Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Wednesday, 26 March 2014
MUST WATCH: Mehbub Ali speaks on Vande Mataram, Narendra Modi and Gujarat
Monday, 10 March 2014
Secular lies, communal truths in Incredible India
Tavleen Singh 27 Feb 2014
At Mumbai airport some days ago, I accidentally met the Gujarati
businessman who has gone from being Narendra Modi’s biggest critic to
being his biggest Muslim supporter. Zafar Sareshwala was on his way to
Ahmedabad and I to Cochin but before we went our separate ways he gave
me his number and we arranged to meet when we returned to Mumbai. Over a
cup of coffee that lasted for more than an hour he told me his story.
He said that he came from a business family that had lived in Ahmedabad
for more than a 100 years and that every time there were Hindu-Muslim
riots in the city they were directly affected so it came as no surprise
when their factory was burned down by Hindu mobs in 2002. Zafar was
living in London at the time and decided that it would be wrong to do
nothing about the terrible violence in his home State so he began a
campaign against Modi that was supported by high officials in the
British Government and the British media. He told me that it was partly
on account of his aggressive lobbying that Modi was denied a visa to
enter the United States but as time went by he began to feel the need to
work for peace in Gujarat. So, he sought a meeting with Narendra Modi
when he was next in London.
He told me that he made it clear to Modi at the outset that although he was working to bring peace between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat, he did not believe there could be peace without justice. Modi assured him that justice would be done and told him that he believed the violence was a stain on him personally that he, more than anyone else, felt deep anguish about. In Zafar’s words, “He said he was going try and wash this stain away not just by words but by actions and in the past 10 years he has lived up to this by ensuring that there has not been a single day’s curfew in Ahmedabad.
When there is curfew it is the poorest Muslims who suffer the most. In 1987, there was curfew for 200 days and this brought immense suffering. And, there has been justice.’ Zafar reminded me that 63 people including former Minister Maya Kodnani, had been sentenced to life imprisonment for their roles in the violence and that 13 IPS officers were still in jail. He added that in the long history of communal violence in Gujarat justice had never been done before and said that the reason why he had become a supporter of Modi was because he believed he was being targetted by the Congress in a way that no Congress Chief Minister ever was despite much worse riots having taken place in Gujarat in 1969, 1985 and 1987. These happened under Congress Governments. In 1969 alone, 5,000 Muslims were killed in Ahmedabad. It is important, incidentally to remember that there have been other major communal riots in India and never have officials or police officers been punished.
The reason for recounting my conversation with Zafar Sareshwala today is because of the blatant distortion of a recent speech made by the BJP’s president Rajnath Singh. If you read any of the national newspapers on Wednesday you would have seen headlines of this kind. “Willing to say sorry for any mistake, Rajnath Singh tells Muslims”. As someone who believes that it is justice that victims of communal violence want and not apologies I was appalled by the BJP president’s speech and tweeted against him. Within seconds someone tweeted back a video of the full speech and I realised that the entire national Press was lying about what he said.
Far from offering Muslims any kind of preferential treatment, he reiterated the line Modi has taken ever since he began his campaign to become India’s next Prime Minister. This is that to him secularism means that all Indians should be treated equally and that there should be the same rights for all of India’s citizens. Rajnath Singh pointed out that the Congress leaders went on these days about the pitiful conditions in which the majority of Muslims lived and asked if this were true then whose fault was it. If Muslims lived in desperate poverty after 55 years of Congress rule then the blame had to lie with the Congress. He appealed to Muslims to stop buying the propaganda that their lives were not safe under BJP rule and pointed out that there had been no communal riots in States ruled by the BJP. At the very end of this speech, he said if ever the party were to make a mistake in the future then it would never hesitate to apologise for it.
He was not apologising for past mistakes or apologising on Modi’s behalf for what happened in 2002 but you would not know this from reading the newspapers. So, why was there this deliberate distortion? For the same reason that there has been the demonisation of Modi and for the same reason there continues to be an attempt to somehow implicate him personally in the violence. These things are happening because no political leader has threatened the dominance of the Congress more than Modi has and so he has to be stopped at any cost. In this ‘secular’ enterprise, the services of newspaper owners and journalists has been enlisted and in the name of saving secularism.
