This is one in a series of blogs to put the facts in one place about various charges levelled against Teesta Setalvad - http://hope-and-hope.blogspot.in/2012/10/the-cases-against-teesta-setalvad.html
1. Spicing up the riot cases
2. Lunawada mass graves
3. Madhu Trehan's attack
Also see Coverage of English media of Mumbai violence simplistically
4. Funding
5 The case of Kausar Bano
6. Memorial of Resistance
7. Tavleen Singh
8. Rais Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first reports of spicing up appeared in mid April 2009 & SIT rebutted it a week later. As a result of the original story, and the fame of Bhanu Pratap Mehta's article in Indian Express, an impression persists about spicing up of atrocities & coaching of witnesses.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-04-14/india/28031729_1_riot-cases-r-k-raghavan-riot-victims
NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SIT
NEW DELHI: The Special Investigation Team responsible for the arrests of those accused in Gujarat riots has severely censured NGOs and social activist Teesta Setalvad who campaigned for the riot victims.
In a significant development, the SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan told the Supreme Court on Monday that the celebrated rights activist cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings.
Many incidents of killings and violence were cooked up, false charges were levelled against then police chief P C Pandey and false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents, the SIT said in a report submitted before a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam.
The SIT said it had been alleged in the Gulbarg Society case that Pandey, instead of taking measures to protect people facing the wrath of rioteers, was helping the mob. The truth was that he was helping with hospitalisation of riot victims and making arrangements for police bandobast, Gujarat counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, said quoting from the SIT report.
Rohtagi also said that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were questioned by the SIT which found that they had been tutored and handed over the affidavits by Setalvad and that they had not actually witnessed the riot incidents.
The SIT also found no truth in the following incidents widely publicised by the NGOs:
* A pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu was gangraped by a mob, who then gouged out the foetus with sharp weapons
* Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioteers at Naroda Patiya
* Police botching up investigation into the killing of British nationals, who were on a visit to Gujarat and unfortunately got caught in the riots
Rohtagi said: "On a reading of the report, it is clear that horrendous allegations made by the NGOs were false. Stereotyped affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were found untrue."
Obviously happy with the fresh findings of the SIT which was responsible for the recent arrests of former Gujarat minister Maya Kodanani and VHP leader Jaideep Patel, Rohtagi tried to spruce up the image of the Modi administration, which was castigated in the Best Bakery case by the apex court as "modern day Neros". He was swiftly told by the Bench that but for the SIT, many more accused, who are freshly added, would not have been brought to book.
The Bench said there was no room for allegations and counter-allegations at this late stage. "In riot cases, the more the delay, there is likelihood of falsity creeping in. So, there should be a designated court to fast track the trials. Riot cases should be given priority because feelings runhigh having a cascading effect," it said and asked for suggestions from the Gujarat government, Centre, NGOs and amicus curiae Harish Salve, who said the time had come for the apex court to lift the stay on trials into several post-Godhra riot cases.
While additional solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam agreed with the court that public prosecutors should be selected in consultation with Raghavan, counsel Indira Jaising said there should be a complete regime for protection of witnesses as the same government, which was accused of engineering the riots, was in power now.
Salve said that he would consult Raghavan and let the court know about a witness protectionsystem for post-Godhra riot cases. The court asked the parties to submit their suggestions within a week.
dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-04-14/news/28416389_1_riot-cases-hospitalisation-of-riot-victims-affidavits-before-various-courts
Setalvad in dock for 'cooking up killings'
NEW DELHI: The Narendra Modi baiters among NGOs on Monday suffered a major setback when a SupremeCourt-appointed special investigation team (SIT) charged a leading activist, Teesta Setalvad, with adding morbidity into the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat by "cooking up macabre tales of killings".
SIT headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan said "many incidents were cooked up, false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents, and false charges levelled against the then Ahmedabad police chief P C Pandey".
