sensible-indian-fan
ODI Star
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Runs
- 35,587
- Post of the Week
- 3
‘No larger conspiracy behind Gujarat riots’: SC rejects Zakia Jafri plea against clean chit to Modi
Before I even say a word, I must mention this:
I am sorry to start another Modi thread. But since I feel this is some very important information, I think it would best to have it in a separate thread.
A few days back, I was involved in a discussion regarding whether Modi was guilty in 2002 riots or not.
My view has been simple: In case of overwhelming evidence (word of people from different communities, police officers, etc) it is one of those cases where a court order may not tell you what is true and what is false SIMPLY because laws are designed in a way where proof has to be 100% solid.
Quite a few posters didn't agree with my premise (an opinion which they are entitled to) but since a few of them asked me for more details, here's one comprehensive one:
The SIT (Special Investigation Team) was established by Supreme court on 2008 to investigate the riots that happened in 2002. The SIT report gave him the clean chit based on its investigations. A local magistrate court accepted it. It even rejected a plea against its probe in Dec 2013. Recently the Supreme Court recently rejected a plea against the probe of SIT pertaining to this case.
I am not a legal expert so I don’t know whether this is the final thing or there are legal proceedings to go on from here.
Anyways moving on:
Here are some findings of the SIT report:
a. It found the speeches of N Modi objectionable and that Modi had a communal mindset, travelling 300 kilometres to Godhra but not visiting any relief camps that housed the internally displaced Muslims, victims of reprisal killings post Godhra until 6.3.2002.
b. It found it questionable that bodies of the unfortunate Godhra victims were handed over to a non-government person, Jiadeep Patel of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) who is currently facing trial in the Naroda Gaam massacre case;
c. It found that Saneev Bhatt an officer of the State Intelligence, Gujarat had opined that he attended the controversial meeting at the chief minister's residence indicating that illegal and objectionable instructions were given.
d. It accepted that Police Officers like RB Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma, Himanshu Bhatt and Samiullah Ansari who had performed their tasks legally had been penalised and persecuted by the Modi regime and those who had buckled under the illegal and unconstitutional instructions had been favoured consistently;
e. It however still concluded that there is no prosecutable evidence against the chief minister
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?286929
If you were to ask – “How is this possible” then you need to understand how laws work when it comes to proof that can be used to persecute. Anyways, I am just getting warmed up. Let’s move on to look at the BIG PICTURE and then come back to everything.
Before I move on, I want to give you an snippet from an article that EXPLAINS my viewpoint in a way that I never could.
http://www.kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
Jeopardy question: 10,000 red flags pointing to murder but no smoking gun.
Answer: Clean chit baby!
Let’s say you’re selecting a domestic worker for your home – a chef… a chauffeur… or a gardener perhaps for your backyard. Along comes Mr. Qualified with an impressive resume of achievements in cooking, driving, or spadework. Impressed as you are, you run a background check to see if he has a criminal history. You find that he has no convictions… but wait, what’s this you see? Dozens of criminal cases have been filed against this man for abetting murder of over a thousand human beings and other supporting offenses. Most have been dropped or dismissed for lack of evidence. Few are still pending in courts. Then there is the testimony of thousands that lays blame on him… realms upon realms of accusations, incriminatory blogs and journalistic pieces. There are secretly taped videos of folks confessing to first hand seeing his involvement in the murders. There are credible witnesses of his transgression that have mysteriously been killed.
You’re aghast and dazed absorbing this information when the door-bell rings. This man stops by again asking if his role is confirmed. You peer into his eyes incredulously. He is perceptive and realizes you’re on to him. He flashes back an assuring smile telling you to ignore all the noise, and to focus on the “clean chit”. He asks you to focus on the awesome Chicken Kadhai he makes or his driving skills that enable him to circle your building’s compound in reverse while brushing his teeth. “Your kitchen and your car are safe with me. You are safe with me. The negative information you may have heard about me is all a ploy of your previous worker who is jealous of me. You’ve had him for so many years, give me a chance…” You begin shutting the door and politely ask him to leave and make up an excuse about already having found someone (don’t want to anger him lest he come back at night to slit your throat”).
You’re comparing him to the previous gardener who was kinda slow and rambled when you asked him pointed questions, and whose uncles and cousins stole a thousand bucks from your unattended wallet, but god what a no contest when comparing the two?
Surely we all agree on this hypothetical scenario and surely we all would feel relieved at having dodged a bullet. “God knows if he is really guilty, but no ****ing way I’m taking a chance with all those allegations”.
