Sunday, June 30, 2013

Arguments on behalf of Zakia Ahsan Jafri assisted by Citizens for Justice and Peace in the Zakia Jafri vs Narendra Modi & 59 Others Crriminal Case.


Note for Media  June 26-28 2013
Arguments on behalf of Zakia Ahsan Jafri assisted by Citizens for Justice and Peace in the Zakia Jafri vs Narendra Modi & 59 Others Crriminal Case.
Advocates Sanjay Parikh assisted by Adv Mihir Desai initiated the arguments. The entire team of 14 CJP lawyers was there in full force to assist the effort along with CJP Secretary Teesta Setalvad.
Do please keep a Bird s eye view on Arguments in this case as it is a matter of national importance concerning Accountability for State Perpetrated Mass Crimes.
Being heard before the Metropolitan Magistrate 11th Court, Ahmedabad
June 28 2013
The Accused No. 1 Narendra Modi s mindset against the minority Muslim community can be traced out from his being an his supporting the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The State Intelligence Bureau ( Messages contained in the SIT documents) had been clearly and consistently informing the State Home Minister from 7.2.2002 onwards that members of the  VHP, BD and BJP were preparing themselves armed with trishuls etc to go to Ayodhya to celebrate the Mahayagya. This Mahayayga was meant for building the Ram temple at the Babri Masjid site. The Sabarmati express left Ahmedabad on 24.2.2002 (night) and the same train was returning from Ayodhya. The Sabarmati Express started from Faizabad-Ayodhya on morning of 26th February 2002 Further reports of the state intelligence reveal that the provocative slogan shouting against Muslims was taking place throughout the train journey. In particular incidents took place a two places including Rudali where stabbing and attacks also followed.
7.2.2002                        State Intelligence Bureau messages from PB Upadhyaya to the DGP, Gujarat, State Home Department and all Police stations of Gujarat warning of the communal mobilisations especially near temples, recruitment of volunteers for the programmes and aggressive posturing in Gujarat.

Nirant, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049. Ph: 2660 2288 email:,
12.2.2002                      SIB Message (PB Upadhyaya) to DGP Uttar Pradesh also intimating that 3,000 Kar Sevaks from Gujarat will reach Ayodhya on 23.2.2002 to participate in the Mahayagna.
12.2.2002                      Messaage from SIB records that Praveen Togadia announced at a press conference that there would be active participation by VHP cadres in the Mahaygana would be enthusiastic. Message sent to all Police stations in Gujarat, DGP and Home department Gandhinagar warns of the possible repercussions of this.
13.2.2002                      PB Upadhyaya message to all CPs, SSPS in districts and Home Secretary Gandhinagar intimating decision of VHP that Ram Mandir would be constructed at any cost after 12.3.2002 and enrolment of Ram Bhaktas would start from all over the country from 1.3.2002.

20.2.2002                      DCP-INT (Communal) PB Upadhya SIB Message to DGP, SP, Western Railway Vadodara that 3,000 Kar Sevaks would be leaving on 22.2.2002 from Ahmedabad station.
21.2.2002                                  SIB Message states that Kar Sevaks are going to travel on a train going to Faizabad (Ayodhya) and therefore in respective areas as well as in the railway stations it is necessary to provide bandobast. Take steps to ensure that no untoward incidents take place. Message sent by PB Upadhyaya (SIB-Int-Communa) to DGP, CPS, SPS and Home Department Gandhinagar.
2l.2.2002                       SIB-Int –Communal PB Upadhya sends a Message
to DGP Lucknow about the departure of VHP and Bajrang Dal activists (3,000) between 22.2.2002 and 27.2002 under the leadership of Dilip Trivedi for re-building the Ram temple from 15,3,2002
23.2.2002                      SSP Faizabad and Home secretary Gandhinagar about 2800 VHP and Bajrang Dal & Durga Vahini activists under Dilip Trivedi and Kum Malabehn Rawal have left Ahmedabad by Sabarmati Express for Ayodhya on 22.2.2002 at 2050 hours.
24.2.2002                      RSS, VHP supported by the BJP had decided to have Maha Yagna at Ayodhya (Faizabad) as a sequel to the demolition of the Babri Masjid which was announced by Praveen Togadia, international general secretary of the VHP. Further announcement was that construction of Ram temple will commence from 12.3.2002 onwards. Pursuant to this announcement, the following activities commenced
25.2.2002                      DCP Communal State Intelligence PB Upadhya informing SSPs Faizabad and Home Secretariat Gandhinagar that 1900 VHP and Bajrang Dal activists under the leadership of Vijay Pramani, Hareshbhai Bhatt and Khemrajbhai Desai have left Vadodara by Sabarmati Express train for Ayodhya on 24.2.2002 at 23.10 hours.
27.2.2002                      Message by Sanjiv Bhatt DCP Int Communal to SSP Faizabad and Home Secretariat Gandhinagar that 1,500 VHP, Bajrang Dal and Durga Vahini activists including Narendrabhai Vyas activists have left Ahmedabad for participating in Mahajhap Majayagna by Sabarmati Express for Ayodhya-Faizabad at 26.2.2002
All message are part of the SIT records at Annexure III, File XXXIV D-176 given to the Court as A Colly record as Annexure A Colly.

