Ever wondered why Modi and his goons hate me with so much of hostility? This is just one of the reasons. Read on...
BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES,
NEW DELHI
Re: NCM File No. MIDL/30/0036/12
COMPLAINT OF MALEK NIYAZBIBI BANNUMIYAN dated 10.2.2012.
AFFIDAVIT OF SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT
I, SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT, aged about 48 years residing at Bungalow
No.2, Sushi' Nagar Part II, Opposite Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute,
Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad 380 052, do hereby state and solemnly affirm as
under:
1. I am filing this Affidavit in accordance with the directions
issued by this Honourable Commission in the matter of File No.
MIDL/30/0036/12 pertaining to a Complaint dated 10.02.2012 filed by
Malek Niyazbibi Banumiyan.
2. I state that I am filing this Affidavit in order to bring on
record certain facts which are within my personal knowledge and which
are likely to assist this Honourable Commission in deciding upon the
right course of to be taken in the matter of this complaint. It is
respectfully submitted that the incidents at Ongaj Village of Ahmedabad
District were the part of a much wider orchestration aimed at
selectively targeting the person and property of Muslims across Gujarat.
I believe that in order to properly appreciate and act upon this
complaint it is necessary to keep in mind the entire background of the
Gujarat Riots of 2002 as these riots were not purely spontaneous events
but were -deliberately orchestrated by various groups and were fully
supported by the high constitutional authorities of the State of
Gujarat, including the Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi. It is also
averred that several functionaries and agencies working for and at the
behest of the State of Gujarat have constantly sought to undermine any
and every legitimate Inquiry/Investigation which has been legally
mandated with the task of unraveling the truth behind the Gujarat Riots
of 2002. The State of Gujarat has spared no effort to thwart the Inquiry
being conducted by the Nanavati-Mehta Commission, as well as the
Investigations/Enquiries conducted by the Special Investigation Team
(SIT) appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and has thereby succeeded
in shielding high constitutional functionaries who were responsible for
the Gujarat carnage of 2002.
3. I am a Post Graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology,
Mumbai. After completing my post-graduation, I joined the Indian Police
Service (IPS) in 1988 and was allotted to the Gujarat cadre. Over the
last 24 years, I have served in different capacities in various
Districts, Police Commissionerates and other Police Units. It is
submitted that I was constrained to approach the Honourable Supreme
Court of India by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No.135 of 2011. A copy
of the Petition Memo is produced herewith on page 104 to 136.
I was posted as the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence, State
Intelligence Bureau, Gandhinagar, from December 1999 to September 2002.
As the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence with the State
Intelligence-Bureau, I used to look after all the matters pertaining to
the Internal Security of Gujarat; including matters pertaining to the
Border Security, Coastal Security, and Security of Vital Installations
in Gujarat as also matters pertaining to VVIP Security, including the
security of the Chief Minister. I was also designated as the Nodal
Officer for sharing of intelligence with various Central Agencies and
the Armed Forces of the Union of India. This was the post I was
occupying at the time when the 2002 Gujarat Riots took place.
5. I respectfully state that owing to the post I was occupying in
the State Intelligence Bureau, I came across huge amounts of
intelligence and information pertaining to the events that had
transpired prior to, as well as during the Gujarat Riots of 2002. By
virtue of the office held by me during the said period, I had the
occasion to frequently interact with various high-level functionaries of
the State and the Union of India and was therefore, privy to a plethora
of information including some very sensitive information pertaining to
the various acts of commission and omission attributable to certain high
ranking functionaries of the State. The information and documentary
evidence, which I have already shared with the SIT, can throw light on
the real nature of events that led to the incident of burning of the S6
Coach of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on 27th February 2002 and the
larger conspiracy and official orchestration behind the subsequent
Gujarat Riots of 2002.
6. It may kindly be appreciated that I was privy to the said
information in my capacity as an officer serving with the Intelligence
Bureau, therefore, I was constrained to maintain confidentiality and
could not have disclosed information of such sensitive nature, unless,
called upon to do so under a binding legal obligation. Accordingly, on
being summoned by SIT for the first time in November 2009, I had
provided the SIT with certain relevant information and documents,
including original floppy discs containing the entire cell
phone/cell-site records of Godhra Town for 26th and 27th February 2002;
as well as the original print-outs of very important call records of
certain high-ranking functionaries of the State for 27th and 28th
February 2002. It may kindly be noted that I have deposed before the SIT
on several occasions and have endeavored to assist the SIT to the best
of my ability. As conveyed to the SIT in November 2009, and even during
subsequent interactions, I was present at the meeting called by the
Chief Minister on the lke night of 27.2.2002 and was personally aware
about the instructions given in the meeting and the events that
transpired thereafter. I had also provided the SIT with verifiable
details regarding the on-going cover up operation; including the
contemporaneous efforts made by high officials of the State
administration to undermine the proceedings of Writ Petition (Civil) No.
221 of 2002., which was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2002. I have time and again tried to bring these facts to the notice of
the Special Investigation Team but they seem to be disinclined to
follow-up these important leads in the course of the
enquiry/investigation being carried out by them. The closure report
filed by the SIT in the matter pertaining to the complaint of Mrs. Zakia
Jafri has given further credence to the doubts about the intent and
functioning of the SIT.
7. I was summoned by the Justice Nanavati and Justice Mehta
Commission of Inquiry in the month of April 2011 and have similarly
deposed before the Justice Nanavati and Justice Mehta Commission of
Inquiry on several occasions, and have filed various documents and
Applications before the Commission, without much avail.
EVENTS OF 27.02.2002
8. In the morning hours of 27th February 2002, the tragic incident
of burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express happened at Godhra Railway
Station leading to the death of a large number of passengers including
many Kar-Sevaks who were returning from Ayodhya. The Chief Minister
visited Godhra on that very day and as per his instructions it was
decided that the dead bodies of the Kar-Sevaks would be brought to
Ahmedabad for being taken out in funeral processions prior to their
cremation at Ahmedabad on 28.02.2002. The said decision of the Chief
Minister was fraught with potential calamitous consequences as the VHP
had called for a Bandh on the next day viz. 28.02.2002 and the BJP had
declared support to the said Bandh Call.