That’s what is the case with Modi.
Now someone can easily say Modi is a politician and many hold a grudge against him so the there would be frivolous lawsuits against him which a common man would never have to face. Yes, that’s true but at the same time look at the number of lawsuits, the number red flags (which I am going to talk about), opinions of people from all religions, police officer statements (I didn’t recall any Muslims there), etc. Now do you honestly look me in the eye and tell me EVERY SINGLE ON OF THESE (including many opinions of Hindus) is a Congress created scheme?
Think about it.
Main Red Flag 1 - Red Flag 1: Haren Pandya, murdered BJP minister who was going to testify against Modi
1. Read the full story here - http://kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
2. On March 26, 2003, Haren Pandya was assassinated and his father Vithalbhai Pandya said that his son’s assassination was “a political murder”. Speaking to Tehelka, he blamed Modi for Pandya’s murder. So embittered was Vithalbhai that he contested the Gandhinagar Lok Sabha against LK Advani, but lost.
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main11.asp?filename=ts031205Who_Killed.asp
Main Red flag 2 – Mayaben Kodnani, life sentence serving convicted mass murderer and Modi’s minister.
1. Read the full story here - http://kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
2. When the verdict was announced, Kodnani was asked by the court if she had anything to say, she said the charges against her were politically motivated. She and her husband, who is also a doctor, were in tears when she was convicted. Kodnani's lawyers have opposed the prosecution's plea for capital punishment on the grounds that her husband was not in good health and her son was studying abroad.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/n...to-convict-436232.html?utm_source=ref_article
3. After a 37-month trial, the court observed Kodnani was "tremendously favoured by the then investigating agencies (before the Supreme Court-appointed SIT took over). All care, at the cost of the duty of the investigating officer and even the interest of the victims, was taken to see to it that Kodnani's involvement does not come on the books. This, in fact, comes in the way to believe that Kodnani was ever a victim of any politics."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Kodnani/articleshow/16160581.cms?referral=PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Kodnani/articleshow/16160581.cms?referral=PM
Main Red flag 3 – Complete destruction of police records from the riots (SIT Report)
“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots.” It adds, “No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.” (Page 13, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
Main Red flag 4 – Police officers and their views
“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots.” It adds, “No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.” (Page 13, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
The SIT discovered that the state police had carried out patently shoddy investigations in the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society massacre cases. It deliberately overlooked the cell phone records of Sangh Parivar members and BJP leaders involved in the riots — prominent among them were the Gujarat VHP president Jaideep Patel and BJP minister Maya Kodnani. If these records had been analysed and used as evidence, it could have established their complicity. (Pages 101-105)
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
The police who did take corrective action against rioting Hindu mobs were shunted out. Inexplicably, the SIT claims this is the government’s prerogative
Rahul Sharma, an IPS officer of 1992 batch, is just one example. Superintendent of police, Bhavnagar district, in 2002, Sharma had done a commendable job of controlling the murderous riots by taking swift action against those Hindu leaders who were inciting communal passions. But Sharma told the SIT that three days after he had protected a mosque from being torched by a rioting Hindu mob and saved the lives of dozens of Muslim children, he was transferred out to an insignificant posting. Though Zadaphia had called and commended him, he had said the ratio of Hindus and Muslims killed in police firing was not “proper”, i.e., “that is more number of deaths of Hindus than Muslims.” Soon after, he was transferred. (Page 33)
Another police officer, Vivek Srivastava, a 1989 batch IPS officer, who was superintendent of police of Kutch district was shunted out after he arrested a BJP leader on charges of assaulting a Muslim family. According to the report, “Srivastava stated that he got a few phone calls from the office of home minister and chief minister asking him about the details of the case and whether there was adequate evidence against all the accused to which he confirmed that sufficient evidence was available. Srivastava was transferred in the last week of March 2002 and posted as deputy commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Ahmedabad Zone.” (Page 33)
Another IPS officer Himanshu Bhatt, who was SP, Banaskantha, was transferred to the State Intelligence Bureau at Gandhinagar in March 2002. Bhatt had initiated action against a sub-inspector who had assisted a rioting mob. As it happened the sub-inspector concerned had important political connections and was not only reinstated but also allowed to resume his duty at the same police station. Bhatt has since left the country and settled abroad. The SIT couldn’t examine Bhatt.