Though the home department of the State headed by A-1 Narendra Modi was aware of this fact and was also aware of the fact that the same provocative slogan shouting will take place at other railway stations including Godhra, no action was taken. 
The Godhra incident that took place between on 27.2.2002. Information was sent to the DM to the state functionaries (CMO, HD and Revenue department) by 9 a.m. (AK Malhotra’s Report dated 12.5.2010 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Para Allegation IV, Page 12). Another message was sent by DCP-Int (Communal) Sanjiv Bhatt about slogan shoutin g. The fax message specifically mentioned provocative slogan shouting by karsevaks.
26.2.2002                                  A group of Kar Sevaks left Faizabad on 26.2.2002 (early morning) which was supposed to reach Godhra around 2 a.m. of 27.2.2002.  The train was about five hours late. As per Jayanti Ravi in her fax communication the train Reached Godhra at 7.15 a.m and left Godhra at 7.20 a.m. The same fax says that after about half a kilometre the Train was stopped near Signal Falia and set on fire.
Following messages/information was sent:-
1.       Fax Message dated 27.2.2002 sent by DM Janati Ravi ( which according to SIT Repoert, AK Malhotra, 12.5.2010) to Chief Minister’s Office, Home Department and Revenue Department.It states that in the train which left Godhra at 7.20 a.m.,the Kar Sevaks were shouting slogans. Since the area around railway station is a Muslim area, hearing these slogans, crowds of Muslims gathered and started throwing stones. Thereafter the train stopped again and was set on fire.
2.       Sanjiv Bhatt, an officer with the State Intelligence, deputing as DCP-Communal on 27.2.2002 sends a message to the Chief Secretary, Home Secretariat and Chief Minister, MOS Home and DGP Gandhinagar. The message states that on 27.2.2002 the Sabarmati Express travelling from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad reached Godhra at 7.15 a.m. At that time in the train the Kar Sevaks coming from Ayodhya were shouting slogans. Since the area is dominated by Muslims, the crowd started throwing stones and Coach Nos 6 was set on fire. At 10.55 a.m. in chowkey nos 1-7 ares of Godhra town, curfew has been imposed. Kar Sevaks are members of VHP. (Annexure B Colly at Annexure III, File XLI at Serial in SIT record handed over to the Court)
3.       Note: Before the train reached Godhra, violent incident had taken place at 2 railway stations including  Rudauli. The incident at Godhra took place between 7.30 to 8.00 a.m.  The train left Godhra around 11.30 a.m. and after about an hour, reached Vadodara at around 1-1.30 p.m.  At Vadodara, two persons were assaulted by the Kar Sevaks, in which one Abdul Rashid died. Another two persons were injured.  From Vadodara, the train reached Anand at about 2.10 p.m.  Again, violent  incident took place in which one person died and two persons were injured.  All those attacked and killed were Muslims.  From Anand, the train reached Ahmedabad railway station at about 3.00 p.m.  Violent incidents also took place at Ahmedabad where bloodthirsty slogans were also raised threatening revenge against Muslims. Stabbings, stone pelting and other incidents also took place. No curfew was declared in Ahmedabad or Vadodara on 27.2.2002.

Presenting a detailed List of Dates and Note on the Mindset of Narendra Modi, advocate Sanjay Parikh argued that Conspiracy is substantive offence introduced by criminal law Amendment 1913. Conspiring to commit an offence, itself is an offence.Conspiracy hatched in in secrecy; difficult to adduce direct evidence; prosecution can only relay on different acts of various parties to infer what they have done pursuant to their common plan. Citing from important judgements of the Supreme Court Parikh argued that the criminal offence of conspiracy can be
* Mostly circumstantial evidence.
* Actual meeting of two persons not necessary.
* Actual words of conspiracy not necessary to be proved.
* A tacit understanding between the conspirators is enough.
* If several offences committed pursuance to conspiracy, all conspirators irrespective of whether they actively participate in the commission of offence, will be liable.
* Very fact of conspiracy constitutes an offence, not necessary that anything was done in pursuance thereof
* Sec 34- common intention and constructive liability  for offence committed, different from conspiracy.
* Conspiracy – mere agreement enough. Abetment- an act or illegal omission must take place.
* From the acts and conduct of the parties, conspiracy can be inferred one performing one part of the act, the other performing other parts of the act.
 * Conspiracy can be proved by surrounding circumstance and the conduct of the accused that before and after the alleged commission of crime.
Therefore despite receiving the fax from DM Godhra that it was the provocative sloganeering of the VHP men (Kar sevaks) that had led to a skirmish following the burning of the S-6 Sabarmati Coach at Godhra, A-1 as home minister instead of appealing for calm and meeting with police officials, A-1 Modi, manifesting criminal intent and conspiracy, did two things:-
a) He called the VHP Gujarat general secretary to go to Godhra. What Jaideep Patel did in Godhra was to instigate other VHP men and Hindus against the Muslims. Therefore,Modi conspired with Jaideep Patel to instigate negative and aggressive feelings of RSS, VHP workers against Muslims. Otherwise, there was no need for him to inform the VHP man (and be in close contact with him) knowing fully well that after the Godhra incident, tensions may escalate and what was required was restraint and specific measures to strengthen the law and order situation. He, therefore commits an omission in not discharging his duty; he in fact by his conduct allowed communal tension to escalate.  (Jaideep Patel is now facing trial for his direct involvement in the Naroda Gaam carnage).
b) The other part of conspiracy is in suppressing the official intimation that karsevaks were shouting provocative slogans.  He convened a meeting of MOS Home Zadaphiya and other state officials to prepare a joint statement where the provocative sloganeering by karsevaks was not mentioned. Zadaphiya read out this statement in the assembly. The background of Zadaphiya is that he was also a VHP member. His statement to the SIT (24.9.2009) states that a VHP activist Ashwinbhai Patel who was on the train had informed Zadaphiya of the incident at 7.30 a.m. This is in fact even before the time of the actual train burning.
9.39 – 9.41 am,
    27.2.2002                        Two telephone calls were made from the telephone of P.A. Mr. A.P. Patel of Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, from his mobile no. 09825037439 to Jaydeep Patel, General Secretary of VHP, Gujarat State. Pursuant to this telephone message, Mr. Jaydeep Patel, who was at that time at Naroda, left for Godhra. The distance between Naroda Patiya and Godhra is approximately 150 k.m.  Mr. Jaideep Patel reached Godhra around 12 noon. (All concerned documents in this regard are at Annexure IV, File VI in SIT Papers handed over as Annexure C Colly to the Court with List of Dates).

     10.30 am, 27.2.2002       A meeting took place at the residence of Mr. Narendra Modi at Gandhinagar. In the said meeting, Mr. Gordhan Zadafiya (A-5), Mr. Ashok Narayan (A-28), Mr. K. Chakravarthi (A-25), Mr. P.C. Pandey (A-29) and other persons of Chief Minsiter’s Secretariat were present.  In this meeting, a note was prepared on behalf of the Home Department. In the note, the fact that Kar Sevaks were shouting provocative slogans, was purposefully not mentioned. This is the note which was ultimately read out in Vidhan Sabha at 1.00 p.m. by Mr. Gordhan Zadafiya. (Annexure D at Annexure III, File XLI, Serial Nos 5 of the SIT Papers)
        Around 10.30 am,
        27.2.2002                         Mr. Ashok Bhatt, Minister of Health, left for Godhra and reached Godhra around 1.00 p.m.  He had telephonic conversations with A-1 several times especially concerning the hastily conducted post mortems of the victims of the Godhra tragedy.

