Godhra - Printable Version

Godhra - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Indian Politics (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Godhra (/showthread.php?tid=755)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Godhra - Guest - 12-17-2008

Some Gujarat riot victims retract charges before SITQUOTEAHMEDABAD: In a queer turn, some of the victims of the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat have retracted their charges of rape and bribing of the police by the rioters before the Special Investigating Team (SIT).

As it approached the victims for recording their statements, as per the Supreme Courtâs order for investigating some of the cases afresh, the team encountered the U-turn.

The SIT has appended the statements of at least six persons contradicting what they said in the charge sheet filed before the Ahmedabad Metropolitan Court in connection with the rioting at Naroda Gam in which it named 53 accused, including 29 fresh names, but had to drop the charge of rape in at least one case.

The victims told the SIT that the earlier statements filed in their names at various places, including as an affidavit in the Supreme Court, were âfabricatedâ and recorded without their knowledge. They agreed that they had signed the statements but claimed that the statements were in English and they had no idea of what these contained. âWe were made to sign on the dotted lines and we did it,â some of them said.

Denies rape
A 25-year-old woman, in her statement before the SIT, denied that she was ever raped as was mentioned in her statement before the apex court filed in 2003. She said she was stabbed in the hand by some rioters and her family members were burnt alive. She said she had fled the scene of violence and had no idea if any other woman was raped by the mob.

The woman said her earlier statement was recorded in English by some voluntary organisations through counsel. She claimed that when she was told orally about what had been written, there was no mention of rape. âI was made to sign the paper and I did it without knowing the contents written in English,â she said.

Maqsood Pathan denied his earlier statement that he saw some senior BJP leaders handing over a black suitcase to the then local inspector after which the police left the scene leaving the field open for the rioters to make mayhem.

In his earlier statements, Pathan named two former BJP members of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as having offered the bribe to the police to get the field cleared for the attack on the minorities. 

Rafiq Sheikh, Mohammad Malik, Rafique Malik and Rahim Malik also retracted their statements giving vivid descriptions of the mob attacks and naming some Hindu leaders in the vicinity among the rioters.

Among those earlier named by some victims as having instigated the rioters were the then BJP member of the Assembly, Maya Kodnani, now Minister of State in the Narendra Modi Cabinet, and VHP State general secretary Jaideep Patel.

Godhra - shamu - 12-20-2008

Teesta Setalvadâs former confidant files FIR against her <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_evil.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_evil.gif' />

Godhra - Guest - 12-21-2008

Now we know why Gandhi and Nehru loved the communists and the Muslims and hated the Hindus and banned RSS.

Godhra - Guest - 12-22-2008

http://www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-...-lakh-each.html

Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi

Gujarat-based NGO processed payment from CPM relief fund

A controversial Gujarat-based NGO was instrumental in organising payment of Rs 1 lakh each to as many as ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot cases. The money came from the CPI(M) relief fund and was distributed months before the witnesses deposed in the courts, five years after the clashes took place. Four other eyewitnesses received Rs 50,000 each.

The revelation comes in the backdrop of reports that a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO headed by social activist Teesta Setalvad.

Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 while the victims got mere Rs 5,000 each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.

Chief Coordinator of CJP Rais Khan told The Pioneer that he had submitted the name of beneficiaries to the CPI(M) on instruction from Teesta Setalvad. "Setalvad identified the people and I merely followed her instruction and forwarded the list to CPI (M)," Khan said.

When contacted, Setalvad said she was present at the function on an invitation from the CPI(M) and had nothing to do with fund raising. "It was CPI(M) money and I was a mere guest at the function," she claimed.

Yasin Naimudin Ansari, one of the eyewitnesses who got one lakh rupees, told The Pioneer on phone from Ahmedabad that he was approached by someone from Teesta Setalvad's organisation. "I vaguely remember this. But I don't remember the name of the person," he said.

The function took place in Ahmedabad on August 26, 2007 and the witnesses were handed out demand drafts by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.

Brinda Karat admitted that the CPI(M) had raised the money, adding that as far the party was concerned it was giving relief to the victims. "Our party is not involved in any court cases involving Gujarat riots, and for us, distributing relief was merely a humanitarian gesture," she said.

Not disputing that she had taken the help of local NGOs to identify the victims, Brinda said, "We had received a lot of applications and money was distributed in different phases."

The 14 DDs (Nos 567540 to 567554 all dated 01/08/2007) were handed over to these witnesses by Teesta, Brinda and Rais Khan. Seven DDs were payable at Ahmedabad and seven at Baroda. Interestingly, one of the recipients is Yasmin Banu Sheikh, the estranged wife of Zahira Sheikh's brother Nafitullah.

The Pioneer is in possession of letters written by beneficiaries thanking Brinda, Teesta and Rais Khan for the payment.

Yasmin Banu Ismailbhai Shaikh (aunt of Zahira) of Baroda, who received Rs 50,000 (DD No 567552 dated August 1, 2007). Yasmin is a complainant in case No. 114/04 at Baroda. It is interesting to note that, when no substance was found in her complaint, she was directed to face lie detection test by the court and ever since she has not appeared in the court.

Among the recipients are four Best Bakery case witnesses and nine are appearing as witnesses in Ahmedabad-related Naroda Patia, Shahpur, Khanpur and other 2002 riot cases.

The information has been gleaned through a string of petitions under the Right to Information Act by one H Jhaveri from various agencies, including banks.

The four Best Bakery case witnesses are:

Sailun Hasan Khan Pathan of Ahmedabad who was paid Rs 1 lakh; Tufel Ahmed Habibullah Siddiqui of Baroda who received 50,000; Sehjad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan of Baroda who was paid Rs 50,000 and Rais Khan Amin Khan Pathan of Baroda who too got Rs 50,000.

There are nine witnesses relating to Ahmedabad riots who are testifying in local riot cases. All of them were given Rs 1 lakh and they are: 1.Kureshabibi Harunbhai Ghori of Baroda, witness in case No. 11/02 registered in Khanpur Police Station.

2. Husenabibi Gulambhai Shaikh, also of Baroda and witness in case No. 11/02 filed in Khanpur police station.

3. Rasidabanu Yusufkhan Pathan of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.

4. Fatimabanu Babubhai Saiyyed of Ahmedabad and witness in Case No. 100/02 registered in Shahpur Police Station.

5. Badurnnisha Mohd Ismail Shaikh of Ahmedabad, witness in Case No. 49/03 of Shahpur Police Station.

6. Mohd Khalid Saiyyed Ali Saiyyed of Ahmedabad, witness in Naroda-Patiya case. His first application was registered on March 7, 2008 and second on May 29, 2008.

7. Mohd Yasin Naimuddin Ansari of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.

8.Shaikh Azharuddin Imamuddin of Ahmedabad. During 2002 riots he was injured. At that time he was 10 years.

9. Sarjahah Kausar Ali Shaikh of Baroda. No details available.

List of Victims who were paid Rs 5,000 on 11/10/2007.

Mohammed Rafiq Abukar Pathan , Aslamkhan Anwarkhan Pathan, Pathan Saiyedkhan Ahmedkhan, Imtiyazhhan Saiyedkhan Pathan, Rashidkhan A. Pathan, Sairaben Salimbhai Sanghi, Ashraf Sikandarbhai Sanghi.

Godhra - Guest - 12-27-2008

NGO and Human Rights have become a full scale business. We know that Arundhoti Roy lied in her Outlook column about killing of person who was at that time and still residing in US. Teesta's bullied 'victims' into false testimony at one point of kidnapping them to get the desired confession. More...

Family tells SIT: âriot victimâ already dead, of TB

QUOTEZarina Mansuri, a 30-year-old Muslim woman who was believed to have been brutally hacked to death and later burnt to ashes by a mob in the Naroda Patiya massacre of February 28, 2002, was not even alive at that time. She had died of tuberculosis (TB) some four months earlier. 


QUOTEAbout the rape of one of her friends, Shabana (15), which Anisha is said to have witnessed (according to her statement recorded by police on May 15, 2002), Yunusâs deposition said: âThis, again, is wrong. Anisha had witnessed nothing like that that day. We, along with several others, were hiding on the same terrace of a house in Gangotarinagar at that time and none of us had seen anything like that.â

Godhra - Shambhu - 02-02-2009

The true story as written by a French woman who has lived in India for 30 yrs. Pasting in full before some MLECHCHA does a Burqa-Kunte on the site.
(MLECHCHA : Mohamedan, Leftists, Eunuchseculars, Christist Haramis and CableNews Harlots Associated)

http://www.jaia-bharati.org/nicole-elfi/ni-godhra-ang.htm

GODHRA: THE TRUE STORY

Nicole Elfi

Godhra, a city of the Indian State of Gujarat, was the lead story in all Indian newspapers on February 27th-28th, 2002. A shattering piece of news: 58 Hindu pilgrims had been burned alive in a train. â57 die in ghastly attack on trainâ ran the Times of Indiaâs headline; âMob targets Ramsevaks [Devotees of Rama] returning from Ayodhyaâ; â58 killed in attack on train with Karsevaks [volunteers]â (The Indian Express); â1500-strong mob butcher 57 Ramsevaks on Sabarmati Expressâ (The Asian Age). But the BBCâs announcement had a very different tone: â58 Hindu âextremistsâ burned to deathâ â¦ or Agence France Press on March 2nd: âA train full of Hindu âextremistsâ was burnt.â

A deluge of anguished news followed about a âMuslim genocideâ: âMass killings of Muslims in reprisal riotsâ (NYT, March 5th), âThe authorities â¦ share the prejudices of the Hindu gangs who have been busy pulping their Muslim neighboursâ (The Observer, March 4th). We were told that Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, intended to eradicate Muslims from the State â more than 9% of Gujaratâs population, in other words five million people. We read that the police was conniving in the mass slaughter and did nothing to prevent it. Narendra Modi was compared to Hitler, or Nero. We shuddered reading the reports describing rapes and various horrors, supposedly inflicted on Muslims by Hindus.

Today, six years later, with the noises and cries of the wounds having fallen silent, what emerges from those events? What are the facts?

At 7:43 A.M. on February 27th, 2002, the Sabarmati Express rolled into the Godhra station, fortunately with a four-hour delay, in broad daylight. This train transported more than 2,000 people, mainly karsewaks on their way back to Ahmedabad after participating in the Poorna Ahuti Yagya at Ayodhya, a ritual at the traditional birthplace of Rama.