In this exercise if someone like Zafar Sareshwala comes along and attempts to tell the truth about what really happened in 2002, then he risks being labelled ‘communal’. The same is true for journalists who dare to say that the demonisation of Modi is wrong because there is no political lobby more powerful in India than the ‘secularism’ lobby. It includes not just politicians from the Congress and the Left but journalists, intellectuals, academics and TV anchors. In the name of protecting ‘secularism’ they are prepared to tell lies, fabricate stories and even sup with the devil. It has always been this way but the coming election campaign is likely to be uglier than past ones because for the first time in Indian Parliamentary history there is a BJP leader who is trying to become the Prime Minister without talking about temples and mosques, Hindus and Muslims. Ironic, is it not, that the communal card is being played this time by our supposedly most secular political parties. Incredible India indeed!
Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2014/02/27/secular-lies-communal-truths-in-incredible-india-193870.html
In this picture, a Muslim closely looks at the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. (A file photo)
He told me that he made it clear to Modi at the outset that although he was working to bring peace between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat, he did not believe there could be peace without justice. Modi assured him that justice would be done and told him that he believed the violence was a stain on him personally that he, more than anyone else, felt deep anguish about. In Zafar’s words, “He said he was going try and wash this stain away not just by words but by actions and in the past 10 years he has lived up to this by ensuring that there has not been a single day’s curfew in Ahmedabad.
When there is curfew it is the poorest Muslims who suffer the most. In 1987, there was curfew for 200 days and this brought immense suffering. And, there has been justice.’ Zafar reminded me that 63 people including former Minister Maya Kodnani, had been sentenced to life imprisonment for their roles in the violence and that 13 IPS officers were still in jail. He added that in the long history of communal violence in Gujarat justice had never been done before and said that the reason why he had become a supporter of Modi was because he believed he was being targetted by the Congress in a way that no Congress Chief Minister ever was despite much worse riots having taken place in Gujarat in 1969, 1985 and 1987. These happened under Congress Governments. In 1969 alone, 5,000 Muslims were killed in Ahmedabad. It is important, incidentally to remember that there have been other major communal riots in India and never have officials or police officers been punished.
The reason for recounting my conversation with Zafar Sareshwala today is because of the blatant distortion of a recent speech made by the BJP’s president Rajnath Singh. If you read any of the national newspapers on Wednesday you would have seen headlines of this kind. “Willing to say sorry for any mistake, Rajnath Singh tells Muslims”. As someone who believes that it is justice that victims of communal violence want and not apologies I was appalled by the BJP president’s speech and tweeted against him. Within seconds someone tweeted back a video of the full speech and I realised that the entire national Press was lying about what he said.
Far from offering Muslims any kind of preferential treatment, he reiterated the line Modi has taken ever since he began his campaign to become India’s next Prime Minister. This is that to him secularism means that all Indians should be treated equally and that there should be the same rights for all of India’s citizens. Rajnath Singh pointed out that the Congress leaders went on these days about the pitiful conditions in which the majority of Muslims lived and asked if this were true then whose fault was it. If Muslims lived in desperate poverty after 55 years of Congress rule then the blame had to lie with the Congress. He appealed to Muslims to stop buying the propaganda that their lives were not safe under BJP rule and pointed out that there had been no communal riots in States ruled by the BJP. At the very end of this speech, he said if ever the party were to make a mistake in the future then it would never hesitate to apologise for it.
He was not apologising for past mistakes or apologising on Modi’s behalf for what happened in 2002 but you would not know this from reading the newspapers. So, why was there this deliberate distortion? For the same reason that there has been the demonisation of Modi and for the same reason there continues to be an attempt to somehow implicate him personally in the violence. These things are happening because no political leader has threatened the dominance of the Congress more than Modi has and so he has to be stopped at any cost. In this ‘secular’ enterprise, the services of newspaper owners and journalists has been enlisted and in the name of saving secularism.
In this exercise if someone like Zafar Sareshwala comes along and attempts to tell the truth about what really happened in 2002, then he risks being labelled ‘communal’. The same is true for journalists who dare to say that the demonisation of Modi is wrong because there is no political lobby more powerful in India than the ‘secularism’ lobby. It includes not just politicians from the Congress and the Left but journalists, intellectuals, academics and TV anchors. In the name of protecting ‘secularism’ they are prepared to tell lies, fabricate stories and even sup with the devil. It has always been this way but the coming election campaign is likely to be uglier than past ones because for the first time in Indian Parliamentary history there is a BJP leader who is trying to become the Prime Minister without talking about temples and mosques, Hindus and Muslims. Ironic, is it not, that the communal card is being played this time by our supposedly most secular political parties. Incredible India indeed!
Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2014/02/27/secular-lies-communal-truths-in-incredible-india-193870.html
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
Why SIT gave a clean chit to Modi
Curated By: Aliya Abbas
The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), chaired by former CBI director RK Raghavan who investigated the 2002 Gujarat riots has concluded in its 541-page closure report that the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi took ample measures to control riots rather than stoking the fire as it is made to be believed. The SIT also questioned the motive behind filing a complaint against the Chief Minister by Zakia Jafri four years after the communal violence.
Here are a few highlights of SIT closure report
1. SIT on Narendra Modi’s role
The 541-page SIT closure report stated that Narendra Modi had taken all the necessary measures to control the 2002 riots. It cites,” Law and order review meetings were held by the Chief Minister and all the things were done to control the situation… the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence.”
The SIT also says, ” Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy.” “In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.”
2. SIT on Ehsan Jafri’s murder
The SIT in its report said no charges were levelled by the Zakia Jafri, who lost her husban MP Ehsaan Jafri (killed in riots) and are maintainable and also questioned the intention behind filing such a complaint four years after the incident. “In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafris firing as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,” the report says.
The report goes on to question Zakia for delay in filing complaint against Narendra Modi and others, alleging their complicity in the riots which left over 1,000 people dead. Zakia was examined by the police for the first time in connection with the Gulburg Society cases on March 6, 2002 but she did not come up with allegations against Narendra Modi and others.
3. SIT on Zakia Jafri
“She appeared before the Nanavati Commission, probing the riots, on August 29, 2003 but did not disclose the facts given in this said complaint. In September 2003, she filed an affidavit in the apex court but did not level allegations against Modi and others.”
“It was for the first time in June 6, 2006, after a lapse of four years, that she came up with the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are vague, general and stereotyped.”
“The amicus curiae has agreed with the findings of the SIT on all major issues. Whereas the complainant (Zakia) has made an allegation that the Chief Minister sponsored the riots, the amicus curiae has come to the conclusion that sufficient steps were taken by the Chief Minister to control the riots.”
4. SIT on Narendra Modi invoking Newton’s law of ‘action and reaction’
“In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafri’s firing (on the mob gathered at his house) as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims.”
The SIT has said that even if Narendra Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Modi during the riots.
“Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and suspended IPS Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence,” says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan.
5. SIT on Raju Ramachandran report
The SIT finding is contradictory to the report of amicus curie Raju Ramchandran, who had opined that Narendra Modi can be prosecuted for “promoting enmity among different groups”.
Ramchandran, a Supreme Court lawyer, has based his report on testimony of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, had alleged Narendra Modi gave instructions to top police officers to go slow on rioters.
Regarding Ramchandran’s report, the SIT has said the amicus curie had “erred” by relying solely on the statements given by Sanjiv Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Narendra Modi.
The view of the amicus curiae that it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation without some basis seems to be erroneous as Sanjiv Bhatt had been all along a delinquent in his career and trying to bargain with the Government, the report said.
The SIT has demolished all allegations raised in Ramchandran’s Report submitted to the court here. “The amicus curiae did not allege any conspiracy or abatement on the part of Chief Minister,” the SIT report noted.
6. SIT on rioters given a free hand
On the allegations that Narendra Modi, in a meeting of February 27, 2002, had told top police officers to allow Hindus to vent their anger in wake of Godhra train burning incident, the SIT has said there is no basis for levelling such charges. But even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument it does not constitute any offence, the Supreme Court-appointed probe agency maintained.
“… The interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by police officers RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence.”
7. SIT on Sanjiv Bhatt
The Special Investigation Team report says all seven top officers of the State administration had denied Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence at the February 27 meeting. These police officers and bureaucrats of the Home Department had denied that Narendra Modi had made any such statements (about giving free hand to rioters), it said.
“The claim of Sanjiv Bhatt has been dismissed by KD Chakravarthi, the then DGP, who has denied that Sanjiv Bhatt accompanied him in his staff car to the Chief Minister’s residence. Significantly, the log book of the vehicle of Chakravarthi has no mention of Sanjiv Bhatt.”
8. SIT on relief measures taken by Gujarat Government
“The Chief Minister said that relief and rehabilitation measures were initiated immediately and compensation packages were announced and implemented.” The SIT report says, “Narendra Modi said that perhaps for the first time in the country, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Governor to review rehabilitation efforts. This high-level committee included Leader of the Opposition, members from the chamber of commerce, members from prominent NGOs etc.”