Satish Chandra Verma, who was DIG, border range at Kutch-Bhuj during the riots, had issued a formal order to arrest a sitting BJP MLA, Shankar Chaudhary, for being involved in the riots and killing two Muslims. He was transferred soon after as the principal of the State Reserve Police Training Centre, Junagadh. (Page 34)
Inquiry officer Malhotra notes that none of these officers, however, would admit that they were victimised. All of them stated that transfers were the prerogative of the government. Malhotra concludes that these transfers appear to be ‘unusual’ and ‘fishy’ but stops there. Raghavan too admits to their controversial and questionable nature. But, surprisingly, neither of them comes to the obvious conclusion that this could be one of the reasons for further investigation into the State’s collusion.
The SIT admits that police officers who allowed riots to fester were rewarded with lucrative postings. But fails to come to a logical conclusion
In a brazen statement, as upright officers were clipped for doing their duty by the Modi government, derelict officers, who had made a mockery of their uniforms and the trust reposed in them by society, were applauded and rewarded. MK Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector 2, Ahmedabad and in whose region more than 200 Muslims were butchered to death, was given the important posting of IG, Surat Range, soon after the riots. In July 2005, he was appointed to the post of ADGP (law & order) at the state police headquarters, a position with statewide jurisdiction. Tandon retired from the same position.
The SIT has found that Tandon deliberately didn’t respond to distress calls from Gulberg Society and Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya, where some of the most gruesome massacres were underway. Instead, he got bogus cases registered in other parts of Ahmedabad to justify the presence of himself and his police force in those areas rather than Gulberg and Naroda. The SIT has also found that Tandon was in telephonic contact with Jaideep Patel and Mayaben Kodnani — the architect of massacres at Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya.
PB Gondia, deputy to Tandon, was DCP Zone IV at the time. He now enjoys the powerful post of inspector general of police of State CID. In his report, Malhotra says: “In my view Gondia virtually ran away from Naroda Patiya at 1420 hours when the situation was very serious and virtually uncontrollable and also did not reach Gulberg Society despite the distress calls.” The SIT also found that, like Tandon, Gondia was in regular telephonic contact with Kodnani and Jaideep Patel.
In addition to these police officers, there were other controversial bureaucrats who have remained in high government favour despite their black track records. Among them are G Subba Rao, the then chief secretary; Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home); PK Mishra, the then PS to Modi; PC Pande, the then Ahmedabad CP; Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara Range; K Nityanandam, the then secretary (Home); Rakesh Asthana (presently commissioner of police of Vadodara city) and DG Vanzara (now in jail for staging encounter killings).
But despite this overwhelming evidence of bias and prejudice, recorded in its own report, the SIT has concluded lamely that transfers and postings are the prerogative of the government.
If not for Rahul Sharma’s investigation of Naroda Patiya as part of which he collected the call records, today Mayaben Kodnani would not have been behind the bars. Jan Sangharsh Manch analyzed the call records collected by Rahul Sharma, and it was on the basis of JSM’s analysis of Maya Kodnani’s location, it was revealed that she was in Naroda Patiya when the Hindu mobs attacked while Kodnani herself insisted that she wasn’t present in Naroda Patiya.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...id-to-shield-Kodnani/articleshow/16160581.cms
My Comments: Yes, I agree there have been claims of dodgy issues with some police officers’ word (like Sanjeev Bhatt). Deeper analysis will reveal what’s what. But on comprehensive look at every single aspect in this rebelling police officers saga (and cross checking it) its very clear what happened.
Main Red Flag 5 – Atal Bihari’s Vajpayee’s disdain towards Modi
We would be hard pressed to find an Indian Prime Minister more respected than Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Vajpayee was the serving PM during Godhra and made his displeasure towards Modi known in no uncertain terms. He wrote Modi an official letter that has been made available through RTI. In it, he asks Modi to “adhere to Raj dharma and not discriminate on the basis of caste, creed or religion.” Why would the leader of the BJP need to do that if Modi was indeed the impartial CM striving to control the situation? In the aftermath of the lok sabha rout of 2004, Vajpayee said “We lost because of Gujarat.I should have removed Modi”. Certainly Vajpayee would have known a thing or two that you and I don’t about the truth in Gujarat. It is uncommon for a PM to chastise a CM from his own party, and add a dent to the party’s image. Even so,one of the most respected PMs of all time did exactly that. What does that tell us?
Main Red flag 6 – Modi’s justification statement as recorded in SIT report
SIT says:
“In spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction However, this utterance by itself is not sufficient to make out a case against Mr. Modi."
