2. Who killed Haren Pandya?
3. Body of Sanjiv Bhatt's affidavit before the Supreme Court
4. R.N. Bhattacharya on Sanjiv Bhatt
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-02-03/ahmedabad/27865478_1_gujarat-minister-haren-pandya-godhra-carnage
'Haren Pandya said Modi authored riots'
AHMEDABAD: Vithal Pandya, father of slain Gujarat minister Haren Pandya, told the Nanavati-Shah commission of inquiry on Thursday that his son had informed him that the 2002 riots were "statesponsored" and "orchestrated" by CM Narendra Modi who was the "author and architect of the riots".
Pandya said his son had told him that a meeting of BJP workers took place in Lunawada in the Panchmahals on February 27, 2002 — the day when the Godhra carnage took place — where Modi instructed workers to fan out in the state. "Haren told me about the incident. He also told me that the authorities had instructed the police that revenge for the Godhra deaths should be allowed and that they should go soft on kar sevaks," Pandya told the commission.
Pandya said, "He (Haren) had observed that this was for the first time that the state government had supported a bandh call given by an outfit (on February 28) and no previous chief minister of Gujarat had supported such a call during past communal riots."
Stressing that his son was not a fanatic, Pandya said Haren had remarked on February 27 that if not checked in Godhra itself, the repercussions of the train carnage would go out of hand. "Most party members shared his (Haren's) sentiments, but some fundamentalists within the party did not approve of this feeling," he said.
According to Pandya, Haren had roamed around in his constituency along with then area deputy police commissioner VM Pargi to pacify the people. "Haren later on told me that Modi was the author and architect of the riots and that the post-Godhra events were sponsored by the state," he said.
He added that there was a general feeling among Hindus that Modi would 'save' them from Muslims. "Haren always believed that this was not Hindutva but Moditva," he said. At this point, Pandya senior got into a row with the commission, whose members asked him to give only relevant details. Pandya said that if he was not allowed to depose about whatever he wanted to say, he would shut up and then walked out of the witness box.
Pandya senior will be cross-examined on February 23. The crucial cross-examination of Best Bakery prime witness Zaheera Sheikh is to take place on Friday.
| Who killed Haren Pandya ?
Modi wanted Vaghela’s phones tapped, his chief secretary wanted CEC Lyngdoh misled about Gujarat reality, his principal secretary wanted Pandya under watch...
Hartosh Singh Bal & Mahesh Langa
New Delhi/Ahmedabad
Perhaps, the most damaging of this information relates to instructions issued by the state government regarding Haren Pandya, Modi’s foe within the Sangh Parivar ranks who was murdered a few months later.
On June 7, 2002, Sreekumar was asked by PK Mishra, Modi’s principal secretary, to find out which minister in the Modi Cabinet had met an independent citizen’s tribunal that included former Supreme Court Chief Justice VR Krishna Iyer. Mishra told Sreekumar that Haren Pandya, the then revenue minister, was suspected to be the one involved in the matter. Sreekumar was given the mobile number 9824030629 and told to obtain its call details. Pandya reportedly told the tribunal that the post-Godhra massacres were orchestrated by Modi, his officials and members of the Sangh Parivar.
On June 12, 2002, Mishra was told by Sreekumar that the minister suspected to have met the commission was none other than Haren Pandya. Sreekumar, however, refused to submit this information in writing. He said it was a sensitive matter and not connected with the charter of duties. Further call details of the number were handed over by OP Mathur, IGP (Administration and Security). It was learnt that Haren Pandya used this mobile.
On March 26, 2003, Haren Pandya was assassinated and his father Vithalbhai Pandya said that his son’s assassination was “a political murder”. Speaking to Tehelka, he blamed Modi for Pandya’s murder. So embittered was Vithalbhai that he contested the Gandhinagar Lok Sabha against LK Advani, but lost.
This, incidentally, was not the only time the Modi government had issued instructions for tapping a senior politician’s phone. At a meeting on April 16, 2002, Modi told Sreekumar that Congress leaders, in particular Shankersinh Vaghela, were responsible for the continuing communal violence in the state. The meeting (apart from Modi and Sreekumar) was attended by then DGP K. Chakravarti and the CM’s PS PK Mishra and Modi’s OSD. Sreekumar told Modi that he had no information regarding the involvement of the Congress leaders in communal violence. At this, Modi asked him to tap Vaghela’s phone but Sreekumar refused saying he had no information on the basis of which he could order surveillance.
