Pure speculation on SIT closure report

Media reports on Special Investigation Team's (SIT) Final Report u/s 173 CRPC on Zakia Jafri's complaint/FIR against the Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 62 others generally confirm the exoneration of nearly all culprits for want of evidence. Indeed, it is flabbergasting and frustrating development for all those who value the Rule of Law, social cohesion and unity of our motherland. If the media version is true, the riot victim survivors and the officers who risked their career and marshalled evidence against perpetrators would be
depressed.

A hypothetical exercise as to what could have been done by SIT for building an impenetrable defence for rioters will be rewarding. Any police officer with the motive of defending the riot accused will try to denigrate, marginalise and invalidate copious of evidence available on (1) scheming and consummation of anti-minority carnage, (2) subversion of the state administration to delay and deny justice to riot victims and (3) intimidation of witnesses to block the flow of evidence against the state government functionaries, narrated in Jafri's FIR.

Witnesses, had, reportedly, tried to prove the conspiracy by the state government, by stressing on facts, i.e. (A) CM giving instructions in a late evening meeting of officers at Gandhinagar on February 27, 2002, to give a free play of Hindu revengefulness, in the context of killing 59 Hindus in Godhra train fire incident. SIT would find contradictions in the semantics of three versions about the CM's instructions, in the depositions of the late Haren Pandya (to the Citizens Tribunal), RB Sreekumar and Sanjeev Bhatt (both before the judicial bodies). Moreover, Haren Pandya and Sreekumar were not present in the meeting also. Bhatt's presence in the CM meeting is also questioned after refusal by his subordinate officer Pant to support Bhatt. (B) Secondly, allegations about bringing the bodies of Godhra train fire victims to Ahmedabad, VHP leaders accompanying the bodies and so on would not be deemed to be incriminating as these actions were taken on the request of the relatives of deceased persons by the CM. (C) SIT would also be reluctant to draw any adverse inference on facts like, (1) the government not keeping minutes of meetings chaired by the CM and other senior officers, (2) positioning of ministers in DGP and CP, Ahmedabad officers on VHP sponsored bandh day on February 28, 2002, (3) transfer of officers who took effective actions against the rioters in the thick of riots, i.e. Rahul Sharma, Vivek Shrivastava, MD Antani and others, despite DGP's objection, (4) rewarding those who collaborated in riots, (5) CM characterizing the riots as operation of the Newton's Law, (6) failure of the government to take action on media making communally inciting reports and (7) non-implementation on regulations on riot control in Gujarat Police Manual, and other government documents, which facilitated riots. These are to be deemed as mere administrative omissions without any malicious motive.
The evidence supporting the charge of subversion of the administration are, (1) failure to take follow up action on reports from State Intelligence Branch (SIB) for countering the anti-Muslim bias of government officials, i.e. police and public prosecutors not performing duties properly and this resulting in damage to cases of riot victims.

The author is the former DGP, Gujarat (to be continued)