The Supreme Court-constituted SIT summoned Mr Narendra Modi for questioning and waited one whole day for him to turn up, but he did not. Can these circumstances allow SIT to conduct a fair probe?
Chief Minister Narendra Modi did not appear before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on 21st March which had summoned him for questioning in connection with post-Godhra riots case. The office of the SIT in Gandhinagar was kept open but the chief minister ignored the summons and gave the panel a miss. The SIT has also not received any communication from the state government regarding the summons issued on March 11, sources said.
Modi was to be questioned against a petition filed by Zakia Jafri whose husband was killed in Gulberg Society massacre with 68 others on February 28, 2002. The Gulberg case is totally separate from the nine other cases related to the Gujarat pogrom.
Jafri had filed a 100-page complaint alleging the involvement of Modi and 62 others of failing to protect the citizens during the riots.
It is for the team to take the investigation forward to the final stage. The summons is only a first step and the investigation has to go a long way from here. The SIT has to submit its final report on the Gulberg society massacre to the Supreme Court by April 30. It should help in fixing responsibility for one of the worst communal pogrom in the country.
Zakia, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, has welcomed the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT’s) move to summon Chief Minister Narendra Modi for questioning in connection with the 2002 Gulberg Society riot case.
“We had high hopes from the SIT and now I am happy that summons have been issued to Modi,” said Zakia, on whose complaint the SIT summoned the CM.
I have not slept properly ever since the incident. Now, he (Modi) will also have sleepless nights,” she said, adding, “I do not know what will happen afterwards, but I welcome the move.”
Mr. Modi and the Gujarat government have always denied that there was any method in the madness that convulsed their State in 2002. But the failure to ensure proper investigation of the shocking crimes committed under their watch suggests a pattern of behaviour that needs thorough probing.
Her son Tanveer said: “This is a ray of hope for us. We welcome the SIT’s move, though it has come four years after my mother filed a petition in the Supreme Court. We see this as a positive step. This, we believe, could lead to filing of an FIR against Modi and others for their alleged role in the post-Godhra riots.”
The summons issued by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to Narendra Modi and 62 others for questioning them in connection with the murder of Ehsan Jafri in the Gulberg society massacre marks an important stage in the investigation. Even the unbiased police officers in the state have put on record their view that there is enough evidence to prosecute Modi and many others, in the state machinery, for their direct and indirect role in the riots. But the ineffective investigations by the state police and the unhelpful attitude of the state judiciary had ensured that there was no progress and, therefore, the Supreme Court had to set up the SIT two years ago to reinvestigate the cases.
The SIT’s summons should be a cause for embarrassment. But Modi has made political capital out of the riots and the accusations against him. He is the first chief minister to be questioned in a criminal case but his instinct would be to exploit the dubious distinction. For those who have trust in the rule of law, the SIT’s action is a positive step forward. It is for the team to take the investigation forward to the final stage. The summons is only a first step and the investigation has to go a long way from here.
The SIT has to submit its final report on the Gulberg society massacre to the Supreme Court by April 30. It should help in fixing responsibility for one of the worst communal pogrom in the country.
Unfortunately there are apprehensions about the working of the SIT too, as seen by the recent resignations of special public prosecutor R K Shah and his deputy Nayana Bhatt, who hinted that some SIT members may be trying to protect police officers who were facing charges in the Gulberg case.
“The entire exercise could prove futile... What Modi has been issued is only a notice for appearance without any force of law instead of a proper summons under Section 160 of the CrPC. This itself shows how serious the SIT really is about questioning Modi.”
Legal Activist Mukul Sinha
The SIT chief and the court have to ensure that the investigations are not derailed in any way.
Official sources said that Modi has sought legal alternatives in response to SIT summons. It was for the first time that the chief minister was being called for questioning in connection with the riots.
It is alleged that Modi had called a meeting with top officials of the state on February 27, the day four bogies of Sabarmati Express were set ablaze at Godhra. However, Modi has denied any such meeting. The state Assembly record of March 14, 2002, cites the then home minister Gordhan Zadaphia’s statement that chief minister had called a meeting to review the situation in the state.