Interestingly, two days later, controversial IB Joint Director Rajinder Kumar, posted in Ahmedabad, sold the same line to Sreekumar. When Sreekumar sought specific information, the IB man said he had none. The IB had been one of the few claiming the Godhra incident was a ‘pre-planned conspiracy’. It is still not clear how the IB was able to reach this conclusion within hours of the incident and questions have been raised about Kumar’s proximity to Modi.
Sreekumar also documented the incident that was one of the main reasons for the Modi government to hound him. On August 9, 2002 at the Ahmedabad circuit house annexe, senior officials, who had been asked to attend the meeting convened by then Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh, assembled in a room next to the conference hall. Chief Secretary Subba Rao, Additional Chief Secretary Ashok Narayan, DGP K. Chakravarthi, Police Commissioner KR Kaushik, Principal Secretary (Revenue) CK Koshy, Relief Commissioner Shah and Joint Secretary (Home) K. Nityanandan were present.
At the meeting, Subba Rao told officials that they must maintain that complete normalcy has been restored in the state. When Lyngdoh arrived, officials said the situation was under control and total normalcy has been restored. The chief secretary also requested Lyngdoh to see the presentation prepared by Nityanandan. Interrupting Rao, Lyngdoh said that he was not interested in the presentations. He said that he was aware of the ground realities in the state. Lyngdoh refused to believe the officials’ claim that normalcy was restored in the riot-hit areas. Lyngdoh said he had seen Sreekumar’s reports about the situation and that these matched his own assessment.
| ||
March 12, 2005
|
(link)Sanjiv Bhatt's Affidavit Filed Before The Supreme Court
The body of the affidavit --
AFFIDAVIT OF SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT I.P.S
I,
SANJIV RAJENDRA BHATT I.P.S, aged about 47 years, residing at Bunglow No,2,
Sushil Nagar Part II, Oppisite Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute, Drive-In Road,
Ahmedabad 380 052, do hereby state and solemnly affirm as under:
1.
I respectfully state and submit that I am presently posted as the Principal of
State Reserve Police Training Centre, Junagadh, Gujarat. I am filing this
affidavit to bring on record certain aspects concerning the
enquiry/investigation being conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed
by this Hon’ble Court. The reason for filing this affidavit directly will
become clear in the subsequent paragraphs.
2.
I am a post Graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai. After
completing my post-graduation, I joined the Indian Police Service (IPS) in 1988
and was allotted to the Gujarat cadre. Over the last 23 years, I have served in
different capacities in various Districts, Police Commissionerates and Police Units.
3.
I was posted as the Deputy Commissioner Of Intelligence, State Intelligence Bureau, Gandhinagar, from
December 1999 to September 2002. As the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence
with the State Intelligence Bureau, I used to look after all the matters
pertaining to the Internal Security of Gujarat including matters pertaining to
the Border Security, Coastal Security and Security of Vital Installations in
Gujarat as also matters pertaining to VVIP security, including the security of
the Chief Minister. I was also designated as the Nodal Officer for sharing of
intelligence with various Central Agencies and the Armed Forces of the Union of
India, This was the post I was occupying at the time when 2002 Gujarat Riots
took place.
4.
I respectfully state that owing to the post I was occupying in the State
Intelligence Bureau, I came across huge amounts of intelligence and information
pertaining to the events that had transpired prior to, as well as during the
Gujarat Riots of 2002. By virtue of the office held by me during the said
period, I had the occasion to frequently interact with various high-lecel
functionaries of the State and the Union of India and was therefore, privy to a
plethora of information including some very sensitive information pertaining to
the various acts of commission and omission attributable to certain high
ranking functionaries of the State. The information and documentary evidence,
which I have already shared with the SIT, can throw light on the real nature of
events that led to the incident of burning of the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati
Express at Godhra on 27th February 2002 and the larger conspiracy
and official orchestration behind the subsequent Gujarat Riots of 2002.
5.
