NANAVATI COMMISSION’S PART REPORT RAISES EYE BROWS The Jan Sangharsh Manch representing the riot victims before Nanavati Commission of Enquiry has expressed its shock surprise on the submission of a part report to the Government by the Nanavati Commission. The Jan Sangharsh Manch is associated with the Commission right from its appointment in the year 2002 and has been assisting the Commission in its endeavour to find the true facts in respect of the terms of reference made to the Commission. The reference made to the Commission include (1) the incident of burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati express at Godhra on 27th February 2002 which resulted tragic death of 59 innocent passengers (2) the incidents of violence that broke out all over Gujarat following the train carnage and (3) the role and conduct of the ministers including the Chief Minister, government and police officials, social and political organizations during riots. Today the Commission has released only a part of the report which includes the incident of Godhra and not included the violent incidents of post Godhra and the role and conduct of the ministers etc. in its report. Moreover, the commission has not issued notices and summons to the persons required under section 8(B) of the Commission of Enquiries Act. The question therefore would arise in anybody’s mind is that – Why did the Commission submit today only a part of the report dealing with the incident of Godhra? Why the other terms of reference are not included in the report. If the commission could wait for six years to give its report on Godhra, what was the sudden urgency to submit the report now? Do the thousands of victims of the post Godhra riots do not have any right to know why their lives were property were destroyed? Don’t they have any right to know which minister, politician, police officer or any organization was responsible for the massacre? The Commission is very well aware of the fact that the Supreme Court, on being satisfied that the investigation carried out in certain riot related cases which include the Godhra case too, was very much defective and therefore, ordered reinvestigation of all those cases by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court itself and also the fact that the SIT has carried out re-investigation and has been granted extension of time. It would have been appropriate for the Commission to wait till the re-investigation by SIT is completed and the report is placed before Supreme Court. Without waiting for SIT to complete re-investigation, the Nanavati Commission has submitted its report in haste. The case put forward by the State Government before Nanavati Commission is based on the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer Shri Noel Parmar. The Supreme Court has out rightly rejected the investigation carried out by Shri Noel Parmar and ordered re-investigation by SIT. The Commission therefore ought to have based its report on the findings of SIT and not on the findings of Shri Noel Parmar. The Commission is also aware of the fact that the petition challenging Banerjee Commission’s report is pending before High court wherein the Nanavati Commission is also a party respondent. The State Government is also a party respondent in this petition. The report of the Banerjee commission was primarily on the technical issues related with the train burning incident. The outcome of the petition should have been awaited since the common people have the right and also have an opportunity to know the contents of the Banerjee Commission’s report. It is pertinent to point out that the Nanavati Commission has summoned and received many of the documents which have been relied upon by the Banerjee Commission. In view of all the above questions, the Jan Sangharsh Manch is of the view that the action on the part of the Nanavati Commission of submitting a part of the report is not appropriate. S.H. IYER Convener Jan Sangharsh Manch.
- The illusion called Secularism – Shahid Azmi Memorial Lecture
- The only thing the minorities once got were bullets. Now we are getting some faith back
- 400 activists of Jan Sangharsh Manch detained by the Gujarat Police
- Open Letter to Narendra Modi From Riot Victims
- Justice Shah also monitors STF work
- Gujarat IPS officer Rahul Sharma was chargesheeted
- Hypocrisy of Anna’s Lokpal
- Some intel records destroyed, says riots probe panel
- Sadik Jamal case: FIR sought against IB officer, 16 cops in Ahmedabad
- Probe retraction by witnesses: HC
Act activist advocate Ahmedabad carnage chairman chief justice chief minister coach commissions Congress features Godhra Gujarat Gujarat Government Gujarat High Court Gujarat Police High Court Home Minister incidences India Jaideep Patel Jansangharsh Manch Jan Sangharsh Manch judge lawyer Maya Kodnani minister mukul Mukul Sinha Mumbai Nanavati Nanavati Commission Narendra Modi New Socialist Movement President prime minister rahul sharma riot sabarmati express sangharsh sinha State Government Supreme Court the Sabarmati Express
The Nanavati Commission has conveniently misunderstood Mr. Modi and his Government without examining them.
· Mr. Modi and his Government got Full Marks without appearing in the Exam of the Nanavati Commission.
