Monday, 10 February 2014

Modi's statement to SIT, converted into Word by Sanjeev Sabhlok, 09, Feb,, 2014


Modi’s statement to SIT, converted into Word by Sanjeev Sabhlok, 9 February 2014
Note: This has been converted using automatic software, so please check the original before use

Sanjeev’s comments are in blue highlight. This will be constantly updated as more data comes in.
This draft dated 9 February 2014. Time permitting I’ll revise it. I also request those who have time and know more to track changes and send me an updated version.
Please read this in light of my ‘book’ The Truth About Modi and various other blog posts that I’ve not yet incorporated into the book.

Date: 27 & 28-03-2010
Statement of Shri Narendra Modi, S/o Shri Darnodardas Modi, aged about 60 years, R/o, CM Bungalows, Sector-19, Gandhinagar.

Q.1     When did you become the Chief Minister of Gujarat?
Ans.  I am working as the Chief Minister of Gujarat State since October, 2001

Q2. Who were the Chief Secretary, ACS (Home), DGP and Actd1 DG (intelligence) during the month of February 2002?
Ans.  in February, 2002, Shri G. Subba Rao was the Chief Secretary, Shri Ashok Narayan was ACS (Home), Shri K. Chakravarthi was the DGP and Shri G C Raigar was the ADG (Int.).

0.3. Who was the in-charge of the State Intelligence Bureau during the first quarter of 2002?
Ans.  Shri G.C.Raigar, ADG was the in charge of State Intelligence Bureau till 9-4 - 2002. Thereafter, he was transferred and Shri R.B Sreekumar took over as Addl DG (Int ).

Q.4. What were the intelligence inputs collected by SIB in Gujarat in connection with 'Ram Maha-Yagna' proposed to be held by Vishwa Hindu Parished in the year 2002?
Ans.  I would like to add that I became the Chief Minister, Gujarat State in October 2001. Before that I was General Secretary organisation of BJP with headquarters at Delhi. It was only after the earth quake in 2001 that I was deputed by the High Command to do relief as well constructive work in Gujarat State. It may be further added here that I had contested my first election in my life from Rajkot Assembly Constituency. The by-election to this constituency was held on 24-2-2002. I was elected to the Gujarat Assembly. As regards the intelligence reports about the Ram Mahyagna, these reports are normally received by the DGP and ACS (Home) and as per the rules of business they only look after this issue.

[Sanjeev: This is absurd obfuscation. Modi and VHP were in constant daily touch. He was ABVP chief of Gujarat for many years, he was key strategist for BJP from 1987, spending most of his time in Gujarat. He became CM not because he knew nothing of Gujarat but because he knew everyone that mattered.]

Q5 Whether the intelligence inputs received by SIB were communicated to the Government? If so, when and to whom?
Ans.  I did come to know that some of the Ram-sevaks from Gujarat State were going to Ayodhya for Ram Mahayagna, but I had no knowledge of their programme as it was the duty of the police and the Home Department to make necessary bandobast in this regard, 
[Sanjeev: He was Home Minister. Very convenient to say that he didn’t know. Who else was supposed to know? It was Modi’s job as Chief Minister and Home Minister to know everything. He must CLEARLY knew about the issues regarding aggressive behaviour of the Ram Sevaks.]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
1. Willfully Ignoring Messages from State Intelligence about the Violent Repercussions of the RSS-VHP called ‘Mahayajna’ before the tragic Godhra incident on 27.2.2002 and deliberately not initiating precautionary measures that are imperative under Standard Operational Procedure; messages from 7.2.2002 to 25.2.2002, including specific ones that stated that batches of 2,800 and 1,900 kar sevaks had left for Faizabad-Ayodhya and had been behaving provocatively and aggressively against minorities on the way. As cabinet minister for home and chief minister, he is directly responsible. MOS Home Gordhan Zadaphiya is a constant Co-Conspirator.

2. Deliberately concealing knowledge of the provocative, anti-Muslim sloganeering by kar sevaks at the Godhra station when the Sabarmati Express reached five hours late on 27.2.2002, which information had been sent to him directly by DM/Collector Jayanti Ravi and willfully failing to take stern action and allowing violent incidents to escalate after the train left Godhra by about 1.15 p.m. especially at Vadodara station where a Muslim was attacked and killed and at Anand where the train stopped hereafter ensuring that the state allowed a hate-filled and threatening atmosphere against Muslims build right up to Ahmedabad where the train finally reached around 4 p.m. and where bloodthirsty slogans were being shouted. FIRs in 19 brutal incidents against Muslims are recorded on 27.2.2002 in Ahmedabad itself. Curfew was not imposed despite these incidents resulting in deaths breaking out.

Q6 Did SIB send any communication about the movement of the Karsevaks? If so, when and to whom?
Ans.  I am not aware of any such communications received from SIB and if at all, it was received the same must be with the department. 

[Sanjeev: SIT did a shoddy job. It should have checked official records including any official briefings received by Modi. A criminal ALWAYS denies everything. SID refused to challenge with proof.]

Q7 How and when did you come to know about the incident relating to burning of a railway coach of Sabarmati express near Godhra railway station on 27.02.2002?
Ans.  On 27-2-2002 around 9:00 hrs, I received an information from the Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home) about the burning of a railway coach of Sabarmati Express near Godhra Railway Station.
 [Sanjeev: The main thing is what he did next. That the SIT conveniently did not ask.]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
3. Conspiring with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to plot and allow reprisal killings all over Gujarat. The first phone call that Modi makes after DM Ravi’s fax reaches him is, not to appeal for peace and calm, but phone secretary VHP, Gujarat, Dr Jaideep Patel and direct him to Godhra.

The Conspiracy between Modi and the VHP is hatched and unfurled to cynically ensure state-wide reprisal killings. Phone call records show these phone calls between PA to Modi AP Patel and Jaideep Patel immediately after the chief minister receives news of the Godhra tragedy. Phone call records made available by Rahul Sharma (IPS, Gujarat) also show that Powerful Accused were in touch with the chief minister’s office (CMO) and the landline numbers of the chief minister.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
FROM THE PROTEST PETITION

38.At 10.30 a.m. a meeting had taken place at the residence of Accused No 1 at Gandhinagar. In the said meeting Gordhan Zadaphiya, (Accused No. 5), Ashok Narayan (Accused No. 28), K Chakravarti (Accused no 25) and PC Pande (Accused No. 29) and other Zadaphia of the chief minister’s secretariat were present.

39.Before this official meeting following the Godhra incident could take place, however, Accused No. 1 had in the first instance, already called Mr Jaideep Patel (Accused No. 21) from the mobile of his PA (09825037439). There was another call made by Accused No. 1 to Mr Jaideep Patel on his mobile at Mobile No. 09825023887. Mr Jaideep Patel, who was at that time at Naroda, left that place for Godhra and reached Godhra around 1 p.m. The moment the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) and the Gujarat Home Department also headed by Accused No.1 received information of the Godhra incident at Gandhinagar, and this was obviously conveyed to Accused No. 1, he makes a telephone call using the mobile phone of his PA, AP Patel (09825037439) to his collaborator and chief executor of the conspiracy Accused No. 21 Mr Jaideep Patel (09825023887) first at 9:39:38 (77 seconds), then again at 9:41:39 (20 seconds). That is, within minutes of Accused No. 1 receiving official intimation of the Godhra tragedy, he (chief minister) gets in touch with none less than the Secretary of the Gujarat unit of the VHP, Mr Jaideep Patel.




40.These phone calls in quick succession soon after he receives knowledge of the Godhra tragedy is significant and evidence of A-1 speaking and conferring with the VHP’s front man, who in Naroda at the time of the call thereafter left for Godhra. There was, therefore, a direct contact between the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) and VHP even before Accused No. 1 Mr Modi met with his officials after receiving news of the Godhra incident, or attended the Vidhan Sabha, or left for Godhra clearly establishing that plans for the conspiracy for the orchestration of the post-Godhra violent reprisals was being carefully hatched. (See Annexure IV, File V in the SIT papers).

41.Only after first speaking to his co-conspirators did the chief minister (Accused No. 1) call a meeting at his residence at about 1030 hrs

Q.8 What was your immediate reaction and what were the steps taken about this incident?
Ans.  I held discussions with Shri Gordhan Zadafia, the then MoS (Home), Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home) and other officials of Home and Police Department and asked them to collect the facts because the issue was going to be raised in the Assembly. I gave directions that necessary steps be taken that the other passengers should not be delayed, which may lead to tension. I also gave instructions that Godhra was communally sensitive place and that necessary steps like curfew etc. should be taken immediately to avoid any untoward incident and that senior police officers and extra force, if required should reach the spot without any delay.
 [Sanjeev: Modi conveniently forgot to mention that he FIRST called VHP, even as he started working out a strategy to pretend to be doing “something”.]

