SYYED MANSOOR AGHA analyses the BJP’s claim of ‘clean chit’ having been given to Narendra Modi in the Gulbarg Society massacre case, and concludes that a guilty man always remains guilty even if his guilt could not be proved in a court.
It is unfortunate and highly condemnable that in spite of getting a clean chit from the court and SIT, Narendra Modi has been targeted by the PM,” BJP president Rajnath Singh said after Dr. Manmohan Singh had warned the nation that Modi as PM would be “disastrous” for the country.
Arun Jaitley, another senior leader of the party and leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha said, “The Supreme Court-appointed SIT and the courts have both vindicated him. The electorate gave him thumbs up thrice.” Jaitley thinks that the PM had belittled the status of his position by targeting Modi.”
The Sangh leaders frowned on Dr. Singh’s comments at a press conference on January 3 in New Delhi, his last as the P.M. of India. Answering a question he said: “It will be disastrous for the country to have Narendra Modi as the prime minister.”
Responding to a question on whether the fact that his party had disowned many of his government’s decisions was responsible for the BJP accusing him of being a “weak Prime Minister”, Singh asserted he had not been a weak PM, and went on to slam Modi.
“I do not believe that I have been a weak prime minister. That is for historians to judge. The BJP and its associates may say whatever they like. But if by strong prime minister, you mean that you preside over a mass massacre of innocent citizens on the streets of Ahmedabad, that is the measure of strength, I do not believe that sort of strength this country needs, least of all, in its prime minister.”
Though BJP has objected Singh’s remarks, yet it is reported that the party is delighted as this has brought Modi again in limelight. The party’s prime ministerial material was pushed back in media by AAP’s Arivind Kejriwal after recently held assembly elections. Modi’s rallies in the capital could not catapult the party to the power which was wrested by the new born AAP. This has created a glooming effect on party cadres. Resent court judgment in “wider conspiracy case” against Modi also failed to enthuse the party workers as everybody knew such a verdict cannot change realities and public perception.
Referring to P.M’s comment, BJP sought to re-shine the allusion of “clean chit” to Modi. Contrary to the contention of BJP leaders, the fact is, neither the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, nor the JM Ahmedabad granted clean chit to Modi while delivering on his role in the riots.
Granting ‘clean chit’ means ‘clearing an accused of any wrongdoing’. Modi is accused of not fulfilling his duty as the ‘Head of the State Administration’ in the wake of mass killing of innocent citizens of the State by his party activists. This is another thing that those who were killed happened to be members of the Muslim community and so were targeted. The basic point is they are all citizens of the State and their right to life and right to live with dignity has been snatched by Mr. Narendra Bhai Modi and his co-ideologists. None other than Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, then Prime Minster of India, publicly snubbed Modi for not being faithful to his rajdharma.
SIT, while rejecting Zakia Jafri’s plea, bought its plea from the accused person and stated, “In his interview the CM has clearly referred to Jafri’s firing as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsan Jafri fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,” the report says.
The CM, and on his plea the SIT, failed to explain why this all Hindu-mob had gathered outside Gulbarg Society, housing Muslim families? Why did the police not disperse them? Why did they come armed with swords and combustible substances? Why did they scale closed gate and also demolish the boundary wall? Why did they enter houses there? Why did the police not respond to Jafri’s phone calls? In these circumstances, if one resorts in self-defence to firearm shots, why he can be accused of provocation for the mob to attack?
Consider how illogical the ground is, which the SIT built its report on! This single lame argument is enough to show how clean the “clean chit” given by the SIT and accepted by JM as “appropriate” is.
The SIT submitted its report to the Supreme Court on May 14, 2010, saying there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations against Modi. The Supreme Court did not give its nod to the report but appointed senior Advocate Ramachandran as amicus curiae. After examining the documents on record, discussing with SIT, he concluded in his report submitted on July 25, 2011, that Modi can be prosecuted on the basis of available evidence.
A reading of the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order of December 27 shows that the Magistrate totally relied upon and quoted heavily from the arguments by lawyer R S Jamuar, who represented the SIT.
