The idea that the criminaliztion of thought by the State does not affectt evidentiary  AVOIDING LIABILITY …. Anyone whose judgment has been impaired .

Now that a court has given its cachet of approval to the Special Investigation Team’s report absolving Narendra Modi of responsibility in the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, one would expect the sting in the public discourse focussed on them to weaken, if not disappear altogether. That, however, is unlikely to happen any time soon. In the campaign leading up to the general elections, both supporters and detractors of Modi wouldn’t miss a single opportunity to trade bitter polemics.

Gujarat cop Sanjeev Bhatt’s revelations, contained in his affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, may come as a surprise to many. But for all those who lived in Gujarat during those fateful days and were in the thick of things, the contents only provide substantiation of what they had heard then. A top police officer of the state told me a couple of days after the riots started how director general of poice K Chakravarthy was uncomfortable on being told by Narendra Modi at a meeting to allow Hindus to vent their feelings.Though perturbed, Chakravarthy, a naturally timid person, could not muster the guts to stand up to his boss. So, instead he lamented to top police officers like the person to whom I had spoken. Or at least that is what the officer told me.
It was also being speculated that not only had “Hindus” been allowed to vent their feelings, they had been given “three days” to do this. Then defence minister George Fernandes who had been sent to Ahmedabad by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee also knew of this “three days” and I personally can vouch for this. With a view to figure out what he was up to, I had called on Fernandes on Saturday, March 2, 2002, in Circuit House in Ahmedabad. Initially, I had some apprehension about how much time the minister would give me because he was on a mission and the riots were on full blast. But I was pleasantly surprised that he had all the time in the world for me. Very soon I could figure out the purpose Fernandes was so keen to engage me in conversation: he wanted to cross-check the facts of the riots that he had heard. It was a long three-hour meeting. At one point the chief secretary, G Subba Rao, and additional chief secretary Ashok Narain, along with a senior army officer, came into the room. They had been confabulating with the minister before I dropped in. Leaving them behind, Fernandes took me to his room. Now the officials wanted to know if they should wait or could leave. The minister asked them to leave and resumed his conversation with me. Fernandes spoke about a whole lot of things, how Ahmedabad had changed, how he had come to the city when there was a massive riot in 1969, how he had walked to the Governor Shriman Narayan’s house from the airport at that time, etc. With the evening advancing and the need for me to go back to the office, I excused myself. Fernandes persisted but I went out. As I climbed down the stairs, the defence minister beckoned me once again from the top of the stairs and said that I should have dinner with him. In the end, I retraced my path. While having an early dinner, Fernandes who was beating around the bush for so long suddenly let it out: “ I have heard that the rioters have been allowed three days time before any action is taken?” I shot back: “ Ya, I have also heard it.” The minister said: “Humm. I see.” We continued on the dinner silently. I must admit that there was no talk about the Modi meet about which Sanjiv Bhatt has now filed an affidavit. But very soon our meeting was broken. Harin Pathak, the minister of state for defence and the BJP MP from Ahmedabad and a hardliner himself, walked into the room with decisive steps and plonked himself on the sofa. In the manner that he walked in it seemed that Pathak was aware that we were having a long meeting and wanted to be privy to the conversation. Immediately after the dinner, I left the place.
A couple of months later, the Outook magazine ran an exclusive report on a serving minister of the Gujarat government having deposed before a citizens’ commission about the Modi meeting on the evening of January 27 where the chief minister had talked about allowing the Hindu reaction. The minister was not named but I instinctively knew that it was Haren Pandya. So I called Pandya and said: “So you tendered evidence before the commission?” Pandya demanded: “How do you know?” I said: “I can make out because you have told me this before. Though I am not sure about others because there is some speculation that it is Suresh Mehta ( another minister). But I am sure your boss Modi can make out too.” The minister said in a dismissive tone: “Who cares about him.” Then I told Pandya: “But your testimony is second hand. Why don’t you get me somebody who attended the meeting and confirm this to me?” Pandya thought for a moment and replied: “Chakravarthi (director general of police ) can.” I told him: “I don’t know him. But since you were close to him and once were his boss as home minister, why don’t you set up a meeting.” Pandya said: “Let me get back to you.” He was back on the line in 10 minutes. “I have spoken with him. Here is his cell number. You have to ask him the questions but he will answer only in yes or no. He is not willing to go any further.” OK, I said and kept down the phone. In the event I did not call up Chakravarthi. The reason: I had written an article for the edit page about the guilty men of Gujarat and had named Chakravarthi and this was going to appear in the paper the next day. I did not think it morally right to get information from a source one day and next day publish an article that would put him on the mat. Moreover, the prospect on a yes or no answer did not appeal to me.