Q.9. Did you say in the Assembly that "Hindus should wake up now"?
Ans.  It is baseless allegation. No such words were uttered by me.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
Parikh also submitted a copy of a statement, dated August 15, 2009, given by the then senior state minister Suresh Mehta to SIT.

"As per Mehta's statement, he was sitting next to Narendra Modi in the assembly on February 27, 2002 when Modi said `Hindus should wake up now'. This shows his mindset against Muslims and that he wanted targeted violence against that community," Parikh alleged.

Q.10 Did you declare the Godhra incident as pre-planned and that Pakistani/ISI hands were behind the Godhra incident? If so, on what basis?
Ans.  I did not utter any such words in the Assembly. Of course, the media had put some questions to me about it, but I had told that nothing could be said till the investigation was completed.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING

The high court ruling exposed Modi’s attempt to magnify the Godhra arson as a terror attack. This in turn was integral to probing Jafri’s charge that Modi was himself involved in the conspiracy behind the post-Godhra violence. Without bringing up the word ‘terror’, Malhotra did ask Modi about the basis of his allegation. But he was allowed to get away with the claim that he had never made any such allegation. In fact, Malhotra helped Modi get away with the denial by putting the question in a misplaced context. While interrogating him in a chronological sequence, Malhotra asked Modi about his Godhra allegation in the course of questions about his statement in the Gujarat assembly early in the afternoon on February 27. This was misplaced as the allegation had actually come later in the day from Godhra. Here’s how the charade played out during the recording of Modi’s testimony:

Malhotra: Did you declare the Godhra incident as pre-planned and that Pakistani/ISI hands were behind the Godhra incident? If so, on what basis?
Modi: I did not utter any such words in the assembly. Of course, the media had put some questions to me about it, but I had told [them] that nothing could be said until the investigation was completed.
In other words, Modi admitted that on the conspiracy question, his initial reaction on the fateful day was that he would rather not comment till the police had unravelled the crime. It was a tacit acknowledgement that, as head of the state government, he could ill-afford the luxury of baseless speculation lest it provoke a law and order crisis. A logical follow-up to that could have been: how could he then abandon all caution the same evening and make the terror allegation without waiting for the police investigation to be completed? The SIT never put any such question to Modi; not even after he had made no bones about the dramatic change in his attitude to pre-judging the case during his visit to Godhra the same day. The closest Malhotra came to doing so while dealing with the Godhra visit was when he asked Modi a general question about his media interaction in that town.

Malhotra: Did you meet mediapersons at Godhra?
Modi: While I was at Collectorate, Godhra, a lot of mediapersons had assembled there. I briefed them about the incident and informed them that the culprits would not be spared and that a compensation of Rs 2 lakh per victim would be paid. I also appealed to [the] public through them for maintenance of peace. I also informed the media that on the basis of facts narrated to me by the persons present on the spot as well as injured persons, the incident appeared to be a serious and preplanned conspiracy. (emphasis added)
It was thus left to Modi to reconstruct on his own the allegation he had made in Godhra. The SIT did not challenge his attempt to make out that he had talked merely of conspiracy and not of terror. Modi could have been confronted with, if nothing else, the official press release issued on the evening of February 27. On the strength of his “spot assessment of the situation”, it quoted Modi as saying that the Godhra incident was a “preplanned inhuman collective violent act of terrorism”. The torrent of adjectives showed that he had described Godhra quite definitively as a terrorist conspiracy.
Such certitude was, however, missing eight years later when he was being questioned by the SIT. Modi claimed that all he had instead said on the day of the arson was that it was an ordinary criminal conspiracy (“serious and preplanned”), that too in a qualified manner (“appeared to be”). The sanitised account he presented to the SIT was apparently intended to convey that on the evening of February 27, 2002, he had shown due restraint in the face of extreme provocation.

Further:
EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
A:  That same day a statement came from the CM that it was “ISI conspiracy”. Now from where did it dawn upon him that it was an ISI conspiracy? When we in the intelligence knew not? And investigators could not make head or tail of it. In the afternoon when I spoke with the SP and asked him about the loss of lives, he said, “I had just entered it (compartment) and very hot inside. Not more than 15 to 20. Actually when the bodies were brought out we could know that it was much more. The ISI again was the creation of Modi. And it was picked up by investigators.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
Though Modi had called it a terror crime within hours of the train arson, the trial court held that all the 28 Muslims arrested before the eruption of the post Godhra massacres had been falsely implicated. Further, all the nine VHP members cited as prosecution witnesses were rejected as unreliable. The investigation was so cavalier that the forensic team was called for the first time to the scene of the crime, including the burnt coach, only after it had been transgressed by the public for over two months. These were indications that the Modi regime was more interested in deriving political mileage from the Godhra tragedy than in tracing the real culprits.

Q.11. Did you attend the Assembly on 27.02.2002? If so, what views did you express in your speech in the Assembly?
Ans.  It may be mentioned here that Shri Rajendrasinh Patel, Congress MLA from Godhra had made a demand for a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to each victim of Godhra incident. I informed the Assembly that the incident was serious and the Govt. was considering an ex-gratia payment of Rs.2 lakhs to each victim.

Q.12. How and when did you reach Godhra on 27.02.2002? Who others accompanied you to Godhra?
Ans.  As far as I recollect, it was a budget day in the Assembly and the budget was presented by the Finance Minister. After the Assembly proceedings were completed, I left for Baroda by a Govt chartered plane. At Baroda, we had requisitioned a helicopter from ONGC to go to Godhra. Since the helicopter had the limited seats, my Secretary Shri Aril Mukhim and Shri Jagdish Thakkar, PRO accompanied me in the helicopter to Godhra. I reached Godhra around 17:00 his or so. At Godhra helipad I was received by Smt Jayanti Ravi, the then Collector & District Magistrate, Godhra and some other Govt. officials. To the best of my recollection, I straight away drove to the scene of incident i.e. Godhra Railway Station. At Godhra Railway Station, there was a big crowd. The two burnt bogies had been detached from the train and parked in the railway yard. I asked the details of the incident from the persons present there and they briefed me, as to how the incident took place. The dead bodies of the victims were lying covered in the railway yard. I climbed up in the burnt coach and inspected the scene of occurrence. The crowd present over there was aggravated and expected from the Govt that the culprits should be punished at the earliest. I assured the crowd that the culprits would be brought to book and that they should maintain the peace. Thereafter, I went to Civil Hospital and saw the injured admitted over there. I talked to some of them and assured them all help and best treatment. I also asked them about the details of the incident and their version almost tallied with the version given by the persons present at the Railway Station. From Civil Hospital, I went to CoIlectorate and held a meeting with the Govt. and police officials. I asked them about the details of the incident. At that time, Shri Ashok Bhatt, the then Health Minister, Shri Gordhan Zadafia, the then Home Minister were also present there. Shri Prabhatsinh Chauhan, the then Transport Minister had also reached Godhra and met me there, but I do not remember whether he was present in the Collectorate or not.
 [Sanjeev: The idea that Modi could have deduced the cause of the fire from cursory conversations with those affected is absurd. The precise (technical) nature of the actual fire is completely contrary to ‘official’ accounts, and Modi prevented data from being collected by letting the bogies be sent away, the post mortem being conducted badly, etc.]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI TRIED TO DERAIL SIT
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
5. Cynically, and illegally allowed Post Mortems Illegally out in the Open at the Railway Yard, Godhra where the burnt and mutilated corpses were laid in full view of an aggressive and irate crowd of RSS and VHP men and women, who were gathered there in violation of Curfew Orders @ Godhra. Deliberately allowing photographs of the burnt corpses to be taken and widely circulated by the RSS-VHP and media in general, despite it being prevented under law;

6. Personally instigating individual RSS-VHP men and women at the railway yard at Godhra assuring them that enough time will be allowed by the Modi-led government and administration to extract a revenge for Godhra.