       Around 12.30 pm,
       27.2.2002                          Declaration of bandh by 12.00 p.m. called by
   VHP.This was supported by the ruling BJP.    
   (Annexure E Colly at Annexure III, File XIX, D-161 of the Sit papers)

            1.00 pm, 27.2.2002       In the Assembly proceedings, a Motion relating to Godhra incident was moved by Mr. Punjabhai Vansh who was not present. Therefore Mrs. Mayaben Kodnani (A-16), M.L.A. from Naroda Patiya, spoke on the issue Mr. Gordhan Zadafiya, as mentioned above, has also read out the note, which was prepared in the meeting at Chief Minister’s residence at 10.30.

An important fact is the statement given by a senior minister, Sureshbhai Mehta in Modi s cabinet to the SIT ( 15.08.2009)who was sitting next to A-1 in the Assembly when Modi said “Hindus should wake up now.”   In the Vidhan Sabha, Mr. Suresh Mehta, Minister of Industries, was sitting next to Mr. Narendra Modi (A-1).  Mr. Suresh Mehta has given a statement to the S.I.T. on 15.8.2009.  In the said statement, he said “I was sitting by the side of Mr. Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, who remarked that ‘Hindus should wake up now.’” (Statement of Suresh Mehta at Annexure F at Annexure I Volume I Serial Nos 13 of the SIT Papers)
This shows the mindset of A-1 Modi against Muslims and that he wanted targeted violence against Muslims to commence and, moreoever, that the karsevaks should not be blamed. He had also been elected through a by-election days before the Godhra incident when heavy voting by the Muslim minority at Rajkot gave another impetus to his motive. He, as political head of the Home Department deliberately suppressed the act of provocative sloganeering by them in the official statement prepared by the Home Department. It was on the basis of this statement that the official statement by Zadaphiya was made to the State Assembly at 1 p.m. on 27.2.2002.
c) Another important aspect is that when the statement was made in the State Assembly at 1 p.m. VHP had already announced a Gujarat bandh by about 12 noon which was supported by the ruling BJP. The state government did not oppose it. No statement is made in the Assembly that the state government is opposing the Bandh. A-1 was, therefore, aware that the Bandh would give further opportunities for provocation and give a free hand to the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal to lead violent mobs and vent of their ire on innicent Muslims, yet officially, neither as Home Minister, nor as Chief Minister, did he make any statement to ensure that strict preventive action is take, arrests of communal miscreats are made etc, in spite of the State Intelligence field reports and warnings.
The Bandh Call was, therefore, part of the conspiracy as it served two purposes:
1. Allowing RSS/VHP/BD/BJP men to behave aggressively and indulge in unlawfully violent activities and
2. Using the police machinery to clear public places and ordinary movement so that aggressive mobs of these organisations could target minority populations and establishments (thereby neutralizing ordinary peoples and movements);
3. Not allowing the police and other state machinery to take action i.e. omission from discharging their lawful and statutory duties.
4. Deliberately no Curfew is declared in Ahmedabad, Vadodara and many parts of the state despite clearcut warning signals all through 27.2.2002 and no arrests are made.
No official communication was given to observe law and order and maintain peace and calm in Gujarat.
Advocate Parikh also made detailed arguments on the Crime of Abetment stating that
I.  Bare agreement to commit offence in covered by Sec 120A. But for abetment there should be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that aspiring conspiracy. Commission of actual  crime is not necessary.
II. In abetment by illegal omission, it is to be shown that the accused intentionally aided the commission of crime by his non-interference.
III. Omission involves breach of legal obligation.
IV.  Non-intereference when there is duty to interfere amounts to abetment.
V.  A person abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate, the commission thereof.
VI. Rendering any kind of assistance constitutes abetment
VII. Person himself may not act but he may instigate another to put in executing his criminal intention.
VIII. ‘Instigate’ includes stimulating, suggesting by language or expression or hints or encouragement or advice to act.
IX. Words amounting to permission may fall under instigation
Besides, advocates for Smt Jafri also made extensive arguments on the Scope and Powers of a Magistrate to take cognizance of offences that are serious and are an offence against society. Cognizance means becoming aware of and ‘to take notice of judicially’. The cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offender. At this stage the court has to be satisfied that material on record exists to take cognisance and not that it is sufficient for conviction. (See Jagdish Ram, 2004 4 SCC, 432 Paras 10, 11) After cognizance is taken, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain as to who the offenders really are. Besides a score of other judgements, Parikh cited Shivnandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 (1) SCC 288 at 321 Para 20 (5 judges): The Magistrate has to form an opinion that on the facts set out in the report whether prima-facie offence appears to have been committed. The Magistrate is final arbiter on the question whether offence is committed and whether cognizance should be taken. (The judgment in H.S. Bains Vs State was approved)

On the opening day of arguments, senior counsel Sanjay Parikh submitted before metropolitan magistrate B J Ganatra on Wednesday June 26 2013 that the Supreme Court was well aware of some conspiracy behind the 2002 riots and the courts orders, one after the other,in different riot cases had reflected this.Citing various orders passed by the SC,including the direction in the Best Bakery case,and other developments that ultimately led to the formation and reconstitution of the SIT,the lawyer argued that the SC had acted whenever it felt that investigations had been derailed. Judges of the apex court had removed IPS officers Geetha Johri and Shivanand Jha from the probe team on 6.4.2010 and also asked Amicus Curaie to directly assess evidence collected by SIT in the critical case implicating Narendra Modi when the SIT investigations were found to be problematic.
Hinting at the SITs efforts to limit Zakias complaint to the Gulbarg Society case,the lawyer also submitted that both the cases were completely different.Zakias complaint is definitely not confined to the Gulbarg Society massacre case,the lawyer said.He added that the SC had also clarified this point on Zakias application in December last,and that any effort to mix Zakias case with the complaint lodged with the Meghaninagar police in the Gulbarg case would be contrary to the apex courts order.
Earlier,the SIT had argued against Zakias protest petition and defended its closure report.It claimed that all witnesses put forth by Zakia had no personal knowledge of Modis alleged instruction to senior officials on February 27,2002 to go slow on Hindu rioters.Earlier,in her petition in the apex court,Zakia had alleged a larger conspiracy involving Modi and others,behind the riots.The court had asked the SIT to investigate her allegations.

15K Gujarati pilgrims rescued? Tales of survivors magnify the absurd claim

15K Gujarati pilgrims rescued? Tales of survivors magnify the absurd claim

By Vishal Dutta, ET Bureau | The Economic Times, 30 June 2013
Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi meets flood-affected peopl Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi meets flood-affected people at a relief camp in Haridwar on June 22, 2013

It's raining heavily, its zero degrees, I am freezing and rain water is gushing down from the hills. Five of us have managed to reach the terrace, the other four died on the spot on the ground floor due to water and debris... I can hear three women half-buried in the debris screaming for help.

I need to help them or else they will die. But my legs are swollen... The entire town is pitch-dark... my mobile has last point charging... You don't speak, just hear me and try to get help from the Gujarat or Uttrakhand government or get in touch with Central government...."

That's a chilling mobile phone recording of a five-minute desperate plea for help at close to midnight on June 16 from Hiren Dave, stuck in the hills of Kedarnath, to his friend Javal Patel in Ahmedabad. Javal hasn't heard from his 36-year-old friend since then. It's almost two weeks now that Hiren and 12 others of a group of 40 pilgrims that went to Kedarnath are missing. Hiren's SOS to Javal was just one of the many he made as the clouds burst over Kedarnath on that fateful Sunday. Through that night he and his family members ­ as well as Javal in Ahmedabad ­ made frantic calls to different help agencies in Uttarakhand, Delhi and in Gujarat.

No One Listened
"The government hardly has any presence during crises and like a fool my friend was asking me to get the government's help," says a broken Javal. "That night I was so near to him, but still helpless to do anything. Hiren was begging for help and the government was nowhere near." Along with Hiren, four of his relatives are also missing, even as his wife and younger brother back home are scurrying around for help and information. Manshuk Patel is one of the 40 from the group who has been brought back from Uttarakhand. But eight of his family members are still missing.

Hospitalised for depression, Patel is inconsolable and has lost his will to live. No government official visited him; neither has the government been able to provide any information about his missing family members. Ashok Barot, 52, a head constable with a local CID crime branch in Gujarat, was lucky to survive. A high blood pressure and diabetic patient, he decided to stay back in a bus, 17 km off the Kedarnath shrine. The next morning when he saw a huge tsunami hurtling towards him, he and other passengers ran toward a hill.

"Halfway up, when I turned back to take a look at the parking, nearly 80 parked vehicles had got swept away at one go," says Barot in disbelief. Against this backdrop of devastation, the mysterious and atrocious claim that Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi rescued 15,000 from the state is black humour at its worst. "He was able to rescue only 150 Gujaratis via air," Arjun Modhwadia, Gujarat Congress president, told a local daily. For their part, Modi and the BJP have distanced themselves from the 'Rambo' act. "Such claims reflect the sick mind of the politicians and the real anti-people vote politics of politicians. This is nothing but exploitation of people's pain for their narrow vote politics even in such a manmade disaster situation" says Rohit Prajapati, an RTI activist and founder of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, an NGO.

Politically motivated claims also undermine the stellar efforts of the armed forces that had deployed over 8,000 troops to rescue over 2,000 stranded people (till the time of writing). The Rambo feat appears even more absurd when juxtaposed with Gujarat's own disaster management set-up, suggests Prajapati. "Looking at the numerical strength and skills of the present staff of the GSDMA [Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority], it appears that the department is in coma," he points out. The GSDMA was formed by the state government a week after January 26, 2001 earthquake hit Gujarat.

Nearly 17,000 people had died. To substantiate his argument, Prajapati points to a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) released on April 23 this year, where it has clearly said that between 2007 and 2012 GSDMA held only two meetings. And the state's draft State Disaster Management Plan was approved only in July 2012.

The report further points out that emergency operation groups to address the immediate impact of a particular incident were not created. Interestingly, it's the same CAG report which had warned that anUttarakhand disaster plan did not exist. A detailed email questionnaire sent to the office of GSDMA CEO Ranjit Banerjee in Gandhinagar remained unanswered. When contacted, an official at the office informed this reporter that Banerjee would not be replying.

Prajapati is fighting for setting up a chemical disaster emergency plan in Gujarat, as the state has large chunk of chemical industry ­ it accounts for more than 62% of the nation's output of petrochemicals and 51% of chemicals. He says the GSDMA may have got some awards but does not have chemical emergency and nuclear emergency plans. For the moment, however, all eyes are on Uttarakhand, and how many more of the missing can be found. Says Palavi Patel, elder sister of Hiren: "The real test of any government's potency is during catastrophes and not during good times with food security bills and employment schemes."

Pope Francis spotlights social teaching with blunt calls for ethical economy

Pope Francis spotlights social teaching with blunt calls for ethical economy

National Catholic Reporter

Pope Francis spotlights social teaching with blunt calls for ethical economy

Michael Sean Winters  | 
Michael Sean Winters is the author of Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats.

Catholics on the front lines of social justice are delighted that Pope Francis spends so much energy talking about and visiting the poor.
Pope Francis blesses a member of the Missionaries of Charity during a visit to a soup kitchen and women’s shelter at the Vatican. (CNS/Reuters/L’Osservatore Romano)
 U.S. Catholics on the front lines of social justice struggles expressed delight at Pope Francis' frequent references to caring for the poor, his trenchant remarks about "savage capitalism," and his calls for government intervention to pursue the common good in the face of hostile market forces.

"Quite frankly, it brings tears to my eyes," said Social Service Sr. Simone Campbell, executive director of the Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK. "It's been so long since one of our leaders brought the struggle of humanity front and center. It's a relief -- and a joy -- to see the Gospel being preached with such clarity."

In a May 16 audience at which he received the credentials of four ambassadors to the Holy See, Francis said:

The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to highlight their distortions and above all the gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away. We have started a throwaway culture. This tendency is seen on the level of individuals and whole societies, and it is being promoted! In circumstances like these, solidarity, which is the treasure of the poor, is often considered counterproductive, opposed to the logic of finance and the economy. While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules.

The pope also criticized "corruption and selfish fiscal evasion" in his remarks. Three of the four countries whose ambassadors were present are known tax havens: Antigua and Barbuda; Luxembourg; and Botswana.

The following week, the pope visited a soup kitchen run at the Vatican by the Missionaries of Charity and again spoke forcefully about modern economic conditions, condemning "a savage capitalism [that] has taught the logic of profit at all cost, of giving to get, of exploitation without looking at the persons … and we see the results in the crisis we are living!"

"It isn't just words," Campbell said. "People catch on quickly to window dressing. This is not window dressing."

John Carr, who worked at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for 25 years coordinating social justice issues and is now leading the new Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University in Washington, noted that the content of Francis' teaching is in continuity with his predecessors.

"What are distinctive are his directness, urgency and passion. It's where he comes from and where he stands that makes a difference," Carr said. "His heart is with the poor; his feet were planted in the villas miserias [the Argentine phrase for shantytowns or slums] of Latin America. His mind is with the church and its constant teaching. This is why he is not a chaplain to ecclesial or ideological factions, but challenges all of us.

"The pope's message on the need for ethics in economic life is not conservative or liberal, but Catholic," Carr said. "It is not socialist or capitalist, but Christian. He calls for a church 'of and for the poor' that is not turned in on itself, but 'in the streets.' He has lived the church's social teaching in his own ministry so he speaks confidently and bluntly on its demands."

Eric LeCompte, executive director of Jubilee USA, a faith-based social justice advocacy organization that focuses on debt and international trade issues, told NCRthat he finds the pope's comments "remarkable."

"It is not just his words, but his specificity," LeCompte said. He noted that the pope is using the same kind of language he used in Argentina, where, in 2001, he led the Argentine Bishops' Conference during that country's debt crisis.

"He uses a word like 'tyranny,' " LeCompte said. "You don't usually hear U.S. bishops talk that way." LeCompte was especially pleased that the pope focused on tax avoidance schemes in his remarks to the ambassadors. "For every $10 we give the developing world in aid, $15 leaves from the developing world in untaxed profits. These tax havens are part of the systematic injustice that harms the world's poor."

LeCompte noted that a bill is before Congress to address this injustice. The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act was introduced by Congressman Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and has some 50 co-sponsors. The legislation would require country-by-country reports on tax havens. According to LeCompte, another bill will soon be introduced that focuses on enacting responsible lending practices.

Like Carr, LeCompte said the new pope is picking up where his predecessors left off. He notes that his organization began in response to Pope John Paul II's call for ameliorating the public debt of undeveloped nations during the Jubilee year 2000. LeCompte cited favorite passages from Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical Caritas in Veritate. But he added, "Pope Francis is so much easier to understand."

Stephen Schneck of The Catholic University of America in Washington said he sees Francis combating some of the most deeply held beliefs among certain Catholic conservatives.

"In America, a very scary error confuses Adam Smith's invisible hands with God's plan," Schneck said. "Pope Francis powerfully rejects that error. An autonomous market can never be moral in itself. Free market forces are faceless, are without conscience, are unrestrained by anything other than their own competitive materialist dynamics, and thus are incapable of bearing moral responsibility. Without regulation or guidance, market forces can easily work against the common good."

"Pope Francis' point is that governments -- unlike free markets -- really are moral agents, bear responsibility, and are obligated to work for the common good," Schneck said. "Governments have a moral responsibility to regulate market forces for the common good. Many American conservatives are not going to like what the pope has been saying about market forces and government, but Pope Francis is holding fast to traditional church teachings, the provenance of which stretches to Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum [1891] and ultimately to the apostles."

Meanwhile, Catholic conservatives have gone mostly radio silent on the pope's recent remarks about "savage capitalism." The conservative Acton Institute, which promotes a less regulated market, linked to an article by Phil Lawler Lawler wrote, "A powerful argument can be made that capitalism, tempered by a Christian moral framework, is the best available solution to the problem of poverty. Nothing that Pope Francis said -- nothing that any Pope has said -- would rule out that approach. ... To be sure, the teaching magisterium has been critical of the excesses of capitalism, and of capitalism raised to an all-encompassing ideology."

But Francis did not mention anything about excesses. ###

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Ugliness flexes its muscles by Harsh Khare in The HINDU(June 27th 2013)

Ugliness flexes its muscles

SHARE  ·   COMMENT (67)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
The Hindu

The aggressive sales pitch around Narendra Modi brooks no dissent and is a threat not just to those in the BJP with different views but also in the wider polity

Last week, L.K. Advani travelled to Keshavkunj, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) office in Delhi. He is believed to have discussed with the RSSpramukh, Mohan Bhagwat, his misgivings about the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s new decision-making style. However, it is not known if the man who is now generally described as “the patriarch” mentioned to Mohan Bhagwat the indignity he was subjected to on June 8 this year. That morning, a rowdy group of protesters gathered outside Mr. Advani’s residence on Prithvi Raj Road to denounce him for conspicuously not travelling to Goa to participate in a famousraj tilak. Of course, being the divisive politician that he has been all his life, Mr. Advani is no stranger to the rites of denunciation, but this was perhaps the first time in his long political career that he was subjected to unfriendly fire from his own crowd.
And, just in case Mr. Advani did not get the message, the social media was bubbling with sarcasm and denigration. Self-appointed admirers of the Gujarat Chief Minister were uncharitably calling the BJP’s grand old man a “loser,” “selfish,” and, asking him “to get out of the way.”
Authorised browbeating
Somewhat similar treatment, in fact, was earlier meted out to Mr. Rajnath Singh in the first week of April this year. The BJP president had travelled to Rajasthan to help Ms Vasundhara Raje kick-start her electoral campaign for the 2013 Assembly. At that public meeting, when Mr. Singh got up to make his presidential remarks, he was greeted by chants of “Modi…Modi...” For more than five minutes the BJP president was forced to stand dumbfounded at his own party’s rally till he agreed to acknowledge the Gujarat Chief Minister’s omnipotence and mega-popularity. This must also have been Mr. Rajnath Singh’s first brush with intimidation from his own people. Unlike Mr. Advani who is a substantial political persona, Rajnath Singh is a bit of a lightweight player and quickly fell in line with Mr. Modi’s demands and designs.
When the Bihar Chief Minister, Nitish Kumar, demurred, he too came in for the same rough treatment. But being an authentic political personality, Nitish Kumar had no hesitation in cautioning against the new culture of intolerance.
The quarrel between Mr. Modi and Mr. Advani is the BJP’s internal matter. But what is disquieting for the wider polity is that these essays in organised ugliness are being serenaded as expressions of the nobility of will of the cadres. A manufactured preference of the “rank and file” is deemed to be a new mandate and a new licence.
These little experiments in authorised browbeating are not innocuous happenings. Students of modern history are familiar with the pattern. Similar techniques were employed in the phenomenon known as Stalinism. Under Stalin, it was not enough that the inconvenient political dissenters were branded as the “enemy of the people”; the rest of the society was encouraged to join in the chorus of denunciation. Schools, factories and offices were expected to sign group telegrams or vote unanimous resolutions against the designated enemies. Then, there was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; now we have the social media, touted as the most authentic expression of democratic energy.
To be fair, personality cults are not new to the BJP. One simply has to recall the 2004 Lok Sabha campaign. The BJP’s electoral strategy was predicated on selling “Brand Vajpayee.” In fact, the campaign was simply named as “Atal Sandesh Yatra.” And, in 2009, the BJP had, once again, opted to swim or sink with “a strong Advani” against a “weak” Manmohan Singh. Mr. Modi is equally entitled to his personality cult. But make no mistake. Mr. Modi is a different personality, not easily amenable to democratic moderation. We should get used to “Rambo” type yarns, as the polity seeks to redefine itself in the next general election.
Tapping three segments
Admittedly, the nearly decade-old United Progressive Alliance (UPA) incumbency has produced its own dissatisfaction; the very stability, once considered a sine qua non of a vibrant Indian state, is now dismissed as neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition. The Modi sales pitch is geared to tap three discontented segments of the population.
First, there is a sizeable section of the political community in India that remains unreconciled to the Nehru-Gandhi family’s continued prominence. More than one generation of leaders, social scientists, non-governmental organisations, journalists, historians, bureaucrats and businessmen has cumulatively resented the family. The very fact that this family has managed to keep intact its hold over the Indian National Congress is galling to very many young people who have no sense of history and who proudly subscribe to the notion of “merit” and to the idea of professional achievement To them, the dominance of one family is inherently at odds with democratic sentiment.
In particular, both the sangh parivar and its political wing, the BJP, find it deeply frustrating that despite their own self-awarded credentials as 22-carat deshbhakts, they have not been able to get the better of Sonia Gandhi. Ten years ago when Mrs Gandhi, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha moved a motion of no-confidence against the Vajpayee government and questioned the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s “India Shining” claims, Mr. Advani had shot back: “Do not insult India and the Indians.” And, when Sonia Gandhi had ridiculed the “feel good” campaign, Narendra Modi retorted: “ I can understand that she does not feel the feel-good factor. It can be felt by those who are Indian. If a gold mine was discovered in Italy, obviously I will not feel good about it.” And, to their great chagrin, the people of India voted the Vajpayee government out, despite the stark juxtaposition between “tried and tested” Vajpayee and a “videshi” Sonia Gandhi. The bitterness of that defeat lingers till this day and animates everyone from Jhandewalan to Ashoka Road. Mr. Modi’s cheerful willingness to be abusive towards the family makes him doubly attractive to the sangh parivar bosses.
Corruption narrative
Second, the upper middle classes have convinced themselves that the UPA government is fraudulently using “their” taxes to satisfy Sonia Gandhi’s insistence to provide for the welfare of the “poor.” The middle classes are deeply resentful of how the Congress Party is making the Manmohan Singh government “waste” “their” hard-earned profits and bonuses on a social agenda. The “corruption” narrative has come in handy to these prosperous Indians in pursuit of their class selfishness. And, these affluent sections see Rahul Gandhi as undereducated and ill-equipped to provide national leadership, especially in contrast to Mr. Modi who is deemed to be a “doer.”
The third element in the Modi constituency — perhaps the most significant and crucial element — is the business community, which has grown tired of Dr. Manmohan Singh, the original reformer and liberaliser. Corporate India simply wants a prime minister who would help it garner business and reap profits, without any qualms and questions.
The Modi project seeks to tap these anti-Congress forces and impulses. This is a legitimate venture. On the other hand, the UPA has the satisfaction of having beaten back the forces of instability and anarchy that were sought to be unleashed in this country in a pattern now familiar from Tahrir Square, to Jantar Mantar, Taksim Square in Istanbul and to São Paulo. Above all, during its nine years the UPA has fumigated the polity of its ugly impulses; the younger voters probably have no idea of the cultivated edginess, tension, confrontation and violence that had come to define the country during the NDA regime. May be the UPA will become a victim of its own success.
However, what should be disquieting is that the Modi experiment seems to have co-opted us in its ugliness and has lulled otherwise liberal voices into a meek acceptance of the presumed authenticity of the Modi sales pitch. Coupled with the inescapable divisiveness of a majoritarian ideology, these ugly impulses can be potentially disruptive of all that we have achieved as a liberal constitutional democracy.
(Harish Khare is a senior journalist and former media adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He is currently a Jawaharlal Nehru Fellow)


-  A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace
Hill Nagar, Near Kamdhenu Hall, Drive-in Road, Ahmedabad - 380052, Gujarat, India

Phone : +91  79   27455913,  66522333
Fax : +91  79  27489018


Friday, June 21, 2013


1. For enfeebling the validity and credibility of evidence presented by me to Judicial & Investigating bodies and to denigrate my image, the publicity managers of the Chief Minister of Gujarat State, Shri Narendra Modi and the Sangh Parivar, are widely propagating many lies about the motive and time frame of submission of evidence by me against authors of 2002 anti-minority bloodbath. A totally blatant falsehood spread about me is that I had brought out incriminating material against those responsible for 2002 carnage and subsequent subversion of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) ONLY after my super-cession in promotion to the rank of Director General of Police (DGP) in February, 2005. This contention is utterly baseless, false, malicious and misleading.

2. The real truth in this matter is given below:-

3. When targeted violence was started against the minorities in the afternoon of 27th February, 2002, I was working as Addl. DGP (ADGP) Armed Units (AU) – a post having no authority to intervene in policing functions relating to maintenance of public order.

4. I was posted as, ADGP (Intelligence) – In-charge of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB), on 09/04/2002. Within a couple of days I had submitted reports, as per my charter of duties, under Rule-461 of the Gujarat Police Manual (GPM) Vol-III, to the State Government and DGP about involvement of the Sangh Parivar supporters in riots, manipulation of CJS to deny, derail and delay justice delivery to riot victim survivors, plan of communal elements – both Hindu & Muslim – to indulge in violence and so on.

