Whether legal system in India is slowly turning a pawn into the hands of politicians or whether it has become the luxury of the rich and powerful is one question that comes out the findings of the GT Nanavati Commission Report into the Godhra training burning on February 27, 2002, in which 59 kar sevaks died. Well, the BJP leaders and supporters, especially the CM Modi might have a moment for rejoicing as he is absolve from the onus of engineering riots after that. But at what cost?
The very first finding that the fire was a result of a pre-planned conspiracy to target kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya is full of doubts. According to the railway records, fire broke out at 7.55 am, not at 8.20 am as stated by the local police. Since the coach was locked from inside, not outside (it cannot be from outside except by a key that is with the guard), people had a chance to get out once they knew on flammable materials were thrown on it.
Second, people are at a loss as to which commission – UC Banerjee or Nanavati Commission – they should believe. While Banerjee had concluded that the fire was accidental, Nanavati Commission thinks it to be ‘pre-planned conspiracy. There is a problem with Nanavati Commission here. For example, there are sworn testimonies of three IPS officers before the Banerjee Commission: Raju Bhargava, SSP, Panchmahal, RV Sreekumar, then Additional DGP, state IB, and Rahul Sharma, DCP, Control Room, Ahmedabad. Bhargava and Sreekumar had said the state CID had no information about the return of the kar sevaks by the Sabarmati Express on February 27 though it knew about the departure of the kar sevaks. The question is: when the CID did not have information, how could common people know that kar sevaks were on board?
Third, a year ago, Tehelka came out with a comprehensive expose on the Godhra train incident and post-Godhra riots, in which many accused involved blatantly acknowledged to have participated in the riots, and many fingers pointed towards CM Modi. It also provided meticulous report on why and how the train was burnt, taking into account the interviews of some of the survived passengers.
Fourth, why the half report, not full in one go? Should any commission submit its report in parts? There may be questions on its legality. One more cause of concern is the appointment of Maulik Nanawati, son of Justice Nanawati as the standing counsel of the Gujarat government by Modi. This itself raises several questions about legal ethics.
Fifth, on his visit to Gujarat in early April 2002, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had advised Modi to observe Raj dharma. Why? Isn’t it that Vajpayee was sure that something wrong had happened?
Fifth, the VHP unit of Godhara had provided some phone numbers in Pakistan from where either calls were been made to the arrested accused in India or where the calls were made by some of those arrested. Rahul Sharma, DCP, Control Room, Ahmedabad, examined the records but did not find any such communication activity between Godhra and Pakistan.
There are several other loopholes in the Nanawati Commission report. But how would the truth come out and guilty be punished is the big question if commission reports are full of omissions and commissions.
|
|
Comments:
