Gujarat Riots: The True Story

The Truth of the 2002 riots

The Godhra Carnage

Difference between Godhra and other tragic incidents

Several people- unable to understand the sufferings of the Hindu society- have asked- “Why did riots occur only after Godhra? Why was nobody targeted after the Akshardham temple attack- or after the attacks on Mumbai on 26 November 2008?” Well- the answers are many.

Buy the book

Posted on January 1, 2015 - Filed Under Buy the book

This website is a supplement to a book, revealing the complete truth surrounding the infamous Gujarat Riots. The book is available for sale on this website worldwide.

Additionally,  this book is available for sale in E-book format as well.

Meanwhile, go ahead and read the excerpts from this book. Please spread the word about this book and let many more people know the truth behind Gujarat riots.

The book is now available for purchase in Indian Rupees in Paperback and Hardcover Format.

http://www.amazon.in/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth/dp/1482841649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426094521&sr=8-1&keywords=gujarat+riots+deshpande

or

https://www.flipkart.com/gujarat-riots-true-story-truth-2002-riots/p/itme3x45zw4muht9?pid=9781482841640&srno=s_1_1&otracker=search&lid=LSTBOK9781482841640LFCXMV&qH=4a1723e74c987e67

It is also available in the E-book format (much cheaper than print book)

http://www.amazon.in/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth-ebook/dp/B00TAG8NGS/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

or

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=WxeLBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=m+d+deshpande+gujarat+riots&source=bl&ots=4gYLvAXU74&sig=Mrfeb7Q3oVlrSwb5GzHz-ox1r0w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zNxcVarLB8LmuQSP0IGABw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=m%20d%20deshpande%20gujarat%20riots&f=false

To contact the publishers, email them at

orders.india@partridgepublishing.com

Book is now available for Purchase in UK in print. To purchase, open the link:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth/dp/1482841649

It is also available for Purchase in USA in print, and anywhere else for those paying in US dollars. To purchase, open the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth/dp/1482841649

or

http://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/gujarat-riots-deshpande/1120961834?ean=9781482841640

It is also available for purchase in Australia in print. To purchase in Australian dollars, open the link:

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Gujarat-Riots-Deshpande/9781482841640

E-book is now available too. It is available worldwide, in Dollars, Rupees and in all formats! The E-book is much cheaper.

http://www.amazon.com/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth-ebook/dp/B00TAG8NGS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1423304571&sr=8-2&keywords=gujarat+riots

____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

1 Comment

Godhra Photos

Posted on October 27, 2011 - Filed Under 01 - The Godhra Carnage

Roasted Kar sewak in Godhra

A child roasted in Godhra

 

Hindu woman roasted in Godhra

Another roasted kar sewak

Charred bodies

Another victim

84 Comments

The Godhra Carnage

Posted on October 31, 2016 - Filed Under 00 - The Godhra Carnage

   “Godhra”. The word is more than just the name of a town located in Panchmahal district in the western Indian state of Gujarat. The word used also indicates an event. A mind-numbing one.  A horrifying one. An unimaginable one. A barbaric one. The word “Godhra” records the gruesome killing of some 59 innocent people, including 25 women and 15 children and injuries to 40. Independent India saw many horrors. This was one of the worst of them.

   This mind-numbing horror was also the cause of many more   horrors, many more events, many more riots, many more political changes. It was also the immediate cause of rioting, which left some 1169 people dead.

    But this was not the first time, nor the last time, that the town witnessed communal vandalism.  The town had a long history of bloody communalism. It was well-known for it. Let us take a brief look at the town’s long history of bloody communal riots.

Communal History of Godhra for the Record

   Godhra is the main centre of Panchmahal district, which is considered to be communally very sensitive. Chronology of a few communal riots/atrocities is appended below:

1927-28: Murder of P.M. Shah, a leading local representative of Hindus.

1946: Mr. Sadva Hazi and Mr. Chudighar, pro-Pakistani Muslim leaders were responsible for attack on a Parsi Solapuri Fozdar during communal riots. After partition, Mr. Chudighar left for Pakistan.

1948: Mr. Sadva Hazi conspired an attack on the District Collector, Mr. Pimputkar in 1948 but his bodyguard saved him at the cost of his own life. After that, Mr. Sadva Hazi also left for Pakistan in 1948.

On 24th  March, 1948, one Hindu was stabbed to death near a mosque in Jahurpur area. Around 2,000 houses of Hindus were burnt, besides Hindu temples. District Collector Pimputkar could save the remaining areas belonging to Hindus by imposing curfew, which lasted for six months.

1965: Shops belonging to the Hindus were set ablaze near police chowki No. 7 by throwing incendiary material from the nearby two Muslim houses, viz. Bidani and Bhopa. It could be possible allegedly because of the Congress MLA belonging to the minority community. PSI of this police chowki, which was near the Railway Station, was also attacked by anti-social elements.

1980: A similar   attack was   made on the Hindus   on 29th  October, 1980, which started from the Bus Station of Godhra. This attack was planned by Muslim miscreants who were involved in anti-social activities near the Station Road area.

   Five Hindus including two children of five and seven years of age were burnt alive. A Gurudwara was also set on fire, in Shikari Chal of this area. Forty shops belonging to the Hindus were also set on fire in station area. Due to these communal riots, Godhra was put under curfew for a year, which severely affected the business and industries.

1990: Four Hindu  teachers, including two women  teachers, were murdered  (cut into pieces) by miscreants in Saifia Madarsa in  Vhorvada  area of Godhra on 20th   November,  1990 in front  of children. One Hindu tailor was also stabbed to death in this area. All this was done by anti-social elements allegedly at the instance of the Congress MLA of the area.

1992: More than 100 houses belonging to the Hindus were set on fire near the Railway Station in the year 1992 to snatch away this area from Hindus. This area in 2002 was lying vacant as most of the Hindu families have shifted elsewhere.

2002: The bogies of Ahmedabad-bound Sabarmati Express were set on fire on 27th  February, 2002 by Muslim miscreants. S-6 coach carrying karsewaks returning from Ayodhya was targeted as a pre-meditated plan/ conspiracy. 59 innocent men, women and children died and 40 sustained injuries. The attackers had a plan to set on fire the entire train but could not do so because the train was late for four hours and they could not take the advantage of darkness of night.

(Source: Vishwa Sanwad Kendra, Gujarat and The Indian Express dated 30th April, 2002:  http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=1822, quoting Gujarat’s then MoS for Home Gordhan Zadaphiya)

2003 September: Ganesh idol immersion saw stone pelting and conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. This was reported by rediff.com and The Times of India, but was forgotten by everyone, including the Sangh Parivar leadership:

(Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Curfew-in-Godhra-after-clashes/articleshow/167495.cms?).

   All the above details of Godhra (except the 2003 stone pelting) are also mentioned in an article titled “Godhra in Ferment even before Independence” in the Milli Gazette magazine on 16 March, 2002. (Source: http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15042002/1504200276.htm).

   This magazine is considered as a mouthpiece of Indian Muslims or at least a voice of Muslims in India. This is the Indian Muslims’ leading English newspaper and it has also published these details about Godhra.

   After the 2002 Godhra carnage, the Nanavati Commission was appointed to probe the carnage which was a full-fledged Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. It submitted its report on the Godhra carnage in September 2008. The report said: “Godhra town is a very sensitive place. There is a high percentage of Muslim population in various places in the district. Communal riots had taken place in Godhra in the years 1925, 1928, 1946, 1948, 1950, 1953, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. The communal riots that had taken place in 1948 were very serious. Initially, the Muslims had burnt 869 houses of Hindus. Thereafter, the Hindus had burnt 3,071 houses of Muslims”.

   The whole report can be read at:  http://www.home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf

   Even The Indian Express of 14 December 2012 mentions some of the incidents. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/gujarat-election-2012-deeply-divided-by-religion-godhra-braces-for-2nd-phase-poll/1045242/3

   Even Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) had also written about the Muslim communalism in Godhra. V.P. Bhatia (1928-2003) wrote in Organiser weekly dated 21st April, 2002 in his famous column Cabbages and Kings:

“The following article from Gandhiji’s entitled “What are we to Do?” in Young India (11th October, 1928) reveals that the Muslims were ever aggressive against Hindus in that city (as in other areas of Gujarat) in the wake of the Khilafat fiasco. There was virtually a state of war between the two communities in which the non-violent Hindu was the real sufferer. The following are the exact words of Gandhiji in the said article.

“Two weeks ago, I wrote in Navajivan a note on the tragedy in Godhra, where Shri Purshottam Shah bravely met his death at the hands of his assailants and gave my note the heading Hindu-Muslim Fight in Godhra. Several Hindus did not like the heading and addressed angry letters asking me to correct it (for it was a one sided fight). I found it impossible to accede to their demand. Whether there is one victim  or more, whether  there is a free fight  between the two communities,  or whether  one assumes the offensive and the other simply  suffers, I should  describe the  event as a fight  if the whole series of happenings were the result of a state of war between the two communities. Whether in Godhra or in other places, there is today a state of war between the two communities.  Fortunately, the countryside is still free from the war fever (no longer now) which is mainly confined to towns and cities, where, in some form or the other, fighting is continually going on. Even the correspondents, who have written to me about Godhra, do not seem to deny the fact that the happenings arose out of the communal antagonisms that existed there. “If the correspondents had simply addressed themselves to the heading, I should have satisfied myself with writing to them privately and written nothing in Navajivan about it. But there are other letters in which the correspondents have vented their ire on different counts.

A volunteer from Ahmedabad, who had been to Godhra, writes: You say that you must be silent over these quarrels. Why were you not silent over the Khilafat, and why did you exhort us to join the Muslims? Why are you not silent about your principles of Ahimsa? How can you justify your silence when the two communities are running at each other’s throats and Hindus are being crushed to atoms? How does Ahimsa come there? I invite your attention to two cases:

A  Hindu shopkeeper, thus, complained to me: Musalmans purchase bags of rice from my shop, often never paying for them. I cannot insist on payment, for fear of their looting my godowns. I have, therefore, to make an involuntary gift of about 50 to 70 maunds of rice every month?

Others complained: Musalmans invade our quarters and insult our women in our presence, and we have to sit still. If we dare to protest, we are done for. We dare not even lodge a complaint against them.

What would you advise in such cases? How would you bring your Ahimsa into play? Or, even here you would prefer to remain silent!

“These and similar  other questions have been answered in these pages over and over again, but as they are still being raised, I had better explained my views once more at the risk of repetition. “Ahimsa is not the way of the timid or the cowardly.  It is the way of the brave ready to face death. He who perishes sword in hand is, no doubt, brave, but he who faces death without raising his little finger, is braver. But he who surrenders his rice bags for fear of being beaten, is a coward and no votary of Ahimsa. He is innocent of Ahimsa. He, who for fear of being beaten, suffers the women of his household to be insulted, is not manly, but just the reverse. He is fit neither to be a husband nor a father, nor a brother. Such people have no right to complain…” (extract from To the Hindus and Muslims, a collection of articles by Gandhiji from Young India ).”

Thus, it is clear that Gandhiji mentioned the murder of Purshottam Shah, which happened in 1928. These statements of Mahatma Gandhi can also be read in his Collected Works, Volume 43, pages 81-82. To read, click on the link below.

http://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/gandhi-literature/mahatma-gandhi-collected-works-volume-43.pdf

   He had also once said that ‘Hindus are cowards’.  Mahatma Gandhi had also written: “There is no doubt in my mind that in the majority of quarrels the Hindus come out second best. But my own  experience confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. I have noticed this in railway trains, on public roads, and in the quarrels which I had the privilege of settling. Need the Hindu blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies… But I, as a Hindu, am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying… ”

   The source quoted is “Hindu-Muslim Tension: Its Cause and Cure“, Young India, 29/5/1924; reproduced in M.K. Gandhi: The Hindu-Muslim Unity, p.35-36.

The Entire Happenings in Godhra—How the Massacre Occurred

   We have seen the bloody communal history of the town. Now let us see the exact horrible, lurid details of the massacre of 27th February, 2002 with the background.

   The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had organized a ‘Purnahuti Yagya’ in Ayodhya in February-March 2002. It declared 15th  March, 2002 as the date for the beginning of the construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya. People participating in this ‘Yagya’ had simply participated and gone home. They did not stay in Ayodhya  until  15th   March,2002 for the construction  of the Ram temple  in Ayodhya  at the undisputed  site (majority of the undisputed land was owned by VHP and affiliated bodies and the SC in its order of 1994 had said that the undisputed land can be given to its owner).

   People from  all  parts  of  the  country  went  to  Ayodhya, participated  in this event, i.e. the  Purnahuti Yagya and returned home  from  mid-February  to 27th   February,  2002. A  trainload  of such  people  called  ‘karsevaks’ or  ‘Ramsevaks’  were  returning   to Ahmedabad  in Gujarat  from  Ayodhya  after participating in the Purnahuti Yagya. Whether they were all members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or just ordinary people supporting the VHP’s stance on the Ram temple in Ayodhya is not known.

    The train, the Sabarmati Express was supposed to reach Ahmedabad early in the morning.  It was running four hours late (Source: India Today, dated 11th  March, 2002). Shortly after the train left the Godhra railway station at 7: 48 a.m., a mob (the estimates of the numbers of which have ranged from 500 to 2000)   stopped it. This was 500-700 meters away from the Godhra railway station, at Signal Falia area. The train was not burnt at the railway station, but at Signal Falia. That is why the attackers could not burn the train from outside.  Had it been on a railway platform, they would not have found it too high. But at Signal Falia, it was too high. Hence, some of them entered the train cutting the vestible from the side coach no S-7 and set it afire from inside and then went out again. The mob was reportedly armed with petrol bombs, acid bombs and swords. The attackers poured petrol into the compartment and then set it afire. Two thousand people were standing on all sides of the compartment to prevent the karsevaks from running away and saving their lives from the fire. The karsevaks were literally caught between devil and the deep sea. There was fire inside and armed Muslims outside. 59 karsevaks were burnt to death in a most horrifying manner. Many of the bodies were charred horrifically. The victims included 15 children, including some toddlers and some old people of above 65. They were all done to death in the most brutal manner.

Account of a 16-year-old Survivor

   On 27th   February, Gayatri Panchal, a young eleventh class student, was also amongst those who were returning from Ayodhya.  She is a surviving witness to the inhuman atrocious cruelty in which right in front of her eyes two of her sisters and parents were burnt alive.

   Harshadbhai Panchal, a resident of Ramol, left for karseva at Ayodhya on 22nd  February, together with  his wife,  Neetaben and three daughters, Pratiksha, Chhaya and Gayatri. His sister-in-law, her son, her neighbour, Poojaben and her would-be husband were also accompanying him.

   All of them were returning to Ahmedabad along with several other karsevaks. Harshadbhai and his family, Poojaben and her husband were in one compartment, while his sister-in-law and her husband and their son were in another compartment. The only survivor out of these ten, Gayatri, says about this horrible event that, “On the 27th morning, at around 8 a.m. the train left Godhra Station. The karsevaks were loudly chanting the Ram Dhoon. The train had hardly gone a few meters, when it suddenly stopped. Somebody had perhaps pulled the chain to stop the train. Before anybody could know what had happened, we saw a huge mob approaching the train. People were carrying weapons like Gupti, Spears, Swords and such other deadly weapons in their hands and were throwing stones at the train. We all got frightened and somehow closed the windows and the doors of the compartment. People outside were shouting loudly, saying ‘Maro, Kato’ and were attacking the train. A loudspeaker from the Masjid closeby was also very loudly shouting Maro, Kato, Laden na dushmano ne Maro.’ (“Cut, kill, kill the enemies of Laden”)These attackers were so fierce that they managed to break the windows and close the doors from outside before pouring petrol inside and setting the compartment on fire so that nobody could escape alive. A number of attackers entered the compartment and were beating the karsevaks and looting their belongings. The compartments were drenched in petrol all over. We were terrified and were shouting for help but who was there to help us? A few policemen were later seen approaching the compartment but they were also whisked away by the furious mob outside. There was so much of smoke in the compartment that we were unable to see each other and also getting suffocated. Going out was too difficult, however, myself and Pooja somehow managed to jump out through the windows. Pooja was hurt in her back and was unable to stand up. People outside were trying to hold us to take us away but we could escape and run under the burning  train and succeeded in crawling  towards the cabin. I have seen my parents and sisters being burnt alive right in front of my eyes.” Luckily, by the grace of God, Gayatri was not hurt too badly. “We somehow managed to go up to the station and meet our aunty (Masi). After the compartments were completely burnt, the crowd started withering. We saw that even amongst them were men, women and youngsters like us, both male and female. I returned here after evacuating the dead bodies of my family members at Godhra Station. Out of 18 of us, ten had laid their lives.”

   Gayatri’s father was a carpenter, whereas, her mother worked in the Madhyanha Bhojan Yojna (i.e. Mid-day meal scheme), her elder sister, Pratiksha was serving in the Collectorate.

   In spite of what had happened, Gayatri still feels that she would  any time once again venture to go for karseva. She says, “I shall not allow the sacrifice of my parents to go in vain” (Source: VSK, Gujarat and various  English dailies such as  The Indian Express dated 28th February, 2002).

   A foreign daily Portsmouth Herald reported:

Sixteen-year-old  Gayatri Panchal saw her mother, father and two sisters die before her eyes in the train fire as they returned home after participating in a religious ceremony at Ayodhya.

‘We were sleeping and I opened my eyes when I felt the heat. I saw flames everywhere. My mother was in flames, her clothes were on fire,’ she said. ‘Someone pulled me out of the compartment and then I saw my father’s body being taken out. He was covered in black. Then I  fainted.’”

 (URL: http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20020228/news/302289980 ).

   Among some details of the brutality, an event that reveals the killing of a Dalit karsevak in the Godhra massacre is worth reproducing.  Umakant Govindbhai of Saijpur was 25 years of age and working in the Collector’s Office. Umakant,  who was trying to break the closed door and get away, was pelted with stones by the attackers and pushed with the bamboos inside the coach (Source: Article  by Dr. Suvarna Raval in Marathi  daily Tarun Bharat dated 21st July,2002).

   The Times of India reported 1 year later, on 27 Feb 2003: “For the four Panchal sisters — Komal (20), Avani (19), Gayatri (17) and Priyanka (15) — the last year has been full of tears. Their father Harshad Panchal, mother Mita Panchal, sisters Pratiksha and Chhaya fell prey to the barbarity in Godhra on February 27. And, life was never the same again.

    The result. Gayatri, a topper in SSC, today is sickly and struggling with education at grade XII. Lost without their parents the girls often go to bed in tears, as memories of the tragedy come flooding back every day. Said Komal, “We are trying to get on with life but it is difficult. Life seems meaningless without the love and affection of parents.”

(Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/38702737.cms?prtpage=1 )

   This sort of massacre was not seen anywhere in independent India. Nor could this compare with  any other event—such as the murder of Indira Gandhi, or any of the brutal murders of the opponents in Kannur  district  of Kerala, which  is known  for violent  clashes. The terrorist attack on the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar or various other temples in India or deadly bomb blasts in various places could, in no way, compare with this horrific massacre.

   Godhra was by no means an act of sudden eruption of violence or terrorism. Most people say it was terrorism, from the Nanavati Commission, to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. But terrorism is completely different.  The terror is temporary, the pain is momentary. Indira Gandhi (1917-1984) was shot dead by bullets. It was a case of murder, but of a very big leader- the Prime Minister. Murders occurring anywhere are mostly the result of stabbing or bullet shots.

   But Godhra was not that. It was much worse. It was an act of a pre-meditated conspiracy of barbarism and not real terrorism. Terrorists have no religion’ is a statement parroted many times in the media by many people. But Godhra was not done by one or two terrorists.  It was done by a mob, a mass mob of 500+ people, ordinary people, not terrorists undergone training in training camps. Not terrorists armed with AK-47, AK-56 rifles or grenades. They were locals, not foreigners. The local Muslims did the barbaric, communal and criminal act of Godhra to further a premeditated plan.

The Reaction of the English Media

   The rioting in Gujarat in the first three days after Godhra was a result of not just the massacre at Godhra. It was the result of something else. And this something else was the reaction of the Left- liberal-secular media.

The media in general and TV channels like Star News and NDTV (who then had a collaboration) in particular, almost all English newspaper editors of the print media, and almost all non-BJP politicians belong to this Left-liberal-secular brigade. And almost every non-BJP leader, who came on TV, rubbed salt into the wounds of the anguished people. This was done by rationalizing or justifying the Godhra carnage.

At that time, Vir Sanghvi was the Chief Editor of The Hindustan Times. He wrote an article entitled “One Way Ticket” in The Hindustan Times on 28th February, 2002. He must have written it on 27th February itself, the day of the massacre in Godhra. This is the full text of his article:

“There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. Though there is some dispute over the details, we now know what happened on the railway track. A mob of 2,000 people stopped the Sabarmati Express shortly after it pulled out of Godhra station. The train contained several bogeys full of kar sewaks who were on their way back to Ahmedabad after participating in the Poorna Ahuti Yagya at Ayodhya. The mob attacked the train with petrol and acid bombs. According to some witnesses, explosives were also used. Four bogies were gutted and at least 57 people, including over a dozen children, were burnt alive.

Some versions have it that the kar sewaks shouted anti-Muslim slogans; others that they taunted and harassed Muslim passengers. According to these versions, the Muslim passengers got off at Godhra and appealed to members of their community for help. Others say that the slogans were enough to enrage the local Muslims and that the attack was revenge.

It will be some time before we can establish the veracity of these versions, but some things seem clear. There is no suggestion that the kar sewaks started the violence. The worst that has been said is that they misbehaved with a few passengers. Equally, it does seem extraordinary that slogans shouted from a moving train or at a railway platform should have been enough to enrage local Muslims, enough for 2,000 of them to have quickly assembled at eight in the morning, having already managed to procure petrol bombs and acid bombs.

Even if you dispute the version of some of the kar sewaks – that the attack was premeditated and that the mob was ready and waiting - there can be no denying that what happened was indefensible, unforgivable and impossible to explain away as a consequence of great provocation.

And yet, this is precisely how the secular establishment has reacted.

Nearly every non-BJP leader who appeared on TV on Wednesday and almost all of the media have treated the massacre as a response to the Ayodhya movement. This is fair enough in so far as the victims were kar   sewaks.

But almost nobody has bothered to make the obvious follow-up point: this was not something the kar sewaks brought on themselves. If a trainload of VHP volunteers had been attacked while returning after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992, this would still have been wrong, but at least one could have understood the provocation.

    This time, however, there has been no real provocation at all. It is possible that the VHP may defy the government and the courts and go ahead with the temple construction eventually. But, as of now, this has not happened. Nor has there been any real confrontation at Ayodhya – as yet.

And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the kar sewaks had it coming to them.

   Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims.

   Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about America’s policies, but we didn’t even consider whether this resentment was justified or not.

   Instead we took the line that all sensible people must take: any massacre is bad and deserves to be condemned.

   When Graham Staines and his children were burnt alive, did we say that Christian missionaries had made themselves unpopular by engaging in conversion and so, they had it coming? No, of course, we didn’t.

   Why then are these poor kar sewaks an exception? Why have we de-humanised them to the extent that we don’t even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was and treat it as just another consequence of the VHP’s fundamentalist policies?

   The answer, I suspect, is that we are programmed to see Hindu-Muslim relations in simplistic terms: Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer.

   When this formula does not work- it is clear now that a well-armed Muslim mob murdered unarmed Hindus – we simply do not know how to cope. We shy away from the truth – that some Muslims committed an act that is indefensible – and resort to blaming the victims.

   Of course, there are always ‘rational reasons’ offered for this stand. Muslims are in a minority and therefore, they deserve special consideration. Muslims already face discrimination so why make it harder for them? If you report the truth then you will inflame Hindu sentiments and this would be irresponsible. And so on. I know the arguments well because – like most journalists – I have used them myself. And I still argue that they are often valid and necessary.

   But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly ‘secularist’ construct not only goes too far; it also becomes counter-productive. When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them.

   Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader. Even moderate Hindus, of the sort that loathe the VHP, are appalled by the stories that are now coming out of Gujarat: stories with uncomfortable reminders of 1947 with details about how the bogies were first locked from outside and then set on fire and how the women’s compartment suffered the most damage.

   Any media – indeed, any secular establishment – that fails to take into account the genuine concerns of people risks losing its own credibility. Something like that happened in the mid-Eighties when an aggressive hard secularism on the part of the press and government led even moderate Hindus to believe that they had become second class citizens in their own country. It was this Hindu backlash that brought the Ayodhya movement – till then a fringe activity – to the forefront and fuelled the rise of L.K. Advani’s BJP.

   My fear is that something similar will happen once again. The VHP will ask the obvious question of Hindus: why is it a tragedy when Staines is burnt alive and merely an ‘inevitable political development’ when the same fate befalls 57 kar sewaks?

   Because, as secularists, we can provide no good answer, it is the VHP’s responses that will be believed. Once again, Hindus will believe that their suffering is of no consequence and will be tempted to see the building of a temple at Ayodhya as an expression of Hindu pride in the face of secular indifference.

   But even if this were not to happen, even if there was no danger of a Hindu backlash, I still think that the secular establishment should pause for thought.

   There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?

Today it can be read at: http://www.virsanghvi.com/Article-Details.aspx?key=611

   As we see, when he had written it, no riots had taken place in Gujarat at all. But a close observation of his article indicates that he knew that a backlash would take place in Gujarat, after the inhuman response of the ‘secularist’ brigade to the inhuman massacre in Godhra. See his two sentences: “Even moderate Hindus, of the sort that loathe the VHP, are appalled by the stories that are now coming out of Gujarat: stories with uncomfortable reminders of 1947 with details about how the bogies were first locked from outside and then set on fire and how the women’s compartment suffered the most damage” and “My fear is that something similar will happen once again”.

   What Vir Sanghvi wrote in that article really explains everything, not just about Godhra, but everything that followed after Godhra too. And not just that, but the behavior of the newspaper editors, who call themselves ‘secularists’ on all major issues too is explained and exposed by this self-confessed article such as their response to all major communal riots in India and all clashes between the Hindus  and other minorities.

   Let us see his statement: “We are programmed to see Hindu-Muslim relations in the simplistic terms: Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer.”

   This is the first and biggest admission of pseudo-secularism from Vir Sanghvi, not just for himself, but also for his entire fellow ‘secularists’.

   When any person views any happenings in a biased way, i.e. one person suffers and the other provokes, it also shows his moral and mental bankruptcy.  Irrespective of whether a VHP member thrashes a Muslim or whether Muslims thrash or burn alive a trainload of VHP members, the ‘secularist’ newspaper editors will continue to bash the VHP and hold it responsible for all the troubles. They will not even bother to see who has suffered, and try to investigate who is at fault, but simply close their eyes and blame one group, i.e. the Hindu group during the Hindu-Muslim conflicts.

    Something similar was said by the great Congress leader, Kanhaiya Lal Munshi (1887-1971): “If every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question… the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up.” (Source: Pilgrimage to Freedom by K.M. Munshi, p. 312).

   He also wrote on the same page: “While the majority exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should learn to adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided”.

   Inability to judge any situation on merits, whether XYZ person attacked ABC person and killed him, or it was the other way round but simply judge it on the names of the persons, i.e. ABC or XYZ or the identities of the persons, Hindu or Muslim, i.e. ABC provokes and XYZ suffers, shows that the ‘neutral’ observer (in this case, the ‘secularists’) is partial with prejudice and jaundiced vision.

   In reality, the Hindu-Muslim relations in India have been different. It is, in fact, often a case of the minority community starting the riots. Ganesh Kanate, a staunch anti-BJP and anti-Sangh Parivar journalist with Communist leanings, wrote  in his weekly  column  in  the Nagpur-based  English  daily The Hitavada dated 15th  August, 2003, “The Muslims  start riots and then suffer heavily because of the riots which they themselves start.” Even a ‘secularist’ like Ganesh Kanate said that Muslims start most of the riots. Deep down, all the newspaper editors like Vir Sanghvi and all self-proclaimed secularists also know this. The report of the Congress’ Home Ministry blamed Muslims for starting 23 out of 24 riots between 1968 and 1970. This was quoted by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Parliament on 14 May 1970. This writer would like to make it clear that he feels that every case should be judged on merit- on who is at fault, without any prejudice against any community.

   Belgium-based world famous scholar Dr Koenraad Elst also wrote in his book “BJP Vis-à-vis Hindu resurgence” (Published by Voice of India in January 1997): “Another example is riot reporting. Riots, though mostly started by Muslims (e.g. the Mumbai riots of December 1992 and of January 1993), are systematically reported in the world media as “pogroms” committed by well-prepared and well-armed Hindu death squads against poor defenceless Muslims. In journalistic and scholarly references, Advani’s peaceful 1990 Rath Yatra has become a proverbially violent “blood yatra”.”

How that Mentality Affected Their Reporting on Godhra

   This one-sided vision in seeing Hindu-Muslim relations is amply clear by his as well as all other pseudo-secularists’ reaction to Godhra. Almost all the media rationalized Godhra. After rationalizing Godhra, all of them added that they are by no means ‘justifying’ it (for token). To say that they all justified Godhra will be a bit too harsh. But there is absolutely no doubt that they all rationalized Godhra and, some of them, partially justified it.

The Concocted ‘Provocations’

   As Vir Sanghvi says, some versions have it that karsevaks shouted anti-Muslim slogans, others that they taunted and harassed Muslim passengers. In the first place, this too is completely wrong, since there is not an iota of evidence to support any of these claims. But despite this, the TV channels and most of the print media concocted such myths. This was only the detailed part of the provocations. Most of them treated the Godhra massacre as a response to the VHP’s Ram temple agitation. The Ayodhya movement itself was held as a provocation for this massacre.

   Weeklies like India Today, The Week, Outlook and fortnightly Frontline also published  stark lies on this subject by concocting imaginary provocations such as altercations between karsevaks and the Muslim tea-vendors on the Godhra railway station, or kidnapping of a Muslim girl by the karsevaks at the station, or any number  of imaginary details.

Despite knowing fully well that Godhra was a well-planned conspiracy, the Indian media forcibly did seeking of provocations to defend it as deed done on the spur of the moment. Vir Sanghvi’s The Hindustan Times carried a front-page headline on Godhra on 28th February, 2002 titled “Gujarat Hit by Ayodhya Backlash”, i.e. it held that the Ayodhya movement was the main and the biggest cause of the Godhra massacre. So much so that the headline ignored the act and simply reported the ‘provocation’, which too was altogether imaginary.  The Hindustan Times did not even bother to have the headline like: “58 karsevaks burnt to death in a ghastly attack in Godhra” or something of the sort.

In its editorial on this issue, The Hindu, the largest circulated English daily from South India said in its issue dated 1st March, 2002:

“Deadly spiral

THE  GRISLY GODHRA  (Gujarat)  episode of  arson on Wednesday that left 50-odd passengers of the Sabarmati Express dead—most of them Karsevaks returning  from Ayodhya—and the backlash of mindless violence it had triggered elsewhere in the State, as rampaging mobs have in a series of reprisals hit back at the minority community and its properties, are clear, disturbing pointers to the explosive communal  build-up  across the country  as  a direct consequence of the VHP’s provocative and destructive campaign for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. What happened in Godhra, about which there are different and conflicting versions, is a dastardly act and it deserves to be condemned unequivocally and in the strongest of terms, and no provocation can even remotely be brought in to justify the slaughter of innocent people. No effort should be spared by the government to track down the culprits and bring them to justice at the earliest, even as quick measures are taken to ensure that the vicious spiral of violence does not get out of hand and a sense of security is restored among the people.

This said, one cannot but pinpoint the harsh reality that events such as the horrors of Godhra were tragically predictable as a result of the wounding and aggressive communal campaign of the VHP. It has been ruthlessly pursuing its agenda of commencing the temple  construction  on 15th   March,  ‘come-what-may’,  and whipping up  communal  passions through  mass mobilisation  of Ramsevaks—some one million of them—across the country. The whole build-up, which started gaining momentum about a month ago— with the VHP and its Sangh Parivar giving an ultimatum to the Vajpayee Government to handover the so-called ‘undisputed’ part of the acquired land—has been typical of the much-too-familiar strategy of the Sangh Parivar, providing an ominous throwback to the run up to the Babri Masjid demolition on 6th   December, 1992. As a consequence of the audaciously provocative ways of the Ram temple proponents—as evidenced by their determination  to start moving the carved stone pillars to the building site from 15th March and the regular convergence of frenzied karsevak contingents on Ayodhya from different  parts of the country  daily  since 24th  February—the situation  on the communal  front  rapidly  deteriorated, with  sharp polarisation  of the majority  and minority community,  becoming explosive by the day. The dangerous implications of such a trend for a State like Gujarat—known for its high vulnerability to communal riots and its perceived status as a laboratory of Hindutva political doctrines—are alarming.  In many respects, the evolving milieu resembles what obtained during L.K. Advani’s rath yatra, an event that generated communal disturbance all along its route…”

The inhuman massacre in Godhra, unparalleled in human history, was justified by many of the foreign newspapers. The Independent, England insulted the dead kar sewaks and leveled baseless allegations. The report written by Peter Popham published on 20 March 2002 was:

What happened in car S/6 was the hideous finale. The story began nearly 36 hours earlier.

Many were also drunk or stoned, or equipped to get that way: flexible, tolerant Hinduism has no hard and fast rules about such things. And they were coming back to Gujarat, the only state in the Indian union that is still “dry”. All the more reason to have a bottle or two tucked away.

… The train was late: after a day and a half, it was running four and a half hours behind schedule. That’s why it arrived in Godhra not at 2.55am, as scheduled, but at 7.15am. By this time, the karsevaks were much the worse for wear.