Source: Niticentral
The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), chaired by former CBI director RK Raghavan who investigated the 2002 Gujarat riots has concluded in its 541-page closure report that the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi took ample measures to control riots rather than stoking the fire as it is made to be believed. The SIT also questioned the motive behind filing a complaint against the Chief Minister by Zakia Jafri four years after the communal violence.
Here are a few highlights of SIT closure report
1. SIT on Narendra Modi’s role
The 541-page SIT closure report stated that Narendra Modi had taken all the necessary measures to control the 2002 riots. It cites,” Law and order review meetings were held by the Chief Minister and all the things were done to control the situation… the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence.”
The SIT also says, ” Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy.” “In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.”
2. SIT on Ehsan Jafri’s murder
The SIT in its report said no charges were levelled by the Zakia Jafri, who lost her husban MP Ehsaan Jafri (killed in riots) and are maintainable and also questioned the intention behind filing such a complaint four years after the incident. “In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafris firing as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,” the report says.
The report goes on to question Zakia for delay in filing complaint against Narendra Modi and others, alleging their complicity in the riots which left over 1,000 people dead. Zakia was examined by the police for the first time in connection with the Gulburg Society cases on March 6, 2002 but she did not come up with allegations against Narendra Modi and others.
3. SIT on Zakia Jafri
“She appeared before the Nanavati Commission, probing the riots, on August 29, 2003 but did not disclose the facts given in this said complaint. In September 2003, she filed an affidavit in the apex court but did not level allegations against Modi and others.”
“It was for the first time in June 6, 2006, after a lapse of four years, that she came up with the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are vague, general and stereotyped.”
“The amicus curiae has agreed with the findings of the SIT on all major issues. Whereas the complainant (Zakia) has made an allegation that the Chief Minister sponsored the riots, the amicus curiae has come to the conclusion that sufficient steps were taken by the Chief Minister to control the riots.”
4. SIT on Narendra Modi invoking Newton’s law of ‘action and reaction’
“In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafri’s firing (on the mob gathered at his house) as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims.”
The SIT has said that even if Narendra Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Modi during the riots.
“Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and suspended IPS Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence,” says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan.
5. SIT on Raju Ramachandran report
The SIT finding is contradictory to the report of amicus curie Raju Ramchandran, who had opined that Narendra Modi can be prosecuted for “promoting enmity among different groups”.
Ramchandran, a Supreme Court lawyer, has based his report on testimony of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, had alleged Narendra Modi gave instructions to top police officers to go slow on rioters.
Regarding Ramchandran’s report, the SIT has said the amicus curie had “erred” by relying solely on the statements given by Sanjiv Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Narendra Modi.
The view of the amicus curiae that it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation without some basis seems to be erroneous as Sanjiv Bhatt had been all along a delinquent in his career and trying to bargain with the Government, the report said.
The SIT has demolished all allegations raised in Ramchandran’s Report submitted to the court here. “The amicus curiae did not allege any conspiracy or abatement on the part of Chief Minister,” the SIT report noted.
6. SIT on rioters given a free hand
On the allegations that Narendra Modi, in a meeting of February 27, 2002, had told top police officers to allow Hindus to vent their anger in wake of Godhra train burning incident, the SIT has said there is no basis for levelling such charges. But even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument it does not constitute any offence, the Supreme Court-appointed probe agency maintained.
“… The interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by police officers RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence.”
7. SIT on Sanjiv Bhatt
The Special Investigation Team report says all seven top officers of the State administration had denied Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence at the February 27 meeting. These police officers and bureaucrats of the Home Department had denied that Narendra Modi had made any such statements (about giving free hand to rioters), it said.
“The claim of Sanjiv Bhatt has been dismissed by KD Chakravarthi, the then DGP, who has denied that Sanjiv Bhatt accompanied him in his staff car to the Chief Minister’s residence. Significantly, the log book of the vehicle of Chakravarthi has no mention of Sanjiv Bhatt.”
8. SIT on relief measures taken by Gujarat Government
“The Chief Minister said that relief and rehabilitation measures were initiated immediately and compensation packages were announced and implemented.” The SIT report says, “Narendra Modi said that perhaps for the first time in the country, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Governor to review rehabilitation efforts. This high-level committee included Leader of the Opposition, members from the chamber of commerce, members from prominent NGOs etc.”
