Even as questions are being raised from various quarters on the exoneration of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi by special investigation team probing the 2002 post-Godhra riots, the probe team’s chief R.K. Raghavan in his analysis of the material collected by the investigators has negated all the 12 charges against Mr Modi, saying no factual evidence were found about these specific allegations.
Of the 12 allegations, three most serious against Mr Modi were that he allowed parading of the bodies of 54 “kar sevaks” charred in Sabarmati Express at Ahmedabad which resulted in flaring up of the riots, gave instructions to top police officers in a meeting at his residence after returning from Godhra to let Hindus vent their anger and justifying riots by referring to Newton’s theory that every action has a reaction.
Analysing the evidence point-wise, Mr Raghavan in his 19-page commentary filed before the trial court said the facts regarding transporting of kar sevaks’ bodies to Ahmedabad were quite contrary to the allegations that Mr Modi allowed it in spite of Godhra collector’s opposition.
Regarding the allegations based on Gujarat cop Sanjiv Bhatt’s statement, the SIT said facts gathered raised serious doubt about Mr Bhatt’s claim.
“Bhatt is considered an unreliable witness, especially because no officer, who attended the meeting has spoken of his presence there. Also, he was too junior to have been invited to such a high-level meeting,” Mr Raghavan said.
On the “action and reaction” theory attributed to Mr Modi, the SIT’s findings was that the CM was interviewed by a TV correspondent on March 1, 2002. When asked about Gulberg Society incident, he said that Ahasan Jaffri had first fired at the violent mob which infuriated it further and led to storming the society and setting it ablaze.
His statement to a TV report was, “Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chahate hain na koi kriya ho aur na pratikriya (a chain of action and reaction is going on. We want that there should be no action and no reaction)”.
But the TV reporter’s interpretation of this statement was that the “action” was referred to Jaffri’s opening fire at the mob surrounding his house and “reaction” was the mob’s retaliation thereto, the former CBI director in his analysis said.