Trouble had started at Dahod station, nearly one hour and 75km up the tracks. The train had reached Dahod around 6am, and a number of karsevaks got out of compartment S/6 to have tea and snacks at a stall on the platform. Already they were drunk and unruly. An argument broke out between the Hindus and the Muslim man running the tea stall – according to one account, they refused to pay unless he chanted “Jai Shri Ram”, the chant of Lord Ram’s devotees. He refused to oblige, and they started to smash up his stall, before climbing back into the carriage. The stallholder filed a complaint with the railway police.

At Godhra, a similar scene ensued. The karsevaks, now noisily drunk, poured on to the platform, ordered more tea and snacks, consumed them, and then made difficulties. Exactly what transpired between the bearded Muslim stallholder and the travellers varies from one account to another. But all witness accounts seen by The Independent agree that there was a row. “They argued with the old man on purpose,” one witness said, on condition of anonymity. “They pulled his beard and beat him up… They kept repeating the slogan ‘mandir ki nirmaan karo, Babar ki aulad ko bahar karo’.” (“Build the temple and throw out the Muslims…”)

Suddenly the row took a dangerous new turn: the karsevaks grabbed hold of a Muslim woman. Her identity, and how she became involved, remain ambiguous, but four different witnesses mention this event. One says it was the 16-year-old daughter of the abused tea-seller. She “came forward and tried to save her father”. Another mentions a woman washing clothes by the railway line being hauled away. A third describes how a Muslim girl wearing a burqa and taking a shortcut to school through the station platform was pounced on and dragged into the carriage. All agree that a Muslim woman was hauled into the carriage by the karsevaks, who slammed the door and would not let her go. Refusing to be quoted by name, a local policeman confirms the story.

And suddenly, what had been just an ugly little fracas, a drunken pantomime of power and subjugation, became something far more explosive.

The karsevaks were too drunk for their own good, or they would have chosen a different station at which to pull such a stunt. Because now the social geography of Godhra came into play.

…Godhra station, to the regret of the Hindus, is located in an area that is now entirely Muslim. And a huddle of Muslim-owned businesses sprang up in shacks alongside the tracks, many of them motor-repair yards. This little slum, known as Signal Fadia, has all the material a riot could require: stacks of bricks, petrol, and paraffin and calor gas cylinders. But it also had the necessary human material: a community impoverished and bitter and surviving on the margins of criminality.

The woman seized by the karsevaks was dragged into compartment S/6, and word of what had happened began to spread. “The girl began screaming for help,” said Ahmed, a wood dealer who was waiting for a train going the other way. “Muslims who were travelling on the train got off. People began pouring on to the platform to try to rescue her. I ran home – I could see trouble was brewing…”

The train moved off, and the gathering crowd began pelting the carriage with bricks. Inside the train, someone pulled the emergency cord; the train stopped, then moved off again; the cord was pulled again 1km out of the station, and this time the train stopped and stayed stopped. “People in the vicinity… started to gather near the train,” says one witness. “The mob… requested that the karsevaks return the girl. But instead of returning the girl, they started closing their windows. This infuriated the mob…”

The brawl had become a battle, with the karsevaks piling in with their swords and sticks, and a crowd now said to be 1,000-strong streaming in from the slum, bringing petrol, gas, rags – anything that would burn. Their gas cylinders broke the bars on the windows and exploded inside; the petrol bombs flew through and set the upholstery and the people trapped inside on fire. By the time that the police arrived in strength one hour later, there was nothing to be saved…”

   The reason why The Independent stooped to such unimaginable levels is because of the Indian media. The behavior of the Indian media of repeated insults to the dead karsevaks and defence of Muslim communalism prompts the foreign authors to write like this. Does this author think that 15 children were also drunk? For this author’s information, by that logic Graham Staines had it coming because he indulged in conversion of innocent Hindus and ignored repeated warnings to stop conversions. But still, because this insults the dead, we avoid criticizing him. All this nonsense and character assassination of the martyred Hindus done by this newspaper is not even worth repudiating.

The then RSS spokesman M.G. Vaidya wrote in Marathi daily Tarun Bharat in July 2002:

“The headline in The Times of India dated 28th  February read: “MOB ATTACKS GUJARAT TRAIN,  55 DIE.”

The writer of this report is Sajjad Shaikh. While identifying the reasons for the Godhra massacre, he writes, “Karsevaks in the train misbehaved with some washerwomen of Signal Falia”. Besides, he also cites: “The rumour of an attack on a religious place in Dahod” as one of the reasons for the Godhra incident.  Here, he wants to suggest that though it is not pardonable to burn alive 55 persons, due to the reasons cited by him, it is understandable.

This primary lead news report focused the blame on the karsevaks from the very initial stages and did not attempt to investigate how the train was stopped at Signal Falia where a mob of a thousand was already waiting with sticks, petrol bombs, missiles and stones.

In the 1st  March  issue of The Times of India,  Siddhartha Varadarajan, a reporter, writes, “While official enquiry will establish the extent to which  the attack on the Sabarmati Express was pre- meditated, there can be no doubt about the planned nature of the violence  directed  against  Gujarat’s  Muslims   on  Thursday (28th February)”.  The double standards are evident from his report, which differentiates the incidents of 27th February from the incidents of 28th   February. While examining the pre-meditation behind the Godhra attacks on 27th February, he says that it is “official enquiry” which will decide whether the attack on karsevaks was pre-meditated or not. But when it comes to violent reaction of Hindus on 28th February, he takes it in his own hands to pass a judgment that the attacks by the Hindus on Gujarat’s Muslims were “pre-planned” in nature. Obviously, what had been a heinous crime was rationalized and what had been a spontaneous reaction was condemned as a ‘pre-planned’ one.

This news report was carried just two days after the Godhra carnage. The gruesome murders of the karsevaks is mentioned only once in the 450-plus word report and rest of the report is full of gory descriptions of how the Muslims are being brutally killed in the aftermath.”

   The Hindu reported the incidents of 27th February as follows in its issue dated 28th February, 2002:

“57 killed as a mob torches the train in Gujarat”. The writer of this report, Manas Dasgupta, states that “Eye-witnesses said that about 1,200 Ramsevaks were travelling in the train. The local people in the Muslim-dominated Godhra town had been “irritated” by the abusive language used by the Ramsevaks while they were going to Ayodhya by the same train a few days ago. They had reportedly raised slogans as the train approached Godhra on the return journey this morning.”

The report can be read at http://www.thehindu.com/2002/02/28/stories/2002022803070100.htm

   Luckily, the newsmen in India did not go to the extent that The Independent went. But The Independent report simply showed the true face of the Indian media men. They also reported in much the same way, the difference was only in the extent. Ignoring what the foreign media said, Sanghvi’s second observation is equally important. Did any of the ‘secularists’ of the Indian media bother to give any attention to the ‘provocations’ after the September 11 episode? As a matter of fact, at that time, many warnings were given before September 11 to the Americans by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda to change its policy towards Muslims or face the consequences. And the consequences they had to face. But nobody bothered to even remember the warnings given by Al Qaeda or question the USA’s policies on Muslims, after the September 11 attack. It was, in fact, only a condemnation of the Islamic terrorism of the Al Qaeda and a concern about the danger the world faces because of it.

   After Godhra, however, the VHP and the Sangh Parivar were bashed continuously and held responsible for the Godhra carnage even after Godhra. This tirade against the Sangh Parivar was noticed by Vir Sanghvi in his article’s last paragraph:  “Have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than an occasion for Sangh Parivar bashing?” Another of Vir Sanghvi’s statement is equally important, “Why have we dehumanized these karsevaks to such an extent that we don’t even see the incidence as a tragedy which it undoubtedly was and treat it as just another consequence of the VHP’s fundamentalist policies?”

   This is the most important revelation.  Dehumanization.  This approach of the media of dehumanizing the dead karsevaks including 15 children angered the entire nation. More so Gujarat, in which is Godhra situated.

   Even if the karsevaks had indeed misbehaved with anyone, or refused to pay for tea and snacks, or shouted anti-Muslim slogans, or taunted or harassed Muslim passengers, or done any of the numerous things which have been charged (all charges are inconsistent and varying- which shows that the aim was to be forcibly concoct ‘provocations’), still there should have been no mention of it, or even if it was mentioned, the blame should not have been put on the dead. This is because no one insults the dead. Graham Staines really indulged in conversion and ignored all warnings given to him to stop conversion but nobody blamed him for his death because nobody insults the dead.

   But, in this case, even though the karsevaks did nothing, baseless and absolutely wrong allegations were made to blame the dead for their own death. Even if they had indulged in any sort of misbehavior, such a massacre and brutal roasting cannot be rationalized. And here instead of blaming the Muslims who roasted the train, the media— the TV channels in particular—and the politicians made such allegations on people who were not even alive to refute the charges. And all the charges were absolutely wrong.  The people who lost their lives in a human tragedy, in a gruesome massacre, a well- planned attack, were unfairly accused and blamed for something which they did not do.

   The people of Gujarat were used to this policy of the TV channels and the print media. They were used to the continuous bashing of the Hindutva ideology, of the karsevaks, of the Ayodhya movement, of the VHP and the continuous defence of the Muslims. But the people thought that the Godhra massacre was just a bit too much. At least, such a horrifying massacre of innocent people including 15 children will make the hearts of the anti-Hindu ‘secularists’ bleed. At least, in such a huge tragedy, will the media stop insulting the karsevaks and abusing the VHP and the Ramjanmabhoomi movement? At least now, will the media condemn the fundamentalist Muslims and call them Jehadis and criticize them for the unprovoked massacre?

   But nothing of the sort happened. The media continued its usual ways. And Vir Sanghvi’s fear of a Hindu backlash became a terrifying reality on 28th February, 2002, which was Thursday.

   But after the backlash of the first three days, Vir Sanghvi forgot his own words which he uttered before the Hindu retaliation.  He himself had warned his secularist brothers that their attitude was aggravating the Hindus. He himself indirectly warned of a retaliation and anger in the Hindus but forgot it while condemning the post-Godhra riots and calling Narendra  Modi  a ‘mass murderer’  many times in his newspaper’s editorial  page.

   This Hindu anger continued not just until the riots but until much later. This continued until at least December 2002. On12th December were held the Gujarat Assembly elections. The BJP won a huge majority of 127 out of the 182 seats with the Indian National Congress (INC) winning just 51. Not only that, the BJP’s popular vote reached a dizzying 50 per cent, a huge 11 per cent more than the Congress’ 39 per cent. Saurashtra and Kutch, which did not see any riots even in the first three days after Godhra, also saw the BJP winning, and not just winning, but winning ‘hands down’. As per weekly India Today dated 30th December, 2002, out of the 102 riot-affected seats, the BJP won 79 seats. These numbers are also dubious.  But let us assume that they are true. That means the BJP won 48 out of the remaining 80 non-riot affected seats, which is still a majority with 60 per cent of the seats. Sixty per cent is still a huge majority considering that the BJP was in power in the state from 1995, with two terms. Despite anti-incumbency, this performance of the party was due to the Hindu anger after Godhra and the ‘secularist’ brigade’s reaction to it.

   This Left-liberal-secular brigade also did another wrong. They tried to keep the number of attackers, i.e. Muslims at Godhra as less as they could. Kuldip Nayar gave it 500 in an article in the Deccan Herald dated 3 April 2002. India Today weekly, in its issue dated 11th  March, 2002, also gave the number of attackers as over 500. On Godhra, Kuldip Nayar wrote in an article published on 6 July 2002: “Narendra Modi would have created a Godhra train incident if it had not happened. The tragedy is that some Muslims played into his hands”. Others kept reducing the figure to 1,000, while some gave it 1,500. But the true figure seems to be 2,000 as given by Vir Sanghvi and the Justice Tewatia Committee. Alok Tiwari, another ‘secularist’ editor, also gave the number of Hindus killed in Godhra as 56 while saying: “Just because 56 Hindus were killed doesn’t mean that they should kill hundreds of Muslims…”. This figure is not important. It does not really matter whether it is 2,000 or 1,500. But it simply discloses the attitude of the ‘secularists’ in dealing with the situation. And the attitude is—keep the Hindu suffering as low as possible, Muslim atrocities as low as possible and inflate and exaggerate Muslim sufferings as much as possible.

   And they try to keep increasing the number of Muslims killed in the Gujarat riots, ignoring, of course, the hundreds of Hindus also killed in the riots. When the UPA Government (with Sonia Gandhi as its chairperson and Leftists as outside supporters) gave the figures of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus killed in the riots (see details later in Chapter 7), what do they get by increasing the number of Muslims killed to 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 and lie that “Thousands of Muslims were killed in a ‘genocide’, ‘pogrom’ or ‘massacre’ sponsored by the state government”?

Godhra was Planned, Post-Godhra was a Result of Provocation

   Godhra was clearly a planned, unprovoked attack. It is impossible for it to have been the result of petty quarrels at the Godhra railway station. Vir Sanghvi has already said it in his article. As he says, slogans shouted from a moving train or a railway platform cannot enrage local Muslims, and 2,000 Muslims cannot assemble at the railway station in five minutes’ time already having managed to procure petrol bombs and acid bombs. And the time was also 8 a.m. in the morning. Some 140 liters of petrol was reportedly bought in cans a day before the massacre.  VSK, Gujarat said that:

“1. Travellers of a particular religion were asked to get down at the previous station of Dahod.

2. The patients of a particular community were discharged from the civil hospital of Godhra one day before 27th. Not a single case from a particular community was registered on 27th February.

3. Not a single student or a teacher of a particular community was present in the schools of Godhra on 27th February.

4. It clearly shows that not only it was a pre-planned attack but many others were aware that something is likely to happen on that day.”

Disclaimer: Not independently verified, just what was reported by VSK, Gujarat

   Weeklies like India Today gave imaginary provocations with graphics. But all these people forgot one thing. For the train to have been attacked, the attackers (Muslims) had to surround in on at least two sides. If it was on the spur of the moment, it would have been very difficult for the Muslims to surround the train on both sides. How could at least 500 Muslims reach the other side of the train? If that was the case, then the karsevaks would have ran out of the train and saved their lives, by running from the second side before Muslims reached there. In any case, all these provocations are purely fabricated and a figment of imagination. Something which was done with absolutely no provocation and full planning was rationalized by the media.

   Even Kuldip Nayar (born 1923), known for his extreme anti-RSS, anti-BJP and anti-Narendra Modi and pro-Muslim and pro-Pakistani views, wrote in an article published on 3 April 2002: “I have no doubt that the (Godhra) attack was a well-planned one. Otherwise, it is not possible for a mob of 500 carrying petrol and kerosene to assemble in three minutes in an area that can only be reached by running through prickly bushes.”

   As a matter of fact, such a horrible crime should not be committed even against animals. If 59 animals had been locked in a train, pushed back into the fire as they tried to come out and then roasted to death with bodies charred, it too would have been considered  as a gruesome human tragedy by all right-thinking sensible people. But because these 59 were karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, false charges were made on them—the incident was condemned merely for token with the blame put on the roasted women and children, and the VHP. Vir Sanghvi said that the karsevaks had been dehumanized.  They were actually treated even worse than animals.

   And when the things were really a result of provocation, the media just ignored it. The post-Godhra riots were reported completely ignoring Godhra. At that time, the Godhra attack faded into the background and the Hindu retaliation of the first three days was decried. And even after so many years, whenever the post-Godhra riots are mentioned, Godhra is completely ignored and it is made to sound as if the BJP Government of the state indulged in ruthless, unprovoked killings of Muslims in alliance with the VHP and the Bajrang Dal.

   The big ‘provocation’ which was far more than a provocation but the cause of the retaliation by the Hindus in the first three days was completely ignored and the subsequent riots were reported, that too completely one-sided and magnified and inflated. The difference on the media’s attitude is revealed from its reactions. After Godhra, it was said: “The government must bring the culprits to justice. The crime deserves to be condemned. But it is inevitable and predictable because of VHP’s Ayodhya movement…VHP bashing…” and after Godhra, it was said: “Holocaust…pogrom…genocide…massacre… Modi must quit… international shame…are we like Rwanda…Hitler…”

   Vir Sanghvi really gave the game up when he said, “If you report the truth, then you will inflame Hindu sentiments and this would be irresponsible. And so on.”  That is to say, Vir  Sanghvi admitted that the ‘secularists’ utter ‘stark lies’, no matter what interest in  mind. They lied not only during Godhra but also for some three months after Godhra. They also did so during the Gujarat Assembly elections of December 2002 and continue to do so today. In fact, they have repeated their lies so often that by now they themselves may have started believing their concocted lies.

   On 27th  February, 2002, senior Congress leader and former Gujarat Chief Minister,  the late Amarsinh  Chaudhary (1941-2004) came on TV at night and  while condemning the attack, also blamed karsevaks for provoking it by alleging that they refused to pay for tea at the station. (Again following Vir Sanghvi’s observation—basically, they condemn the crime, but blame the victims.)

   The RSS weekly Organiser reported the incident in its issue dated 10th  March,  2002, which  covered events in full till  27th  February. While reporting on this issue, Organiser also reported in a news item—“RSS condemns the killings and calls for restraint” and this report carries the statement of RSS Joint General Secretary, Madan Das Devi that RSS urges Hindu society to exercise restraint after the Godhra attack. RSS had asked the Hindu society to observe restraint and not retaliate after Godhra even before the riots had started.

   India Today weekly dated 11th March, 2002, carrying events till 28th February, 2002, reported on the last page of the cover story:

The mood in the state is militant. A procession of 10,000 marched with the bodies of 11 people from Ramol village near Ahmedabad, who had died in the train. They were shouting slogans like: ‘Tumhari shahidi bekar nahi jayegi, Mandir bana kar hi rahenge’ (Your sacrifice will not go in vain, we will build the temple)… This incident drew mixed reactions from the Congress, the main opposition party in the state. While senior party leader Amarsinh Chaudhary condemned the attack, he also blamed Ramsevaks for provoking the incident. Senior AICC member, Ahmed Patel condemned it strongly. They will have time to react. The bloody cycle of violence so familiar with Gujarat may just have begun.”

   So, India Today knew on 28th February itself that a bloody cycle of violence had begun in Gujarat and could continue in Gujarat for several days. But, in fact, it stopped only after three days, though petty rioting continued subsequently in Ahmedabad, Vadodara and some places near Godhra. And, in fact, even weekly Outlook in its issue dated 11th March, 2002 (i.e. on 28th February) also reported:

Gujarat has always been a communal tinderbox and even a small spark ignites big trouble. The ghost of Godhra looks set to walk its streets for months.” (URLhttp://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/200-on-the-human-richter/214849).

Difference between Godhra and Other Tragic Incidents

   Several people, unable to understand the sufferings of the Hindu society, have asked: “Why did riots occur only after Godhra? Why was nobody targeted after the Akshardham temple attack—or after the attacks on Mumbai on 26th November, 2008?”

   Well, the answers are many. The terrorist attacks in many parts of India such as Mumbai, Jammu, New Delhi, etc. are done by terrorists and they are acts of terrorism, whereas Godhra was not terrorism, but communalism and barbarism.  It was the brutal roasting of 59 people whose bodies were charred to death beyond recognition.

   The attackers also differed.  Terrorists are people who are considered to have no religion. Those who attacked the Akshardham temple were called ‘terrorists’ by the media, and rightly so. Two foreign terrorists killed more than 30 people in the attack. It was not done by local Muslims. Nobody said in the media “Muslims kill 30 Hindus in Akshardham”. It was said, “Terrorists attack the Akshardham temple”.  Had the Indian  media, the TV channels in particular,  and the non-BJP politicians,  who  came on TV on 27th February, 2002, called the incident  as a ‘human  tragedy’  and reacted exactly like they did after terrorist  attacks in Mumbai  or Akshardham,  maybe the riots which  occurred, could have been avoided.

   Also the mob in Godhra numbered well over 1,000 and as per the report of the Tewatia Committee, the mob was 2,000 in strength. Since only 35 people were arrested for the attack on 27th February, as reported by various English newspapers the next day, it was found to be grossly inadequate by the masses. M.M. Singh—one of the finest police officers Gujarat has ever produced—also said that the police should have cordoned off the area in Godhra after the massacre. This, in his opinion, would have pacified Hindu sentiments to some extent at the very outset. And even a weekly like India Today reported in its issue dated 18th March, 2002 that the blame for the riots was being put on the Modi Government for its failure to nab the culprits of the Godhra carnage. Had the culprits not been allowed to flee, the people would not have directed their anger at all Muslims, according to the weekly. The weekly reports:

“The blame for the initial explosion on 28th February is being pinned on the Modi government for its failure to arrest those responsible for the Godhra massacre. The slum from where the train attack was launched was illegally constructed on Railways land and each of the 10 main suspects involved in the attack has a criminal background. Some even enjoyed political patronage. Haji Billal, one of the main accused, was known for his links with smugglers and traffickers. Such was his notoriety, claims a BJP MLA, that ‘a few months ago the authorities had difficulty pasting a notice on his door’. On 27th February, the VHP asked the State government to act against them and when it failed, the public anger was directed against all Muslims” (Source:  http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020318/cover3.html).

   Since it was done by local Muslims and most of the culprits went scot-free and the media kept insulting the dead karsevaks and condemning the VHP and the Sangh Parivar, the angered masses exploded in Ahmedabad on 28th February.

   “After pelting stones, they started pouring kerosene in our compartments and set them afire. Only a few of us managed to come out of the broken windows.  The adults and the old people were stuck inside. The old women were pleading, ‘don’t kill us’ but they just didn’t listen,” says Gayatri Panchal (16), who says 3-4 people ran after her as soon as she jumped off the train (The Indian Express, 28th February, 2002).

   Sixty-five-year-old Devika Luhana was trembling with anger as she alighted from the ill-fated train. “It was vandalism at its worst. They did not even spare old people like me and pelted stones indiscriminately. They will all go to hell for this act of malice,” said Devika, who could not even retrieve her bag as she ran for her life.

   “They stormed inside the women’s bogie, and before we could react, they set the entire bogie on fire.  Some of us managed to escape, but a number of our sisters got trapped…it was horrifying,” said Hetal Patel, a member of Durga Vahini.

   Terror still haunts 13-year-old Gyanprakash as he bursts into tears from time to time. “I cannot forget the sight of people burning in front of me,” he says while recuperating at the Ahmedabad city hospital. Gyanprakash was on the S2 coach of the Sabarmati Express when it was set ablaze in Godhra on Wednesday. His family was returning to Ahmedabad after attending a relative’s funeral. They had boarded the train at Kanpur. Gyanprakash recalls the horror: “The train had just left Godhra but stopped a little way away from the station. Suddenly, stones were being thrown at the train. The pelting continued for almost an hour. Then something was hurled into our coach and there was smoke everywhere.

   “It was so suffocating I could hardly breathe. I heard my father telling me to get off the train. I went to the door but saw that people trying to get off were being stabbed. I went to the other side and jumped off” (Mid-Day, 6th March, 2002).

   That is, old women were pleading: “Don’t kill us” but the attackers did not spare anyone, neither children nor old people, and certainly not the women. Most horrific was the attackers’ act of not allowing anyone to escape and watching with their eyes 59 Hindus roasting to death, crying with pain, pleading for mercy. (Those who did come out like Gayatri Panchal were also tried to be pushed back.) Had the 2,000 attackers shot dead, these 59 people with bullets, it would not have been so horrific.  Had they set afire the train and ran away, it would not have angered the masses so much. But these attackers were indescribable barbarians. They watched and pushed back into fire the victims including 15 children and roasted to death in a horrific manner 59 Hindus returning from Godhra.

   Can anyone imagine 2,000 Hindus burning to death 59 Muslims at Karachi Railway Station in Pakistan? If Hindus had mustered courage to do that, each and every Hindu in Pakistan would have been killed after horrible tortures.

   To know why the masses retaliated, look at the photos of the victims. These pictures were shown on TV channels on 27th February and in Gujarati dailies the next day.

WARNING: Gruesome pictures.

    http://www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2011/10/godhra-photos/

    Anyone who understands human sufferings will realize the cause of the retaliation in Gujarat after looking at these pictures. However, our politicians and pseudo-secular media people are blind to Hindu suffering.  For some people, Hindus in general and VHP supporters in particular, are not even considered human beings. These gruesome killings also were not enough to melt the hearts of the pseudo-secularists. One wonders then, what will ever make them condemn Muslims for any act, if they defend Muslims for Godhra and blame these children, who were roasted!

Some more details are given in the book but not on this website. To know the full details, read the book.

Leave a Comment >>

Myth 24: The bodies of Godhra victims were displayed in public

Posted on May 5, 2016 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: The Godhra carnage occurred on 27 February 2002 at 8 AM. After that, the bodies of the karsevaks killed in Godhra were brought to Ahmedabad. This was necessary, because most of the killed karsevaks were from Ahmedabad and keeping the bodies in Godhra could have inflamed the situation there and Godhra was also under curfew. It would have been very inconvenient for relatives to come to Godhra which was under curfew! So, it was necessary to get the bodies out of Godhra as soon as possible.

     Also, note that if the bodies had not been brought to Ahmedabad and been kept in Godhra and retaliation taken in Godhra, all Modi-haters would have cried that “Modi deliberately kept the bodies in a communally-charged Godhra so as to instigate Hindus to retaliate in Godhra and did not bring them to Ahmedabad though the relatives and victims were from Ahmedabad”. While bringing the bodies to Ahmedabad, care was taken to bring the bodies after midnight in a very somber atmosphere.

    The bodies were brought to Western Ahmedabad’s isolated Sola Civil Hospital, where the Muslim population was negligible. Had the government wanted to instigate Hindus, it would have brought the bodies to Eastern Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital from where most of the killed karsevaks resided and from where it would have been ideal to instigate the violence against the Muslims.  The bodies were brought at 3:30 a.m. of 28th February in a sombre atmosphere (as reported by India Today dated 18th March, 2002 and Times of India online on 28th February). The time 3:30 a.m. is very difficult to instigate riots with most people asleep and is also very inconvenient for the relatives. Had the government wanted to, it would have brought the bodies at 2 p.m. or 12 noon, which would have been convenient for relatives and easy to instigate riots. The government, thus, seems to have done 4 things right which are:

1.  Bringing the bodies to Ahmedabad instead of keeping them in Godhra so as to calm the matters in Godhra and for relatives’ convenience.

2.  Bringing them to Ahmedabad at 3:30 am instead of in day-time so that chances of retaliation were very low.

3.  Bringing them in a sober atmosphere instead of ceremonial procession.

4.  Bringing them to Western Ahmedabad’s hospital where the Muslim population was negligible instead of Eastern Ahmedabad.

   The transport of these bodies was done inside five (5) trucks, and no one could see them, and it was also done from 11:30 pm – 12 midnight to 3:30 am, from Godhra to Ahmedabad per the report of the SIT- appointed and monitored by the Supreme Court.

   Even after coming to Western Ahmedabad’s isolated hospital, care was taken to send the bodies to the crematoriums (those which were not cremated at the hospital itself, some had been cremated at the hospital itself) in vehicles, not visible to anyone, while this could have been done on foot as well. This shows the sincerity of the government in preventing display of the bodies. The SIT appointed by the Supreme Court has said all this in its closure report on page 63 as well. The SIT has also said that the decision to bring the bodies was a collective one, taken by many Ministers, and with knowledge and consent of officials like the then Collector of Godhra, the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad, the DGP of Gujarat, etc.Despite this, several people have tried to spread outrageous lies that ‘the dead bodies were paraded by the Government’. The media has not told the truth of all the above facts to clarify things. As a result, many infuriated people continue to believe the lie that the bodies were ‘paraded’. Lies have also been tried to be spread that the then Collector of Godhra, Smt. Jayanti Ravi was against bringing of the bodies to Ahmedabad. The SIT report stated on page 64 that this allegation is proven to be false, Jayanti Ravi had supported bringing of bodies to Ahmedabad.

   The SIT report says on page 64: “The allegation that the dead bodies were transported to Ahmedabad against the wishes of Smt. Jayanti Ravi is proved to be incorrect.”

   Despite this, several people have lied on this even after the SIT report. (E.g. Gujarat Congress leader Shaktisinh Gohil repeated this lie on Live National TV on 10 August 2013 in a debate with BJP’s Meenakshi Lekhi on India News TV Channel in the 8-9 pm show.)

   Bringing bodies to Ahmedabad did not have the slightest impact on the riots. Bodies were brought after midnight on 27 Feb i.e. at 3:30 am of 28 Feb in Western Ahmedabad’s isolated Sola hospital (as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002 and Times of India online on 28 Feb 2002) while the riots began on 28 Feb at 11 AM and took place in far-off places like Naroda Patiya and Chamanpura (Ehsan Jafri case). And what about the riots that occurred OUTSIDE Ahmedabad- in Vadodara, Rajkot and other areas? Did they also occur because bodies were brought from Ahmedabad to Godhra at 3:30 am on 28 Feb?

   Far from the bodies being displayed publicly or ‘paraded’, extra care was taken by the Government to prevent display of the dead bodies. They were brought from Godhra to Ahmedabad inside closed trucks between 11:30 pm to 3:30 am, not visible to anyone. And even after that, the non-cremated bodies were taken to the crematoriums in closed vehicles, not visible to anyone outside.

More details of this issue are given comprehensively in the book, but not in this website. A special chapter on the SIT report is also in the book, which reveals the whole truth and the SIT’s observations.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

2 Comments

Findings of SIT

Posted on March 18, 2016 - Filed Under 09- Findings of SIT

      Zakia Jafri, wife of the late Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the riots on 28 February 2002, had filed a complaint against Narendra Modi and 62 others. On the basis of this complaint, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the Supreme Court of India to inquire into the charges. This SIT, despite intense pressure from the media, the NGOs, and allegedly also the UPA Government to frame Narendra Modi, gave him a thorough clean chit. The findings of the SIT were also accepted by the lower court of Gujarat in December 2013. The background of the constitution of this SIT with the timeline is given below.   

   On June 8, 2006, Zakia Jafri, in a letter to the DGP (Director General of Police), sought registration of a FIR (First Information Report) against the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 62 others for conspiracy behind 2002 riots in Gujarat. The police refused to lodge the complaint. Then on May 1, 2007, Zakia Jafri moved the Gujarat High Court after the DGP (Director General of Police) declined to entertain her complaint. On Nov 2, 2007 Gujarat High Court dismissed her plea. Subsequently Zakia moved the Supreme Court of India.

   Then on March 26, 2008, the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the Narendra Modi government to re-investigate nine cases in the 2002 Gujarat riots, including the Gulberg Society incident in which Zakia’s husband was killed. The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan to probe the cases afresh. And in March 2009 the SC asked the SIT to look into Zakia’s complaint over the role of chief minister Narendra Modi and others. The SIT had submitted its report earlier, which was seen and reviewed by the Amicus Curiae Raju Ramchandran in January 2011. On March 15, 2011, the SC asked the SIT to look into the doubts raised by Amicus Curiae Raju Ramchandran. This was also done and the SIT submitted its second revised report specifically answering all doubts of Raju Ramchandran on 25 April 2011. Raju Ramchandran accepted most of the findings of the SIT and agreed that most of his doubts were wrong, but still stuck to 2 doubts. He submitted his report accepting most of the SIT’s findings but sticking to his 2 doubts on 25 July 2011. But the Supreme Court did not agree with his (biased and totally absurd) observations and agreed with SIT. On 12 September 2011, the SC ended its monitoring in this issue.

   In February 2012, the SIT probing the 2002 violence filed its final report before a local court. The SIT report gave Modi a clean chit in the Gulberg Society massacre. Zakia filed a protest petition against clean chit given to Modi by the SIT. But all the courts rejected Zakia’s petitions and upheld the clean chit given to Narendra Modi by the SIT and accepted its closure report.

   Many vital and important finds of the SIT in its closure report need to be highlighted as they have been covered up. This chapter aims at revealing some of them.

   Zakia Jafri has alleged in her complaint that ‘2500 people were killed in 5 days’ as per the SIT report on page 9. We have of course seen the truth of the death toll earlier in this book. The SIT report also says on page 5 that: “The allegations made in the complaint dated 8-6-2006 (8 June 2006 and not 6 August 2006 as it could mean in some places outside India) of Zakia Nasim were general in nature, mostly based on media reports as well as other documents like affidavits filed by Shri R B Sreekumar about which she had no personal knowledge…”

     The SIT says on pages 16-19 that: “Smt. Zakia Nasim was first examined by the local police on 6 March 2002 and her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC but she never came up with all the details mentioned in her aforesaid complaint (dated 8 June 2006). In her statement before the local police she had stated that while they were being shifted from the Gulberg Society in jail vans, the mob assembled there would have lynched all of them to death but for the timely action by the police. Smt. Zakia Nasim then appeared before the Nanavati Commission of Inquiry on 29 August 2003 but did not disclose the facts given by her in her said complaint. In September 2003, Smt. Zakia Nasim filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India, but did not mention these facts. It was for the first time on 8 June 2006, i.e. after a lapse of more than four years of the incident, that she came up with the lengthy complaint in question. Smt. Zakia Nasim was examined by the SIT on 7 November 2008, but she failed to state any of these facts as mentioned in her complaint dated 8 June 2006. She does not have any personal knowledge about the facts mentioned in the affidavits filed by Shri R.B. Sreekumar during the years 2002, 2004 and 2005 on his own. In this complaint the following glaring discrepancies/ errors have been noticed:

A: The allegations are vague, general and stereotyped and nothing specific had been mentioned in respect of the following accused persons …Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 43, 45, 46, 48, 63, 30, 47, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 59, 50, 52. (The SIT report gives details of the vagueness and generalized nature of the complaints by quoting the paragraphs in detail of complaints against the accused.)

B: Paras 29 to 57, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82 & 86 of the complaint have been copied out verbatim from the Affidavits No. I, II, III & IV filed by Shri R.B. Sreekumar, formerly Additional DG (Int.) before Nanavati-Shah Commission of Inquiry. The complainant Zakia Nasim has no personal knowledge of the allegations leveled by R.B. Sreekumar in his affidavits.