Source: Niticentral
SIT excerpts reveal facts are different from what is made to be believed – Part 3
Kartikeya Tanna26 Dec 2013
SIT REPORT – Section 3
REPORT ON SANJEEV BHATT’S LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS
1. Sanjiv Bhatt claims that after the meeting at CM’s residence on night of 27 February, he issued several messages to police and IB. Surprisingly, he tells everyone, but not his own head G.C. Raigar
2. To buttress his claim that he attended the meeting, he has produced a letter dated 27th February which references the meeting held by CM
3. Two problems: this letter is not marked to the ADGP (Intelligence) as was the prevalent practice. Secondly, compare the initials of Bhatt’s senior OP Mathur (‘M’) in the above-referenced letter to the letter written on 28-02-2002
4. A closer look at the two initials. Any doubt that the two initials are markedly different?
5. Sanjiv Bhatt says he attended office next day (in Gandhinagar) which has been denied by Raiger and contradicted by his phone records
6. Sanjiv Bhatt says he attended the second meeting at CM’s residence with his boss GC Raiger on 28 February at 10:30 AM.
7. Sanjiv Bhatt says he then returned to Police Bhavan at 11 AM and saw Ashok Bhatt and IK Jadeja in his chamber
Just to reiterate the last three points, Sanjiv Bhatt says that on February 28, 2002, he went to his office in Gandhinagar at 10 AM, to CM’s residence for the meeting at 10:30 AM and then back to his office at 11 AM where he saw two ministers
8. Except that his phone call records on 28-02-2002 show that he was in Ahmedabad at least until 11 AM. For him to reach Gandhinagar at that time would take a minimum of 20 minutes, if not more.
9. Sanjiv Bhatt claims he attended the meeting as a “Staff Officer to the DGP or Addl DG (Int.)” whereas there was no such post
10. Sanjiv Bhatt claimed that he had accompanied DGP K. Chakravarthi to CM’s residence for the 27th February meeting. That is contradicted by entry by DGP in his staff car log book
11. How Sanjiv Bhatt coerced his AIO Shri KD Panth into giving a statement on the same lines as him
12. KD Panth filed a police complaint that Bhatt influenced, threatened, detained and pressurized him to sign an affidavit containing false facts
13. Bhatt also harassed and threatened another person – Shri Shailesh Raval – compelling him to admit that Bhatt had attended the 27th February meeting. Raval complained to the SIT
14. A driver constable – Tarachand Yadav – supported Bhatt’s version. However, among many things he confirmed, he also confirmed that on 28th February, Bhatt reached Police Bhavan at 9 AM!
15. As stated earlier, Bhatt’s call records show his location to be in Ahmedabad till 11 AM!
16. Sanjiv Bhatt cannot satisfactorily answer why he did not allege what he is doing now for 10 long years
17. Some emails have surfaced in the meanwhile which show various things as under:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
And the most incriminating of them all………………..
(g)
•
If Shri Modi is prosecuted under this complaint, the process of trial takes several years. He will be expected to resign. He may also have to make frequent trips to give his testimony. All this, merely on the basis of a statement by a disgruntled former IPS officer? Surely, the Amicus Curiae should have known better when he differed in his opinion.
Source: Niticentral
SIT excerpts reveal facts are different from what is made to be believed – Part 2
Kartikeya Tanna26 Dec 2013
SIT REPORT – Section 2
REPORT ON CRITICAL THINGS DONE BY SHRI NARENDRA MODI
AND HIS GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN GODHRA
AND HIS GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN GODHRA
1. On 28-02-2002, a decision was made by CM to call Army in Ahmedabad city and other affected places. CM also gave specific instructions for safe escort of the Hajj pilgrims returning to Gujarat.
2. The Army was not immediately available on 28-02-2002 and, therefore, the Army could only be effectively deployed on the next day, 01-03-2002.
3. Just in case people think Shri Modi called in the Army after 3 days’ delay, here is the calendar of 2002 which shows March 1 was the next day after February 28.
