|
|||||
|
DID Chief Minister Narendra Modi allow Gujarat to burn during the post-Godhra communal violence in 2002? The answer is in the affirmative if one goes by a police officer's version of the events.
R. Sreekumar, Additional Director-General of Police filed an affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, which is probing the Gujarat riots, stating that the Chief Minister asked the police chiefs not to take action against Hindus and to "let the Hindu mobs vent their anger".
In his fourth affidavit before the Commission, Sreekumar recounted his conversations with Director-General of Police K. Chakravarty who attended a meeting called by the Chief Minister on the evening after the Godhra train tragedy. "The honourable C.M. said in the meeting, `In communal riots, the police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on a one-to-one basis. This will not do. Allow Hindus to give vent to their anger'," Sreekumar said in his affidavit.
This explosive proof against Narendra Modi, surprisingly, has not stirred any public outcry in the State, where Modi's writ still runs large. The police dare not file a complaint against him based on the new evidence. The judicial commission mysteriously had not listed it as part of its records until the media started asking. Human rights groups fighting for the riot victims are too scared to take up the matter. Even Narendra Modi's rivals are scared to speak out against him.
The main Opposition party, the Congress, has not seized the opportunity to demand action against the Chief Minister. In fact, it has not even acknowledged this damning proof publicly. Many Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Members of the Legislative Assembly want Narendra Modi removed and have often asked the party high command to replace him. But even they are not using this chance to oust him (mainly because the BJP under Narendra Modi's leadership has registered victory with a thumping majority in the recent municipal and district panchayat elections). So, it is unlikely that Sreekumar's bold stand will pave the way for any action against Narendra Modi.
SREEKUMAR, in his affidavit has provided details of how the Chief Minister encouraged the violence tacitly. "Chakravarty observed that this posture of the C.M. was a major obstacle to police officers in initiating action against Hindu communal elements who were on the rampage against minorities," he said. By allowing the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to parade the bodies of the Godhra victims on the streets of Ahmedabad, Narendra Modi made the situation even more surcharged communally, Chakravarty had told Sreekumar. In fact, Ahmedabad's Police Commissioner P.C. Pande had objected to the parade but Narendra Modi overruled it.
Cabinet Ministers were also not spared in the affidavit. "Chakravarty told me that ruling party supporters were attacking minorities and the C.M. and Cabinet Minister were responsible for such a situation. Shri Chakravarty was quite critical about positioning of a Cabinet Minister, Shri I.K. Jadeja, in the DGP's office... the presence of the Minister was adversely affecting his supervision of the riot situation," Sreekumar's affidavit stated.
In his previous affidavits, too, Sreekumar has submitted proof of the administration's deliberate neglect in dealing with the violence in Gujarat. He produced his diary in which he had recorded directives to the police not to act against the perpetrators, and how the police did not record cases or sabotaged investigations. Soon after, the Gujarat government issued a charge-sheet against him for violating service rules.
Sreekumar filed his latest affidavit to counter the charges against him and detail the harassment he has faced. "When senior officials, political leaders, including the honourable C.M., though were hierarchically superior to me, were unabashedly going contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, I thought that my intrinsic duty is to resist such a trend and initiate possible and feasible remedial measures. My register recorded illegal directives from authorities," he said.
Sreekumar said he maintained the diary so that he could prove that he did not comply with them if he was asked to prove his innocence at any point and that he submitted it to the Commission to prove that "the C.M. and many government officials were part of a design to disturb internal security and for the obvious objective of gaining political capital".
Sreekumar alleged that before his testimony to the Commission, Home Secretary G.C. Murmu and Special Government Pleader Arvind Pandya had called him for a briefing and warned him not to speak out against the government. A Home Department Under-Secretary, he alleged had also advised him that no purpose would be served by telling the truth.
Sreekumar said the charge-sheet has been served against him to intimidate him and prevent him from speaking against the administration and highlighting the role of top politicians and officials in the carnage.
Many senior officials who have deposed before the Commission have not filed affidavits relating to the second term of reference of the Commission, which is "to inquire into the role and conduct of the then Chief Minister or any other Ministers in this Council of Ministers, police officers and other individuals and organisations". Sreekumar provided a list of senior officials who have not filed such affidavits.
Printer friendly
page
|