It may kindly be appreciated that I was privy to the said information in my
capacity as an officer serving with the Intelligence Bureau, Therefore, I was
constrained to maintain confidentiality and could not have disclosed
information of such sensitive nature, unless called upon to do so under a
binding legal obligation. Accordingly, on being summoned by SIT for the first
time in November 2009, I had provided the SIT with certain relevant information
and documents, including original floppy discs containing the entire cell
phone/cell-site records of Godhra Town for 26th and 27th
February 2002; as well as the original print-outs of very important call
records of certain high-ranking functionaries of the State for 27th
and 28th February 2002. It may kindly be noted that I have deposed
before the SIT on several occasions and have endeavoured to assist the SIT to
the best of my ability. I am constrained to take the liberty of filing this
affidavit before this Hon’ble Court to bring on record certain disquieting aspects
and inadequacies in the manner and approach of the SIT, personally experienced
by me during my interaction with the SIT. As conveyed to the SIT in November 2009,
and even during subsequent interactions, I was present at the meeting called by
the Chief Minister on the late night of 27.2.2002 and was personally aware
about the instructions given thereat and the events that transpired thereafter.
I had also provided the SIT with verifiable details regarding the on-going
cover up operation; including the contemporaneous efforts made by high
officials of the State administration to undermine the proceedings of Writ
Petition (Civil) No.221 of 2002., which was pending before this Hon’ble Court
in 2002. I have time and again tried to bring these facts to the notice of the
Special Investigation Team but they seem to be disinclined to follow-up these important
leads in the course of the enquiry/investigation being carried out by them.
Given the overall demeanour of the SIT officials while dealing with these
crucial aspects of the ongoing enquiry/investigation, I believe it is my
painful duty to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the SIT does not
appear to be living up to the enormous trust reposed in it by the Supreme Court
of India, to conduct an impartial and thorough probe into the allegations of a
larger conspiracy and administrative complicity behind the Gujarat Riots of
2002 and hence the present Affidavit.
6.
I respectfully submit that I was contacted by the office of Special
Investigation Team in the month of November, 2009 and was asked to meet Shri A.
K. Malhotra- SIT on a particular date. I
was subsequently contacted once again by the office of the SIT and informed
that the appointed date has been changed and postponed. In the meantime, despite
my having maintained complete confidentiality regarding the telephonic summons
received from SIT, I was approached by a very high level functionary in the
Government of Gujarat and was sought to be appropriately briefed prior to my
scheduled interaction with SIT. When I first met Shri. A. K. Malhotra-Member
SIT, at the very outset, I had appraised him about the leak from his office and
the consequential attempt to appropriately brief me for the deposition before
SIT. During the course of my deposition before SIT, there were certain other
occurrences which were highly indicative of information from within the SIT. These
occurrences were brought to the notices of Shri A.K. Malhotra-Member SIT at that
point of time itself. Despite my well founded apprehensions regarding the
confidentiality of my deposition, I had truthfully and fearlessly responded to
all the queries put forth to me. I had also provided Shri. A. K. Maalhotra-Member
SIT, with certain relevant documents and records pertaining to the Godhra Riots
of 2002. All the documentary evidence tendered by me was received-on-record by
Shri. A. K. Malhotra-Member SIT. It needs to be mentioned that during the first
phase of my interaction with SIT in 2009 and 2010, my statements were recorded
in connection with the enquiry into the complaint made by Mrs. Zakia Jafri and
not in connection with any investigation under the SIT. Despite my professional
constraint as an intelligence officer, I shared substantial information with
the SIT and informed them that I would be duty-bound and willing to reveal all
the information within my knowledge, as and when I was under a binding legal
obligation to do so.
7.
It may kindly be be noted that my fears regarding the confidentiality of my
deposition before SIT were eventually confirmed as the contents of ny signed
deposition as well as the details of my interactions with Shri. A. K. Malhotra
and Shri. Paramveer Singh-Members SIT, were somehow available to the highest
echelons of the Government of Gujarat. As a result and consequence of the said
breach of confidentiality, I was visited and continue to be visited with
unpleasant consequences. The leakage of details regarding my earlier deposition
and interaction with SIT have eventually found their way to the media and have
further jeopardized my safety and security of my family members. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, the details regarding my testimony before the Special
Investigating Team, were first reported in the issue of Tehelka Magazine Volume
8 Issue 06 dated 12th February 2011, and once again in Tehelka
Magazine Volume 8 Issue 07 dated 19th February 2011; which I crave leave
to refer to and rely upon. I state that, prior to the publication of the said
articles in Tehelka Magazine, I had never disclosed the details of my
interaction with the details of my interaction with the Special Investigation
Team to anybody. In view of the sensitive nature of the information, as also
the situation prevalent in Gujarat, I had exercised utmost discretion and
chosen to maintain complete confidentiality regarding the contents of my
deposition and the details of my interaction with the Special Investigation Team.
8.
In view of the leakage of my confidential deposition as well as the leakage of
the details pertaining to my interaction with the SIT to the highest echelons
of the Government of Gujarat and the subsequent publication of the said details
by some sections of the media, I became highly apprehensive about my security
and the safety and security of my family members. In view of the perceived
security threat, I requested the Government of Gujarat to provide me and my
family members with adequate and fool-proof security cover. Unfortunately, the
Government of Gujarat has chosen not only to disregard my repeated requests,
but has time and again, sought to jeopardize my security by withdrawing even
the existing make-shift and minimal security arrangement, worked out from
within the meagre resources at my disposal. Copies of my letters dated
14.2.2011, 5.3.2011.and 13.4.2011 are annexed at Annexure 1, Annexure 2 and
Annexure 3 respectively.
9.
I respectfully state and submit that on 16.3.2011 I received a summons dated
15.3.2011 from the SIT, calling upon me to remain present before them on
21.3.2011 at 11.30 a.m. for the purpose of giving my statement in Meghaninagar
Police Station I C.R. No.67 of 2002. On the copy of said summons, I made a
written endorsement, requesting the SIT to provide me with a copy of the FIR
pertaining to Meghaninagar Police Station I C.R. No.67 of 2002 as well as
copies of my earlier statements before SIT, as copies of the same had not been
provided to me. Subsequently, a copy of the FIR was provided to me, but copies
of my earlier statements have not been provided to me till date. A copy of the
summons, dated 15.3.2011 along with my endorsement thereupon is annexed at
Annexure 4.
10.
I respectfully submit that on 18th March, 2011 I wrote a detailed
letter to the Chairman of SIT, placing the above facts on record and reiterated
my request for the provision of certain necessary documents. I further requested
the Chairman to kindly ensure that all the officers as well as support staff,
working under the control or in the employ of the Government of Gujarat, be
completely dissociated from the tasks of recording, processing or safekeeping
of my forthcoming deposition. I further expressed willingness to have my
statement recorded under Section 164(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A
copy of my letter dated 18th March, 2011 is annexed at Annexure 5.
11.
In accordance with the Summons, I reported to the office of the SIT at
Gandhinagar, on 21st March 2011, for the purpose of getting my
statement recorded in connection with the further investigation of Meghaninagar
Police Station I C.R. No.67 of 2002. Despite my repeated written request, Iwas
not provided with a copy of my earlier deposition before SIT and was informed
that it would not be possible to provide me with a copy of my earlier statement
or any of the contemporanrous documents and records requested for, vide my
letter dated 18th March 2011. The said facts were put on record by
way of my letter dated 22.3.2011, addressed to Chairman SIT. The said letter is
annexed at Annexure 6.
12.
My statement was recorded by SIT on 21st, 22nd, 23rd
and 25th March, 2011. Thereafter I was informed that I was required
to remain available as I would be called for further clarifications during the
course of the ongoing investigation, as also for the purpose of confronting me
with other witnesses, if necessary. During the course of my deposition before
SIT, I time and again sought to bring out the relevant information pertaining
the facts and circumstances; includibg the directions given by the Chief
Minister, during the course of crucial meeting held at his residence on thelate
night of 27th February 2002; that led to and facilitated the
communal carnage of 2002. In my opinion, this was evidently a very important
aspect of the investigation, since the events that transpired in my presence,
at the said meeting had a huge impact and bearing on the conduct of the police
force and State administration while dealing with the violence that started on
28th February 2002. It was submitted to the SIT that the course of
subsequent incidents of communal violence could be fully appreciated only in
the light of the directions given by the Chief Minister, during the said
meeting. However, I was informed by the SIT that all these aspects could not be
gone into, as my statement was being recorded in the further investigation of
Meghaninagar Police Station I C.R. No.67 of 2002 and therefore had to be
confined to the scope of the FIR pertaining to the events ay Gulberg Society on
28.2.2002.
13.
I submitted to the members of SITthat this procedural constraint on their part
defeated the very purpose of ascertaining the existence of any larger
conspiracy or official orchestration behind the Gujarat Riots 2002. At my
insistence, the SIT finally agreed to record the details of the events that had
transpired in my presence, during the meeting with the Chief Minister on the
late night of 27.2.2002. Upon my request, the SIT provided me with a relevant
portion of the transcript of my testimony, pertaining to the instructions given
by the Chief Minister, at the conclusion of meeting held on 27-02-2002, where
it was tried to impress upon him that the decision to bring the dead bodies to
Ahmedabad and the BJP announcement of supporting the VHP Bandh Call would
definitely lead to outbreak of violence in Ahmedabad and across the state; and
the Gujarat police did not have the manpower resources to deal with such a
situation. The relevant portion of my testimomy, as recorded and provided to me
by SIT, reads as follows:
“The Chief minister Shri. Narendra Modi said that the bandh call had already been given and the party had decided to support the same, as incidents like the burning of Kar-Sevaks at Godhra could not be tolerated. He further impressed upon the gathering that for too long the Gujarat Police had been following the principle of balancing the actions against the Hindus and Muslims while dealing with the communal riots in Gujarat. This time the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not recur ever again. The Chief Minister Shri. Narendra Modi expressed the view that the emotions were running very high amongst the Hindus and it was imperative that they be allowed to vent out their anger”
The
effects of these directions given by the Chief Minister were widely manifested
in the half-hearted approach and the evident lack of determination on the part
of the Police while dealing with the widespread incidents of orchestrated
violence during the State sponsored Gujarat Bandh on 28th February
2002 and also during the weeks that followed.
14.
I state and submit that, I had attended numerous meetings presided over by the
Chief Minister, even before 27th February 2002 and continued to do
so thereafter as well. On 27.2.2002. I was asked by the Control Room to
accompany the DG&IGP Shri. K. Chakravarthi IPS to the said meeting, along
with all relevant information, possibly because ADGP Intelligence
Shri.G.C.Raiger was on leave on that particular day. It is further submitted
that on numerous subsequent occasions, I had accompanied DG&IGP as well as
ADGP Intelligence to different meetings called by the Chief Minister and other
high Constitutional Functionaries.
15.
I submit that on 25th March 2011, when I again tried to bring up the
issue of a larger conspiracy or official orchestration behind the Gujarat Riots
of 2002, as also the ongoing attempts at cover-up. I faced unconcealed
hostility from members of SIT. This was even more obvious when I gave names of
witnesses who could corroborate the fact of my having attended the said meeting
with the Chief Minister on 27.2.2002.
16.
Despite the strong reluctance of the SIT to record inconvenient details, I
stated before them the names of witnesses who could substantiate the fact that
I had accompanied the DG&IGP to the meeting with the Chief Minister on
27.2.2002. I was hopeful that this information would be gone into thoroughly by
the SIT, to unravel the true nature of events that transpired. However the SIT
has chosen to intimidate certain witnesses and coerce them in to refraining
from stating the true facts and thereby has created an impression that the SIT
is becoming a party to the ongoing cover-up operation in Gujarat. My
apprehensions were substantiated when one of the witnesses I had named, Shri
K.D.Panth, (Assistant Intelligence Officer with the State Intelligence Bureau
in 2002) informed me that he had been called before the Special Investigating
Team on 5.4.2011 and was virtually treated like an accused and was threatened
with arrests and other dire consequences. It appears that other witnesses may
have been similarly coerced into submission. I have put these facts on record
by way of a letter to Chairman SIT. The said letter dated 6.4.2011 is annexed
at Annexure 7.
17.
It is most humbly submitted that as Deputy Commissioner(Intelligence) with the
State Intelligence Bureau, during the Gujarat Riots of 2002, I was privy to a
plethora of information pertaining to the facts and circumstances that led to
and facilitated the communal carnage that took place in Gujarat in 2002. I did
not bring these facts to light earlier due to the fact that I was privy to this
information in my capacity as an officer of the Intelligence Bureau and was not
expected to divulge the details unless under a legal obligation to do so.
Moreover, at no time was I required to file any Affidavit before any Court, nor
was I summoned or directed to depose before any authority or Commission. It has
been my considered and consistent stand that I would disclose confidential
information, which I was privy to as an Intelligence Officer, as and when I
would be called upon to do so under the requirement of law. I had explicitly
mentioned and clarified my aforementioned stand even in my first signed
deposition before the SIT in November 2009.
18.
