Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics is the common
phrase that is used to describe how people twist things to fit their own wishes
or perception. The Indian media’s façade has come crashing down with the latest
reporting on the “Amicus Curae’s recommendation to prosecute Modi”. There were
reports/debates on Modi’s prosecution, with the routine spin doctors from the congress
pronouncing death sentences etc… I for one being logical actually read the full
report (available for, thanks to the internet we are no longer dependent on the
news channels) and am actually scratching hard to find any paragraph, sentence
or even a word where in amicus has recommended prosecution.
Only thing I could see, is the amicus falling into
the trap of “secularists appeasement” and recommending that lacking proof that
Sanjiv Bhat was there at a particular meeting (though his claim that he
attended a second subsequent meeting the next day was proved to be lie – yes proved
to be a lie), his claim should be further investigated by interrogating every
other officer in that meeting. That is it, which was nicely summarized for all
of us by my friend S Ravikumar, “Police can now arrest anyone for a murder at a
particular place saying – though there is no proof that you were at the murder
site, you can’t prove that you were somewhere else”. In normal criminal
jurisprudence the investigating officer him/her self will throw out this
evidence. Yet due to secularist appeasement this comedy is being played out.
Amicus’s recommendation for further
investigation is reported as “prosecution” by the media. Thank god, we have
courts in this country… I have cut and pasted relevant paragraphs on this issue
from the actual report, please read it in full to understand it. Avoid news
channels, as the anchors haven’t read the report at all…
6. The most important allegation in the
complaint, which is required to be considered in detail by this Hon'ble Court,
is the allegation made against the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra
Modi. It is alleged that, in a high-level meeting held at about 11.00 P.M. on
27.02.2002 at Mr. Narendra Modi's residence, illegal instructions were issued
to senior police officers and bureaucrats "not to deal with the Hindu
rioting mobs". It is also alleged that the Chief Minister had influenced
the police at the time of the riots, as two of his cabinet colleagues were
placed in the State Police Control Room and the Ahmedabad City Police Control
Room respectively on 28.02.2002.
7. The SIT, in its Preliminary Report dated
12.05.2010, concluded that there was no reliable material available to prove
that Shri Narendra Modi had issued any instruction to the officers on
27.02.2002 to the effect that Hindus should be permitted to vent their anger.
The said conclusion has been endorsed by the Chairman, SIT in his comments
dated 14.05.2010.
8. In my note submitted to this Hon'ble Court
on 20.01.2011, it was pointed out that there were a number of circumstances
which required a more detailed investigation to determine if, indeed, such a
instruction had been given by Shri Modi or not. It was suggested that a
further investigation should be conducted under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in the
pending Gulberg Society and/or Naroda Patiya cases and the statement of Shri
Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, the then Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) should be
recorded. (The said note also indicated the aspects on which the SIT’s
Preliminary Report dated 12.05.2010 could be accepted.)
Isn’t it strange that amicus
actually starts with by agreeing with SIT’s conclusion not to proceed further
with believing in Sanjiv Bhat !! I bet you didn’t read about this in the media.
13. The Further Investigation Report and the
remarks of the Chairman of SIT find that a meeting was indeed held at the
residence of the Chief Minister, Shri Modi, on the night of 27.02.2002 at
around 11:00 P.M. in which senior bureaucrats and senior police officials were
present. The report concludes that the claim made by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the
then Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) that he was present at the
said meeting was incorrect. It further concludes that no statement was made by
the Chief Minister, Shri Modi in the said meeting, as alleged by the
complainant, and no illegal instruction was issued by Shri Modi to the effect
that Hindus should be permitted to vent their anger. It may be mentioned that
Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, who is a serving officer in the IPS cadre of the State of
Gujarat, had stated in his statement given to the SIT under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
that he was present in the said meeting on 27.02.2002 and the Chief Minister
had made such statement, as alleged by the Complainant.
14. It was also concluded by the SIT in its
Further Investigation Report that the 2 ministers, who were posted at the State
Police Control Room and Ahmedabad City Police Control Room, did not in any
manner influence the working of the police officers at the time of the riots
and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that these Ministers were posted with a
view to carrying out the alleged illegal instruction of Shri Modi.
The above are by amicus curae also
checkpointing the stance of SIT on specific incidents, yet he goes on later
that we have to investigate the claims of sanjiv bhat further. Usually, such an
investigation is to first establish the fact and then proceed with it as
evidence (with corroboration) again in proper jurisprudence. But then we are dealing
with the Media Kangaroo Court with the 3 Idiots as judges (Arnab, Rajdeep and
Burqa), so we can conveniently dispense with them…
The below sections are astonishing
and indicate that Amicus Curae is clearly appeasing the secularists… he himself
discredits Sanjiv Bhat but goes on to say that we can’t ignore his testimony…
20. The most vital material, supporting the
allegation made by the Petitioner against Shri Modi, is the statement of Shri
Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCP (Intelligence). The SIT has concluded that his
version is not believable for various reasons, inter alia that (a) the other
senior officers present in the said meeting have not supported his statement,
(b) his silence for more than 9 years without any proper explanation appears
to be suspicious, (c) a number of departmental and criminal proceedings
have been instituted by the Government and hence, Shri Bhatt has an axe to
grind with the Government of Gujarat. Therefore, the SIT opines that his
statement is motivated and cannot be relied upon. The SIT also points out
discrepancies in Shri Bhatt’s versions about the exact language said to have
been used by the Chief Minister. The SIT also discredits Shri Bhatt by pointing
out that his version about a subsequent meeting at the Chief Minister’s
residence on 28.02.2002 at about 10:30 hours cannot be believed because his
mobile phone records show that he was at Ahmedabad at 10:57 A.M., and therefore
could not have reached Gandhinagar before 11:30 A.M.
21. The SIT has further pointed out that
Shri Bhatt has tried to tutor witnesses (Shri Tarachand Yadav and Shri K.D.
Panth) to support his version. I have also received a copy of a letter (marked
confidential) dated 22.06.2011 from the Under Secretary, Home Department to the
Chairman, SIT. In the said letter, the Government of Gujarat has stated
that it has “retrieved” several emails of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt (I am not
commenting on the legality of such “retrieval”). According to the Government of
Gujarat:
“It leaves no room for doubt that it is a
systematic and larger conspiracy, through Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, involving top
leaders of Congress Party in Gujarat, vested interest groups surviving on
anti-Gujarat campaign and electronic and print media reporters all of whom have
started final efforts to keep the Godhra riot issue live based on concocted
facts and Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, through all of them, is trying to build up a story
at a stage when after almost 10 long years the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
virtually concluded the judicial proceedings after undertaking tremendous
judicial exercise as elaborately pointed out in the affidavit of the State
Government.”
22. I am conscious of the fact that though
Shri Bhatt has been contending that he would speak only when under a legal
obligation to do so, his conduct after making his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has not been that of a detached police officer who is content with
giving his version. I am left with no doubt that he is actively “strategizing”,
and is in touch with those who would benefit or gain mileage from his
testimony. But these factors, in my view, cannot be grounds for ignoring
his statement at this stage.
After, reading the full report I am
astonished at the media reports… If anything, more than any communal
politician, it is the media that needs to be brought under a regulator and
punished for such falsure…
Again, please you need not even rely
on this post -- read the full text for yourselves
and spread awareness. We already can’t depend on our government to provide
reliable transportation, electricity, water and the basics we spend and cover
those bets ourselves. Now it appears, we can’t depend on our media to do
investigative reporting with some intelligence – we have to do it ourselves too….