Genocide in Gujarat

A few months later when I came to know of the names of officers who were present at that fateful meeting, I asked one of them about what had transpired. The officer, Anil Mukim, then private secretary to Modi and now a joint secretary to GOI told me: “Not while I was there.” My specific query was: “Did Modi say that a Hindu reaction be allowed?”. I noted from media reports recently that this is also exactly what Mukim told the SIT on the Gujarat riots. If I recollect correctly Ashok Narayan, the additional chief secretary (home) who had attended the meeting told the Nanavati Commission that there were instructions that the bodies of all those perished in the Godhra train carnage be allowed to be brought to Ahmedabad. This is what Sanjiv Bhatt has also said as part of his affadavit about what had transpired at the meeting.
Incidentally, it seems that on the evening of February 27 there were two meetings that had been convened by Modi. The first one was a law and order meeting with top cops and secretaries, which Sanjiv Bhatt is supposed to have attended. The other was a meeting of ministers. Haren Pandya had told me that at this meeting some of the ministers said that the bodies of those who died in the Godhra carnage be brought to Ahmedabad. Haren said that he resisted because he felt that this could lead to an outpouring of sentiments leading to a serious law and order situation. Pandya said that he was outshouted at the meeting and mentioned a minister (I am withholding the name, but it was not Modi) who said that this is what we want. “Our party strength is in Ahmedabad. We want everything to happen here. It will help our party.”
Haren Pandya was murdered under mysterious circumstances in early 2003, so he cannot come back to life to testify whatever is attributed to him by me. I am acutely aware of this. I am also aware that George Fernandes is suffering from Alzhiemer’s, a disease that robs its patients of all his memories.

For a start, Zakia Zafri, widow of former Congress MP Ahsan Zafri, a victim of the carnage, who unsuccessfully challenged the SIT’s clean chit to Gujarat’s chief minister and the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, has vowed to appeal the judgement in a higher court. That is of course her legal right. Encouraged by those who have been advocating her cause, notably Teesta Setalvad, her determination to continue her search for justice would, at the very least, make sure that the ghosts of 2002 are not entirely banished into oblivion.
Meanwhile, the cases against a number of individuals alleged to have instigated the 2002 violence will continue to be heard in other courts. Their denouement too would fuel more controversy that, directly or otherwise, involves the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. In plain words, unless these cases, like Zakia Jaffri’s appeal to a higher court, run their full course, which might take years, Modi’s conduct during the riots will continue to be held up to critical scrutiny.

To compound his problems, the UPA government announced on Thursday the setting up an inquiry commission to probe the alleged irregularities in the surveillance of a young woman architect by Gujarat officials ordered by Modi and his aide Amit Shah. Its terms of reference are wider than those of the commission that the Gujarat government has established for the same purpose. It will also cover “incidents of physical/electronic surveillance” also in Himachal Pradesh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi “allegedly without authorisation.”  In the former state, the commission will examine charges of snooping on chief minister Virbhadra Singh by the BJP government when he was the leader of the opposition and in the latter, the leaking of BJP leader Arun Jaitley’s call data records.

The fierce reaction of the BJP to the Centre’s move is par for the course. The party has dubbed it as a ‘political vendetta’ and a ‘witch-hunt’ and asserted that it infringes the ‘federal spirit’ of the Constitution. Jaitley has hinted that the decision could well be challenged in the Supreme Court. Its timing has also raised eye-brows. The Congress, however, seems prepared to brazen out these charges in the hope that the commission would indict Modi’s far from transparent role in the snoop-gate affair. Neither he nor Amit Shah have uttered a word to counter allegations that the snooping was carried out in flagrant disregard of due process.

Until and unless the commission establishes this fact beyond all doubt, the Congress too would be treading on egg shells. The risk it runs could well be counter-productive. It is hell-bent on painting Modi as the villain of the piece but might end up by projecting him as a victim of a sustained campaign of denigration. To be portrayed as such a victim might actually help Modi to rubbish the Congress as a party that resorts to desperate measures to counter his growing appeal in the eyes of the electorate.

Indeed, armed with the Ahmedabad Metropolitan magistrate’s clean chit to him, and even as he awaits the outcome of the snoop-gate investigation, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate has a unique opportunity to refurbish his image. To drive home his ‘India first’ and ‘development of all’ mantras, he needs to reach out to the marginalised and alienated sections of the population. The sections include substantial number of Muslims. They need a place in the sun that Modi claims is shining resplendent on Gujarat. He might as well begin by convincing Zakia Jafri of his intent. Given its potent symbolism, a move in this direction could transform the legal victory he won on Thursday into a moral and political one as well. The alternative is more brim-stone and fire whose smoke shrouds the issues of genuine interest and concern to the electorate.Where politics decides everything and extinguishes the line between right and wrong? When I first heard of the conviction of former Gujarat minister Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi in the Naroda Patiya case on Wednesday morning, my first reaction was: why is it that the associates of Narendra Modi get nailed every time but he …Read more