5. A few illustrative cases of data in important reports sent by me about the then prevailing situation, containing analytical, preventive, prognostic advance real time intelligence are given below:
a) On 24/04/2002, an elaborate assessment report delineating maladies in the CJS and deviant actions of Police Officers and other Government Officials like Public Prosecutors, impeding justice delivery to the riot-affected was sent to the State Government and DGP Shri K. Chakravarti with specific suggestions for initiating remedial measures (see Appendix-24 of my First Affidavit dated 15/07/2002).

b) Another situation appraisal report was sent by me on 15/06/2002, to DGP & State Government, insisting upon implementing earlier suggested corrective measures immediately to curb the anti-minority posture of Government servants. (see Appendix-IV of my Second Affidavit dated 06/10/2004).

c) A note captioned “Actionable Points” – listing out corrective measures to counter anti-minority approach of Police was submitted by me to Shri K.P.S. Gill, IPS, Former DGP Punjab, the then Advisor to CM Gujarat on 10/05/2002 (see Appendix-III of my Second Affidavit). One suggestion about transfer of officers from Ahmedabad City in the Note was implemented and this action had accelerated the process of establishment of normalcy in Ahmedabad City.

d) Numerous pin-pointed advance real time preventive intelligence reports about plans of Hindu-Muslim militant elements were provided to DGP and field officers (see para-8 of my Second Affidavit).

e) Numerous proposals for initiating action against those circulating communally inciting literature and publishing similar media reports were sent to State Government through DGP for initiating action against them. But the Government did nothing in this matter so far (see para-36 of my First Affidavit and Exhibits No.5635 & 5636 of my deposition before Justice Nanavati Commission (hear-in-after referred to as JNC) on 31/08/2004).

6. On 15/07/2002, I submitted my First Affidavit to JNC in which I appended all important reports sent by me about anti-minority tactics of police officers and others, despite verbal instructions from superior officers for not including such reports in my Affidavit.

7. On 09/08/2002, I made a presentation to the full bench of the Central Election Commission (CEC) chaired by Shri J.M. Lyngdoh, the Chief Election Commissioner. I had disobeyed the illegal verbal instructions of higher officers to paint a picture of total normalcy in Gujarat State for misleading the CEC, so that, the Commission could order holding of early Assembly Election, perhaps for capitalising on the upswing of Hindu communal mobilisation, to obtain electoral dividends. In fact, I had presented data about tension prevailing in 154 out of 182 Assembly Constituencies and related facts. The CEC had accepted my version and acknowledged it in its order dated 16/08/2002 – para-20, 32, declaring that my presentation had falsified the information provided by the State Government (see Annexure-I to my Representation to the HE Governor of Gujarat on 09/12/2012, under the heading ‘Representation to other Authorities’).

8. From 16/08/2002, the day of issuance of CEC order postponing Gujarat Assembly Election, the State Home Department intensified its move to victimise me by asking explanations and launching enquiries on trivial administrative matters, against me. They are –
1) Seeking explanation on my “slackness”in supervision of SIB Control Room staff who sent a secret message through Fax to field officers (Control Room is manned by Head Constables),
2) Finding fault for my failure to report about an enquiry on an investigation of a spy case during my deputation posting with the Central IB, though officers are debarred from reporting such matters to the State Government as per Government of India, DPAR order No.5/21/52/AIS-III dated 04/12/1972,
3) Questioning my act of reporting to CP Ahmedabad, against the then Ahmedabad City Crime Branch DIG, Shri D.G. Vanjara, regarding his alleged planting of fire arms on Muslims on the Rath Yatra Day in July, 2002 and arresting them. (see for details my Third Affidavit Annexure-Ç’& ‘D’)

9. In September, 2002, during the Gaurav Yatra organised by BJP (to express pride and joy over mass killing of minorities!!!), the CM Shri Narendra Modi delivered speeches wounding feelings of Muslim community in Mehsana district. I had sent a report to DGP and Government in this matter as per Government regulations about hate speeches on 12/09/2002. I had cautioned the authorities in this report that the style of language used by the CM in his speeches would adversely affect the prevailing communal situation and vitiate the social ambience. Meanwhile, The National Commission of Minorities (NCM) asked the State Government for providing the full text of CM speech with English translation and audio recording. DGP then verbally asked me to report falsely that SIB was not having the relevant material on CM speech. I had asked for written orders from DGP as his verbal orders were contrary to regulations in this matter. On 13/09/2002, DGP had sent a vague written order indicating that ”we do not have to sent any report in this regard”. Nevertheless I did not comply with these illegal written orders as these were in violation of circulars on handling of communal situation issued by Govt. of India, Rules of GPM and booklet on containment of communalism by DGP K.V. Joseph. So I despatched a detailed report about the relevant CM speech with audio cassettes and English translation to DGP and Government on 16/09/2002. I was transferred to the post of ADGP (Police Reforms) – an assignment without any charter of duties on 17/09/2002 night by the Government. My transfer was in violation of the State Government resolution dated 26/02/2002 fixing 03 years as minimum tenure of IPS officers in SIB and I had completed only five months and ten days in SIB at that point of time.

10. In July, 2004, the State Government had enlarged the terms of reference to the JNS by bringing the role of the CM Gujarat, Ministers and Senior officers in the ambit of enquiry. Soon DGP Shri A.K. Bhargava had issued written orders directing all Police officers who filed the First Affidavit to file Second Affidavit in relation to extended terms of reference to JNC. However, in tune with the duplicity of the State Government, DGP verbally instructed all to ignore his written orders and avoid filing Affidavits. But I had complied with DGP’s written orders and filed my Second Affidavit to JNC on 06/10/2004 in which I presented further evidence on the failure of the State Government in not taking remedial measures to correct the anti-riot victim approach of the functionaries in the CJS (see copies of such reports as Appendix-II, IV, V & VII of my Second Affidavit).

11. In August, 2004, I was summoned by JNC for cross examining me on the data in my First Affidavit. Soon senior Police officers, two officials from Home Department – Shri Dinesh Kapadia, Under Secretary and Shri G.C. Murmu, IAS, Home Secretary along with Shri Arvind Pandiya, Advocate representing Government in JNC had persuaded, cajoled, tutored and even intimidated me for speaking in favour of the State Government during my cross examination by JNC on 31/08/2004(audio records of tutoring interaction is available). However, I did not comply with the illegal directions by Home Department officials. I provided addition information on undesirable and objectionable role of Government officials in the riots along with four documents as exhibits during my cross examination.