It is my genuine apprehension that the SIT, while carrying out the further
investigation of Meghaninagar Police Station I C.R.No.67 of 2002, is
disinclined and reluctant to take on record and appropriately examine the
evidence indicating the existence of any larger conspiracy or official
orchestration behind the Gujarat Riots 2002. As an officer serving with the State
Intelligence Bureau at that relevant point
of time, I was not only present at the meeting held at the residence of Chief
Minister on the night of 27.2.2002. but also had witnessed the apparent lack of
firmness on part of many Police Units while dealing with the emergent situation
on 28th February 2002 and thereafter. As the Deputy Commissioner of
Intelligence in-charge of Internal Security for the State of Gujarat, I was
required to constantly monitor and assess the developing situations and
appropriately advice and assess the developing situations and appropriately
advise and apprise various organs and officials of the Government, including
the Chief Minister. As stated by me before the SIT, and substantiated by
documentary and other verifiable evidence, I had the occasion to inter alia,
apprise the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and the Chief minister
regarding the situation developing at Gulberg Society on 28th
February 2002. I have stated before the SIT that many serious incidents of
communal violence, including the carnage at Gulberg Society could have been easily
prevented by firm and determined action on part of the Police.
19.
It is humbly submitted that as repeatedly conveyed to the SIT, I remain duty
bound to assist the Hon’ble Court in the proceedings of SLP(Criminal) No.1088
of 2008. As and when called upon, I am willing to provide all the information
within my knowledge to this Hon’ble Court. It may kindly bee appreciated that I
was privy to a large part ofthe said information by virtue of the fact that I
was posted as Deputy Commissioner in the State Intelligence Bureau. Therefore,
my divulging sensitive and confidential information, otherwise than under an
order of this Hon’ble Court or during lawful investigation under the Code of
Criminal Procedure; would not only be professionally improper but may also
entail departmental or criminal proceedings against me, by a very vindictive
administrative setup in the State of Gujarat. Even today, the situation in
Gujarat is such, that witnesses would be afraid of vindictive reprisals and
persecutions at the hands of the State machinery. Evidently, witnesses serving
under the control of the State Government would be highly reluctant to come
forward and take a stand that could imperil their own safety or the safety and
security of their families. I therefore request that this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to ensure that the SIT follows up on all the leads provided by me in
such a manner that even reluctant witnesses feel safe and confident to state
the truth. It is further requested that the Government of Gujarat and the
authorities under its control may kindly be restrained from pressurizing
witnesses with a view to prevent the truth from coming out.
20.
I further state and submit that due to the events that have transpired since
the time I first deposed before the SIT in Vovember 2009, I have serious and
well founded apprehensions regarding my own safety and security of my family
members. I request that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the authorities
concerned, to provide adequate and fool-proof security cover to me and my
family.
21.
In case this Ho’ble Court so desires, I shall be duty bound to file an
additional affidavit for the purpose of providing further details and
particulars regarding the facts and documents within my knowledge.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/2002-riots-another-police-officer-blames-modi/156956-3.html
2002 riots: Another police officer blames Modi
INDIA, Updated Jun 06, 2011 at 08:58am IST| MeghdootSharon, Gaurav Shah, CNN-IBN |
New Delhi: Yet another top police officer in Gujarat has gone public, raising questions over the conduct of the Gujarat police force in controlling the communal riots in 2002. Retired Gujarat Director General of Police RN Bhattacharya has said that there was a feeling among officers that the lower rank officials had failed to safeguard the rights of the citizens.
As the head of the IPS Officers' Association, he even called for a meeting to discuss the issue. As many as 40 officers attended the meeting, even as riots were on and passed a resolution that they must fulfill their constitutional duty.
"It would have been impossible at that time. But the response of these 40 IPS officers was a sequel to the feeling that on the ground level, things are not being properly done," said Bhattacharya.
Bhattacharya has also questioned the stand taken by the state government in the Nanavati Commission that IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt is not a credible witness and his statements and affidavit cannot be entertained. Bhatt too had earlier raised questions over the Gujarat police's role, indicating that was the result of instructions given by state Chief Minister Narendra Modi on February 27, 2002.
"How can a counsel say such a thing? It is beyond me. I have worked with Sanjiv Bhatt when I was DG, Intelligence. I have found him to be a highly reliable man," Bhattacharya claimed.
While the Supreme Court will finally decide on Modi's role in the riots, this fresh revelation does strengthen allegations that the Chief Minister did ask the police officers to go slow against rioters during the post Godhra riots.
No comments:
Post a Comment