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/sit-stand-vindicated-raghavan/article5506527.ece
In the same article where Raghavan says SIT is vindicated, its mentioned: The SIT had maintained that it could not order prosecution of Mr. Modi and 61 others in the Gulberg Society case as there was no “prosecutable evidence” for filing a charge sheet.
That's the keyword. If that's not there, a person can't be judged guilty even though a lot of stuff looks dodgy.
Now why would Modi make that statement?
Sure you can say he said that to point out why Hindus reacted that way and that it was a harmless statement that was misinterpreted.
Then why are these specific words written that in the SIT report:
“. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by”
Plus when you consider the context:
1. All the above red flags
2. Atalji’s statement about Raj Dharma
3. The fact that Modi traveled 300 km to visit Godhra (27th Feb – the same day) but not to LOCAL riot affected parts in Ahmedabad city (which he only did on 5th March). Guj riots started from 28th Feb following the train burning and major violence happened for 3 days.
On page 67 of the SIT report Malhotra notes, “Narendra Modi, chief minister, has admitted to visiting Godhra on 27 February 2002. He has further admitted to visiting Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other riot-affected parts of Ahmedabad city only on 5 March 2002 and 6 March 2002.” Malhotra further writes: “This possibly indicates his discriminatory attitude. He went to Godhra, travelling almost 300 km in a day, but failed to go to the local areas, where serious incidents of riots had taken place and a large number of Muslims were killed.”
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
Main Red flag 7 – VHP/RSS appointed public prosecutors (SIT Report)
On page 157, the SIT report records that a pro-VHP advocate named Raghuvir Pandya was appointed as government pleader in the Vadodara District and Sessions Court in 2002. Pandya conducted the trial of the infamous Best Bakery case which resulted in the acquittal of all the accused. The SIT further writes that the “Supreme Court of India had passed serious strictures on the role played by Pandya in this trial which deserves to be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for suitable action as deemed fit.” SIT lists five more instances of VHP or RSS leaders being appointed as public prosecutors. The report mentions that ‘political consideration and affiliation of the advocates weighed heavily with the government’ in these appointments. Then it contradicts itself by saying that ‘no specific allegation of professional misconduct on the part of any of the public prosecutors has come to light.’
Saffron brigade members of were appointed public prosecutors in riot cases, but tough to pinpoint instances of misconduct, says SIT
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
Lots of other red flags but I listed the most important ones with additional data and references. You can read the rest here - http://www.kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
The curious case of Nanavati Commission reg 2002 riots (still going on)
Constituted on March 6, 2002 to probe into the Godhra Train Carnage incident reported on February 27, 2002 and the subsequent communal riots in Gujarat, the Commission had sought 'some more time' to submit its report. This is the 21st extension the Commission has got from the state government to complete the probe and submit its report. Latest it has been granted extention till June 30, 2014. Isn’t it odd that a commission has taken freaking 12 years and still has NOT even submitted its report?
http://archive.indianexpress.com/ne...ension-till-june-30-to-submit-report/1213785/
Has Nanavati been bribed?
http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/04/...ission-for-years-he-wants-money-nothing-else/
Here’s what it says:
Someone pointed this out and I've confirmed that not only has Nanavati been bribed (as clearly reported on video in a sting operation – see below) but Modi appointed two of Nanavati's sons as Gujarat government lawyers, and pays them HEFTY amounts of money. Why would Nanavati POSSIBLY give an adverse report against Modi?
This is open bribery – but how many care?
As a result of the MASSIVE bribery of the Nanavati family, Nanavati has NOT finished his report despite endless number of extensions. And whatever he has written is seriously flawed and full of obvious loopholes.
After receiving more than 20 extensions of its term, it (Nanavati commission) has yet to submit its final report, as of March 2014. And Modi's favourite Judge who was supposed to "investigate" Mansi Soni snooping has not bothered to report anything by 26 February.
And so many other cases of bribery, including of court officials, police and witnesses. And threatening and killing of witnesses.
You can read about it here:
http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/04/...ission-for-years-he-wants-money-nothing-else/
Anyways before someone says I am not into conspiracy theories, let me assure you I am not. There have been many allegations of Chief Justices, normal lawyers taking bribes, etc.
This sting could be true or it could be false.
But when I see that a commission has taken freaking 12 years and still has NOT even submitted its report, I start doubting.
So is Modi guilty or not?
Legally he is NOT (as of now).
Morally, well....you take a call.
Before I even say a word, I must mention this:
I am sorry to start another Modi thread. But since I feel this is some very important information, I think it would best to have it in a separate thread.