As it pulled out of the station, the train was pelted with stones and bricks, and passengers from several bogeys were forced to bring down their windows to protect themselves. Someone pulled the emergency chain: the train came to a halt about 100 metres away from the platform, surrounded by a large crowd of Muslims. The railway police managed to disperse the crowd, and the train resumed its journey.

Within minutes, the emergency chain was simultaneously pulled again, from several coaches. It halted at about 700 metres from the station. A crowd of over 1,000 surrounded the train, pelting it with bricks, stones, then burning missiles and acid bulbs, especially on the S-5, S-6 and S-7 coaches.

The vacuum pipe between coaches S-6 and S-7 was cut, thereby preventing any further movement of the train. The doors were locked from outside. A fire started in coach S-7, which the passengers were able to extinguish. But the attack intensified and coach S-6 caught fire and minutes later, was in flames. Passengers who managed to get out of the burning compartment were attacked with sharp weapons, and stoned. They received serious injuries, some were killed. Others got out through the windows and took shelter below the coach.

Fifty eight pilgrims were burned alive, including twenty-seven women and ten children. The whole attack lasted 20-25 minutes.[1]

What transpired then, in the Indian press? Letâs imagine a coach of French pilgrims coming back from Lourdes, burned alive.

Strangely, instead of clearly, straightforwardly condemning the act, the Indian English-language press tried to justify it: âPilgrims provoked by chanting pro-Hindu slogansâ (they were not slogans but bhajans, or devotional songs, ending with âJai Sri Ramâ (Victory to Sri Rama). âItâs because they were returning from Ayodhya, where they asked for the reconstruction of a temple at the traditional birth place of Rama; this offends the feelings of the Muslims.â In sum, the victims, roasted alive, were guilty.

The Anger

Numb with shock, the people of Gujarat did not react straightaway. They remained calm at first. Till that afternoon, when the charred bodies started arriving at their respective families â with no comforting voice sounded, either from the government, or from the media, no condemnation for this barbaric act, but an indifferent, deafening silence â then these people known for their non-violent nature and exceptional patience, burst into a frenzy.

There was a revolt in the whole of Gujarat. For three days, tens of thousands of enraged Hindus set fire to Muslim shops, houses, vehicles: They came out from all sides, all parties, all classes, uncontrollable â one cannot control a revolution (except in China maybe). The fatalities: 720 Muslims, 250 Hindus, according to official figures.

We read all over about a âgenocide of Muslims.â Do we remember a single report on the Hindus who heroically helped save Muslims in their neighbourhood? Was even one family of Hindu victims interviewed following the criminal burning of the Sabarmati Express? One fourth of the dead in the ensuing riots were Hindus. How to classify those 250 victims? Who evoked the dead on the Hindu side? According to reports, Congress Party councillor Taufeeq Khan Pathan and his son Zulfi, notorious gangsters, were allegedly seen leading Muslim rioters. Another such character, Congress member of the Godhra Nagarpalika [municipality], Haji Balal, was said to have had the fire-fighting vehicle sabotaged beforehand.[2] Then,

he stopped the vehicle on its way to the Godhra Station and did not allow it to proceed any further. A man stood in front of the vehicle, the mob started pelting stones, â¦ The
headlights and the windowpanes of the vehicle got damaged â¦ Fearing for his own and his crew's life, the driver drove the vehicle through the mob, as it was not possible to move backwards. The mob gave in but 15-20 precious minutes had been lost.[3]
Lost for a coach full of innocent people in flames.

Which newspaper article stated that the most violent events took place following provocations by leaders of this sort? The Union Home Ministry's Annual Report of 2002-03 stated that 40,000 Hindus were in riot relief camps. What made those 40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? To seek protection from whom? Why was it necessary if they were the main aggressors?

More than the barbaric event itself, it is the insensitivity of the Indian âeliteâ and of the media that infuriated the Gujaratis.

Those accused of terrorism often receive political support, are benevolently portrayed by the media, and a host of âhuman rightsâ organisations are always on hand to fight for them. But those victims whose life is cut down for no reason, are they not âhumanâ enough to get some rights too? The great majority of those who took to revolt in Gujarat were neither rich nor particularly intellectual â neither right nor left: they were middle- and lower-class Gujaratis, simple people, workers, also tribals. But some from the upper middle class, among them a lot of women, took part in the upheaval.

The media sources

Apart from local journalists usually more objective in their reports, no English media reporter, thought it worthwhile to look deeper into the events at the Godhra railway station. Nobody came to question possible survivors of the tragedy. Is a coach of Hindu pilgrims even worth the trip? They had to wait for the âeliteâ to react; they had to receive directives from the politically correct, before taking their pens. Worse, they reported deliberate rumours and made up versions as actual news.

We were told, for instance, that when some pilgrims got off the ill-fated coaches to have tea, âsome altercation took placeâ between them, and a Muslim tea vendor: âThey argued with the old man on purpose,â wrote some newspapers; âthey refused to pay for their teaâ (though Gujarati honesty is well known); âthey pulled his beard and beat him up ... They kept shouting âMandir ka nirmaan karo, Babar ki aulad ko bahar karoâ (start building the temple and throw out the sons of Babar). Hearing the chaos, the tea vendorâs 16-year-old daughter came forward and tried to save her father from the karsevaks. She kept pleading and begging them to leave him alone. The karsevaks, according to this version, then seized the girl, took her inside their compartment and closed the door. The old man kept banging on the door and pleaded for his daughter. Then two stall vendors jumped into the last bogey, pulled the chain, and put the bogey on fire.â

But would they have been stupid enough to set fire to the coach where their colleagueâs young daughter was being held? And why were 2,000 Muslims assembled there at 7 A.M. with jerry-cans of petrol bought the previous evening?

Rajeev Srinivasan, an American journalist of Indian origin, was e-mailed this anonymous report a dozen times, supposedly written by Anil Soni, Press Trust of India reporter. He contacted Anil Soni to check on the veracity of this account. Soni answered:

Some enemy of mine has done this to make life difficult for me, do you understand, sir? I did not write this at all. I am a PTI correspondent. Yes, that is my phone number, but it is not my writing.
Anil Soni apparently had heard about it from hundreds of people, and was upset to see a false report circulated in his name.

Inquiries with the Railway Staff and passengers travelling in the Sabarmati Express showed that: no quarrel whatsoever took place on the platform between a tea vendor and pilgrims, and no girl was manhandled nor kidnapped.

As the Nanavati Report established later, this fictitious report was in fact circulated by the Jamiat-Ulma-E-Hind, the very hand responsible for the carnage.[4] It nevertheless went around the world, exhibited as âthe true story.â Arenât we compelled to conclude that the assailants, in India, are those who dictate whatâs âpolitically correct,â and instruct the media?

Arson and Canards

On the afternoon of February 28th, Gujarati Hindusâ revolt broke out. A few journalists then booked their tickets for Gujarat. As far as we can see, they had a framework in place: the outbreak would be dealt with independently of the Godhra carnage, as a different, unrelated subject; it was a planned violence perpetrated by âfundamentalistâ Hindus against Gujaratâs Muslims, fully backed by the State of Gujarat. From this day on, the burning of coach S-6 was to be left behind, forgotten.

On February 28th evening, Chief Minister Narendra Modi announced his decision to deploy the Army, and the next day, March 1st, by 11 A.M. the actual deployment of troops at sensitive points had begun. Violence abated in most major cities, after their arrival with orders to shoot on sight. But security forces were largely outnumbered by the angry flood of people, spreading for the first time like rivers in spate, to rural areas and villages. Apprehending the seriousness of the situation, Narendra Modi had made a request for security personnel from neighbouring States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Punjab. This request was turned down by each State. Why did no one report this fateful refusal?

That same day (1st March), at the peak of the turmoil, the National Human Rights Commission faxed a notice to the Gujarat Government, calling for a report within three days on the measures being taken â¦ âto prevent any further escalation of the situation in the State of Gujarat which is resulting in continued violation of human rights of the people.â[5] But it was silent on what had led to such a situation in the first place.

One major event which received a great deal of attention from the media was the conflagration at the Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad, home of a former Member of Parliament, Ehsan Jaffri. This man, rather refined and usually respected, did not feel threatened. But on February 28th morning, a crowd surrounded his house, in which a number of Muslims had taken refuge. Jaffri made a number of panic-stricken phone calls for help to authorities and to his colleagues, journalists and friends. The crowd was growing â¦ (from 200 to 20,000, figures vary in the reports). The Indian Express (March 1st, 2002), as well as police records, reported that âeventually, in panic, he fired at the 5,000-strong mob â¦ 2 were killed and 13 injured ... That incensed the mob â¦â which at 1:30 P.M. set the bungalow ablaze by exploding a gas cylinder. Final toll: 42 (March 11th edition).

Human Rights Watch, an NGO based in New York, published a dossier (on April 30th, 2002) about the Gujarat events which caused a sensation and fed a large number of articles in the international press.

In this report, Smita Narula had an unnamed âwitnessâ at hand, to relate the attack on Jaffriâs house. First âa 200 to 500-strong mob threw stones; refugees in the house (also 200-250 people â sic!) also threw stones in self-defence.â Then the crowd set the place on fire at about 1:30 P.M. Our witness then jumped from the third floor where he was hiding â and from where he had been observing in minute detail all that was going on in the ground floor, even the theft of jewels (it would seem the floors between the third and the ground floor were transparent). At that point we jump into the sensational. Narulaâs witness sees that âfour or five girls were raped, cut, and burned â¦; two married women were also raped and cut. Some on the hand, some on the neckâ â¦; âSixty-five to seventy people were killed.â Those rapes and hackings are said to have started at 3:30 P.M. ... when the house was already on fire. Was the mob waiting for everything to be reduced to cinders to commit its crimes?

Among the most morbid canards, the novelist Arundhati Royâs vitriolic article (Outlook magazine, May 6th, 2002). She describes the event which precedes Ehsan Jaffriâs death (extract):

â¦ A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and dismembered him â¦
Wait a minute. Jaffri was burned alive in the house, true â is it not awful enough? Along with some other 41 people. Not enough? But his daughters were neither âstrippedâ nor âburnt alive.â T. A. Jafri, his son, in a front-page interview titled âNobody knew my fatherâs house was the targetâ (Asian Age, May 2nd, Delhi ed.), felt obliged to rectify:

Among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad.
There we are, reassured as regards Ehsan Jaffriâs children. He had only one daughter, who was living abroad. No one was raped in the course of this tragedy, and no evidence was given to the police to that effect.

The Gujarat Government sued Outlook magazine. In its May 27th issue, Outlook published an apology to save its face. But in the course of its apology, the magazineâs editors quoted a âclarificationâ from Roy, who withdrew her lie by planting an even bigger one: the MPâs daughters âwere not among the 10 women who were raped and killed in Chamanpura that dayâ! From Smita Narula to Arundhati Roy, âfour or five girlsâ had swollen to âten women,â equally anonymous and elusive.

Roy begins theatrically:

Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me what the matter was. It wasnât very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carved âOMâ on her forehead.
Balbir Punj, Rajya Sabha MP and journalist, shocked by this âdespicable incidentâ which allegedly occurred in Baroda, decided to investigate it. He got in touch with the Gujarat government.

The police investigations revealed that no such case, involving someone called Sayeeda, had been reported either in urban or rural Baroda. Subsequently, the police sought Royâs help to identify the victim and seek access to witnesses who could lead them to those guilty of this crime. But the police got no cooperation. Instead, Roy, through her lawyer, replied that the police had no power to issue summons.[6]
This redefines the term âfiction writer.â

Another story about a âpregnant Muslim womanâ whose stomach was allegedly âripped open,â her âfoetus taken outâ and both being burnt, horrified people all over the world. The first mention of it seems to be in a BBC report around March 6th, which, though âuncorroborated,â spread like wildfire, with fresh details (divergent and varied, but who cares?), so much so that you end up feeling there is no smoke without fire. The rumour was never confirmed â which twisted tongue first whispered it?

Press articles kept quoting one another, creating âdossiersâ out of floating rumours. None of the authors even deigned to visit the scene of the alleged events; none except the official inquiry commissions, had the honesty to question fairly, in parallel, the involved Hindu families regarding the tragedy unfolding in the two Gujarati communities.

Onlookers get caught

On March 1st, 2002, in a village on the outskirt of Vadodara (Baroda), the âBest Bakeryâ was set on fire: fourteen persons were burnt alive (nine Muslims and three Hindus). This particular incident made much ink flow, since the prime witness, young Zaheera Habibullah Sheikh, aged 19, turned against the prosecution in favour of the accused in the trial court.

Though Zaheera lost several family members in the tragedy, on May 17th, 2003, in the Vadodara High Court, she testified that the accused persons in the dock were innocent and had nothing to do with the arson. She, as well as the other witnesses, did not recognize their own alleged statements before the police.

Justice Mahida of the High Court observed that:

1) There has been an inexcusable delay in the First Information Report (FIR). The so-called FIR of Zahiribibi (Zaheera) was sent to the Magistrate after four to five days. So there is every reason to believe that factually this FIR was cropped up afterwards in the manner suitable to the police.

2) The arrested persons had nothing to do with the incident.

âWe all knew these accused persons and because of them, our lives are saved,â reported Lal Mohammed Shaikh, a witness before the court. â¦ âThere were cordial relations between my family members, the persons residing in the compound of Best Bakery and all the accused persons before the court â¦ The 65 persons who are saved in this incident are all before the Court and all these were saved by and due to the accused and their family members â¦ These persons had called us, in darkness we silently came out of our house, and they saved our lives.â

3) The police is trying to put as accused passers-by at the place of incident, innocent persons gathering there or persons residing in the neighbourhood (in confidence that the police wouldnât do anything to them).

4) No legal or acceptable evidence at all is produced by the prosecution against the accused involving them in this incident. In this case, â¦ it has come out during the trial â¦ that false evidences were cropped up against the present accused to involve them in this case. The case â¦ is not proved and hence the accused are acquitted [7].
On June 27th, 2003, the twenty-one defendants were freed, and Zaheera Sheikh felt the court has given her âall the justice she wanted.â

In the interests of a community

But all were not satisfied. A former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission decided that the Vadodara judgement was a âmiscarriage of justiceâ and the twenty-one ânot-guiltyâ people were actually guilty and therefore should be punished. Now this honourable person should have been aware that seated in Delhi at the helm of this âhuman rightsâ affair, he would have been the first target of a number of dubious NGOs with vested political interests. Strangely, Justice Anand did not even consider it important to send his own team of independent inquiry before questioning the judgment of another court of law.[8]

Consequently, just after the fast-track court acquittals, three members of Zaheeraâs community âbarged into her homeâ around midnight, and told her she would have to change her statement âin the interests of the community.â

This meant that Zaheera had to declare that she had lied to the court (which is a criminal offence [9]). Did she have a choice?

Along with her mother and brother, she was taken to Mumbai âwithout their consent,â and brought to Teesta Setalvad,[10] an activist of the much-vaunted âhuman rights.â The activist took them under her wing for several months, accommodated them in a rented apartment while providing assistance for a living. In the meantime she prepared affidavits (in English which Zaheera does not read) for the girl to sign before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in which she âconfessedâ to having lied to the Vadodara trial court, âtrembling with fear and threatenedâ by BJP MLA Madhu Shrivastav (who had nothing to do with her area and whom she did not even know). And Zaheera now designated as guilty, the twenty-one people she had considered innocent. All media were ready with their cameras, mikes and pens to splash the news.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, rightly suspecting that the witness had been pressured to turn hostile, and upheld the acquittals.

But the Supreme Court accepted the retraction and, as demanded by NHRC and Setalvad, ordered the retrial of the case outside Gujarat. The acquittal of the twenty-one people was quashed.

In 2004, Zaheera âmanaged to fleeâ from her confinement by the activist, and in November, seized by remorse for having allowed innocent people to be accused, stated that whatever she had told the Supreme Court, was done under duress from Teesta Setalvad and her associate Rais Khan; and whatever she told the NHRC was a lie. âRamzan is on and I want to state the truth,â she said. âWhat I had said in Vadodara Court during the trial was my true statement. The judgement was correct and had given me all the justice I wanted.â She sought police protection from Teesta Setalvad.[11]

The Supreme Court judge called the girl âflip-flop Zaheera,â accepted a âhigh-powered committeeâ report which indicted Zaheera Sheikh as a âself-condemned liar,â and awarded the girl with a simple one-year imprisonment for contempt of court, as well as a fine of Rs. 50,000. Activist Teesta Setalvad was cleared.

Now, who took the court for a ride? Especially in light of the new revelation that âa host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information,â for which as many as ten of them had received 100,000 rupees from Teesta Setalvad NGO.[12]

As it stands today, nine persons among the twenty-one passer-bys picked up, have been condemned to life imprisonment and are languishing in jail.

In December 2004, a fatwa was issued against Zaheera by the Muslim Tayohar Committee, excommunicating her with the approval of All India Muslim Personal Law Board, âfor having constantly lied.â In other words, for having stood by the twenty-one wrongly accused Hindus neighbours.

Let us pursue our investigation.

Premeditated files

Human Rights Watch Smita Narulaâs report (April 30th, 2002) was titled â âWe have no order to save youâ â State participation and complicity in anti-Muslim violence.â From US shores, its words were lapped up by the Indian elite and politicians:

What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising, it was a carefully orchestrated attack against Muslims â¦ planned in advance and organized with extensive participation of the police and state government officials.[13]
But where are the facts to corroborate such an allegation, which of course was instantly peddled the world over? Can a âcarefully orchestrated attackâ happen overnight? And how can someone sitting in the U.S., gauge the âspontaneityâ of such an outbreak?[14]

Authentic inquiry

By contrast, a genuine, on-the-spot investigation was conducted under the aegis of the New Delhi-based Council for International Affairs and Human Rights.[15] Its findings were made public as early as April 26th, 2002, through a press conference held in Delhi. Running counter to the politically correct line of an âorchestrated attack,â they were largely ignored by the media.

On March 3rd, 2002 the five-member fact-finding team under Justice Tewatiaâs direction went to Godhra and spent six days visiting three affected areas in Ahmedabad and some of the relief camps. At all places, team members interacted with the two communities freely, without intervention of any officials. Five delegations from both communities presented their facts and views. The team then went to the Godhra railway station and interviewed officials, survivors and witnesses of the burning of the S-6 coach, as well as the fire brigade staff. They met the Godhra District Collector, along with other officials.

On April 4th, the team was in Vadodara (Baroda) visiting five relief camps of both communities, and seven areas which were the scenes of violence in the preceding month, as well as a number of sensitive areas. To have exposure to the ground realities they visited some areas still under curfew and also met the Commissioner of Police and District Collector along with other officials. Thirteen delegations consisting of 121 citizens met the team and presented their testimonies; they included not only members of both communities, but ranged from the Association of Hoteliers to a group of Gujarati tribals (Vanavasis).

âIndisputableâ facts

Let us quote some findings of Justice Tewatiaâs Inquiry Commission, which its report described as âindisputableâ:

â¢ The attack on Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 was pre-planned and pre-meditated. It was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by a hostile foreign power with the help of local jehadis â¦ carried out with the evil objective of pushing the country into a communal cauldron.

â¢ The plan was to burn the entire train with more than two thousand passengers in the wee hours of February 27th, 2002.

â¢ There were no quarrels or fights between the vendors and the Hindu pilgrims on the platform of Godhra Railway Station.

â¢ Firebombs, acid bulbs and highly inflammable liquid(s) were used to set the coaches on fire that must have been stored [the day before] already for the purpose.

â¢ The fire fighting system available in Godhra was weakened and its arrival at the place of incident wilfully delayed by the mob with the open participation of a Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.

â¢ Fifty-eight passengers of coach S-6 were burnt to death by a Muslim mob and one of the conspirators was a Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.

â¢ Someone used the public address system exhorting the mob âto kill kafirs and enemies of Bin Laden.â
About the police:

â¢ Police was on many occasions overwhelmed by the rioting mobs that were massive and carried more lethal weapons than the police did.

â¢ [They] did not have the training and know-how to manage situations of communal strife witnessed in the state in recent weeks.

â¢ In many places, â¦ [they] made a commendable work in protecting life and property. Barring a few exceptions, it was not found to be communally motivated.
Army deployment:

â¢ Available information shows that the Army was requisitioned and deployed in time.

After Godhra

The involvement of the âtribalâ communities or Vanavasis, in the post-Godhra riots added a new dimension to the communal violence, as Justice Tewatiaâs report reveals:

â¢ In rural areas the Vanvasis attacked the Muslim moneylenders, shopkeepers and the forest contractors. They used their traditional bows and arrows as also their implements used to cut trees and grass while attacking Muslims. They moved in groups and used coded signals for communication. Apparently, the accumulated anger of years of exploitation â¦ had become explosive.

About the media:

â¢ Gujarati language media was factual and objective. Yet its propensity to highlight the gory incidents in great detail heightened communal tension.

â¢ English language newspapers â¦ appeared to have assumed the role of crusaders against the State [Gujarat] Government from day one. It coloured the entire operation of news gathering, feature writing and editorials. They distorted and added fiction to prove their respective points of view. The code of ethics prescribed by the Press Council of India was violated â¦ with impunity. It so enraged the citizens that several concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace could return to the state only if some of the TV channels were closed for some weeks.[16]

A few healing voices

It would be unfair not to mention a few voices that rose from among the journalists themselves, against this enormity. The most eloquent one was Vir Sanghviâs, usually part of the âsecularâ establishment, ever ready to portray Muslims as victims, Hindus as aggressors. Vir Sanghviâs crisis of conscience suddenly gave him intellectual clarity. Some extracts from his article âOne-way ticketâ in The Hindustan Times of Feb. 28th, 2002:

There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. â¦

There is no suggestion that the karsewaks started the violence â¦ there has been no real provocation at all â¦ And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the karsewaks had it coming to them.

Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims â¦

Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about America's policies, but we didn't even consider whether this resentment was justified or not.

Instead we took the line that all sensible people must take: any massacre is bad and deserves to be condemned.

When Graham Staines and his children were burnt alive, did we say that Christian missionaries had made themselves unpopular by engaging in conversion and so, they had it coming? No, of course, we didn't.

Why then are these poor karsewaks an exception? Why have we de-humanised them to the extent that we don't even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was â¦

I know the arguments well because â like most journalists â I have used them myself. And I still argue that they are often valid and necessary.

But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly 'secularist' construct not only goes too far; it also becomes counter-productive. When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP[17] or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them.

Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader.

There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?[18]
S. Gurumurthy in The New Indian Express (March 2nd), Jaya Jaitley, in The Indian Express (March 7th), Rajeev Srinivasan in Rediff on Net (March 25th), Arvind Lavakare in Rediff on Net (April 23rd), T. Tomas in Business Standard (April 26th), FranÃ§ois Gautier in The Pioneer (April 30th), M.V. Kamath in The Times of India (May 8th), Balbir Punj in Outlook (May 27th), each one expounded the absurdity of a situation where the majority of Indians â the Hindu community â are looked down upon as second class citizens. A negligible lot taken for granted because it is harmless, non-aggressive, and unable to speak and act as one coherent, organized group.

A farcical interlude

Two and a half years after the events, on Sept. 3rd, 2004, the cabinet of the Central Government (ruled by the UPA coalition[19]) approved the setting up of a committee constituted by the Railways Minister Lallu Prasad Yadav, and headed by Justice U. C. Banerjee, former judge of the Supreme Court, to probe the causes of the conflagration in the Sabarmati Express.

âThe blaze is an accident,â Justice Banerjee coolly concluded in January 2005. There was âno possibility of inflammable liquid being used,â said he, and the fire originated âin the coach itself, without external input.â The Cabinet ministers were fully satisfied.

Now among the few survivors, Neelkanth Bhatia, was not one. He gathered enough strength to challenge the formation of this committee, and in October 2006, the Gujarat High Court quashed the conclusions of the Banerjee Committee. It declared its formation as a âcolourful exercise,â âillegal, unconstitutional, null and void,â and its argument of accidental fire âopposed to the prima facie accepted facts on record.â Moreover, one high-level commission conducted by Justice Nanavati-Shah had been appointed by the Gujarat Government to probe the incident, two months earlier. The Court also did not miss the point that the interim report was released just two days before the elections in Bihar â the State of the Railways minister, well-known for his political ambitions and notorious for his histrionics.

Politicians know no common sense or shame. But what about the judiciary?

The Nanavati Report

The first part of Justice Nanavati-Shah Inquiry Commission report was released in September 2008, after four years of thorough investigations.[20] It lifted the cloak of blame that had been wrapped around the Gujarati people all those years. It also cleared the most blackened Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any definite religious or political organization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who had participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the heinous act of setting coach S/6 on fire.

The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati Express train from Dahod to Ahmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of theirs an inquiry was held by the Government and they have been dismissed from service.

On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach. All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.[21]
According to Justice Nanavati, Maulvi Hussain Umarji from Godhra was the brain behind the events. Two of the main accused, Salim Panwala et Farukh Bhana, are absconding, very likely having fled to Pakistan. The report named a few others, with various degrees of involvement in the events, but they are unlikely to be troubled in view of their political connections.

Heartstrings for whom?

It is easy to see why the Nanavati Report was frowned upon by Citizens for Justice and Peace, namely Activist Teesta Setalvad who asked the Supreme Court âto restrain the Gujarat Government from acting upon, circulating and publishing this report.â Fortunately on October 13th, 2008, the highest court sharply turned down the petition, thus making the testimonies and inquiries available to all (the Nanavati Report is available on the Internet).

However, under pressure from the UPA Government and pestered by the National Human Rights Commission and Citizens for Justice and Peace NGO, on October 21st, 2008, the Supreme Court directed that the Prevention of Terrorist Act (POTA) could not be used against the 134 accused in the Godhra train burning incident, whose trial was to be held under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. This amounted to accepting prima facie that the guilty were not terrorists: we are allowed to call them âmilitants,â âgunmenâ â but not terrorists. This ruling will have nationwide impact, as other State governments may have to drop charges under POTA against those accused of indulging in terrorist activities. The recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai (on November 26th) demonstrate the danger of such a withdrawal.

Pattern for Harmony

This appears to be a pattern: whenever Muslim riots or bomb attacks target Hindus, it is thought acceptable to accuse the victims, in order to avoid possible revolts. Thus in 1993 in Mumbai, after eleven coordinated bomb blasts in Hindu majority areas, which killed 257 people and injured 713, the then Maharashtra Chief Minister Sharad Pawar quickly cooked up a twelfth explosion â¦ in a Muslim area! âI have deliberately misled people,â he explained later, to show that both communities had been affected.â[22] And to portray both communitiesâ potential to behave as âterroristsâ! Truth and clarity of mind are the casualties.

We remember the great art historian A.K. Coomaraswamyâs words in 1909:

It is unfortunate that libels upon nations and religions cannot be punished as can libels upon individuals.[23]

Gujarat had greatly suffered throughout all those years. Through a devastating Bhuj region earthquake in January 2001, in which more than 20,000 people died; the pilgrims burned alive at Godhra in Feb. 2002 and just six months later another terrorist attack in the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar, where thirty-three peaceful worshippers were brutally gunned down (with seventy injured). Amidst those tragedies the people of Gujarat seemed to have no doubt whatsoever regarding the sincerity of their Chief Minister, whose administration happens to be among the least corrupt in the whole of India. State elections were held twice since those events: in December 2002 and December 2007. How is it that Narendra Modi won landslide victories on both occasions despite extremely hostile and sustained media campaigns, seeking to demonise him as a blood-thirsty ruler?

Official India has chosen to forget a millennium of Islamic intolerance and brutality. Millions of butchered Indians have no right to be remembered, not even in history textbooks, where invaders are sometimes turned into heroes. Sadly, this ostrich-like attitude leaves the wounds open and condemns us to relive the past rather than heal it.

January 2009

Â© Nicole Elfi

Nicole Elfi left France thirty-four years ago for India, drawn to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. She participated in publication of works related to them and in research on Indian culture, authoring two books in French; the second one, Aux Sources de lâInde was published June 2008. Contact email:

Notes & references

[1] See Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice Akshay H. Mehta (âJustice Nanavati Reportâ for short further below): p. 71-84: 97-125; p.86: 128; p.89-90: 130; p.170: 223; p.172: 226-27; p.174-175: 229; the integral text is available on the website of the Gujarat Government: http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/...araincident.pdf
See also Godhra the Missing Rage, by S.K. Modi (New Delhi: Ocean Books, 2004).

[2] One of the main vehicles was out of order, as its clutch-plates had been taken out a few days earlier. On their arrival on 27.02.02 in their office, firemen found that the other fire engine had been tampered with. (Justice Tewatia Report and Justice Nanavati Report: p.88-89: 131.)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Justice Nanavati Report, p.39-41: 50-52, p.48-49: 67-68.

[5] To which Gujarat Chief Secretary sent a request to grand further time of 15 days, as âthe State machinery is busy with the law & order situation, it would take some time to collect the information and compile the report.â Indeed.

[6] See Balbir Punj in Outlook, May 27th and July 8th; also in The New Indian Express, March 8th, 2002.

[7] See Vadodara Sessions Court, Best Bakery Case, Justice H.U. Mahidaâs Judgement, June 27th, 2003.

[8] Columnist Arvind Lavakare in âBlindfolded in Best Bakeryâ (9.9.2003), commented: â â¦ The Gujarat government quickly appointed three public pleaders for the purpose of suing [Justice Anand] for contempt of court; these pleaders, in turn, filed an application before the Vadodara judge asking him to move the state's high court to punish the contemnor who, they said, had insulted the honour and dignity of the judge, besides undermining the entire judiciary. â¦ But Justice Anand â¦ went to the Supreme Court even before an appeal against the Vadodara verdict could be thought out by the Gujarat government. His NHRC petitioned the apex court to order a re-trial of the 21 'not guilty' Best Bakery accused. And the re-trial demanded is one that should be out of Gujarat state!â¦â Though article 20(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits trial for the same offence twice (M. N. Buch, The Indian Express, Mumbai, August 13th, 2003).

[9] Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, says, âWhoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows to or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.â Section 193 lays down that punishment for the offence of giving âfalse evidenceâ is imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

[10] Social activist and Secretary of the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, and co-editor of Communalism Combat, a CPI-CPI(M) affiliated magazine.

[11] Zaheera isnât the only one to seek police protection from activist Teesta Setalvad. Rais Khan, who worked closely with her, now feels under threat and recently asked for it too.

[12] As it happens, âa host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information at the behest of Setalvadâs Citizens for Justice and Peace, which was instrumental in organising payment of Rs. 1 lakh each to ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot. Among the recipients, four are Best Bakery case witnesses. A list of names were sent to the CPI(Marxist) relief fund, and demand drafts were handed out at a function in Ahmedabad on August 26th, 2007 by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan. Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received 100,000 rupees, some others 50,000 rupees, while the victims got a mere 5,000 rupees each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.â See Navin Upadhyay, Daily Pioneer, Dec. 20th, 2008: www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html

[13] South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch and author of the report.

[14] This New York-based Human Rights Watch, still watches the Indian shores closely, as it appears, but not to protect innocent lives. On Dec. 3rd, 2008, just a week after the ghastly Nov. 26th terrorist attacks in Mumbai, HRW issued a statement to the Government of India, offering gratuitous advice on how to manage its affairs and demanding that investigators should respect the human rights of captured terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab (also called âButcher of Mumbaiâ). A commentator in The Jerusalem Post pointed out, âThe HRWâs website lists 38 reports attacking counter-terrorism efforts around the globe but only three on the brutal impact of terrorism on civilians.â See also Kanchan Guptaâs excellent article, âMumbaiâs Butcher and human rights,â in The Pioneer, Dec. 17th, 2008.
www.dailypioneer.com/144038/Mumbaiâs-Butcher-and-human-rights.html

[15] Council for International Affairs and Human Rights (governing body for the term 2001-2003), New Delhi. âFacts Speak for Themselves: Godhra and After,â A Field Study by Justice D. S. Tewatia, Dr. J.C. Batra, Dr. Krishan Singh Arya, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, Prof. B. K. Kuthiala. Available online at www.geocities.com/hsitah9/facts_speak_for_themselves.htm .

[16] From Justice Tewatia Report.

[17] The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a pro-Hindu organization.

[18] The Sangh Parivar is a network of pro-Hindu organizations deriving from the Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS).

[19] The UPA is a coalition of political parties, the main one being the Congress presided over by Sonia Gandhi; Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister. As many as 10 Cabinet ministers (at the helm of Indiaâs affairs till today â¦) as well as 93 Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges ranging from rape, extortion and murder (Association of Democratic Reforms, New Delhi, in The New Indian Express, Dec. 6th, 2006).

[20] Among its specific tasks, the Nanavati Commission was required by the Government to consider: âRole and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his council of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations in both the events referred to in clauses (a) and (b); (e) Role and conduct â¦ (i) in dealing with any political or non-political organization which may be found to have been involved in any of the events referred to hereinabove; (ii) in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots (iii) in the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission from time to time.â By that notification the Government also included within the scope of inquiry the incidents of violence that had taken place till 31-5-2002.

[21] Nanavati Commission Report, p.174-75: 229; p.175: 229; p.176: 230.

[22] New Indian Express, August 13th, 2006.

[23] Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in Essays in National Idealism, p.143 (Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1981).

Extracts of Justice Nanavati-Shah Inquiry Commission report

(18 September 2008)

223. Ajay Bariya in his statements recorded by the police on 4.7.2002 and J.M.F.C. Godhra on 9.7.2002 has stated that on 27-2-2002, he had gone to Godhra railway station at about 7.00 a.m. After referring to the incident of Mohmad Latika, he has stated that after the chain was pulled and the train had stopped, he had gone out of the station. Shaukat Lalu had met him there and told him to run along with them. So he had gone with them to the backside of Aman Guest House. Shaukat and others had then gone inside the room of Razak Kurkur and come out with Kerbas. He was asked to put one Kerba in the rickshaw which was standing nearby. Petrol like smell was coming from it. Thereafter others had also come there with Kerbas and they were all kept in the tempy. All of them had then got into that vehicle which after passing through Bhamaiya nala and Ali Masjid had stood near the railway track near 'A' cabin. Each one of them was asked by Shaukat Lalu to carry one Kerba with him. At that time he had come to know that the train was to be set on fire. They had run towards the train through the foot track. He himself was reluctant go with those persons but Shaukat Lalu had compelled him to go along with them. He has then described in his statement how the coaches were attacked and coach S/6 was set on fire. According to him, Shaukat Lalu and Mohmad Latika had forcibly opened the sliding door of S/6 leading to coach S/7 and entered coach S/6 through that door. Hasan Lalu had thrown a burning rag which had led to the fire in S/6.

224. It is rightly pointed out by the Jan Sangharsh Manch that there was no prior information with the police and the authorities at Gandhinagar regarding the return journey of the Karsevaks from Ayodhya as can be gathered from the evidence of Mahobatsinh Zala (W-17), Raju Bhargav (W-31), DGP K.A. Chakravarti, Addl. DGP R.B. Shreekumar (W-995) and Ashok Narayanan, Chief Secretary, Home Department (W-994). Under the circumstances prevailing then, movements of Karsevaks was not a matter of concern. That appears to be the reason, why the police had not thought it necessary to keep itself informed about (171) their movements.

Merely because the police was not aware about the return journey of Karsevaks from Ayodhya, it would not follow therefrom that no one had known about their return journey from Ayodhya. Anyone who wanted to know about it could have obtained that information easily. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that there was no scope for any conspiracy, as the alleged conspirators did not know that Karsevaks were going to return from Ayodhya by that train. VHP had already announced earlier its plan of taking Ramsevaks to Ayodhya for the 'Purnahuti Maha Yagna'.

225. It is also true that some other train carrying Karsevaks going to Ayodhya had passed through Godhra railway station and the conspirators could have attacked them in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy to burn a coach carrying Ramsevaks and it was not necessary for them to wait till the morning of 27th February, 2002. Other possibilities cannot make doubtful what really has happened. Why the conspirators chose the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and why coach S/6 thereof was made the target, was obviously the result of many factors, including what was desired by and suitable to the conspirators. Unless the conspirators who took that decision disclose the real reason, it would be a matter of drawing an inference from the surrounding facts and circumstances. It appears that the decision to put the plan into action was taken on the previous evening. On 26.2.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. the first step for procuring petrol was taken. It is likely that the conspirators had decided to burn a coach of this train as it used to pass Godhra during the night. That would have enabled them to carry out their object without being noticed and identified. It appears that because the train was running late, they had to make some changes in their plan and circulate a false rumour regarding abduction of a Ghanchi Muslim girl. That was done in order to collect large number of persons near the train and induce them to attack it, so that they get sufficient time to go near the train with petrol. It was also an (172) attempt to show that what happened was done by an angry mob because of the earlier incidents which had taken place at the station. The mob consisting of the general public would not have set coach S/6 on fire on the basis of the false rumour as their attempt in that case would have been to stop the train, search for the abducted girl and rescue her.

226. Ranjitsinh Jodhabhai Patel and Prabhatsinh Gulabsinh Patel serving at Kalabhai's petrol pump were present at the petrol pump on 26.2.2002 at about 10.00 p.m. Both of them have stated that at about that time Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had come there and told Prabhatsinh to give them about 140 litres of petrol. Petrol was filled in the carboys which were brought in a tempy rickshaw. Prabhatsinh has further stated that Jabir Binyamin, Shaukat Lalu and Salim Jarda had come in the tempy. Both these witnesses have explained in their statements why they had earlier told the police that they had not given loose petrol to any one in a carboy on 26.2.2002.

227. On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach.

228. The confessions of Jabir Binyamin Behra, Shaukat alias Bhano son of Faruk Abdul Sattar and Salim alias Salman son of Yusuf Sattar Jarda have also been placed before the Commission for its consideration. Jabir Behra had made a confession before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchmahal District under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The confessions of Shaukat and Salim were recorded under the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. It was contended by the Jan (173) Sanghars Manch that the Commission should not consider the confessions of the accused as the findings that may be recorded by this Commission are likely to cause prejudice to the accused in the trial which is pending before the Sessions Court. This objection was raised at an earlier stage of inquiry and it was rejected by passing an order. â¦. The inquiry before by the Commission is a fact finding inquiry and therefore, the Commission can look into and consider any piece of evidence for finding out the correct facts provided it is satisfied about its correctness. (174)

229. Jabir Behra in his confession dated 5.2.2003 has stated that he had gone with Salim Panwala to the petrol pump of Kalabhai for bringing petrol. Though the carboys filled with petrol were kept in the guest house of Rajak Kurkur, Salim Panwala had then gone to the Station to inquire whether the train was on time or was running late. Returning there from he had informed them that the train was running late by about 4 hours. Therefore, he had gone to home. He had again gone back to Aman Guest House at about 6.00 o'clock in the morning of 27th. Along with Salim Panwala, Shaukat Lalu and others he had gone in the tempy along with carboys to a place near 'A' cabin. He has further stated that Mohmed Latika had cut the vestibule between coach S/6 and S/7 and entered the coach through that opening and he had also followed him. Both of them had then together by force opened the door of coach S/6. They had gone inside with two carboys. Shaukat Lalu had followed them and opened the door of coach on A cabin side. Through that door Imran Sheri, Rafik Batuk and Shaukat Lalu had come inside the coach with more carboys. Those carboys were thrown in the coach and immediately thereafter there was a fire in the coach. Shaukat Lalu has also in his confession dated 19.8.2003 given these details. Salim Jarda in his confession dated 20.06.2004 has also stated that he had accompanied Salim Panwala, Siraj Bala, Jabir and Shaukat Lalu while going to the petrol pump of Kalabhai at about 9.30 p.m. for procuring petrol. He has also referred to the message sent by the Maulvi Saheb. Since he was reluctant to take any further part in such a bad act Rajak Kurkur had not allowed him to go. He was forced to stay in one room of the Guest House. He has then stated that next day morning he, along with Jabir Behra, Irfan, Shaukat Lalu and others had put the petrol filled carboys in the tempy and gone near A cabin. Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had also followed them. He had thereafter not taken any part in the attack on the train and had remained standing at some distance.

All these three persons have retracted their (175) confessions but that by itself is not a good ground for throwing them out of consideration. When considered along with other facts proved by the evidence details given by this accused regarding the manner in which coach S/6 was burnt appear to be true. These confessions disclose that Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala were the two main persons who had organized execution of the plan and that what was being done was according to what was planned earlier and the directions of Maulvi Umarji. All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.

229. The Commission is required to consider the role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers other individuals and organizations in the Godhra incident (i) in dealing with any political or non-political organization which may be found to have been involved in the Godhra incident and also (ii) in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots and (iii) in the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission from time to time. There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police offices had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any definite religious (176) or political organization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who had participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the heinous act of setting coach S/6 on fire.

230. The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati Express train from Dahod to Ahmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of their an inquiry was held by the Government and they have been dismissed from service.

Ahmedabad. (G.T. Nanavati) (Akshay H. Mehta)
September 18, 2008 Chairman Member

See the integral text on the website of the Gujarat Government :
http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/...araincident.pdf
Â© JaÃ¯a Bharati

Godhra - Guest - 04-15-2009

NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SITQUOTEIn a significant development, the SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan told the Supreme Court on Monday that the celebrated rights activist cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings.

Many incidents of killings and violence were cooked up, false charges were levelled against then police chief P C Pandey and false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents, the SIT said in a report submitted before a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam.

Godhra - Husky - 06-29-2009

http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=8867&SKIN=B
QUOTE"I shall not allow the sacrifice of my parents to go in vein "- Godhra Victim
27/06/2009 12:47:42Â Courtesy: VSK Gujarat

Ahmedabad: The torching of coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, was planned, said Gayatri Panchal (24), whose parents and two sisters were killed in the carnage incident.

Charges have been framed against 100 people accused in the case. The dates for the recording of evidence have also been fixed. Evidence in the case will be recorded on July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The Gujarat Police had submitted 19 chargesheets in the case, in which the accused were charged under the provisions of the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), among others.

Gayatriâs Disclosure

On the 27th February, the Ahmedabad bound Sabarmati Express, carrying
karsevaks from Ayodhya was barbarously attacked and burnt at Godhra in which around 60 karsevaks laid their lives. Gayatri Panchal a young eleventh class student was also amongst those who were returning from Ayodhya. She is a surviving witness to the inhuman atrocious cruelty in which right in front of her eyes two of her sisters and parents were burnt alive.

Â Â Â Harshadbhai Panchal, a resident of Ramol, left for karseva at Ayodhya on the 22nd February, together with his wife Neetaben and three daughters, Pratiksha, ChhayaÂ and Gayatri. His sister in law, her son, her neighbour Poojaben and her would be husband were also accompanying him.

Â Â Â All of them were returning to Ahmedabad along with several other karsevaks. Harshadbhai and his family, Poojaben and her husband were in one compartment. While his sister in law and her husband and their son were in another compartment. The only survivor out of these ten, Gayatri, says about this horrible event that, âOn the 27th morning, at around 8 a.m. the train left Godhra Station. The karsevaks

were loudly chanting the Ram Dhoon. The train had hardly gone Â½ Km., when it suddenly stopped. Somebody had perhaps pulled the chain to stop the train. Before anybody could know what had happened, we saw a huge mob approaching the train. People were carrying weapons like Gupti, Sphere, Swords and such other deadly weapons in their hands and were throwing stones at the train. We all got frightened and some how closed the windows and the doors of the compartment. People outside were shouting loudly, saying âMaro, Katoâ and were attacking the train. A loudspeaker from the Masjid close by was also very loudly shouting âMaro, Kato, Laden na dushmano ne Maro.â These attackers were so fierce that they managed to break the windows and close the doors from outside before pouring petrol inside and setting the compartment on fire so that nobody could escape alive. A number of attackers entered the compartment and were beating the karsevaks and looting their belongings. The compartments were drenched in petrol all over. We were terrified and were shouting for help but who was there to help us? A few policemen were later seen approaching the compartment but they were also whisked away by the furious mob outside. There was so much of smoke in the compartment that we were unable to see each other and also getting suffocated. Going out was too difficult, however myself and Pooja some how managed to jump out through the windows. Pooja was hurt in her back and was unable to stand up. People outside were trying to hold us to take us away but we could escape and run under the burning train and succeeded in crawling towards the cabin. I have seen my parents and sisters being burnt alive right in front of my eyes.â Luckily, by the grace of God, Gayatri was not hurt too badly. âWe somehow managed to go up to the station and meet our aunty (Masi). After the compartments were completely burnt the crowd started withering. We saw that even amongst them were men, women and youngsters like us both male as well as female. I returned here after evacuating the dead bodies of my family members at Godhra Station. Out of 18 of us ten had laid their lives.â

Â Gayatriâs father was a carpenter whereas her mother worked in the Madhyanha Bhojana Yojna (i.e. Mid-day meal scheme), her elder sister Pratiksha was serving in the Collectorate.

Â In spite of what had happened, Gayatri still feels that she would any time once again venture to go for karseva. She says, âI shall not allow the sacrifice of my parents to go in vein.â

Copy also at http://www.gujaratriots.com/14/account-of-...r-old-survivor/
(Gujarat Riots: The True Story
Busting the Media Myths)

Godhra - Guest - 03-20-2010

[size="6"][url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pressure-on-CM-Modi-to-appear-before-SIT-in-Gulburg-riots-case/articleshow/5706352.cms"]Pressure on CM Modi to appear before SIT in Gulburg riots case[/url][/size]

Godhra - Guest - 03-21-2010

Quote:Modi fails to appear before SIT

pioneer.com

PTI | Ahmedabad

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi failed to show up before the Supreme Court-appointed SIT which had summoned him for Sunday for questioning in connection with a 2002 riots case.

The SIT has also not received any communication from the State Government regarding the summons issued on March 11, sources in the investigating team said.

The office of the Special Investigation Team in Gandhinagar was kept open on Sunday and its members were present in case Modi presented himself but the senior BJP leader ignored the summons and gave the panel a miss. SIT chief R K Raghavan was, however, out of town.

Official sources said 59-year-old Modi has sought legal alternatives in response to the summons by the SIT on March 11. It was for the first time that the chief minister was being called for questioning in connection with the riots.

Modi was summoned by the SIT with regard to a complaint filed by Zakia Jaffery, wife of slain former MP Eshan Jaffrey in the 2002 Gulburg society riots case.

The former Congress MP was killed along with 69 others by a mob at Gulburg society in Ahmedabad in February 2002.

The Congress attacked Modi for not appearing before the SIT saying it was "contemptuous" and showed that he "loves to hide".

"The SIT's direction to Narendra Modi to appear before it shows the seriousness and importance attached to the issue by the apex court," party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said in New Delhi.

Godhra - Guest - 03-22-2010

Modi has denied that he had been summoned by the SIT to appear before it on Sunday the 21st.

The whole thing appears to be a Media conducted hoax !

Godhra - Guest - 03-22-2010

[size="6"][url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Godhra-case-Vested-interests-spreading-lies-on-summon-date-says-Modi/articleshow/5712818.cms"]Godhra case: Vested interests spreading lies on summon date, says Modi[/url][/size]

GANDHINAGAR: Giving a new twist, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who refused to appear before the SIT, today called as a "lie" that the Supreme-court appointed panel had fixed March 21 for questioning him in connection with the 2002 riots.

Breaking his silence on the summons by the Special Investigating Team(SIT), Modi wrote an open letter apparently drafted in consultation with party colleague and legal eagle Arun Jaitley in which he said he will respond to the SIT fully respecting the law and keeping in view the dignity of a body appointed by the Supreme Court.

Jaitley, who met Modi, himself released the "carefully worded" letter of the chief minister to the media calling reports of March 21 for his appearance as entirely incorrect.

In another development on Modi's role during the communal violence, the Gujarat High Court asked the Nanavati Commission, which is probing the riots, to clarify by April 1 whether it has taken a final decision not to summon the chief minister for questioning.

The 59-year-old BJP leader in the open letter said, "SIT had not fixed March 21, 2010 for my appearance. To say that I was summoned on March 21 is completely false."

SIT Chief R K Raghavan had on March 11 said Modi was summoned to appear before SIT for questioning on March 21. The SIT office was kept open the whole day yesterday but the chief minister did not turn up.

Without delving on the debate over the date, Raghavan today said there was no response from Modi or his office with regard to the summons till now.

SIT will wait for the response from Modi with regard to the summons issued by them, SIT sources said.

Modi said, "It is a matter of grave concern and needs investigation as to why and who started spreading lies that "SIT summons Narendra Modi on March 21, 2010"."

He further said, "The date of 21st March 2010 was invented by some vested interests and as part of their effort to interfere in the due process of law. They wanted to paint me as a person who refused to respond to the SIT".

The Chief Minister was also unsparing in his attack on "vested interests" who he said have lost no opportunity to defame Gujarat since 2002.

Rushing to the defence of Modi, Jaitley said the nation has been misled on the basis of a "lie".

"Gujarat government and CM Modi has said said they have been and will cooperate with the legal process of the country as well as fully cooperate with SIT," he added.

Jaitley said that the entire debate that Modi was supposed to appear before SIT and did not, showing disrespect to Supreme Court lacked any basis.

Godhra - Guest - 03-22-2010

[size="6"][url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ahmedabad/Will-Modi-be-summoned-Nanavati-panel-asked-to-clarify-stand/Article1-521908.aspx"]HC asks Nanavati Commission to clarify stand on summoning Modi[/url][/size]

The Gujarat High Court on Monday asked the Nanavati Commission, probing the 2002 riot cases, to clarify by April 1 whether it will summon Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the matter.

A division bench of Chief Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and Justice Akil Kureshi sought this information from the government pleader while hearing an appeal by Jan Sangarsh Manch (JSM), an NGO representing the 2002 riot victims.

When the matter came up for hearing today the court asked the government pleader to get clarification from Nanavati Commission by April 1 with regard to its order of September 2009, and inform the court whether its decision not to summon Modi and others was a final decision or a tentative one.

Nanavati Commission, in September last year had disposed of JSM's application asking for summoning of Modi and others saying that it did not find justification in cross-examining them at that point of time for the purpose stated by JSM.

The Commission had further stated in the order that allegations made in JSM's application were vague and based on wrong or unwarranted assumptions.

JSM had sought quashing of the Nanavati Commission's order in the Gujarat High Court and prayed that Modi and three others -- the then home minister Gordhan Zadafia, health minister Ashok Bhat and DCP Zone 5, R J Savani-- be called for cross examination with regard to the 2002 riots.

Godhra - Guest - 03-23-2010

Sri Narendra Modi's open letter to Nation

Shame on 24 x 7 'Secular' English Media. Presented below is Sri Narendra Modi's letter to the countrymen which has just been released. Also enclosed is the original letter - in English & Gujrati, in pdf.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

My beloved countrymen,

Namaskar,

I am constrained to write to you with a deep sense of anguish. Since last eight years, canards have been spread against me. For the past one week, if we analyse the allegations leveled against me, then the truth will become evident. Truth cannot be suppressed. It is now my duty to place before you the facts that brings out the importance of understanding what the truth really is.

After the 2002 Godhra incidents, I had categorically said in the Vidhan Sabha and in public that no one is above the Indian Constitution and the law, even if he happens to be the chief minister of a state. These are not mere words. My actions have reflected this statement in its true spirit. I assure you that this will be my stand in the future.

In spite of that, some vested interests, without losing a single opportunity and with malicious pleasure and without bothering to ascertain the truth based on mere whims and fancies, have been tarnishing the good image of Gujarat, my government and me.

Recently, there has been a systematic campaign to defame Gujarat through propagation of false reports titled 'Special Investigation Team (SIT) summons Narendra Modi'; 'Narendra Modi did not appear before SIT' and 'Modi has shown disrespect to Supreme Court and SIT'. Such baseless allegations are being leveled once again against me to defame Gujarat.

I am therefore compelled to place the facts before my countrymen.