Q.13. Who took the decision for the transportation of dead bodies to Ahmedabad and on what basis?
Ans.  In the meeting held at Collectorate, a collective decision was taken in consultation with all those present there to transport the dead bodies of the victims to Ahmedabad. I instructed that the dead bodies should be kept at Sola Civil Hospital on the outskirts of Ahmedabad so that the tension should not mount. This decision was taken in the light of the fact that it was learnt that most of the victims belonged to Ahmedabad and other places beyond Ahmedabad and that their relatives need not come to Godhra for their identification and claiming the dead bodies, as Godhra town was under curfew.
[Sanjeev: It is very convenient for Modi to pretend that this was a collective decision. Such action is both unlawful and inflammatory. It is clear that VHP was an ACTIVE PART of official deliberations that day.]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT WITHOUT MODI’S CONSENT THIS COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
7. Directing that the unidentified bodies of Godhra train victims should be handed over to Jaideep Patel, a non-governmental person, that too belonging to a supremacist and communal VHP to be brought to Ahmedabad where aggressive funeral processions in full public view were allowed. Modi directed this at a meeting at the Collectorate in the evening of 27.2.2002 before he returned to Gandhinagar.

Jaideep Patel was allowed to be present at an official meeting at the Collectorate.

Jaideep Patel is a co-conspirator and also facing trial for mass crimes in the ongoing Naroda Gaam case.

Modi is specifically guilty of allowing the escalation of violence from Godhra to other parts of Gujarat and taking decisions contrary to law.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT MODI AND PATEL NOT ONLY MET BUT HAD KEY MEETING IN GODHRA ON 27 FEBRUARY 2002
Mini cabinet meeting at the Godhra Collectorate with A-1  Narendra Modi, 2 ministers at least from the cabinet, go A-5  Gordhan Zadaphiya and co-A-4 Prabhatsinh Chauhan also  present. A-21 Jaideep Patel is also allowed to remain present  at this official meeting according to the statement given by  DM, Jayanti Ravi to the SIT.

 SIT admits at Page 60 in its final report dated 8.2.2012 that  Mrs Jayanti Ravi has stated that in the meeting held at the  Collectorate, A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel, a VHP leader was also  present.

Q.14. Did Smt. Jayanti Ravi, the then Collector, Godhra object to the transportation of the dead-bodies to Ahmedabad?
Ans.  It was a unanimous decision in the meeting to take dead bodies to Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, as most of the victims belonged to Ahmedabad and nearby places. Further, Smt Jayanti Ravi, the then Collector District Magistrate Godhra was of the view that the dead bodies should be immediately taken from Godhra as the same would have mounted further tension in Godhra city.
[Sanjeev:  It is absurd to take this excuse. Advice in such matters can be readily obtained from the Divisional Commissioner/Home Secretary by the DM. The DM is duty bound to CONTROL the law and order situation, not to pass it on to others]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
In the context of the Godhra incident, the SIT betrayed a bias in distancing Modi from a shocking piece of evidence: the illegal letter handing over the custody of 54 bodies to a VHP leader, in the face of the Bandh called by that organization in an incendiary environment.

Q.15 Did you know Shri Jaydeep Patel, the then VHP General Secretary and whether he met you at Godhra and made a request that he should be allowed to accompany the dead bodies to Ahmedabad?
Ans.  I know Jaydeep Patel, the then VHP General Secretary. I do not remember to have met him at Godhra.
 [Sanjeev: This is a blatant lie, and Modi also kept talking to Patel the whole day over phone.]
After the decision was taken to transport the dead bodies to Ahmedabad, it was the duty of the District Administration to chalk out the modalities for its transportation.
 [Sanjeev: This is again passing the buck, after he was DIRECTLY involved in the decision, and was obliged to explain how VHP could possibly take charge of such bodies]
I do not know the details, as to how and when the dead bodies reached Ahmedabad.
[Sanjeev: This is again an absurd lie!]
However, the custody of the dead bodies remained with the District Administration, police officers and the hospital authorities.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
Curfew was deliberately not imposed at Ahmedabad while over 3,000 RSS workers were allowed to gather at the Sola Civil Hospital where Jaideep Patel arrived with the bodies of the Godhra victims at about 4 a.m. The crowd was aggressive and violent as proved from the police control room records. No steps were taken to disperse the crowd that attacked the hospital staff and doctors, a High Court judge,

Violent funeral processions were allowed to wind through the streets of Ahmedabad for several hours at two locations; worst Acharya Giriraj Kishore was given police escort to come and further provoke the aggressive mob; the cremations took place only in the evening and attacks on Naroda Patiya, Naroda Gaam and Gulberg Society where over 200 persons were massacred (and rapes allowed) in broad daylight on the same day, 28.2.2002, while violent and aggressive funeral processions were willfully allowed by Modi and the police and administration.

Q.16. Did you meet the media persons at Godhra?
Ans.  While, I was at Collectorate, Godhra, a lot of press reporters and media persons had assembled there. I briefed them about the incident and informed them that the culprits would not be spared and that a compensation of two lakhs per victim would be paid. I also appealed to public through them for maintenance of peace. I also informed the media that on the basis of facts narrated to me by the persons present on the spot as well as injured persons the incident appeared to be a serious and preplanned conspiracy.

Q.17. How and when did you return to Ahmedabad? Who were the persons who had stayed back at Godhra and who accompanied you back to Ahmedabad?
Ans.  I started from Godhra by road around 19:30 hrs along with Shri Anil Mukim and Shri Jagdish Thakkar. From Baroda, I came to Ahmedabad by chartered aircraft. From Ahmedabad, I came to Gandhinagar and reached my residence at about 22:30 hrs.

0.18. On your return from Godhra on 27.02.2002, did you call for a meeting for the review of the situation including law and order and repercussions of the Godhra train burning incident?
Ans.  On my return to my residence, I called for a Law & Order meeting, which was attended by the top officials of Administration, Home and Police department.

Q.19. When and where did the aforesaid meeting on 27.02.2002 take place? Who all were present in the said meeting? Who were the Ministers/MLAs present in the meeting?
Ans.  The meeting took place at my residence office for about half an hour. Smt. Swarna Kante Varma, the then acting Chief Secretary Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home), Shri K. Chakravarthi, the then DGP, Shri P C Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad City, Shri K Nityanandam, the then Home Secretary, Dr P.K. Mishra and my other PS Shri Anil Mukim were present in the meeting As far as I recollect, Shri G.C Raiger, the then ADG (Int.) was not present. Shri Sanjeev Bhatt, the then DC (Int) did not attend, as this was a high level meeting. None of my Cabinet colleagues were present in the said meeting.
[Sanjeev: This is one of the most serious lapses in the entire process, where proper minutes were not maintained of this meeting. Surely a deliberate ploy. Even attendance was not noted. I don’t think this is possible without deliberate intent to mislead the country in the future.]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT MODI IS LYING
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
8. Specifically instructing his top policemen and administrators not to act evenhandedly in the days to follow and “allow Hindus to vent their anger.” Two senior bureaucrats present at the meeting have stated that cabinet ministers were present at a meeting that went on well past midnight. Haren Pandya, a minister in Modi’s cabinet in 2002 had given evidence of this to the Concerned Citizen’s Tribunal headed by Justice Krishna Iyer and PB Sawant in 2002 itself. Later in 2009 a serving officer from the state intelligence, Sanjiv Bhatt also gave the same evidence before the SIT and the Supreme Court.

IN ANY EVENT THIS CAN BE ONLY DETERMINED IN COURT

Ramachandran said that Bhatt’s testimony was enough to put Modi on trial, where witnesses would have been subjected to cross-examination.

[Sanjeev: I have personally no doubt about Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims. Modi  LIED about the presence of Jaideep Patel  - despite a clear statement from the Deputy Commissioner. Modi is not believable. There is plenty of reason to suspect those officers present who did not support Sanjiv (they were all rewareded with sinecures by Modi].

Q.20. What were the discussions held in the said meeting of 27 02.2002 night? Please give an exact account of the views and suggestions given by each participant?
Ans.  In the meeting, I shared information about my visit to Godhra. The officers present briefed me about the precautionary measures taken by them I issued instructions to them to take all possible steps to maintain Law & Order and peace. I also asked ACS (Home) to make inquiry in the local Army headquarter about the availability of Army personnel. I asked them to seek assistance for additional force from neighboring states. I instructed the officials of Home Department and police to make necessary bandobast to avoid untoward incident. It may be added here that by that time I had been informed about the Gujarat bandh call given by the VHP on 28-2-2002. 
[Sanjeev: Since there are no minutes, it is impossible to believe the liar Modi]

Q.21. Did you tell the police officers as well as the officials of Home Department that "In communal riots police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one-to-one basis. This will not do now, allow Hindus to give vent to their anger"? If so, what was the reaction of the officers of the Home Department and police officers present in the meeting?
Ans. It is baseless allegation. On the contrary, I had given categorical and clear cut instructions to maintain peace and communal harmony at any cost. A similar appeal had earlier been made to the people at Godhra through media.
 [Sanjeev: We have a situation where two honest IPS officers are making statements under oath about a well-known liar. Whom can one believe?]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT MODI IS LYING
Sanjiv Bhatt, the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2002, had alleged that Mr Modi told police officers during the riots, "For too long the Gujarat Police had been following the principle of balancing the actions against the Hindus and Muslims while dealing with the communal riots in Gujarat. This time the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not recur again."

This allegation was supported by former Gujarat Additional Director General of Police RB Sreekumar, who told the Nanawati commission, "In communal riots police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one-to-one basis. This will not do now - allow Hindus to give vent to their anger"

Q 22. Did Shri P.C. Pande, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City protest against the decision taken by the Govt. about the transportation of dead-bodies to Ahmedabad? If so, what was your reaction?
Ans.  No such discussions took place with Shri P.C. Pande.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT MODI IS LYING
Q:  Against the advice of …?
A:  Against the advice of police officials; against the intelligence. “Please don’t get the dead bodies as there was bandh call.” You are creating a situation whereby the police is asked to look the other way letting lumpen elements and goons getting a free hand. There was tremendous grief and anger. Yes army was called within three days and intensity of violence came down in urban areas like Ahmedabad, Baroda. But it spread to rural areas, the tribal belt.
Godhra should not have happened. It happened under Modi’s watch. Why was police not present at the Godhra railway station when kar sevaks were coming in the morning? Under normal operating procedure police bandobast had to be there when such groups were coming. Local police should have come on their own. Why didn’t they? It happened under your (Modi) watch and you are directly responsible, not vicariously.
Everyone talks about post Godhra. Talk about Godhra. Once the Godhra happened it was Modi’s duty to see that violence did not spread and contained quickly. Though local administration could be blamed where Modi gets the blame is post Godhra. He as chief minister should have taken immediate steps given the potential of incident snow-balling. It ought to have been tackled in Godhra itself.
Q:  So it turned into a tinderbox?
A:  This is what PC Pandey told him. He used the word ‘tinder box’. If you get the dead bodies to Ahmedabad it will turn into a virtual tinder box. That is what he said in so many words.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT MODI IS LYING

I would also like to bring to your notice the deposition of Shri P C Pande, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, before Justice Nanavati Commission on 18th August 2004. For your perusal the relevant portions are reproduced below:
….. had not taken the decision of bringing the dead bodies to Ahmedabad. As I   believe that the decision might have taken at the top level in the Government and it has not necessary for me to interfere in that decision……
“….. When I know that about 58 bodies were being brought to Ahmedabad or that they have already brought, at that time, I had a feeling that looking to the communal situation of Ahmedabad, it is … sensitive and like a Tinder Box and therefore, in the prevailing circumstances, if these dead bodies are brought to Ahmedabad, then possibly it will create serious impacts…”
ACS Home Shri Ashok Narayan, in his cross examination before the Nanavati Commission had also confirmed that decision to bring dead bodies to Ahmedabad   city was taken at higher level. In this higher level above him are the Chief Secretary, MOS Home and CM. [Source]

0.23. What were the intelligence inputs received by the SIB about the likely repercussions of Godhra incidents on 27.02.2002? Did SIB report these inputs to the Government? If so, whether these inputs were shared by the Government with the jurisdictional officers of the police?
Ans.  I am not aware about any SIB inputs. However, during the meeting on 27-22002, officers expressed their views about tense atmosphere and I had already instructed all concerned to take necessary action to maintain Law & Order in the State.
0.24 Who gave the call for Gujarat Bandh on 28.02.2002 and Bharat Bandh on 01.03.2002? Were these bandh supported by the ruling party?
Ans.  On 27-2-2002, I remained busy through out the day and also visited Godhra In the night only, I had come to know that bandh call had been given by VHP. However, on 28-2-2002, I came to know from news paper reports that the bandh had been supported by BJP.
 [Sanjeev: How very convenient. Modi’s BJP supports the Bandh and he pretends it was someone else. Modi was an active accomplice. Without his permission, the ruling BJP would NEVER have supported VHP’s call!]

Q.25. Did you hold a law and order review meeting on 28.02.2002 morning? If so, who all attended the said meeting? What were the issues discussed in the said meeting?
Ans.  On 28-2-2002, the Assembly was in the morning session. In this session, which lasted for 10 minutes, homage was paid and silence observed in the memory of victims of Godhra incident and the house adjourned around 08:40 hrs. In my speech in the Assembly, I had ordered for Judicial Inquiry by a Commission into the incident. After the Assembly, I attended a Cabinet meeting. Thereafter, I held a Law & Order review meeting. In this meeting, I was informed that no Army was available in Ahmedabad cantonment. I immediately spoke to Union Home Minister Shri L.K. Advani and requested him that necessary arrangements be made for the Army to reach Gujarat urgently. This meeting was attended by the officials of Home and police department, who had attended the meeting the previous night.

0.26. Did Shri Ashok Bhatt, the then Health Minister and Shri I. K. Jadeja, the then Minister of Urban Development attend the said meeting?
Ans.  Both these Ministers must have attended the Cabinet meeting but they were not present in the Law & Order meeting, as it was not their subject.

Q.27. Did you take a decision to allow Shri Ashok Bhatt and Shri I.K. Jadeja to sit in the State Control Room and Ahmedabad City Control Room, respectively which adversely affected the supervision of the riot situation by DGP and CP, Ahmedabad City respectively?
Ans.  No such decision was taken and no such discussions took place in the meeting. Subsequently, I came to know about this allegation from media. However, I do not have any personal knowledge about the positioning of these two Ministers in the two Control Rooms.
 [Sanjeev: So what exactly did he know, as Home Minister? Was he the world’s most incompetent Chief Minister?]
0.28. What were your movements on 28.02.2002? Please give details of the same.
Ans.  On 28-2-2002 I met the press at Circuit House Annexe Shahigaug. I informed the media about the announcement of an inquiry commission by Govt. and also made an appeal to the general public through them to maintain peace and communal harmony. It may be added here that on 28-2-2002 itself, I had got recorded a message for the general public to maintain peace and harmony, which was continuously broadcasted on the Doordarshan.

0.29. Is it correct that the Army was requisitioned on 28.02 2002 itself and several Columns had been airlifted on 28.02 2002 night & 1-3-2002 onwards but were deployed only on 02.03.2002?
Ans.  In response to the request made by me to the Union Home Minister the Army was airlifted and had started arriving from 28-2-2002 night and 1-3-2002 morning. I had asked administration to requisition Army and immediately deploy. As far as I recollect, the Army was deployed with effect from 1-3-2002 itself. In fact at my request, Shri George Fernandes, the then Union Defence Minister had visited Ahmedabad on 1-3-2002.

Q.30. Did you make a statement in the Star News on 02.03.2002 to the effect that the Gujaras was well on the road to peace and normalcy and normalcy is slowly returning here and that Ahmedabad too had been largely peaceful since last night despite the fact that the riots were continuing in Panchmahal, Mehsana, Kheda, Nadiad and Bhavnagar districts of Gujarat?
Ans.  It may be stated here that I used to meet the press almost daily evening and made statements on the basis of data facts and figures made available to me by the Home Department. It is a fact that I used to appeal for peace and also highlighted the peaceful areas of the State.

Q.31. Did you receive any information about an attack by a mob on the Gulberg Society? It so, when and through whom? What action did you take in the matter?
Ans.  To the best of my recollection, I was informed in the Law & Order review --meeting held in the night about the attack on Gulberg society in Meghanincigar area and Naroda Patiya.

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
One glaring issue was Modi’s delayed response to the prolonged siege at Ahmedabad’s Gulberg Society, the site of the first post-Godhra massacre. Unlike his terror allegation, this problem of delayed response though was not peculiar to Modi. It is a thread that runs through most of the flare-ups of communal violence in India, whether in remote villages or right inside big cities. The delay could stretch to hours, as it did in Ahmedabad in 2002, or more than a day, as it did in Delhi in 1984. The delay in responding proportionately is typically the gap in governance that creates room for mass crimes. The Supreme Court’s intervention on Jafri’s complaint provided the first-ever opportunity for an investigating agency to get to the bottom of this recurring factor in communal violence. The SIT, however, frittered away this unprecedented opportunity. The SIT was wary of questioning him on his failure to respond to the violence at Gulberg Society, although he had been in its vicinity for over two hours on February 28. In his testimony, Modi made out that he had no clue to any of the violence at Gulberg Society, including Ehsan Jafri’s murder, till he was told about it five hours later by the police. This is how the testimony was actually recorded:
Malhotra: Did you receive any information about an attack by a mob on Gulberg Society? If so, when and through whom? What action did you take in the matter?
Modi: To the best of my knowledge, I was informed in the law and order review meeting held in the night about the attack on Gulberg Society in Meghaninagar area and Naroda Patiya.
What was listed as Question No. 31 in Modi’s testimony actually had three parts to it. The first was whether Modi had received any information about the mob attack on Gulberg Society. Modi’s answer was yes. The second part was when and through whom had he received the information. Predictably, Modi indicated that he had been informed about the massacre by the police. The surprise, however, lay in the time he claimed to have been “informed” about the massacre. Modi said that it was at the law and order meeting “held in the night”. In a different context, while enumerating all the measures Modi had taken on February 28, the SIT’s 2012 report disclosed on page 256 that this law and order meeting had taken place in Gandhinagar at 8.30 pm. So, linking the two discrete pieces of information recorded by the SIT, my book for the first time establishes the precise time at which Modi claims to have been informed about the Gulberg Society massacre. It was 8.30 pm, a claim that strains credulity given the magnitude of the massacre which, according to the SIT’s own findings, was exe­cuted right in Ahmedabad by 3.45 pm. By then, Gulberg Society had been, as the SIT report put it on page 494, “set ablaze and lot of lives including that of Late Ehsan Jafri had been lost”.
Modi’s claim to have learnt about the massacre only at the   8.30 pm meeting threw up a glaring and unexplained time lag. But the SIT neither contested his claim during the interrogation nor discussed the implications of his claim in its report. It tacitly accepted Modi’s claim that he had no real-time information on the prolonged Gulberg Society siege and massacre, stretching over eight hours. And even after Joint Commissioner M.K. Tandon was said to have intervened in the Gulberg Society massacre around 4 pm, Modi remained out of the loop for nearly five hours, till the news was apparently broken to him at the 8.30 pm meeting. As a corollary, insofar as the SIT was concerned, the third part of its Question No. 31, asking what action Modi had taken in the matter, was rendered inconsequential. Since he somehow remained in the dark during all those crucial hours when he could have made a difference, there was no question of holding Modi to account for the Gulberg Society massacre, or so went the SIT’s line of reasoning.
In reality, Modi’s claim to have been ignorant about the Gulberg Society massacre seems inconsistent with his own larger claim to have been tracking the post-Godhra violence as it unfolded. This contradiction was apparen­tly lost on the SIT. It accepted Modi’s plea of ignorance even as it meticulously listed out a series of meetings Modi had held in the days following the Godhra incident, all focused on the task of controlling violence against Muslims.
In the sequence of events reconstructed by the SIT, one such meeting was held by   Modi in Gandhinagar at 1 pm on February 28, when things were coming to a boil in Gulberg Society. Joint Commissioner Tandon had already made a brief visit to Gulberg Society around 11.30 am, when he ordered the “striking force” accompanying him to burst teargas shells to disperse “a mob of around 1,000 Hindu rioters”. Further, at 12.20 pm, the police control room received a message from the Meghaninagar police station asking for reinforcements as the mob, which had regrouped at Gulberg Society and grown to 10,000-strong, was indulging in stone-pelting and arson.
How could none of these details about the escalating crisis in Gulberg Society have been brought to Modi’s notice in the law and order review meeting he had at 1 pm? Modi’s claim to have been unaware of the Naroda Patiya violence as well, at the end of that meeting, is even more puzzling. This is because by then, at 12.30 pm, the police had, for the first time in the context of the post-Godhra massacres, imposed a curfew in the jurisdiction of the Naroda police station. Even if it proved to be ineffective, the very imposition of the curfew signified that the administration had taken cognizance of the gravity of the situation.
Modi’s general claim of ignorance sounds all the more dubious as some of his engagements on February 28 were at a venue barely three kilometres from Gulberg Society: the Circuit House Annexe in Ahmedabad’s Shahibaug. He held a law and order review meeting at this venue at 4 pm, by when the massacre had been carried out at Gulberg Society and Tandon had just returned to the spot. While Modi’s meeting was going on just a few kilometres away, Tandon finally ordered firing, leading to casualties among the rioters at Gulberg Society. Tandon was also engaged in the process of evacuating some 150 survivors, including women and children, from this Muslim pocket. Further, he directed Inspector K.G. Erda to “complete the inquest promptly and send the dead bodies to hospital for post-mortem examination”.
Yet, for the next few hours, Modi was not given the slightest hint of the first big massacre in the wake of Godhra—or so went the official narrative, accepted without demur by the SIT. This, despite the SIT’s own acknowledegment of a flurry of messages within the police establishment during the Gulberg Society violence. At 2.05 pm, Tandon asked for more reinforcements from the control room stating explicitly that, from the information received by him, Jafri and his neighbours had been “surrounded by the mob”. This was followed by another urgent message at 2.14 pm, this one by the officer on the spot, Erda, saying that the mob was “about to set fire to the entire society”. At 2.45 pm, Erda told the control room that the mob had surrounded not just the Muslims but also the police.
Besides such a chilling countdown to the massacre, the SIT report referred to a message from the highest police officer of the state, K. Chakravarthi, indicating that he was very much privy to the first major instance of post-Godhra violence playing out in Gulberg Society. The SIT also reported that it was on the instructions of the Ahmedabad police commissioner, P.C. Pande, sent at 3.16 pm, that another senior officer, P.B. Gondia, had reached Gulberg Society at 4.05 pm, shortly after Tandon’s arrival.
Thus, there was an unexplained disconnect between what the police brass were admittedly aware of and what Modi claimed to have learnt or not learnt from them in the course of that fateful day. Shortly after his law and order review meeting in the Circuit House Annexe, Modi held a press conference at the same venue from 4.30 pm to 5.45 pm, when he announced his decision to call the army. Though it was prompted by the deteriorating situation in Ahmedabad, the decision to call the army had nothing to do with Gulberg Society, the biggest massacre till then, as he was apparently yet to hear about it. Before leaving the Circuit House Annexe, Modi gave Doordarshan around 6 pm a recording of a customary “appeal for peace”. It was on returning to his Gandhinagar home that Modi held the 8.30 pm meeting where he claimed to have finally heard about the mass crimes in Gulberg Society.
How could the earlier meetings, focused as they were on the escalating violence, have missed out on Gulberg Society? The best argument that could perhaps be advan­ced in Modi’s favour was that even journalists at his 4.30 pm press conference seemed to have been oblivious to Gulberg Society. For nobody at the press conference had pointedly asked him about the first big massacre, which had just taken place a little distance away. This does suggest that, as violence was breaking out across the state, journalists were as yet unaware of the enormity of the violence at Gulberg Society, including the brutality with which a former MP had been murdered there. But it is implausible to assume such ignorance on the part of someone wearing the hats of the chief minister and home minister of Gujarat. Besides being briefed at the meetings held by him through the day, Modi would have been regularly receiving ‘sit-reps’ (situation reports) from the state police control room and the state intelligence bureau on the law and order crisis. If there was any truth to his claim to have been out of the loop till 8.30 pm, then the police brass should have been held to account by Modi himself, let alone the SIT. After all, the issue was not just their lap­ses in dealing with the violence; he should have been even more affronted by their failure to alert him, during the meetings and in their ‘sit-reps’, about what was till then the worst instance of violence. At stake were not just the lives of innocent Muslims but his own self-styled image as a decisive and impartial administrator.
Since he had taken no action against the police in all the years before the SIT probe, it should have been all the more a reason for the SIT to question Modi on the wide gap in his narrative between the time of the mass killings and the time he had come to know about them.
The unexplained incongruities in Modi’s account would have lent credence to Zakia Jafri’s allegation that he was complicit in the massacres of Muslims. So, playing it safe, the SIT refrained from confronting Modi with any of the obvious follow-up questions.
From the details disclosed in the same SIT report, my book points out the incongruity of Modi’s claim about the very first post Godhra massacre in which former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri had been killed. Even as he had been apparently immersed in preventing attacks on Muslims, Modi was somehow unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre in Ahmedabad for as long as five hours. And this was despite the evidence of high-level police communications during the prolonged siege preceding the massacre. The SIT neither questioned Modi’s claim of ignorance nor examined the glaring contradiction between the rhetoric and the reality of his administration’s response.
how could Modi have been unaware of the Gulberg Society massacre till the night of February 28 although he had held a series of meetings with police officers through the day? Had it not been engaged in a cover-up, the SIT would have pinned down Modi to find out what he was hiding by claiming such ignorance.

