New Socialist Movement

Paragraph 229

Untold stories

(Mukul Sinha)

 

 

1. The eloquence of the Paragraph 229 of the report of the Justice Nanavati Commission on the Godhra incident lies not in what it said but in what it did not say. Ironically, in a hurry to absolve the Chief Minister, other ministers and even the delinquent police officers from the lapses committed by them during the post Godhra violence, the Commission gets carried away and absolves them from any role in the Godhra incident itself without even any allegation being made on record alleging that the Chief Minister had a role to play in the burning of the S/6 coach!

 

2.  What is, however sad to note is that the Commission has completely ignored the testimonies of the courageous Police Officers who at the risk of their career came forward to testify before the Commission and exposed the role of the State machinery during the post Godhra period. The untold stories of two such police officers require to be told to the people at large such that others in uniform feel proud to emulate their brother officers.

 

3. One such officer was Shri Rahul Sharma, the then District Superintendent of Police of Bhavnagar District during the violent period. As a strange coincident, he was transferred from the post of SP western Railway Police (the Godhra area came under its jurisdiction) and posted to Bhavnagar on 28th February itself, the day the violence started. One may even wonder, had Shri Sharma been allowed to function as the SP of the western railway police on 27th February, 2002, Sabarmati Express would have safely reached Ahmedabad saving the country of one of its worst tragedies.

 

4. Be that as it may, the posting of Shri Sharma as SP Bhavnagar saved the city of Bhavanagar from the worst carnage that was planned out by the ruling party and the state players. The plan was to burn and kill few hundred children studying in a madrassa at the outskirt of the city. Due to the strict measures adopted by the SP, no violent incident took place in the city but on the next day, i.e. on 1st March, 2002, a highly inflammatory and provocative news item appeared in a local vernacular news paper calling upon Hindus to avenge the deaths of Godhra as was done in Ahmedabad. By the late evening, violence had already erupted in different parts of the city. Having no reinforcement, Shri Sharma had desperately sought help from the Director General of Police that night. In his deposition before the Commission, Rahul Sharma has stated what the DGP had to say to him: “The DGP had told me that he would be able to give one SRP Company by next day morning and if possible he would make some Border Wing home Guards and army whenever they become available. He also told me not to look for more help as the bureaucracy had been completely neutralized…”

 

 

5. Thus stranded without any help from outside, in the evening of 2nd March, 2002, he faced the worst attack of that period. The attack was mounted in a systematic manner to demolish the Akvada   madrassa which was about 14 kilometers from Bhavnagar. Braving the burning logs and stone throwing mob, Shri Sharma could reach the madras with just a few policemen and thereafter bring in his strike force to evacuate and transfer the children to a safer place in the city. For hours, before the strike force could reach the madrassa, only Sharma and his gunman were preventing a mob of over 2000 miscreants who were determined to burn down the children. True, Shri Sharma had to use effective force and few people died in the police firing but that save our State from one of the worst tragedies. But what the home minister had to say on this courageous act of Shri Sharma? In his deposition before commission this is what the Home Minister is quoted to have said: “He had told me that while I had done a good job at Bhavnagar, the ratio of death of police firing was not proper. What I understood thereby was that he was complaining about more number of deaths of Hindus compared to Muslims as a result of police firing at Bhavanagar city. I had told him that would depend upon the situation of the mobs at which firing was resorted to.”

 

6. And what did the Government do to prosecute the editor of a newspaper for having instigated the entire violence at Bhavnagar. As per the deposition of Ashok Narayan, the then Home Secretary, the Government did receive the complaint against the news paper from Rahul Sharma but the Government did not give any permission to sanction the prosecution and Narayan went on record to say that it was the Chief Minster who was the ultimate authority to grant the sanction!

 

7.  Quite apart from the above direct evidence indicting the state players, the best evidence that was offered by Rahul Sharma was the mobile phone records of all persons at Ahmedabad for the period between 25th February, 2002 and 4th March, 2002. He had produce the CDs containing this utmost valuable data that fixes the role of every state-player including the ministers and the police officers but the Commission did not even bother to get the data analyzed for the past three years. This being the real state of affairs, would somebody rewrite the paragraph 229 for the benefits of the future generations?

 

    {to be continued. Next- the story of Sreekumar}