Ahmedabad:
New controversial claims continue to tumble out of the Gujarat riots report submitted recently by the Supreme-Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) and made public earlier this week. The report claims that Congress leader Ehsaan Jafri, who was killed by a riotous mob that attacked the residential complex he lived in, could have provoked the rioters by firing on them.
The SIT closure report, which has given a clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, states that the immediate provocation for the mob to attack Ahmedabad's Gulberg Society following the Godhra carnage on February 28, 2002, could have been firing by the former Congress MP. "In his interview the CM has clearly referred to Jafris firing as 'action' and the massacre as 'reaction'. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,'' the report says.
The SIT has relied on the deposition of a television journalist who had interviewed the chief minister on March 1 that year; the journalist reportedly quoted Mr Modi as saying that Ehsaan Jafri had fired first, which provoked the murderous mob.
However, the report notes, that when the SIT questioned Mr Modi, the chief minister reportedly said that he had merely stated that a phase of action and reaction was going on and that he denounced both action and reaction. The report says the CM said he had been misquoted by the media.
Ehsaan Jafri's widow, Zakia Jafri, has taken her long legal battle against Mr Modi from court to court. She has alleged that Mr Modi and his administration did nothing to save Mr Jafri and 69 others at the Gulberg Society when rioters attacked them. She has alleged that her husband made repeated phone calls for help, even to the Chief Minister, but to no avail. He was eventually burnt alive.
On Monday, May 7, Ms Jafri was given a copy of the SIT closure report. She has alleged that she had not been given all the documents, and at least 20 pages of the report are missing. She has also said that she will continue her legal battle to prove what she calls Mr Modi's complicity in the post-Godhra Gujarat riots. Around 1200 people lost their lives in the riots in 2002 in the state.
In another stunning statement, the SIT has said that even if Mr Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots.
"Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence," says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan.
This reference is contrary to the deposition of two senior police officers who alleged that the Chief Minister had done nothing to stop the post-Godhra riots. Sanjiv Bhatt, the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2002, had alleged that Mr Modi told police officers during the riots, "For too long the Gujarat Police had been following the principle of balancing the actions against the Hindus and Muslims while dealing with the communal riots in Gujarat. This time the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not recur again."
This allegation was supported by former Gujarat Additional Director General of Police RB Sreekumar, who told the Nanawati commission, "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"
The SIT says in its investigations say it could find no physical evidence of Mr Modi's involvement and that the Chief Minister had publicly denounced the riots. "The government has taken this heinous, inhuman, organised, violent act very seriously," Mr Modi had said in the Gujarat Assembly on February 27, 2002.
The SIT says that this statement was made by Mr Modi when he had visited the riot-affected Godhra before the meeting took place where he had allegedly asked the police to allow "Hindus to vent their anger."
In his appeal on Doordarshan on February 28, the Chief Minister reiterated that the "guilty will be punished for their heinous crime:"
The SIT says, "Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the CM... appear to be without any basis"
"The SIT findings that the government had made all efforts to control riots. Now it's time that anti-Gujarat elements stop their vicious and malicious propaganda against the Modi government," said Jaynarayan Vyas, the state government spokesperson.
However, there are many who are still not convinced.
"There are other serious allegations in the report and the amicus has clearly suggested that a case against Modi exists. And we hope the court will cognizance of it," said Congress' Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of the Opposition in the Gujarat Assembly.
The amicus curiae had in his report suggested that a case under several sections of the IPC could be registered against the Chief Minister.
The SIT closure report, which has given a clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, states that the immediate provocation for the mob to attack Ahmedabad's Gulberg Society following the Godhra carnage on February 28, 2002, could have been firing by the former Congress MP. "In his interview the CM has clearly referred to Jafris firing as 'action' and the massacre as 'reaction'. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,'' the report says.
The SIT has relied on the deposition of a television journalist who had interviewed the chief minister on March 1 that year; the journalist reportedly quoted Mr Modi as saying that Ehsaan Jafri had fired first, which provoked the murderous mob.
However, the report notes, that when the SIT questioned Mr Modi, the chief minister reportedly said that he had merely stated that a phase of action and reaction was going on and that he denounced both action and reaction. The report says the CM said he had been misquoted by the media.
Ehsaan Jafri's widow, Zakia Jafri, has taken her long legal battle against Mr Modi from court to court. She has alleged that Mr Modi and his administration did nothing to save Mr Jafri and 69 others at the Gulberg Society when rioters attacked them. She has alleged that her husband made repeated phone calls for help, even to the Chief Minister, but to no avail. He was eventually burnt alive.
On Monday, May 7, Ms Jafri was given a copy of the SIT closure report. She has alleged that she had not been given all the documents, and at least 20 pages of the report are missing. She has also said that she will continue her legal battle to prove what she calls Mr Modi's complicity in the post-Godhra Gujarat riots. Around 1200 people lost their lives in the riots in 2002 in the state.
In another stunning statement, the SIT has said that even if Mr Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots.
"Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence," says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan.
This reference is contrary to the deposition of two senior police officers who alleged that the Chief Minister had done nothing to stop the post-Godhra riots. Sanjiv Bhatt, the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2002, had alleged that Mr Modi told police officers during the riots, "For too long the Gujarat Police had been following the principle of balancing the actions against the Hindus and Muslims while dealing with the communal riots in Gujarat. This time the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not recur again."
This allegation was supported by former Gujarat Additional Director General of Police RB Sreekumar, who told the Nanawati commission, "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"
The SIT says in its investigations say it could find no physical evidence of Mr Modi's involvement and that the Chief Minister had publicly denounced the riots. "The government has taken this heinous, inhuman, organised, violent act very seriously," Mr Modi had said in the Gujarat Assembly on February 27, 2002.
The SIT says that this statement was made by Mr Modi when he had visited the riot-affected Godhra before the meeting took place where he had allegedly asked the police to allow "Hindus to vent their anger."
In his appeal on Doordarshan on February 28, the Chief Minister reiterated that the "guilty will be punished for their heinous crime:"
The SIT says, "Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the CM... appear to be without any basis"
"The SIT findings that the government had made all efforts to control riots. Now it's time that anti-Gujarat elements stop their vicious and malicious propaganda against the Modi government," said Jaynarayan Vyas, the state government spokesperson.
However, there are many who are still not convinced.
"There are other serious allegations in the report and the amicus has clearly suggested that a case against Modi exists. And we hope the court will cognizance of it," said Congress' Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of the Opposition in the Gujarat Assembly.
The amicus curiae had in his report suggested that a case under several sections of the IPC could be registered against the Chief Minister.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