Q.32. Did you know Late Ahesan Jafri, Ex-MP, who was residing in Gulberg society?
Ans.  I had not known Late Ahesan Jafri, Ex-MP, as he was elected as MP sometime in 1970's, when I was not even in politics. I was told subsequently that Late Ahesan Jafri, Ex-MP was residing in Gulberg society and had been killed during the attack on the society.

Q.33. Did late Ahesan Jafri, ex-MP himself contact you over phone and request for help? If so, what was the action taken by you?
Ans.  In this connection, I would like to add here that no such phone call had been received by me.
 [Sanjeev: This is a blatant lie and could have been easily verified by SIT through phone records. Why was this not done?]

Q 34 Did you visit Gulberg Society on or around 03 03 2002 along with one Jegrupsinn Rajput and others including Ministers? If so, please describe your visit and the scenario over there
Ans.  I visited Gulberg society, Naroda Patiya and other riot affected parts of the Ahmedabad City on 5-3-2002 and 6-3-2002. During these visits, I had also visited different relief camps. Shri Jagrupsinh Rajput was a Congress leader at that time and he did not accompany me. However, I do not know, who were the persons present there. I did not meet anyone.

EVIDENCE OF POLICE COMPLICITY IN NARODA PATIYA
In Naroda Patiya, the uniformed personnel drove Muslims away when they had sought shelter in a sprawling police campus. In both cases, victims legally testified that at the time of the killings, the police either looked the other way or aided the miscreants.

Q.35. Please narrate the details of the efforts made by you to bring peace and normalcy in the State.
Ans.  Regular appeals were made through media to maintain peace and communal harmony. Peace committee meetings were held in all the police stations. It may be added here that I had formed a committee under the ChairmAns. hip of Governor of State with Congress President, Shri Amarsingh Chaudhanj, Ex-CM, Shri Naresh Ravel, leader of the opposition, Shri Keshubhai Patel, Ex-CM, Smt Ilaben Bhatt, SEWA, Padmashri Ishvarbhai Patel, a known Gandhian from Sabarmati Aashram, myself and some other leading social workers as members to supervise the relief operations

Q.36. What was the action taken by the Government to rehabilitate the riot victims? How much compensation was announced for the post Godhra riot victims?
Ans.  Relief camps were opened in the affected areas and they were served by the NGOs and local social leaders. The Govt. contributed funds as per policy and the relief operations were supervised by the Samiti. The necessary food, drinking water, medicines, and cash doles, etc. arrangements were made in these camps. Arrangements were also made for the children's education in these camps. 
[Sanjeev: These are the same camps which remained in a deplorable condition and where Modi said that Muslims were child producing factories?] 
In this connection, I would like to point out that some PIL was filed in Gujarat High Court and the judgment pronounced by the High Court may be looked into.

Q.37. When was Shri K.P.S. Gill, former DG of Punjab, appointed as an Advisor io the Chief Minister and when did he arrive in Gujarat? Please give the details of your meetings with him. What were the suggestions given by Shri K. P. S. Gill to bring normalcy and peace in the State?
Ans.  Shri K.P.S. Gill, former DGP of Punjab, who was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and being an experienced police officer was invited to give useful suggestions to improve the situation in the Stale. Shri K.P.S. Gill held a number of meetings with the officials of Home and Police Department, as well as the leaders of Hindu and Muslim communities. After taking stock of the situation Shri K P.S. Gill had advised me to transfer the jurisdictional officers. In view of his suggestion, all police officers were transferred.

0.38 Why was Shri G. C. Raiger, Addl DG (Intelligence) transferred in the first week of 2002 and Shri P B. Sreekumar, Add! DG (Armed Units) posted in his place?
Ans.  I had not known Shri R B. Sreekumar before his appointment as Addl DC (Int ). The Home Department had put up a proposal about his appointment as Addl DG Int. ), which was approved by me. There was no particular reason for the transfer of Shri G.C. Raiger, Addl. DG (Int.)

Q.39. After taking over as Addl.DG (Intelligence) did Shri R. B. Sreekumar send any intelligence report to the Government about the possible communal violence in Ahmedabad City. If so, please give the details of the same.
Ans.  He might have sent such report to either DGP or ACS (Home). I do not recollect to have seen any such report.

Q.40. Please see a copy of DO letter dated 19.04_2002 addressed by Shri P. C Pande, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City to DGP with a copy to Addl DG (Intelligence) and ACS (Home) about the alleged involvement of Shri Bharat Barot, a Minister in the Government in a rioting incident. Was this letter brought to your notice? If so, what was the action taken by you in the matter?
Ans.  Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home) had brought this matter orally to my notice and i had reiterated my earlier instruction to the concerned

Q.41. Please see a copy of the DO letter dated 22.04.2002 addressed by Shri P. C. Pande, the then CP Ahmedabad City with a copy to DGP and Addl.DG (Intelligence) about the undesirable activities of Sang Parivar activists. Was this matter brought to your notice? If so, what was the action taken by you in the matter?
Ans.  In this connection, it is stated that I do not remember now, whether this issue was brought to my notice or not. But, it has been my and my Government's approach right from the first day, that a culprit is a culprit irrespective of his caste, creed, religion or socio political background, as nobody is above law.
 [Sanjeev: This is completely contrary to the Modi’s active shielding of VHP/BJP killers]

EVIDENCE THAT PROVES MODI IS LYING
Zakia Jafri’s written statement to the court on 18 September 2013 against Narendra Modi
13. Partisan prosecutors belonging to the RSS-VHP were appointed to ensure that cases were killed in their infancy; bail was easily granted to powerful accused until the Supreme Court stepped in, in 2003 and 2004. Two trials, the Best Bakery trial and the Bilkees Bano cases were transferred out of the state.

Q.42. Please see a copy of the DO letter dated 24.04.2002 sent by Shri R. B. Sreekumar, the then Addl. DG (Intelligence) to ACS (Home) with a copy to DGP regarding the current communal scenario in Ahmedabad City. Was this letter brought to your notice? If so, what was the action taken by you in the matter?
Ans.  No such letter was ever put to me and Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home) never orally briefed me about it. However, it may be mentioned here that during March- April, 2002, elections were held in 1700 panchayat of State peacefully, around 5000 Haj pilgrims who had arrived in the State were welcomed at their respective places, various examinations were held peacefully In view of this, the claim of Shri R.B Sreekumar, the then Addl DG (Int.) that the Muslims had lost faith in the administration, police and judiciary does not seem to be sound.

Q43 Please see a copy of law and order assessment report sent by Shri R Sreekumar, the then Addl. DG (Intelligence) to Shri P S Shah, the then Addl Secretary Law & Order) regarding cancellation of Rath Yatra in July 2002 till an atmosphere of durable peace and goodwill between the majority and minority communities was established. Was this letter brought to your notice? If so, what was the action taken by you in the matter? Did you agree with the view of ADG (Int.)?
Ans.  Yes. This matter was brought my notice by Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home). I asked Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home) as to whether there was anything specific or it was a general perception of Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then AddI.DG (Int ). Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home) informed me that Shri Sreekumar had not cited any specific instance but his report was general in nature. In view of this, I did not agree with the views of Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then AddI.DG (Int.) Rath-Yatra took place on 12-7-2002, and the event passed of peacefully. All this goes to show that the apprehensions were without any basis.

Q.44. Did your Cabinet Colleagues namely Shri Haren Pandya, the then Minister for Revenue, Shri Ashok Bhatt, the then Health Minister led the mobs in Ahmedabad with Shri Bharat Barot, a sitting MLA was at the forefront?
Ans.  This is absolutely incorrect. There was no such instance like that.

Q.45 Did Shri Nitinbhai Patel and Shri Narayan Lallu Patel, the then sitting Ministers the Gujarat government led violence, arson and even sexual violence against women in Kadi and Unjha in Mehsana district respectively?
Ans.  This is absurd. No such incidents had ever taken place.

Q.46. Did you let off your escort in the evening on 28.02.2002 and visit Naroda Patiya to congratulate the accused persons for committing heinous crime?
Ans.  This is absolutely false. On 28-2-2002 evening, I held a press conference at Circuit House, Annexe, Shahibaug and thereafter, returned to Gandhinagar The allegation has been maliciously made against me.