FACTS:

As soon as newspapers began reporting that Modi has been summoned by the SIT, the government spokesperson immediately said that Shri Modi is bound by the law of the land and the Indian Constitution. He has always extended his cooperation to every procedure of law. And he is committed to do so in the future.

It is a matter of grave concern and needs investigation as to why and who started spreading lies that 'SIT summons Narendra Modi on March 21, 2010'.

The purveyors of untruth failed even to think that March 21, 2010 happens to be a Sunday and a public holiday.

These purveyors of lies even did not once bother to check whether the key SIT officers, who are appointed by the Supreme Court, were present in Gujarat on March 21, 2010.

SIT had not fixed March 21, 2010 for my appearance. To say that I was summoned on March 21 is completely false. I shall respond to the SIT fully respecting the law and keeping in view the dignity of a body appointed by the Supreme Court.

The date of 21st March 2010 was invented by some vested interest and as a part of their effort to interfere in the due process of law. They wanted to paint me as a person who refused to respond to the SIT. This country has in the last twenty four hours witnessed a campaign of disinformation in which a section of the media became an instrument of the disinformers. I hope this section will now take corrective steps.

My beloved countrymen,

The people of Gujarat and this country have identified those who are defaming Gujarat continuously since 2002. But I want to tell the truth; spreading falsehoods has only one single purpose and that is to instigate people. It is a sinful action which will harm the working of a democratic state. Seen in the backdrop of events in the last 24 hours, it shows that there is a nexus among the vested interests in spreading lies against me, in order to defame me. This machination has come unstuck and the people have seen through this charade.

The government of Gujarat has always honoured and cooperated with the investigative agencies, commissions and Supreme Court looking into Godhra and post-Godhra incidents. And that is why I never thought of giving a public statement on this issue.

Despite unbearable pain, I decided to maintain silence in the belief that the due process of law would take its own course.

But now, as the lies reach a crescendo as never before, I am compelled to bring the facts before the countrymen. I also consider it my humble duty.

I hope the truth is not twisted by the purveyors of untruth to misguide the investigation. And I expect that the media would bring my deep pain and despair to the notice of the people.

Thanks,

Narendra Modi

Godhra - Guest - 04-17-2010

Quote:[b]Gujarat turns heat on Teesta

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/249767/Gujarat-turns-heat-on-Teesta.html"] link[/url]

Abraham Thomas | New Delhi

Case for tutoring witnesses sought

The Gujarat Government has turned the heat on noted social activist Teesta Setalvad demanding a case to be registered against her for tutoring witnesses to file false affidavits before the Supreme Court.

Giving a twist to the sudden demand by Setalvad for replacing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Gujarat riots, the State Government in its latest affidavit filed in the Supreme Court has severely criticised Setalvad. It said she was pursuing a political objective in trying to discredit the SIT after failing to prove her allegations against the State Government before the probe team with the help of Ã¢â¬ËtutoredÃ¢â¬â¢ witnesses. [/b]

The affidavit said, Ã¢â¬ÅIn view of facts coming on record during the investigation by an agency appointed by this court which functioned only under the supervision of this court that Teesta Setalvad committed a serious offence of interfering with the investigation by sending tutored witnesses filing false affidavits before the court and made attempts to intimidate the agency appointed by this court (the SIT) by making belated allegations against them.Ã¢â¬Â

Making no bones about its opposition to the demand for a fresh round of investigation by another independent agency apart from SIT, the State Government said, Ã¢â¬ÅUnless and until there is a finding under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the investigation is defective, as alleged or otherwise, this court may not consider the present application which is substantially based on an unsustainable and belated allegation that the investigation is inadequate.Ã¢â¬Â

The State of Gujarat, it added, has never objected to or opposed either any prayers reasonably made by any of the parties or any suggestion coming from the amicus curiae to unearth the truth. It cited how the SIT investigation even resulted in cancellation of bail to a Minister in Gujarat Government, Maya Kodnani. Ã¢â¬ÅBut the purpose of filing this affidavit is to demonstrate that the august forum of this court is being misused by the applicant, Teesta Setalvad who, for some undisclosed ulterior object, is desirous of keeping the present controversy alive,Ã¢â¬Â it pointed out.

Relying on certain scathing SIT reports against Setalvad in raising false allegations against the State, the affidavit said, Ã¢â¬ÅThis is a fit case to do complete justice for protecting and maintaining the majesty of this court and in the most respectful submission of the State Government, this court be pleased to direct registration of an offence against Teesta Setalvad and her accomplices and the investigation be ordered to be conducted.Ã¢â¬Â

On a broad note, the State offered another suggestion to court to consider framing parameters to ensure NGOs, which are neither the prosecutor nor victim, nor accused, nor witness, are allowed to get away by levelling false allegations against the State. In this regard, it demanded notices to be issued to all States and Union Territories since it was a common problem faced by all States.

Terming the intention of TeestaÃ¢â¬â¢s NGO to raise muck first against the State and now against the SIT as part of an Ã¢â¬Åundisclosed ulterior political and vested objectÃ¢â¬Â, the affidavit said, Ã¢â¬ÅIn the absence of any statutory regulatory mechanism, if NGOs are permitted to tarnish the reputation and image of one entire State based on falsehood, it not only results in social and communal disharmony but clearly amounts to an unlawful interference in the statutory proceedings without corresponding responsibility or obligation upon the NGOs.Ã¢â¬Â

She is working for Queen and international anti-Hindu- hate group.

Godhra - Husky - 04-18-2010

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/04/enough-evidence-against-teesta-setalvad.html

Quote:Monday, April 12, 2010

Enough evidence against Teesta Setalvad- not Modi

apr 12th, 2010

in any normal country, teesta setalvad would be prosecuted for contempt of court, witness tampering and interfering in the conduct of a case. she would be jailed for a few years for subverting the judicial system.

in india, she is a heroine. go figure. her star witness, zahira sheikh has testified that teesta prepared some printouts from a computer and thrust them under her nose and told her to sign them. this is a matter of public record. btw, zahira is illiterate. so what did the courts do? they fined *zahira*! yup, punish the victim, not the perpetrator.

why are hindus so clueless about using the due process of law? someone should file a PIL and others can support it with amicus curiae petitions pleading restraint based on section 153A and 295A, hurting the sentiments of a community and inducing communal hatred, as well as any other sections that pertain to witness tampering.

just like susan arundhati roy should be charged with advocating treason and stripped of indian citizenship. there is the famous short story "man without a country".

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Manmath

Teesta Setalvad claimed on 11 March 2010 that- "There is enough evidence against Narendra Modi". Actually- there is enough evidence against Teesta Setalvad- not Modi. The website www.gujaratriots.com brings out the truth of the Gujarat riots- and defends Modi against all the charges made by Setalvad and other stark liers like Tehelka. Now we come to the part of- evidence against Teesta Setalvad.

A must read article on this is by Uday Mahurkar in India Today weekly "Inhuman rights":

http://www.indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/89840/States/Inhuman+rights.html

"Soon after the riots, the human rights activists and the Muslim witnesses had alleged that a pregnant woman Kausarbanu's womb was ripped open by rioters and the foetus was flung out at the point of a sword. The gruesome The wait for justice for Gujarat's riot victims is still not over

incident was seen as the worst-possible example of medieval vandalism in the modern age. The wait for justice for Gujarat's riot victims is still not overLast week, eight years after

the alleged incident, Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted the post-mortem on Kausarbanu's body on March 2, 2002, denied that any such incident had ever happened. Instead, he told the court: "After the post-mortem, I found that her foetus was intact and that she had died of burns suffered during the riot." Later Kanoria, 40, told INDIA TODAY, "I have told the court what I had already written in my post-mortem report eight years ago. The press should have checked the report before believing that her womb was ripped open. As far as I remember, I did her post-mortem at noon on March 2, 2002."

A careful study of the three police complaints, claiming that Kausarbanu's womb was ripped open by the rioters, shows several loopholes. While one complaint accuses Guddu Chara, one of the main accused in the Naroda Patiya case, of ripping open Kausarbanu's womb, extracting her foetus and flinging it with a sword; another complaint accuses Babu Bajrangi, yet another accused in the case, of doing the act. A third complaint, on the other hand, does not name the accused but describes the alleged act."

So- Teesta's guilt- subversion of truth. UTTERING STARK LIES-by claiming that the womb was ripped open- and the foetus was flung out at the point of a sword. Violation of 153-A of Indian Penal Code- by instigating Muslims- infuriating them needlessly. Violation of Section 500 of IPC (Defamation)- by needlessly blaming BJP and Narendra Modi for this-and defaming them saying- "Such medieval acts occured under Modi's rule". Also -tarnishing the fair name of India worldwide- by needlessly fabricating such lies worldwide.

Uday Mahurkar continues:

"Modi will also have reasons to smile at the affidavits filed by the Muslim witnesses in the SC in 2003 at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Teesta Setalvad on the basis of which the trial in nine cases were stalled for six long years. The most glaring hole is in the affidavit of Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case. In his affidavit before the SC filed on November 15, 2003, Malek stated that a newly married woman called Madina, who lost four of her relatives, including her husband in the riots, had been raped by the rioters.

Malek's affidavit states: "I was witness to the crimes of murder and rape that took place on Madina and her family. I also saw seven people being burnt alive, including four orphans. I request the SC to keep the details of this rape victim confidential since she is alive and use it only for the purpose of trial and conviction of the rapists." But on May 5, 2009, in his statement before the SIT, Malek said: "I had wrongly claimed that Madina had been raped. I made the charge because of Teesta Setalvad's pressure. I kept on telling her not to include that charge in my affidavit, yet it was included."

In her statement before the SIT on May 20, 2008, Madina, who has remarried now, said: "The charge made by Malek claiming that I was raped by a riotous mob is false. I wasn't raped. When the riotous mob put my house on fire, I tried to run but was attacked by a rioter who injured me with a knife. Later I managed to merge in a Muslim crowd."

This is direct evidence of fabrication done in this done. This is enough evidence to prosecute Teesta Setalvad in this case.

Among other crimes- Setalvad writes in her article- "What ails Gujarat" published in CPM party weekly Peoples Democracy in July 2006- "There was a state sponsored genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in which 2500 Muslims were killed".

- This is also enough evidence to prosecute her. First- there was no genocide in Gujarat at all- Muslims were equally on the offensive even after Godhra. second- There was no -'state- sponsoring'- far from being a party to the violence- the state government managed to actually stop riots in 3 days- all evidences of this are given in www.gujaratriots.com She has beren challenged to prove this part- and she has not responded.

