Eight years after the massacre of more than 1,500 people in the anti-Muslim violence which shook Gujarat in 2002, Chief Minister Narendra Modi was questioned by the Special Investigation Team established by the Supreme Court for his alleged role in aiding and abetting the killings. The SIT was asked by the court to examine the charges of state complicity in the Gujarat-wide violence raised in a petition by Zakia Jaffrey, widow of the former MP, Ehsan Jaffrey, who was killed in a mob attack on his residence in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002.
In an interview toThe Hindu, R.K. Raghavan, the head of the SIT, spoke about Saturday's lengthy questioning of Mr. Modi by his lead investigator, A.K. Malhotra.
Q: Narendra Modi was interrogated by the SIT for over nine hours. What were the kind of questions he was asked?
R.K. Raghavan: The questions were mostly on the issues raised in the Zakia Jaffrey petition to the Supreme Court.
Did your questions concern the allegations of Mr. Modi having had a direct role in some of the incidents of mass killing which occurred in Gujarat in 2002? Or were they also about his indirect role, via the breakdown of law and order and failure of his administration to prevent the violence?
I'm afraid I cannot be more specific as the information is privileged. We essentially went by the Jaffrey petition issues.
One of the questions raised by that petition was who took the decision to bring the bodies of the Godhra incident victims to Ahmedabad and to allow the Vishwa Hindu Parishad publicly to parade them. In your view, why is this question relevant? Did the SIT get a satisfactory explanation?
Since this is also privileged information, I'm afraid it would not be fair for me to comment on it.
Tell us something about the background of A.K. Malhotra, the SIT investigator who questioned Mr. Modi.
He was an SP in the Central Bureau of Investigation when I was Director. Malhotra is a diligent and thorough investigator with a formidable reputation for objectivity and integrity.
Was an audio or video record of the questioning of Mr. Modi made?
Not that I know of. But I will have to check with Malhotra.
Is it true that Mr. Modi wanted the SIT to question him at his residence or office and not at the SIT's own premises?
There were suggestions to the effect, if not a direct request.
Why was this not acceptable to you?
I took the stand that this was not desirable, because that would have been construed as favoured treatment.
Why did you decide not to let Gujarat police officers who are with the SIT be part of the Modi interrogation?
In view of the need for objectivity, the Zakia petition is being exclusively dealt with by me and Malhotra. It will be unfair to ask Gujarat officers to examine a serving chief minister.
By the same logic, then, are you not indirectly endorsing the allegation made by some activists that the presence of the same Gujarat IPS officers in the SIT is hampering your investigations into massacre cases like Gulberg Society, Naroda and Odh?
Not at all. Those cases are on a different footing. They had gone to court much earlier, the facts there were well publicised, making suppression difficult, and were only being re-investigated by the SIT.
Were there any questions that Mr. Modi could not answer or chose not to answer or said he did not remember the answer to?
I won't know because I was not present.
Could the SIT summon Mr. Modi again?
I won't rule out that possibility in respect of every witness to whom the SIT has spoken.
Did Mr. Modi agree to furnish details about his personal phone records, movement log books, diary entries etc. so that the SIT could establish some sense of who all he might have been in contact with during that time, including details of his security cover during the carnage? There are, for example, reports he dispensed with his security for two hours on Feb. 28, 2002.
I won't comment on this, as this is a sensitive part of an ongoing inquiry.
Did the SIT specifically ask Mr. Modi about Zakia Jaffrey's charge that her husband, Ehsan Jaffrey, had called him up to ask for help on February 28, 2002, and that Mr. Modi had abused him? What was his answer? Also, the SIT has said in the Gulberg mass murder case that the Jaffrey phone records are missing and may have been destroyed. Was Mr. Modi asked about whether he has any knowledge of this as CM and Home Minister?
I have no idea. But even if I knew Mr. Modi's responses, I cannot disclose anything.
Could one of the outcomes of the Modi interrogation be the registration of an FIR against him and/or others by the SIT? Do you have that authority? Or will you have to approach the Supreme Court for permission?
I would not like to respond to a hypothetical question.
Mr. Modi is being questioned eight years after the violence. Do you feel the passage of time would inevitably have led to the destruction or loss of evidence vital for unearthing the truth about his role?
Not necessarily.
In the aftermath of major riots like 1984 and 2002, one increasingly sees evidence of the involvement of the state machinery and police in the violence, either through acts of commission or omission. While acts of commission — by police, politicians or ordinary citizens — are adequately covered by different sections of the Indian Penal Code, acts of omission are not well defined and do not attract stringent punishment. As a former CBI Director and as a senior retired policeman with extensive understanding of criminology, do you feel this is a lacuna in the Indian system which needs to be filled?
I totally agree with you. I am, however, not very clear about what kind of legislation can take care of this very legitimate concern.
It is unimaginable that Mr. Modi would have been questioned about his role in a mass murder case of this kind were it not for the Supreme Court's intervention. What does that fact alone tell you about the state of the rule of law in Gujarat? Are you surprised or disturbed by the fact that you have been drafted eight years later to ask the kind of questions a properly functioning criminal investigation system would have asked in 2002 itself?
I would not like to comment.