9. During the day I kept on receiving inforMation and intelligence
about sporadic incidents of violence against Muslims as well as large
scale mobilization of VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP cadres all across the
State. Accordingly several Alert Messages and Advisories were sent out
to the jurisdictional units of the Police under intimation to the Chief
Minister's Office (CMO). Copies of the relevant Alert Messages and
Advisories are produced herewith on Page-176-177.
10. On the same evening the Director General and Inspector General
of Police sent a message to the Home Department requisitioning
additional paramilitary forces as situation was likely to worsen on the
next day. A copy of this message is produced herewith on Page- 283.
On the night of 27.02.2002 while I was sitting with a BBC Journalist
Mr. Subhranshu Chaudhary at my Ahmedabad Residence, I was instructed by
the State Control Room of the DGP and IGP as well the State
Intelligence Bureau Control Room to attend a meeting at Chief Minister's
residence along with the then DG and IGP Shri. K. Chakravarthi. I cut
short my meeting with Mr. Subhranshu Chaudhary and rushed to Gandhinagar
for the meeting. The said meeting was attended by various officers whom
I have named in my deposition before the SIT as well as the
Nanavati-Mehta Commission. Some of the Police Officers present at the
said meeting tried to impress upon the Chief Minister that it was not a
good idea for the BJP to support the proposed Bandh on 28.02.2002 as it
could lead to a genuine misconception in the minds of the potential
trouble makers that it was a State-sponsored Bandh and this would have
very serious repercussions on the law and order situation across the
State. We further tried to impress upon him that it would be calamitous
to transport the dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad and take them out
in funeral processions as it would lead to further flare-up of passions.
I also tried to impress upon the Chief Minister that as per our
information large scale mobilization of Sangh Parivar cadres including
VHP, Bajrang Dal and BJP was underway not only in the major cities but
also in the rural areas of Gujarat, and if the Bandh call was supported
by the ruling political party-the BJP, it would stretch the Police
deployment to its limits.
12. However the Chief Minister stated that the Bandh call had
already been given and the party had decided to support the same, as
incidents like burning of Kar-Sevaks at Godhra could not be tolerated.
He further impressed upon the gathering that 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. He said that this time the situation warranted that the Muslims
be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not recur ever
again. The Chief Minister expressed the view that the emotions were
running very high amongst the Hindus and it was imperative that they be
allowed to vent out their anger.
13. The effects of these directions given by the Chief Minister were
widely manifested in the half-hearted approach and lack of
determination by the police while dealing with widespread instances of
violence on the following days. I say that I have narrated these facts
in an Affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court a copy of which
is produced herewith on Page- 54- to 85
14. After the meeting I returned to my office and sent an Alert
Message to Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and also marked a copy of
the same to the CM's Office. A copy of the said Alert Message is
produced herewith on Page- 171 and 178.
15. Subsequent to disclosure regarding the deliberations that had
taken place during the late-night meeting held at the residence of the
Chief Minister, the State authorities and other parties holding vested
interests have been claiming that I was not present at the meeting of
27th February, 2002. A number of persons have filed affidavits
supporting the fact of my having attended the late-night at the
residence of the Chief Minister on 27th February 2002. Affidavits filed
by 7 Police Head Constable Mr. Naresh Brahmbhatt, Journalist Mr.
Shubhranshu Chaudhary, Police Constable Mr. K.D. Panth and Driver
Constable Mr. Tarachand Yadav are produced herewith on page 86, 89, 95
and 100 respectively.
EVENTS OF 28.02.2002
16. From the morning of 28th February 2002 the State Intelligence
Bureau had started receiving numerous reports regarding build-up of mobs
around Sola Civil Hospital and other places in Ahmedabad. The State
Intelligence Bureau (SIB) alerted the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad
and the Superintendent of Police Ahmedabad (Rural) under intimation to
the Chief Minister's Office about funeral processions to be taken out
from Sola Civil Hospital to Gota cremation grounds and the likelihood of
violence. A copy of the Alert Message is produced herewith on Page:-
179
17. In the forenoon of 28th February 2002, I had a personal meeting
with the Chief Minister where inter alia, I briefed him about the
build-up of mobs across Ahmedabad and about the general inaction of
police in Ahmedabad City.
18. Subsequently, upon getting additional information, I spoke to
the Chief Minister on telephone and informed him about the fact that
lives of Ex-MP Ehsan Jafri, his family members and other residents of
Gulberg Society were in imminent danger. The Commissioner of Police
Ahmedabad was also apprised of the situation and was requested to take
immediate effective action. A copy of the said Fax Message is produced
herewith on Page- I80.
19. In the afternoon of 28th February 2002, I had another meeting
with the Chief Minister wherein I apprised him about the worsening law
and order situation and apparent inaction of the Police. I also advised
him to immediately requisition additional forces, including Armed Forces
of the Union of India. I personally informed the CM about the imminent
threat to the lives of Mr. Ehsan Jafri, his family members and other
residents of Gulberg Society. In response to my briefing he asked me to
find out details about past instances wherein Mr. Ehsan Jafri had opened
fire on Hindu mobs during earlier communal riots. Upon coming out of
the said meeting with the Chief Minister I came to be informed by my
Control Room that there were reports of Mr. Ehsan Jafri actually having
opened fire on the riotous mobs a few minutes ago. This made me realize
that the Chief Minister had already been getting real-time information
about the situation that was developing at Gulberg Society and had yet
chosen not to do anything about it. While exiting from the said meeting
with the Chief Minister I was met by Mr. Amarsingh Chaudhri, the Ex
Chief Minister of Gujarat. He apprised me about the threat to Mr. Ehsan
Jafri and requested me to do something to help Mr. Ehsan Jafri and his
family. I told Shri. Amarsingh Chaudhary that I had already briefed the
Chief Minister in this regard. A copy of the Affidavit of Amarsingh
Chaudhri is produced herewith on Page- 370 to 390.
20. Soon after I returned to my office, I was visited by two staff
members from CM's office who were seeking information about past
offences registered against Mr. Ehsan Jafri with respect to incidents
where had opened fire on Hindu mobs during earlier communal riots. A
similar telephonic request was received by me from Cabinet Minister Mr.
Ashok Bhatt, who at that time was stationed at the Police Control Room
of Ahmedabad City. Shortly thereafter, I received information about the
killing of Mr. Ehsan Jafri and his family members. The said information
was immediately communicated to the Chief Minister by phone. I also
conveyed this information to CM by way of a written message. A copy of
the said message is produced herewith on Page- l81.
21. The above details have been communicated to the SIT during the
course of my deposition and have been subsequently reiterated in my
letter dated 25.01.2012 addressed to SIT. A copy of the said letter is
produced herewith on Page- I72 to 280.
EVENTS OF 01.03.2002
22. Targeted violence against Muslims continued unabated amidst
reports of widespread Police inaction. The violence started spreading to
the rural areas of Gujarat. Army was finally requisitioned by the State
Government, but curiously, was not deployed in the Riot affected areas.
I met the Chief Minister in the afternoon of 1st March 2002 and briefed
him about the details of the carnage that had taken place on the
previous day at Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaam. It was at this meeting
that the Chief Minister came out with the conspiracy theory regarding
the burning of the S/6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra Railway
Station. It is submitted that the dubious conduct of the Chief Minister
and certain other officers during the said meeting prompted me to obtain
the call records of certain areas of Gujarat including Godhra Town and
of certain high' dignitaries including the Chief Minister. The State
Intelligence Bureau collected relevant information about the sequence of
events that led to the tragedy at the Godhra Railway Station, analyzed
the call records of Godhra Town and tried to reconstruct the facts and
circumstances surrounding the tragic events that took place at Godhra
Railway Station on 27th February 2002 and came up with an internal
document: "Godhra Incident of 27.02.2002- An Intelligence Analysis". The
said analytical exercise carried out by the State Intelligence Bureau
completely demolished the conspiracy theory behind the burning of the
S/6 Coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra. All these facts were conveyed
to the SIT during the course of my deposition. The said facts have also
been reiterated in my letters to SIT dated 02.02.2012, 09.02.2002 and
23.02.2002 addressed/marked to SIT. Copies of the said letter are
produced herewith on Page-312, 324 and 325 respectively.
23. On the same day Mr. Amarsingh Chaudhri and Mr. Shankarsinh
Vaghela met the Chief Minister and sat on a dharna demanding effective
police action to control the ongoing violence. Chief Minister dissuaded
Mr. Chaudhri by telling him that he should refrain from sitting on
Dharna as tempers of Hindus were running high and he might meet the same
fate as the Muslims. These facts have been deposed by me before the SIT
as well as the Nanavati-Mehta Commission. A copy of my deposition
before the NanavatiMehta Commission is produced herewith on Page- 182 to
280.
EVENTS OF 02.03.2002
24. Violence continued to spread across newer areas in the State.
There seemed to be a general failure on the part of the Police and the
Administration in effectively dealing with the spread of communal
violence. Areas of Ahmedabad District including Ongnaj Village in
respect of which the present complaint is filed, were affected by
targeted communal violence. Chief Minister was briefed by me about
general inaction of the police and reported complicity in certain
specific areas.
25. I also met and briefed the Union Defence Minister and the Army
Commanders about the then prevalent Law and Order situation in the
State. The Army Commanders were still awaiting specific orders of the
State Government concerning their deployment in the Riot affected areas.
The Deployment Statement depicting the deployment status of all the
forces in Gujarat as on 19.30 hours of 02.03.2002 is produced herewith
on Page- 289 to 293.
26. The figures provided by the Special Branch of the Ahmedabad City
Police concerning police action in Ahmedabad City clearly reveal the
failure to take preventive action on 27.02.2002 as well as the
completely lopsided and prejudiced action of the police during the first
two days of the carnage. Copies of these statements and figures are
produced herewith on Page- 215. tt 306
EVENTS OF 3.3.2002
27. The Union Home Minister Shri L.K. Advani holds a meeting at
Circuit House Annexe, Ahmedabad. A brief Note on the Law and Order
situation was handed over by me to the Union Home Minister before the
meeting. A copy of the said Note is produced herewith on Page- 284 to
294.
28. During the course of the meeting, the Union Home Minister (
Shri. L. K. Advani was also briefed by me about the failure of the
administration to isolate the Godhra incident of 27th February 2002,
adverse impact of the decision of the BJP to support to the Bandh Call
of 28th February 2002, the instructions issued by the CM during the
meeting on 27th February 2002 regarding teaching a lesson to Muslims and
the resultant inaction of police, delay in imposition of curfew, delay
in deployment of army, etc. The copy of a sheet containing the
contemporaneous jottings regarding the points on which I had briefed the
Union Home Minister is produced herewith on Page- 294.
29. The Note submitted to the Union Home Minister also contained
details regarding the imposition of curfew in different parts of
Gujarat. These details clear indicate the laxity of the State
Administration even in the imposition of curfew. The SIT has been
apprised about these facts during the course of my deposition. I have
reiterated the said facts in my letter dated 28.1.2012 addressed to the
SIT. A copy of the said letter is produced herewith on Page- – 281 to
306.
30. It was only from this date that the Administrative machinery of
the State started showing some firmness in dealing with the riots.
EVENTS OF 18/03/2002 AND 19/03/2002
31. The SIB received information regarding illegal disposal of dead
bodies of victims of the Naroda Patia and Naroda Gaam carnage in an
abandoned well called Teesra Kuan. A letter in this regard was sent to
the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City on 18.3.2002. A copy of the
said letter is produced herewith on Page-308. However, the Ahmedabad
City Police completely misdirected itself and did not make adequate
efforts to exhume the illegally disposed bodies. The contemporaneous
correspondence in this regard, between the SIB and the Commissioner of
Police Ahmedabad City is produced herewith on Page-309-311. (Till date
no genuine efforts have been made to excavate the site and exhume the
illegally disposed bodies, These facts were time and again brought to
the notice of the SIT. A copy of the letter dated 30.01.2012, addressed
to SIT in this regard is produced herewith on Page- 307 to 311.
MISUSE OF SECRET SERVICE FUNDS
32. Ms. Mallika Sarabhai and others had filed a Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 221 of 2002 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the
Gujarat riots. The said Writ Petition sought wide ranging reliefs and
directions against the State Government. The granting of these reliefs
or issuance of certain directions would have greatly embarrassed the
State Government of Gujarat. On April, 12, 2002 Rupees Ten Lakhs were
withdrawn from the Secret Service Fund of the State Intelligence Bureau
at the instance of the Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi and as
instructed, were delivered to him on the very same day. The details
regarding the gross misuse of the Secret Service Funds of the Government
of Gujarat and the abuse of the Office of the Chief Minister for
undermining the proceedings of Writ Petition (Civil) 221 of 2002 have
already been deposed before the SIT. The said facts have also been
communicated to the Nanavati-Mehta Commission by way of
letters/applications dated 31st October, 2011, 9th November, 2011, 7th
December, 2011, 15th December, 2011 and 23rd December, 2011. By these
communications I not only brought to the notice of the Commission the
fact about the misuse of the Secret Service Funds but also requested the
Commission to provide me with access to certain relevant records and
documents which would enable me to file a detailed and comprehensive
Affidavit in this regard. However, till date, I have received no
response from the Nanavati-Mehta Commission. A proper
inquiry/investigation into these aspects would clearly establish the
misuse of office by the Chief Minister. Copies of my letters dated
31.10.2011, 09.11.2011, 07.12.2011, 15.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 are
produced herewith on Page-137, 138, 139, 141 and 145 respectively.
INADEQUACIES OF THE SIT INVESTIGATION AND DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
33. The Special Investigating Team appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been investigating certain major incidents that took place
during the Gujarat Riots of 2002. The same SIT was also directed to look
into/ investigate into the Complaint made by Mrs. Zakia Jafri into
various allegations concerning larger conspiracy and orchestration
behind the Gujarat Riots of 2002.
34. I was contacted by the office of Special Investigation Team in
the month of November, 2009 and was asked to meet Shri A.K. Malhotra-
SIT on a particular date. I was subsequently contacted once again by the
office of the SIT and informed that the appointed date had been changed
and postponed. In the meantime, despite my having maintained complete
confidentiality regarding the telephonic summons received from SIT, I
was approached by a very high level functionary in the Government of
Gujarat and was sought to be appropriately briefed prior to my scheduled
interaction with SIT. When I first met Shri. A. K. Malhotra-Member SIT,
at the very outset, I had appraised him about the leak from his office
and the consequential attempt to appropriately brief me for the
deposition before SIT. During the course of my deposition before SIT,
which were highly indicative of real-time leakage of information from
within the SIT. These occurrences were brought to the notice of Shri A.
K. Malhotra-Member SIT, at that point of time itself. Despite my well
founded apprehensions regarding the confidentiality of my deposition, I
had truthfully and fearlessly responded to all the queries put forth to
me. I had also provided Shri. A. K. Malhotra Member SIT, with certain
relevant documents and records pertaining to the Godhra Riots of 2002.
All the documentary evidence tendered by me was verified and received-on
record by Shri. A. K. Malhotra-Member SIT. It needs to be mentioned!
that during the First phase of my interaction with SIT in 2009 and 2010,
my statements were recorded in connection with the enquiry into the
complaint made by Mrs. Zakia lard and not in connection with any
investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. My signed statements
should be available with the SIT. Despite my professional constraints
as an Intelligence Officer, I shared substantial information with the
SIT and informed them that I would be duty-bound and willing to reveal
all the information within my knowledge, as and when I was under a
binding' legal obligation to do so.
35. My fears regarding the confidentiality of my deposition before
SIT were eventually confirmed as the contents of my signed deposition as
well as the details of my interaction with Shri. A. K. Malhotra and
Shri. Paramveer Singh-Members SIT, were somehow available to the highest
echelons of the Government of Gujarat. As a result and consequence of
the said breach of confidentiality, I was visited and continue to be
visited with unpleasant consequences. The leakage of details regarding
my earlier deposition and interaction with SIT have eventually found
their way to the media and have further jeopardized my safety and the
safety and security of my family members. To the best of my knowledge
and belief, the details regarding my testimony before the Special
Investigation Team, were first reported in the issue of Tehelka Magazine
Volume 8 Issue 06 dated 12 th February 2011, and once again in Tehelka
Magazine Volume 8 Issue 07 dated 19Th February 2011; which I crave leave
to refer to and rely upon. I sate that, prior to the publication of the
said articles in Tehelka Magazine, I had never disclosed the details of
my interaction with the Special Investigation Team to anybody. In view
of the sensitive nature of the information, as also the situation
prevalent in Gujarat, I had exercised utmost discretion and chosen to
maintain complete confidentiality regarding the contents of my
deposition and he details of my interaction with the Special
Investigation Team.
In view of the leakage of my confidential deposition as well as the
leakage of the details pertaining to my interaction with the SIT to the
highest echelons of the Government of Gujarat and the subsequent
publication of the said details by some sections of the media, I became
highly apprehensive about my security and the safety and security of my
family members. In view of the perceived security threat, I requested
the Government of Gujarat to provide me and my family members with
adequate and fool-proof security cover. Unfortunately, the Government of
Gujarat has chosen not only to disregard my repeated requests, but has
time and again, sought to jeopardize my security by withdrawing even the
existing make-shift and minimal security arrangement, worked out from
within the meager resources at my disposal. Copies of my letters dated
14.2.2011, 5.3.2011 and 13.4.2011; addressed to the Government of
Gujarat are produced herewith on Page- 72, 73 and 75 respectively.
37. I respectfully state and submit that on 16.3.2011 I received a
summons dated 15.3.2011 from the SIT, calling upon me to remain present
before them on 21.3.2011 at 11.30 a.m. for the purpose of giving my
statement in Meghaninagar Police Station I C.R. No. 67 of 2002. On the
copy of said summons, I made a written endorsement, requesting the SIT
to provide me with a copy of the FIR pertaining to Meghaninagar Police
Station 1 C.R. No. 67 of 2002 as well as copies of my earlier statements
before SIT, as copies of the same had not been provided to me.
Subsequently, a copy of the FIR was provided to me, but copies of my
earlier statements have not been provided to me till date. A copy of the
Summons dated 15.03.2011 along with my endorsement thereupon is
produced herewith on Page- 78.
38. On 18 March, 2011 I wrote a detailed letter to the Chairman of
SIT, placing the above facts on record and reiterated my request for the
provision of certain necessary documents. I further requested the
Chairman to kindly ensure that all the officers as well as support
staff, working under the control or in the employ of the Government of
Gujarat, be completely dissociated from the tasks of recording,
processing or safekeeping of my forthcoming deposition. I further
expressed willingness to have my statement recorded under Section.
164(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A copy of my letter dated 181h
March, 2011 is produced herewith on Page- 79 to 81.
39. In accordance with the Summons, I reported to office of t SIT at
Gandhinagar, on 21st March 2011, for the purpose getting my statement
recorded in connection with the furthe investigation of Meghaninagar
Police Station I C.R.No. 67 a 2002. Despite my repeated written
requests, I was no provided with a copy of my earlier deposition before
SIT an was informed that it would not be possible to provide me with a
copy of the earlier statement or any of the contemporaneous documents
and records requested for, vide my letter dated 18 March 2011. The said
facts were put on cord by way of my letter dated 22.3.2011, addressed to
Chairman SIT. The said letter is produced herewith on Page- 82.
40. My statement was recorded by the SIT on 21st, 22nd, 23rd and
25Th March, 2011. Thereafter I was informed that I was required to
remain available as I would be called for further clarifications during
the course of the ongoing investigation, as also for the purpose of
confronting me with other witnesses, if necessary, During the course of
my deposition before SIT, I time and again sought to bring out the
relevant information pertaining the facts and circumstances; including
the directions given by the Chief Minister, during the course of the
crucial meeting held at his residence on the late night of 27th February
2002; that led to and facilitated the communal carnage of 2002. In my
opinion, this was evidently a very important aspect of the
investigation, since the events that transpired in my presence, at the
said meeting had a huge impact and bearing on the conduct of the Police
force and the State administration while dealing with the violence that
stated on 28th February 2002. It was submitted to the SIT that the
course of subsequent incidents of communal violence could be fully
appreciated only in the light of the directions given by the Chief
Minister, during the said meeting. However, I was informed by the SIT
that all these aspects could not be gone into, as my statement was being
recorded in the further investigation of Meghaninagar Police Station
C.R.No. 67 of 2002 and therefore had to be confined to the scope, of the
FIR pertaining to the events at Guiberg Society on 28.2.2002.
41. I submitted to the members of the SIT that this procedural
constraint on their part defeated the very purpose of ascertaining the
existence of any larger conspiracy or official orchestration behind the
Gujarat Riots of 2002. At my insistence, the SIT finally agreed to
record the details of the events that had transpired in my presence,
during the meeting with the Chief Minister on- the late night of
27.2.2002. Upon my request, the SIT provided me with a relevant portion
of the transcript of my testimony, pertaining to the instructions given
by the Chief Minister, at the conclusion of meeting held on 27-02-2002,
where it was tried to impress upon him that the decision to bring the
dead bodies to Ahmedabad and the BJP announcement of supporting the VHP
Bandh Call would definitely lead to outbreak of communal violence in
Ahmedabad and across the State; and the Gujarat police did not have the
manpower resources to deal with such a situation.
42. I submit that on 251h March 2011, when I again tried to bring up
the issue of a larger conspiracy or official orchestration behind the
Gujarat Riots of 2002, as also the ongoing attempts at cover-up, I faced
unconcealed hostility from the members of SIT. This was even more
obvious when I gave names of witnesses who could corroborate the fact of
my having attended the said meeting with the Chief Minister on
27.2.2002.
43. Despite the strong reluctance of the SIT to record inconvenient
details, I stated before them the names of witnesses who could
substantiate the fact that I had accompanied the DG&IGP to the
meeting with the Chief Minister on 27.2.2002. I was hopeful that this
information would be gone into thoroughly by the SIT, to unravel the
true nature of events that had transpired. However, the SIT has chosen
to intimidate certain witnesses and coerce them in to refraining from
stating the true facts and thereby has created an impression that the
SIT is becoming a party to the ongoing cover-up operation in Gujarat. My
apprehensions were substantiated when one of the witnesses I had named,
Shri K.D. Panth, (Assistant Intelligence Officer with the State
Intelligence Bureau in 2002) informed me that he had been called before
the Special Investigative Team on 5.4.2011 and was virtually treated
like an accused and was threatened with arrest and other dire
consequences. It appears that other witnesses may have been similarly
coerced into submission. I have put these facts on record by way of a
letter addressed to Chairman SIT. My said letter dated 06.04.2011 is
produced herewith on Page- 83 – 84
44. It is my genuine apprehension that the SIT, while carrying out
the further investigation of Meghaninagar Police Station I C.R. No. 67
of 2002, was disinclined and reluctant to take on record and
appropriately examine the evidence indicating the existence of any
larger conspiracy or official orchestration behind the Gujarat Riots of
2002. As an officer serving with, the State Intelligence Bureau at that
relevant point of time, I was not only present at the meeting held at
the residence of Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002, but had also
witnessed the apparent lack of firmness on part of many Police Units
while dealing with the emergent situation on 28th February 2002 and
thereafter. As the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence in-charge of
Internal Security for the State of Gujarat, I was required to constantly
monitor and assess the developing situations and appropriately advice
and apprise various organs and officials of the Government, including
the Chief Minister. As stated by me before the SIT, and substantiated by
documentary and other verifiable evidence, I had the occasion to inter
alia, apprise the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and the Chief
Minister regarding the situation developing at Gulberg Society on 28th
February 2002. I have stated before the SIT that many serious incidents
of communal violence, including the carnage at Gulberg Society, could
have been easily prevented by firm and determined action on part of the
Police.
45. Some details of what transpired before SIT are contained in an
Affidavit filed by me before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14th April
2011. A copy of the said Affidavit along with all the Annexures is
produced herewith on Page- 52. To 85.
46. Some of the relevant communication between me and the SIT has been placed at Page-168 to 171 and 312 to 323.
INTERACTION WITH THE AMICUS CAUIAE
47. Subsequent to my having filed the above referred Affidavit, by
an Order dated 05.05.2011, the Honourable Supreme Court of India
directed the Amicus Curiae Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Senior Advocate,
Supreme Court of India to independently examine the report of the SIT
and also interact directly with witnesses. A copy of the Supreme Court
order dated 5.5.2011 is produced herewith on Page- 92 to 94. Affidavits
were filed before the Supreme Court on 11.05.2011 by Police Head
Constable Mr. Nareshbhai Brahmbhatt, and on 15.05.2011 by Mr.
Shubhranshu Chaudhary both of whom were aware about my having been
summoned to the meeting of the Chief Minister as well as my departure
from Ahmedabad for attending the meeting with the Chief Minister on the
night of 27.02.2002. Copies of these Affidavits are produced herewith on
Page-86, and 89, respectively. On 27th May, 2011 the Amicus addressed a
letter to me stating that he was to be in Ahmedabad on 18th and 19th
June 2011 and that I should contact him for the purpose of interaction. A
copy of the letter of the Amicus dated 27.05.2011 is produced herewith
on Page- 91.
48. On 16.06.2011 the Amicus confirmed with me telephonically about
the venue and time of the meeting. The said information was in turn
conveyed to Police Constable Mr, K.D. Panth and Driver Constable Mr.
Tarachand Yadav on the very same day.
49. On 17.06.2011 Police Constable K.D. Panth and Driver Constable
Tarachand Yadav filed affidavits to be submitted before the Amicus
Curiae confirming that I had gone for a meeting with the Chief Minister
on the night of 27.02.2002, as also the fact regarding their
ill-treatment at the hands of the SIT. Copies of these Affidavits are
produced herewith on Page-95 and 100 respectively.
50. On 18.6.2011 asper the prior appointment I went and met the
Amicus. Driver Constable Mr. Tarachand Yadav also met the Amicus Curiae
and handed over his Affidavit in person. However, Police Constable Mr.
K.D. Panth, despite having filed the Affidavit on 17.06.2011, did not
turn up for the appointed meeting with the Amicus Curiae. It was later
learnt that Mr. K.D.Panth had been contacted and pressurized by certain
officials of the State in order to prevent him from stating the truth
before the learned Amicus Curiae.
ROLE OF STATE BEFORE THE JUSTICE NANAVATIMEHTA COMMISSION
51. It has been my contention and that of a number of other persons
that Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi was involved in acts of commission
and omission in respect of riots of 2002. If he had acted as he ought
to have in the capacity of the Chief Minister much of the targeted loss
of human lives and destruction of property could have been completely
averted. Many attempts have been made to have Chief Minister Mr.
Narendra Modi testify before the Nanavati-Mehta Commission but all these
attempts have been successfully thwarted by the State of Gujarat. All
attempts to secure safe custody and/or obtain access to relevant
contemporaneous records and documents have also been constantly
stonewalled by the State of Gujarat who enjoys the continual indulgence
of the Nanavati-Mehta Commission. It is becoming increasingly apparent
that the State of Gujarat is fully exploiting the indulgence afforded to
it by the NanavatiMehta Commission to ensure that the actual facts and
circumstances that led to and facilitated the Gujarat Carnage of 2002
are continued to be effectively suppressed from all inquisitorial
proceedings.
52. The State Government by notification dated 6th March 2002, set
up a fact finding Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
('the Act' for short). The terms of reference were as follows:
The following shall be the terms of reference of the said commission namely:-
(1) To inquire into-
(a) the facts, circumstances and the course of events of the
incidents that led to setting on fire some coaches of the Sabarmati
Express train on 27.02.2002 near Godhra Railway Station;
(b) the facts, circumstances and the course of events of the
subsequent incidents of violence in the State in the aftermath of the
Godhra incident; and
(c) the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and
deal with disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the
State.
(2) To ascertain as to whether the incident at Godhra was
pre-planned and whether information was available with the agencies,
which could have been used to prevent the incident;
(3) To recommend suitable measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future.
53. By subsequent notification dated 20th July 2004, terms of
reference were expanded. This was principally done on the basis that the
Government received representations for inquiring into the role and
conduct of the Chief Minister, Ministers, Officers of the Government,
other individuals and organizations. Additions made in the previous
notification dated 6th March 2002 were as follows:-
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of
the commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 (60 of 1952) the Government of
Gujarat hereby amend the above referred the Government Notification,
Legal Department No.:GK/07/2004-COI/102002/797-D dated 6th March 2002,
for the aforesaid purpose as follows namely:-
In the said notification –
I. After clause (c) in sub-Para (1) of Para-2, following clauses (d) and (e) be added, namely:-
(d) Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other
Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other
individuals and organizations in both the events referred to in clauses
(a) and (b).
(e) Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers
(i) in dealing with any political or non-political organization
which may be founded to have been involved in any other events referred
to hereinabove,
(ii) in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots
(iii) in the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commissions from time to time.
II. In para 2: in sub-para (1) in clause (b), after the words,
'incidence of violence, for the words and figures, 'that took place on
and from 27th FebruarY 2002 to 30th March 2002, the words and figures
'that took place on and from 27th February,2002 to 31st May 2002' be
substituted.
54. In addition to the evidence before the Nanavati-Mehta Commission
and the Supreme Court appointed SIT, there is a plethora of
incriminating and germane evidence available in the Public domain. It is
my genuine apprehension that very crucial and relevant records have
been deviously suppressed and/or destroyed by the Government of Gujarat
as well as the SIT headed by Mr. R. K. Raghavan, with the diabolical
motive of shielding powerful persons from legal punishment; by ensuring
that crucial and relevant incriminating evidence is not brought before
any inquisitorial bodies like the Nanavati-Mehta Commission or the
Courts of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, certain
facts that were already before the commission along with other facts
which were in public domain in respect of the Terms of Reference were
brought to the notice of the Nanavati-Mehta Commission by way of a
detailed Application dated 10th March, 2012 filed before the Commission.
The said application also reiterated the demand that Chief Minister Mr.
Narendra Modi should be summoned and examined as a witness by the
Nanavati-Mehta Commission. A copy of the said Application dated
10.3.2012 is produced herewith on Page- 328 to 350.
55. Based on the facts and circumstances already on the record of
the Nanavati-Mehta Commission as well as the information available in
the public domain, some of the allegations against Mr. Narendra Modi,
both in his personal capacity as well as a constitutional functionary
being the CM can be briefly summarized as hereunder:
(a) Instructions to the director general of police (DGP), the chief
secretary and other senior officials to give vent to the Hindu anger
against minority Muslims in the wake of the Godhra incident. Meeting
held in Gandhinagar on the evening of February 27, 2002.
(b) The Chief Minister's decision to bring dead bodies of those
killed in the Godhra train fire to Ahmedabad and parade them in
Ahmedabad city, as testified by Ashok Narayan, former addl. chief
secretary, home department, in his cross-examination before the
(c) The CM, Narendra Modi, did not visit the riot affected areas
during the initial days of the violence though he visited the Godhra
railway station on February 27, 2002 itself.
(d) Deliberate failure to respond to the law and order situation
developing at Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002, resulting in the
gruesome massacre at Gulberg Society.
(e) The press statement by Narendra Modi that the reaction against
the Muslim community was the operation of Newton's law of action and
reaction.
(f) Numerous illegal instructions given verbally to officials as
detailed in Affidavit No. 3 dated April 9, 2005 of RB Sreekumar before
the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
(g) No minutes or written notes of the meetings held by the CM and
senior bureaucrats were issued, and instructions were mainly conveyed,
on the telephone. The non-issuance of such minutes/notes served the twin
objectives of 1) Field officers carrying out the conspiracy of a pogrom
against the minority and 2) Avoidance of subsequent monitoring of
actions by jurisdictional officers in the field.
(h) Positioning cabinet ministers, IK Jadeja and Ashok Bhatt, in the
DGP's office and Ahmedabad city control room respectively. DGP
Chakravarti was critical of the minister, IK Jadeja, remaining in his
office, as testified by RB Sreekumar in para 85 of his fourth affidavit
before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
(i) Transfer of officers from field executive posts in the thick of
the riots in 2002 despite the DGP's objections (as per media reports),
to facilitate placement of those who were willing to subvert the system
for political and electoral benefits.
(j) Partisan investigations betraying prejudice against riot victims
belonging to the minority community, as indicated by Rahul Sharma
during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
(k) Numerous instances of rewarding of senior officials with undue
benefits even while their conduct is under scrutiny at the Nanavati-Shah
Commission.
(l) Deliberate failure to initiate punitive action against senior
police officers, despite grave dereliction of duty in the supervision of
the investigation of serious offences as envisaged by Rules 24, 134,
135 and 240 of the Gujarat Police Manual-Vol. III, as noted in Para 94
of RB Sreekumar's fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
(m) Did not initiate departmental action against the then
Superintendent of Police Dahod, for his gross misconduct and negligence
during investigations into the Bilkees Bano case despite recommendations
to that effect by the CBI which reinvestigated the case as per the
directions of the Supreme Court.
(n) No action has been taken against officers like K. Chakravarti,
then DGP; PC Pande, then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City; Ashok
Narayan, then Add!. Chief Secretary (Home), and a large number of senior
government functionaries who filed incomplete, inaccurate, vague and
inadequate affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. Virtually no
officer provided important documents relevant to the terms of reference
of the commission as exhibits either in affidavits or during their
cross-examination.
(o) No follow-up action on the reports sent by Mr. RB Sreekumar on
April 24, 2002, June 15, 2002, August 20, 2002 and August 28, 2002 about
the administration's anti-minority stance. Copies of these reports are
appended in Affidavit No. 2 dated October 6, 2004 of RB Sreekumar before
the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
(p) No direction from Chief Minister Narendra Modi to Bhartiya Janta
Party and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other Sangh Parivar
Organisations against the observance of a bandh on February 28, 2002,
despite the settled legal position that Forced Bandhs are illegal.
(q) Delay in the requisition and deployment of the Army although
anti-minority violence had broken out on the afternoon of February 27,
2002 itself, in the cities of Vadodara, Ahmedabad, etc.
(r) Appointment of pro-VHP advocates as public prosecutors in riot
cases though as home minister (cabinet rank) the CM had the necessary
means at his disposal to verify the credentials and integrity of these
advocates.
(s) Refusal to transfer officers from the grass root level, as per
the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB)'s recommendation as indicated in Mr.
RB Sreekumar's second affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
(t) No action taken by the Home Department against the print media
carrying communally inflammatory reports although the SIB and some field
officers had recommended such action, as noted in Affidavit No. 1. of
RB Sreekumar dated July 6, 2002 and during his cross-examination before
the Nanavati-Shah Commission on August 31, 2004.
(u) The Home Department of the State of Gujarat provided misleading
reports about normalcy in the state to the Chief Election Commission
(CEC) so as to ensure early assembly elections. The home department's
assessment was adjudged as false by the CEC in its open order dated
August 16, 2002. As per the register recording verbal instructions from
higher echelons of government (the CM and others) maintained by RB
Sreekumar, in his third affidavit before the NanavatiShah Commission it
is noted that he was directed by Home Department officials to give
favourable reports about the law and order situation so as to facilitate
the holding of early elections.
(v) Secretary, Home Department, Mr. GC Murmu, was presumably
specially assigned to tutor, cajole and even intimidate officials
deposing before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, to prevent them from
telling the truth and harming the interests of the CM and the ruling
party, as noted in RB Sreekumar's third affidavit before the
Nanavati-Shah Commission. GC Murmu's mission was to try and ensure that
officials did not file affidavits relating to the second term of
reference of the Nanavati-Shah Commission, in particular, the role of
the CM and other ministers in the riots.
(w) Misused Secret Service Funds of the State Intelligence Bureau to subvert Writ Petition (Civil) No. 221 of 2002.
(x) The fact that the main victims of the riots were Muslims, and
the violence and police firing were targeted predominantly at the Muslim
community will establish that rioters, the administration, cohorts of
the ruling party (BJP), were working in collaboration to achieve the
vile objectives of the CM. Statistics in this respect may be seen in RB
Sreekumar's second affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.
56. On 13th March, 2012 I submitted another letter before the
Commission adding a few grounds. A copy of this Application is produced
herewith on Page-354 On 26.3.2012 a reply was filed to this Application
on behalf of the State Government which was followed by my Rejoinder as
well as Written Submissions dated 30.3.2012 which are is produced
herewith on Page 356 and 359 to 368 respectively.
57. Till date no order has been passed on my application. What is
obvious from the above is that despite there being sufficient evidence
against Mr. Modi and despite the Terms of Reference of the Commission
requiring it to go into the role of the Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi
during riots, the Commission is consistently refusing to examine Mr.
Modi as a witness.
58. As indicated in Para 47 and Para 48 above, It is very pertinent
to note that Reference (c) was not included while expanding the scope of
the Terms of Reference of the Commission to include the "Role and
conduct of the then Chief Minister and / or any other Minister(s) in his
Council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and
organizations" while adding clauses (d) and (e) sub-Para (1) of Para-2of
the original Terms of Reference. The deliberate exclusion of Reference
(c) has ensured that the Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and
/ or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police
Officers, other individuals and organizations is not examined with
respect to the adequacy of administrative measures taken to prevent and
deal with disturbances in Godhra and subsequent disturbances in the
State. That even as per the deficient Terms of Reference, the role of
the State Government of Gujarat, inter alia, should have been one of
discharging its constitutional obligation of diligently and honestly
assisting the Honourable Commission in unearthing the truth regarding
the facts and circumstances that resulted in and facilitated the
incidents of violence, as also the adequacy or otherwise, of the
measures taken by the then administration in dealing with the same.
59. It is indeed ironic that the State Government of Gujarat instead
of conducting itself as a neutral and dispassionate Constitutional
Entity has chosen to act in a partisan manner by identifying with and
espousing the cause of the Functionaries of the State Administration,
including the Chief Minister, whose very role and conduct is squarely
covered by the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry. It is a matter of
record that the State Government of Gujarat, through its officials like
Mr. Dinesh Kapadia and Mr. Girish Chandra Murmu IAS, tried to tutor and
influence witnesses with the sole purpose of ensuring that the truth
regarding the role and conduct of the administration headed by the Chief
Minister was not exposed before the Honourable Commission. It is even
more unfortunate that the Counsel for the Honourable Nanavati
Commission, Advocate Mr. Arvind Pandya was also involved in tutoring and
dissuading witnesses from deposing the truth before the Honourable
Commission. Even today, the Counsels appearing before the Commission on
behalf of the state continue to enjoy the indulgence of the Honourable
Commission in effectively and successfully stonewalling any inquiry into
the role and conduct of the Chief Minister. In fact, the State
Government of Gujarat continues to frustrate all attempts at even
summoning and questioning certain high functionaries of the
administration, including the Chief Minister.
60. It is well established that the rationale for a Commission of
Inquiry flows from the right of the People of India, as enshrined in
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, to be informed as to the
what, why and how regarding the events of definite public importance.
The State of Gujarat by its despicable conduct has continued to
fraudulently deprive the people of India of their Constitutional Right
to be informed about the real facts and circumstances that led to and
facilitated the Gujarat Riots of 2002. I have petitioned Her Excellency
the President of India with a prayer to rectify the above lacuna. The
said petition is produced herewith on Page-391 to 397
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
61. It is obvious from the above that what followed after the
gruesome incident at Godhra Railway Station was an orchestrated attempt
to commit violence on the person and property of Muslims with total
State support and complicity. All these facts have been brought to the
notice of the SIT as well as the Nanavati Commission but despite this
they are bent upon giving a clean chit to these tragic events by
branding them as spontaneous outrage against the Godhra riots. What is
most important to note is that there is enough documentary as well as
oral evidence available to establish the complicity of the state and its
high functionaries in these riots but the Commission and SIT are
deliberately turning a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence and any
persons who try to bring out the truth are victimized.
62. I say and submit that I have brought these facts on record only
in order to ensure that justice is delivered to all the innocent victims
of the Gujarat Riots of 2002 and that the masterminds behind the riots
are exposed and dealt with in accordance with the law of the land.
63. I further submit that once I am allowed access to the requisite
and relevant information/records/documents as prayed in Para5 of my
Application dated 12th March 2012, to this Honourable Commission, I
shall be in a position to file a more detailed and comprehensive
Affidavit regarding the events, factors and circumstances that
facilitated the Gujarat riots of 2002 as also the ongoing attempts at
deliberate disregard/ destruction of crucial and relevant evidence with a
view to deprive the minorities in Gujarat the justice due to them and
the right to fair investigation/ inquiry into offences pertaining to
systematic destruction of their life and property. My Application dated
12th March 2012, to this Honourable Commission is produced herewith on
Page-351 to 353.
Solemnly Affirmed & Signed before me on the 25th day of April, 2012.
DEPONENT
[Sanjiv Bhatt]
Source :
SCRIBD