Sit report, which was submitted before a bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, said there was no truth in some of the major allegations levelled by NGOs. According to the report, the untruths included:
A pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu was gangraped by a mob, who then with sharp weapons gouged out the foetus;
Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioters at Narora Patiya; and n Police botching up investigation into the killing of British nationals who were on a visit to Gujarat.
SIT also said the charge that Mr Pandey was helping mob that attacked the Gulbarga Society was untrue. "The truth was that he was helping hospitalisation of riot victims and making arrangement of police bandobast," senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said.
Mr Rohatgi also told the court that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were questioned by SIT. "It was found that they were tutored. The affidavits were handed over to them by Ms Setalvad. They had not actually witnessed the riot," the counsel said.
The Supreme Court lauded the work of SIT and said there should be no room for allegations and counter-allegations. "In the riot cases, the more the delay there is likelihood of falsity creeping in. So there should be a designated court to fast track trials. Riot cases should be given priority," the Bench said and sought suggestions from the Centre, Gujarat government and NGOs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-unconscionable-act/447301
An Unconscionable Act
The news reports of the Supreme Court appointed SIT’s charges against a leading activist, Teesta Setalvad are truly disturbing. She is charged with adding morbidity to the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat by “cooking up macabre tales of killings”. One has to see the full SIT report to come to terms with how grievous the charges are. On theface of it the SIT is credible. But by all news accounts Teesta Setalvad has done the cause of justice irreparable harm. And her actions, as described, will undermine the capability of civil society to have any imprimatur of impartiality in investigating riot cases.
If true, she has not only done deep disservice to the victims of the Gujarat riots; she has also undermined the credibility of so-called secular interlocutors. It confirms the suspicion many have, that often those speaking in the name of secularism do not subscribe to the very values they claim to be fighting for: truth, justice, impartiality and the rule of law. Their secularism is in the service of beating down opponents rather than discovering the truth. “Tutoring witnesses”, concocting horror stories in a politically charged situation is a serious crime; of a piece with what the supposedly “bad” guys do. After all, their politics depends upon falsely whipped-up paranoia, tampering with the system of justice, engaging in a pornography of violence and having scant regard for the truth. The fact that this is done in the name of victims, for a supposedly just cause, does not excuse it. It makes it worse.
This story should have been a big front page story. It deserves much more coverage and discussion. Of course, this is not the first time Teesta Setalvad’s role has come under the scanner. Her role in the Zahira Sheikh case was a matter of some concern, and there has been a widespread perception in legal struggles that her advocacy sometimes makes the cause of justice more, not less difficult. One cannot speculate about the circumstances under which she engaged in this self undermining rhetorical overkill. On the face of it, it was all so needless. The events in Gujarat were horrific enough -- there was no need to spoil the case with appalling falsehoods.
The good news is that in the case of Gujarat, at least some wheels of justice are turning. But the SIT’s findings against Teesta Setalvad are a salutary reminder, that the rule of law and the cause of truth should not be allowed to be subordinated to any ideology: communal or secular.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Http://Communalism.Blogspot.In/2009/04/Sahmat-Communique-Re-Tendentious.Html
April 14, 2009
SAHMAT communique re Tendentious Reporting in Media
April 14, 2009
Press Statement on Tendentious Reporting in Media
We are deeply disturbed by the tendentious reports in the media of the Supreme Court proceedings on April 13 dealing with the S I T report on the Gujarat carnage of 2002.
This unhealthy trend in the media reporting is going to seriously compromise the credibility of the media and undermine “ freedom of expression” enjoyed by the media which we all cherish.
An impression being created in a section of the media that the former CBI director R K Raghvan who led the S I T has “told” the court that Teesta Setalvad “ cooked up macabre tales of wanton killing” is mischievious. Only the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae and the Gujarat government have access to the report. The S I T has not filed any other document in court to which the media has access nor was Mr. Raghvan in the Court. It is therefore obvious that the media is only uncritically reporting what the Gujarat government’s lawyer said in the note liberally distributed to the press outside the Court.