Another allegation against Modi is that he had apparently asked top cops to remain inactive for three days, after the large scale violence broke out on February 28 across the state. Modi had called Godhra carnage a pre-planned terrorist act.
The SIT wants to ask Modi on what grounds did he make such a statement.
Legal activist Mukul Sinha, who is fighting a legal battle for the 2002 riot victims, believes the SIT cannot compel Modi to answer the summons. “The entire exercise could prove futile... What Modi has been issued is only a notice for appearance without any force of law instead of a proper summons under Section 160 of the CrPC. This itself shows how serious the SIT really is about questioning Modi,” he said.
The Supreme Court, on April 27 last year, asked the SIT to inquire into Jafri’s complaint in which she alleged that Modi and 62 others, including his Cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted the riots.
Zakia accused Modi of conspiring and giving instructions to the then director general of police and other senior officials to allow Hindus to give vent to their anger against Muslims.
If the truth about Gujarat is ever to emerge, the SIT must be allowed to conduct its investigations without fear or favour. It must be free from the pressure of the establishment as well as activists, some of whom have levelled baseless and even over-the-top charges against it.
Out of the 62 named in the petition, the SIT has already questioned a number of politicians and police officers, including the then minister of state for Home Gordhan Zadafia, former BJP leader Suresh Mehta, and senior cops Rahul Sharma and R B Sreekumar.
“The SIT’s direction to Narendra Modi to appear before it shows the seriousness and importance attached to the issue by the apex court,” party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said in New Delhi. “For Modi to avoid appearing on any ground or pretext is contemptuous and would show that he loves to hide.”
BJP spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy evaded a direct reply. “The government of Gujarat has made it clear that it shall act as per the law... This government has always supported and respected the law and will abide by it. It has the highest respect for the Supreme Court order and directions,” he said.
There are two theories doing the round. One, because of the above mentioned reasons; he orchestrated the Gujarat riots in 2002. And if ultimately the findings of the investigating agencies come true, this notion will be held correct.
Second theory which doesn’t find many takers, the Gujarat riots were a blessing in disguise for him. History will vouch the fact that when the Ram-Janam-Bhoomi episode erupted, it carried with names like L. K. Advani, Uma Bharati, Murli Manohar Joshi, to name a few. Till that time, nobody knew these names.
Over the years, BJP had learnt too well how to fan the religious hatred between Hindus and Muslims. It also saw how one Ram-Janam-Bhoomi episode gave the power in no time to rule the nation for many years!
And Narendra Modi being a good learner did learn the tricks of the trade in a short span of time. In recent years, his clout in BJP domain had reached such a height where top-rank leaders of BJP were found unwilling to attend certain functions where Modi would be present. And the reason was sheer fear psychosis of Modi’s growing image.
If the truth about Gujarat is ever to emerge, the SIT must be allowed to conduct its investigations without fear or favour. It must be free from the pressure of the establishment as well as activists, some of whom have levelled baseless and even over-the-top charges against it.
SOME CRUCIAL ISSUES RAISED BY ZAKIA JAFRI
Why were bodies of the Godhra train fire victims paraded through the streets of Ahmedabad city and that too when over 50 percent of the dead belonged to places outside Ahmedabad city and a few bodies were not even identified at that juncture
Why was the bandh called by the Sangh Parivar on Feb 27, 2002, not stopped?
Why are there no records of the meetings held by Modi Feb 27, 2002, onwards?
Why were no minutes of the meetings held by the chief minister and other senior officers for review of the situation from February 27, 2002, onwards prepared and circulated to the concerned officials?
A diligent investigation would look at the phone records of the Chief Minister and his closest associates to try and get a fix on the persons they remained in touch with during those days. Already, the SIT has established a prima facie case against one of his senior Ministers, Maya Kodnani, as well as various leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
Since it is reasonable to assume that a man of Mr. Modi’s intelligence and authority must have been aware of what his political associates were doing then, the SIT needs to establish why he never saw fit to get the police to act against them or the others against whom cases are now being filed. Was the de facto legal protection that was provided to rioters and their ringleaders the product of oversight, indifference, callousness, or complicity? This is a question the people of Gujarat, and the whole of India, want an answer for. H
By: Abdul Hafiz Lakhani
lakhani63@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment