Slaps on N. Modi's face: Gujarat High Court debunks Godhra conspiracy notion

Dear friends:

SOME GOOD NEWS FROM GUJARAT, AFTR ALL.

Slaps on Narendra Modi's face.

But do slaps on Narendra Modi's face mean anything to him? These have been delivered before, time and again. And he has continued to act as if nothing really landed on his face.

This time, the High Court in his own State has declared unequivocally that the fraud he had committed on the night of February 28, 2002 by publicly broadcastig that the fire on the Sabamati train coach was a conspiracy hatched by the Muslims of Godhra, was nothing but a wholesale lie. It is on the basis of this fraud that Narendra Modi had whipped up the anti-Muslim and pro-Hindutava frenzy which led to a three-day long orgy of organized pogrom. Thousands were slaughtered in broad day light. Women were gang raped in public plazas; wombs ripped and unborn fetuses tossed in open fires. Fleeing people in the country side cornered and lynched. Homes turned into ashes. Fascism had its ugly, ferocious dance. India's fragile democracy was nailed on barren poles.

And for the last seven years Narendra Modi has continued to shine in his own glory - as if nothing really could touch him; as long as he had the Gujarati upper-caste Hindu masses hoodwinked to the notion of Hindu Rashtra. The Corporate India came to touch his feet; declared him as the most desirable future prime minister of India. International Capital eulogized him, as a model of third world development, and as the prime destination of capital flows.

Yet, all this could not hide for ever the edifice of lies and fraud. Even the Commission of Enquiry headed by Justice Nanavati, hand-picked by N. Modi himself, to look into the ghory details of what happened during those fateful days of 2002, had shamefully exonerated Narendra Modi.

And now the judicial verdict has come. No, it was not a conspiracy. No, it was not an Act of Terror. No, the suspects could not be kept behind bars under the notorious POTA act, without even a chance of bail. And, Yes, the government of Narendra Modi deliberately misused the legal system.

We happily append below a series of newspaper articles on the High Court judgement of February 12. And beyond that, if you continue to scroll down, we append some write-ups on the Nanavati Commission findings which we had already shared with you on November 9, last year: an article by the veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar, and a link to a detailed Critique of the Nanavati Commission prepared by an Ahmedabad-based organization, Jan Sangarsh Manch (Front for People's Struggles), headed by the Advocate Dr. Mukul Sinha, who had been making representations before the Commission.

The observatons contained in that detailed Critique stand vindicated by the latest High Court judgement.

Most importantly, the High Court ruling has given a sunshine hope to the 81 people who had been incarcerated all these years under the draconion POTA Act, as conspirators for the torrorist act. Maybe, they now have a chance to get out, atleast on some kind of a bail.

No memory of my 2005 visit to Modi's Gujarat is more poignant than the ones associated with my visit to the Muslim neighborhood of Godhra, where hundreds of people had assembled in some kind of a false hope (because a new outsider had come to visit them), and where I heard loud wails and complaints from old fathers, mothers, young wives, small children, brothers and sisters, neighbors - because someone among them was kept in the custody under POTA. Never in my life had I felt more helpless, and my words sounding more hollow, than what I exprienced that evening and what I managed to utter there. Painfully I remember all that.

Maybe, there is an end now to that embarrassment, to that sadness. An end to the seemingly endless suffering.

But one doesn't know. What if Narendra Modi, shamelessly, made an appeal against the High Court ruling!

Let's see.

hari sharma
for SANSAD
*************


Godhra carnage: High Court sets aside 'conspiracy theory'
Syed Khalique Ahmed
Indian Express
Posted online: Feb 13, 2009 at 0002 hrs
Ahmedabad : With the Gujarat High Court upholding the recommendations of the Central POTA Review Committee that there was no evidence to prove 'conspiracy' behind the Sabaramati Express carnage, it has set aside the 'conspiracy theory' of the state government-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). The team comprised Rakesh Asthana, J K Bhatt and Noel Parmar.
The three officials of the Gujarat Police had in their investigations concluded that a conspiracy was hatched in the Aman guesthouse in Godhra on the night of February 26, 2002. A huge quantity of petrol was procured to torch the S-6 coach carrying pilgrims from Ayodhya, the report had said. It was on the
basis of the SIT's findings that provisions of POTA were applied to the accused imprisoned in the Sabarmati jail.
Reacting to the judgement, Sayeed Umarji, son of 75-year-old Maulana Hussain Umarji imprisoned for his alleged involvement in the carnage, said the "ruling has proved that investigating agencies have misused law". He demanded action against SIT officials, saying the POTA provisions asked for action against the investigating agencies in case of misuse of law by them.
While Sardarji Maganji Vaghela, who had challenged the recommendations of the review committee, was not available, his advocate Vijay Patel said he would challenge the order in the Supreme Court after consulting the petitioner. Special public prosecutor J M Panchal, however, said the order was binding on all parties.
While Asthana and Bhatt could not be contacted, Noel Parmar who was present in the court during pronouncement of the order, refused to comment.
Senior advocate and representative of the Jan Sangharsh Manch, Mukul Sinha, who had earlier defended the Godhra accused, said the HC order blasted the findings of the Nanavati commission report. The report, which was tabled in the state Assembly a few months ago, had relied on the evidence supplied by the SIT and concluded that the incident was a conspiracy.
He said the high court ruling also upheld the recommendations of the UC Banerjee commission, which had too rejected the conspiracy theory and held it an "unfortunate communal conflict". "So, the entire theory of petrol being brought and train torched as part of a conspiracy was not the reality," Sinha said.
He went on to say that the judgement was a "slap" on the face of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who had been maintaining since February 2002 that Godhra incident was a terrorist conspiracy and had blamed the Muslim community of Gujarat for it.
"The judgement will give enormous relief to the Muslims," Sinha said.
Though Nanavati and Banerjee commission reports had no bearing on the trial of the case, CPRC recommendations and the high court rulings on it would certainly set the process of trial in motion and give a ray of hope to the case accused imprisoned for the last six years to seek justice.
The natural consequence of the order, Sinha said, would be that the trial of
the accused, which had been stayed since November 2003, could begin now.
Meanwhile, Sayeed Umarji, son of accused Maulana Hussain Umarji, told Newsline that he would move the Supreme Court beseeching that no interim relief be given to the petitioner without hearing the accused party.



'HC order on Godhra shows agencies misused law'
Syed Khalique Ahmed Posted: Feb 13, 2009 at 1541 hrs (Indian Express)
Ahmedabad THE Gujarat High Court's decision of upholding the recommendation of the Central POTA Review Committee that there was no evidence to prove 'conspiracy' behind the Sabarmati Express carnage has come as a setback for the Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed by the state government. It was this team which had established the conspiracy theory behind the incident.
Comprising Rakesh Asthana, J K Bhatt and Noel Parmar -- officers of the Gujarat Police -- the team had concluded that a conspiracy was hatched at the Aman guesthouse in Godhra on the night of February 26, 2002. A huge quantity of petrol was procured to torch the S-6 coach carrying pilgrims from Ayodhya, the report had said.
It was on the basis of the SIT's findings that provisions of POTA were applied to the accused imprisoned in the Sabarmati jail.
While Asthana and Bhatt were not available for comment, Parmar, who was present in the court when the order was pronounced, refused to say anything on the issue. Reacting to the judgement, however, Sayeed Umarji, the son of 75-year-old Maulana Hussain Umarji imprisoned for his alleged involvement in the carnage, said the "ruling has proved that investigating agencies have misused law". He demanded action against the SIT officials.
Senior advocate and representative of the Jan Sangharsh Manch, Mukul Sinha, who had earlier defended the Godhra accused, said the HC order blasted the findings of the Nanavati commission report which had relied on the SIT findings.
He said the HC ruling also upheld the recommendations of the UC Banerjee commission, which had rejected the conspiracy theory. Now, the trial of the accused, which had been stayed since November 2003, could begin, he added. While Sayeed Umarji said he would move the Supreme Court, praying that no interim relief should be given to the petitioner without hearing the accused, Vijay Patel, the advocate of Sardarji Maganji Vaghela who had challenged the recommendations of the review committee, said he would challenge the order in the apex court after consulting the petitioner.


POTA not applicable to Godhra accused, says HC; incident does not constitute an act of terror
Express News Service
Posted online: Feb 13, 2009 at 0131 hrs
Ahmedabad : The Gujarat High Court on Thursday ruled that charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) were not applicable to those arrested in connection with the Sabarmati train burning incident in Godhra.
The division bench of Justice Bhagwati Prasad and Justice Bankim Mehta upheld the Central POTA Review Committee (CPRC)'s recommendations announced earlier in this connection.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Sardarji Manganji Vaghela, whose son had been killed in the Godhra incident of February 26, 2002.
The SC had on October 21, 2008, upheld the findings of the CPRC and had maintained that it was binding on the Gujarat government. It had, however, made it clear that the opinion of the review committee could be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by any aggrieved person. It was owing to this Supreme Court order that Vaghela moved the HC and the CRPC's recommendations were not implemented. The bench concluded that the Godhra incident was no doubt "shocking", as it was capable of being treated as a serious criminal act," but "fell short of the requirement of an act of terror".
The bench said, the "material available lacked details to establish it as an act of terror or break the unity of communities."
The CPRC had in right earnest considered the material available before it to decide whether the incident attempted to break the unity of the communities, it said.
The bench further observed that "the state did not make any serious attempt to show how the unity was intended to be damaged". In his petition, Vaghela had challenged the CPRC recommendations, which had in May 2005, held that there was no conspiracy alleged to have been hatched in Godhra, and hence POTA could not be invoked against the accused.
The committee had recommended that the Godhra accused be tried under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Indian Railways Act, the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act and the Bombay Police Act. The committee had also made its recommendations binding on the courts and investigating agencies.
The order will now allow the accused to move the trial court and seek bail earlier denied to them because of the POTA charges invoked against them. The bench gave two weeks to the petitioner to challenge its orders in the SC following an oral petition by the counsels of the petitioner that complications might arise in operation of the judgment, and it may require transfer of the case from special POTA court to the Sessions Court.

Fact file
A total of 134 people were accused in the Godhra carnage case of February 26, 2002. Of these, 116 were arrested and 18 were declared absconder, including one who has died. A total of 103 people were chargesheeted and 19 were bailed out, including three juvenile and two others who died. Three others died in judicial custody.
A total of 81 are now languishing in jails, 79 of them in the Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad and two others in juvenile observation homes. Among those in jail, 77-year-old Maulana Hussain Umarji suffers from kidney malfunction, high blood pressure and arthritis. Siddiq Abdullah Badam suffers from bone tuberculosis; Anwar Muhammed Menda suffers from mental depression; Qutbuddin Ansari suffers from a lung disease and Anwar Hussain Pital from severe haemorrhoids.

**************
And from the old files of SANSAD:

Here is the link for the Report by Jan Sangarsh Morcha, led by Dr. Mukul Sinha. Following this is an article by Mr. Kuldip Nayar, a prominent journalist, and also a former Member of Paliament.

http://nsm.org.in/2008/09/29/jan-sangharsh-manch-comments-on-nanavati-commission-report/

.*******************
Modi let off the hook?
By Kuldip Nayar
http://www.kashmirtimes.com/opinion.htm

I suspected some design when the Justice Nanavati Commission submitted only a part of the inquiry report on what was known as the Godhara incident. I could see the contents written on the face of a gleeful Gujarat Chief Minister Narender Modi in a photograph at the time of the report's presentation. It was clear that Modi had been exonerated.


Was it necessary for Justice Nanavati to suggest this or even release a part of the report in he did not want to favour Modi and the BJP? Nanavati has clarified after heavy criticism that his first report was confined only to the burning of Sabarmati Express coach. He has said that he did not give a clean chit to Modi or his government and that he was still working on the rioting after the Godhara incident. Why should the Nanavati Commission which has had as many as 16 extensions submit an incomplete report?

There was no pressure on the commission. Then why hurry with it?

It looks as if Nanavati is a party to the travesty of justice: separating the report into two parts while it should have been one. True, the BJP and Modi wanted it that way. But I cannot comprehend why Nanavati has done so. He knows that nobody can condone the killing of some 2,000 Muslims, not even his Commission. The ethnic cleansing in Gujarat has been recorded visually and there are many witnesses and documents to corroborate it. Is his compulsion on the second part the reason for splitting the report?

Maybe, Nanavati has a point. But he has already held local Muslims guilty of "conspiracy" for burning the coach. The manner in which he has exonerated Modi and his officials suggests that Nanavati was discussing the Gujarat carnage, not the burning of the coach. Since the full report will be ready only by the end of the year, this gives an opportunity to Modi and the BJP to go to town on what Nanavati has already said and exploit the findings in November assembly elections in five states.

It was clear that Nanavati was more or less repeating the version which Modi and the BJP had projected to provide an alibi for the massacre of the Muslims soon after 59 kar sevaks were burnt alive in the compartment that was set to fire. The report released by Nanavati is no different. He too says the fire was "a pre-planned conspiracy" by local Muslims. Justice Nanavati has also ruled out the involvement of any religious or political organization, exonerating the BJP the Bajrang Dal and the likes.

The version which Nanavati has relied upon is in stark contrast to what another Supreme Court judge, Justice U.C. Bannerjee, had reported. According to him-he was appointed by the Railways-the fire was not ignited from outside the coach but from within it, either by accident or design. Bannerjee has repeated his findings even after Nanavati's report.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed by the Supreme Court to reinvestigate the riots, is still at work. Nanavati should have waited till it had given its report. By not doing so. Justice Nanavati, himself from the Supreme Court, has only shown scant respect to the Supreme Court. Even the petition challenging the Bannerjee Committee's findings is still pending before the state High Court. Should Nanavati have still gone ahead?

The conflicting reports, one by Justice Bannerjee and the other by Justice Nanavati, bring no credit to the judiciary. Had such a thing happened at the level of the two judges in a subordinate court, the High Court would have taken them to task. I cannot say anything more but do feel intrigued by the spectacle when the judges involved are from the Supreme Court.

It is obvious that Nanavati wanted to favour Gujarat, the state which appointed him to head the inquiry commission. He knows he cannot but criticise the state in the post-Godhara report. Did he intentionally separate the two incidents, which are really one? Since the first report is favourable to the state, he let it go as if it was independent of the other. Legally, there is nothing wrong in releasing the report in parts. But ethically, it is not correct because people are now expected to make up their mind on the basis of partial report.

I have a nagging feeling that the post-Godhara report, which is bound to hold Modi and the Gujarat administration guilty, and corroborate the thesis that there was a prior plan to cleanse the state ethnically will be released after the general elections which are due early next year. Wittingly or unwittingly, Nanavati has helped Modi and his party.

The Jan Sangarsh Manch (JSM), a Gujarat NGO, is the first to react to the submission of incomplete report. It has criticised the Nanavati Commission for being hasty in giving are incomplete report to the state government. The JSM's convenor, S.H. Iyer, has questioned the urgency of the partial report. He asks: "Don't the thousands of victims of the post-Godhara riots have any right to know why their lives and property were destroyed? And which minister, politician, police officer or organisation was responsible for the massacres."

I recall talking to Justice Nanavati before he submitted his report on the 1984 riots in which 3,000 Sikhs were killed at Delhi alone. He told me what happened in Delhi could happen anywhere in India and at any time because the police knew no limits and politicians no norms of behaviour. He even commented on the probe that he was conducting on the Gujarat killings. He said "I have seen the same pattern in Gujarat." He also said he saw many similarities between the happenings in Delhi and Gujarat and he had no good word either for the politicians or the authorities. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand when he gives a clean chit to Modi, his council of ministers and police officials.

Former Chief Justice J.C. Verma, then chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, has released a ietter which shows that he had cautioned Nanavati. In his statement Justice Varma has said that Nanavati's clean chit is far from the truth.
In the report on the 1984 riots, Nanavati had expressed his helplessness. After 20 years, he said, there was no concrete evidence to pursue, nothing to bring the killers to book. I hope he does not take the same line on the post-Godhara killings and expresses his helplessness once again. The 1984 killings were two decades old when Justice Nanavati was asked to probe. The killings in Gujarat are only six years old. The nation expects him to do a better job.