A few days back, I was involved in a discussion regarding whether Modi was guilty in 2002 riots or not.
My view has been simple: In case of overwhelming evidence (word of people from different communities, police officers, etc) it is one of those cases where a court order may not tell you what is true and what is false SIMPLY because laws are designed in a way where proof has to be 100% solid.
Quite a few posters didn't agree with my premise (an opinion which they are entitled to) but since a few of them asked me for more details, here's one comprehensive one:
The SIT (Special Investigation Team) was established by Supreme court on 2008 to investigate the riots that happened in 2002. The SIT report gave him the clean chit based on its investigations. A local magistrate court accepted it. It even rejected a plea against its probe in Dec 2013. Recently the Supreme Court recently rejected a plea against the probe of SIT pertaining to this case.
I am not a legal expert so I don’t know whether this is the final thing or there are legal proceedings to go on from here.
Anyways moving on:
Here are some findings of the SIT report:
a. It found the speeches of N Modi objectionable and that Modi had a communal mindset, travelling 300 kilometres to Godhra but not visiting any relief camps that housed the internally displaced Muslims, victims of reprisal killings post Godhra until 6.3.2002.
b. It found it questionable that bodies of the unfortunate Godhra victims were handed over to a non-government person, Jiadeep Patel of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) who is currently facing trial in the Naroda Gaam massacre case;
c. It found that Saneev Bhatt an officer of the State Intelligence, Gujarat had opined that he attended the controversial meeting at the chief minister's residence indicating that illegal and objectionable instructions were given.
d. It accepted that Police Officers like RB Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma, Himanshu Bhatt and Samiullah Ansari who had performed their tasks legally had been penalised and persecuted by the Modi regime and those who had buckled under the illegal and unconstitutional instructions had been favoured consistently;
e. It however still concluded that there is no prosecutable evidence against the chief minister
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?286929
If you were to ask – “How is this possible” then you need to understand how laws work when it comes to proof that can be used to persecute. Anyways, I am just getting warmed up. Let’s move on to look at the BIG PICTURE and then come back to everything.
Before I move on, I want to give you an snippet from an article that EXPLAINS my viewpoint in a way that I never could.
http://www.kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
Jeopardy question: 10,000 red flags pointing to murder but no smoking gun.
Answer: Clean chit baby!
Let’s say you’re selecting a domestic worker for your home – a chef… a chauffeur… or a gardener perhaps for your backyard. Along comes Mr. Qualified with an impressive resume of achievements in cooking, driving, or spadework. Impressed as you are, you run a background check to see if he has a criminal history. You find that he has no convictions… but wait, what’s this you see? Dozens of criminal cases have been filed against this man for abetting murder of over a thousand human beings and other supporting offenses. Most have been dropped or dismissed for lack of evidence. Few are still pending in courts. Then there is the testimony of thousands that lays blame on him… realms upon realms of accusations, incriminatory blogs and journalistic pieces. There are secretly taped videos of folks confessing to first hand seeing his involvement in the murders. There are credible witnesses of his transgression that have mysteriously been killed.
You’re aghast and dazed absorbing this information when the door-bell rings. This man stops by again asking if his role is confirmed. You peer into his eyes incredulously. He is perceptive and realizes you’re on to him. He flashes back an assuring smile telling you to ignore all the noise, and to focus on the “clean chit”. He asks you to focus on the awesome Chicken Kadhai he makes or his driving skills that enable him to circle your building’s compound in reverse while brushing his teeth. “Your kitchen and your car are safe with me. You are safe with me. The negative information you may have heard about me is all a ploy of your previous worker who is jealous of me. You’ve had him for so many years, give me a chance…” You begin shutting the door and politely ask him to leave and make up an excuse about already having found someone (don’t want to anger him lest he come back at night to slit your throat”).
You’re comparing him to the previous gardener who was kinda slow and rambled when you asked him pointed questions, and whose uncles and cousins stole a thousand bucks from your unattended wallet, but god what a no contest when comparing the two?
Surely we all agree on this hypothetical scenario and surely we all would feel relieved at having dodged a bullet. “God knows if he is really guilty, but no ****ing way I’m taking a chance with all those allegations”.
That’s what is the case with Modi.
Now someone can easily say Modi is a politician and many hold a grudge against him so the there would be frivolous lawsuits against him which a common man would never have to face. Yes, that’s true but at the same time look at the number of lawsuits, the number red flags (which I am going to talk about), opinions of people from all religions, police officer statements (I didn’t recall any Muslims there), etc. Now do you honestly look me in the eye and tell me EVERY SINGLE ON OF THESE (including many opinions of Hindus) is a Congress created scheme?