Q.47. Did the Government submit the false report to the Election Commission, in which it was reflected that the law and order situation in the Gujarat was normal and that a co-ordial atmosphere existed for holding the elections in the State?
Ans.  It is incorrect to say that the Govt. submitted a false report to the Election Commission. It may be mentioned here that even before August, 2002, Panchayat elections for about 1700 panchayat were held peacefully in the months of March April, 2002 and the next Assembly elections were held in December, 2002 and that too peacefully. In view of this, this allegation is far from truth.

Q.48 Did you try to influence Shri R.B. Sreekumar through Shri Dinesh Kapadia to depose in favour of the Government before Nanavati Commission of Inquiry?
Ans.  This allegation is funny in as much as the junior employee had been sponsored by the Govt. to influence an Addl. DG. The allegation is false and without any basis.

Q.49 Did you ask Shri G. C. Murmu, Secretary, (Law and Order) Home Department and Shri Arvind Pandya, Government Advocate to brief Shri R B. Sreekumar before his deposition in Nanavati Commission of Inquiry and also to influence the latter for not making any deposition against the Government?
Ans.  No. This allegation is also false and baseless.

Q.50 Kindly see a letter dated 20-8-2002 of Shri R B. Sreekumar, the then Addl.DG (Int.) addressed to ACS (Home) regarding the current Law & Order situation in Gujarat State. Was this letter put up to you by the Home Department? If so, what was the action taken by you?
Ans.  No such letter was shown to me. ACS (Home) did not briefed me orally also about any such reference received from Shri R B. Sreekumar the then Addl. DG (Int.).

Q.51. Kindly see a letter dated 28-8-2002 of Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl DG (Int.) addressed to ACS (Home) regarding the emerging Law & Order trends-run up to the assembly poll in Gujarat State. Was this letter put up to you by the Home Department? If so, what was the action taken by you?
Ans.  No such letter was shown to me. ACS (Home) did not brief me orally also about any such reference received from Shri R.8'. Sreekumar, the then Addl.DG
Q.52. Please see a text of the public speech delivered by you at Becharaji, Mehasana District on 9-9-2002, as a part of Gaurav Yatra. Particularly the portion reproduced below:
"What brother, should we run relief camps? (Referring to relief camps for riot affected Muslims). Should I start children producing centers there, i.e relief camps? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the policy of family planning with determination. We are 5 and our 25!!  (Ame panch, Amara panch, referring the Muslim polygamy). On whose name such a development is pursued? Can't Gujarat implement family planning? Whose inhibitions are coming in our way? Which religious sect is coming in the way? Why money is not reaching to the poor? If some people go on producing children, the children will do cycle puncture repair only?"
Did these remarks refer to the Muslims?
Ans.  This speech does not refer to any particular community or religion This was a political speech, in which I tried to point out the increasing population of India, in as much as I stated that "Can't Gujarat implement family planning?" My speech had been distorted by some interested elements who had misinterpreted to suit their designs. It may be mentioned here that no riots or tension took place after my election speech.
 [Sanjeev: this is the portion where he talks about child-producing factories. He did not deny it.]

53. Did you ask the ACS (Home) to get a denial issued from SIB on 15-9-2002, regarding their report sent to DGP about your speech at Becharaji?
Ans.  No such instructions were given by me to ACS (Home).

Q 54 Is it correct that when Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl DG (Int.) refused to issue the denial, he was ordered to be transferred by you as ADG (Police Reforms) cn 17-9-2002?
Ans.  The allegation leveled by Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl.DG (Int ) is not correct, in as much as this was a routine transfer, for which the proposal had been received from the Home Department 
 [Sanjeev: why was he transferred within months of his posting? That’s not “routine” – and his Home department was run by him, anyway]

0.55. Please see the entries made by Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl.DG (Int.) on 16-4-2C.02, 17-4-2002, 18-4-2002, 28-4-2002, 30-4-2002, 7-5-2002, 29-52002, 25-6-2002, 28-6-2002, 1-7-2002, 26-8-2002, 2-9-2002 and 15-9-2002 and confirm the authenticity of the same.
Ans.  I do not have any knowledge about such a personal diary/register maintained by Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl.DG (Int.). I came to know about his diary from media reports after a long time. In view of the fact that this diary was not a Govt. record, I do not want to comment upon the authenticity or otherwise of the same.

Q.56. Did you ever use the mobile phones of your personal staff, namely Shri Anil Mukim, the then Addl. PS to CM, Shri Tanmay Mehta, PA to CM, Shri Sanjay Bhaysar, OSD and Shri 0.P.Singh, PA to CM?
Ans.  Telephones are installed at my residence as well as my office. Whenever, I go out, telephones are available to me. I have never used the mobile phones of my personal staff at headquarters. There was a mobile phone allotted to me in the year 2002, but I rarely used the same. I do not recollect its number.

Q.57. Whether Jaydeep Patel, Babu Bajrangi and Dr. Mayaben Kodnani, MLA were in touch with you during the riots from 28-2-2002 onwards?
Ans.  t came to know Babu Bajrangi through media reports and he is not known to me. Dr. Mayaben Kodnani is a MLA from BJP and used to meet me. Jaydeep Patel is a VHP leader, who is also known to me. As far as I recollect, they never contacted me over phone during the riots. 
[Sanjeev: SIT was obliged to check phone records and then ask Modi to accept or deny.]

Q.58 Please see the interviews given by Shri Haresh Bhatt, the then MLA Babu Bajrangi, Rajendra Vyas, VHP President, Ahmedabad City to Shri Ashish Khetan, Special Correspondence. Tehlaka and published in the Special issue of Tehlaka dated 3-11-2007 and confirm the contents thereof
Ans.  The allegations leveled against me by any of the aforesaid persons are false and incorrect. It may be added here that this particular issue was raised in November, 2007 through Teheika magazine after about six years of the incident and that too at the time of elections that were held in December, 2007. These issues were again raked up when the SIT was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in April, 2008. This issue was again raised in this week on 22-3-2010, when I was to appear before the SIT for my examination. In view of all these factors, I would say that the whole episode is motivated and stage managed. I have no personal knowledge about authenticity of the said CD.

0.59. Please see volume-1 & 11 of the book titled Crime Against Humanity published by Concerned Citizen Tribunal-2002. Did the Concerned Citizen Tribunal forward their recommendations to the Govt. of Gujarat and ask for the Government's views in the matter? Did the Govt. of Gujarat respond to this communication? If not, why not?
Ans.  I do not know anything about these two books and they never came to my notice.

Q.60. Please see a copy of the extracts of news item published in the Outlook magazine dated 3-6-2002, which says that the senior bureaucrats and police officers were summoned by the CM on 27-2-2002 and instructed that there would be justice for Godhra the next day during the VHP call bandh and that the police should not come in the way of Hindu backlash. Please confirm the authenticity of this news item. In case the news was incorrect, was any contradiction issue by the State Govt. if, not, why not?
Ans.  I have not come  across this article. After going through this article today I find that there are many inaccuracies in the same, in as much as Shri G. Subba Rao, the then Chief Secretary, Shri G.C. Raigar, Addl, DG (Int.) and Shri A.K. Sharma, PS did not attend this meeting. In view of these inaccuracies, this article can not be relied upon. I have already clarified that no such instructions were given by me on 27-2-2002.

Q. 61 Did CM office intervene into a case of rioting in which a HOmeGuard Commandant had been arrested? Is it correct that when Shri Vivek Srivastava, the then SP, Kutch did not oblige the CM office, he was transferred in March, 2002?
Ans.  No. There is no such instance of any interference by CM office. The postings/transfers of the police officers are handled by e Home Department in consultation with the DGP. In case. OM's approval is required the file comes to me for the approval I do not recollect any such instance and moreover, I never interfered in such matters.

Q.62. Were the dead bodies of the Ram-seviks and other persons killed in Godhra incident paraded in Ahmedabad City?
Ans.  The Govt was very particular that tension should not mount at the time of funeral of the Godhra victims. As per my information, the police played a proactive role in the matter and the relatives of the victims were persuaded to take the dead bodies in vehicles in some cases. The relatives of the victims cooperated with the administration as a result of which the funeral was peaceful and no untoward incident took place on the way to the cremation ground. Further, as per my information even the unidentified bodies were cremated at a distance of about 200 meters from the Sole Civil Hospital after completing necessary legal formalities. The allegation is therefore without any basis.