C: No specific allegations have been made against Accused Nos. 17,18, 19 & 60.

D: Accused No. 24 Babubhai Rajput is not traceable at the given address and it has come to light that no such person was ever in existence at the relevant point of time.

E: Accused No. 11 Anil Tribhovandas Patel was not in public life at the time of riots and had joined Bharatiya Janata Party only towards the end of 2002. He was elected as MLA only in December, 2002 and as such he has been wrongly implicated as an accused in the complaint without any specific role.

F: Accused No. 45 Shri Rahul Sharma and Accused No. 63 Shri Satish Verma have been listed as witnesses as well as accused persons. Smt. Zakia Nasim, Complainant and Ms. Teesta Setalvad, have stated that they are witnesses and have been inadvertently listed as accused persons…”

   All these facts make it absolutely clear that the complaint is not a genuine one. There are many more inaccuracies, some of which we will see later, but all the above facts show that Zakia Jafri does not have any idea of the complaint, and that it is made for her by others. The extent of this complaint’s childish nature can be seen from the fact that Accused No. 24 was never in existence, and that the complainant’s own witnesses were named as accused! 

But the mainstream media largely did not find it worth mentioning, and tried its best to suppress such childish errors of the false complaint.

… (End of preview)

The above is the beginning of the Chapter “Findings of SIT”. To read the full chapter, read the book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story”

http://www.amazon.in/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth/dp/1482841649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426094521&sr=8-1&keywords=gujarat+riots+deshpande 

 

Leave a Comment >>

Myth 23: Ehsan Jafri called Narendra Modi during the riots

Posted on August 28, 2015 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: This is absolutely untrue, and a lie concocted many years after 2002. No such charge was ever made in 2002, neither during the time of the riots, nor for many months and years after 2002. There is NO RECORD of any call made by Jafri to Modi. The SIT report says on pages 261-262 that there is no record of any call made to Narendra Modi by Ehsan Jafri.

The following is some part of Arundhati Roy’s article in weekly Outlook dated 6 May 2002 on the Ehsan Jafri case:

“…A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. [Our comment: Notice how in this article, as late as May 2002, even Arundhati Roy does not claim that Jafri called Modi! All these claims of calls to Police Commissioner, Chief Secretary are false. The SIT examined call records of the Police Commissioner Pandey and found that no call was made by Jafri. And that day, the Chief Secretary G Subbarao was abroad, out of India on leave! But even Roy doesn't name Modi!] The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and dismembered him. Of course it’s only a coincidence that Jaffri was a trenchant critic of Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, during his campaign for the Rajkot Assembly by-election in February…”

This is a credibility-less article by Arundhati Roy, claiming that Jafri’s daughters were raped. His son T A Jafri clarified that his sisters were safe in USA and this exposed the truth. We also dealt with this in Myth 11. But even in such an article full of factual errors, even Roy does not claim that Jafri called the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

In fact, Congress ally the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind alleged in August 2003 that Jafri had in fact called Sonia Gandhi for help! The Times of India reported on 9 August 2003 in an article titled: “Congress silent on cadres linked to Gujarat riots” that the JUH secretary N A Farooqui says: “The Congress has committed sins of omission and commission during the riots. Former MP Ehsan Jaffri had called up Sonia Gandhi for help. She didn’t take a strong stand in her subsequent visit to Gujarat. The local bodies were mostly headed by the Congress which could have done a lot for relief and rehabilitation, but it was all left to the NGOs.” As late as August 2003, no claim of Jafri calling Modi is made, in fact JUH claimed that Jafri had called Sonia Gandhi!

Also Roy says-“His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene.” What rubbish again! Police vans outside his house not only intervened, they shot dead 5 rioters outside his house and saved the lives of 200 Muslims, at a great risk to their own personal life. Police fired 124 rounds and burst 134 tear gas shells at the spot, also injured 11 Hindus and lathi-charged the crowd as well, according to the SC-appointed SIT’s report, Page 1. Jafri’s widow Zakia Jafri also said in her statement to the Police, recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 6 March 2002 that the police saved her and many others that day in Gulberg Society by transporting them in vans, and had it not been for timely action by the Police, the mob would have lynched them all. This is also mentioned in the SIT report.

   Note here that even Roy does not claim that Jafri telephoned the Chief Minister Narendra Modi as late as May 2002! Now lies are out that Jafri actually phoned Modi and was abused by Modi on phone! The fact is that that day the situation was out of control, Modi frantically called the Army to Ahmedabad according to The Hindu and he was very busy handling the situation. There is NO RECORD of any call made by Jafri to Modi, nor to the then Police Commissioner P C Pandey.  And on page 203-204 the SIT says that though P C Pandey (Ahmedabad Police Commissioner) received/made 302 calls in 24 hours on 28 February 2002, no call was made to him by Jafri. And yet, liar ‘activists’ seem to have paid bribes to a witness and survivor, Imtiaz Pathan to falsely claim that Modi had abused Jafri on phone, and Jafri told him (Pathan) this fact before he died!!!

If all the below-mentioned facts are reported by the media, then the reality will be out for everyone to see. There is a heap of evidence present to prove the opposite i.e. that Jafri did not call Modi, which is ignored largely by the mainstream media, particularly TV channels like NDTV, CNN-IBN.  There is only one eye witness who has claimed this, Imtiaz Pathan who claimed that Jafri called Modi on phone and before dying Jafri told him (Pathan) that Modi abused him on phone. (This is of course, trash. Let us say, for argument’s sake that Jafri did call Modi and Modi did not want to help him. Would Modi have abused him on phone? Modi would have said “Don’t worry, we will send help as soon as possible” and not sent help in such a case. Is Modi a fool to abuse Jafri on phone even if he did not want Jafri to be saved when he knew that anything spoken on phone can be recorded? Such a ridiculous charge has no credibility).

In his immediate testimony to the police in 2002 soon after the riots, Pathan had not named Modi at all, nor made this allegation (Of Jafri calling him and Modi abusing Jafri) for many years after 2002! This charge was first made by Pathan in 2009, years after the incident. If this was true, he would have said so in 2002 itself, and not in 2009 as an ‘after-thought’. Why couldn’t he have said this in 2002?

Imtiaz Pathan has claimed the following things wrongly:

1- Police did not come to the complex till 4:30- 5:00 pm
2- Ehsan Jafri gave himself to the crowd, told the crowd “Take me, but spare the women and children”
3- Police Commissioner P C Pandey visited Jafri at 10 am on 28 February (All above things are wrong on facts, i.e. blatant lies)

Hence it is clear that Imtiaz Pathan has been tutored by someone to claim this. Let us first list some points:

1- The Times of India in its online edition on 28 February 2002 reported at 2:34 PM :

“Ahmedabad: At least six persons were injured when police opened fire to disperse a rampaging mob in Meghaninagar area of the city on Thursday afternoon. The injured were brought to civil hospital where the condition of at least three is stated to be serious…the incident took place at Chamanpura area under Meghaninagar police station…(Ehsan Jafri case)”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com//india/Police-open-fire-in-Ahmedabad-6-hurt/articleshow/2360713.cms

This is the Ehsan Jafri case- Chamanpura. NOTE THAT THIS REPORT PUBLISHED AT 2:34 PM says that police came and opened fire injuring so many people. India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002 also reports : “Reinforcements did arrive but by that time the mob had swelled to 10,000”. Since this report was posted at 2:34 PM it is clear that this event of police coming and firing must have happened much earlier, say at 1:30 pm at least considering the time it takes to get information, prepare report, proof read it, edit it and post it online. This completely dismantles Imtiaz Pathan’s lies that the police did not come till 4:30-5 pm when The Times’ report POSTED ONLINE at 2:34 PM says that police came and fired. We also have the statement on Zakia Jafri recorded under Section Section 161 Cr.PC on 6 March 2002 that the police saved her and dozens of residents that day. The Times of India also reported in its online edition on 28 Feb in a report posted at 9:41 PM. We quote from Times of India online edition posted on 28 Feb night at 9:41 PM “Meanwhile fire tenders which rushed to the spot (Chamanpura- Ehsan Jafri case) were turned back by the irate mob which disallowed the Ahmedabad Fire Brigade (AFB) personnel and the district police from rushing to rescue…Sources in Congress Party said that the former MP after waiting in vain till 12.30 pm for official help to arrive had opened fire on the mob in self-defense, injuring four..”.

Despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered by the mob which had swelled to more than 10,000 (Zakia Jafri herself told India Today weekly in its issue of 18 March 2002-“I have never seen such a huge mob, they burnt alive my husband”), and the mob going crazy by Jafri firing on them with his revolver, the police did a brave job and at a great personal risk they fired on the Hindus and shot dead 5 Hindus outside his house as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002 and Times of India 28 Feb online. This also did not stop the violence because the crowd was willing to lose a few lives to, as S K Modi puts in his book “Godhra- The Missing rage” ‘teach Jafri a lesson’. Thus Imtiaz Pathan’s claims have no credibility since police arrived much before 4:30-5 pm and shot dead 5 rioters outside his house. Police saved more than 180 Muslims in this episode since there were 250 people inside Jafri’s house and the mob killed 68- after all missing were declared dead, despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered.

2- Ehsan Jafri fired on the crowd in self-defense. Whether he should have done so or not is a matter of debate, but this act drove the crowd mad and it resolved to kill him, and was willing to lose a few lives. We have seen reports of Times of India and India Today to know that he did fire on the mob which drove it mad. Imtiaz Pathan does not say this. Pathan lies and says: “Jafri appealed to the crowd to spare women and children. He said,’ Take me, kill me but leave these innocent people’ and gave himself to the crowd.” This claim is absolute trash since it is an established fact that Jafri did not do anything like this and fired on the crowd in self-defense with his revolver, as reported by weekly India Today, Times of India, and yes, also Outlook. Yes, Outlook too. SIT has also said that Jafri did indeed fire on the mob, killing 1 and injuring 15, in its report on page 1. This nails Imtiaz Pathan’s another lie.

3- Narendra Modi was very busy that day and there is no way he could have talked to Ehsan Jafri on phone. Though Modi had a mobile phone at that time, he didn’t use it much. That day, all his official lines were busy and he was very busy handling the riots.  The SIT has said in its report on page 204 that the landline at Jafri’s house was the ONLY phone in operation in the entire complex, and that Jafri did not have a mobile. If Jafri did call Modi and was abused by him, Jafri would have told this to his widow Zakia or some other people instead of Imtiaz Pathan, who did not make this allegation for a good 7-8 years after 2002.

4- Pathan also claimed that the then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P C Pandey had visited Jafri’s place in the morning. But the SC-appointed SIT has dismissed this claim after talking to P C Pandey and examining all evidence (and call records of P C Pandey, who made/received as many as 302 calls between 00:35 and 24:00 on 28 February 2002) and said that instead it was Congress Mahamantri Ambalal Nadia who came to meet Jafri at Gulbarg Society at 10 AM and left 10:30 AM. The SIT has said in its report that: “It is established that Shri P C Pandey did not visit Gulbarg  Society in the forenoon of 28 Feb”.

This exposes Pathan’s lies. Note that for around 10 years, from 2002 to 2012, a myth was out in the media that the then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P C Pandey had visited Jafri’s house in the forenoon of 28 February 2002, before it was attacked. The truth came out in 2012 with the SIT report, which revealed that call records conclusively prove that P C Pandey did not visit Jafri’s house, and instead it was Congress Mahamantri Ambalal Nadia who visited the place. But neither Imtiaz Pathan nor his obvious tutors knew this in 2009, and thought that it was Pandey himself who visited the place. So they tutored Pathan to claim that Pandey had visited the place. This clearly shows that Imtiaz Pathan was tutored to make such a claim (of Jafri calling Modi). Had he been a genuine witness, he would have honestly stated that he did not see P C Pandey at Jafri’s place in the forenoon of 28 February 2002.

All these allegations of call to Narendra Modi started coming after 2009- many many years later. 7 years after the riots where all missing people have been declared dead-death toll is 68. Out of the 250 people in the complex, police saved around 200, at least 180. Zakia Jafri’s statement of 6 March 2002 already proved it.

 The SIT said that it found no record of any call to Modi by Jafri on pages 261-262. The man with the task of doing this, i.e. requisitioning  the call records was a very anti-Narendra Modi official and a favorite of Teesta-NGOs-Media brigade, Rahul Sharma. There is no way he would have missed such a record, had it been true. Hence it is clear that Imtiaz Pathan has been tutored by someone to claim this, as an afterthought, years after 2002.

Some other questions which can be raised here are: Why didn’t Jafri call any CONGRESS LEADER and ask the Congress Party to assemble 500 workers outside his house to save his life? Why couldn’t the Congress Party have do anything to save its former MP? Jafri was reported to have called Amarsinh Chaudhary, the then PCC chief many times, and indeed made several calls to CONGRESS LEADERS also. The media hid from the public for many years that a top accused in this case was none other than Congress leader Meghsingh Chaudhary himself. He was arrested not by Gujarat police, but by the SC-appointed SIT itself in 2009. One link:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-03-26/subverse/28032145_1_religious-symbols-religion-and-politics-gulbarga-society

   In his immediate testimony to the police in 2002 soon after the riots, and for many years after that, Pathan had not named Modi at all, nor made this allegation (Of Jafri calling him and Modi abusing Jafri)!  Even if there was a record of any such call, how can the statement of a THIRD PERSON (Pathan, who has given so many wrong claims, like police not coming till 4:30- 5 pm when it came much earlier, and the lie claiming that Jafri surrendered himself to the crowd when he in fact fired on it, and P C Pandey visiting the house when he did not) who was at neither end of the alleged telephone call be relied?

Those who tutored him to make this ridiculous charge years after 2002 also should be prosecuted. And those who give credibility to such ridiculous and laughable charges like Outlook, CNN-IBN, NDTV and Rana Ayub should also be prosecuted.

More details of this issue are given comprehensively in the book, but not in this website. A special chapter on the SIT report is also in the book, which reveals the whole truth and the SIT’s observations.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

4 Comments

Myth 22: A B Vajpayee said Modi is not following Rajdharma

Posted on February 24, 2014 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

    FACT: This incident happened on 4th April 2002, when the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Gujarat. When a reporter asked the Prime Minister in his joint press conference with Narendra Modi what message he will like to give the Gujarat Chief Minister, he said: “A ruler should follow Rajdharma. Not differentiate between the subjects on the basis of caste or religion. I always try to do so. I am sure Narendra bhai is also doing so.”

     The latter part of the sentence: “I am sure that Narendra Modi is also following Rajdharma” was completely ignored, not reported and it was made to sound as if Vajpayee had said: “Narendra Modi should follow Rajdharma (Implied that he is not doing so now)”.

    Luckily, the entire video is today on YouTube and can be viewed by anyone.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5W3RCpOGbQ

    In the days of the domination of the biased media, and terrible PR work from the Gujarat Government, this lie continued unchallenged for almost 10 years. But now with the social media and YouTube taking away the monopoly of TV channels, the reality came out.

    Some more details of this issue are given in the book but not in this website.

   Copyright © Gujaratriots.com  _____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

9 Comments

Myth 21: No one was brought to justice for the riots

Posted on October 8, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: To claim that “No justice was got in Gujarat for the 2002 riots” is completely untrue. There have been a world record number of convictions.

There have been a total of at least 478 convictions, including 367 Hindus and 111 Muslims, according to official records. It is a world record to see so many people convicted. Here we must remember that for horrible past riots of Gujarat, 1969, 1985, 1990-91,92 in which far far more people were killed and which were far more serious than the 2002 riots, hardly 3 to 4 convictions took place under previous Congress Governments (Janata Dal in 1990 till October 1990 then again Congress till 1995 when Janata Dal merged with Congress). Yes 3 to 4 convictions only for the worst riots of 1969 and 1985. In the 1984 riots where at least 3,000 Sikhs were killed, no action was taken against rioters and according to TV channels CNN-IBN and NDTV both, 30 people were convicted in 12 riot cases in the past 28 years till April 2013. Link for CNN-IBN saying that 30 were convicted in 12 cases as of August 2012.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/2002-gujarat-riots-victims-get-justice-1984-killers-still-free/287288-62.html

Some people claim that 442 people were convicted for the 1984 riots, because some official of the Delhi Police said so. But no one ever gave a date-wise list of convictions accounting to 442 people being convicted in the 1984 riots. According to an RTI query answered in November 2014, 27 people were convicted for the 1984 riots in 7 cases.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-02/news/55682527_1_1984-anti-sikh-riots-rti-query-anti-riots-cell

After reading about these world-record 478 convictions some still claim that the convictions could be made possible because of the SIT and inspite of the Gujarat Government. This is absolutely false. SIT is seeing only a selected few cases. In other cases SIT is not involved at all and yet many many have been convicted.  As for the convictions in SIT seen cases, most of the convicted had already been arrested by the Gujarat Police. Most of those arrested by the SIT were ACQUITTED. For example in the Sadarpura case 31 were convicted, 29 had already been arrested by Gujarat police. Only 2 of the 21 arrested by SIT were convicted- i.e. 19 out of 21 arrested by SIT were acquitted. Even in Naroda Patiya case, 21 out of the 32 convicted were already arrested by the Gujarat police. Out of 478 convicted till now, only 172 have been in SIT seen cases, 141 Hindus and 31 Muslims. And most of the 141 Hindus convicted had already been arrested by the Gujarat Police. This gives 306 convictions in non-SIT seen cases, world record still. The following cases are as per official records. Where newspaper reports are not mentioned, they are exclusively official records and where the newspaper reports are given, they are records supplemented by newspaper reports.

Note here that there are a total of around 2000 cases on in the Gujarat riots. They don’t mean 2,000 riots but far lesser number of riots, and cases against 2000 odd accused rioters. So, we have till now 478 people convicted out of total 2000 odd accused, a very high conviction rate. All this is given in proper detail in the book.

A brief summary of total convictions will be as follows:

 1- On 7 October 2002- 1 Hindu was convicted in Bharuch district

 2- On 5 March 2003- 1 Hindu was convicted in Junagadh

 3- On 4 August 2003- 1 Muslim convicted in Modasa town in Sabarkantha district

 4- On 15 September 2003- 4 Muslims were convicted in Anand

 5-On 16 October 2003- 4 Muslims were convicted and given life imprisonment

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com//india/Four-get-life-imprisonment/articleshow/236376.cms

6- On 25 November 2003- 15 Hindus were convicted of whom 12 were given life imprisonment

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/24godhra.htm -Link for conviction

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/25godhra.htm -Link for punishment

 7- On 15 Jan 2004- 1 Hindu convicted in Ahmedabad

 8 – On 5 May 2004- 3 Muslims were convicted

 9- On 27 July 2004- 3 Hindus convicted in Ahmedabad

 10 – On 30 July 2004- 1 Muslim was convicted in Ahmedabad

 11 – On 1 November 2004- 2 Muslims were convicted in Ahmedabad

 12 -On 4 November 2004- 2 Muslims were convicted in Bharuch district under Ankleshwar Police Station

 13- On 30 November 2004- 8 Hindus convicted in Bharuch district under Amod Police Station

 14- On 10 December 2004- 8 Muslims were convicted in Bharuch

 15- On 31 December 2004- 3 Hindus were convicted in Bharuch district under Ankleshwar Police Station

 16- On 31 January 2005- 13 Hindus were convicted in Ahmedabad

 17- On 16 February 2005- 9 Hindus were convicted in Sabarkantha district

 18 – On 23 February 2005- 3 Hindus were convicted in Ahmedabad

 19- On 24 February 2005- 2 Hindus were convicted in Panchmahal district

 20- On 22 July 2005- 6 Muslims were convicted in Bharuch district in Ankleshwar city

 21- On 28 July 2005- 7 Muslims were convicted in Ahmedabad

 22- On 4 August 2005- 2 confessing Muslims were convicted

This was reported by Deccan Herald the next day, 5 August 2005. The Muslims confessed their crime.

http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanherald/aug52005/national172323200584.asp

 23 – On 11 October 2005- 27 Hindus convicted in Kalol town in Panchmahal district

 24-  On 24 October 2005- 5 Hindus convicted in Panchmahal district

 25-  On 7 December 2005- 8 Hindus convicted in Ahmedabad

 26-  On 14 December 2005- 14 Hindus were convicted

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/14godhra.htm

 27- On 24 February 2006- 9 Hindus were convicted (Outside Gujarat)

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/24gujarat.htm

 28-  On 10 March 2006- 3 Hindus were convicted in Bhavnagar

 29-  On 18 March 2006- 7 Muslims were convicted

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174094

 30- On 28 March 2006- 9 Muslims were convicted

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=65065

  31- On 14 April 2006- 11 Hindus convicted

  32- On 8 May 2006- 4 Muslims convicted in Ahmedabad

  33- On 12 May 2006- 5 Muslims were convicted in Ahmedabad district under Sanand Police Station

  34- On 14 May 2006- 5 Muslims were convicted

http://www.hindustantimes.com/POTA-court-convicts-five-in-Ahmedabad-blast-case/Article1-97222.aspx

 35-  On 18 May 2006- 4 Muslims were convicted

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/postgodhra-riots-dna-test-nails-4-killers/4719/

 36 – On 29 May 2006- 5 Hindus were convicted in Anand

  37- On 1 June 2006- 11 Hindus were convicted in Gandhinagar district under Adalaj Police Station

 38- On 23 November 2006- 3 Muslims were convicted for blasts on 6 August 2002 in Ahmedabad in which no one was killed but caused panic

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-11-23/india/27818103_1_pota-court-pota-case-memco

  39- On 25 January 2007- 33 Hindus were convicted in Mehsana district

  40- On 19 September 2007- 1 Muslim was convicted

  41- On 30 October 2007- 11 Hindus were convicted

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-10-30/india/27970801_1_godhra-riots-gujarat-riots-life-term

  42- On 18 January 2008- 12 Hindus were convicted in the famous Bilkis Bano case (outside Gujarat)

http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/22/stories/2008012259991300.htm

   43- On 20 August 2009- 2 Muslims convicted in Sabarkantha district

   44- On 13 July 2011- 6 Hindus were convicted

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Ahmedabad/Six-convicted-in-post-Godhra-riot-case-after-nine-years/Article1-720552.aspx

  45- On 9 Nov 2011- 31 Hindus were convicted for the Sadarpura case

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-09/india/30377556_1_riot-case-riot-victims-sardarpura

 46- On 9 April 2012- 23 Hindus were convicted

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_gujarat-riots-court-convicts-23-acquits-23-for-ode-massacre_1673458

47-On 4 May 2012 9 Hindus were convicted

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=250003912#page=2

48- On 30 July 2012- 22 Hindus were convicted

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3702882.ece

49-On 29 August 2012 32 Hindus were convicted for the Naroda Patiya killings

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article3835078.ece

50- On 2 June 2016, 24 Hindus were convicted for the Gulberg Society killings (in which Ehsan Jafri was killed).

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/550068/gulberg-society-massacre-verdict-likely.html

51- On 4 August 2016, 11 Hindus were convicted in a case in Mehsana district in which the accused had been acquitted by the trial court in 2005.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/gujarat-hc-sentences-11-men-to-life-in-2002-post-godhra-riot-case/articleshow/53545901.cms

52- On 22 Feb 2011- 31 Muslims were convicted for GODHRA roasting of karsewaks which was the cause of everything

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-01/india/28643060_1_haji-billa-godhra-train-rajjak-kurkur

Now adding all those convicted, we get 111 Muslims convicted in all, 31 for Godhra and 80 for post-Godhra. And we have at least 367 Hindus convicted.

We have seen some of the court judgments sentencing Muslims for the Gujarat riots. This is direct evidence that even after Godhra, the riots that happened were not one-sided. But despite this, the media refuses to budge and accept the truth. And it continues to lie causing immense damage to the country. More details of this issue are given in the book, which are not on the website.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_______________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

 

5 Comments

Myth 20: Zakia Jafri’s complaint against Narendra Modi is a genuine one

Posted on October 8, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: First thing to be noted is that Zakia Jafri did not make any complaint against Narendra Modi at all, for as many as 4 years after the 2002 riots, i.e. until 2006! In this time, she made statements before the police, the Nanavati Commission, filed affidavits in the courts as well and never once made any complaint against Narendra Modi. It is only after 2006 that she began speaking against Modi, perhaps tutored by some influential ‘activists’ when they saw this as a chance to frame and crucify the biggest fish!

The complaint, filed against Modi and 61 others including Government officials and State Ministers by the wife of late Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the 2002 riots , was a bundle of inexplicable factual errors, legal loopholes and wild allegations and virtually looked like a tutored child’s complaint , simply impossible to prove.
                                              Factual blunders

Zakia Jafri’s complaint has named a man as Babubhai Rajput, worker of the BJP as accused No 24. The SIT after probing the case found that no such person was in existence at the time of the 2002 riots! (On page 19 of its report). He of course does not live at the address provided in the complaint now.

The complaint has a charge that the Anand district police chief B S Jebalia was not only a witness to the massacre at Ode village soon after the Godhra carnage of 27 February 2002 but was also an abettor in it through a blatant connivance. The complainant obviously did not know that the truth is that another police officer, B D Vaghela, and not Jebalia , was posted as Anand district police chief at that time!

Zakia’s complaint also says that the then Chief Secretary Subba Rao participated in the February 27 (2002) night meeting in which it alleged Chief Minister gave orders to officers to direct law enforcement agencies to allow Hindus to give vent to their feelings in reaction to Godhra carnage. But the fact is Subba Rao was on leave on that day and instead of him it was acting Chief Secretary S K Varma who participated in the meeting. This blunder has been made by many Narendra Modi-baiters, such as weekly Outlook in its article dated 3 June 2002 trying to nail Modi forcibly. Obviously, Zakia Jafri engaged some people to do some search and make allegations. This single blunder is enough to see through the claims of people like Zakia Jafri and magazines like Outlook.

But that is not all! Many persons who had either no direct connection with the 2002 riots or had in fact played positive role in controlling the riots have been named as conspirators and abettors in the complaint filed by Zakia Jafri. These seriously militate against the established canons of law and justice. For example, former Ahmedabad police commissioner KR Kaushik who was brought on to the post to control the riots has also been named as an accused. How can Kaushik be accused as an abettor or conspirator when he had been brought in to control the riots and after whose arrival there was further improvement in law and order situation in Ahmedabad ? Actually the Commissioner P C Pandey’s removal was demanded (despite the fact that he too did a commendable job) and as the controversy escalated in 2002, Kaushik was appointed. He was appointed on 10 May 2002, after which riots virtually ended, and the Army did not need to remain in Ahmedabad within 10 days, as it left on 21 May 2002.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/10train.htm

The riots, thus, ended very soon after Kaushik took charge.

The complaint has been filed by people who either did not know this fact, or did not know the reason behind Kaushik’s appointment and the fact that after his appointment there was further improvement in law and order in Ahmedabad.

Zakia Jafri has further alleged in her complaint that the remains of the slain karsevaks were purposefully brought from Godhra to Ahmedabad “in a ceremonial procession” on February 27 after the carnage at Godhra railway station in order to instigate Hindus to target Muslims. Of course, this is again wrong on facts!

The fact is that the bodies were brought to Ahmedabad after midnight of February 27 in a very sombre atmosphere and not in a ceremonial procession. Also, the bodies were brought to the then isolated Sola Civil Hospital on the western outskirts of Ahmedabad as a precautionary measure and not to the Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital which is located in eastern Ahmedabad from where most of the killed karsevaks came. Sola Civil Hospital was in 2002 located in the far outskirts of Ahmedabad and had very little population around it. This shows the Government’s efforts to control the situation.

   Had the Government planned to instigate the Hindus then it would have brought the bodies to the Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital in Eastern Ahmedabad where most of the karsevaks resided and from where it would have been ideal to orchestrate violence against Muslims. The Government conduct clearly implies that it tried to take preventive measures to pre-empt Hindu retaliation after the Godhra carnage. We also seen various other steps taken to control and prevent violence in previous chapters.

Wild allegations

But the most unimaginable allegation she makes against the Chief Minister Narendra Modi is that while issuing instructions to his officials in the February 27 night meeting to give long rope to Hindu rioters Modi also indicated that Hindus be encouraged to “indulge in sexual violence against Muslim women”. This whole mischievous and manufactured charge has to be seen in the light of the fact that many Muslim witnesses who claimed to have witnessed acts of rape on Muslim women in their 2003 affidavit before the Supreme Court later told the SIT in May, 2009 that they had been made to make the false charge by human rights activists. India Today weekly’s report titled “Inhuman Rights”in its issue dated 5 April 2010 has, for a change, completely dismantled the human rights lobby.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Inhuman+rights/1/89840.html

In the first place, we have already seen in Myth 19 as to fake and phony this charge of Narendra Modi telling officers to go slow on Hindus or ‘allow Hindus to vent their anger’ is. Narendra Modi is also not a fool to openly give such orders to so many officials in such a meeting where any of the officers could have secretly recorded such orders or which would have had 9 witnesses against Narendra Modi. If he did want such orders to be issued, he would have done it through middlemen and other communicators being careful not to come into the picture directly! It is astonishing to see that no one with an iota of common sense has till now raised this point.  Assuming that Narendra Modi did give such instructions in that 27 Feb meeting, is it believable that he would have told police officials and other authorities to tell Hindus to ‘indulge in sexual violence against Muslim women’? This is an utterly unbelievable and far-fetched allegation. And in the third place, irrespective of what Narendra Modi said in that meeting, we know that the police did not at all allow Hindus to vent their anger the next day, or the remaining days. We say how curfew was imposed, 1000+ rounds fired on the first day including 600+ in Ahmedabad, 17 shot dead by police, 700 arrests made etc etc.

In support of her charge that Modi gave instructions to his officials not to act against Hindu rioters in the February 27 night meeting she produces only one piece of evidence, namely the deposition of former Gujarat IPS officer RB Sreekumar who told the Nanavati Commission in an affidavit and later also the SIT that the then Director General of Police VK Chakravarty, who participated in that crucial February 27 meeting, told him that the CM had directed officers to go slow against Hindu rioters and allow them to give vent to their feelings against the Muslims. Chakravarty has denied ever saying this to Sreekumar.

What Chakravarty and many other officials involved with police department at that time told the Nanavati Commission was exactly the opposite. They said Modi had told them to control the riots. Plus, Sreekumar started making anti-Modi charges in the case only after the Government denied him promotion on strong grounds. He didn’t make the same charge in his first two affidavits.

We have already seen in Myth 19 the truth of the 27 February meeting. Also note here that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam who have commented against the Gujarat Government many times, debunked the claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he was present and blamed NGOs for forcibly trying to find something against Narendra Modi. This is a must read report of the SIT.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT

Also note that Ehsan Jafri fired on the Hindu crowd outside his house in self-defense on 28 Feb 2002. This was reported by The Times of India online on 28 Feb and in weekly Outlook dated 11 March 2002 also in weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002 and also on 5 April 2010. It is a well established fact that Jafri fired on the Hindu crowd in self-defense. But Zakia Jafri denied even this basic fact as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002. That is, in its 18 March 2002 issue India Today reported that “Zakia Jafri denies that Ehsan Jafri fired on the mob”. We quote from Times of India online edition 28 Feb night at 9:47 PM “Meanwhile fire tenders which rushed to the spot were turned back by the irate mob which disallowed the Ahmedabad fire brigade (AFB) personnel and the district police from rushing to rescue…Sources in Congress Party said that the former MP after waiting in vain till 12.30 pm for official help to arrive had opened fire on the mob in self-defense, injuring four..”.

Zakia Jafri also has not bothered to mention the following facts:

1- Reinforcements did arrive (as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002) but by that time the mob had swelled to 10,000. Zakia Jafri herself said as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002 that “She had never seen such a huge mob”.

2- Though the police were overwhelmingly outnumbered and the mob did not allow the police and the fire brigade to enter Jafri’s house (as reported by Times of India in its online edition on 28 February) the police bravely fired on the crowd at a great risk to personal life and shot dead 5 Hindus outside his house and injured many others, as reported by Times of India and India Today. False claim on Ehsan Jafri calling Modi has also been made when so such call was made, this claim too has been comprehensively debunked by us in Myth 11.

3- Police saved 180 Muslims in this episode since there were 250 people inside the house and the mob killed 68 (assuming all missing were are dead) though they were overwhelmingly outnumbered.

The media hid from the public for many years that a top accused in this case was none other than Congress leader Meghsingh Chaudhary himself. He was arrested not by Gujarat police, but by the SC-appointed SIT itself in 2009. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-03-26/subverse/28032145_1_religious-symbols-religion-and-politics-gulbarga-society

Legal loopholes

There are several law sections applied in the complaint which are simply inapplicable in the manner she has done. Like Jafri has asked section 193 of IPC to be applied which is about giving false evidence in court during judicial proceedings. But this section can be applied only by the court and not an individual. Then Section six of the Commission of Inquiry Act has also been slapped on the accused by Jafri which only a commission of inquiry can apply.

Then the Protection of Human Rights Act too is wrongly invoked in the complaint whose actual prayer is that the complaint should be turned into an FIR for registering cases against Modi and other accused as conspirators and abettors in the 2002 riots.

Interestingly, the many factual and other contradictions in Jafri’s complaint show that old complaints of 2002 filed by Muslims and human rights activists with a view to building a case against the Modi government and having it pulled down under Article 356 of the Constitution had been put together in a footloose manner for Jafri by some low level lawyer in a form of one full-fledged complaint. Clearly, the situation stands reversed. Today, Narendra Modi can now file a defamation case against Jafri. The role of the media in all this is of course, disgusting. It is simply impossible that the “Gujarat-obsessed” media would not have known these facts. But they did not bother to report them. Not a single paper has ever bothered to publish these facts, so much is their hatred for Narendra Modi. The media knows that if the truth of Zakia Jafri’s complaint comes out, even the most biased judge cannot convict Narendra Modi or entertain the complaint and hence it is suppressing all these facts.