Think about it.
Main Red Flag 1 - Red Flag 1: Haren Pandya, murdered BJP minister who was going to testify against Modi
1. Read the full story here - http://kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
2. On March 26, 2003, Haren Pandya was assassinated and his father Vithalbhai Pandya said that his son’s assassination was “a political murder”. Speaking to Tehelka, he blamed Modi for Pandya’s murder. So embittered was Vithalbhai that he contested the Gandhinagar Lok Sabha against LK Advani, but lost.
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main11.asp?filename=ts031205Who_Killed.asp
Main Red flag 2 – Mayaben Kodnani, life sentence serving convicted mass murderer and Modi’s minister.
1. Read the full story here - http://kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
2. When the verdict was announced, Kodnani was asked by the court if she had anything to say, she said the charges against her were politically motivated. She and her husband, who is also a doctor, were in tears when she was convicted. Kodnani's lawyers have opposed the prosecution's plea for capital punishment on the grounds that her husband was not in good health and her son was studying abroad.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/n...to-convict-436232.html?utm_source=ref_article
3. After a 37-month trial, the court observed Kodnani was "tremendously favoured by the then investigating agencies (before the Supreme Court-appointed SIT took over). All care, at the cost of the duty of the investigating officer and even the interest of the victims, was taken to see to it that Kodnani's involvement does not come on the books. This, in fact, comes in the way to believe that Kodnani was ever a victim of any politics."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Kodnani/articleshow/16160581.cms?referral=PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Kodnani/articleshow/16160581.cms?referral=PM
Main Red flag 3 – Complete destruction of police records from the riots (SIT Report)
“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots.” It adds, “No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.” (Page 13, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
Main Red flag 4 – Police officers and their views
“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots.” It adds, “No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.” (Page 13, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
The SIT discovered that the state police had carried out patently shoddy investigations in the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society massacre cases. It deliberately overlooked the cell phone records of Sangh Parivar members and BJP leaders involved in the riots — prominent among them were the Gujarat VHP president Jaideep Patel and BJP minister Maya Kodnani. If these records had been analysed and used as evidence, it could have established their complicity. (Pages 101-105)
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
The police who did take corrective action against rioting Hindu mobs were shunted out. Inexplicably, the SIT claims this is the government’s prerogative
Rahul Sharma, an IPS officer of 1992 batch, is just one example. Superintendent of police, Bhavnagar district, in 2002, Sharma had done a commendable job of controlling the murderous riots by taking swift action against those Hindu leaders who were inciting communal passions. But Sharma told the SIT that three days after he had protected a mosque from being torched by a rioting Hindu mob and saved the lives of dozens of Muslim children, he was transferred out to an insignificant posting. Though Zadaphia had called and commended him, he had said the ratio of Hindus and Muslims killed in police firing was not “proper”, i.e., “that is more number of deaths of Hindus than Muslims.” Soon after, he was transferred. (Page 33)
Another police officer, Vivek Srivastava, a 1989 batch IPS officer, who was superintendent of police of Kutch district was shunted out after he arrested a BJP leader on charges of assaulting a Muslim family. According to the report, “Srivastava stated that he got a few phone calls from the office of home minister and chief minister asking him about the details of the case and whether there was adequate evidence against all the accused to which he confirmed that sufficient evidence was available. Srivastava was transferred in the last week of March 2002 and posted as deputy commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Ahmedabad Zone.” (Page 33)
Another IPS officer Himanshu Bhatt, who was SP, Banaskantha, was transferred to the State Intelligence Bureau at Gandhinagar in March 2002. Bhatt had initiated action against a sub-inspector who had assisted a rioting mob. As it happened the sub-inspector concerned had important political connections and was not only reinstated but also allowed to resume his duty at the same police station. Bhatt has since left the country and settled abroad. The SIT couldn’t examine Bhatt.
Satish Chandra Verma, who was DIG, border range at Kutch-Bhuj during the riots, had issued a formal order to arrest a sitting BJP MLA, Shankar Chaudhary, for being involved in the riots and killing two Muslims. He was transferred soon after as the principal of the State Reserve Police Training Centre, Junagadh. (Page 34)
Inquiry officer Malhotra notes that none of these officers, however, would admit that they were victimised. All of them stated that transfers were the prerogative of the government. Malhotra concludes that these transfers appear to be ‘unusual’ and ‘fishy’ but stops there. Raghavan too admits to their controversial and questionable nature. But, surprisingly, neither of them comes to the obvious conclusion that this could be one of the reasons for further investigation into the State’s collusion.
