the middle of Ahmedabad city. No one needs PHD to understand role played by Modi before, during and after the post Godhra riots. He will face the criminal proceeding against him very soon and this will haunt him mentally, physically and politically all his life and he will not escape from it.
The article is written with a motive to degrade SIT and Modi. Supreme court while reviewing the SIT report and Raju Ramachandran's report has not given a clerance for filing a FIR on Modi and others which was the main request from Ms.Jafri. Even raju Ramachandran has indicated that opinion of Snajay Bhatt could be for political reasons . Except sanjay Bhatt's affidavat , there is no proof that Modi has spoken about vengence . How can we take VS's arguement that talking against Godhra is in favour of post Godhra violence. It is surprising to see that Rajiv Gandhi is not blamed for the Sikh riots even after his comment that "when a big tree falls some tremors will be there ".
This shows the heavy bias the author has. Inspite of following due process and proven wrong, the author chooses to ignore truths. Since SIT didnt give the verdict the author wanted, obviously the SIT is also in cahoots. This article is just a case of sour grapes
You too Hindu! such a concocted analysis of the SIT report. An impeccable personality with highest integrity like Mr Raghavan need not have been belittled this way. His unbiased report despite pressures from different quarters need to be overwhelmingly praised. This report as v see is based on fact and inquiries and not on hearsay statements.it is a pity even honest officers are not spared in our country.
Excellent analysis! Thanks Vidya and the Hindu for shedding light on this. Keep it up. There will be people who will use technical points to defend Modi. It is amazing how even the SC appointed SIT can favor Modi. This is really shameful and painful that even after of so many years of this massacre taking place under the nose of the so called best administration, not a single person has been found guilty. This is how even the strictest rules can not bring justice when the people interpreting them are biased.
Jai Hind.
The report was submitted to the SC, the highest court of law in the
country. The SIT was setup by the SC and with consensus of all
parties. The suggestions of a amicus curie was also considered. And
based of his suggestions further investigations were carried on. In
the bureaucratic and legal circles R Raghavan is famous for his
integrity and critical attention to detail. Just because the report
is not in support of what the media has been harping for a decade,
news (opinion) such as this are making rounds. The
media has been aiming at Modi for a decade and in the face of loss
they are resorting to such vile actions.
The SIT report is biased and is prepared in such a way to exonerate Mr. Modi of all crimes and white wash him. Many former officers of Gujarath police force revealed shocking news about Mr. Modi's involvement in the genocide; especially Mr. Sreekumar, former DGP, Gujarath. Many will come out in due course. The SIT deliberately tried not to publish those facts revealed by the officers who attended the controversial meeting. The truth will blossom one day even if Whatever is done to protect Mr. Modi.
@Sundaresan: you u mean no one can question a report submitted to SC, is this what you want us to understand? SC herself has appointed Amicus Curiae to question that report.Questioning is an integral part of Democratic setup and if you think its not then you are talking about some other form of governance, pls be sure that journalism is not going to court and filing suits, the writer has a view point and is well respected in that regard. The rest of your comment is deviating from the context of the article. Uniform codes is different subject and absolutely exclusive of the cited context.Lets have faith and courage to say that if the CM of Gujrat is wrong and is proved he must be punished, but dont bully people around that they cannot question him or since he is doing a gd job so he is exempted from the killings which happened in his state. lets ask ourselves without taking the religious or political sides and we ll get the answers. I wish we all were honest inthe way we approach humanity.
Nice work Vidya. Keep more coming. In face of storm from the Modi worshiping Junta entranced by and chanting his development mantra, missing totally the deeply entrenched ideological warfare that is dividing the society, the Hindu newspaper better sit on this and not buckle like Mr.R.K .
Thanks Vidya for this clear and straight forward analysis. Tiger SIT has been tamed properly by Modi. This is India. Anything is possible.
I request readers of this column to refer pg.521 of the SIT report
where it is stated, "Shri Narendra Modi also told the press that
'those who had acted in I retaliation and anger after the incident
shall also not be spared." While I do not wish to inquire into the
motivation of reporters and writers like the author of this OpEd, it
is beyond doubt that the author is not stating in full from the SIT
report. I am also surprised that The Hindu that makes it point to
upload transcripts of speeches and interviews of public figures,
policy and plan documents from around the world, has not made
available the full text of the SIT report on its website - a
surprising omission.
1. It is important to separate news from opinion as one of the readers have pointed out.
2. Everyone is smart on the hindsight
3. Let S C do its job
BJP should decide whether Modi is really a very good administrator or a Hindu brand leader. If a good administrator then why he could not stop Godhra and Gujarat riots from happening? If he is a good administrator then he must have allowed Gujarat riots to happen and he is indeed guilty. People in Gujarat are communal and that's why Modi is still at large.
while I agree with most of the analysis, I'm not convinced with post-hoc suggestions like "Mr. Modi is shown as making a single, token appeal for peace — in Godhra, not in places where the rioters are on the rampage..." I cant imagine a VIP giving speeches in places where riots are taking place; it would be similar to Home Minister visiting Taj Mahal hotel when the anti terrorist operation was underway. The priority of police at that place would be maintain peace and not arrange for speeches by VIPs
In a court of law, the jury is asked to decide beyond reasonable
doubt, whether a person is guilty or not guilty. Everything else must
follow from this principle. The "Analysis" harps on irrelevant details
and shifts the focus away from the fundamental question - Is there
enough evidence to prove Modi guilty beyond reasonable doubt? From
the investigation, it appears the answer is No. It's time the media
stops using Modi as a Whipping Boy and instead focusses on bringing
the perpetrators of the post-godhra riots to justice.
