Fact: Is Narendra Modi a fool to openly give such orders to so many officials in such a meeting at Chief Minister’s Bunglow on 27 Feb 2002 late night, where any of the officers could have secretly recorded the orders or which would have created 8 witnesses against Narendra Modi? Even if he did want such orders to be issued, for argument’s sake, there is no way in the world he would have given them in an official meeting; he would have done it through other communicators being careful not to come into the picture directly.

Also note here that the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court with judges like Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam (known to be anti-Modi) debunked the claim of Sanjiv Bhatt that he was present and blamed NGOs for forcibly trying to find something against Narendra Modi. This is an important report of the SIT.

https://www.scribd.com/document/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT

This issue is given with comprehensive details in the book– of Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims as well as the SIT findings. Though all details are not given in this website, let us see many things.

   In that article “Chronology of a Crisis”, India Today (18 March 2002) said:

  “27^th FEBRUARY, 2002

   …10:30 p.m.: CM holds meeting with senior government officials at Gandhinagar; orders curfew in sensitive places and pre-emptive arrests.”

   Now this shows that this meeting had indeed taken place on 27 February 2002 late night at 10:30 pm (not midnight, as claimed by some opponents of Narendra Modi, like Outlook once did). Secondly, this meeting was not at all kept secret (and denied having taken place) by the government.  But that was to discuss steps to control the violence which could possibly break out the next day.

   Firstly, let us see the background of that crucial 27 February meeting. After the Godhra massacre on 27 February 2002 at around 8:00 a.m. Narendra Modi imposed curfew immediately (at 9:45 am) and issued shoot-at- sight orders in Godhra. 827 preventive arrests were made on his orders that night. We have already seen the steps taken by the government to control the violence. On 27 February the website rediff.com also reported that the State Government had taken all precautions and tightened security to prevent riots. 70,000 security men, RAF, CRPF etc were all deployed. In Godhra on 27 February evening, while talking to the electronic media, Narendra Modi made an appeal asking the people to maintain calm and not retaliate.

   Considering all these facts, it would actually be sufficient to conclude that far from asking the administration to ‘allow Hindus to vent their anger’, what was discussed were steps to prevent and control the violence the next day in that 27^th February meeting. That this indeed was the case is proved by the actual action of the police and the administration the next day, who did not allow Hindus to vent their anger and did their best to control the violence.

   WHO HAS ALLEGED THAT MODI TOLD THE POLICE TO ALLOW HINDUS TO RIOT?

   Weekly Outlook magazine (which is extremely anti-Narendra Modi) first alleged in its issue dated 3 June 2002 that Modi told officials to allow Hindus to take revenge the next day in that crucial 27 February night meeting. URL: https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/a-plot-from-the-devils-lair/215889

   After this Narendra Modi sent it a defamation notice as reported by various news outlets (e.g. Rediff.com, Times of India etc) on  8 June 2002.

   There was a self-appointed Concerned Citizens Tribunal with no statutory authority headed by Retd. Supreme Court Judge, Justice Krishna Iyer (who was merely a figure-head), which conducted its own ‘study’ and report on the Gujarat riots and, as expected, held the government guilty. Sadly for it, it also made a fool of itself by trying to absolve Muslims of the crime of Godhra by suggesting that the fire was set ‘from inside’ (as if it was an inside job!) and denying outrightly that any mob had torched the train. Outlook reported that a certain Gujarat Minister (at that time it did not name him, but after his murder named him as Haren Pandya) was interviewed by this CCT in May 2002 and he claimed that in that 27 February meeting, Modi told officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger.

   The Outlook reported in that article in its 3 June 2002 issue:

   “The minister told Outlook that in his deposition (to the CCT), he revealed that on the night of 27^th February, Modi summoned DGP (i.e. Director General of Police) K. Chakravarthy, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, P.C. Pandey, Chief Secretary, G. Subarao, Home Secretary, Ashok Narayan, Secretary to the Home Department, K. Nityanand (a serving police officer of IG rank on deputation) and DGP (IB) G.S. Raigar. Also present were officers from the CM’s office: P.K. Mishra, Anil Mukhim and A.K. Sharma. The minister also told Outlook that the meeting was held at the CM’s bungalow.  (Notice that Sanjiv Bhatt comes nowhere in the picture!!!)

   The minister told the tribunal (CCT) that in the two-hour meeting, Modi made it clear there would be justice for Godhra the next day, during the VHP-called bandh. He ordered that the police should not come in the way of “the Hindu backlash”. At one point in this briefing, according to the minister’s statement to the tribunal, DGP Chakravarthy vehemently protested. But he was harshly told by Modi to shut up and obey. Commissioner Pandey, says the minister, would later show remorse in private but, at that meeting, didn’t have the guts to object.