The SIT admits that police officers who allowed riots to fester were rewarded with lucrative postings. But fails to come to a logical conclusion
In a brazen statement, as upright officers were clipped for doing their duty by the Modi government, derelict officers, who had made a mockery of their uniforms and the trust reposed in them by society, were applauded and rewarded. MK Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector 2, Ahmedabad and in whose region more than 200 Muslims were butchered to death, was given the important posting of IG, Surat Range, soon after the riots. In July 2005, he was appointed to the post of ADGP (law & order) at the state police headquarters, a position with statewide jurisdiction. Tandon retired from the same position.
The SIT has found that Tandon deliberately didn’t respond to distress calls from Gulberg Society and Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya, where some of the most gruesome massacres were underway. Instead, he got bogus cases registered in other parts of Ahmedabad to justify the presence of himself and his police force in those areas rather than Gulberg and Naroda. The SIT has also found that Tandon was in telephonic contact with Jaideep Patel and Mayaben Kodnani — the architect of massacres at Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya.
PB Gondia, deputy to Tandon, was DCP Zone IV at the time. He now enjoys the powerful post of inspector general of police of State CID. In his report, Malhotra says: “In my view Gondia virtually ran away from Naroda Patiya at 1420 hours when the situation was very serious and virtually uncontrollable and also did not reach Gulberg Society despite the distress calls.” The SIT also found that, like Tandon, Gondia was in regular telephonic contact with Kodnani and Jaideep Patel.
In addition to these police officers, there were other controversial bureaucrats who have remained in high government favour despite their black track records. Among them are G Subba Rao, the then chief secretary; Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home); PK Mishra, the then PS to Modi; PC Pande, the then Ahmedabad CP; Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara Range; K Nityanandam, the then secretary (Home); Rakesh Asthana (presently commissioner of police of Vadodara city) and DG Vanzara (now in jail for staging encounter killings).
But despite this overwhelming evidence of bias and prejudice, recorded in its own report, the SIT has concluded lamely that transfers and postings are the prerogative of the government.
If not for Rahul Sharma’s investigation of Naroda Patiya as part of which he collected the call records, today Mayaben Kodnani would not have been behind the bars. Jan Sangharsh Manch analyzed the call records collected by Rahul Sharma, and it was on the basis of JSM’s analysis of Maya Kodnani’s location, it was revealed that she was in Naroda Patiya when the Hindu mobs attacked while Kodnani herself insisted that she wasn’t present in Naroda Patiya.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...id-to-shield-Kodnani/articleshow/16160581.cms
My Comments: Yes, I agree there have been claims of dodgy issues with some police officers’ word (like Sanjeev Bhatt). Deeper analysis will reveal what’s what. But on comprehensive look at every single aspect in this rebelling police officers saga (and cross checking it) its very clear what happened.
Main Red Flag 5 – Atal Bihari’s Vajpayee’s disdain towards Modi
We would be hard pressed to find an Indian Prime Minister more respected than Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Vajpayee was the serving PM during Godhra and made his displeasure towards Modi known in no uncertain terms. He wrote Modi an official letter that has been made available through RTI. In it, he asks Modi to “adhere to Raj dharma and not discriminate on the basis of caste, creed or religion.” Why would the leader of the BJP need to do that if Modi was indeed the impartial CM striving to control the situation? In the aftermath of the lok sabha rout of 2004, Vajpayee said “We lost because of Gujarat.I should have removed Modi”. Certainly Vajpayee would have known a thing or two that you and I don’t about the truth in Gujarat. It is uncommon for a PM to chastise a CM from his own party, and add a dent to the party’s image. Even so,one of the most respected PMs of all time did exactly that. What does that tell us?
Main Red flag 6 – Modi’s justification statement as recorded in SIT report
SIT says:
“In spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction However, this utterance by itself is not sufficient to make out a case against Mr. Modi."
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/sit-stand-vindicated-raghavan/article5506527.ece
In the same article where Raghavan says SIT is vindicated, its mentioned: The SIT had maintained that it could not order prosecution of Mr. Modi and 61 others in the Gulberg Society case as there was no “prosecutable evidence” for filing a charge sheet.
That's the keyword. If that's not there, a person can't be judged guilty even though a lot of stuff looks dodgy.
Now why would Modi make that statement?
Sure you can say he said that to point out why Hindus reacted that way and that it was a harmless statement that was misinterpreted.
