|
COMMUNALISM WATCH
Erasing the obvious truths
By RAM PUNIYANI
 
RECENTLY JUSTICE Nanavati-Mehta
(N-M) submitted their report to Government of India (September 2008).
What it has done must be very close to the desire of the ruling
establishment which reaped a rich harvest due to the Godhra train
burning and the anti Muslim pogrom in the aftermath of the same.
The report after the
investigation for six long years is just the first part. While legally
it is tangible that the investigating judge can present the report in
parts, the logic behind this is not very clear. In a way the outcome
of the report should have been well predicted as just some months
after being appointed, Nanvati and (then) Shah stated that there is
not much evidence against VHP etc., and this gave the indication that
the commission had already made up its mind as to what type of report
was to be given. The depositions of the witnesses and the evidence
presented was selectively constructed to ratify the pre arrived
conclusions or what were to be presented as the conclusions.
N-M report operates on the
basis that it was a preplanned conspiracy by local Muslims in
collaboration with the ISI. It concludes that Haji Umarji the local
cleric presided over the meeting of Muslims where this conspiracy was
hatched. They bought 140 liters of petrol, cut open the vestibule
between S 6 and S 7, spread the petrol and burnt the coach. This
conclusion is arrived without even a single eyewitness to the burning
of the train. There were 200 passengers in the overcrowded train but
no eye witness account has been cited to ratify their conclusion.
This conspiracy theory has
serious holes in it. That the train is carrying the returning Kar
Sevaks was not a public knowledge, not even the state officials knew
about it. The only people who knew that the Ram sevaks were returning
by that train were the VHP-BJP combine. The train was late by five
hours and this totally debunks the theory of conspiracy by Muslim
community. If they did not know that train is carrying Ram Sevaks how
could they conspire and how could they implement the same if train was
late? If conspiracy is at all to be believed the finger of suspicion
should be in some other direction!
Than, if the commission says
the vestibule was cut open, why such valuable evidence was permitted
to be sold in the scrap? The depositions show that the first train
stoppage at Godhra station was due to the Ram Sevaks pulling the chain
as some of them were left out on the platform and the second one was
due to technical fault. For conspiracy by them they should have
stopped the train, which is not the case. This again goes against the
conspiracy by Muslims theory.
While trying to come to this
theory first N-M operated on the line that the burning rags and some
chemicals were thrown from the windows but soon it shifted to the
theory that vestibule was cut. The earlier thesis that petrol was
poured from outside was not tenable as Forensic laboratory, FSL, had
strongly maintained that petrol cannot be poured from outside due to
the height of the rail track and the height of the train. Then comes
the vestibule theory. One imagines for cutting the vestibule the train
has to be stopped by the conspirators, but second time the train
stopped due to technical snag and not due to pulling of chain. And
then to cut the vestibule to be able to enter the coach is not an easy
job.
The report is a new low in
the arena of investigation. So far we witness a good deal of
objectivity in many inquiry committees. But this is totally silent on
practically most of the crucial issues involved in the train burning.
Sophia Bano was dragged by Kar Sevaks and she stated the same to the
commission, but her testimony has been sidelined. The commission has
based its total finding on the police officer Noel Parmar, whose
findings were rejected by the Supreme Court and so it appointed R K
Raghavan. The hurry, in which N-M has submitted its part one, can
easily be understood. As Lok Sabha elections are close, this part is
meant to influence the elections. As such as is clear from the
functioning of this commission it was already working on the theory
propounded by Narendera Modi in the aftermath of Godhra train burning,
and N-M have just ratified his thesis. They have selectively picked
and chosen the evidences to suit their preformed opinion, ignoring the
crucial testimonies which could have led them to the truth.
The N-M report is totally
silent on Justice U.C. Bannerjee report. As per the railway act after
every major accident, a probe has to be instituted. In this case that
time BJP ally Nitish Kumar was the railway minister and he did not
abide by the rule, no inquiry was done ostensibly to protect his ally.