Third- 2500 Muslims were not killed- as per UPA figures 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed. For inflating the number of Muslims killed- and ignoring the number of Hindus killed- she can also be prosecuted. Again- instigating Muslims- violation of 153-A- and 500- by defaming the BJP and Gujarat Government through exaggeration and stark lies.

Another lie- she claims that over 120 people were killed in Naroda Patiya- and that too before the 7 year period expired. The fact is- even after the 7 year period expired- and all missing were declared dead- the number of people killed in Naroda Patiya is 95. Setalvad deliberately exaggerates the number of people killed- despite knowing fully well the true number- so as to malign the BJP and Narendra Modi. By that logic- if gives 2500 as the number of Muslims killed in the riots- 1700 more than the true number- then we can say- 1759 Hindus were killed by Muslims in Godhra- 1700 more than the true number of 59. If we do that- allegations will be made against us- for exaggerating and instigating Hindus- inflaming Hindu sentiments.

Thius is just the tip of the ice berg. Teesta's sins will be all out in public if we bring them out. LET US ALL WORK TOGETHER TO UNMASK TEESTA SETALVAD- and all other so-called Human Rights activists- apologists of Islam.

Posted by nizhal yoddha at 4/12/2010 10:15:00 PM 6 comments Links to this post

Reactions:

Naive to suppose that christoislamism=christoislamic scheming (seen in such things as Susan Roy, Teesta Seetalvaddle, foreign media lying about Godhra like they did with Yugoslavia and the christomedia in India doing the same all for jeebusjehovallah's greater purpose) can be stopped in its tracks by 'revealing' the truth.

The damage is already done. And that was the sole purpose.

It's like with Yugoslavia: for a long time, most people in the world - being human sheep - will continue to think the Serbs were "those evil systematic rapists and genociders". All the concerted christolying has done the trick: so that it no longer matters that various minor retractions were printed in US news papers a long time after the same papers first blazoned the manufactured lies on their front pages. And this is why whenever the christowest needs to bring Serbia down again, those papers will merely resuscitate the christofictions against Serbs once more - ignoring all their own retractions (well, that's the use of the Tiny Print Page X retractions: keeps readers from noticing or remembering them).

It comes down to a simple but fundamental principle for christoislamicommunism: it is not about truth. It is all about perception - fooling people is a goal in itself. Popular perception, i.e. the mass's Belief: for the christo mindvirus, Belief is more important than truth. This principle therefore self-justifies all their lying: getting the masses to Believe their lies is for the "greater and higher" cause (of jeebusjehovallah's utopia).

Christoism knows that by far most people fall for the first thing (incl. lies) they hear on any matter and that it therefore better make its lies the loudest and most-heard. Christoism knows people will never read the miniscule-print retractions, and that the masses' memories will only recall the overblown stuff they caught on TV and heard on EnDeeTeeVee and other jeebus-junk news channels.

So christoislamicommunism hoards all speaking rights (e.g. through christomedia, by shouting down the views of the heathen opposition and by concealing the facts revealed by heathens like in the proof of the Ayodhya Temple case), the way it monopolises all of history-perception via history-writing (which has become another avenue for the christolying exercise) - such as through christoism's books on "Hinduism" and "Indian history".

So even when the facts about Godhra get established now - and then over and over again some time in the future - even when Modi and Gujarat and Hindus are cleared, even when there is nothing left to be refuted since it's all been covered, then, at a moment's notice the future christian Susan 'Arundhati' Roys and islamic Teesta Seetalvaddles and other assorted (declared and crypto)christoislamics can resurrect the entire fabrication of hysteria at a moment's notice: they will merely bring up the "2000 and still-counting muslims killed in Godhra" again and again and again. As needed. Because christoislamism knows that their mass-scale fictions are *all* that live in the collective's memory: they made sure of that with the foundation they cemented with their initial lying spree using their media's blitz to hammer it into people's minds.

Like the centuries-old christian libel against Jews (down to the later Protocols of Zion concoction) lives on in unreflecting popular imagination no matter how often it's all been disproved, and which continues to be brought up forever-and-a-day by christianism (and in more recent times by islamism and other parrots it has trained): christianism has a habit of opportunistically rehashing lies for an audience already tutored/conditioned into believing them merely because "they've heard these things before".

The christoclass meme reasons that familiarity through repetition breeds Belief (as also speaking loudly and ensuring you're the only one speaking by silencing all disagreement - so that onlookers can't find out about all the facts deliberately being kept from them).

It's just how christianism works. It knows Lies Live Long, and actual truth was never a concern for christoism (for them the sole Truth is jeebus - the two are equated - and jeebus/gawd/babble itself is christianism's first and foremost lie). This technique of lying on a genocidal scale IS christianism (and is inherited by islamism, communism). Heathens continue to have no answers on how to counteract christolying=christoislamicommunism. 1700/1800 year old question.

Godhra - Husky - 04-19-2010

Above sermon was already dreary in length, but extending it anyway. Else it doesn't really go here (or anywhere in particular).

Other anti-Hindu perceptions that christianism has deliberately manufactured for the very purpose of bringing them up whenever required, in order to turn suspicion onto and popular opinion against Hindus:

- "Hindu fascism", which christianism invented using its projections about Godhra and back-projections/prediction on Ayodhya of "Hindus were *always* fascists".

- "Hindu terror": by sacrificing a few more Hindus to prop up the lie (who are still not proven guilty - can't ever be proven guilty, well, not without concocting 'evidence' against them). One notes the silence on the matter, after the initial media spreads which devoted all their headlines and primetime to having caught the 'proven' 'Hindu terrorists'.

- "Hindu Taliban": ever since the rather-rigged-looking Ram Sene show. It is left to be forgotten that according to eye-witness testimonies of victims as well as others who afterward publicly swore off moral support to VHP or RSS (or whoever they were made out to be) based on the fireworks show, the "Ram Sene" (not famous or even known before the event) only entered about 15 minutes after the camera crew from the christo channel was already in place waiting to shoot the whole affair. What christian foresight.

And all this is what will go into the christoarchive. It doesn't matter what Hindus disprove and how thoroughly. Because the actual facts are what popular memory or 'history' - christoarchive - will (be allowed to) record.

It's just like how Dara Singh will forever be maligned as the man who "burnt the 'kindly' christoterrorist missionary Graham Staines (who was unlawfully overstaying in the country, who was a rapist as per a christoconvert, who illegally owned a gun, etc. etc.) and his kids". People were already taught to forget that Dara Singh was actually never at the scene, that the court could not pronounce him actually guilty and only some person(s) shouting slogans in his name was actually heard.

And just like Dara Singh is now (in)famous for the crime he actually never committed, it is intended that Hindus - and the Dharmic Hindu religion - become stained with "Hindu fascism", "Hindu terror" and "Hindu Taliban", etc. These are the labels (libels) that christianism intends to stick. Meant for the historybooks. The truth is irrelevant - or rather, most inconvenient - to christianism. For christianism, all that matters is controlling the perception of the onlooking masses concerning Hindus and the Hindu religion. Both for now and for all time to come. History "writes" itself miraculously in this way. Silence is more than deadly: the crimes against truth that it allows and thereby enables live forever.

The solution is not to merely stop at fighting the untruths (the libels). It is to destroy - completely - the factory which generates these deliberate lies one after another: christianism itself, and its spin-off shows. Hindus, other Dharmics, all Natural Traditionalists should at least *aim* for destroying christianism and the other christo-class mindviruses. And they should keep trying - always keep trying - to achieve it. Because the opposition is certainly most single-minded and unrelenting in its purpose: christianism (islamism/communism) intends to destroy everything (and everyone who resists), just as it has successfully done before.

Should stop with the eternal defence-only 'reflex-move' (it's not a tactic) and start a permanent offence. No truce, no amnesia or weakening of purpose, no parley (interfaith dialogue). Just keep going until either all heathenism is dead from trying or the monstrous christoclass disease is finally dead. <- The extreme scenario of non-co-existence is the sole future that the deadly meme envisioned (and allows) anyway, but instead of heathens sleepwalking into scripted extinction, whatever remains of heathens and their eroding heathenism may as well actively take control of their actions in christoislamicommunism's Total War.

Of course Hindus (certainly today's sensitive secularised kind) won't ever contemplate dismantling christoislamism itself. But it's always worth parroting - for the sake of uh, parroting.

And so ends another of my lectures, indistinguishable from all the rest. Why type at all. (And since I'm apparently my own parrot, I might at least have C&P-ed.)

Godhra - Guest - 07-05-2010

Quote:'Ishrat Jahan was an LeT suicide bomber'

PTI | New Delhi

pioneer.com

Bearing out the version of Gujarat Police, American-born Lashker-e-Taiba terrorist David Headley has claimed before NIA sleuths that Ishrat Jahan, a Mumbai girl killed in a police encounter in Ahmedabad, was a suicide bomber of the outfit.

Official sources said that Headley shared this information with the four-member team comprising officials from National Investigation Agency and Law Department during their visit to Chicago in the US.

The girl, whose death had sparked a major controversy, was alleged to be a member of Lashker's suicide squad who had been inducted by top LeT operative Muzamil.

Headley's information corroborates the stand of Gujarat Police and the Centre. The encounter had run into controversy after Jahan's family claimed that she was just a student and filed an appeal in the court. Gujarat Police had claimed that the terrorists were in the state to attack Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Sources said Headley's reconnaissance missions for Lashkar in India started in 2006.

Jahan was killed along with Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai and two Pakistani nationals -- Amjad Ali and Jishan Johar Abdul Ghani -- on June 15, 2004.

As per police records, they were intercepted on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, travelling in a car. When they were confronted, an encounter ensued in which all were shot dead.

Ishrat's mother Shamima Kausar in her petition to Gujarat High Court had claimed that her daughter was working as a saleswoman for Sheikh's perfumes business.

Where we can find Teesta, Bhatt etc, time to beat chest again.

Godhra - Guest - 08-02-2010

[url="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/expressindia/iKgY/~3/46K6DaGJK4M/"]'Questioning Modi will prove suicidal for Cong'[/url]

Quote:"We also learnt that CBI is planning to frame Modi in the case and any move will ultimately prove a suicide for Congress party," the senior BJP leader said.

Any attempt by Centre or CBI to malign the image of Gujarat, the best performing state government in the country, and its Chief Minister would be opposed tooth and nail, Naidu said.

"Do not play with fire as Modi is the best Chief Minister and a national leader who led Gujarat on the developmental path," he said.

CBI is Congress stooge, no credibility at all, over used as lap dog of 10 Janpath.

Not sure what they will get.