· We strongly feel that the Nanavati Commission has forgotten the real story of the Gujarat Carnage 2002, publicly admitted and proudly advocated by the Mr. Modi and his BJP. – Rohit Prajapati & Trupti Shah – Activists, Gujarat
The following statements of Mr. Modi say a lot, and even if the Nanavati commission would have taken the statement of Mr. Modi, he might have said similar things to the commission
“With the entire population of Gujarat very angry at what happened in Godhra much worse was expected”. Narendra Modi, at a Press Conference in Gujarat, Feb 28, 2002.
Asked about the violence, Modi quoted Newton’s third law ‘every action has an equal and opposite reaction’ – to virtually justify what was happening. The Times of India, March 3, 2002.
“Relief camps are actually child-making factories. Those who keep on multiplying the population should be taught a lesson.” Shri Narendra Modi, addressing a rally in Mehsana district during his gaurav yatra, quoted in The Hindu, Sept 10, 2002.
“(Nothing illustrates the role of the police better than police commissioner P.C. Pande’s statement that, ‘Police were not insulated from the general social milieu… (When) there’s a change in the perception of society, the police are part of it and there’s bound to be some contagion effect”’. The Telegraph, March 2, 2002
Let us also remind Justice Nanavati that even the then Prime Minister Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee felt compelled to say the following things:
“My one message to the chief minister is that he should follow raj dharma. A ruler should not make any discrimination between his subjects on the basis of caste, creed and religion.” — Atal Behari Vajpayee, during his visit to Ahmedabad on April 4, 2002; in The Hindustan Times.
“I do not know what face I will show them (the world) now after the shameful events in Gujarat.” — Atal Behari Vajpayee, during his visit to Ahmedabad on April 4, 2002; in The Hindustan Times.
“From Godhra to Ahmedabad, in so many places, there are so many incidents of people being burnt alive, including helpless women and children. This is a blot on nation’s forehead and has grievously harmed India’s image in the eyes of the world.”- Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India, statement on March 3, 2002.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Best Bakery case again clearly condemns the state machinery and religious fanatics as the directors of the 2002 Gujarat Carnage. “When the ghastly killings take place in the land of Mahatma Gandhi it raises a very pertinent question as to whether some people have become so bankrupt in their ideology that they have deviated from everything which was so dear to him. […] The fanatics who spread violence in the name of religion are worse than terrorists and more dangerous than an alien enemy. […] The role of the State Government also leaves much to be desired. One gets a feeling that there was really no seriousness in the State’s approach in assailing the Trial Court’s judgment. […] The modern day “Neros” were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected. Law and justice become flies in the hands of these “wanton boys”. When fences start to swallow the crops, no scope will be left for survival of law and order or truth and justice. Public order as well as public interest become martyrs and monuments.”
Even the Nanavati Commission has conveniently ignored the above Supreme Court judgment and other such judgments by the Supreme Court. The Commission had also ignored the NHRC’s various interim reports. The recent statements to the Tehelka channel made by various individuals boasting about their role in the violence, which were seen and heard by millions of people in the country, also seem to have made no impression on the Nanavati commission.
Let us remind the people that the PUCL, Vadodara who were active in relief and rehabilitation during the 2002 violence in Gujarat, had withdrawn from the proceedings of the Nanavati-Shah Commission. PUCL, Vadodara had earlier submitted an affidavit to the Commission based on the PUCL investigations into the violence in Vadodara city and surrounding villages. But they were obliged to submit a second affidavit stating that, in view of their lack of faith in the inquiry proceedings, they would not participate in them further due to the remarks made by Justice Nanavati.
The prime reason for boycotting the commission was that in late May 2003, Justice Nanavati has been reported extensively in the media to have said, “The evidence recorded so far does not indicate any lapse on the part of the police or administration in controlling the communal clashes in several parts of the state.” Thereafter, Justice Nanavati reportedly backed out and stated that the media had misquoted him. But a TV channel reported that Justice Nanavati, in an interview with the channel, had said the Gujarat riots were not one-sided and that there was limited evidence against the VHP. We were shocked with the comments made by a senior member of the Commission, Justice Nanavati, a former judge of the Supreme Court. “There is no real evidence that has been brought to name individual Bajrang Dal or VHP leaders,” the TV channel quoted Justice Nanavati as saying. This despite the voluminous evidence that emerged from the investigations of several independent fact-finding commissions.
We strongly feel that the Nanavati Commission has forgotten the real story of the Gujarat Carnage 2002 publicly admitted and proudly advocated by Mr. Modi and his BJP.
Let us remind the Nanavati Commission that denial of justice on such a scale will have disastrous long-term consequences for the entire society.
Rohit Prajapati
Trupti Shah
Activist, Gujarat