Then why are these specific words written that in the SIT report:
“. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by”
Plus when you consider the context:
1. All the above red flags
2. Atalji’s statement about Raj Dharma
3. The fact that Modi traveled 300 km to visit Godhra (27th Feb – the same day) but not to LOCAL riot affected parts in Ahmedabad city (which he only did on 5th March). Guj riots started from 28th Feb following the train burning and major violence happened for 3 days.
On page 67 of the SIT report Malhotra notes, “Narendra Modi, chief minister, has admitted to visiting Godhra on 27 February 2002. He has further admitted to visiting Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other riot-affected parts of Ahmedabad city only on 5 March 2002 and 6 March 2002.” Malhotra further writes: “This possibly indicates his discriminatory attitude. He went to Godhra, travelling almost 300 km in a day, but failed to go to the local areas, where serious incidents of riots had taken place and a large number of Muslims were killed.”
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
Main Red flag 7 – VHP/RSS appointed public prosecutors (SIT Report)
On page 157, the SIT report records that a pro-VHP advocate named Raghuvir Pandya was appointed as government pleader in the Vadodara District and Sessions Court in 2002. Pandya conducted the trial of the infamous Best Bakery case which resulted in the acquittal of all the accused. The SIT further writes that the “Supreme Court of India had passed serious strictures on the role played by Pandya in this trial which deserves to be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for suitable action as deemed fit.” SIT lists five more instances of VHP or RSS leaders being appointed as public prosecutors. The report mentions that ‘political consideration and affiliation of the advocates weighed heavily with the government’ in these appointments. Then it contradicts itself by saying that ‘no specific allegation of professional misconduct on the part of any of the public prosecutors has come to light.’
Saffron brigade members of were appointed public prosecutors in riot cases, but tough to pinpoint instances of misconduct, says SIT
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne120211coverstory.asp
Lots of other red flags but I listed the most important ones with additional data and references. You can read the rest here - http://www.kractivist.org/modi-not-enough-evidence-to-convict-is-the-new-clean-chit-nomore/
The curious case of Nanavati Commission reg 2002 riots (still going on)
Constituted on March 6, 2002 to probe into the Godhra Train Carnage incident reported on February 27, 2002 and the subsequent communal riots in Gujarat, the Commission had sought 'some more time' to submit its report. This is the 21st extension the Commission has got from the state government to complete the probe and submit its report. Latest it has been granted extention till June 30, 2014. Isn’t it odd that a commission has taken freaking 12 years and still has NOT even submitted its report?
http://archive.indianexpress.com/ne...ension-till-june-30-to-submit-report/1213785/
Has Nanavati been bribed?
http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/04/...ission-for-years-he-wants-money-nothing-else/
Here’s what it says:
Someone pointed this out and I've confirmed that not only has Nanavati been bribed (as clearly reported on video in a sting operation – see below) but Modi appointed two of Nanavati's sons as Gujarat government lawyers, and pays them HEFTY amounts of money. Why would Nanavati POSSIBLY give an adverse report against Modi?
This is open bribery – but how many care?
As a result of the MASSIVE bribery of the Nanavati family, Nanavati has NOT finished his report despite endless number of extensions. And whatever he has written is seriously flawed and full of obvious loopholes.
After receiving more than 20 extensions of its term, it (Nanavati commission) has yet to submit its final report, as of March 2014. And Modi's favourite Judge who was supposed to "investigate" Mansi Soni snooping has not bothered to report anything by 26 February.
And so many other cases of bribery, including of court officials, police and witnesses. And threatening and killing of witnesses.
You can read about it here:
http://www.sabhlokcity.com/2014/04/...ission-for-years-he-wants-money-nothing-else/
Anyways before someone says I am not into conspiracy theories, let me assure you I am not. There have been many allegations of Chief Justices, normal lawyers taking bribes, etc.
This sting could be true or it could be false.
But when I see that a commission has taken freaking 12 years and still has NOT even submitted its report, I start doubting.
So is Modi guilty or not?
Legally he is NOT (as of now).
Morally, well....you take a call.
where everyone cross checks. What is the guarantee that these laughable website didn't change words to suit them? Ofcourse you gonna ask me to cross check, but come on, who is going to cross check these many pages? That's why I asked you to quote from some reliable websites so that we can believe they didn't change anything in this report. Do you get it now? If these joke website owners can find such big mistakes and loopholes in the report, do you think our media would have left it alone? Anyway, good luck. You will get potw award in Pakpassion. 