While the Supreme Court observed that there was no room for allegations and counter allegations at this late stage, the media coverage has brazenly flouted this observation by reporting the totally baseless allegations against social activist Teesta Setalvad and the organisation she represents Citizen for Justice and Peace on the basis of the Gujarat government’s note circulated in the Court. This is all the more reprehensible because Teesta Setalvad and Citizen for Justice and Peace have neither been given a copy of the S I T report nor has their response been sought in the matter.
The proceedings in the Supreme Court related to the response of the Gujarat government and the amicus curiae Shri Harish Salve to the S I T report. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to set up the S I T to correct the miscarriage of justice due to the tardy investigation by the state of Gujarat was highlighted in the court’s observation that but for the S I T investigation many more accused, who were freshly added, would not have been brought to book. It was the untiring efforts of Teesta Setalvad and the CJP and the National Human Rights Commission that persuaded the Supreme Court to set up the S I T and on the basis of its findings further arrests have been made of persons who held administrative and ministerial positions in the government of Gujarat.
M.K.Raina
for
SAHMAT
Press Statement on Tendentious Reporting in Media
We are deeply disturbed by the tendentious reports in the media of the Supreme Court proceedings on April 13 dealing with the S I T report on the Gujarat carnage of 2002.
This unhealthy trend in the media reporting is going to seriously compromise the credibility of the media and undermine “ freedom of expression” enjoyed by the media which we all cherish.
An impression being created in a section of the media that the former CBI director R K Raghvan who led the S I T has “told” the court that Teesta Setalvad “ cooked up macabre tales of wanton killing” is mischievious. Only the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae and the Gujarat government have access to the report. The S I T has not filed any other document in court to which the media has access nor was Mr. Raghvan in the Court. It is therefore obvious that the media is only uncritically reporting what the Gujarat government’s lawyer said in the note liberally distributed to the press outside the Court.
While the Supreme Court observed that there was no room for allegations and counter allegations at this late stage, the media coverage has brazenly flouted this observation by reporting the totally baseless allegations against social activist Teesta Setalvad and the organisation she represents Citizen for Justice and Peace on the basis of the Gujarat government’s note circulated in the Court. This is all the more reprehensible because Teesta Setalvad and Citizen for Justice and Peace have neither been given a copy of the S I T report nor has their response been sought in the matter.
The proceedings in the Supreme Court related to the response of the Gujarat government and the amicus curiae Shri Harish Salve to the S I T report. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to set up the S I T to correct the miscarriage of justice due to the tardy investigation by the state of Gujarat was highlighted in the court’s observation that but for the S I T investigation many more accused, who were freshly added, would not have been brought to book. It was the untiring efforts of Teesta Setalvad and the CJP and the National Human Rights Commission that persuaded the Supreme Court to set up the S I T and on the basis of its findings further arrests have been made of persons who held administrative and ministerial positions in the government of Gujarat.
M.K.Raina
for
SAHMAT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 14, 2009
MUMBAI, APRIL 14, 2009
CJP’S REBUTTAL ON MEDIA COVERAGE OF SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS, APRIL 13, 2009
THE REPORT IN SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA DATED APRIL 14, 2009, ALLEGING THAT NGOS, TEESTA ETC MISLED THE APEX COURT AND EXAGGERATED THE VIOLENCE IN GUJARAT IN 2002 ARE CLEAR EXAMPLE OF IRRESPONSIBLE REPORTAGE. INTENTIONALLY OR OTHERWISE, THE DISTORTED REPORT DAMAGES THE REPUTATION OF A CITIZENS’ GROUP THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY FOR WORKING ASSIDUOUSLY TO ENSURE JUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS OF MASS VIOLENCE WHETHER IN CASE OF THE GUJARAT CARNAGE (2002), OR THE BOMB BLASTS IN MUMBAI (2006 AND 2008) OR THE COMMUNAL CARNAGE IN KANDHAMAL DISTRICT, ORISSA (2008), IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CASTE OR CREED OF THE VICTIMS OR THE PERPETRATORS.
THE FACT IS THAT NEITHER SRI RAGHAVAN, NOR ANY OTHER SIT MEMBER WAS PRESENT AT THE APEX COURT TO “TELL” IT ANYTHING. THESE REPORTS COULD ONLY BE REFERRING TO A CONTENTION MADE IN A FOUR PAGE NOTE CIRCULATED BY MS HEMANTIKA WAHI FOR THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT.. IT WAS NOT A NOTE PREPARED BY SIT.
THE DETAILED REPORT OF SIT SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT ON MARCH 6, 2007 HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE FOR STUDY EITHER TO NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC), THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE, OR THE CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE (CJP) WHO HAVE INTERVENED IN THIS CRITICAL MATTER OR TO ANY IN THE MEDIA. ANY REFERENCE TO IT IS HENCE HEARSAY AND IT MAY AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT TO WRITE ABOUT A REPORT WHICH THE COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY NOT MADE PUBLIC.
IN ITS WRITTEN NOTE THAT THE GUJARAT STATE CIRCULATED IN COURT YESTERDAY, THE STATE HAS GIVEN ITS BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE SIT REPORT. IN PARA FOUR OF THIS NOTE THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT NOTE REFERS TO ALLEGED STATEMENTS MADE BY SOME WITNESSES IN THE GULBERG CASE BEFORE SIT THAT NAME ACCUSED OTHER THAN THOSE NAMED BY THEM IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS THAT WERE (ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF GUJARAT) GIVEN TO THEM BY TEESTA SETALVAD AND ADVOCATES. THIS IS THE VERSION OF THE GUJARAT STATE. BESIDES THIS, MUKHUL ROHATGI TRIED TO MAKE A POPULAIST SPEECH IN COURT SAYING THAT INCIDENTS LIKE THE KAUSER BANO CASE ETC NEVER HAPPENED. THE SUPREME COURT DISREGARDED THIS ARGUMENT AND DID NOT ALLOW MR.ROHATGI TO READ ANYTHING FROM THE REPORT. THE COURT WENT ON TO STATE THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PERSONAL ALLEGATIONS AND ONLY ENSURING THAT, LIKE IN THE COURSE OF THE ZAHIRA SHAIKH CASE, THE TRIALS ARE FAIR, THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IS SERVED.
IT IS NECESSARY TO RECALLED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE BEST BAKERY TRIAL, TOO, THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT HAD TRIED TO DIVERT THE COURT’S ATTENTION BY ENGINEERING CHARGES AGAINST TEESTA SETALVAD, SECRETARY CJP AND BY IMPLICATION THE NGO. ON SETALVAD’S APPLICATION TO THE APEX COURT FOR A FULL FLEDGED INQUIRY THE REPORT OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE APEX COURT EXONERATED SETALVAD AND THE NGO COMPLETELY.
AS REPORTED BY THE REST OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA, ON MONDAY, IGNORING SRI ROHATGI’S BID TO SIDE-STEP THE MAIN ISSUES, THE THREE-MEMBER BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT REMAINED FOCUSED ON THE MODALITIES OF SETTING UP DESIGNATED COURTS FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED IN THE POST-GODHRA RIOT CASES IN GUJARAT. INSTEAD OF HIGHLIGHTING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS, SRI MAHAPATRA CHOSE TO SPICE UP HIS REPORT FOCUSING NOT ON THE DELIBERATIONS OR THE INTENTIONS OF THE APEX COURT BUT TO PROMOTE THE CASE OF THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT.
THE MOOT QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT 2,500 PERSONS WERE KILLED IN A GHASTLY PERPETRATED MASSACRE FOLLOWING THE TRAGIC BURNING ALIVE OF 59 PERSONS ON THE SABARMATI EXPRESS; WHETHER OR NOT EX PARLIAMENTARIAN AHSAN JAFRI WAS MUTILATED BEFORE BEING BURNT ALIVE, WHETHER THE BODIES OF THE MISSING DEAD (OVER 220) HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND OR RETURNED FOR DIGNIFIED BURIAL AFTER SEVEN LONG YEARS? ALL THE NATIONAL MEDIA WAS WITNESS TO THIS NATIONAL TRAGEDY.
