TOI reporting SIT report on Modi

Here is what appeared in TOI
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SIT-findings-ensure-Narendra-Modi-cant-shake-off-riot-taint/articleshow/7421365.cms
Nothing more could be expected from TOI

Even without much of thinking, few words are self evident for the kind of reporting. It would be nice to in detail.

Key findings of the inquiry done by former CBI officer A K Malhotra under the supervision of SIT chairman K Raghavan are as follows:

* "The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulbarg Society, Naroda Patia and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction," Malhotra reported. "His implied justification of the killings of innocent members of the minority community, read together with an absence of a strong condemnation of the violence that followed Godhra, suggest a partisan stance at a critical juncture when the state had been badly disturbed by communal violence." Raghavan added that Modi's statements were "sweeping and offensive coming as it did from a chief minister, that too at a critical time when Hindu-Muslim tempers were running high."

Watering down is a term which is very much subjective to usage. Still it does not mean negligence. Suggestion from implied justification is attempt to have to have double layered assumptions. Terming that statements were sweeping and offensive is also very subjective interpretations. I doubt if any of these will hold any ground in court of law.

* The report said that Modi's 'controversial' move to place two senior ministers — Ashok Bhatt and I K Jadeja — in the Ahmedabad city police control room and the Gujarat state police control room during the riots with "no definite charter" fuelled the speculation that they "had been placed to interfere in police work and give wrongful decisions to the field officers."

It clearly says it is controversial. Still the findings are speculation which are fuelled by controversies. Is report based on controversies?

* The report affirmed that police officers who took a neutral stand during the riots and prevented massacres had been transferred by the Gujarat government to insignificant postings in a highly 'questionable' manner.

It appears that no statement can be made in plane terms. Questionable manner remains between quote and unquote. Any transfer can be questioned. One should not only stop at question but also look at the answers. Questioning cannot be termed virtue by unless the answers support the intent.

* "The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots," SIT said, adding, "'No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been preserved."

So the report is based on lack of evidence.

* The report said Modi displayed a "discriminatory attitude by not visiting the riot-affected areas in Ahmedabad where a large number of Muslims were killed, though he went to Godhra on the same day, travelling almost 300km on a single day."
Was visiting Godhra wrong in the eyes of the investigating officer? Was that not the source of disturbance? How can he manage to be at some other place on the same time which is 300km away.

* According to the report, the Gujarat government did not take any steps to stop the illegal bandh called by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on February 28, 2002. On the contrary the BJP had also supported the bandh.

When onward the bandhs are classified as legal and illegal? BJP is a political party and has freedom to support or oppose.

* The SIT report also pointed out that the police administration did not impose curfew in Naroda and Meghani Nagar (Ahmedabad city) until 12 and 2pm respectively on 28.02.02 although the situation had by then severely deteriorated at both those places.

It appears that whole talk is coming down to when the curfew was imposed. This point can be further elaborated.

* The SIT discovered that the state police had carried out shoddy investigations in the Naroda Patia and Gulbarg Society massacre cases and deliberately overlooked the cellphone records of Sangh Parivar members and BJP leaders involved in the riots.

Investigation of which agency is shoddier compared to other can be judged by law. No investigation can claim to be 100% fool proof.

* The SIT has also found evidence against the then minister of state for home Gordhan Zadafia (who was reporting directly to Modi) and top police officers such as M K Tandon and P B Gondia for their alleged complicity in the riots.

For their, so called alleged complicity of minister and officer in riot Modi is proven guilty. Will this hold same for Rajiv Gandhi for Sikh massacre or Manmohan Singh for alleged complicity of his minister and officers in scam?

* SIT confirmed that the government appointed VHP and RSS-affiliated advocates as public prosecutors in sensitive riot cases. The report states: "It appears that the political affiliation of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment of public prosecutors."

When report has words like appears and seems to be then it should be taken with pinch of salt as they are very subjective opinions. As much fact goes is there any bar on lawyers to have affiliation with VHP and RSS.

TOI seems to have highlighted points which does not stand even when simple logic is applied, it can be doubted that these words can of any use in court of law. The best response to these can be silence. I remember silence was the answer which Mr Modi gave in an interview with Karan Thapar, which was highlighted by many media. Modi gave answer in next poll after that media went silent about that episode.