12. Submission of my Second Affidavit and non-compliance of instructions by Home Department officials against providing information about culpable actions of Government servants during riots to JNC had further annoyed the State Government. So the Home Department restarted an enquiry against me on the issue of reporting alleged illegal act of planting illicit fire arms on Muslims in Ahmedabad City on Rath Yatra day in July, 2002 by DIG, D.G. Vanjara. It is relevant to note that my report on this alleged deviant act of Vanjara is the only report against him in the Department at that juncture. Perhaps, had State Government taken notice of my report against Vanjara and taken action against him he would not have dared to indulge in the misadventure of staging fake encounter killings from October, 2002 to the time of his arrest in April, 2007. Considering his extra-hierarchal accessibility to and rapport with senior leaders in the political bureaucracy in the State Government even his senior officers avoided reporting against him and had always turned a Nelson’s eye to his alleged misconduct and illegal deeds. So my act of sending a report against Vanjara was deemed as “misconduct” by the State Government, though he was two ranks junior to me and Government restarted an enquiry against me.

13. I had submitted a detailed reply, on 30th November, 2004, to memo issued to me by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Shri K.C. Kapoor, informing him that DGP had adjudged my act of sending a report against Vanjara as an action,” done in good faith as part of routine duties”. I also added that Government was victimizing me as I did not comply with illegal instructions regarding submission of Second Affidavit and deposition before JNC. I further submitted that if the State Government continued to persecute me I would be constrained to bring more information about illegal verbal orders given to me and evidence of tutoring and intimidation imposed on me by State Government Home Department officials.

14. The failure of the State Government to take remedial measures suggested in my situation reports had only resulted in the riot victims approaching the Apex Court for ordering corrective action to improve the maladies in CJS of Gujarat State. The Apex Court had passed serious strictures against the State Government since 2004 and issued orders for –
1) Transfer of trial of two cases to Maharashtra State.
2) Investigation of one mass rape case (Bilkis Bano case) by CBI
3) Re-investigation of 2000 odd cases closed by Gujarat Police
4) Entrusting investigation of nine major carnage cases to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) chaired by Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Former CBI Director.
5) Investigation of two fake encounter cases by CBI
6) Appointment of a Specail Task Force (STF), headed by Justice Bedi to probe into 17 alleged fake encounters cases in Gujarat from October, 2002 to February 2007.

15. In the judgement of Naroda Patia massacre case (96 killed), the Special Court (Judge Dr. Jyotsna Yagnik) severely criticized Gujarat Police for their anti-minority bias, faulty investigation and acts of favouritism towards Hindu accused persons. Such professional lapses would not have damaged the standard and quality of investigation of riot cases had the State Government implemented corrective measures proposed in my reports to the Government, submitted from April to August, 2002.

16. The State government had not so far questioned the veracity of material in my Nine Affidavits – four submitted while I was in service and five after my retirement in February, 2007.

17. A study of above narrated facts should convince anybody that the false propaganda against me by the Sangh Pariwar that I had come out against Modi Government’s culpable role in riots and subversion of CJS only after my supersession in promotion to the rank of DGP is totally false, baseless and fraudulently malevolent and was fabricated to damage my image and credibility.

18. The purpose of filing my Third Affidavit to JNC on 09/04/2005, as explained in its forwarding letter, was to bring to the notice of JNC, the back ground and reason behind the State Governments unwarranted acts of victimisation inflicted on me. I had expressed my apprehension about the ‘the possibility of the State Government initiating further tormenting action against me, in this Affidavit and requested the Commission to take suitable remedial action in this matter. Unfortunately, JNC did not take any action to protect me, even though all witnesses providing truthful evidence to the Judicial Commission is protected from any criminal or civil proceedings under section 6 of the Commission of Enquiry Act.

19. True to my apprehension the State Government had served me 9 point charge sheet in September, 2005 for dismissing me from service. I brought this to the notice of JNC with my explanation through my Fourth Affidavit.

20. Nevertheless, I could win my case against supersession in a prolonged legal battle up to the Apex Court, though I could get my regular pension and retirement benefits only after 18 months of my retirement. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad had quashed the charge sheet served on me and the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat had refused to impose stay orders on CAT judgement. 

21. Thus, it may be seen that my supersession in February, 2005 was an outcome of my refusal to comply with illegal verbal orders of the State Government authority and submission of a lot of incriminating evidence about the culpable role of functionaries in Modi Government in the riots and subversion of CJS, to Judicial bodies. Moreover, information and documents provided in my all four affidavits, submitted while I was in service was pertaining to a period from February, 2002 to September, 2002 and I was bypassed in promotion in February, 2005 only.

22. In the career of an IPS officer, the most decisive post of public order maintenance is the duty of Superintendent of Police (SP) of a district. I had served as SP in seven districts of Gujarat – Valsad, Amreli, Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad City, Mehsana, Kheda and Kutch. No prolonged disruption of public order or communal strife was reported during my tenure in these districts. Numerous commendation letters were received from authorities for my appreciable performance and I was also decorated with two President’s Police Medals.

23. In Kutch district, certain persons arrested for preventing escalation of communal disturbance, belonging to Hindus and Muslims, in 1986, had filed false cases against me and other police officers. However, the Court had discharged me and others following the due process of law in 2007. During my tenure in Kutch as SP, in a special drive 118 illegal Pakistani settlers were detected and deported. Five espionage cases were also made out in collaboration with Central IB and four of these cases were convicted. The then Director Intelligence Bureau, Shri H.A. Barari, (later Governor Haryana) had liberally rewarded Gujarat Police for this remarkable work and had taken me on deputation to IB from 1987 to 2000.

24. In January, 2001, I was deputed by the then Gujarat Chief Minister Shri Keshubhai Patel to supervise police work relating to relief and rescue operations, following a major earthquake on 26/01/2001 in Kutch district. Later the CM Shri Narendra Modi, inducted me in December, 2001 as a member in a committee headed by Shri R.C. Mehta, Former Special Director IB, to make proposals for revamping the State Intelligence Branch. So it is clear that I became a persona non grata to Modi Government only after I send reports against involvement of Government officials and Sangh Parivar supporters in the riots, being devoted to my oath of allegiance to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India.

25. May I request those engaged in vilification campaigns against me, by spreading vicious rumours, to appreciate voluminous evidence against the planners, perpetrators and facilitators of 2002 anti-minority mass violence and on subsequent subversion CJS, marshalled by me in my Nine Affidavits to JNC (663 pages) and in numerous other reports to SIT, in the perspective of the Rule of Law, rectitude and truthfulness and acted as per the stipulations of the Article-51A of the Constitution of India.

26. The Father of the Nation – Mahatma Gandhi, started his spiritual odyssey on the maxim “God is Truth” and had progressively later realised that “Truth is God”. Speak Truth and move righteously-Satyam vada, Dharmam chara. (Upanishad)