One of the arguments was that the responsibility of curbing suspicious activities of the goons in the disguise of kar sevaks, entirely rested upon radical outfits, VHP and Bajrang Dal, etc., who prepared them to demolish Babri Masjid and spread communal frenzy. In UP it was the responsibility of State Government to prevail upon them. ‘The Gujarat administration cannot be held guilty for their misdeeds.’ In the wisdom of JM the argument is acceptable. We need not analyse and comment upon it.
One of the allegations was that the State Government did not call the Army in time. The court again cites Advocate Jamuar as saying that the then Defence Minister George Fernandes was “not from the same party as the Gujarat government”, hence Modi Government cannot be alleged for.
These are arguments cited by the court while deciding in favour of the SIT that had given Modi a clean chit. Consider how clean is the clean chit?
In over 440-page verdict, the magisterial court presided over by B J Ganatra has quoted SIT’s Special Public Prosecutor extensively on every allegation levelled against Modi.
One of the many allegations against Modi was that despite warnings by the Intelligence Bureau about adverse impact of the activities of kar sevaks, the state government led by him did not stop them. After Godhra incident, dead bodies were deliberately handed over to VHP and Bajrang Dal activists instead of giving to respective relatives. They took out processions in various cities with the bodies and spread false propaganda to instigate general masses, saying that the train was put on fire by the members of a particular community and that dead persons were kar sevaks.
Defending SIT’s view in favour of Modi, Jamuar argued that any restriction on kar sevaks would have been illegal and unconstitutional. “If the kar sevaks were only associated with political organisations like VHP, Bajrang Dal or BJP and if these organisations are not banned by either the Central government or the state government, then in those circumstances, as per law, they cannot be prevented from going to any place of India.” Consider the logic. The activities of these radical organisations cannot be restricted to safeguard communal harmony, to save lives, dignity and properties of the minority community because any such restriction would have been “illegal” and “unconstitutional” in the eyes of SIT and this argument is “appropriate” in the view of the JM.
The court said, “The Uttar Pradesh government had powers to take necessary steps regarding the movement of kar sevaks (who were not checked by railways to travel without tickets). If they have shown negligence in taking steps, then on the basis of that there should not be criminal allegations against the authorities of the Gujarat state government….”
Modi was also alleged that he deliberately delayed calling Army to control the situation.
In reply the SIT argued that on February 27, 2002 Modi during a meeting had inquired about Army’s presence and wrote to Union Home secretary. “And on March 1, 2002, he got sure by evening that (the army) reaches other riot-hit parts of the state,” Jamuar is quoted as saying before the court in the judgment.
Rejecting the allegation against Modi, the court relied on Jamuar’s arguments. “The then Defence Minister, George Fernandes, was not from the same party …. and that he had come to Ahmedabad in the night of February 28, 2002 and had visited the police control room to assess the situation.”
“In these circumstances, the base that they (SIT) have taken to allay the allegation should be considered,” the court has quoted Jamuar as saying while ultimately ruling that “It has come out that the SIT has done in-depth investigation… and this court believes that the conclusion… is appropriate.”
Certainly, the JM verdict has disappointed all justice-loving people, but this is not the first time when a court pronounced such a verdict. In our country, cases take decades to reach a conclusion. Recently, a case of a postman in Kanpur has come to light. The postman Mishra was accused of misappropriation of Rs. 57.60 only and the trial court cleared him after 29 years. The Ehsan Jafri case may also take some more turns. Zakia Jafri and her legal advisor Teesta Setalvad have vowed to appeal the decision.
Thousands of eyewitnesses are still alive to narrate the story of 2002 Gujarat pogrom. Several cases were filed in courts of law after mass killings. In all cases the accused were let off thanks to the lacunae in investigation and laxity in prosecution. When the same cases were reopened by the orders of the Supreme Court, many persons close to Modi have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. This is enough to prove the guilt of Modi, the Chief Minister and his men in administration. We can only hope for justice. There are incidences in history when tyrant rulers could not be held guilty in their life time and were not punished. But whenever their names come on the pages of history, all blots on their faces are counted. The “clean chit” by any SIT or any court cannot exonerate Modi for his guilt. A guilty man always remains guilty even if his guilt could not be proved in a court.
[The writer is Gen. Sec of Forum for Civil Rights. syyedagha@hotmail.com]