4. Army starts arriving in the night intervening 28-02-2002 / 01-03-2002 and deployment scheme put in place for several cities
5. The Gujarat Government sent a request letter to Rajasthan, MP and Maharashtra governments (all 3 Congress Governments)
6. The copy of the letters sent to the three governments
7. Response from Digvijay Singh’s Congress Government of Madhya Pradesh
8. Only Maharashtra Government responded by sending 2 Coys of SRP
9. CM meeting the Congress delegation, asking them to keep restraint and directing for the safety and security of Haj Pilgrims returning to Gujarat (1 March 2002)
10. On 1 March 2002 itself, CM held a press conference informing that “shoot at sight” orders to maintain law & order had been issued
11. On 2 March 2002, CM held an all-party meet at 6 PM. Congress leaders did not participate. Why?
12. On 3 March 2002 (just 4 days into the riots), CM went to riot affected areas like Delhi Darwaja, Idgah area and Civil Hospital along with Shri LK Advani
13. On 4 March 2002, CM visited riot affected areas in Bhavnagar, visited Akwada Madressa where 500 Muslim students saved due to timely action by police. CM also held meetings with representatives of minority delegations. CM also visited some areas of Kutch and Saurashtra so that riots do not spread there!
14. On 5 March 2002, CM held a meeting in which specific instructions were given for relief camps and supply of food and essential commodities. CM also made an appeal to several stakeholders in society.
15. On 5 March 2002, CM visited several riot affected areas of Ahmedabad including Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya
16. On 6 March 2002, Addl Secy of Law & Order sent instructions to give protection to Haj Yatris. He also sent message to make adequate bandobast at various mosques
17. On 21 March 2002, all officers of the area were asked to make foolproof bandobast on the eve of Mohharram and Tazia processions.
Source: Niticentral
SIT excerpts reveal facts are different from what is made to be believed – Part 1
Kartikeya Tanna26 Dec 2013
1. The then acting CS – Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma – stated that there was no mention of any balancing action by CM
2. The then ACS (Home) stated that CM, in fact, stated that effective steps should be taken to control the communal riots since people were outraged by Godhra
3. The then Principal Secretary to CM PK Mishra stated CM told officials to take all possible steps including preventive arrests to avoid any untoward incident
4. The then DGP Shri K. Chakravarthi stated that CM wanted adequate arrangements to be made since the incident would affect the public at large
5. The then Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad PC Pande clearly denied that CM had given any instructions to break law
6. The then Addl PS to CM said that discussions pertaining to necessary preventive measures to be taken occurred
7. The then Home Secretary stated that deliberations in the meetings mainly revolved around handling law & order problems
8. The then Addl Secretary (L&O) Prakash Shah said CM instructed that communal peace and harmony be maintained at all costs and all possible steps be taken to control
9. All attendees denied that CM gave any inflammatory or illegal directions
10. All attendees flatly deny the presence of any minister/politician in the meeting
• Many sceptics say that these officers would not say anything due to fear of the CM and State machinery. Some say these officers have been given plum post-retirement postings. Did the Gujarat Government undertake all possible steps to prevent communal riots? We examine this in Section2.
Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/12/26/sit-excerpts-reveal-facts-are-different-from-what-is-made-to-be-believed-172642.html
SIT REPORT – Section 1
REPORT ON WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE LAW & ORDER
REVIEW MEETINGS ON 27 & 28 FEBRUARY 2002
What the 8 people who actually attended the meeting on the night of 27-02-2002 told the SITREVIEW MEETINGS ON 27 & 28 FEBRUARY 2002
1. The then acting CS – Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma – stated that there was no mention of any balancing action by CM
2. The then ACS (Home) stated that CM, in fact, stated that effective steps should be taken to control the communal riots since people were outraged by Godhra
3. The then Principal Secretary to CM PK Mishra stated CM told officials to take all possible steps including preventive arrests to avoid any untoward incident
4. The then DGP Shri K. Chakravarthi stated that CM wanted adequate arrangements to be made since the incident would affect the public at large
5. The then Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad PC Pande clearly denied that CM had given any instructions to break law
6. The then Addl PS to CM said that discussions pertaining to necessary preventive measures to be taken occurred
7. The then Home Secretary stated that deliberations in the meetings mainly revolved around handling law & order problems
8. The then Addl Secretary (L&O) Prakash Shah said CM instructed that communal peace and harmony be maintained at all costs and all possible steps be taken to control
9. All attendees denied that CM gave any inflammatory or illegal directions
10. All attendees flatly deny the presence of any minister/politician in the meeting
• Many sceptics say that these officers would not say anything due to fear of the CM and State machinery. Some say these officers have been given plum post-retirement postings. Did the Gujarat Government undertake all possible steps to prevent communal riots? We examine this in Section2.
Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/12/26/sit-excerpts-reveal-facts-are-different-from-what-is-made-to-be-believed-172642.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)