   According to the deposition, it was a typical Modi meeting: more orders than discussion. By the end of it, the CM ensured that his top officials—especially the police—would stay out of the way of Sangh Parivar men. The word was passed on to the mobs. (According to a top IB official, on the morning of 28^th February, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists first visited some parts of Ahmedabad and created minor trouble just to check if the police did, in fact, look the other way. Once Modi’s word was confirmed, the carnage began.)”

  There are clear factual errors in this. The Outlook report names Chief Secretary, G. Subarao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither was present in that meeting. That day, Subarao was on leave abroad [This is also mentioned by the SIT in its report on page 312] and instead it was acting Chief Secretary S.K. Varma, who participated in that meeting. The SIT report says on page 58 that A K Sharma was on earned leave from 19 February to 5 March 2002 in connection with his sister’s wedding and he too was not present. This goof-up alone is enough to dismiss the claims of Outlook on that meeting, or, assuming that the late Pandya did make such allegations, his. Outlook realized its terrible goof-up and in the 19 August 2002 issue it acknowledged its error in its claimed interview with Pandya.

   Let us assume that the late Minister Haren Pandya did tell Outlook that Modi told officials in that meeting to allow Hindus to vent their anger the next day. What credibility does Pandya have when he was not even present in that meeting? And when he could not even correctly tell the people who were in the meeting, how could he know what happened inside the meeting? He also said that it was a 2-hour meeting, while it lasted 30-45 minutes at maximum, as per the SIT report.

   Haren Pandya was demoted in the Ministry, from Home Minister to Minister of State for Revenue. There were reports of his personal grudge against the Chief Minister. It is said that after he became Chief Minister in October 2001, Narendra Modi wanted to contest a bypoll from Ellisbridge (which is one of the safest seats for the BJP in Gujarat and in the country) to enter the Assembly which was represented by Pandya. It is reported that Pandya refused to vacate this seat for Modi and, hence, Modi had to contest from Rajkot II, which Modi won.

   Outlook wanted to crucify Narendra Modi by hook or by crook, and in its 3 June 2002 issue it held Modi guilty without cross-checking if the information provided by Pandya was correct or not, assuming that Pandya did speak to Outlook. It was Outlook’s duty to cross-check the facts before making such a serious allegation against a Chief Minister.

   If, for argument’s sake, Modi wanted ‘Justice for Godhra’ as claimed allegedly by Pandya here, he wouldn’t have imposed ‘shoot-at-sight’ orders and curfew in Godhra on 27 February 2002. Street justice taking law in hands would have been allowing mobs to attack Muslims of Signal Falia area of Godhra, from where the killers came, instead of attacking Muslims in Naroda Patiya, Chamanpura and other areas of Gujarat, who had nothing to do with the Godhra massacre.

   Outlook’s report depends only on Haren Pandya, whom it did not even name at that time, but after his murder in March 2003, it claimed that the man was indeed Haren Pandya. Outlook claims that it has a taped interview of Haren Pandya of August 2002. Outlook too does not claim to have any record of the conversation with Pandya for its 3 June 2002 issue, it only claims to have for the 19 August 2002 issue. In its issue dated 19^th August 2002, Outlook reports:

   “Modi’s pet theory was that the man, who went to the tribunal, was his then revenue minister, Haren Pandya. He even asked his intelligence officials to get proof to nail Pandya. But the intelligence wing, Outlook learns, gave no conclusive proof to Modi. Yet, he sent Pandya a show-cause notice through the state BJP president, asking him to explain if and why and with whose permission he went to the tribunal. Pandya, in his sharp reply that unmistakably ridiculed Modi, denied he went to the tribunal.”

   Neither Outlook nor the tribunal (CCT) have given any evidence that Pandya told them anything, and Pandya himself denied the charge! So, there is no proof in public domain that Haren Pandya ever made any allegations on Modi about that 27^th February 2002 late night meeting.

    But this writer does think that Pandya could have (and most likely did) deposed before the CCT and may have talked to Outlook for its 3 June 2002 issue as well. We are merely saying that there is no evidence to prove that Pandya ever said this, and claims made without evidence have no value.