Only weekly India Today has published just some of the few errors, and that too much after the case was settled by the Supreme Court of India- when on 12 September 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the case to go back to the trial court and end its monitoring, and refused to file an FIR against Narendra Modi. What prevented weekly India Today from carrying all the errors, or most of the errors, when the complaint was filed and still in courts is a question worth asking. Perhaps it wanted the Supreme Court to entertain such a childish complaint of Jafri so that Modi could be crucified. But when it was no longer possible for the Supreme Court to entertain and monitor such a complaint, it just let slip in bits and pieces of the truth. India Today did admit that Zakia Jafri’s complaint contained some errors when it wrote “The real reason for the court’s ruling perhaps lies in the series of glaring factual errors and misplaced allegations in Zakia’s complaint. She alleged that Modi gave instructions to officials in a meeting at his residence on the night of February 27, 2002, the day 59 Hindus were killed at Godhra, that the community should be allowed to give vent to its anger against Muslims. She also alleged that the state government “sanctioned sexual violence against women”. The list of officials Zakia has named as being present at the meeting is also inaccurate. She claims the then chief secretary G. Subbarao and Modi’s secretary A.K. Sharma were present, which was not the case. Zakia also wrongly alleged that the burned bodies of the 59 victims of the Godhra carnage were brought to Ahmedabad in a ceremonial procession to inflame Hindu passions. The bodies were actually brought without any brouhaha to Ahmedabad’s western outskirts to be handed over to the relatives.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/2002-gujarat-riots-narendra-modi-supreme-court-order/1/151573.htm

 More details of this complaint’s childish nature and numerous mistakes are given comprehensively in the book, but not in this website. A special chapter on the SIT report is also in the book, which reveals everything about this complaint’s nature and the SIT’s observations.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

___________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

 

17 Comments

Myth 13: Narendra Modi said-“Every action has equal and opposite reaction”

Posted on October 8, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: Balbir Punj writes-“Blatant myths and fiction have lacerated the facts on Gujarat. The Times of India (March 3) reported Modi’s much-publicised misquote of Newton’s third law—”Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. In fact, the CM had never said such a thing and no other paper except for Times of India had carried the misquote in its original reportage. But later on, numerous editorials were penned on the basis of this canard. All his denials were thrown in the dustbin…”

Virendra Kapoor wrote in Cybernoon on 19 March 2002-

  “An angry Modi wrote to the English daily, which had first put the quote in his mouth, protesting that he had never met its correspondent nor had he an occasion to say what he had been quoted as having said and that it was only fair that the paper made amends for its wholly ‘inventive reportage.’ The newspaper editors, however, refused to do so and two weeks later were still sitting on Modi’s letter. Left to himself perhaps the paper’s senior-most editor may well have published Modi’s letter but since his writ does not run and the place is teeming with new-fangled journalists who openly talk of blacking out all news about the Sangh Parivar, and the paper’s management is only obsessed with packing nothing other than revenue-earning advertisement in its columns, Modi’s letter has not been published. Modi, therefore, is not entirely wrong in complaining of the bias of the media and the attempt to tar his image. For, the quote in the said paper was immediately recycled and rehashed by the rest of the print and audio visual media.

Inquiries reveal that no one from the paper had met the Gujarat Chief Minister on the day he is supposed to have quoted Newton’s law to its correspondent to justify the revenge killings of the minority community in Ahmedabad and other places in the state. The paper’s editors too have concluded that the said quote was ‘invented’ by the correspondent to indicate ‘the attitude of the Modi government.’ Indeed, it was all a cooked up job to justify what the paper’s deputy bureau chief in New Delhi said at a gathering of secularist scribes to ‘fight the fascist forces and not to give them any space in ‘our’ papers.’

Time the owners woke up to this little upstart who seeks to usurp the ownership of their paper for his own brand of fascism.

Meanwhile, Modi is contemplating taking his complaint to the Press Council of India.”

Even the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigating Team (SIT) said in its report submitted to the court that there is no evidence at all of Narendra Modi saying “Every action has equal and opposite reaction” and his statements were quoted out-of-context and twisted.


When anyone makes an allegation, he has to prove it. No one has ever been able to prove that Modi ever uttered these words. And these people- far from apologizing- have not even published Modi’s denials.

Some more details of this issue are given in the book but not in this website.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

______________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

 

16 Comments

Myth 11: In Ehsan Jafri’s case, women were raped

Posted on October 8, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

Fact: The following is some part of Arundhati Roy’s article in weekly Outlook dated 6 May 2002 on the Ehsan Jafri case:

Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me what the matter was. It wasn’t very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carved ‘OM‘ on her forehead…

A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. [Our comment: Notice how in this article, as late as May 2002, even Arundhati Roy does not claim that Jafri called Modi! All these claims of calls to Police Commissioner, Chief Secretary are false. The SIT examined call records of the Police Commissioner Pandey and found that no call was made by Jafri. And that day, the Chief Secretary was abroad, out of India on leave! But even Roy doesn't name Modi!] The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and dismembered him. Of course it’s only a coincidence that Jaffri was a trenchant critic of Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, during his campaign for the Rajkot Assembly by-election in February…

Outlook had the guts to publish a rebuttal from a senior functionary of the BJP, the then Rajya Sabha MP Balbir Punj. The following was the reply:

Fiddling With Facts As Gujarat Burns

Introduction: The Roys in the media are harming India with half-truths and worse.

“(Here Balbir Punj quotes some sentences from Roy’s article dated 6th May 2002)…

That was the Goddess of small things, Arundhati Roy, painting the big picture of Gujarat in Democracy: Who’s she when she’s at home? (Outlook,May 6, 2002). Roy sums here neatly almost all the charges against the Sangh Parivar. When a reputed weekly like Outlook publishes a Booker Prize-winner, it is meant to be serious commentary.(NOTE: Here we completely disagree with Balbir Punj. In our opinion, Outlook is not a reputed weekly but a weekly run by a Congress sychophant loyalist Vinod Mehta, and Arundhati Roy, though a Booker Prize winner, is no respected writer whose writing is serious commentary, but an ultra-Left author whose articles are not taken seriously by now as she has written many imaginary stories full of hyperbole). And concomitantly, Roy has put her brilliant linguistic skills to the service of “truth”. Read her graphic details—”The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burnt them alive”. Roy speaks with the confidence of an eyewitness. Alternatively, she must’ve access to an eyewitness. Anyway, it reads heart-rendingly honest.

Heart-rending, yes, but honest, no. Jaffri was killed in the riots but his daughters were neither “stripped” nor “burnt alive”. T.A. Jafri, his son, in a front-page interview titled Nobody knew my father’s house was the target (Asian Age, May 2, Delhi edition), says, “Among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad.”

So, Roy is lying—for surely Jafri is not. But what about the hundreds of media lies that haven’t been exhumed as yet? Her seven-page long (approx: 6,000 words) hate charter against India and the Sangh Parivar is woven around just two specific cases of human tragedy, one of which—by now, we know for sure—is a piece of fiction…

…She terms Gujarat the “petri dish” of the Sangh Parivar. The fact is that Godhra has been used as a crucible by the secular fundamentalists. No wonder, after the roasting of the Ram sevaks, they, while condemning the crime, blamed the victims. Many of them invented events such as a quarrel with hawkers, misbehaviour with women and shouting of provocative slogans to justify the horrendous crime…

…But was what happened in Gujarat a “pogrom” targeted at Muslims? Loss of 900-odd innocent lives (both Hindus and Muslims) is definitely not a “genocide” of any one community. Yet it is one more shameful event in the long and unfortunate chain of communal riots in India, since the 1893 Bombay and Azamgarh riots. Beginning from the 1714 Holi riots in the Mughal period, Ahmedabad itself has witnessed no less than 10 major recorded riots.

The Sangh Parivar was not there in 1714, nor was it a dominant force during the ‘69 and ‘85 riots. So what explains these riots when Gujarat was not a ‘Sangh Parivar petri dish’?

…Following Godhra, massive spontaneous violence broke out in various parts of Gujarat against the Muslims. Since the rioters were mainly Hindus, they also accounted for about 75 per cent of those who fell to police bullets in the first three days. In fact, till April 18 Hindus accounted for more deaths in police firing than Muslims.

But for almost three weeks now, the violence has been led by Muslims against Hindus and, naturally, a bulk of the casualties are accounted for by them. The police have booked 34,000 rioters, majority of whom are Hindus. Both communities have suffered heavy loss of business and property in the arson and looting. While rioters are communal in picking their targets, looters are not—and they target at random. One lakh Muslims are struggling in relief camps, but so are 40,000 Hindus. This is a horrible riot, which is sad enough, but why call it a genocide? Whom does it help? Not the riot victims, only our enemies across the border.

The country hasn’t suffered so much loss of face in the world as it has now, though it is like one of the scores of riots India has seen. Why? The obvious culprits are those who set ablaze a compartment full of innocent kar sevaks at Godhra and those who indulged in the senseless violence in the following weeks. But the real villains in tarring India’s image are the Roys in the media and a section of public life, who mix half-truths with fiction to settle their ideological or political scores with the Sangh Parivar.

Roy (a role model for several in the secular pack) opens her hate charter with the case of a woman named Sayeeda “whose stomach was ripped open and stuffed with burning rags”. I heard similar horror stories in Parliament. The most frequently quoted were the cases of women raped (in some cases gang-raped), their stomachs ripped open, foetuses taken out and paraded on swords or trishuls. But no one was able to give me even one specific case with all the particulars. Roy gave one, but it proved to be a piece of fiction…

… Blatant myths and fiction have lacerated the facts on Gujarat. The Times of India(March 3) reported Modi’s much-publicised misquote of Newton’s third law—”Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. In fact, the CM had never said such a thing and no other paper except for Times of India had carried the misquote in its original reportage. But later on, numerous editorials were penned on the basis of this canard. All his denials were thrown in the dustbin…

…The Editor’s Guild came down heavily on the Gujarati press and hailed the role of the English press in coverage of the riots. The former might have been guilty of exaggeration but I am sure it has not concocted stories the way the Roys did in the English media. Surprisingly, the Guild has nothing critical to say on the role of the electronic media and of the Roys, guilty of blackening India’s name, generating more communal hate at a critical time and demonising a section of citizens through half-truths and complete lies. Some rioters may be guilty of rape and should be punished for their heinous crimes, but what about those who have raped the truth and the country in the last two months?”

This really gave the game up. After this, Arundhati Roy wrote “An apology”. The full text of that apology is reproduced here:

To the Jaffri Family, An Apology

Democracy

In a situation like the one that prevails in Gujarat, when the police are reluctant to register FIRs, when the administration is openly hostile to those trying to gather facts, and when the killings go on unabated—then panic, fear and rumour play a pivotal role.(Note how she blames others for her fault!) People who have disappeared are presumed dead, people who have been dismembered and burnt cannot be identified, and people who are distraught and traumatized are incoherent. So even when those of us who write try and use the most reliable sources, mistakes can happen.

But in an atmosphere so charged with violence, grief and mistrust, its important to correct mistakes that are pointed out.

There is a factual error in my essay Democracy: Where’s she when she’s at home? (May 6). In describing the brutal killing of Ehsan Jaffri, I have said that his daughters had been killed along with their father. It has subsequently been pointed out to me that this is not correct. Eyewitness accounts say that Ehsan Jaffri was killed along with his three brothers and two nephews. His daughters were not among the 10 women who were raped and killed in Chamanpura that day.

I apologise to the Jaffri family for compounding their anguish. I’m truly sorry.

My information (mis-information, as it turned out) was cross-checked from two sources. Time magazine (March 11) in an article by Meenakshi Ganguly and Anthony Spaeth; and “Gujarat Carnage 2002: A Report to the Nation” by an independent fact-finding mission which included K.S. Subrahmanyam, former IGP Tripura, and S.P. Shukla, former finance secretary. I spoke to Mr Subrahmanyam about the error. He said his information at that time came from a senior police official.(What was the name of the senior police official? Neither Subrahmanyam nor Arundhati Roy reveal it!)

This and other genuine errors in recounting the details of the violence in Gujarat in no way alters the substance of what journalists, fact-finding missions, or writers like myself are saying.

The link is: http://www.outlookindia.com/rants.asp?type=single&id=20020527133759

Years later, Balbir Punj wrote in weekly Organiser dated 9 July 2006:

“Some four years ago I had a clash in print with Arundhati Roy. The occasion was the Gujarat riots that had come as a windfall to ‘secular’ brigade’s publicity campaign. Those ‘secularists’ are no where visible, not even with a telescope, when Hindus are killed in Doda...

Roy had begun her charter of hate with another damning description: “Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me what the matter was. It wasn’t very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carved ‘OM’ on her forehead”.

Shocked by this despicable “incident”, I got in touch with the Gujarat government. The police investigations revealed that no such case, involving someone called Sayeeda, had been reported either in urban or rural Baroda. Subsequently, the police sought Roy’s help to identify the victim and seek access to witnesses who could lead them to those guilty of this crime. But the police got no cooperation. Instead, Roy, through her lawyer, replied that the police had no power to issue summons. Thus she hedged behind technical excuses. I took up this incident in my rejoinder published as Dissimulation In Word and Images (The Outlook, July 8, 2002).”

See link:

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=138&page=8

However, here it is worth mentioning a couple of things which even Balbir Punj did not mention. This apology is also false, since Roy claims that 10 women were raped and killed that day. In reality, after reading the then English newspapers in the first week of March 2002, one finds no mention of any rapes at all. These stories of rape starting coming out in the middle of March 2002, after Time magazine concocted lies in its issue of 11 March 2002, copied by Arundhati Roy. Neither Roy nor the Time correspondent can point out any rapes, because they just didn’t happen. Roy also apologizes to the Jafri family- not to the BJP or Narendra Modi for defaming them by her incorrect claim. She should also have done that. And she should also have apologized to the country. Note how while giving the apology Roy makes sure that is only “To the Jafri family”.

Second incorrect fact- the police did nothing to stop the mob in Jafri’s house. India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002 clearly admits that at least 5 people were shot dead by the police outside Jafri’s house. The police also saved the lives of some 200 Muslims, since 68 out of the 250 people inside the house died. Jafri’s widow Zakia Jafri also said in her statement to the Police, recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on 6 March 2002 that the police saved her and many others. It was impossible for the police to control the mob of around 10,000+ people and the mob had gone crazy after Jafri fired from his revolver on the crowd, which injured 15 Hindus and killed 1- as per the SIT report on page 1. But despite this the police saved 200 Muslims in this episode. It was impossible for the police to control the mob of around 10,000 people- but they managed to disperse the mob by 8 PM on 28 February- according The Times of India’s online report at 9:41 PM published the same day. And nowhere did The Times of India accuse the police of not doing anything. On the contrary, it said that the furious mob, gone crazy by Jafri firing on it, did not allow fire tenders to reach the house. And this Times of India report POSTED ONLINE at 2:34 PM of 28 February also says that police fired on the crowd injuring 6, who were taken to hospital where 3 were critical at that time, and ultimately 5 died.

Out of the 250 people in the complex- police saved around 200, at least 180. 

    The Human Rights Watch in its report quotes 38 year old Mehboob Mansoori, a witness who lost 18 from his family at Gulbarg Society as saying: “Early in the day at 10:30 the police commissioner came over and said don’t worry. He spoke to Jaffrey and said something would work out then left. The name of the commissioner of police that visited in the morning is P.C. Pandey, commissioner of police Ahmedabad…”

Actually the testimony of this witness is a poorly constructed story. S K Modi in his book “Godhra: The Missing Rage” had quoted this story and completely dismantled it. But even he mentions that P C Pande visited the place at 10:30 AM.But the SC-appointed SIT has dismissed this claim after talking to P C Pandey and examining all evidence and said that instead it was Congress Mahamantri Ambalal Nadia who came to meet Jafri at Gulbarg Society at 10 AM and left 10:30 AM. The SIT has said in its report that: “It is established that Shri P C Pandey did not visit Gulbarg  Society in the forenoon of 28 Feb”.

Also Roy says-“His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene.” What rubbish again! Police vans outside his house not only intervened, they shot dead 5 rioters outside his house and saved the lives of 200 Muslims, at a great risk to their own personal life.

Note here that Roy does not claim that Jafri telephoned the Chief Minister Narendra Modi as late as May 2002! Now- lies are out that Jafri actually phoned Modi as was abused by Modi on phone! For full truth of this lie, read Myth 23.

  The Times of India in its online edition on 28 February 2002 reported at 2:34 PM :

“Ahmedabad: At least six persons were injured when police opened fire to disperse a rampaging mob in Meghaninagar area of the city on Thursday afternoon. The injured were brought to civil hospital where the condition of at least three is stated to be serious…the incident took place at Chamanpura area under Meghaninagar police station…”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com//india/Police-open-fire-in-Ahmedabad-6-hurt/articleshow/2360713.cms

That is, as early as 2:34 PM itself police had injured 6 outside Ehsan Jafri’s house and actually 5 were killed in their firing and 11 injured. This despite the hopeless situation, which is clear from reading The Times’ report that Fire Brigade and Police were not allowed to be reached by the mob. Though police gained control only after 8 PM- they fired much before that- before 2 PM and saved 200 Muslims. Kalupur was already under curfew before 2:34 PM. The SIT report also says on page 1 that the police lathi-charged the crowd, fired 124 rounds and burst 134 tear-gas shells at Ehsan Jafri’s place, and killed 4 Hindus in firing and injured 11.

We quote from Times of India online edition 28 Feb night at 9:41 PM “Meanwhile fire tenders which rushed to the spot (Chamanpura- Ehsan Jafri case) were turned back by the irate mob which disallowed the Ahmedabad Fire Brigade (AFB) personnel and the district police from rushing to rescueSources in Congress Party said that the former MP after waiting in vain till 12.30 pm for official help to arrive had opened fire on the mob in self-defense, injuring four..”. Thus the Police and the Fire Brigade ‘rushed to the rescue’ and did not indulge in neglect of duty.

Some other questions which can be raised here are: Why didn’t Jafri call any CONGRESS LEADER and ask the Congress Party to assemble 500 workers outside his house to save his life? Why couldn’t the Congress Party have do anything to save its former MP? Jafri was reported to have called Amarsinh Chaudhary, the then PCC chief, and indeed made several calls to CONGRESS LEADERS also. The media hid from the public for many years that a top accused in this case was none other than Congress leader Meghsingh Chaudhary himself. He was arrested not by Gujarat police, but by the SC-appointed SIT itself in 2009. One link:  http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-03-26/subverse/28032145_1_religious-symbols-religion-and-politics-gulbarga-society

     Even the National Commission for Women in its report stated that the media needlessly exaggerated the plight of women victims of the communal carnage. The NCW team visited Gujarat on 10, 11 and 12 April 2002. On 22nd April 2002, Tehelka’s website said–“Nafisa Hussain, a member of the NCW, has gone on record saying that several organisations and the media have needlessly blown out of proportion the violence suffered by minority women in the communal riots of Gujarat.”

More details of this issue are given comprehensively in the book, but not in this website. A special chapter on the SIT report is also in the book, which reveals the whole truth and the SIT’s observations.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

____________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

 

25 Comments

Myth 6: Gujarat riots were the ‘worst ever massacre’ in India

Posted on October 8, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

Fact: Gujarat riots of 2002 AD were much lesser as compared to Gujarat’s past riots of 1969 and 1985 AD. Gujarat also saw riots of a large scale in 1980, 1982, 1990-91- 92. Some people claim that even the 1987 Ahmedabad riots were worse than the 2002 riots in the state. And the 2002 riots were again nothing as compared to pre-Independence riots of the 1940’s in Ahmedabad when the Hindu community took a sound beating. In the 1960s, in 10 years there were 2938 riots, as reported by the Reddy Commission, coming to an average of 3 riots every 4 days. In 1969, curfew was imposed for 65 days in a row. In 1985, violence continued for as long as six months, from February to July.

And there were many more riots far far worse than the 2002 Gujarat riots in India- not to talk of the 1947 Partition riots. Let it be repeated here that we consider even a single killing as one too many. There is no justification for a single death, be it a Hindu or a Muslim, but that doesn’t give anyone the license to lie that “The Gujarat riots were the ‘worst-ever massacre’ in India”.

Much worse riots took place in New Delhi in 1984 under the Congress Party’s rule. Officially 3,000 people were killed. Ranganath Mishra Commission gave the number of 3874 out of which 2307 were in Delhi alone. Riots were also not limited to New Delhi then. They occurred in places like West Bengal, Tripura as well. Killings of more than 40,000 Indians have happened in Jammu and Kashmir state of India. 1000 people were killed in Gujarat in 2002 AD, for the sins of 2000 attackers of Godhra. Out of them, more than 250 are Hindus. Post-Godhra riots were neither ‘pogrom’, nor ‘genocide’, nor ‘massacre’. They were not even ‘massacre’, not to talk of the ‘worst-ever massacre in India.’ Despite this, self-styled secularists like Teesta Setalvad, Harsh Mander, Amulya Ganguly, Prafull Bidwai and some others, like Tehelka, political rivals thriving on Muslim votebank, etc have called the 2002 riots as ‘Gujarat massacre’- and lied that there was “Gujarat massacre of Muslims with the sanction of Narendra Modi”. These people have demanded action against Modi. (An article on some facts about the media can be read here “NDTV is CPM Today. And another article which is worth reading is “The channels strategy of attacks”. Note that these articles are purely the view of the blogger and not of Gujaratriots.com )

There was no “Gujarat massacre of Muslims” in the 2002 riots but plain Hindu-Muslim riots in which hundreds of Hindus were also killed by Muslims even after the gruesome and horrific roasting of 59 Hindus- including 25 women and 15 children in Godhra and 40,000 Hindus were thrown out of their homes by Muslims despite comprising only 11 % of the population and that too in a state ruled by a Hindu party like the BJP with a man like Narendra Modi as Chief Minister.

The worst ever massacre was of the Hindus during the medieval times. Timur massacred some 1 lakh Hindus on a single day in Delhi in 1399. Nadirshah, the invader, massacred three to four lakh people in 1739 in Delhi. The massacres of Hindus in medieval India would have put Hitler’s Nazi death-chambers of the 1930s to shame. These massacres happened under all the medieval rulers of India including Akbar- who ordered killing of 30,000 Hindus in February 1568. Mahmud of Ghazni also massacred many Hindus in between 1001-1027 AD. Mohammad Ghori also did the same between 1192 to 1206. So did all others. The invaders were like a cloud of locusts destroying and devouring everything on their way. In fact, Professor K.S.Lal in his book “Growth of Muslim population in India” has said that according to his calculations, the Hindu population declined by 80 million between AD 1000 and AD 1525- probably the biggest ever holocaust in world history. 8 crore Hindus were slaughtered by foreign Muslims in this period.

For just a brief and cursory (very very brief and very very cursory)history of Islam in India, see this. This doesn’t focus on the mass murders and massacres of Hindus with detail, which have been given in the book (“Gujarat Riots: The True Story”) but not included in this website.

http://historyofmuslimattacks.blogspot.in/2013/02/islam-in-india-history.html

Pakistan and Bangladesh were also parts of India, and the Hindu population in West Pakistan has declined from 20 % in 1947 to around 1% now- the biggest unreported genocide, massacre and holocaust in recent times. The media and the government did nothing to raise this issue with Pakistan. Similarly, the Hindu population in Bangladesh has declined from 34 % in 1901 to 29 % in 1947, and to 10 % in 2001, and its around 7 % now. Even in India, the Hindu population has declined from 85 % in 1951 to 80.5 % in 2001- and by now, it must be in the 70s. The liberals in the Indian media, human rights activists, and Indian government have never ever raised this complete annihilation of Hindus by Pakistan ever in the world at any forum. On the contrary, the biased people in the media have exaggerated and inflated the case of Gujarat riots along with the Indian media and whitewashed Muslims’ guilt in annihilating Hinduism in Pakistan and Bangladesh and also Kashmir.

Pakistan’s TALLEST Hindu leader, Sudham Chand Chawla was killed in broad daylight in Jacobabad on 29 Jan 2002 while returning from his rice mill. The culprits were not nabbed, nor was any compensation given to his family. He had in fact been complaining to the so-called civil society of Pakistan for years about the threat to his life, to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and yet nobody did anything. If this was the case with the BIGGEST Hindu leader, then what must be the story of ordinary Hindus, who have already been reduced from 20 % in 1947 to just 1 % now?

http://www.sudhamchandchawla.com/

Looking at the modern, independent India, these riots were still very lesser in intensity. The worst ever massacre in independent India was of the Hindus in Kashmir, which continues till date. After that, nothing was worse than the 1984 riots, when the Sikhs were massacred by the ruling Congress Party. In Bhagalpur, Bihar under the Congress rule itself more than 1400 people were killed, most of whom were Muslims, after Muslims threw bombs on Hindu localities, and then suffered in retaliation.

More details are given in the book but not included in this website.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

36 Comments

Myth 2: Muslims were ‘butchered’ in Gujarat

Posted on October 8, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

Fact: Undoubtedly, Muslims were killed in one-sided attacks in many places in the state, like in Naroda Patiya, Gulbarg Society, Naroda Gram, Sadarpura, Ode and other places, but by and large, the riots were not one-sided, and Muslims were hardly the cattle hiding from the slaughter house. As we have seen in a couple of earlier chapters, Muslims were equally on the offensive, at least after the first three days. Muslims killed Hindus brutally in Himmatnagar, Danilimda, and Sindhi Market and other areas of Ahmedabad, as reported by weekly India Today.

To read the full story of India Today-

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020415/states.html

See paragraphs 8,9,10,11 and 15 of this story in India Today

The Hindu reported that as early as 1st March 2002 itself, Muslims started violence in Ahmedabad. (See The Hindu’s report on this subject in its issue dated 2nd March 2002).

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/02/stories/2002030203050100.htm

See last line of 9th paragraph from the top.

Reports of The Hindu on this subject throughout the months of March and April 2002 make it clear that Muslims were on the offensive, called the shots in many areas, drove out Hindus from their houses, started the riots in many cases. India Today’s report on this subject in its issue dated 15 April 2002 also points out this same thing. To read the full story of “Attacks on Hindus”, read the book.

Around 40,000 Hindus were forced to take shelter in refugee camps. The Dalits suffered heavily in the riots, only at the hands of the Muslims. On 21 March 2002, 50 Hindu shops were burnt in Ahmedabad’s Revdi Bazaar that caused a loss of 15 crore rupees.

See link:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ahmedabad/Rioters-torch-50-shops-at-Revdi-Bazaar/articleshow/4609603.cms

The Muslims attacked the Hindus on 1st and 2nd March 2002 as well. They are on record starting as many as 157 riots in Gujarat after 3rd March 2002. They did not allow the police and the Army to search for criminals in their areas. They pelted the police and even the Army with bullets and stones, when they arrived to conduct search operations in Muslim areas. The Muslims formed human chains and cut off power at night so that the criminals could flee with weapons (from the Army).

Link: http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020415/states.shtml - Paragraph 15 from top.

Several judgments of different courts in Gujarat have sentenced 80 Muslims for rioting after post Godhra. On one occasion, 7 Muslims and on another occasion, 9 Muslims were convicted and punished for rioting and killing after Godhra. The full details of these convictions can be seen in the Chapter “Some court Judgments” given in the book but not in this website and in “Myth 21″.

The conviction of Muslims proves that Muslims were equally on the offensive-and not the cattle hiding from the slaughter house that the media makes them out to be.

To see a link for the conviction of 9 Muslims in Ahmedabad- on 28 March 2006- click here

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=65065

7 Muslims were convicted on 18 March 2006-

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=174094

4 Muslims convicted on 18 May 2006-

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/postgodhra-riots-dna-test-nails-4-killers/4719/

A must see article on the role of the Gujarat Government in controlling violence is this:

http://www.gujaratriots.com/29/role-of-the-government-in-controlling-violence/

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

5 Comments

Answers to Outlook’s 25 questions

Posted on March 27, 2012 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

 Sundeep Dougal writing in the OutlookIndia posed 25 questions to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi based on the testimony given by Mr. Modi to the Supreme Court appointed SIT.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280034

Mr. Modi’s testimony was meant to be confidential but that has not prevented media outlets from leaking stories based on it. Earlier in the week The Hindustan Times leaked the testimony in its entirety on its website. All the answers which Narendra Modi gave to SITs questions are leaked here http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/modi.pdf

Here we are answering ALL Of the questions raised. (Some of the points in the answers are taken from OFFSTUMPED’s rebuttal to Outlook, because they are very genuine. Anyone can write any rejoinder to anyone, but we have taken only the points we deem are very genuine. Outlook wrote a counter-rebuttal to OFFSTUMPED too). But will Outlook dare to publish them on its website? And after answering all the questions, we will ask a lot of questions to not just Outlook, but the entire media. Will they be ready to answer those? Before that, let everyone, specially Outlook, see Our Challenge

We have opened a twitter account at last after persistent demand from readers. You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/#!/Gujaratriotscom The author of these 25 questions Sundeep Dougal too is on twitter. His account is : https://twitter.com/#!/SundeepDougal Now he has been informed by us about our answers to his 25 questions on twitter in a tweet sent by us. You too can contact him on twitter about our answers. In the comments section on Outlook’s 25 questions page, one of the readers by the name of Rahul posted the link of our answers. Sundeep Dougal posted the link of his counter-rebuttal to Offstumped. The reader Rahul has informed us that Outlook has deleted 2 of his comments and banned him from posting any further comments. When Outlook and Sundeep Dougal were given our 25 answers, they shied away, banned people like Rahul from posting. Their answer is “We have replied to OFFSTUMPED”. So what? Offstumped and our answers are different. Remember that Sundeep Dougal will give every possible excuse to avoid responding to us, or even posting our answers’ link on the website of Outlook. You can ask him about this on twitter.

Question #1 – Mr Modi, in an interview on March 1, 2002, to Zee TV you said about the post-Godhra riots, “A chain of action and reaction is going on. We want that neither should there be action, nor reaction.” Don’t such statements echo the ‘earth-shaking’ rationalisations offered by Rajiv Gandhi after the 1984 riots?

OUR ANSWER: The exact words are “Kriya pratikriya chal rahi hein. Hum chahte hein kin na kriya ho na pratikriya ho”. How can such a statement be rationalizing the riots? This was just a statement in a long interview . This is nothing like the lie concocted by Times of India first on 2nd March 2002 misquoting the Chief Minister as having said “Every Action has equal and opposite reaction”. This lie was copied and further carried on by almost all the media, including weekly Outlook. Full details of this trash are given in Myth 13- on our website “Every action has equal and opposite reaction”. Far from Narendra Modi giving any provocative statement, it is media, especially papers like Times of India and Outlook who inflamed the situation by lying and misquoting a big and important Chief Minister as quoting Newton’s third law, not being able to prove it ever, and not even publishing Narendra Modi’s denials ever since.

Since today they cannot accuse Narendra Modi of having said that “Every action has equal and opposite reaction” since that lie has been conclusively rebuked, (In Myth 13)- and also been clarified by Narendra Modi in his leaked answers to SITs 60+ questions, they has now chosen some non-issue of one line in an interview to Zee News which is nowhere like saying Newton’s third law. What Narendra Modi was saying on that day was that on 27 Feb occurred Godhra and the reaction to it happened on 28 Feb- there was a minority backlash on 1st March. , it was a statement of fact if one pays attention to the situation as of 1st March 2002. Reporting on the events of 1st March 2002, The Hindu newspaper on its front page in the edition dated 2nd March 2002 had this to say:

Despite the imposition of indefinite curfew, sporadic incidents of violence, group clashes and stoning continued throughout the night and during the day today in the walled city and labour-dominated eastern parts of Ahmedabad. But unlike Thursday (i.e. 28 Feb) when one community was entirely at the receiving end, the minority backlash (on Friday, March 1) caused further worsening of the situation …. Police presence had little impact on the two communities pelting stones at each other in Bapunagar, Gomtipur, Dariapur, Shahpur, Naroda and other areas from where incidents of firing had been reported. But there were no reports of casualty. Pitched battle was continuing between the two communities late in the evening (of Friday, 1 March).”

Thus the chain of action-reaction was happening, which SHOULD NOT HAPPEN was also what he said. There is absolutely nothing can be held against Narendra Modi here.

Notice how the question-asker totally ignores the issue of “Newton’s 3rd law” allegation, and gives no apology to Narendra Modi for it, and does not even bother to mention that Modi was defamed by the media including Outlook for it.

 The Times of India was the only newspaper to report on 2nd March 2002 accusing Narendra Modi of saying “Every Action has equal and opposite reaction”- and no other paper except for The Times carried this news in its original reporting on that day. Had Modi really said that, the whole media would have gone downtown on the next day. And since there are official records available which show that no one from The Times of India met Narendra Modi on that day, it is absolutely clear that the misquote was invented by The Times of India. A true paper with an iota of honesty will show the true context in which Narendra Modi said that sentence in that Zee News interview. Outlook trying to crucify Narendra Modi on this issue is like a thief asking the victim to apologize. Since Outlook launched one of the worst campaigns against Narendra Modi and the BJP on the Gujarat riots issue- and repeated the outrageous lie defaming the Chief Minister Narendra Modi accusing him of saying “Every action has equal and opposite reaction” and inflaming the situation by needlessly infuriating the Muslims, Outlook is the one which is guilty of inflammatory and defamatory writing- instead of apologizing for it, it wants Narendra Modi to apologize!

Quoting this statement made on Zee News now is a forcible attempt to desperately look at the past and dig out anything that can be found against Narendra Modi. Note that no one even noticed this sentence made by Narendra Modi to Zee News in an interview for so many years. So when the false charge on “Every Action has equal and opposite reaction failed”, Outlook forcibly tried to bring out this one line out-of-context in an interview to Zee News which no one even remembered.

Question #2 – A few days later, you told Outlook (Mar 18, ’02), “You have to remember that communalism runs high in Gujarat—even a small provocation can lead to violence and Godhra was a very big incident.” Did you not stoke that spark when it was decided that the bodies of Godhra victims would be taken to Ahmedabad?

OUR ANSWER: What a logic! So the spark was stoked by bringing bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad but not by the shocking Godhra massacre! Again, absolutely not. Bringing bodies to Ahmedabad did not have the slightest impact on the riots. Bodies were brought after midnight on 27 Feb i.e. at 3:30 am of 28 Feb in Western Ahmedabad’s isolated Sola hospital (as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002 and Times of India online on 28 Feb 2002) while the riots began on 28 Feb at 11 AM and took place in far-off places like Naroda Patiya and Chamanpura (Ehsan Jafri case). And what about the riots that occurred OUTSIDE Ahmedabad- in Vadodara, Rajkot and other areas? Did they also occur because bodies were brought from Ahmedabad to Godhra at 3:30 am on 28 Feb? The context in which Modi rightly said that even a small spark can lead to violence is because Gujarat is a very sensitive state (or, was, till 2002) where trivial things like kite flying and cricket matches cause violence. Compared to that, Godhra massacre was unparalleled in human history, where Muslims locked 59 Hindus including 40 women and children and old in a train, pushed them back as they tried to come out, watched them roast to death in front of their eyes without letting a single child or old person come out of the train. Such a terrible situation was controlled in 3 days in Gujarat and in a communally ultra-sensitive place like Ahmedabad in just 2 days. Outlook weekly reported in the last line of its cover story in its issue of 11 March 2002 covering events till 28 Feb 2002 that: ” Gujarat has always been a communal tinderbox and even a small spark ignites big trouble. The ghost of Godhra looks set to walk its streets for months.” It is in this context that that Narendra Modi said to Outlook in its issue of 18 March 2002 that even a small spark can lead to violence. Compare the horrific roasting of 59 Hindus in Godhra with the trivial reasons that sparked earlier riots. India Today weekly also reported in the last line of its cover story in its issue of 11 March 2002 also covering events till 28 February that: “They will have time to react. The bloody cycle of violence so familiar in Gujarat may have just begun.” So India Today and Outlook knew on February 28 itself that a bloody cycle of violence had begun in Gujarat and could continue in Gujarat for several days. But in fact, it stopped only after 3 days, though petty rioting continued subsequently in Ahmedabad, Vadodara and some places near Godhra. Outlook should praise Modi for controlling violence in 3 days and in ultra-sensitive Ahmedabad in just 2 days while it itself expected months of violence.

For Outlook, the spark that lead to violence was the decision to bring bodies to Ahmedabad at 3:30 am from Godhra, not the shocking massacre of 59 Hindus in Godhra! As a matter of honesty, let the media ask this question- what would have happened if 2,000 Hindus had locked 59 Muslims in a train including 40 women and children and roasted them to coal in Karachi Railway station in Pakistan? Had Hindus dared to do that, each and every Hindu in Pakistan would have been killed after horrible tortures. What would have happened had minority Blacks done so to majority Whites in a country like, say, Britain? Even such an inhuman killing did not make the media’s heart melt and instead it kept insulting the dead by blaming them for ‘provoking’ the incident.

In the first place, since most of the killed karsewaks resided in Ahmedabad, it was only natural that their bodies be brought to Ahmedabad to be handed over to their relatives. In Godhra, the situation was tense on 27 February and had the bodies been kept there, it would have inflamed the situation there with a strong chance of retaliation on Muslims in Godhra itself. So was in the best of interests to get the bodies out of Godhra as soon as possible. Also, it would have been very inconvenient for relatives to come to Godhra which was under curfew! The question asker seems to forget that Godhra was under curfew.

The remains of the slain karsevaks were brought from Godhra to Ahmedabad on February 27 after the carnage at Godhra railway station . The bodies were brought to Ahmadabad after midnight of February 27 at 3:30 am in a very sombre atmosphere and not in a ceremonial procession. Plus, the bodies were brought to the then isolated Sola Civil Hospital on the western outskirts of Ahmedabad as a precautionary measure and not to the Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital which is located in eastern Ahmedabad from where most of the killed Ramsevaks came. Sola Civil Hospital was in 2002 located in the far outskirts of Ahmedabad and had very little population around it. This shows the Government’s efforts to control the situation. Had the Government planned to instigate the Hindus then it would have brought the bodies to the Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital in Eastern Ahmedabad where most of the Ramsevaks resided and from where it would have been ideal to orchestrate violence against Muslims. This shows that it tried to take preventive measures to preempt Hindu reaction following Godhra carnage.

The Godhra massacre occurred on February 27 at 8 AM. At 8:30 AM to 9 AM Chief Minister Narendra Modi- then in Ahmedabad / Gandhinagar- was informed about the carnage. Modi gave ‘shoot-at-sight’  and ‘curfew’ orders in Godhra at 9:45 am, within 2 hours. ‘Shoot-at-sight’ orders in Godhra were primarily aimed at Hindus who could have retaliated in Godhra. The leading English daily from South India- The Hindu in its issue dated 28 February 2002 reported that- “The Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra”.

The same day- The Times of India reported in a report titled “Shoot-at-sight orders, curfew in Godhra” -

The Gujarat government imposed an indefinite curfew and issued shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra after 57 people were killed and several injured when a mob set the Sabarmati express on fire. Four bogies of the train were set on fire by miscreants at Godhra station…”

See link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2256789.cms

This report was posted at 1:37 PM. This shows that Modi’s claim of imposing curfew at 9:45 AM was absolutely true (considering the time it must have taken for The Times of India to get this news, make an article, proof-read it, edit it and post it on its website).

The same day- The Tribune (published from Chandigarh) – gave a report titled-“Sabarmati Express set ablaze- 57 dead -‘Ram sevaks’ among victims, shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra” and the report said-

“Indefinite curfew was clamped and the shoot-at-sight order issued in Godhra town immediately after the incident…”(Notice the words IMMEDIATELY AFTER)

See link: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020228/main1.htm

Also, note that if the bodies had not been brought to Ahmedabad and been kept in Godhra and retaliation taken in Godhra, OUTLOOK and all other Modi-haters would have cried that “Modi deliberately kept the bodies in a communally-charged Godhra so as to instigate Hindus to retaliate in Godhra and did not bring them to Ahmedabad though the relatives and victims were from Ahmedabad”. While bringing the bodies to Ahmedabad, care was taken to bring the bodies after midnight in a very somber atmosphere.

Had Narendra Modi been irresponsible, (knowing that even a small spark can ignite violence) he would have brought the bodies in day time (which is the ideal time for relatives to take them instead of at 3:30 am, which is very inconvenient for relatives and at which time it is very difficult to instigate violence!) instead of after mid night, in a ‘ceremonial procession’ instead of a sober way. Most importantly, bodies could have been brought to Eastern Ahmedabad’s hospital from where the karsewaks resided. Outlook has deliberately ignored all these points, all these steps taken by Narendra Modi and tried to hold him guilty whereas he should in fact be applauded for :

1- Bringing the bodies to Ahmedabad instead of keeping them in Godhra so as to calm matters in Godhra and make it easy for relatives

2- Bringing them to Sola Civil Hospital in Western Ahmedabad after midnight at 3:30 am (as reported by weekly India Today of 18 March 02 & Times of India on 28 Feb) instead of in day time so that chances of retaliation were very low

3- Bringing them in a sober atmosphere instead of ceremonial procession

4- Bringing them to Western Ahmedbad’s hospital at the outskirts of the city where the Muslim population was negligible instead of Eastern Ahmedabad where the karsewaks resided from and from where it would have been ideal to instigate violence against Muslims.

NARENDRA MODI HIMSELF MADE AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN PEACE IN AN APPEAL BROADCAST ON NATIONAL TV (DOORDARSHAN) ON 28 FEBRUARY AFTERNOON.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRMR8zW0iI

RSS and VHP also appealed for peace and urged Hindus not to retaliate along with Atal Bihari Vajpayee on 27th and even later. In Gujarat where even a small spark can lead to violence, there was absolutely no need for Narendra Modi to give such a statement urging people to maintain calm and not retaliate if he wanted to inflame the situation. Outlook has of course ignored all these points and other steps taken by Narendra Modi to control and prevent violence on 27 Feb- which are given in detail in this site. Just some of them include, 827 preventive arrests on 27 Feb, deploying all companies of Rapid Action Force, deploying entire 70,000 police force including reserve police, shoot-at-sight orders and curfew in Godhra primarily aimed at Hindus who could have retaliated there, curfew in other sensitive places etc.

There was something which caused the riots even after 27 Feb Godhra. And that was the inflammatory reporting by TV channels and the secularist media-politician combine which rubbed salts on people’s wounds by insulting the dead karsewaks accusing them of provoking the incident by giving imaginary charges like kidnapping a Muslim girl, not paying for tea and snacks, etc and blaming VHP and the Sangh Parivar and insulting the Ayodhya movement. Congress leader Amarsinh Choudhary came on TV on 27 Feb night in Gujarati and blamed Ramsewaks for provoking the incident by not paying for tea and snacks at Godhra Railway station. Actually if anyone gave a spark after Godhra that led to violence, it was this statement from Amarsinh Choudhary blaming the dead karsewaks who were killed in one of the most inhuman masscares in human history- locked in a train and pushed back as they tried to come out.

We have seen Vir Sanghvi’s statement earlier- “We (secularists) are programmed to see Hindu-Muslim relations in simplistic terms, Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer. When this formula does not work- it is clear now a well-armed Muslim mob murdered unarmed Hindus- we simply do not know how to cope. We shy away from the truth- that some Muslims committed an act that is indefensible, and resort to blaming the victims…Why have we dehumanised the poor karsewaks to the extent that we don’t even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was…have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh-Parivar bashing? “The media and politicians tried everything to set free culprits of such an inhuman massacre.

Since Outlook knows that even a small spark can lead to big violence why did Outlook report inflammatorily lying that Muslims were being massacred after Godhra whereas they were equally on the offensive even after Godhra and threw out 40,000 Hindus out of their houses even after Godhra? Why did Outlook repeat the lie that Narendra Modi said “Every action has equal and opposite reaction” when he said nothing of this sort? Who is guilty -Narendra Modi or Outlook?

Question#3: You have denied the allegation that you instructed bureaucrats and senior police officers at a high-level meeting (Feb 27, ’02) that “in communal riots, police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one-to-one basis. This will not do now; allow Hindus to give vent to their anger”—a statement attributed to you on record by then deputy commissioner, intelligence, Sanjiv Bhatt and slain minister Haren Pandya. Why do you think the charge persists?

OUR ANSWER: This claim has been refuted many times by us. Even a cursory reading of “Myth 19” will reveal the truth. The charge persists for the simple reason that the media is BIASED and wants Narendra Modi to be held guilty by hook or by crook and does not bother to report the truth. Before getting into the details, let us post one important thing here. Is Narendra Modi a fool to openly give such orders to so many officials in such a meeting where any of the officers could have secretly recorded such orders or which would have had 9 witnesses against Narendra Modi? If he did want such orders to be issued, he would have done it through middlemen and other communicators being careful not to come into the picture directly! It is astonishing to see that no one with an iota of common sense has till now raised this point. Is Modi a fool to directly give such orders to officers in a crucial meeting? Even if he did want to issue such instructions, there is no way in the world that he would have given them directly in an official meeting.

Secondly- Haren Pandya is no more. But the late Minister was NOT present in that 27 Feb meeting. Outlook forcibly tried to convict Narendra Modi in its issue of 3rd June 2002 by saying that a minister told it (Outlook) about that meeting. That minister was Haren Pandya, as claimed by Outlook. Whether Pandya really did say so or not is known, but even if he did, his statement has no credibility since he was NOT present at that meeting at all!

Outlook reported in that article “The minister told Outlook that in his deposition, he revealed that on the night of February 27, Modi summoned DGP K. Chakravarthy, commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, P.C. Pande, chief secretary G. Subarao, home secretary Ashok Narayan, secretary to the home department K. Nityanand (a serving police officer of IG rank on deputation) and DGP (IB) G.S. Raigar. Also present were officers from the CM’s office: P.K. Mishra, Anil Mukhim and A.K. Sharma. The minister also told Outlook that the meeting was held at the CM’s bungalow. (Notice that Sanjiv Bhatt comes nowhere in the picture!!!)

Now there are clear factual errors in this. The Outlook report names chief secretary G. Subarao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither was present in that meeting. That day Subarao was on leave and instead it was acting chief secretary S K Varma who participated in that meeting! This single goof-up alone is enough to dismiss the claims of Outlook on that meeting, or, assuming that the late Pandya did make such allegations, his. Outlook realized its terrible goof-up and in the 19 Aug issue has acknowledged its error in its claimed interview with Pandya. Let us assume that Pandya did tell Outlook that Modi told officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger the next day in that meeting. What credibility does Pandya have when he was not even present in that meeting? And when he could not even correctly tell the people who were in the meeting, wrongly naming 2 people as being present there, how can anyone believe that he would know what happened inside the meeting? Outlook’s aim is also exposed here. Outlook wanted to crucify Narendra Modi by hook or by crook, and in its issue of 3rd June held Modi guilty without bothering to cross-check if the information provided by the Minister (Pandya) was correct or not, assuming that Pandya did speak to Outlook. Was it not Outlook’s duty to cross-check facts before making such a serious allegation against a Chief Minister?

And when the true facts came up, Outlook should have admitted in its 19 August 2002 issue- “Since the details given by the minister were incorrect, the claim that he would know what happened inside that 27 Feb meeting is difficult to believe, because he could not even correctly tell the names of the people who were present, and he himself was not present. So our article in 3 June 2002 issue relied on a man whose testimony is worthless. ” Instead of ending it like this, Outlook acknowledged the errors but continued to hold Modi guilty! Outlook said “That June 3 report wrongly named 2 people as being present, but rest all is true”. Meaning- “We could not even correctly name the people present in the meeting, but we know what happened inside the meeting. And Modi is guilty”.

It is well known that Haren Pandya had several issues against Narendra Modi. Haren Pandya was demoted in the Cabinet, from Home Minister to Revenue Minister. There were reports of his personal grudge against the Chief Minister. It is said that after he became Chief Minister in October 2001, Narendra Modi wanted to contest a bypoll from Ellisbridge (which is one of the safest seats for the BJP in Gujarat and in the country) which was represented by Pandya. It is reported that Pandya refused to vacate this seat for Modi and hence Modi had to contest from Rajkot II which Narendra Modi won.

Also he himself was accused of demolishing a dargah and many self-styled secularists were howling against him. Pandya cleverly shifted the focus by talking against Narendra Modi so that he would become the media’s hero, and the media would stop targeting him for his alleged role in the dargah demolition and instead focus on big fish Narendra Modi. That is exactly what happened. This also exposes the self-styled secularists. Their aim is to crucify Narendra Modi and glorify anyone talking against him, and not being bothered about who actually was involved in a dargah demolition or not.

The link for Outlook’s interview with Pandya of Aug 2002: (Assuming Outlook‘s claim of having taped it is true)

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?216905

In this interview of 19 August 2002 Outlook reports:

Minister (continuing): See, whatever I told you, it was not as if some disgruntled man was saying it. I didn’t say all those things because I was unhappy. (NOTE: That is exactly why he spoke against Modi, because he was unhappy and disgruntled, on the issue of vacating his Ellisbridge seat and being demoted from Home Minister to Revenue Minister. And also to shift focus from his own role in the dargah demolition to becoming a media hero taking on Narendra Modi). There is nobody in my position who can fight him. So it’s important I remain an insider, in power, in position. That’s why I want my identity to be protected.

You mentioned Subarao. There was trouble with that. (The Outlook report named chief secretary G. Subarao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither was present.)

Minister: What happened was that there was a chief secretary-in-charge then. I got my facts mixed up. But listen, their denial was very weak, wasn’t it? If they try to make an issue of it, tell them that you want the official denial from all the people mentioned in the story on paper, with their signatures. Leave the two they say weren’t there at the meeting but ask the others to say that there was no meeting, no direct or indirect orders. Let them say that on paper with their signatures…

Minister (continuing): I made a mistake with the chief secretary’s name. But the rest is all true. The time, the place, everything was correct. If they put pressure, ask them for official denial from the officers.

Minister (continuing): Vijay Rupani (who was supposed to organise the yatra) will give information on the (Gujarat) Gaurav Rath Yatra. But be careful when you meet these people. They are such guys that they’ll try to extract my name from you. Be careful.”

  And Outlook stuck to its story even after the clear goof-up. See the role of Outlook. It admitted that it wrongly named two people as being present in the meeting. That should have been enough to dismiss this charge, when Outlook and an alleged Minister cannot even correctly tell the names of the people who were present in the meeting (Haren Pandya was of course not present and had never claimed to be present either). How could they know what happened in that meeting? So what Outlook said was “Though our report wrongly named 2 people as being present, though we could not even tell correctly who were present, our charge that Modi ordered the police to allow Hindus to vent their anger is 100 % true”. What rubbish! A magazine with an iota of honesty would have said “We relied on a man whose information was incorrect and who had personal grudges. We withdraw our story”.

   But that’s not all! Even in its 19 August issue, there are blunders. Haren Pandya says (as claimed by Outlook) “I made a mistake with the chief secretary’s name. But the rest is all true.” But the rest is also not all true. Not only was the chief secretary not there (he was on leave and it was acting Chief Secretary S K Verma who participated), another officer A.K.Sharma was also not present. This was admitted by Outlook, not by the Minister! And sadly for Outlook, there was a THIRD BLUNDER in this allegation even in the 19 August issue, which is that DGP (IB) G.C. Raigar was also not present in this meeting! Neither Outlook nor Pandya knew this. So even in the 19 August 2002 issue when they admitted mistakes in the 3rd June issue, they stuck to their story saying ‘rest all information is correct’, but the information in the 19th August 2002 was also wrong since G C Raigar was also wrongly named as being present. Pandya said: “1 man was wrongly named- Chief Secretary G Subarao, rest all was correct”. (A single mistake is enough to dismiss these ridiculous claims). Outlook said “2 people were wrongly named- Chief Secretary G Subarao and A K Sharma”. But the fact is that THREE people were wrongly named, G C Raigar also was not present! And the shameless magazine continues to hold Modi guilty in that 27 Feb meeting ignoring all its mistakes and continues to stick to its story! LET SANDEEP DOUGAL OPEN HIS MOUTH ON ALL THIS, WHY OUTLOOK STICKS TO THIS CHARGE DESPITE BLUNDERS AND MISTAKES.  (Also note that Pandya says “I made a mistake with the Chief Secretary’s name”. If he is saying that he got the name wrong, this is another error- he did not make any mistake with the Chief Secretary’s name. The Chief Secretary’s name was indeed G Subbarao, but it was Acting Chief Secretary S K Verma who participated in that meeting.)

Notice here that while 3 people were wrongly named, the name of Sanjiv Bhat did not come even rightly or wrongly! He came nowhere in the picture!

If all facts are rightly seen, as given in Myth 19, it will be clear that there is no reason for this charge to persist. Sanjiv Bhat was of course not present in that meeting so what credibility does he have? And he made these charges against Narendra Modi a good 7-8 years AFTER 2002- this reveals that there is no merit in his claims. Since Outlook tried to convict Modi even after realizing the terrible goof-up in its accusations in its article of 3 June 2002, it shows why this charge persists!

Also note here that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with known anti-Modi judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam debunked the claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he was present and blamed NGOs for forcibly trying to find something against Narendra Modi. This is a must read report of the SIT.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT

Question #4: Why did you single out Bhatt and say he wasn’t present at the Feb 27 meeting when you were only asked about those present?

OUR ANSWER: Outlook is wrong again. Modi did not single out Sanjiv Bhatt and say that only he was not present. He also said “G C Raiger ADG (Intelligence) was not present.  Sanjiv Bhatt DC (Intelligence) was not present. None of my cabinet colleagues were present in the meeting”. This shows that Haren Pandya or any other Minister like Gordhan Zadaphiya also were not there. Outlook cannot see that Modi also clarified that G S Raiger and any of the other Ministers were not present, it can only see Sanjiv Bhat.

   Only the written question and answers of those 71 questions are out. Is it not possible that the SIT asked Narendra Modi about Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence (which Bhatt may have claimed to the SIT orally) orally which Narendra Modi denied orally also and in writing also? It is clear from Mr. Bhatt’s affidavit which is in the public domain that he had been providing information to the SIT since November 2009. It is reasonable to assume that at the time of Mr. Modi’s SIT deposition in March 2010, the content of Mr. Bhatt’s claims was known to Mr. Modi. Far too much is being made of confidentiality here when leaks from SIT to the media had been occurring a full six months before Nov 2009. As an example on 28th June 2009 right after Teesta Setalvad’s testimony to the SIT the DNA in a story filed by Roxy Gagdekar reported a leak from SIT sources to the DNA on the contents of Teesta Setalvaad’s testimony. Also on 7th December 2009 OutlookIndia carried a PTI story on specific claims by the activists against the SIT in the Supreme Court on the SIT ignoring an unnamed witness. The activists were reprimanded by the Supreme Court for those accusations. Clearly in the run up to March 2010 the SIT’s activities were hardly a state secret to the Activists. Hence there is nothing extraordinary about Mr. Modi singling out Mr. Bhatt. It is silly to make a mountain of leaks when the SIT’s reports continue to be treated with no respect for confidentiality by both the activists and the media.

Even if Narendra Modi did say that Sanjiv Bhat was not present before he made the claim that he was present, what does this prove? That he was present? Whether he was present or not has to be seen in view of records and facts, not by “Why did Modi deliberately say that Sanjiv Bhat was not present?”. To this, I will like to ask Outlook, why did Outlook not mention Sanjiv Bhat as being present in its issue of 3rd June 2002 or even later, of August 2002 and much later when it forcibly tried to crucify Narendra Modi on that 27 Feb meeting for which a defamation case has rightly filed against it? Here in March 2010, the SIT knew that Sanjiv Bhat had claimed to be present- so Narendra Modi clarified that he was not present. There is absolutely no doubt that Sanjiv Bhat was not present. Narendra Modi knew perhaps in March 2010 itself that Sanjiv Bhat was been bought by so-called activists and politicians to try to nail him (so that Rahul Gandhi’s way becomes clear in 2014- the only man who can come in way of Rahul Gandhi is Narendra Modi- who is being targeted in case after case, first post-Godhra riots, Zakia Jafri complaint, when this failed –that 27 Feb meeting, this will also fail, then Sohrabuddin encounter case (dragging Amit Shah), then Ishrat Jahan case –where the Lashkar e Toiba had admitted that she was its member, and then the Haren Pandya murder case where they are trying to accuse Modi of murdering Pandya- first step has been achieved in acquitting 12 Muslims who were convicted by a trail court) . Since Narendra Modi may have known about Sanjiv Bhat’s ideas, he may have clarified that he was not present. Note how Outlook says that “Modi singled out Sanjiv Bhatt and denied that he was present when he was asked only about those who were present- while Modi also said that G C Raiger too was not present nor any of his Cabinet colleagues.

Also note here that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with known anti-Modi judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam debunked the claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he was present and blamed NGOs for forcibly trying to find something against Narendra Modi. This is a must read report of the SIT.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT

Question #5Is it true that P.K. Mishra, your principal secretary, asked R.B. Sreekumar, then Addl DG (Intel), to confirm whether Haren Pandya was the minister who had deposed about the Feb 27 meeting to an independent citizen’s tribunal. Did he then, as the allegation goes, ask that Pandya’s mobile number, 9824030629, be tapped?

OUR ANSWER- Firstly, this question is irrelevant. How is this related to the riots? Let us say, Narendra Modi did try to get intelligence people to confirm if Pandya deposed before the CCT tribunal or not. That is an internal matter between BJP leaders. We have already seen that the late Pandya was not present in that 27 Feb meeting and that the list of officers allegedly given by him on those who were present was also wrong. Assuming that Pandya did deport before the CCT it was within Narendra Modi’s rights to take disciplinary action against a leader accused or suspected of violating party discipline. This does not include the right to tap the phone of course. But we have seen how Outlook’s claims that Pandya told it about that 27 Feb meeting in its issue of 3rd June are all trash-assuming that he did say so, the factual errors reveal that anything Pandya may have said against Modi was due to personal differences. If Narendra Modi found that a minister is wrongly giving wrong information to magazines like Outlook and tribunals like CCT (which made a fool of itself by trying to say that the Godhra fire was ‘set from inside’ as if Muslims did not set it and outrightly denying that any mob attacked the train!) because of personal differences, then he had every right to take steps to find out who this person was.

There are many other problems with this question. Whether Mr. Pandya’s Mobile was tapped or not tapped in June 2002 is irrelevant to the events of Feb 2002. A question of this sort is a fishing expedition and it is one reason why the line of questioning suggests conspiracy theory making more than a quest for Justice for the events of that day.

 Let us note that the said “independent citizen’s tribunal” made scathing accusations of Mr. Pandya himself accusing him having personally led mobs and provoking riots. They accused Pandya of using derogatory words for Muslims (“Bandyo” in Gujarati, often in Hindi the derogatory term “Bando” is used).

Question #6 – Given the suspicious circumstances of Haren Pandya’s assassination (Mar 26, ’03), and given that many point the needle of suspicion at your administration, what action has been taken to clear your name and find out who his real murderers are?

OUR ANSWER–Another perfect case of thief shouting “Thief Thief” and getting away! Outlook has always tried to blame Narendra Modi for Haren Pandya’s murder for the past many years without directly saying so. It has carried stories saying “A murder foretold” etc etc. The truth is that Haren Pandya was perhaps the only leader of the BJP to be accused of rioting, with an allegation having some credibility. Note that many self-styled secular activists had alleged Pandya himself being culpable in the 2002 riots, of being involved in an attack on a durgah in the 2002 riots. But after his murder in March 2003, for which Muslims were convicted, or ever after he started speaking against Narendra Modi in 2002 itself (on personal grudges, since he was demoted from Home Minister to Revenue Minister and ever since the issue of refusing to vacate Ellisbridge seat for Narendra Modi to contest rose) the media immediately took to him as a ‘hero’ forgetting its allegations on him! The self-styled liberals, Concerned Citizens Tribunal (which made a fool of itself by trying to say Godhra fire was set from ‘inside’ as if Muslims did not do it and outrightly denying that any mob torched it) was howling against Haren Pandya since March 2002, when it was alleged that Pandya was involved in demolising a dargah on 1 March 2002. He allegedly took the leadership on the next day of burning of Godhra train, to demolish a Dargah which was protruding on the main road of Bhathha (Paldi) not far away from his own house. Thereafter, he started double talking against the government for not protecting the minority. The demolition he allegedly did, brought him on the top of the hit list and therefore he was killed. The trial court in Gujarat had convicted 12 Muslims for Haren Pandya’s murder in 2007. Despite knowing this, Outlook tried to hold Narendra Modi responsible for it. Now with all 12 accused acquitted by the Gujarat High Court, the political rivals and media men will again launch a crusade against Narendra Modi- perhaps to clear way for Mission 2014. Incidentally, the judge of the High Court who acquitted all the accused is a first-cousin of a Congress leader of Rajkot, who is also the Congress’ spokesman in Rajkot.

Any wild accusation can be made by anyone. Mr. Pandya’s murder has been investigated by the CBI and prosecuted in the Courts. The acquittals in the case came after the Courts severely criticized the CBI’s botched case. Most recently the High Court has rejected a petition to re-investigate the matter. The acquittals have since been challenged in the Supreme Court. Let us leave it at that. This question again has nothing to do with Justice for 2002 Riots. It smacks of conspiracy mongering when the matter has been the hands of Central Agencies and the Court system for years now. Outlook has all along never bothered to report the one single thing, that Haren Pandya himself was also accused in the post-Godhra riots case and accused of demolishing a dargah and was on the top of hit list of terrorists.

Note here that the CBI works under the Congress and has wrongly framed Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter fake despite knowing very well that Amit Shah is totally innocent in the case. This CBI could easily have framed at least someone of the Modi administration if not Modi himself for Pandya’s murder. But even this CBI which framed Amit Shah as he was Modi’s close aide has said that Muslims murdered Pandya to take ‘revenge’ of the 2002 riots (in which hundreds of Hindus were also killed even after Godhra), and Pandya was accused in the dargah demolition. This itself is enough to know that there is no need to suspect Modi administration in Pandya’s murder and Outlook is needlessly dragging its name in the case.

Question #7 – You told the SIT that you came to know from newspaper reports that the BJP had ‘joined’ the call for a Gujarat bandh on Feb 28, ’02, and a Bharat bandh on Mar 1, ’02. For someone so clued into the party machinery, isn’t that a strange lapse?

OUR ANSWER– The Times News Network in a late night release (past Midnight of 27th/early hours of 28th) reports the bandh call by the VHP. It makes no reference to the BJP joining the bandh. In fact it makes no reference to the BJP at all. There are also no other news reports from that day on the BJP joining the Bandh. Sheela Bhatt of Rediff reporting on the morning of 28th Feb 2002 describes incidents associated with the Bandh. Sheela Bhatt too describes it as a VHP bandh with no reference to the BJP. In fact that full report by Sheela Bhatt is a must read for it gives a very factual picture of how events unfolded that morning even as a Cabinet meeting was on and curfew had been imposed in one town. On March 1st 2002 the Times News Network has two stories one from Delhi and another Bangalore on the impact of the Bandh. Both stories describe it as a VHP Bandh with no formal reference to BJP joining it but for stray individual involvement. Hence it is perfectly reasonable if Mr. Modi subsequently learned of some stray BJP involvement from news reports in a Bandh that was all along described as a VHP bandh. Narendra Modi himself was very busy that day taking steps to prevent and control violence which could break out the next day. The decision to support the bandh or not was taken by Gujarat BJP leaders, and not the Chief Minister. And of course, it was perfectly right to support it.

Question #8 – You claimed to the SIT that you had no personal knowledge of the presence of BJP ministers Ashok Bhatt and I.K. Jadeja in the police State Control Room and Ahmedabad City Control Room respectively (Feb 28, ‘02). Doesn’t this show some incompetence on your part?

OUR ANSWER–It would make for a disturbingly paranoid Chief Minister to keep hourly record of the exact physical location of every one of his Ministers on a day with fast moving development and general chaos. As far as the matter of reasons for their presence, the duration of their presence and the impact of their presence in those control rooms is something the Nanavati Shah Commission will definitely delve into having already examined Mr. Jadeja. Whether they were present or not is a different matter which will be seen by Commissions probing the case, and the answers given by these ministers themselves will also have to be seen. And if they were not present, then how would Narendra Modi ‘know of their presence’?

Question #9 – You denied to the SIT that you knew ex-MP Ehsan Jafri—who died in the Gulberg Society massacre—or that he contacted you by phone and requested for help even as the rioters were at his door. Eyewitnesses, though, claim that he had spoken to you. Why do critics persist in arguing that this was a case of personal revenge and vendetta?

OUR ANSWER: This once again is a bizarre question. Our question to Outlook is- “Why do YOU continue to support this lie, or at least not bring out the facts which we have quoted here?” If you report all the below-mentioned facts, then the reality will be out for everyone to see. Asking “Why critics persist in arguing …” is something that needs to be posed to the critics for it is they who persist despite the lack of any concrete evidence on the same, and heap of evidence present to prove the opposite, which they ignore. As far as what has been leaked to the media of the SIT report goes there is no telephonic evidence of such a phone contact with Mr. Modi. There is only one eye witness who has claimed this. Imtiaz Pathan who claimed that Jafri called Modi on phone and before dying Jafri told him (Pathan) that Modi abused him on phone. (This is of course, trash. Let us say, for argument’s sake that Jafri did call Modi and Modi did not want to help him. Would Modi have abused him on phone? Modi would have said “Don’t worry, we will send help asap” and not sent help in such a case. Is Modi a fool to abuse Jafri on phone even if he did not want Jafri to be saved? Such a ridiculous charge has no credibility).

Hence it is clear that Imtiaz Pathan has been tutored by someone to claim this. Imtiaz Pathan has also alleged that police did not come to Jafri’s house till 4:30- 5:00 pm. In his immediate testimony to the police in 2002 soon after the riots, Pathan had not named Modi at all, nor made this allegation (Of Jafri calling him and Modi abusing Jafri) for many years after 2002! We have already dismantled Pathan’s claims who seems to be a tutored witness by Teesta Setalvad or some other such people in Myth 11 and Myth 20. Let us first list some points:

1- The Times of India in its online edition on 28 February 2002 reported at 2:34 PM :

“Ahmedabad: At least six persons were injured when police opened fire to disperse a rampaging mob in Meghaninagar area of the city on Thursday afternoon. The injured were brought to civil hospital where the condition of at least three is stated to be serious…the incident took place at Chamanpura area under Meghaninagar police station…”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com//india/Police-open-fire-in-Ahmedabad-6-hurt/articleshow/2360713.cms

This is the Ehsan Jafri case- Chamanpura. NOTE THIS REPORT PUBLISHED AT 2:34 PM says that police came and opened fire injuring so many people. India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002 also reports : “Reinforcements did arrive but by that time the mob had swelled to 10,000”. Since this report was posted at 2:34 PM it is clear that this event of police coming and firing must have happened much earlier, say at 1:30 pm at least considering the time it takes to get information, prepare report, proof read it edit it and post it online. This completely dismantles Imtiaz Pathan’s lies that the police did not come till 4:30-5 pm when The Times’ report POSTED ONLINE at 2:34 PM says that police came and fired. The Times of India also reported in its online edition on 28 Feb in a report posted at 9:41 PM. We quote from Times of India online edition 28 Feb night at 9:41 PM “Meanwhile fire tenders which rushed to the spot (Chamanpura- Ehsan Jafri case) were turned back by the irate mob which disallowed the Ahmedabad fire brigade (AFB) personnel and the district police from rushing to rescue…Sources in Congress Party said that the former MP after waiting in vain till 12.30 pm for official help to arrive had opened fire on the mob in self-defense, injuring four..”.

Despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered by the mob which had swelled to more than 10,000 (Zakia Jafri herself told India Today weekly in its issue of 18 March 2002-“I have never seen such a huge mob, they burnt alive my husband”), and the mob going crazy by Jafri firing on them with his revolver, the police did a brave job- and at a great personal risk they fired on the Hindus and shot dead 5 Hindus outside his house as reported by weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002 and Times of India 28 Feb online. This also did not stop the violence because the crowd was willing to lose a few lives to, as S K Modi puts in his book “Godhra- The Missing rage” ‘teach Jafri a lesson’. Thus Imtiaz Pathan’s claims have no credibility since police arrived much before 4:30-5 pm and shot dead 5 Hindus outside his house. He wrongly claims that police did not come till 4:30-5 pm.Police saved more than 180 Muslims in this episode since there were 250 people inside Jafri’s house and the mob killed 68- after all missing were declared dead, despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered.

2- Ehsan Jafri fired on the crowd in self-defense. Whether he should have done so or not is a matter of debate, but this act drove the crowd mad and it resolved to kill him, and was willing to lose a few lives. We have seen reports of The Times of India and India Today to know that he did fire on the mob which drove it mad. Imtiaz Pathan does not say this. Pathan lies and says: “Jafri appealed to the crowd to spare women and children. He said,’ Take me, kill me but leave these innocent people’ and gave himself to the crowd.” This claim is absolute trash since it is an established fact that Jafri did not do anything like this and fired on the crowd in self-defense with his revolver, as reported by weekly India Today, Times of India, and yes, also Outlook. Yes, Outlook too.

3- Narendra Modi was very busy that day and there is no way he could have talked to Ehsan Jafri on phone. There has been absolutely no record of any call made to Narendra Modi. If Jafri did call Modi and was abused by him, Jafri would have told this to his widow Zakia or some other people instead of Imtiaz Pathan, who did not make this allegation for a good 7-8 years after 2002. In his immediate testimony to the police in 2002 soon after the riots, Pathan had not named Modi at all, nor made this allegation (Of Jafri calling him and Modi abusing Jafri) for many years after 2002! What prevented Pathan from making this allegation against Narendra Modi (of abusing Jafri on phone and Jafri telling this to Pathan before dying) soon after the riots or for many many years after the riots? Also, does Pathan’s claim have any credibility when it is an established fact that no call was made to Narendra Modi and there is no record of it? Even if there was a record of any such call, how can the statement of a THIRD PERSON (Pathan, who has given so many wrong claims, like police not coming till 4:30- 5 pm when it came much earlier) who was at neither end of the alleged telephone call be relied? Outlook weekly itself carried Arundhati Roy’s article on 6 May 2002 on this issue in which she said “A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burned them alive.”

Of course, all this is factually untrue. We have already seen reports of Times of India to know that the police did their best, saved more than 180 Muslims, shot dead 5 Hindus outside his house. But notice how the allegations of CALLS MADE do not include Narendra Modi at all! Even such a trash article which alleges that Jafri’ daughters were raped (which was found to be untrue since they were in USA at that time!) and makes false allegations on his calls being ignored does not accuse him of making any call to Narendra Modi directly. This trash article by Arundhati Roy in Outlook has been dismantled by us in Myth 11. All these allegations of call to Narendra Modi started coming after 2010- many many years later. Outlook has not bothered to mention any of the above facts.

India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002 clearly admits that at least 5 people were shot dead by the police outside Jafri’s house. The police also saved the lives of some 200 Muslims, since  68 out of the 250 people inside the house died. It was impossible for the police to control the mob of around 10,000 people- and the mob had gone crazy after Jafri fired from his revolver on the crowd- which injured 7 Hindus- and allegedly killed 3 Hindus. But despite this- police saved 180 Muslims in this episode.  It was impossible for the police to control the mob of around 10,000 people- but they managed to disperse the mob by 8 PM on 28 February- according The Times of India’s online report at 9:41 PM published the same day. And nowhere did The Times of India accuse the police of not doing anything. On the contrary- it said that the furious mob, gone crazy by Jafri firing on it, did not allow fire tenders to reach the house which did its best along with the police. And this Times of India report POSTED ONLINE at 2:34 PM of 28 February also says that police fired on the crowd injuring 6, who were taken to hospital where 3 were critical at that time, and ultimately 5 died.

7 years after the riots where all missing people have been declared dead-death toll is 68. Out of the 250 people in the complex- police saved around 200, at least 180. 

For making such a ridiculous charge years after the riots, and not saying anything like this for more than 7 years after 2002, Imtiaz Pathan can and should be prosecuted. Those who tutored him to make this ridiculous charge years after 2002 also should be prosecuted. And those who give credibility to such ridiculous and laughable charges like Outlook, Sandeep Dougal and CNN-IBN and NDTV should also be prosecuted.

Question #10 – Did your government slap the Official Secrets Act against whistleblower cop Rahul Sharma because he passed on explosive phone data records to the Nanavati Commission which showed that rioters were in touch with policemen and politicians?

OUR ANSWER: Let us leave the slapping of OSA to the Commission Report to settle. Only thing here we would like to say is, don’t assume Rahul Sharma as a ‘whistleblower’ -as yet, and please don’t talk vague. This is a serious issue with a serious discussion. Which rioters were in touch with with policemen (details please) and which politicians?

On the phone records – let us not forget that the said records have never been authenticated at source. CJPOnline’s website that carries PDF files of Individual Phone Records and Time-Location graphs clearly shows these are not original raw network records (GSM CDRs – Call Detail Records) but carefully constructed post-facto analyses by a 3rd party with no reference to the original data. In the absence of “source authentication” not much credibility can be attached to them. Even if we give 100% benefit of doubt to the authenticity of the records, we once again make the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. The fact that X called Y establishes nothing beyond X called Y. This smacks of classic conspiracy theory mongering.

Question #11 – The vindictiveness seems to have a pattern, considering the SC’s recent strictures against your government for initiating criminal proceedings against social activist Teesta Setalvad (allegedly for her role in the illegal exhumation of bodies of 2002 riot victims)?

OUR ANSWER: This case is hundred per cent spurious. In other cases against the petitioner, there may be something,” said a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai”.

Who are the 2 judges of this bench? One is Aftab Alam, whose daughter Shahrukh Alam is an known anti-Narendra Modi activist. Aftab Alam himself has spoken a lot against Indian secularism in a speech in London in 2009. So much so that former Gujarat High Court judge and former Gujarat Lokayukta S M Soni wrote to the Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia to keep ‘communal minded judge Aftab Alam’ away from the Gujarat cases. The other judge of this bench is Justice Ranjana Desai who is the daughter in law of former Congress Minister of Gujarat Amul Desai. Even this bench says that: “In other cases against Teesta Setalvad there may be something”.

Also this is absolutely nothing. Actually far from being vindictive against Teesta Setalvad, the Gujarat Government has been far too liberal. This lady has no locus standi to do anything in this matter. I- the author of the website www.gujaratriots.com have as much locus standi as her or even more. The crimes of Teesta Setalvad and others are all far too serious. According to the Supreme-Court appointed SIT itself, “NGOs Teesta cooked up Gujarat riots incidents” And these crimes are horrible. They range to a lot of issues. There is a nice article titled “Enough evidence to prosecute Teesta, not Modi” . Also read the articles in this blog to know the truth of Teesta Setalvad.

Also note that in this grave digging case, it was the Supreme Court bench of 2 judges which felt that there is no merit in this case. This case was continuing in the trial courts (which did not think it was spurious). The High Court also refused to stay the case against her. Are the trial courts and the High Courts fools to allow such a case? Of course there is a difference of opinion, between the SC and the lower courts. But if this case was a cent per cent spurious one, then the Supreme Court judges of Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai should have also blasted the trial courts for allowing such a case- and not dismissing it! We feel that a case which was deemed fit to proceed by 2 courts- trail court and High Court is not a spurious one.

Also, the fact that grave digging took place is well-established. After digging the graves so-called human rights activists claimed that “Murders were done and bodies buried without telling. We are exposing murders” whereas in reality they were proper graves unnecessarily dug up for the purpose of forcibly trying to find out anything. When this case was investigated, the witnesses and former aides of Teesta Setalvad like Rias Khan said that the graves were dug at her behest. Teesta had claimed in 2005 that these graves were an expose. When the accused and the witnesses and former aides name Teesta Setalvad as the brain behind the grave digging, is this case spurious? It was found fit for trial by 2 courts, lower courts and High Court.

Far from being vindictive the Gujarat government should have long ago filed a lot of cases against Teesta Setalvad for her serious crimes of cooking up witnesses bribing them forcing them to give false evidence, harassing a democratically elected Chief Minister, lying and inflaming the situation, criminal defamation, cooking up stories like a pregnant woman’s womb being ripped open, digging up graves and wrongly claiming that ‘hidden and suppressed graves are exposed’ etc. The Gujarat Government was too soft on dangerous ladies like Teesta Setalvad who tutored witnesses, made false charges, false cases, false evidence for fear of being called vindictive by the biased media.It is also too soft on liars of the Indian media like NDTV and CNN-IBN, Outlook and Hindustan Times who lie that constantly on the 2002 riots violating 153-A and 500 of IPC.

Question #12 – Isn’t this also why a 21-year-old custodial death case allegedly involving Sanjiv Bhatt was resurrected and suspension orders issued against him?

OUR ANSWER: This is a rhetorical question. Implying that anyone speaking against Narendra Modi has the license to break all laws, violate all rules and become a “MARTYR” with activists and Muslims saying “WE BACK YOU SANJIV BHAT”. These activists and supporters have assumed Sanjiv Bhat as a ‘whistleblower’ (why he took as many as 7-8 years to claim that he was present in that 27 Feb meeting has never been answered by anyone). Bhat was absent from work without warning for many days and ignored ALL NOTICES seeking explanations and was finally suspended. Bhat also allegedly threatened a subordinate constable K D Pant to falsely sign an affidavit saying that he (the subordinate Pant) knew that Bhat participated in that 27 Feb meeting. The subordinate was allegedly told to do as said by Gujarat Congress leader Arjun Modhvadia who allegedly assured him that ‘everything will be fine if you do so, else you will have deep trouble’. So this case of threatening doesn’t appeal to anyone. So Bhat has full license to do all this- remain absent from work, ignore repeated notices to return to work and when get suspended, BECOME A MARTYR. What is painful is that one does not get an iota of objectivity from the media in dealing Sanjiv Bhat’s suspension on merit- on his behavior. It is to the credit of the government that Bhat has been suspended for violating laws, not responding to notices- despite the fear of media criticism. Let the media answer this simple question- especially OUTLOOK- What should be done when an officer is absent from work for days and days, ignores repeated notices, done not give any explanation? Should be promoted and given Bharat Ratna?

Also note that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court (which gave its report of April 2009 saying that Teesta and NGOs invented imaginary cases and fake witnesses to a 3 judge bench which included Aftab Alam and Arijit Pasayat-both known Modi-baiters) reported in its final report that Sanjiv Bhat was hand-in-glove with Arjun Modhwadhia, Teesta Setalvad, and Shaktisinh Gohil and was totally unreliable.

One doesn’t need to see Mr. Bhatt’s from the 2002 prism. A simple google archive search of stories on Mr. Bhatt prior to 2002 will reveal his dubious record. As an example here is the case in Rajasthan High Court from April 2000 against Mr. Bhatt. Here is what the NHRC had to say of that case against Mr. Bhatt

The NHRC also, in its report in September 2010 considered it a case of “serious human rights violation” in view of the fact that the provisions under which Mr. Rajpurohit was falsely implicated could have fetched him 10 years of imprisonment.

Here we would like to ask Outlook- what should be done with Sanjiv Bhat when he remains absent from work without any information for days on end and ignores repeated notices? Should he be given BHARAT RATNA for doing this just because he has made allegations Narendra Modi- after a good 7-8 years? Shouldn’t his case be judged on merits? Far from the Gujarat Government being vindictive (it actually was too soft for fear of being called vindictive by the opponents) it is Outlook which is vindictive of Narendra Modi unable to judge any situation of merit and hold Modi guilty.

Question #13 – It is alleged that compliant police officers during the 2002 riots were promoted and those who steadfastly did their duty were sidelined or persecuted. Many such cases have been widely documented and also brought to your attention. What action have you taken in this regard?

OUR ANSWER: In a democracy anyone can say anything. This is a sweeping generalization. We can’t just go on and on with every disgruntled state employee and link their grouses back to 2002. There is no end or meaning to such an exercise. Promotions are given on the basis of work and a lot of things. It is not the Chief Minister who directly promotes or transfers officers- there is a mechanism involved. Also, these transfers which were done were due anyway. The media did not bother to check the facts on the roles of the officers and whose promotions were due anyway. When liars lie, they will use every trick in the book to make allegations without cross checking facts.

Question #14 – You denied to the SIT that your ministers were involved in leading any of the violent mobs, but what action did you take when the alleged involvement of people like Bharat Barot, Mayaben Kodnani, Nitinbhai Patel and Narayan Lallu Patel was officially brought to your attention?

OUR ANSWER: It is pertinent to point out that Mayaben Kodnani was not a Minister in 2002 but a local MLA. Between 2002 and 2007 there are several news reports that describe her as a rebel BJP MLA in the anti-Modi Keshubhai faction. Nevertheless Ms. Kodnani is on trial. Let the courts settle her fate.  Though Maya Kodnani has been convicted, and now she has to be assumed as guilty until proved innocent by the higher courts, there is an article worth reading on this conviction. There was only one BJP man against whom there could have been a credible case, the late Haren Pandya accused of demolishing a dargah. While the courts will decide the merits of the case against Mayaben Kodnani, this writer is certain that she will be acquitted one day because on that day she was in Ahmedabad. But we will not jump to conclusions- and respect the courts decision. But it does seem unbelievable that a BJP MLA like Mayaben Kodnani will be foolish enough to actually lead a 17,000 strong mob targeting and killing Muslims in 2002 in broad daylight in Naroda Patiya on 28 Feb 2002 so that there would be 17,000 witnesses against her! Now the trial court has convicted her, but the judgment has been criticized for not having her run her terms of 10 years and 18 years concurrently and instead give 28 years.

There is no case against Nitinbhai Patel, no specific accusations beyond the odd story of Muslims voting en-bloc against him in 2002 due to his “alleged” role.

The Special Courton the Sardarpura Riot case had rejected witness statements on Narayan Lalu has being inconsistent while delivering 31 Life sentences. Strangely this story was carried by OutlookIndia on Nov 10th 2011

“While holding that there was no conspiracy behind the killings, the judgement said there are discrepancies in the versions of the witnesses on this point.

One of the witnesses claimed that former Godhra MLA Haresh Bhatt and BJP MLA Narayan Lalu had held a meeting in the village 20-25 days before the incident and distributed weapons, while another claimed that this meeting took place on February 27, 2002.

The court noted that even the investigating officer had rejected the contention that any such meeting had taken place.

The version of Basirabibi Shaikh, a witness, with regard to the alleged conspiracy did not corroborate complainant’s version, the judgement says.”

Question 15: What stopped you from taking action on the basis of the media footage available on the riots? That said, why didn’t the Gujarat police document the carnage?

OUR ANSWER: This question is completely unworthy of even being responded to. How has this question asker concluded that the footage was not used to take action against rioters? For the record, the efficiency of the Gujarat Police can be seen from the fact that out of 25,486 accused the Gujarat police arrested as many as 25,204 accused- as per official Government figures as of October 2005. This includes 7856 Muslims out of 7997 Muslims accused. This question will only reveal the silliness of the asker- prosecuting agencies obviously use all the material available.

Question #16 – What action, if any, did you take after Tehelka’s Operation Kalank in which the likes of Haresh Bhatt, Babu Bajrangi and Rajendra Vyas, while narrating their ‘exploits’, implicated you and your administration?

OUR ANSWER: “Operation Kalank” has no meaning since Even the SIT and courts have rejected the Sting’s admissibility as evidence in a Trial. Besides, all these claims of Tehelka in its doctored and fake sting operation, which is a serious violation of law and prosecutable in the courts, are answered by us already in this article TEHELKA LIES. No one has yet refuted our arguments against Tehelka’ sting operation here. But despite this, all claims made by these people caught on camera were examined. For example, the SIT itself asked Narendra Modi if he visited Naroda Patiya on 28 Feb evening at 7-7:30 pm giving up his security to put the rioters of Naroda Patiya and whether he was ‘garlanded’ by women. Haresh Bhat, the BJP MLA from Godhra claimed that he met on 27 Feb 2002 when Modi visited Godhra- which is completely untrue because records show that no such meeting happened. Despite this, all statements by all those involved in that sting operation were examined. Most of the people in the sting have only implicated themselves, not anyone else. So whether what they said was true or empty boasts, i.e. boastful lies has to be established. despite this, all claims made were examined. Some of the claims may perhaps be true to some extent (of implicating themselves)- so these claims have been investigated. Though they will not stand as evidence in a court of law at least the matters were found fit to be investigated.

Tehelka of course will believe that Narendra Modi visited Naroda Patiya on 28 Feb evening at 7 pm and taking out his security he thanked and applauded the rioters for doing a great work, just because stray accused like Suresh Richard and Babu Bajrangi while talking casually to a Tehelka reporter (thinking that he was writing a book from the VHP point of view) say so, not aware that secret recording is going on, when official records show that he was busy elsewhere in Ahmedabad that day! Such laughable claims that Narendra Modi visited Naroda Patiya and thanked rioters, when we have Times of India’s online report that police escorted 400 Muslims to safety in Naroda Patiya (after 8 pm) and saved the lives of 900 Muslims in this episode, will only make Tehelka and Outlook look silly. It is shocking and unbelievable to see that Outlook would not know that ‘confessions’ given in full knowledge on camera to police are not admissible as evidence as per laws, only intentional confessions given to the judge are admissible as evidence. Here these individuals did not even confess before the police knowingly- they were just talking casually to a man thinking him to be a man writing a book from the VHP point of view and indulging in boastful lies. Of course, Outlook and Tehelka both know this, and despite this Tehelka claims to have ‘irrefutable evidence’ of Modi’s involvement. What trash!

Question #17 – Why was no action taken or inquiry held against officers of the executive magistracy, particularly the DMs who failed to initiate prompt action against the rioters, especially from Feb 27-Mar 4, ’02?

OUR ANSWER: The dates mentioned are completely incorrect. There were no riots on 27 Feb barring a few stray incidents of violence. Riots began on 28 Feb 2002 at 11 AM and lasted for just 3 days- 28 Feb, 1st March and 2nd March 2002. There were no riots, no rioters to act against on 3rd and 4th March 2002 at all! So how can the officers be held responsible for ‘not taking action’ against rioters on 3rd and 4th March? We have seen the reports of all English dailies of those days.

We have given details of ACTION TAKEN AGAINST RIOTERS. 827 preventive arrest on 27 Feb, 700 arrests on 28 Feb though the situation was out of control, curfew imposed as soon as the violence began on 28 Feb and in many places much before the violence began, police firing 1,000 rounds of 28 Feb including 600 in Ahmedabad, etc etc.

Just for the sake of argument, look at the report of The Telegraph (Kolkata) dated 1st March 2002 on the events of 28 February 2002:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020301/front_pa.htm#head2

Where in this report does The Telegraph accuse anyone of inaction on 28 February? No allegations of any inaction. See the report of The Tribune (which editorially fully supported the claim of U C Banerjee in January 2005 that the Godhra train burning was an accident thereby whitewashing the heinous murderers of their heinous crime) dated 1st March 2002 on events of 28 February. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020301/main7.htm

NO ALLEGATIONS OF ANY INACTION. These newspapers are among the worst critics of Narendra Modi and the BJP ever after the riots. But at the time of the actual riots, they said nothing like this- “Inaction”, “Police complicit” or anything. If there was any deliberate inaction, these dailies along with foreign dailies would have screamed worldwide and raised a hullabaloo in their reports THE NEXT DAY. But we see nothing against anyone. Same is the case of reports of 2nd March and 3rd March 2002 too. Let us look at the report of The Hindu dated 2nd March 2002 on riots of 1st March 2002. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/03/stories/2002030303020100.htm No allegation of any inaction. Also the same in its issue of 3rd March 2002 on riots of 2nd March 2002.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/03/stories/2002030303020100.htm No allegations of inaction . And as for proofs that the riots stopped on 2nd March itself and that there were no riots on 3rd and 4th March, see this report of The Hindu dated 4th March 2002.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/04/stories/2002030403090100.htm Doesn’t this show that there were no riots, i.e. no rioters on 3rd and 4th March 2002 against whom officials could take action?

How can the officials be accused of failing to take action against rioters when the best possible action was taken against rioters? This is a sweeping generalization. A perusal of all the news reports from 28th Feb 2002 will show a mixed picture of action taken yet a scale of violence that clearly overwhelmed the system. The Srikrishna Commission Report on 1993 riots had come up with specific recommendations for action against negligent officers. Let us give the Nanavati Commission report the same opportunity and wait to see what it has to say of specific instances of delinquency, negligence or willful inaction.

All accusations on Narendra Modi and demands for his resignation, dismissal started AFTER the riots. This was because, the media wanted some scapegoat to be made for the riots. It wanted Modi to sack a few police officers, drop a minister or two. But Modi did nothing of the sort. He did not blame anyone, did not make anyone a scapegoat. In an interview to NDTV’ broadcast on 20 March 2004, Narendra Modi said to Shekhar Gupta (Editor of The Indian Express), “You all wanted that someone be made scapegoat. I did not do that. I allowed you to break all pots on my head alone. You have all decided, all these riots happened under this man (Narendra Modi). Until this man is removed from the Chief Minister’s post, we will not rest in peace. My best wishes to you in your mission.” Narendra Modi did not resign, and the BJP did not dismiss him, so the media was livid. Remember that on the day of the actual riots, no allegations were made against Narendra Modi or the administration.

Question #18 – You denied recommending pro-BJP/VHP advocates for appointment as public prosecutors. Then why was no action taken or inquiry conducted against the DMs who made such biased selections?

OUR ANSWER: Let us give the Nanavati Commission report the opportunity and wait to see what it has to say of specific instances of bias. But in our opinion, wasn’t the prosecution very efficient? Till now we have had at least 218 people convicted for rioting including 34 Muslims and at least 184 Hindus- not including 31 Muslims convicted for Godhra- only from newspaper reports read by us. The official figures are 425 people- 333 Hindus and 92 Muslims. This is a world record- the highest ever convictions in Gujarat. In 1969 and 1985 far worse riots took place in which far more people were killed in riots which lasted for a much longer duration, like 5 months in 1985. There have been horrible riots in Gujarat details of which are given by us in the chapter “Gujarat’s Bloody History of Violence”. In those riots, the previous Congress Governments (and Janata Dal in 1990) hardly managed to get 3- 4 people convicted, yes- 3 to 4 people convicted for such horrible riots. The 1984 riots which were far far worse than the post-Godhra riots saw a mere 16 people convicted in the past 28 years. As compared to that, at least 249 people have been convicted (including those for Godhra) in Gujarat which is by far the highest ever- compiled just from newspaper reports read by us. The official figures show 425 convictions till now- 333 Hindus and 92 Muslims. So how can be prosecutors be biased or unprofessional? Outlook and the media have of course not bothered to mention these facts of people convicted ever in their articles!

Question #19 – You often boast that you do not discriminate on grounds of religion. On Sept 9, ’02, as part of your gaurav yatra, you made a speech in which you equated the Muslim relief camps with child-producing centres and used crudities like “Hum paanch, hamaare pachees”. Are you proud of such remarks?

OUR ANSWER: Remarks taken out of context can sound crude and despicable. Let us not forget what followed those remarks. The Independent People’s Tribunal of Justices Suresh, Krishna Iyer et. al in its Report (Part 1, Page 266) carried an English translation of the audio recording of that speech via NDTV/Indian Express. Here is what followed:

Who will benefit from this development? Is family planning not necessary in Gujarat? Where does religion come in its way? Where does community come in its way? .The population is rising in Gujarat, money isn’t reaching the poor? What.s the reason? They make a beeline, fix cycle punctures (Audience laughs). If Gujarat is to be developed, then an economic system has to be developed where every child born in Gujarat gets education, manners and employment.”

Where is the question of bias or discrimination when Mr. Modi speaks of an economic vision for Gujarat where every child gets education and opportunity?

This is not spin from 2008 this is his much maligned election speech of 2002 ! There is absolutely nothing that can be held against Narendra Modi here. And he has already responded to all these questions in 2002.

Question #20 – It took the Gujarat HC to finally issue a contempt notice against your government for failing to compensate those whose shops were burnt down in the riots? Where was your ‘sadbhavana’ during the last 10 years?

OUR ANSWER: As for failing to compensate those whose shops were burnt down, we would like to say that hundreds of Hindus also suffered economically. Hindu shops were also looted (by Muslims!- which will give a terrible pain to Outlook to mention on paper!). The Hindus also suffered economically. Just for one example, As per the report of none other than The Times of India, as many as 50 Hindus shops were torched in Revdi Bazaar area of Ahmedabad on 23 March 2002 by Muslims. The financial loss was as much as 15 crore rupees. Many more Hindu shops were looted in the rest of Gujarat too.
To read the report of The Times of India on the burning of 50 shops in Ahmedabad- see this link- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4609603.cms

It is pertinent to point out the contempt notice was issued to a District Collector and not to the Chief Minister’s Office, Cabinet or Cabinet Secretary. In an era where even the Prime Minister gets to distance himself from his own Office on Court strictures, to describe contempt notice against one District Collector as a “contempt notice against an entire State Government” is frankly bizarre.

We have already seen the steps taken by the Government to quell the violence, and in saving the lives of the victims- for example in Sanjeli, Bodeli and Viramgam areas of Gujarat, 24,000 Muslims were saved. We have also seen how the police saved 900 Muslims in Naroda Patiya and 180 Muslims in Ehsan Jafri case. Hindus were also saved by violent Muslims in many places in Gujarat-like in Jamalpur in Ahmedabad on 1 March 2002, and in Modasa on 19 March 2002 when Muslims attacked. But there has also been a claim by many that the Gujarat Government was like Hitler and have called these plain riots as ‘holocaust’ and equated them with the killing of Jews in Germany. What a ridiculous comparison!

The Gujarat Government spent a lot of money for providing relief to the riot victims. None other than the UPA Government’s MoS for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal said in the Rajya Sabha that too in a written reply on 11 May 2005. He said an amount of Rs 1.5 lakh was paid by the government to the next of kin of each person killed and Rs 5,000, Rs 15,000, Rs 25,000 and Rs 50,000 to those injured up to 10, 30, 40 and 50 per cent respectively.

In addition, Jaiswal said relief was also extended by the state government to the victims of the riots under the heads of cash doles and assistance for household kits, foodgrains to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families in affected areas, housing assistance, rebuilding earning assets, rehabilitation of small business, assistance to industries/shop and hotel and so on.

The state government, Jaiswal said has informed that a total of Rs 204.62 crore has been incurred by it towards relief and rehabilitation measures. The Gujaratgovernment has also informed that they had published the data as recommended by the NHRC, he added.

See link: http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=46538

In April 2002 Gujarat Government said : “ At the rate of Rs 30 per person, the Government is spending Rs 35 lakh a day on providing foodgrains to the 1.1 lakh inmates of the 99-odd relief camps in the state, 47 of them in Ahmedabad.

The relief operations at the camps are being directly looked after by IAS officers of the rank of secretary to the state Government.

The camps in Ahmedabad have been divided into six groups. Each group is being monitored by a bureaucrat of the rank of secretary. The secretaries have been looking after the minutest problems of the inmates. Teachers were deputed in each camp to help the children prepare for the exams and the state Health Department has been taking special steps to look after the well being of the inmates. In order to rehabilitate the rural inmates, the Government has floated the Sant Kabir Awas Yojana as per the directions of Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee. The scheme will enable the inmates to build houses.”(And in these camps were 1 lakh Muslims and 40,000 Hindus as well)

How ridiculous to equate this with Hitler! Did Hitler ever spent crores on helping Jews or other Christian Germans affected by violence? He ordered killing of Jews- not spending of money to help them. Has any government in the world ever cared about minority Hindus who suffered like this? In the 1971 East Pakistan genocide, West Pakistani soldiers killed around 2 million Hindus (and also other Bangladeshi Muslims when their leader declared that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic). and also raped at least 2,50,000 Bengali women. From 1947- Pakistan has constantly massacred the Hindus, reducing their population from 20 % in West Pakistan to 1 % now. In Bangladesh also- the Hindu population has declined from around 30 % to just 7 % now. Hindus are regularly killed, women raped, abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, temples attacked, Hindus thrown out of their homes in Bangladesh and Pakistan. In Kashmir in January 1990, Hindus were given 3 choices by local Islamic leaders- convert to Islam, die or leave Kashmir. Nobody ever reconstructed houses for these Hindus. Nobody gave them financial compensation of crores of rupees. And nobody spent 35 lakhs per day on them. Nobody arrested the culprits and punished them. Those who order killing of others- or want others to suffer horribly, do not take the pains to do all that the Gujarat Government did. Not only did the Gujarat Government do all this- the police also arrested 35,552 people as of 28 April 2002, out of which 27,901 were Hindus. Around 20,000 people were arrested as a preventive measure out of whom 17,000 were Hindus. No Islamic country (or our own country in Kashmir in 1990) or other mass murderers like Saddam Hussain, Hitler ever carried out preventive arrests to save the victims. And already 130 people have been convicted for rioting- the highest ever in Gujarat. No Islamic country has ever punished anyone for killings of Hindus- not even of the tallest Hindu leader of Pakistan- Sudamchand Chawla, who was killed by Islamic radicals on 28 January 2002. There is no way a Muslim nation will punish a believer (Momin) for the murder of a kafir (infidel) that too an idolator.

www.sudhamchandchawla.com

Question #21 – The Gujarat HC also had to order the various authorities under your administration to pay for the restoration of the hundreds of religious structures destroyed. Why did the situation come to this?

OUR ANSWER: Correct question. This doesn’t mean that the Gujarat Government did not give compensation on all other victims. Religious structures are public property, individuals don’t have to be compensated here. the Gujarat Government has spent crores and crores on victims relief, like Rs 35 lakh a day in April 2002 handling 99 odd relief camps. The maximum relief/ refugee camps opened were 159 since many camps were closed and new ones opened at different times. As on 5 March 2002 out of 85 refugee/ relief camps opened 85 were for Muslims and 13 for Hindus.

The question on religious structures is a genuine one. There is a legitimate Constitutional question on this on tax payer money being spent on religious structures. Let the Supreme Court appeal be settled. After all no compensation was paid for structures that were damaged or destroyed in the 2001 earthquake or during the terror attack on the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar in 2002. And let us also mention here that many temples too were destroyed by Muslims even after Godhra. And after the Babri demolition of 6 Dec 1992, there were around 160 temples demolished in Kashmir by Muslims- let us not even talk of temples demolished in Pakistan and Bangladesh by Muslims right since 1947 and specially after 6 December 1992. There were 37 temples demolished in Kashmir BEFORE 6 December 1992. Also, leaving apart Kashmir more than 600 temples have been demolished in India by Muslims after 1947- yes you read it right. We have a list of all these 600 temples demolished OUTSIDE Kashmir in today’s India after 1947. Is it surprising, since temples were also demolished in Gujarat by Muslims under Narendra Modi’s rule even after Godhra. Only one question to Outlook- did you bother to even mention these temples demolished, not to talk of demanding any compensation for them? Since no government ever paid for religious structures demolished in riots, 200 odd temples demolished in Kashmir before and after 6 Dec 1992, nor in any other place perhaps this court ruling will set a precedence.

Question #22 – What is your take on the high court blaming the 2002 riots on the “negligence of the state”?

OUR ANSWER: All these actually are questions to Narendra Modi- not us. We replied to all accusations of inaction, causing violence, etc. Here the PERSONAL OPINION of Narendra Modi is being asked which we cannot give. But we will give OUR PERSONAL OPINION (unsolicited!).

This was in a case filed by an Islamic group seeking compensation from Government on damages caused to religious structures. The job of the Gujarat High Court in this case was to simply decide whether the state government should give compensation or not for damaged religious structures. It has absolutely no right to comment on whether those structures were demolished due to ‘negligence of the state government’ or not when that it not its job, nor its jurisdiction. When the matter is in case of whether compensation should be given or not, the High Court has no right and no business to comment on what caused the damages, blaming someone for it and that too without listening to that party’s side. That too is irrelevant, whether the court gave a chance to the Gujarat Government to argue on why it did not do any negligence, because that is a matter which is simply beyond the powers of the High Court.

The basic minimum for any court before saying anything , even on a point which is not in the powers of the court to speak on, has to be- LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES. If a court passes some order without even asking the other party its position- then it means that the opinion (mind the word, opinion not judgment) of the court is terribly biased. In this case, did the Gujarat High Court listen to the side of the state government ON THIS POINT- on whether the religious structures demolished were due to negligence on its part?

The words are : “Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the defence of the state that the cause of riots was the ‘general reaction from the incident of Sabarmati Express, failure on part of the police intelligence to gather such general reaction (after the Godhra train burning incident) in time and to take appropriate timely action definitely come within expression ‘negligence of the state’.

“Similarly, the fact remains that the anarchy continued unabated for days … itself suggests lack of appropriate action or adequate action, if not inaction, on the part of the state in handling the situation,” it further observed.

The division bench of acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice J B Pardiwala, while castigating the state government, ordered payment of compensation for over 500 religious structures, damaged during the riots.

The state cannot shirk its responsibilities, the court observed. “There was ‘inadequate endeavour’ on the part of the state government in effectively handling the situation resulting in destruction of more than 500 places of religious worship throughout the state belonging only to one religious community,” it said.

The judges held that “it is the duty of the state government to restore all those religious places, irrespective of the religion, to original position as they existed at the time of destruction.”

If the structures are already restored by now, the government should reimburse the amount spent, the court said.”

The High Court has absolutely no right to comment on either this or the 2002 riots. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the court to comment on what happened in the 2002 riots – in the first place when there is a full-fledged Commission of Inquiry which has all the powers under the Commission of Inquiry Act i.e. Nanavati Commission to probe the riots and give its report. Secondly, assuming that the Gujarat High Court did pass such a comment, that is just an opinion of the bench which passed it- and it is not a judgment or a law. For example a case which comes to mind is a ruling of the Karnataka High Court which said that 18 is an ok age for a girl to marry if its an arranged marriage, but for a love marriage the age should be 21 for a girl since a girl is too young at 18 to go in for a love marriage. Now this is just the view of the court- it is not a law, it is not a judgment. A girl can go in for a love marriage even at 18, 19 or 20.

Let us point out here that respect for the Gujarat High Court does not mean that no action of it can be challenged. The High Court is also incorrect on facts in saying that religious structures of only one community were damaged. It did not note that 17 Hindu temples were also demolished by Muslims, and that Muslims attacked a prominent temple in Jamalpur locality in Ahmedabad as early as 1 March 2002 as reported by The Hindu the next day. The High Court did not look at all the steps and PRO ACTIVE ACTION (far from negligence) taken by the Gujarat Government to control the violence which was controlled in a mere 3 days which we have given in detail in Chapter 2 “Role of the Government in controlling violence”.

Q 23: How is it that instead of censuring newspapers like Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar—which spread false, dangerous and communal rumours—you actually wrote them letters of appreciation while seeking to ban those who exposed the complicity of your administration in the violence?

OUR ANSWER: One factually incorrect news given was that Hindu girls were kidnapped, raped and their breasts cut off by Muslims in Godhra. What this question asker does not seem to remember is that the report of his own magazine, Outlook in its issue dated 11 March 2002 (Covering events till 28 Feb 2002) said, “Though the government scotched the rumours, the damage was done”. Naturally, the Narendra Modi Government DENIED THE RUMOURS of Hindu girls being kidnapped in Godhra by Muslims and their breasts cut off. This too on 28 Feb when there was no confirmation of whether this is false or not. Government did not say “There is no proof of this news ” etc. It directly DENIED the rumours. No Hindu girl will ever say that she has been raped. So the government could not have concluded on 27 Feb that no rapes took place. It took some days for this fact to be established, that no rapes took place in Godhra, but the Narendra Modi government immediately DENIED THE RUMOURS  as reported by none other than Outlook! The very next day i.e. 1st March, one of them carried a clarification that the news of the earlier day regarding the rape of Hindu girls in Godhra was wrong.

The newspapers like Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar were far more truthful, safe and factually correct than magazines like Outlook and our national English media and TV channels who reported very inflammatorily and factually incorrectly and were responsible more a lot of violence. The claim “While seeking to ban those who exposed the complicity of your administration in the violence” is based on a terrible assumption that the administration was complicit in the violence. This shows Outlook’s bias- in holding the administration complicit-guilty. As we have said, we have not seen a single evidence against the administration in the past 10 years nor has anyone refuted our arguments till date. This is also a very generalized question against Narendra Modi. Talking vague. The question should have been more specific- which channels or newspapers did Narendra Modi try to ban and for what reason did he try- if at all he did. No details given by Outlook. What complicity did they expose? No answer. Where and when did Narendra Modi write letters to appreciation to them and for what reason- is not mentioned by Outlook. It is too generalized a statement made by Outlook. If Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar did something good- like exposing any criminal activity etc and they were praised for it, what can be wrong in it? Sundeep Dougal gives no details of WHY they were praised. Also, if someone speaks against Modi like NDTV-Star News (who then had a collaboration) does that mean they can telecast anything inflammatory and no action should be taken against them just because they spoke against Modi? This question again proves what we have been saying for long, that Outlook and co lack the ability to judge any situation on merit.

Papers like Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar may have been guilty of exaggeration but they definitely did not concoct stories the way the national English media did and magazines like Outlook did- for example, lying that Ehsan Jafri’s daughters were raped, lying that a pregnant woman’s womb was ripped open and foetus taken out, that in that 27 Feb meeting officers were told to allow Hindus to retaliate, or that 2000 Muslims were killed in the riots whereas the correct number is less than 1000, calling the riots a ‘genocide’ whereas they were plain riots, ignoring all actions taken by the government to control and prevent the violence and instead alleging that free hand was given etc etc. On this, we will ask some questions to the Indian media in general and Outlook in particular after we answer all its 25 questions.

There was a contrast of day and night in the versions of the riots as projected by the ‘national’ English media and the local Gujarati papers, not merely Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar. All Gujarati papers were giving identical versions of riots, which was completely different from the versions given by national TV channels and English dailies. The reason was that the national English dailies were projecting Muslims as victims ignoring that fact that almost all the riots after 4th March 2002 were started by Muslims and were attack on Hindus. Muslims threw out 40,000 Hindus from their homes into relief camps even after Godhra, in a state ruled by Narendra Modi is something which the national media forgot to mention, but the Gujarati media reported.

The Justice Tewatia Committee study team went to Gujarat in April 2002, studied and gave a report. Justice D. S. Tewatia, a former Chief Justice of Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, was the leader of the team. Other members were: Dr J C Batra, senior advocate, Supreme Court of India, Dr. Krishan Singh Arya, Academician, Chandigarh, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, former Assistant Editor, Jansatta, Delhi, and Prof. B K Kuthiala, Dean, Faculty of Media Studies, G. J. University Hisar. Note that this was not a team with Hindu ideology, it was a panel having all ‘other’ people and a retired Chief Justice. Its report says:

“ROLE OF MEDIA

The Study Team received a large number of complaints against biased reporting’, non-objective attitude and anti Gujarat conspiracy of Delhi Media. The team felt it necessary to objectively observe and analyse the role of Media both regional and English language newspapers published from metropolitan cities. It also solicited comments about the role of media from about 500 persons with whom the members of the team interacted. The team’s observations are:

1. Local and regional papers at times seemed to be emotionally surcharged and lost sight of objectivity. However, Gujarati newspapers, by and large, were factual in day to day reporting.

2. The editorial pages of local and regional newspapers maintained a balance in projecting all viewpoints.

3. Newspapers published in English from Delhi invariably editorialized the news. Direct and indirect comments in the news writing were so telling that the personal likes and dislikes of the news reporters were too obvious to be missed.

4. English language newspapers published from Delhi appeared to have assumed the role of crusaders against the State Government from day one. It coloured the entire operation of news gathering, feature writing and editorials.

5. The edit pages of English language press carried comments that clearly indicated biases:

a. against the State Government of Gujarat,

b. in favor of Congress, leftist parties and the secularist
intellectuals,

c. indifferent to the carnage at Godhra,

d. against the Hindu organizations, and

e. against the NDA government at the Centre.

6. Most of the national newspapers and news channels played down the intensity of Godhra carnage and projected it as a result of provocation by pilgrims. Not many reporters were deputed to dig out facts or to do follow-up stories. This resulted in large number of editorials and articles that projected Godhra as a reaction to provocation by karsevaks’ and riots in rest of the state as “state sponsored terrorism”.

7. A distorted image of sectarian violence in the state was projected by the electronic and print media based in Delhi.

8. Repeated telecasts of arson and violence contributed in spreading the tension to unaffected areas. TV channels ignored warning from officials and kept telecasting communal riots like infotainment.

9. Coverage of Machhipiti in Vadodara is an example. One national news channel went overboard to telecast police firing at Machhipit as if it had taken place in Ahmedabad.

10. On 27.02.02 the Government of Gujarat announced a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for the next of kin of victims of Godhra carnage. There were protests about discrimination between Hindu and Muslim victims and the Government announced on March 9 that all victims would get Rs one lakh.

Yet, as late as the first week of April a Congressperson in USA citeda report in an Indian newspaper to accuse the Government of discriminating against minorities in the grant of compensation. The newspaper concerned did not care to inform its readers of the correct situation.

11. The code of ethics prescribed by the Press Council of India was violated by the media with impunity. It so enraged the citizens that several concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace could return to the state only if some of the TV channels were closed for some weeks.

12. Media did not help to cool down the tempers. It failed to act as a platform for a dialogue between the Hindus and Muslims on the one hand and between the people and the establishment on the other.

The Study Team is of the considered opinion that the media in general failed to perform as conscious and socially responsible gatekeepers of information.

It followed in the footsteps of an American journalist who said, ” My job is to report the facts. I give a damn to the consequences”.

Telecasting images that spread hatred and instigated violence is unhealthy, but their repeated telecast is lethal. The media acted as an interested party in the confrontation, not a neutral reporter of facts.

The team was alarmed at the intensity of hostile attitude among the people of the state for Delhi press and television news channels. This attitude was especially articulated by delegations of intellectuals like lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. Even the tribals complained that the media had no time to hear their tale of their agony and was spreading canards against the Hindus.”

THIS IS A REPORT of the Justice Tewatia Committee, not of any RSS study-team!Outlook would do well to criticize the English media and TV channels for inflammatory, dangerous and one-sided reporting with complete lies which caused violence in Gujarat. The sufferings of Hindus did not find any mention at all.

Q 24: While you claim to condemn the killings in 2002, your critics argue the reason you refuse to show any repentance for the same is your deep-seated anti-Muslim prejudice. Do you agree?

OUR ANSWER: Prejudice is what is an integral part of the anti-Narendra Modi media (a section of it) who cannot judge anything on merit- like Sanjiv Bhat being suspended after being absent from work for days and days without information and ignoring all notices to him. Actually, it is the English dailies and weeklies like Outlook and TV channels like NDTV (run by CPM leader Brinda Karat’s younger sister Radhika Roy) and CNN-IBN which have a deep rooted prejudice against Narendra Modi-horrible anti-Modi prejudice. This question has been answered by us in “Myth 18”. And the much-repeated nonsensical claim that Narendra Modi never expressed regret at the Gujarat riots is absolute rubbish.

Narendra Modi has expressed regret for the riots and termed the riots as ‘unfortunate’ . In an interview to Aaj Tak‘s Prabhu Chawla on its program Seedhi Baat, the excerpts of which were published in India Today weekly dated 4 Nov 2002, Narendra Modi was asked “Prime Minister Vajpayee and Home Minister Advani have said that whatever happened in Gujarat was wrong” to which he said, “I say the same thing. The communal riots in Gujarat were unfortunate and we are sad they took place.”

See link: http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20021104/conf.shtml#co

After the 2002 Gujaratriots Narendra Modi made a statement in the State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) in March 2002. One paragraph from that statement is “Are we not supposed to soul-search ourselves? Whether it is Godhra incident or post-Godhra it does not enhance the prestige of any decent society. The riots are a stigma on humanity and do not help anyone to hold his head high. Then why is there a difference of opinion”.

When Narendra Modi went on his “Sadbhavana fast” in Gujaratin 2011, some newspapers said, “In a statement interpreted as his first sign of regret over the 2002 post-Godhra violence, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi Friday said the pain of anyone in the state is “my pain” and he had a duty to do justice for everyone.”Constitution ofIndia is supreme for us. As a Chief Minister of the state, pain of anybody in the state is my pain. (Delivering) Justice to everyone is the duty of the state,” Modi said on the eve of his three-day fast.”

It wasn’t merely this paper, almost the entire media said the same thing. What a ridiculous interpretation from the media, and how factually incorrect it reported! The entire self-styled secularists and activists have carried on this myth in their hate-campaigns against Modi. Gujarat Congress leaders too have repeated this terrible lie. The BJP’s public relations work truly is not up to the mark. How it allowed such a massive lie to crop up without ever bothering to try to bring out the truth is beyond comprehension.

What is correct is that Narendra Modi has not apologized for the Gujarat riots, and rightly so. Why should he? Apology is given when someone does something wrong, makes a mistake and asks for forgiveness for a mistake. What wrong has Narendra Modi done? He actually has done an excellent work in controlling the 2002 riots, his administration saved more than 24,000 Muslims, the riots were controlled in 3 days while weeklies like India Today and Outlook predicted weeks of violence on 28 Feb, he frantically called the Army to Ahmedabad on 28 Feb 2002, ordered preventive arrests of 827 people on 27 Feb itself, gave ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders in Godhra on 27 Feb itself (primarily aimed at Hindus who could have retaliated in Godhra). His government spent more than 204 crores rupees on relief and rehabilitation measures, built houses, opened relief camps, etc. Strong action was taken against the rioters, with as many as 35,552 arrests made as of 28 April 2002, including 27,901 Hindus. Already, in just 11 years at least 425 people have been convicted for the riots, including 333 Hindus and 92 Muslims. The media’s argument often is “The Congress has apologized for the 1984 riots. Will the BJP apologize for the 2002 Gujarat riots?” This was asked by Arnab Goswami to BJP leader Nalin Kohli on 16 May 2009 on TV after the BJP’s massive debacle in the 2009 Lok Sabha polls.

There is absolutely no need to equate the two. Firstly there is not a single parallel between the post-Godhra riots of 2002 and the 1984 riots. We have seen the contrasts between these two riots. Secondly, Congress apologizing for the riots is not an action of credit. Apologizing means accepting culpability in the 1984 riots in which 3,000 Sikhs were killed. Is the sin of killing 3,000 forgivable by merely issuing an apology? Accepting culpability for the death of 3,000 people means the party deserves severe punishment. 3,000 murders cannot be pardoned and condoned by an apology. The then Congress Government took no action against the rioters, hardly any arrests were made and hardly 16 people have been convicted in 7 cases in 28 years. For what should the BJP or Narendra Modi apologize? They have done absolutely nothing wrong, controlled violence in Gujarat in record time even after a shocking massacre like Godhra, while it took previous Congress Governments several months to stop riots in 1985 and 1969 even without any cause like Godhra.

It should be remembered that not a single English newspaper actually accused the Chief Minister Narendra Modi of any wrongdoing on the actual days of the riots, i.e. 28 Feb 2002 (Thursday), 1st March 2002 (Friday) and 2nd March 2002.

Q 25: If you really have nothing to hide, why do you refuse to engage with those who have raised such allegations about you?

OUR ANSWER: For once, we agree with something said by Outlook. But the question that “If you have nothing to hide why don’t you speak on this issue” ignores one big issue. And that is- that all these questions were answered by Narendra Modi in 2002. He engaged in dialogue with all those at that time. If Narendra Modi had something to hide, why did he answer all these questions in 2002- like in interviews to India Today weekly dated 18 March 2002, 8 April 2002, 29 April 2002, Outlook dated 18 March 2002, in various other interviews and in press conferences almost daily? However, here we agree that Narendra Modi should now break his silence on the issue of riots. Perhaps he could be keeping quiet as a matter of strategy. Once he is given a clean chit- may be by the Nanavati Commission he will open his mouth. Perhaps he is waiting for 100 sins’ pot to be filled. Let us tell you, that if and when he opens his mouth, it will a disaster for the media and political rivals and social ‘activists’. The defamation cases fought and won by him will cost these liars and false allegation-makers THOUSANDS OF CRORES OF RUPEES remember- thousands of crores of rupees. This question has one counter question by us- if YOU (OUTLOOK) have nothing to hide, then why do you refuse to engage with those who challenge you for a debate on this- that is, us at www.gujaratriots.com ? Note that the media has not published any articles refuting allegations on Narendra Modi and the state government since 2002. This writer himself has sent many many letters and articles many many times to many many English dailies and weeklies and not a single has been published. Why have none of the people we sent invitation mails to debate us ever responded to us? Does this not show that they can only lie and lie in their newspapers (like Vir Sanghvi’s Hindustan Times lying that 3,000 Muslims were killed in Gujarat on the edit pages day after day and calling Narendra Modi a ‘mass murderer’ without answering our arguments ever or giving us a space in their pages?)

OUTLOOK or any other paper, scholar, magazine or anyone is challenged to debate with us on this issue. http://www.gujaratriots.com/our-challenge/

11 Comments

Myth 19: Narendra Modi told police officers to go slow on Hindus in the 27 Feb night meeting

Posted on December 23, 2011 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: Before getting into the details, let us post one important thing here. Is Narendra Modi a fool to openly give such orders to so many officials in such a meeting where any of the officers could have secretly recorded such orders or which would have had 9 witnesses against Narendra Modi? If he did want such orders to be issued, he would have done it through middlemen and other communicators being careful not to come into the picture directly!

Also note here that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam debunked the claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he was present and blamed NGOs for forcibly trying to find something against Narendra Modi. This is a must read report of the SIT.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT

This issue is given with comprehensive details in the book- of Sanjiv Bhat’s claims as well as the SIT findings. Though all details are not given in this website, let us see many things.

Now let us see this issue of that 27 Feb late night meeting.

On 27 February 2002 occurred the Godhra massacre, at around 8 am. The Chief Minister Narendra Modi was informed about the carnage at 8:30 to 9 am. He immediately issued shoot-at-sight orders and curfew in Godhra at 9:45 am, within 2 hours of the Godhra massacre. He visited Godhra on 27 Feb and returned to Ahmedabad the same day. 827 preventive arrests were made on his orders on his return to Ahmedabad. All these are well-documented facts which cannot be contested by anyone. India Today weekly in its issue dated 18 March 2002 mentions that pre-emptive arrests were made without specifying the number. (Even the SIT admitted 827 preventive arrests).  In an article titled “Chronology of a crisis”India Today reported:

FEB 27, 2002

8.03 AM: Incident at Godhra claims lives of 57 kar sevaks

8.30 AM: Modi is informed of the carnage. (This may have been at 9 am and not 8:30 am)

4.30PM: Gujarat Assembly adjourned and Modi visits Godhra where he holds a meeting, giving shoot-at-sight orders to the police.

10.30PM:CM holds meeting with senior government officials at Gandhinagar; orders curfew in sensitive places and pre-emptive arrests.

        Now this information from the weekly India Today dated 18 March 2002, which covered events till 7 March 2002 gives us a crucial piece of information. And that is, that this meeting had indeed taken place on 27 Feb 2002 late night (not midnight, as claimed by several opponents of Narendra Modi, like Outlook).  Secondly, this meeting was not at all kept secret (and denied having taken place) by the Government. It is indeed very clear and very obvious that this meeting did take place in Gandhinagar on 27 Feb 2002 at 10:30 pm. But that was to discuss steps to CONTROL THE VIOLENCE which could possibly break out the next day.

   Firstly, let us see the background of that crucial 27 February meeting. In the chapter “Role of the Government in Controlling Violencewe have already seen the steps taken by the Government to control the violence. We will just take a brief re-look at them.

 The Godhra massacre occurred on February 27 at 8 AM. At 8:30 AM to 9 AM Chief Minister Narendra Modi- then in Ahmedabad- was informed about the carnage. Modi gave ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders in Godhra at 9:45 am, within 2 hours from Ahmedabad/Gandhinagar itself.  ‘Shoot-at-sight’ orders in Godhra were primarily aimed at Hindus who could have retaliated in Godhra. The leading English daily from South India- The Hindu in its issue dated 28 February 2002 reported that- “The Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra”.

The same day- The Times of India reported in a report titled “Shoot-at-sight orders, curfew in Godhra” -

The Gujarat government imposed an indefinite curfew and issued shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra after 57 people were killed and several injured when a mob set the Sabarmati express on fire. Four bogies of the train were set on fire by miscreants at Godhra station…”

This report was posted at 1:37 PM. This shows that Modi’s claim of imposing curfew at 9:45 AM was absolutely true (considering the time it must have taken for The Times of India to get this news, make an article, proof-read it, edit it and post it on its website).

The same day- The Tribune (published from Chandigarh) – gave a report titled-“Sabarmati Express set ablaze- 57 dead -‘Ram sevaks’ among victims, shoot-at-sight orders in Godhra” and the report said-

“Indefinite curfew was clamped and the shoot-at-sight order issued in Godhra town immediately after the incident…”(Notice the words IMMEDIATELY AFTER)

It wasn’t merely them. All English dailies the next day reported this- and websites like rediff.com also reported this- and so did many foreign newspapers. The Daily Breeze- a US newspaper- reported on 28 February-

“Fearing the attack would ignite sectarian riots, Indian officials immediately stepped up security across this vast, religiously divided nation. The prime minister urged Hindus not to retaliate.”

Even Xinhua news agency also reported this online on 27 February 2002- that Vajpayee appeals for peace.

The same day- the website rediff.com also reported that the state government had taken all precautions and tightened security to prevent riots. These reports of rediff.com are given in Chapter 7, Myth 15 “Narendra Modi gave free hand 3 days”.

Narendra Modi talked to TV channels in Godhra on 27 Feb evening and urged people to maintain peace and not retaliate. He also made an appeal to the people to maintain calm which was broadcast on National TV (Doordarshan) for everyday since 28 February 2002. Luckily this is also available on YouTube today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRMR8zW0iI

The same day, on February 27, the Gujarat government deployed the entire police force of 70,000 in Gujarat. The Telegraph of UK in its issue of 28th February also reported that more than 70,000 security men had been deployed in Gujarat on 27 February.

The same day, on February 27, the Gujarat government deployed the Rapid Action Force in Ahmedabad and other sensitive areas and the Centre sent in the CRPF personnel. This was reported by The Indian Express in its report dated 28 February 2002. The English daily Mid-Day also reported both these things in its issue of 28 Feb.

The Hindu also reported on Feb 28 that- “(On Feb 27) The state government has appealed to the people to maintain peace…The Home Minister said the Government was taking necessary steps to ensure that the disturbances did not spread during the bandh tomorrow (i.e. Feb 28).” This was reported by many newspapers on 28 February.

The VHP also appealed for peace. The Times of India reported on 28 February 2002 even before a single major riot had taken place:

“VHP international Vice-President Acharya Giriraj Kishore told reporters here at Sola Civil Hospital, where 54 out of the 58 bodies of the train attack victims were brought, that “Hindus should maintain calm and keep patience. I appeal to Muslim brethren to condemn the attack and ask them not to put Hindus’ patience to test. Hindus are keeping a restraint but if such incidents do not stop, there can be a counter reaction which may be uncontrollable”.”

The Indian Express dated 28 February 2002 also reported that the Centre had announced a nationwide alert in the evening of 27th February.

Thus, in brief, the steps taken on 27 February (Wednesday) were:

1)  The Gujarat Chief Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, rushed from Ahmedabad to Godhra and gave shoot-at-sight orders

2) The entire police force of 70,000 was deployed in Gujarat.

3)  All companies of Rapid Action Force in the state were deployed in Ahmedabad, Godhra and other sensitive areas by the state government.

4) The Central Government rushed CRPF personnel to Gujarat.

5) The state government imposed curfew in Godhra at 9:45 am within 2 hours of the carnage and other sensitive areas.

6) 827 preventive arrests were made.

7)  The Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the Gujarat Government urged Hindus not to retaliate and maintain peace.

8)  The RSS and VHP also appealed to Hindus to maintain peace and not retaliate.

9) CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) units were also deployed.

10) The Centre sounded a nationwide alert in the evening.

On Feb 27 itself- www.rediff.com reported- “The situation became tense as news of the incident spread to other parts of the state prompting the state government to initiate precautionary security measures. Security has been tightened in Godhra and other parts of Gujarat.”
The Link for this report is:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/feb/27train.htm

Rediff.com reported on Feb 27 itself- after Godhra that- “Two companies of the Rapid Action Force and one company of the State Reserve Police were deployed at Godhra to guard against further outbreak of violence.”
The link for the report: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/feb/27train4.htm

The remains of the slain karsevaks were brought from Godhra to Ahmedabad on February 27 after the carnage at Godhra railway station . The bodies were brought to Ahmedabbad after midnight of February 27 in a very sombre atmosphere and not in a ceremonial procession. Plus, the bodies were brought to the then isolated Sola Civil Hospital on the western outskirts of Ahmedabad as a precautionary measure and not to the Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital which is located in eastern Ahmedabad from where most of the killed Ramsevaks came. Sola Civil Hospital was in 2002 located in the far outksirts of Ahmedabad and had very little population around it. This shows the Government’s efforts to control the situation. Had the Government planned to instigate the Hindus then it would have brought the bodies to the Ahmedabad’s main civil hospital in Eastern Ahmedabad  where most of the Ramsevaks resided and from where it would have been ideal to orchestrate violence against Muslims. This shows that it tried to take preventive measures to preempt Hindu reaction following Godhra carnage. Also bodies were brought at 3:30 am of 28 Feb (as reported by India Today 18 March 2002 and Times of India online on 28 Feb) which is a very inconvenient time to instigate riots, and also for relatives!

Considering all these facts, it would actually be sufficient to conclude that far from asking the administration to ‘allow Hindus to went their anger’, what was discussed were steps to control the violence the next day. That this indeed was the case is proved by the actual action of the police and the administration. The police and the administration, the next day DID NOT ALLOW Hindus to vent their anger and did their best to control the violence.

WHO HAS ALLEGED THAT MODI TOLD THE POLICE TO GO SLOW ON HINDUS?

   Now, let us come to the point of 27 February 2002 meeting. The weekly Outlook magazine, which is extremely anti-Narendra Modi has alleged that Modi told officials to allow Hindus to take revenge the next day in that crucial 27 February night meeting. It first did this in its issue dated 3rd June 2002, following which Narendra Modi sent a defamation notice as reported by The Indian Express on 8 June 2002. Now, there was a Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT) headed by Retd Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Iyer which conducted its own ‘study’ and report on the Gujarat riots and as expected, held the government guilty. Sadly for it, it also made a fool of itself by trying to absolve Muslims of the crime of Godhra by suggesting that the fire was set ‘from inside’ (as if it was an inside job!) and outrightly denying that any mob torched the train. 

Outlook reported that a certain Gujarat Minister (At that time, it did not name him- but after his murder named him as Haren Pandya) was interviewed by this CCT and he revealed that in that 27 Feb meeting, Modi told officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger.Outlook reported in that article “The minister told Outlook that in his deposition, he revealed that on the night of February 27, Modi summoned DGP K. Chakravarthy, commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, P.C. Pande, chief secretary G. Subarao, home secretary Ashok Narayan, secretary to the home department K. Nityanand (a serving police officer of IG rank on deputation) and DGP (IB) G.S. Raigar. Also present were officers from the CM’s office: P.K. Mishra, Anil Mukhim and A.K. Sharma. The minister also told Outlook that the meeting was held at the CM’s bungalow. (Notice that Sanjiv Bhatt comes nowhere in the picture!!!)

The minister told the tribunal (CCT) that in the two-hour meeting, Modi made it clear there would be justice for Godhra the next day, during the VHP-called bandh. He ordered that the police should not come in the way of “the Hindu backlash”. At one point in this briefing, according to the minister’s statement to the tribunal, DGP Chakravarthy vehemently protested. But he was harshly told by Modi to shut up and obey. Commissioner Pande, says the minister, would later show remorse in private but at that meeting didn’t have the guts to object.

According to the deposition, it was a typical Modi meeting: more orders than discussion. By the end of it, the CM ensured that his top officials—especially the police—would stay out of the way of Sangh parivar men. The word was passed on to the mobs. (According to a top IB official, on the morning of February 28, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists first visited some parts of Ahmedabad and created minor trouble just to check if the police did in fact look the other way. Once Modi’s word was confirmed, the carnage began.)”

   Now there are clear factual errors in this. The Outlook report names chief secretary G. Subarao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither was present in that meeting. That day Subarao was on leave and instead it was acting chief secretary S K Varma who participated in that meeting! This single goof-up alone is enough to dismiss the claims of Outlook on that meeting, or, assuming that the late Pandya did make such allegations, his. Outlook realized its terrible goof-up and in the 19 Aug issue has acknowledged its error in its claimed interview with Pandya.

  Let us assume that Pandya did tell Outlook that Modi told officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger the next day in that meeting. What credibility does Pandya have when he was not even present in that meeting? And when he could not even correctly tell the people who were in the meeting, wrongly naming 2 people as being present there, how can anyone believe that he would know what happened inside the meeting? Outlook’s aim is also exposed here. Outlook wanted to crucify Narendra Modi by hook or by crook, and in its issue of 3rd June held Modi guilty without bothering to cross-check if the information provided by the Minister (Pandya) was correct or not, assuming that Pandya did speak to Outlook. Was it not Outlook’s duty to cross-check facts before making such a serious allegation against a Chief Minister? Haren Pandya was demoted in the Cabinet, from Home Minister to Revenue Minister. There were reports of his personal grudge against the Chief Minister. It is said that after he became Chief Minister in October 2001, Narendra Modi wanted to contest a bypoll from Ellisbridge (which is one of the safest seats for the BJP in Gujarat and in the country) which was represented by Pandya. It is reported that Pandya refused to vacate this seat for Modi and hence Modi had to contest from Rajkot II which Narendra Modi won.

  In all this, Outlook relies only on the testimony of Haren Pandya, who it did not even name at that time. But neither the tribunal or Outlook have given any evidence that Pandya met them or told them anything of this sort. Outlook claims that it has a taped interview of Haren Pandya of August 2002. In its issue dated 19 August 2002, Outlook reports: “Modi’s pet theory was that the man who went to the tribunal was his then revenue minister Haren Pandya. He even asked his intelligence officials to get proof to nail Pandya. But the intelligence wing, Outlook learns, gave no conclusive proof to Modi. Yet, he sent Pandya a show-cause notice through the state BJP president asking him to explain if and why and with whose permission he went to the tribunal. Pandya, in his sharp reply that unmistakably ridiculed Modi, denied he went to the tribunal.” So, neither Outlook nor the tribunal have any evidence that Pandya told them anything, and Pandya himself denied the charge! Now, in the same issue, they give an interview with a Minister (who, Outlook claims after his death was Haren Pandya, and that it has the conversation on record). In that entire interview, there is not the slightest allegation that Modi ordered officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger on 27 Feb night in that crucial meeting.  He is simply talking about the meeting, and the officials present in it. In short, there is not the slightest proof that Haren Pandya ever made any allegations on Modi on that 27 Feb meeting. There is no evidence and record of Pandya ever telling Outlook anything before August 2002, or of him deposing before the CCT. In the only available interview (assuming that Outlook does have the tapes of it) of Aug 2002, there is no allegation at all, only confirmation that the meeting took place, and that was never an issue at all!

The link for Outlook’s interview with Pandya of Aug 2002: (Assuming Outlook‘s claim of having taped it is true)

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?216905

  In this interview of 19 August 2002 Outlook reports:

 “Minister (continuing): See, whatever I told you, it was not as if some disgruntled man was saying it. I didn’t say all those things because I was unhappy. (That exactly was the reason, that he was unhappy!) There is nobody in my position who can fight him. So it’s important I remain an insider, in power, in position. That’s why I want my identity to be protected.

 You mentioned Subarao. There was trouble with that. (The Outlook report named chief secretary G. Subarao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither was present.)

 Minister: What happened was that there was a chief secretary-in-charge then. I got my facts mixed up. But listen, their denial was very weak, wasn’t it? If they try to make an issue of it, tell them that you want the official denial from all the people mentioned in the story on paper, with their signatures. Leave the two they say weren’t there at the meeting but ask the others to say that there was no meeting, no direct or indirect orders. Let them say that on paper with their signatures…

Minister (continuing): I made a mistake with the chief secretary’s name. But the rest is all true. The time, the place, everything was correct. If they put pressure, ask them for official denial from the officers.

Minister (continuing): Vijay Rupani (who was supposed to organise the yatra) will give information on the (Gujarat) Gaurav Rath Yatra. But be careful when you meet these people. They are such guys that they’ll try to extract my name from you. Be careful.”

  And Outlook stuck to its story even after the clear goof-up. See the role of Outlook. It admitted that wrongly named two people as being present in the meeting. That should have been enough to dismiss this charge, when Outlook and an alleged Minister cannot even correctly tell the names of the people who were present in the meeting (Haren Pandya was of course not present and has never claimed to be present either). How could they know what happened in that meeting? So what Outlook said was “Though our report wrongly named 2 people as being present, though we could not even tell correctly who were present, our charge that Modi ordered the police to allow Hindus to vent their anger is 100 % true”. What rubbish! A magazine with an iota of honesty would have said “We relied on a man whose information was incorrect and who had personal grudges. We withdraw our story”.

   But that’s not all! Even in its 19 August issue, there are blunders. Haren Pandya says (as claimed by Outlook) “I made a mistake with the chief secretary’s name. But the rest is all true.” But the rest is also not all true. Not only was the chief secretary not there (he was on leave and it was acting Chief Secretary S K Verma who participated), another officer A.K.Sharma was also not present. This was admitted by Outlook, not by the Minister! And sadly for Outlook, there was a THIRD BLUNDER in this allegation even in the 19 August issue, which is that DGP (IB) G.C. Raigar was also not present in this meeting! Neither Outlook nor Pandya knew this. So even in the 19 August 2002 issue when they admitted mistakes in the 3rd June issue, they stuck to their story saying ‘rest all information is correct’, but the information in the 19th August 2002 was also wrong since G C Raigar was also wrongly named as being present. Pandya said- “1 man was wrongly named- Chief Secretary G Subarao, rest all was correct”. (Actually a single mistake is enough to dismiss these ridiculous claims). Outlook said “2 people were wrongly named- Chief Secretary G Subarao and A K Sharma”. But the fact is that THREE people were wrongly named, G C Raigar also was not present! Also note that it also mentioned the name wrongly- his name is G.C.Raiger, not G.S.Raiger!

