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.

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 | 22 Comments

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 created 8 witnesses against Narendra Modi? Even if he did want such orders to be issued, for the sake of argument, he would have done it through 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 [who have made many comments against the Gujarat Government of Narendra Modi in the past] 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.

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 (18 March 2002) 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 India Today gives us a crucial information 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. 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.

   On 27 Feb 2002, 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” which 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 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 also reported that the state government had taken all precautions and tightened security to prevent riots. These reports of 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.

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. The Indian Express and Mid-Day reported both these things in their issues of 28 February 2002.

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).”

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

On Feb 27 itself- 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: 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:

   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.


   Now, let us come to the point of 27 February 2002 meeting. The weekly Outlook magazine, which is extremely anti-Narendra Modi, first alleged that Modi told officials to allow Hindus to take revenge the next day in that crucial 27 February night meeting, in its issue dated 3rd June 2002, following which Narendra Modi sent a defamation notice as reported by The Indian Express and other outlets like Zee News, on 8 June 2002.

   Now, there was a self-appointed Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT) headed by Retd Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Iyer which conducted its own ‘study’ and gave a report on the Gujarat riots [largely authored by Teesta Setalvad, many parts of that report are copy-pasted word for word from earlier articles of Teesta Setalvad's magazine Combat Communalism of earlier months of 2002, and whose contribution in making of the report has been acknowledged by Justice Krishna Iyer himself in Volume 1, pp 5-6] 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 out-rightly denying that any mob torched the train, and made many other ridiculous allegations in that report e.g. claiming that on ’28 February 2002, a total of 40 were killed in police firing of whom 36 were Muslims’, while in reality that day 17 were killed in police firing of whom 11 were Hindus [SIT report, page 210]. 

    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 abroad [also stated by the SIT in its final report, page 312] 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. There were such issues which could have prompted Pandya to speak against Modi, as noted by the SIT too.

  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 nor 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 [19 August 2002], 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 short, there is no proof in public domain 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. Outlook too does not claim to have any record of the conversation with Pandya for its 3 June 2002 issue, it only claims to have for the 19 August 2002 issue.

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

  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! He had lost the Home Ministry!) 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 not claimed to Outlook 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 the information was wrong since G C Raigar was also wrongly named as being present. Also note that it also mentioned the name wrongly- his name is G.C.Raiger, not G.S.Raiger! That meeting also did not last 2 hours, it lasted only 30 to 45 minutes, as reported by the SIT.

   And the 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. Pandya himself was not present (and did not claim to be present either, to Outlook, though he falsely claimed to be present to the CCT) so any statement made by him has absolutely no value. 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 Sanjiv Bhatt 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 Bhatt himself was present, why would he need to ask someone else to find out if Haren Pandya was present or not? That is conclusive evidence that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present in that meeting. This argument was also made by the SIT in the trial court of Justice Ganatra in April 2013, when Zakia Jafri had challenged the SIT’s clean chit to Modi in that court.

  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. 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.

   In his first affidavit before the Nanavati Commission which he filed on 15 July 2002, Sreekumar said: “It is appreciable that despite being heavily outnumbered, police took effective and decisive action, which is evident by the fact that 2200 persons were arrested in the first few days of which 1,800 were Hindus. The police firing in the first few days resulted in the death of nearly 100 people of whom 60 were Hindus. It is evident, therefore, that the police did not hesitate to use force to suppress the communal violence”. The affidavit also stated: “Nevertheless the response of the State Government to Godhra incident was immediate and prompt. The rescue and rehabilitation efforts commenced instantaneously. The Chief Minister, senior Ministers and other officials visited the scene.” Sreekumar blamed print media, particularly the vernacular press, for publishing news grossly in irresponsible manner and said this factor had played a decisive role in keeping up communal tension. He in his second affidavit submitted on 6 October 2004 stated almost similarly.

   However, in his third affidavit which was filed in April 2005, after he was denied promotion in February 2005 owing to a pending criminal case against him initiated by the JMFC, Bhuj and his junior K R Kaushik made Director General of Police, he completely changed his statement and blamed the State Government, political leaders and Gujarat police for communal riots and even for his harassment and victimization. Only after he was denied promotion!

  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.

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 in public 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.

   The CCT gave its report in November 2002. It was in the form of a book titled “Crime against humanity”. The SIT report gives many quotes from that report against the late Haren Pandya himself on his alleged anti-Muslim statements and activities on pages 452-456.

   The CCT report severally criticized Pandya on Vol. I page 36, page 44, page 48, & Vol. II page 48, page 49, page 52, page 77, page 87. Secondly the SIT report on page 452 quotes Pandya as saying that the then MoS for Home i.e.  Gordhan Zadaphiya was present in that 27 Feb meeting and says on page 453 that there is conclusive evidence to prove that Zadaphiya was in Godhra on 27 February and returned on 28 Feb morning, meaning that there was no way Zadaphiya could have attended the 27 Feb night meeting in Gandhinagar, as he was in Godhra. Thus the alleged claim by Pandya to the CCT that Zadaphiya was present in the meeting is proved false.

   Besides, as we saw, Pandya could not even correctly name the people present in the meeting, wrongly naming people who were abroad on leave as being present in that meeting. SIT says that his call records also show that he was present in Ahmedabad till 22:52 hours, so there is no question of him attending the meeting in Gandhinagar at that time. The SIT report also says on page 458 that it appears that the late Haren Pandya had misled the Hon’ble members of the CCT namely, Justice P B Sawant and Justice Hosbet Suresh that he was present in that meeting with a view to increasing his credibility. Most importantly, the SIT says on page 452 that Pandya’s deposition had not been recorded anywhere by the Tribunal (Vindicating what we had said in that CCT has given no proof of Pandya’s deposition to it). Pandya made two different claims to Outlook and CCT (assuming what they say on his testimony is right):

1-    To the CCT, Pandya claimed he himself was present in the 27 Feb late night meeting and so was the then MoS Gordhan Zadafiya

To Outlook, Pandya admitted that he himself was not present in the 27 Feb meeting nor was Zadafiya, but he gave a list of people present which was not correct and contained mistakes

  These contradictions conclusively prove that all claims of Haren Pandya that 27 Feb meeting are false and unreliable. Besides, his calls records conclusively prove that he was not present in that meeting, so any claims that he may have made have no value.

   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 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. To know the full details, read the book.

Copyright ©


You can follow us on twitter at

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


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

Pages: [3] 2 1 » Show All

  1. 22
    Teesta Setalvad's crimes, and evidence against her Says:

    [...] To know the full truth of that 27 Feb meeting and the claim of Sanjiv Bhat, read this. [...]

  2. 21
    Digvijay Singh's lies and reckless statements in the past UNITED STATES Says:

    [...] again that Sanjiv Bhat of Gujarat is an ‘honest officer’. The whole truth of this can be read in this article Myth 19. The SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with known anti-Modi judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab [...]

Pages: [3] 2 1 » Show All

Leave a Reply

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • IndianPad
  • Reddit
  • Technorati