Q.63. It has been alleged that after the riots the public servants who connived with those responsible for carnage were doubly rewarded and those who tried to uphold the rule of law were punished in various ways by way of transfers and supersessions in promotion and this sent a message to the Govt. functionaries to be committed to the political agenda of the CM than their constitutional obligations for which every Govt. servants had taken oath. What have to say?
Ans.  The allegation is vague, false and without any basis. It appears that serious attempt has been made by the complainant to attribute all the movements in the Govt. to the Chief Minister. The posting and transfers are the prerogative of the administrative ministry and a routine affair. In the election year, those who had completed about three years of stay in a particular post are transferred by the Govt. itself or otherwise the Election Commission would do that. In this chain of transfers those who had put in less than three years in a particular place are also transferred. In view of this, it can not be said that the posting/ transfers are punitive in nature.

Q.64. It has further been alleged that Shri Anupam Singh Gehlout, the then SP, Mehsana District was transferred, as he had refused to toe the Govt. line in a case in which, prominent persons of Kadi including Ramesh Bachubhai Patel, a Municipal Councilor were named as accused. What have to say?
Ans.  As already stated postings/transfers are routine administrative matters, which are dealt with by the concerned Administrative Ministry and my approval is obtained in routine course. The allegation is therefore without any basis and without any substance.

Q.65. What was the compensation fixed for the riot victims of the Godhra incident?
Ans.  In this connection, I may clarify that on 27-2-2002. on the demand of Congress MLA from Godhra, I had offhand declared an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 2 lakh to each victim However, after few days, when it was brought to my notice that it was against the Govt. policy, the matter was immediately rectified end a uniform compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh each to the victims of Godhra incident as well as the not victims was announced.

Q 66. It has been alleged by Smt Zakia Naseem that the Govt. of Gujarat had been utterly secretive about the disbursal of Rs. 150 crore promised by the Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee for rehabilitation on 4-4-2002 and by this conduct  Shri Narendra Modi had not simply violated the spirit and the law as laid down by the Indian Constitution but blatantly defied every constitutional institution including that of the PM and thus, he is accountable for criminal negligence of duty in failing to provide and relief and rehabilitation to the victims of carnage in Gujarat. What have to say?
Ans.  The allegation is false, baseless and absurd. I have already stated the efforts made by the Govt. in rehabilitation of riot victims and that needs no repetitions.

Q 67. It has been alleged in the complaint that the public prosecutors were appointed in Gujarat to handle the riot cases were either the members or supporters and sympathizers of the ruling party or its Sangh Parivar widely believed to be involved in the carnage and that there was a deliberate attempt to scuttle most of these cases. What have to say?
Ans.  The procedure with regard to the selection of the public prosecutor is quite transparent in as much as District Judge writes to the District Collector regarding the vacancy and the District Collector advertises the post. The applicants who applied for the post are interviewed by a Committee of District Judge and a District Collector. On the basis of the interview held a panel of three advocates for each post is forwarded to the Govt. It is binding upon the Govt. to appoint an Advocate out of that panel only. It may thus be seen that the Govt. has no role to play in the selection of a public prosecutor. This procedure is in vogue since 1960.

Q.68. It has been alleged in the complaint that those public servants, who toed the Govt. line were given lucrative post retirement occupation by your Govt. whereas those who had fallen out were not considered for any post retirement appointment. What have to say?
Ans.  In this connection, it is stated that there are several posts in the Govt. institution, in which there is a provision for the employment of the retired officers for example: Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, State Election Commission, State Service Tribunal, Gujarat Public Service Commission. RTI Commission, State Vigilance Commission. Sales Tax Tribunal, Departmental Inquiry Officer, etc There is a long list of the departments in which only retired persons are appointed. My Educational Adviser Shri Kiritbhai Joshi, was earlier Adviser to Smt Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister. Similarly, Shri Navalawaia, formerly Secretary, Water Resources and Member of UPSC is now my Adviser on Water Resources. One Shri Bukhari, who was earlier a Govt. officer, was engaged by me to supervise the relief operations after the communal riots in 2002. Shri P.0 Pande, formerly DGP, Gujarat State has been appointed as Hony. Chairman of Police Housing Corporation on a nominal monthly honorarium, Further, Smt. Maniula Subramanium, IAS, who was formerly in the PMO with either Late Rajiv Gandhi or Late Narsimha Rao had been appointed as State Vigilance Commissioner in Gujarat after retirement. This tradition was being followed by all the State Govts./Central Govt. right after independence The allegation has no force and has been maliciously leveled against me.

Q.69. Please refer to your interview given to Shri Sudhir Choudhary of Zee TV on 01-03-2002. In this interview you have stated that "Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chhate hain ki-na kriya ho our na pratikriya". You have also reported!;' stated in the said interview that the Godhra incident had caused a big shocr in India as well as abroad. These people from Godhra area have criminal tendencies and had earlier killed lady teachers also and now they have committed this heinous crime, for which reaction is being felt. Please explain.
Ans.  Those who have read the history of Gujarat would definitely be aware that communal violence in Gujarat has a very old history. Since long and even before my birth, Gujarat has witnessed series of incidents of such communal violence. As per available history, from 1714 AD to uptill now, in Gujarat, thousands of incidents of communal violence have been recorded.
So far as the Zee TV interview of 151 March 2002 is concerned, today, after a period of eight years, I do not recollect the exact words. But I had always appealed only and only for peace. I had tried to convey to the people to shun violence in straight and simple language.
 [Sanjeev: This is a serious matter, why couldn’t SIT simply check from the records?]
If my words cited in this question are considered in the correct perspective, then it would be evident that there is a very earnest appeal for refraining from any kind of violence. I deny all the allegations leveled against me in this regard.

Q.70. Did you make a. statement to the media about post-Godhra riots by citing Newton's law that every action has equal and opposite reaction?
Ans.  The Times of India had published a news item purportedly as though I had given an interview to them. The truth is that nobody from Times of India had met me. The falsehood of my so-called justification ‘Action -- Reaction Theory' is evident from this fact. The State Government issued a denial with regard to my not having given any interview and the same was belatedly published in a remote corner of the newspaper. There is a saying in Gujarati. "Ver thi er same nehin". It has been my constant opinion that violence can not be a reply to violence and I had appealed for peace I had not and would never justify any action or reaction by a mob against innocents. Hence, I deny all allegations in this regard

0.71. Smt Jakia Nasim widow of Late Ahesan Jafri, Ex-MP has alleged in her complaint that you being a Chief Minister and constitutionally elected head of the State and responsible for the fundamental rights, right to life and property of all citizens regardless of caste, community and gender were an architect of a criminal conspiracy constitutional governance and the rule of law, unleashed, unlawful and illegal practices during the mass carnage and thereafter protecting the accused who played direct as well indirect role and abetted the Commission of Crime. Please comment.
Ans.  The allegations are general in nature, vague, baseless and hence denied. As a Chief Minister, I have been performing my functions with utmost respect to the Constitution and Rule of Law. The meeting, to take stock of the situation and review the Law and Order situation on 27-2-2002, with high officials of the State was my constitutional duty. On the contrary, for doing my constitutional duty to hold an emergency review meeting, the complainants are leveling wild allegations of criminal conspiracy and subversion of rule of law which is nothing, but vexatious allegations having no basis. I have been lawfully functioning as a CM and carried out my responsibilities for the safety, security and development of the people of Gujarat. I have already cleared my stand on the said meeting and clarified that Law & Order be maintained at all cost. I appealed to people to maintain harmony. I asked the concerned officials to keep in touch with local Army authorities. I had held series of such Law and Order review meetings thereafter and addressed the press also. I had issued press statements appealing to people to maintain harmony. My appeal to the public to maintain peace and communal harmony was aired through Doordarshan. I requested both the Union Home Minister and the Defence Minister to expedite deployment of Army. Relief and rehabilitation measures were put to operation immediately. All packages were declared and implemented. Perhaps for the first time in the Country, a Committee was constituted under the' ChairmAns. hip of H.E. the Governor to review the rehabilitation efforts. I had already mentioned about the members of this High level committee which include leader of the opposition, member from the Chamber of commerce, member from prominent NGO etc. Also, the allegation of protecting any criminal or accused is frivolous and without any basis on the history of communal riots in Gujarat for the first time so many offences have been registered and as of now comparatively large number of cases have resulted in conviction. The charges leveled and alleged are therefore, deserved to be dismissed completely and such false and frivolous complainant should not be entertained.
Read over and admitted to be correct

Before me
Before me
(AK Malhotra)
Member, SIT,
Gandhinagar
Typed by
 (A. K. Parmar)



No comments:

Post a Comment