And the shameless magazine continues to hold Modi guilty in that 27 Feb meeting ignoring all its mistakes and continues to stick to its story! (Also note that Pandya says “I made a mistake with the Chief Secretary’s name”. If he is saying that he got the name of the Chief Secretary wrong, this is another error- he did not make any mistake with the Chief Secretary’s name. The Chief Secretary’s name was indeed G Subbarao, but it was Acting Chief Secretary S K Verma who participated in that meeting.)

    There are even more details of Pandya’s testimony which are given in the book but not on this website. Also, note that the names mentioned by Outlook, of the people being present at the meeting do not include Sanjiv Bhatt at all! He is nowhere in the picture, and wasn’t for 9 years after that meeting. Nobody, for 9 years after that meeting ever even mentioned that Sanjiv Bhatt was present at that meeting. This man has a terrible past and has no evidence at all of being present. Notice how even a magazine like Outlook, which forcibly tried to hold Modi guilty in that 27 Feb meeting, has never even mentioned Sanjiv Bhatt, not in its 3 June issue, not in its 19 August 2002 issue, nor in its Nov 2007 issues, when it tried to hold Modi guilty. Why would Sanjiv Bhatt have taken 9 years to claim that he was present at that meeting if he really was? The SIT report also says that Bhat asked Rahul Sharma, an IPS officer to find out if Haren Pandya was present in that meeting or not, and to check his mobile records. If Bhat was present, why would he need to ask someone else to find out if Haren Pandya was present or not?

  The only police officer who has made allegations against Modi apart from Sanjiv Bhatt is R Shreekumar. Former Gujarat IPS officer RB Shreekumar  told the Nanavati Commission in an affidavit and later also the SIT that the then Director General of Police VK Chakravarty, who participated in that crucial February 27 meeting, told him that the CM had directed officers to go slow against Hindu rioters and allow them to give vent to their feelings against the Muslims. Note that Shreekumar does not even claim that he was present in that meeting and that Modi told officers in front of him to go slow on Hindus. He alleges that the then DGP Chakravarty told him so. There is absolutely no evidence that Chakravarty told him (Shreekumar) so. If Chakravarty told Shreekumar so, then he could easily have told some others, like Outlook or anyone else, this or the media or the Nanavati Commission in private. And Chakravarty denied these charges of Sreekumar, and claimed that he never told anything like this to him.

  However what Chakravarty and many other officials involved with police department at that time told the Nanavati Commission was exactly the opposite. They said Modi had told them to control the riots. Plus, Sreekumar started making anti-Modi charges in the case only after the Government denied him promotion on strong grounds and his junior was made DGP. What’s more he didn’t make the same charge in his first two affidavits he filed before the Nanavati promotion which he submitted before he was denied promotion. Significantly, Sreekumar sticks to his ground when he says  “ The SIT virtually functioned as B-Team of Gujarat police and ignored the evidence I produced “.

   That is, Shreekumar admits that the SIT saw through his game and did not fall for his ‘evidence’ which is absolutely nothing, since he was not present at all in that meeting, and he has no proof at all that Chakravarty told him anything. And even if Chakravarty told him anything, that would be no proof, since Chakravarty has to tell it to the Nanavati Commission or the SIT. Also note that Shreekumar did not make this allegation until he was denied promotion in his first 2 affidavits.

  So, in short let us the people who are supposed to have alleged that Modi told the officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger the next day. They are:

1- Sanjiv Bhatt. He has no credibility, was not present at that 27 February 2002 meting at all. No one, including Modi’s biggest enemies like Tehelka and Outlook while trying to crucify Modi ever claimed for 9 years after that meeting that he was present in that meeting. This man has a very terrible past and has cases against him. He was absent from duty for many many days without any reason and when was finally suspended tried to become a ‘martyr’. The full details of Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims and SIT’s observations on him are given in the book, but not on this website. A reading of the book will fully make clear this issue- of Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims.

Also note here that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam debunked the claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he was present and blamed NGOs for forcibly trying to find something against Narendra Modi. This is a must read report of the SIT.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT

2- R Shreekumar. He too was not present at that 27 February meeting. He claims that a man who was present told him that Modi ordered the officials to go slow on Hindus the next day. Even if this was true, this is no proof. Shreekumar has given no proof at all that that man (Chakravarty) ever told him this. Chakravarty has told the Nanavati Commission exactly the opposite. Shreekumar made these allegations only after he was denied promotion, and not in his first 2 affidavits.

3- Haren Pandya. There is in fact, no proof that he ever made any allegations that Modi ordered the officials to go slow in that 27 Feb meeting. Neither Outlook nor CCT have given any proof of his claiming so before them. There were personal and other matters which could have prompted Pandya to speak against Narendra Modi (there is no proof at all that he made any allegations against him). Also, note that many self-styled secular activists had alleged Pandya himself being culpable in the 2002 riots, of being involved in an attack on a durgah in the 2002 riots. But after his murder in March 2003, for which Muslims were convicted, or ever after he started speaking against Narendra Modi in 2002 itself (on personal grudges, since he was demoted from Home Minister to Revenue Minister and ever since the issue of refusing to vacate Ellisbridge seat for Narendra Modi to contest rose) the media immediately took to him as a ‘hero’ forgetting its allegations on him!

   The self-styled liberals, Concerned Citizens Tribunal (which made a fool of itself by trying to say Godhra fire was set from ‘inside’ as if Muslims did not do it) was howling against Haren Pandya since March 2002, when it was alleged that Pandya was involved in demolishing a dargah on 1 March 2002. He allegedly took the leadership on the next day of burning of Godhra train, to demolish a Dargah which was protruding on the main road of Bhathha (Paldi) not far away from his own house. Thereafter, he started double talking against the government for not protecting the minority. The demolition he did, brought him on the top of the hit list and therefore he was killed. The full truth of Haren Pandya’s issue is also given in the book (“Gujarat Riots: The True Story”). A reading of that will reveal everything.

    Also, there were clear mistakes in Outlook’s report of 3 June 2002 on the people present in that meeting where it quoted Haren Pandya (without naming him at that time).

   That is, not even one person who was actually present at that meeting has alleged that Narendra Modi told them to allow Hindus to vent their anger. All those who were present, like the then DGP Chakravarty, have reported that Modi told them exactly the opposite, to control the riots. All those who have alleged that Modi told officials to go slow at that meeting were not even present at that meeting, neither Sanjiv Bhatt, nor R Shreekumar, nor, if he did, the late Haren Pandya. Outlook’s first attempt to crucify Narendra Modi in June 2002 failed, that that report contained glaring factual errors on the presence of officials in that meeting. This shameless magazine still tries to report: “In that crucial 27 February meeting Modi reportedly told officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger”. What reportedly? Which reports? Where’s the evidence? We have given a heap of evidence proving the opposite. No one has ever refuted our evidence. The book gives all the details of this.

The book also gives findings of the SIT to reveal everything about this 27 February meeting- the full truth of the claims of Sanjiv Bhatt, Haren Pandya and the reality.

Let us say, for argument’s sake, that Modi did tell the officials at that crucial meeting on 27 Feb night to go slow on Hindus. But did they do so the next day? Not at all. On 28 Feb 2002 (Thursday), large scale riots occurred in Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat. Despite a terrible situation, the police fired 1,496 rounds on 28 Feb 2002 , including 600+ in Ahmedabad. 700 people were arrested for rioting.  10 were shot dead in police firing in Ahmedabad alone, 16 were injured and at least 2 more were shot dead in Godhra and Nadiad. All these details of the actual action taken by the police can be viewed in this article Role of the Government in controlling violence.

The book also gives findings of the SIT to reveal everything about this 27 February meeting- the full truth of the claims of Sanjiv Bhatt, Haren Pandya and the reality. The full details are given in the book, but not in this website. To know the full details, read the book.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

 

20 Comments

Myth 18: Narendra Modi never expressed sadness for the post-Godhra riots

Posted on December 23, 2011 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

FACT: It is not astonishing to see the media level absolutely false and wrong charges on the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. But what is astonishing is the extent to which the media goes in putting unbelievable factual errors and sticking to them, and believing its own lies. These days, the livid media and political parties opposed to Narendra Modi have all made full use of the myths and lies concocted on him. Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi has said many times,”BJP  never expressed regret for the Gujarat riots”. The much-repeated claim that Narendra Modi never expressed regret at the Gujarat riots before December 2013 is absolutely wrong.

    Narendra Modi has expressed regret for the riots and termed the riots as ‘unfortunate’ . In an interview to Aaj Tak‘s Prabhu Chawla on its program Seedhi Baat, the excerpts of which were published in India Today weekly dated 4 Nov 2002, Narendra Modi was asked “Prime Minister Vajpayee and Home Minister Advani have said that whatever happened in Gujarat was wrong” to which he said, “I say the same thing. The communal riots in Gujarat were unfortunate and we are sad they took place.”

See link: http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20021104/conf.shtml#co

  After the 2002 Gujarat riots Narendra Modi made a statement in the State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) in March 2002. One paragraph from that statement is: “Are we not supposed to soul-search ourselves? Whether it is Godhra incident or post-Godhra it does not enhance the prestige of any decent society. The riots are a stigma on humanity and do not help anyone to hold his head high. Then why is there a difference of opinion”.

When Narendra Modi went on his “Sadbhavana fast” in Gujarat in 2011, some newspapers said ,

“In a statement interpreted as his first sign of regret over the 2002 post-Godhra violence, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi Friday said the pain of anyone in the state is “my pain” and he had a duty to do justice for everyone.”Constitution of India is supreme for us. As a Chief Minister of the state, pain of anybody in the state is my pain. (Delivering) Justice to everyone is the duty of the state,” Modi said on the eve of his three-day fast.”

   It wasn’t merely this paper, almost the entire media said the same thing. What a ridiculous interpretation from the media, and how factually incorrect it reported! The 2011 statement was not the ‘first sign of regret’, he had directly expressed sadness and condemned riots many times before, right from 2002. The BJP’s public relations work truly doesn’t seem to be up to the mark. How it allowed such a massive lie to crop up without ever bothering to try to bring out the truth is beyond comprehension.

   What is correct is that Narendra Modi has not apologized for the Gujarat riots, and rightly so. Apology is given when someone does something wrong, makes a mistake and asks for forgiveness for a mistake. What wrong has Narendra Modi done? He actually has done an excellent work in controlling the 2002 riots, his administration saved more than 24,000 Muslims and many Hindus too, the riots were controlled in 3 days while weeklies like India Today and Outlook predicted weeks of violence on 28 Feb, he frantically called the Army to Ahmedabad on 28 Feb 2002, ordered preventive arrests of 827 people on 27 Feb itself, gave ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders in Godhra on 27 Feb itself (primarily aimed at Hindus who could have retaliated in Godhra). His government spent more than 204 crores rupees on relief and rehabilitation measures, built houses, opened relief camps, etc. Strong action was taken against the rioters, with as many as 35,552 arrests made as of 28 April 2002, including 27,901 Hindus. Already, in just 11 years at least 443 people have been convicted in at least 50 cases for the riots, including 332 Hindus and 111 Muslims (including 31  Muslims for Godhra and 80 for post-Godhra). The media’s argument often is “The Congress has apologized for the 1984 riots. Will the BJP apologize for the 2002 Gujarat riots?” This was asked by Arnab Goswami to BJP leader Nalin Kohli on 16 May 2009 on TV after the BJP’s massive debacle in the 2009 Lok Sabha polls.

   There is absolutely no need to equate the two. Firstly there is not a single parallel between the post-Godhra riots of 2002 and the 1984 riots. We have seen the contrasts between these two riots. Secondly, Congress apologizing for the riots is not an action of credit. Apologizing means accepting culpability in the 1984 riots in which 3,000 Sikhs were killed.  Is the sin of killing 3,000 forgivable by merely issuing an apology? Accepting culpability for the death of 3,000 people means the party deserves severe punishment. 3,000 murders cannot be pardoned and condoned by an apology. The then Congress Government took no action against the rioters, hardly any arrests were made and hardly 30 people in 12 cases have been convicted as claimed by CNN-IBN in 28 years, till August 2012.  For what should the BJP or Narendra Modi apologize? They have done absolutely nothing wrong, controlled violence in Gujarat in record time even after a shocking massacre like Godhra, while it took previous  Congress Governments  several months to stop riots in 1985 and 1969 even without any cause like Godhra.

   It should be remembered that not a single English newspaper actually accused the Chief Minister Narendra Modi of any wrongdoing on the actual days of the riots, i.e. 28 Feb 2002 (Thursday), 1st March 2002 (Friday) and 2nd March 2002. As a matter of fact, not a single newspaper, except for The Indian Express, accused the police of any inaction on the day of the worst violence i.e. 28 February in its report the next day. All English newspapers, like The Hindu, The Tribune etc reported that the violence was out of control, the police were overwhelmingly outnumbered, the fire brigade ran out of water, and still the police did its best, arrested 700 people on 28 Feb, shot dead at least 10 people in police firing, the Chief Minister Narendra Modi frantically called the Army units to Ahmedabad, etc.

See the report of The Hindu and The Telegraph dated 1st March 2002 covering events of 28 Feb.  Do any of them accuse Narendra Modi or the police of any deliberate culpability? After this day, 28 Feb, no one, not even The Indian Express accused the administration or police of any inaction. In fact, The Indian Express reported on 2nd March 2002 that on 1st March 2002 (Friday, the second day of the riots), “The police, its credibility at its lowest, tried to salvage its reputation intervening in some clashes by opening fire. 20 were killed in police firing across the state, 12 in Ahmedabad.” All accusations on Narendra Modi and demands for his resignation, dismissal started AFTER the riots. This was because, the media wanted some scapegoat to be made for the riots. It wanted Modi to sack a few police officers,  drop a minister or two. But Modi did nothing of the sort. He did not blame anyone, did not make anyone a scapegoat. In an interview to NDTV broadcast in March/April 2004, Narendra Modi said to Shekhar Gupta (Editor of The Indian Express), “You all wanted that someone be made scapegoat. I did not do that. I allowed you to break all pots on my head alone. You have all decided, all these riots happened under this man (Narendra Modi). Until this man is removed from the Chief Minister’s post, we will not rest in peace. My best wishes to you in your mission.” Narendra Modi did not resign, and the BJP did not dismiss him, so the media was livid.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

21 Comments

Mayank vs Gujaratriots.com

Posted on November 20, 2011 - Filed Under Our Debates

Sun, 13/11/11, Mayank Gupta  wrote:

From: Mayank Gupta
Subject: Correction Needed on Your Website
To: “admin” <admin@gujaratriots.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 November, 2011, 12:56 PM

Hi,

The Page http://www.gujaratriots.com/27/myth-2-muslims-were-%E2%80%98butchered%E2%80%99-in-gujarat/
need couple of corrections.

1. On 23 March 2002, 50 Hindu shops were burnt in Ahmedabad’s Revdi
Bazaar that caused a loss of 15 crore rupees.

Correction: The article by timesofindia does not mention that 50 shops
burned belonged to Hindus. How did you come to the conclusion?

2. They did not allow the police and the Army to search for criminals
in their areas. They pelted the police and even the Army with bullets
and stones, when they arrived to conduct search operations in Muslim
areas.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ahmedabad/Rioters-torch-50-shops-at-Revdi-Bazaar/articleshow/4609603.cms

Correction: The indiatoday article does not say that people pelted
police or army with bullets and stones. Please correct it.
http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020415/states.shtml

Regards,
Mayank Gupta

OUR ANSWER:

1. On 23 March 2002, 50 Hindu shops were burnt in Ahmedabad’s Revdi Bazaar that caused a loss of 15 crore rupees.

Correction: The article by timesofindia does not mention that 50 shops
burned belonged to Hindus. How did you come to the conclusion?

Answer: Quoting from that Times of India article “Local residents and shopowners who have suffered heavy losses due to the arson said the situation in Panchkuva had been tense soon after daybreak. “since morning, there were instances of stone-throwing and abortive attacks on local shopkeepers and their residences. Matters turned worse after a mob attack on the Sindhi market was foiled by SRP personnel stationed at the site. the mob then turned its fury on the Revdi Bazaar and started sprinkling acid, oil, petrol and inflammable chemicals on cloth shops. the next thing we knew, our shops were ablaze,” said Balram Thavani, a former BJP corporator and a local shop owner.”  Since Balram Thavani is a Hindu, and his shop was set afire, it is obvious that it was an attack on Hindus. Had it been an attack of shops on Muslims, the Times of India would have definitely written “50 shops belonging to minority community were set on fire”. Since it mentions a Hindu shop-owners’ shop being set afire, it is clear that this is an attack on Hindus. (Also, it is a well-established that this was a minority mob attacking Hindus, you can ask this to anyone who lives in Ahmedabad’s  Revdi Bazaar area).
     Also, in another report months later, The Times of India said, ” Property worth almost Rs 5 crore was destroyed in a devastating fire which gutted nearly 60 wholesale cloth stores in the Revdi Bazar area of Ahmedabad at 2.45 am on Tuesday night. Police said the fire was caused by a short-circuit. The market had been set on fire during the peak of the riots some months ago. Most of the shops belonged to Sindhi businessmen who have suffered a loss for the second time in recent months….Gopalbhai Keshwani, the owner of a gutted cloth shop, said, “Ill luck seems to be dogging the shopkeepers of Revdi Bazaar. Just three months ago our shops were set on fire by rioters in the Mirgawad area of Revdi Bazaar.” Gulshanbhai R Shabnam, owner of Vijay Laxmi Fabrics, said, “The upper storey of my shop was packed with brand new sarees and costly fabrics. I don’t how will I rebuild by business from this heap of ash.” http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-07-31/ahmedabad/27303398_1_cloth-shops-fire-tenders-shop-owner
 Since these names are of Hindu shop-owers whose shops were torched by rioters in March 2002- it is clear that these were 50 Hindu shops burnt by Muslims. Also see the word “Sindhi businessmen who shops were burnt in March 2002” which clearly shows that they were Hindu shops. Also that Times of India article of March 2002 says ” Matters turned worse after a mob attack on the Sindhi market was foiled by SRP personnel stationed at the site. The mob then turned its fury on the Revdi Bazaar and started sprinkling acid, oil, petrol and inflammable chemicals on cloth shops.” India Today weekly says in its issue of April 15, 2002 “….Next (After 17 March 2002) , the Sindhi Market and Bhanderi Pole araeas of Ahmedabad, hitherto calm, were attacked by mobs. This phase, really was one of Muslim mobs attacking Hindus.” http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020415/states.html This shows that the attack on Sindhi market, which India Today says was done by Muslims, was foiled and police and after that the mob (i.e. Muslims) attacked Ahmedabad’s Revdi Bazaar, burning Hindu shops.

2. They did not allow the police and the Army to search for criminals in their areas. They pelted the police and even the Army with bullets
and stones, when they arrived to conduct search operations in Muslim areas.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ahmedabad/Rioters-torch-50-shops-at-Revdi-Bazaar/articleshow/4609603.cms

Correction: The India Today article does not say that people pelted
police or army with bullets and stones. Please correct it.
http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20020415/states.shtml

 

Answer: The India Today weekly report dated 20 May 2002 says-”A series of attacks on policemen by Muslims has further added to the lack of faith. Now, strapped with the anti-Muslim label, the police has been slow in acting against Muslim fanatics”.

See the link- http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020520/states2.html

This will contain the above sentence in the 6th paragraph from the top.

Yes you are right when you say that that India Today article does not say that people (i.e. Muslims) pelted Police or Army with bullets or stones. But it is true. One has to read between the lines and understand what happened. We have not said that India Today says that Police and Army were pelted with stones, just that they cut off power lines and formed human chains to allow Muslims to flee with weapons at night. But even though India Today does not explicitly say so, it happened. In the next article of 20 May 2002, India Today says, “A series of attacks by Muslims on policemen has further added to the lack of faith.” On 21 April 2002, in Ahmedabad’s Gomtipur area, a police constable (Hindu- his name was Amar Patil) was killed by Muslims. India Today says this in its issue of 20 May 2002- that a police constable was killed in Gomtipur (Muslim area) on 21 April 2002. In that issue, it also says, “By nightfall, the death toll had crossed the 940 mark when a group of Muslims in Ahmedabad’s Shah Alam area drew Hindus out by throwing bombs at their homes in the Maninagar area and then launched a fierce attack with country-made weapons and crude bombs. BSF jawans who intervened were fired upon before they killed five of the attackers and arrested several with a huge quantity of weapons including a country-made cannon…”

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020520/states.html

This shows that Muslims attacked police. Many policemen lost their lives in the Gujarat riots trying to control the violence. The encyclopedia wikipedia reports that as many as 200 policemen gave their lives trying to quell violence in Gujarat.  A series of attacks on policemen by Muslims means attacks with stones and bullets only. Also, it is well-known that there were and maybe still are places in Ahmedabad which are so densely populated by Muslims that even the police didnt dare to go there- like Juhapura.

From: Mayank Gupta
To: Gujaratriots.com Admin <gujaratriots2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2011 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: Challenge To Gujarat Riots Team
Hi,

Thanks for the reply. (We had said we would get back to him in 4-5 days, hence he said this). I would like to point out another mistake in the article.

The article http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20020422/states.shtml
does not mention Police saving over 24,000 Muslims. It only talks about 2,500 Muslims saved in Sanjeli.

OUR ANSWER:

However, it is not merely this act that is record. Like in Sanjeli, 5,000 Muslims were saved in Bodeli, a town in Vadodara district, from a crowd of over 7,000. The following is another report quoted from India Today dated 8 April 2002:

When a Muslim woman was burnt alive by Hindu zealots, (in Viramgam, not far from Ahmedabad) the minorities, who constitute almost 30 % of the 70,000-odd population went on the rampage. Soon, nearly 15,000 Hindus from nearby villages encircled Viramgam and targeted the Muslim localities in the town. It took some deft handling by the police and the Army to save the day.”

http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20020408/states2.html

And in the 22 April issue- India Today says-

“…Take Sanjeli. In the carnage that ensued after the February 27 Godhra killings, 8,000 armed tribals descended on the town of 8,000 in the tribal heartland of Dahod district. Bows, stones and gunshots rained on the fleeing Muslims, killing 15. Police intervention meant another 2,500 were spared a savage death … In an identical display of insanity, around 7,000 armed tribals marched into Bodeli town in Chotte-Udepur tribal area of Vadodara district intent on massacring the Muslims who had taken shelter there after being driven out of the neighbouring villages. While hundreds were saved by the police, Vadodara District Collector Bhagyesh Jha and other senior officers were fired upon by tribals as they tried to rescue the trapped Muslims.

Tragedy was also averted by the police and army at Viramgam town near Ahmedabad where over 15,000 Hindus, mostly armed OBC Thakores, burnt 250 Muslim houses…”

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20020422/states.shtml

That is to say, the Gujarat police and the Indian Army together saved thousands of Muslims, of the 21,000-odd of the town. If we assume that there was no police or Army presence, 10,000 Muslims of the town may have been killed.  Though India Today does not give the exact number of Muslims saved in Bodeli, merely saying “Hundreds were saved”, this writer (i.e. me, Admin of this website) personally met the India Today correspondent and asked him about the number of Muslims who were saved in Bodeli and Viramgam and got the answer “At least 5000 in Bodeli. Had it not been for the police and the Army, they would have killed 20,000 in Viramgam.” But even assuming the least estimate of 10,000 in Viramgam, 5000 in Bodeli and 2500 in Sanjeli we already get 17,500 Muslims saved. It is well-known in Bodeli that 5,000 Muslims were saved by the police.

 The website www.indianembassy.org seems to be an official site of the Indian Embassy in USA. It says-

 “In Mora village of Panchmahal district, SDM, Mamlatdar and police rushed to the spot where the crowd was gathered, dispersed the crowd and saved the lives of 400 people by shifting them to a safe place.
On receipt of information on 3rd March 2002 a madarsa in Asoj, in Vagodia, Vadodara district was likely to be attacked, nearly 40 persons including 22 children were evacuated to a safe place.
On the night of 2/3 March 2002, in Dahod, the police escorted over 2000 persons belonging to minority community to a safe place, rescuing them from the mob that had gathered from surrounding 28 villages.
In Surat city, protection was provided to about 60 persons and mosque in Nana Varacha area.
On receipt of information that some women and children were trapped in a mosque, Surat police escorted them to a safe place.
On receipt of information that 100 persons were trapped near Rita society opposite Yateem Khana Jain Mandir, the police immediately rushed there and dispersed the mob, but found no persons trapped inside. Surat police immediately provided protection requested for by 12-15 houses of Muslims near Khoja Masjid.”
See link: http://www.indianembassy.org/new/gujarat_02/index.htm
And this is not a complete story! Times of India also reports in its online edition that police escorted 400 Muslims to safety from Naroda Patiya on 28 Feb night. Since the 17,000 strong- mob was bent on killing 1,000 Muslims in Naroda Patiya, and the final toll (revised after 7 years when all missing were declared dead) was 95- revised from 83, it shows that police saved 900 Muslims in Naroda Patiya. In the Ehsan Jafri case as well, close to 200 Muslims were saved by the police, as there were 250 people inside the housing complex and the mob killed 68 (revised toll after all missing were declared dead after 7 years). This despite the fact that the Police were overwhelmingly outnumbered by the mob. Such cases adding up do give us sufficient reason to believe that 24,000 Muslims were saved.

Re: Challenge To Gujarat Riots Team

Sunday, 20 November, 2011 3:49 AM
From:
“Mayank Gupta”
To:
“Gujaratriots.com Admin” <gujaratriots2002@yahoo.com>
Hi Admin,Sorry for raising this question again in the last mail. For some
reason gmail took some extra time to send this mail. While i was
writing the previous mail I did not get this mail on 24,000 Muslims
saved.

Great work hats off to you and your team.

Regards,
Mayank

2 Comments

Abhishek vs Gujaratriots.com

Posted on February 2, 2011 - Filed Under Our Debates

Read more

7 Comments

Shoaib vs Gujaratriots.com

Posted on August 5, 2010 - Filed Under Our Debates

Actually this was not a written debate but a comment posted by one of the readers on 6th July 2010. But since the comment questioned 1 point raised on our site (And we have promised to correct any wrong information) and also demanded a reply, along with our reply in the comments section, we are also replying in the debate section.

Shoaib INDIA on July 6th, 2010 5:45 am

See friend u have written some correct things but let me correct u gujrat riots victims were 3000&ur saying 1000 i cant digest it writing this blog this will create only poison between us so plz dont do this politicians are doing it very nicely but think from all angles&increase integration not divideation so plz thinkIts once what ru getting so be creative not destructive and reply me

To which we reply:

Dear Mr Shoaib,
Kindly see this. http://www.gujaratriots.com/7/myth-1-2000-muslims-were-killed-in-the-gujarat-riots/
In our opinion- this contains enough evidence to show that total people killed in the riots cannot be more than 1267. We agree with you that there should be no poison spread anywhere by anyone. That is why the real figures of the number of people should be told. 3,000 in our opinion is an exaggerated number- and will only infuriate Muslims and needlessly instigate them. Also- terrorists can use this exaggerated number and words like ‘genocide’ to brainwash innocent youth for terrorism. When the correct figure is around 1200- increasing it by 1800 more will be incorrect- what if others also increase the number of Hindus killed in Godhra from 59 to 1859?
However- we are open for correction- and if you have any evidence that 3000 people were killed in the riots, do bring it to our notice. We will make the changes accordingly.

2 Comments

Myth 17: Gujarat Government did nothing to help the victims

Posted on July 7, 2010 - Filed Under 12-Concocted Lies and Myths by the media

Fact: We have already seen the steps taken by the Government to quell the violence, and in saving the lives of the victims- for example in Sanjeli, Bodeli and Viramgam areas of Gujarat. Hindus were also saved by violent Muslims in many places in Gujarat, like in Jamalpur on 1 March 2002, and in Modasa on 19 March 2002 when Muslims attacked. But there has also been a claim by many that the Gujarat Government was like Hitler and have called these plain riots as ‘holocaust’ and equated them with the killing of Jews in Germany. Let us see the facts.

The Gujarat Government spent a lot of money for providing relief to the riot victims. None other than the UPA Government’s MoS for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal said this in the Rajya Sabha that too in a written reply on 11 May 2005. He said an amount of Rs 1.5 lakh was paid by the government to the next of kin of each person killed and Rs 5,000, Rs 15,000, Rs 25,000 and Rs 50,000 to those injured up to 10, 30, 40 and 50 per cent respectively.

In addition, Jaiswal said relief was also extended by the state government to the victims of the riots under the heads of cash doles and assistance for household kits, foodgrains to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families in affected areas, housing assistance, rebuilding earning assets, rehabilitation of small business, assistance to industries/shop and hotel and so on.

The state government, Jaiswal said has informed that a total of Rs 204.62 crore has been incurred by it towards relief and rehabilitation measures. The Gujarat government has also informed that they had published the data as recommended by the NHRC, he added.

See link: http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=46538

And the Gujarat Government in an advertisement given in weekly India Today dated 6 May 2002 said-

At the rate of Rs 30 per person, the Government is spending Rs 35 lakh a day on providing foodgrains to the 1.1 lakh inmates of the 99-odd relief camps in the state, 47 of them in Ahmedabad.

The relief operations at the camps are being directly looked after by IAS officers of the rank of secretary to the state Government.

The camps in Ahmedabad have been divided into six groups. Each group is being monitored by a bureaucrat of the rank of secretary. The secretaries have been looking after the minutest problems of the inmates. Teachers were deputed in each camp to help the children prepare for the exams and the state Health Department has been taking special steps to look after the well being of the inmates. In order to rehabilitate the rural inmates, the Government has floated the Sant Kabir Awas Yojana as per the directions of Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee. The scheme will enable the inmates to build houses.”(And in these camps were 1 lakh Muslims and 40,000 Hindus as well).

Not just this, the then Central Government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee also gave several packages to the victims- both Hindus and Muslims. He announced one on 4 April 2002 on his visit to Gujarat and gave another one on 1 May 2002 of Rs 150 crore.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020502/main3.htm

More details of the help with the astronomical amount of money spent and vast range of help given with SIT confirmation is given in the book.

How ridiculous to equate this with Hitler! Did Hitler ever spent crores on helping Jews  or other Christian Germans affected by violence? He ordered killing of Jews- not spending of money to help them. Has any government in the world ever cared about minority Hindus who suffered like this? In the 1971 East Pakistan genocide, West Pakistani soldiers killed around 2 million Hindus  (and also other Bangladeshi Muslims when their leader declared that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic) and also raped at least 2,50,000 Bengali women. From 1947, Pakistan has constantly massacred the Hindus, reducing their population from 20 % in West Pakistan to 1 % now. In Bangladesh also the Hindu population has declined from 34 % in 1901 to 29 % in 1947 to just 7 % now. Hindus are regularly killed, women raped, abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, temples attacked, Hindus thrown out of their homes in Bangladesh and Pakistan. In Kashmir in January 1990, Hindus were given 3 choices by local Islamic leaders- convert to Islam, die or leave Kashmir. Nobody ever reconstructed houses for these Hindus. Nobody gave them financial compensation of crores of rupees. And nobody spent 35 lakhs per day on them. Nobody arrested the culprits and punished them.

   Those who order killing of others or want others to suffer horribly, do not take the pains to do all that the Gujarat Government did. Not only did the Gujarat Government do all this the police also arrested 35,552 people as of 28 April 2002, out of which 27,901 were Hindus. Around 20,000 people were arrested as a preventive measure. No Islamic country (or our own country in Kashmir in 1990) or other mass murderers like Stalin, Hitler ever carried out preventive arrests to save the victims. And already 443 people have been convicted for rioting- the highest ever in Gujarat and indeed, in the country. No Islamic country has ever punished anyone for killings of Hindus, not even of the tallest Hindu leader of Pakistan- Sudamchand Chawla, who was killed by Islamic radicals on 29 January 2002.

   And many have concocted many tales of rapes and killings,like the false claim that Ehsan Jafri’s daughters were raped, or Medina was raped, or the outrageous lie that a pregnant woman’s womb was ripped open and foetus taken out, when nothing like this happened. Nobody has ever lied and falsely exaggerated the killing of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh at the hands of Muslims, or made fake stories of Hindu women’s wombs  being ripped open and foetuses taken out. Actually they have all done exactly the opposite. Killings of lakhs of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh have been ignored, rapes and abductions of Hindu girls have been suppressed ever after 1947.

   Pakistan’s TALLEST Hindu leader, Sudham Chand Chawla was killed in broad daylight in Jacobabad on 29 Jan 2002 while returning from his rice mill. The culprits were not nabbed, nor was any compensation given to his family. He had in fact been complaining to the so-called civil society of Pakistan for years about the threat to his life, to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and yet nobody did anything. If this was the case with the BIGGEST Hindu leader, then what must be the story of ordinary Hindus, who have already been reduced from 20 % in 1947 to just 1 % now?

http://www.sudhamchandchawla.com/

The PR work of the Gujarat Government indeed does not seem to be up to the mark. The media is of course guilty of ignoring all these facts, and needlessly infuriating Muslims by lying that Narendra Modi is responsible for harm caused to the community. Far from it, his government actually helped the victims- both Hindu and Muslim- by spending lakhs per day on them. 40,000 Hindus were thrown out of their homes by Muslims in the Gujarat riots and the Gujarat Government gave them relief camps and rehabilitation help too. Perhaps this was the only case in the world where oppressed Hindus were given state help!

More details of the help given by the Gujarat Government are given in the book (“Gujarat Riots: The True Story”). The SIT has also made some comments on this point, which are given in the book but not on this site. To know all those details, read the book.

Copyright © Gujaratriots.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

You can follow us on twitter at https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

After numerous requests from readers, we have opened a Facebook page as well, on 17 Feb 2014. You can ‘like’ our Facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/gujaratriots2002?hc_location=timeline

21 Comments

keep looking »