A senior IPS officer of Gujarat, in an affidavit to the Supreme Court on the 2002 riots, has accused chief minister Narendra Modi of “instructing” top administrative and police officers to let Hindus vent their anger against the death of 59 karsevaks burnt alive in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra while returning from Ayodhya as he wanted the Muslims to be taught a lesson.
Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt, currently posted as the principal of the Reserve Police Training Centre at Junagadh, while accusing the apex court-appointed special investigating team (SIT) of not “living up to the trust” reposed in it by the judiciary, in his 18-page affidavit said he had recorded a categorical statement before the probe team to this effect in November 2009.
Raising questions about the investigation conducted by the SIT, headed by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan, Mr Bhatt, annexing several letters he had written to Mr Raghavan, said, “I am constrained to take the liberty of filing the affidavit to bring on record certain disquieting aspects and inadequacies in the manner and approach of the SIT personally experienced by me during my interaction with it.”
Mr Bhatt alleged that the instructions to the top officers was given by Mr Modi at a late-night meeting called by him at his residence on February 27, 2002.
In this context, he referred to the “relevant portion of the transcript” of his testimony as recorded by the SIT, which purportedly read as, “Chief minister Narendra Modi said that the bandh call had already been given and the party (BJP) had decided to support it, as incidents like the burning of karsevaks at Godhra could not be tolerated”.
“He further impressed upon the gathering that for too long the Gujarat police had been following the principle of balancing the actions against Hindus and Muslims while dealing with communal riots in Gujarat. This time the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not recur ever again,” the transcript purportedly read.
“The chief minister, Narendra Modi, expressed the view that emotions were running very high amongst the Hindus and it was imperative that they be allowed to vent their anger,” Mr Bhatt said while quoting his statement given to the SIT.
However, while narrating the sequence of the meeting called by the CM, Mr Bhatt only said, “I was present at the meeting called by the CM and was personally aware about the instructions given there and the events that transpired thereafter (without elaborating on the purported instructions).”
Though he has referred to the meeting in at least three subsequent paragraphs, he has only given an interpreted meaning of Mr Modi’s purported instructions to top officers, stating that “the crucial meeting had led to and facilitated the communal carnage”.
“In my opinion, this was evidently a very important aspect of the investigation since the events that transpired in my presence at the said meeting had a huge impact and bearing on the conduct of the police force and the state administration while dealing with the violence that started on February 28, 2002,” Mr Bhatt claimed.
Bhatt, a 1988 batch IPS officer, said he had explained to the SIT that “the course of subsequent incidents of the communal violence could be fully appreciated only in the light of the directions given by the CM, during the said meeting. However, I was informed by the SIT that all these aspects could not be gone into as my statement was being recorded in the further investigation of the Meghaninagar police station case and therefore had to be confined to the scope of the FIR pertaining to the events at Gulbarga Society.”
The top court is examining the role of Mr Modi in view of a petition by Ms Zakia Jafri, the widow of slain Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri, who was killed along with 69 others in the Gulbarga Society massacre, as she has sought the registration of an FIR against the CM and 59 others, including top bureaucrats, police officers, BJP and Sangh Parivar leaders.
Mr Bhatt alleged that when he tried again to bring up the issue of “a larger conspiracy or official orchestration” of the Gujarat riots to the notice of the SIT on March 25, 2011, “I faced unconcealed hostility from its members.”
The Supreme Court is scheduled to assess the final report of the SIT in the first week of May and Mr Bhatt’s affidavit could be considered along with it.