When Lalu Yadav became the railway minister he instituted Bannerjee
committee, which concluded that it was an accident. Now if N-M is
coming with it today, already one report is already there, whose
finding are contrary to its own. In that case it has to refute them to
stand the ground. No such effort is made. One also fails to understand
as to why the demand to cross examine Modi was rejected as there was a
case for interrorogating him, based on phone call records. Most
importantly the whole thesis of burning by patrol falls to the ground
with FSL report saying that the analysis of residues shows that petrol
was not used.
R B Sreekumar, who has been
one of the forthright officers and he refused to bow to the Modi
administration. He filed his affidavit to N-M commission giving his
version. He commented that he was threatened by state officials if he
dares to speak the truth. He had recorded these conversations also.
N-M was duty bound to take these seriously, either to accept them or
reject them with due explanation, but there is a total silence on the
submissions of Sreekumar.
All in all this report is a
disgrace on the norms of investigation. This also symbolizes that
there are sections in professional life who are willing to play to the
bidding of the rulers to please them for various reasons or they
themselves are heavily under ideological influence to deviate from
professionalism, objectivity and pursuit of truth.
Hunter Better Than Nanavati
By R B SREEKUMAR
THE NANAVATI Commission report deserves the description as a
whitewashing document of the aggressors than the conclusion of an
enquiry. This is an immature, partisan and inconclusive report which
has a political motive. It can only be seen only as a predetermined
script. The report hides the heinous acts of Gujarat Chief Minister
Narendra Modi and co, who were the perpetrators of the violence. This
is not a blind attack by me, but an analysis based on facts.
I am a police officer,
committed to the Constitution, who has filed four affidavits before
the Nanavati Commission. Every commission has the responsibility to
analyse and probe the truth about the information even if it is
scribbled on a torn piece of paper. As the report of a senior
Intelligence officer in the state, my affidavits have their own
seriousness in the state where genocide (it would be a big lie to
history as well as to humanity to term the atrocities unleashed in
Gujarat as Hindu-Muslim riot) took place. Many things, with proof,
about the situations that led to the riots and the roles of the senior
officials in them have all been included in the report submitted
before the commission.
I have been threatened by
Government Pleader Aravidn Pande and Home Secretary Murmu that it
would cause repercussions if I tell the truth before the Commission. (Pande's
poisonous hissings had been brought before the people of the country
by 'Tehleka'). I have even recorded their speeches and presented
before the Commission. The Commission had the responsibility to verify
the truth about them. The Commission should also have recommended
punishment for me had the affidavits I submitted been false. Instead
of this the Commission canonized the perpetrators of the riots.
The Supreme Court has
authorized a committee headed by former CBI director Dr. Raghavan to
probe into the incidents. It also gives rise to a lot of suspicion
about the submission of the Nanavati report when their work is in
progress. This report disappoints every citizen who wants to see the
rule of the law and secularism surviving in the country.
Right from the start there had been flaws in the workings of the
Nanavati Commission. The Hunter Commission which probed the Jalianwala
Bagh mass murder had recommended punishment and demotion of the
British officials responsible for the incident. It is at once shameful
and dangerous to note that a probe held in independent, democratic and
secular India under a Justice is not even as honest as the Hunter
episode.
It will, in no way, be
helpful to the people of India, instead, it will foster insecurity in
the minority Muslim community and also create a mistrust in Muslims
for the law and justice system of India.
This report has made Modi
happy. BJP has also vociferously welcomed it. Because it is a report
against a community, which they want to throw out from the country.
Like Modi's men another group will also be happy about the report: the
nefarious forces which want to exploit the discontent in the Muslim
minds and attract them to become the pawns of terrorism. However who
doesn't know both these forces have the same ulterior motive to
exploit the situation created by bloodshed and instability.
R B Sreekumar was Additional Director General of Police in Gujarat
post your comments here
|