Your correspondent is upholding the practice of principled journalism in consistently exposing the various threads of the astonishingly jaundiced and compromised acrobatics of the SIT closure report. One hopes it will come to the notice of a court sometime,somewhere, which will move it to hold the perpetrators responsible and culpable.
The author of this column is trying to distort the fact. Modi in his appeal made to the public through Doordarshan on 28. 02. 2002 not only promised to punish those people behind Godhra carnage but he had also appealed for peace. The video is still available on internet you can check it out
Amazing article ! From every common man who cannot read the 25,000 page report, I
thank The Hindu for writing this extremely timely and crisp article on what the SIT got wrong. There can be no smoke without fire and Modi needs to be investigated
thoroughly.
Vidya Subrahmaniam is clearly not objective in her judgement on the investigations by SIT which was headed by an eminent retired director of CBI? Bias is written large on every sentence in her news analysis. Though one expects such stuff from television news anchors, one did not expects this from the Hindu's news analyst.
I still fail to understand how Mr Modi can be responsible for the riots as per the above article? Yes, Modi did say the 'hum paanch hamara pachees" slogan and it is also true that this is in bad taste especially coming from an elected Chief Minister. But is it a criminal offense? It is not. That's exactly what SIT report states. If we were to arrest & prosecute every Indian who utter words which may not be 100% politically correct, 99% of Indian population will be culprit! Political correctness aside, what is the population growth of India? And what is the population growth of Muslim community in India? As a resource scarce nation shouldn't India be seriously concentrating on family planning? As a democracy should not Indians have the right to discuss our population trends? Is it not true that Muslim Clergy and political leaders are severely against family planning? Is it not the duty of a plain speaking chief minister to state such obvious truths even if it is bitter?
Every Investigation, Special or Sada, against politicians ends up like this. First of all no investigation should last for years and decade.Always, the seriousness of evem massacre will be lost when years pass and the investigators and judges are new and least interested. Thus all our investigations after eating millions of rupees bring forth nothing What happened to I P S officers who publicly said that Modi wanted them to unoffically permit revenge on Muslims? Were they telling lies ? If so why they are not jailed ?
This is brilliant Vidya. Unfortunately, Mr. Raghavan and the SIT seem to have rushed to exonerate Modi and his team and now the SIT is doing a shoddy job trying to defend a poor report. There is no doubt that Modi has a huge sway on various Agencies within the State. But, the conduct of a Supreme Court Body suggests that perhaps Modi has been influence their work. This is a sad commentary on India
It is Vidya Subrahamanyam who has got herself into a twist not the SIT. SIT cites Modi's speeches about punishing the Godhra perpetrators to show he assured Hindus that they should not think of revenge since his government would ensure exemplary punishment for the perpetrators. SIT rightly concluded that Modi's speaches were not consistent with Sanjiv Bhatt's allegation that Modi had told his senior bureaucrats and police officers to allow Hindus to vent their anger. No such venting was necessary given his government's determination to bring the Godhra criminals to justice. Vidya ignores Modi's appeal on Doordarshan on 28.2.2002 to maintain peace and avoid violence and calls it token. By Sept 2002, situation was normal and Modi's speech could not have instigated the riots. SIT rightly judged Modi by what he said and did during the riots and not by a speech he made 6 months later. He acted to control the riots, as per SIT and AC.
I again humbly request the editors of 'The Hindu' to maintain the difference between news and opinion. The above article is a great article if it is under the section of opinion and not news. It is very important that the news I read does not have interpretations from the editor mixed in. I always appreciate The Hindu's articles for this separation. I will appreciate it if it is kept that way.
It is a tragedy that the Supreme Court appointed SIT under Raghavan to bring out the truth has turned out to be a "PRAISE MODI ORCHESTRA".
Its shocking how high profile team like SIT couldn't find any evidence! Riot of this nature would have been impossible without being sponsored by state. Modi's muslim hatred is very well known. Being an RSS functionary its like the fundamental concept inceptualised in his mind from early stages in his life. Just look at his high profile Sadbhavna Yatra, he adorned headgear of almost all communities except the Muslims. It might be very small thing but it definitely shows how much he's scared of showing any type of closeness with Muslims!
This report was given to the SC, the highest court in the land. R u questioning the SC? If so, do it openly. don't hide behind "news analysis". exactly which news is being analysed. why can't the speech be taken in the context of "uniform civil code"? the absence of such a code does skew the growth in population of muslims in comparison with hindus, christians, sikhs, parsis. if u have proof that Mr. Modi is guilty then i suggest you publish it. Don't shoot over the SIT's report.
Please Email the Editor