Paragraph 229, Clean Chit to Modi

Paragraph 229

(Mukul Sinha)

(1)              229 may be a number that Narendra Modi would like to wear on his shirt sleeves as a lucky talisman. Of the 230 paragraphs that the Commission of Inquiry Chaired by Justice G.T.Nanavati devoted to the unraveling the “conspiracy to set the S/6 coach on fire”, the paragraph 229 absolved the Chief Minister, other Ministers and even the Police officers from any role or lapse in the Godhra incident or in the matter of providing protection, relief or rehabilitation to the riot victims of 2002! As if these certifications were not enough, the Commission also absolved the Chief Minister, other Ministers and even the Police officers from any lapse in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by the National Human Rights Commission!

(2)              In just a single paragraph (paragraph 229) containing 18 lines, the Commission dismissed the numerous allegations of not just lapses but the connivance of the Chief Minister, other Ministers and the Police officers with the rioters and of specific instances of denial of protection to the victims when they were being butchered on and after 28th February, 2002.. The Commission completely ignored the voluminous evidences which were on record while absolving the Chief Minister, other Ministers and even the Police officers of all their misconduct and it did so by using two magical words “no evidence”. That’s the magic of 229!

(3)              The record of affording relief, rehabilitation or compliance with the directions of the NHRC was so abysmal that the then Chairman of NHRC had to write to the Prime Minister himself by his letter dated 3rd January, 2003, seeking his personal intervention This is what the Chairman said to the Prime Minister, “ Regrettably, to date, in spite of the recommendations made by the Commission, not enough has been done to assure the victims, our country and the world at larger, that the instruments of the State are proceeding to with adequate integrity and diligence to remedy the wrongs that have occurred…. Nor, I am saddened to observe, has the appointment of the Justice Nanavati-Shah Commission by the State Government allayed fears in this respect…. I turn to you Mr. Prime Minister, both as Head of the Government and as a person of deep and abiding understanding of the issues at stake, to express my anguish in respect of this matter as I prepare to relinquish my office. I should be deeply grateful if you could kindly monitor the situation and issue directives to the competent authorities, both at State and Central levels, to ensure that justice is done along the lines outlined in this letter and set out in greater detail in the earlier recommendations of the Commission…”

(4) The deep anguish of the then Chairman of the NHRC, a constitutional body, Justice Shri J.S.Verma ,the retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court expressed to the then Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Bajpai, has remained an anguish in the wilderness. For Nanavati Commission ofcourse such anguish of the NHRC Chief, regretting that the State Government was not doing enough to remedy the wrongs committed during the post Godhra riots, are of no consequence and deserved to be ignored as “no evidence” to support the allegation of lapse against the Chief Minister, other Ministers and the Police officers in providing protection, relief or rehab to the victims of the organized violence! Strangely, when the NHRC Chief , a retired Chief Justice himself is complaining that the NHRC directions were not being complied with, Justice Nanavati Commission arrives at an exactly opposite conclusion in para 229!

(5)              We may now consider another piece of vital evidence to establish the fact that during the main phase of violence on and after 28th February, 2002, the State Government failed to effectively deploy the Army despite the President of the Country, Shri K.R. Narayanan exhorting the then Prime Minister to give effective powers to  the army to shoot and quell the violence that was assuming a genocidal proportions. This piece of evidence became public after Shri Narayanan had given an interview to a Congress MLA from Kerala, Shri P.T.Thomas after he had relinquished his office. On behalf of Jan Sangharsh Manch, an application was filed before the Justice Nanavati Commission for the production of the said communication between the President and the Prime Minister on the aforesaid issue.

(6) On the basis of the application of Jan Sangharsh Manch, under the directions of the Commission, the Registrar of the Commission Shri C.G. Patel wrote to Shri K.R. Narayanan seeking his view on the matter. This is what Shri Patel had written to Shri Narayanan: “Respected Sir…Print media also states that you “Sir stated to Mr. P.T. Thomas, Congress MLA as follows: I had asked military to be send to suppress the riots. The centre had constitutional responsibility and power to send the military if the state government asked to. The military was sent, but if the military was given power to shoot at the perpetrators of violence, recurrence of tragedies in Gujarat could have been avoided. However, both State and Central Government did not do so…”

Shri Narayanan sent his reply promptly on 8th April, 2005. This is what the ex-President had written to the Commission: “(1) I did give an interview to Mr. P.T.Thomas. (2) I did make statement more or less as quoted in your letter under reply,. I may mention that the statements reflect my impression of the events and situations in question. I have nothing further to add….. yours faithfully, Narayanan K.R.”

(7) The President of India’s impression of the events obviously has failed to impress the Commission. But what is strange that the Commission thought fit to ignore this vital piece of evidence that questioned the motive of both the State Government as well the Central Government of not permitting the military to shoot the perpetrators of violence to quell the killings of innocent citizens,  by no less a person but the President of this country. There are just about numerous such important evidences that have been completely ignored by the Commission while drafting the para 229. If such evidences were considered in the report, no prudent person could have given the clean chit that has been done in para 229. We shall deal with such evidence in our next article. {to be continued}