   Link for Outlook’s claimed interview with Pandya of August 2002 is https://web.archive.org/web/20120812102044/http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?216905    

   In this interview in the 19 August 2002 issue, Outlook reports:

   “Minister (continuing): See, whatever I told you, it was not as if some disgruntled man was saying it. I didn’t say all those things because I was unhappy. (Our comment: That exactly was the reason- that he was unhappy! He had lost the Home Ministry!) There is nobody in my position who can fight him. So, it’s important I remain an insider, in power, in position.  That’s why I want my identity to be protected.

   You mentioned Subarao. There was trouble with that. (The Outlook report named chief secretary G. Subarao and an officer in the CM’s office, A.K. Sharma, as among those at the meeting. Neither was present.) [These words in brackets are Outlook’s, not ours.]

   Minister: What happened was that there was a chief secretary- in-charge then. I got my facts mixed up. But listen, their denial was very weak, wasn’t it? If they try to make an issue of it, tell them that you want the official denial from all the people mentioned in the story on paper, with their signatures. Leave the two they say weren’t there at the meeting but ask the others to say that there was no meeting, no direct or indirect orders. Let them say that on paper with their signatures….

   Minister (continuing): I made a mistake with the chief secretary’s name. But the rest is all true. The time, the place, everything was correct. If they put pressure, ask them for official denial from the officers.

   Minister (continuing): Vijay Rupani (who was supposed to organise the yatra) will give information on the (Gujarat) Gaurav Rath Yatra. But be careful when you meet these people. They are such guys that they’ll try to extract my name from you. Be careful.”

    And Outlook stuck to its story even after the clear goof-up. It admitted that it wrongly named two people as being present in the meeting. That should have been enough to dismiss this charge, when Outlook and an alleged Minister could not even correctly tell the names of the people who were present in the meeting. Then how could they know what happened inside that meeting?

   So what Outlook said in effect was: “Though we could not even tell correctly who were present, our charge that Modi ordered the police to allow Hindus to vent their anger is 100% true”. A magazine with an iota of honesty would have said: “We relied on a man whose information was incorrect and who had personal grudges. We withdraw our story”.

   But that’s not all! Even in its 19^th August issue, there are blunders. Haren Pandya says (as claimed by Outlook) “I made a mistake with the chief secretary’s name. But the rest is all true.”

   But the rest is also not all true. Not only was the chief secretary not there, another officer, A.K. Sharma was also not present. This was admitted by Outlook, not by the Minister. And there was a third blunder in this allegation even in the 19^th August issue, which is that DGP (IB) G.C. Raigar was also not present in this meeting! Neither Outlook nor Pandya knew this.

   A single mistake is enough to dismiss these ridiculous claims. But the fact is that THREE people were wrongly named. Also note that it also mentioned the name wrongly- his name is G.C.Raiger, not G.S.Raiger. And the meeting did not last 2 hours either.

   Also, note that the names mentioned by Outlook, of the people being present at the meeting do not include Sanjiv Bhatt at all! He is nowhere in the picture. Even Outlook, which forcibly tried to hold Modi guilty in that 27 February meeting, never even mentioned Sanjiv Bhatt.  

   The only other police officer who has made allegations against Modi apart from Sanjiv Bhatt, is R. Sreekumar. Former Gujarat IPS officer, R.B. Sreekumar told the Nanavati Commission in an affidavit and later also the SIT that the then Director General of Police, V.K. Chakravarthy, who had participated in that crucial February 27 meeting, told him that the CM had directed officers to go slow against Hindu rioters and allow them to give vent to their feelings against the Muslims.

   Sreekumar does not even claim that he was present in that meeting and that Modi gave such orders in front of him. He alleges that the then DGP, Chakravarthy told him so. There is absolutely no evidence that Chakravarthy told him (Sreekumar) so. If Chakravarthy told Sreekumar so, then he could easily have told some others, like Outlook or any other media outlet or the Nanavati Commission in private.

   However, what Chakravarthy and many other officials told the Nanavati Commission was exactly the opposite. They said Modi had told them to control the riots. Plus, Sreekumar started making anti-Modi charges in the case only after the government denied him promotion in 2005 on strong grounds (a pending criminal case against him) and made a person junior to him as the DGP. What’s more, he did not make the same charge in his first two affidavits he filed in July 2002 and October 2004 before the Nanavati Commission, which he submitted before he was denied promotion. Chakravarthy also debunked Sreekumar’s claim that he ever told any such thing to Sreekumar and outrightly denied telling this to him.

   Sreekumar’s ‘evidence’ is absolutely nothing, since he was not present at all in that meeting, and he has no proof at all that Chakravarthy told him anything. And even if Chakravarthy told him anything, that would be no proof, since Chakravarthy has to tell it to the Nanavati Commission or the SIT. The SIT report says on page 58: ‘The statement made by Shri R B Sreekumar is hearsay, which has not been confirmed by K Chakravarti. Shri R B Sreekumar has no personal knowledge, as he did not attend the said meeting.’

      In his first affidavit before the Nanavati Commission which he filed on 15 July 2002, Sreekumar said: “It is appreciable that despite being heavily outnumbered, police took effective and decisive action, which is evident by the fact that 2200 persons were arrested in the first few days of which 1,800 were Hindus. The police firing in the first few days resulted in the death of nearly 100 people of whom 60 were Hindus. It is evident, therefore, that the police did not hesitate to use force to suppress the communal violence”. The affidavit also stated: “Nevertheless the response of the State Government to Godhra incident was immediate and prompt. The rescue and rehabilitation efforts commenced instantaneously. The Chief Minister, senior Ministers and other officials visited the scene.”

   He also stated similarly in his second affidavit filed on 6 October 2004.

   However, in his third affidavit which was filed on 9 April 2005 after he was denied promotion in February 2005, owing to a pending criminal case against him initiated by the JMFC, Bhuj and his junior K R Kaushik made Director General of Police, he completely changed his statement and blamed the State Government, political leaders and Gujarat police for communal riots and even for his harassment and victimization. Only after he was denied promotion.

  In short, let us mention the people who are supposed to have alleged that Modi told the officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger the next day. They are:

1. Sanjiv Bhatt. He has no credibility, was not present at that 27^th  February, 2002 meeting. No one, including Modi’s biggest enemies like Tehelka and Outlook, while trying to crucify Modi, ever claimed for nine years after that meeting that he was present. This man has a very terrible past and has serious cases against him. He was absent from duty for many days in 2011 without any reason and when he was finally suspended, tried to become a ‘martyr’. We will see the claim of he being present in that 27 February meeting in detail later in the chapter on the SIT report of the book.
2. R. Sreekumar. He too was not present and did not even claim to have been present at that 27^th February meeting.
3. Haren Pandya. There is, in fact, no proof in public forum that he ever made any such allegation. He did not claim to Outlook to have been present in the meeting himself, and admitted errors in naming people who were present. There were alleged differences between Narendra Modi and Haren Pandya. He was first demoted in the ministerial portfolio (and then later denied a ticket in assembly polls of December 2002). Owing to these issues, Haren Pandya resigned from the Gujarat Cabinet in August 2002. This clearly shows that there were personal and other matters which could have prompted Pandya to speak against Narendra Modi. The SIT also says on page 240 that: “Also relevant here is the strained relationship between him (Haren Pandya) and Shri Narendra Modi, a fact revealed by late Pandya’s father late Vithalbhai Pandya.”

   Also, note that many activists had alleged that Pandya himself was involved in an attack on a dargah in the 2002 riots. But after his murder in March 2003, for which Muslims were convicted, or ever after he started speaking against Narendra Modi in 2002 itself (on personal grudges) a section of the media immediately took to him as a ‘hero’, forgetting its allegations on him!  Pandya allegedly took the leadership on the next or 2^nd next day of the Godhra carnage, to demolish a dargah which was protruding on the main road of Bhathha (Paldi) in Ahmedabad, not far away from his own house. [It may have had to be demolished by the Municipality anyway.] Thereafter, he started the double talk against the government for ‘not protecting the minority’. The demolition, he allegedly did, brought him on the top of the hit list, and therefore, he was killed.

  But his strategy of targeting Modi worked wonders for him-the anti-Modi media largely forgot charges on him and took to him as a ‘hero’. This also shows that the biased section of the media will make a hero out of anyone who targets Narendra Modi without judging the case on merits.

  That is, not even one person who was actually present at that meeting has alleged that Narendra Modi told them to allow Hindus to vent their anger. All those who were present, like the then DGP Chakravarthy, have reported that Modi told them exactly the opposite, to control the riots. All those, who have alleged that Modi told officials to go slow at that meeting, were not even present at that meeting, neither Sanjiv Bhatt, nor R. Sreekumar, nor, if he did, the late Haren Pandya.

   Let us say, for argument’s sake, that Modi did tell the officials at that crucial meeting on 27^th February night to go slow on Hindus. But did they do so the next day? Not at all. We have seen all details of what the police actually did.  If the police had really allowed Hindus to vent their anger, the media would have gone crazy on 28^th February itself in its reports of 1^st March 2002.