IN THE INTERESTS OF FAIR REPORTAGE AND TO ENSURE THAT THE REPUTATION OF A CITIZENS GROUP COMMITTED TO EQUITY AND JUSTICE IS NOT DELIBERATELY VITIATED BEFORE THE TRIALS COMMENCE, THE MEDIA SHOULD CARRY THIS REBUTTAL IN FULL. A FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE COLUMNS OF A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER BEING USED TO DISTORT FACTS, SHAPE PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND JUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS OF MASS MURDER.
(STATEMENT BY CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, MUMBAI, APRIL 14, 2009, MUMBAI)
WE WISH ALSO THAT THE FOLLOWING ISSUES
PERTINENT ISSUES IGNORED IN THESE REPORTS:
* THE ARRESTS OF MINISTER DR MAYA KODNANI AND DR JAIDEEP PATEL IN THE PAST WEEKS WERE ON THE BASIS OF SIT RE-INVESTIGATIONS. TWELVE FIRS FILED BY WITNESSES NAMING THESE ACCUSED IN 2002 HAD BEEN CLUBBED INTO A MAGNUM FIR BY THE AHMEDABAD CRIME BRANCH THAT HAD DROPPED THE NAMES OF THESE POWERFUL ACCUSED;
* THE ARRESTS OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER KG ERDA IN THE GULBERG CASE AND OF OTHER POLICEMEN IN THE OTHER CASES OVER THE PAST MONTHS HAS MEANT THE CLAIMS OF WITNESS SURVIVORS AND LEGAL RIGHTS GROUPS, PRIMA FACIE, ARE VALID;
* THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES WHY THE APEX COURT HAS CHOSEN TO APPOINT SIT, THE FULL SCALE SUBVERSION OF THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE, FROM THE REMOVAL OF NAMES OF ACCUSED WHO’S NAMES APPEARED IN EARLIER STATEMENTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ENJOYED POLITICAL PATRONAGE; THE APPOINTMENT OF PROSECUTORS WITH ALLEGIANCES TO THE BJP AND VHP WHICH MEANT INSTEAD OF PROMOTING FAIR TRIAL THEY SIDED WITH THE POLITICALLY POWERFUL AND PROTECTED ACCUSED;
* MORE PERTINENTLY THE TRAGIC SLAYING OF PREGNANT KAUSER BANO AT NARODA PATIYA AFTER SLITTING HER WOMB WAS REPORTED IN DECCAN HERALD,(APRIL 17, 2004) AND THE INDIAN EXPRESS, (MARCH 23,2005) AMONG OTHERS APART FROM FINDING PLACE IN INNUMERABLE REPORTS INCLUDING THE ONE AUTHORED BY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS TRIBUNAL-CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY 2002 HEADED BY TWO SUPREME COURT JUDGES, JUSTICES KRISHNA IYER AND PB SAWANT. SIMILARLY THE BRITISH NATIONAL CASE WAS SIMILARLY DOCUMENTED APART FROM BEING COVERED IN THE PIONEER, MARCH 3, 2002 AND THE HINDU, APRIL 23, 2002.
TRUSTEES:
TEESTA SETALVAD, I.M. KADRI, ARVIND KRISHNASWAMY, JAVED AKHTAR, CYRUS GUZDER, ALYQUE PADAMSEE, ANIL DHARKER, NANDAN MALUSTE, JAVED ANAND, RAHUL BOSE, CEDRIC PRAKASH
CJP’S REBUTTAL ON MEDIA COVERAGE OF SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS, APRIL 13, 2009
THE REPORT IN SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA DATED APRIL 14, 2009, ALLEGING THAT NGOS, TEESTA ETC MISLED THE APEX COURT AND EXAGGERATED THE VIOLENCE IN GUJARAT IN 2002 ARE CLEAR EXAMPLE OF IRRESPONSIBLE REPORTAGE. INTENTIONALLY OR OTHERWISE, THE DISTORTED REPORT DAMAGES THE REPUTATION OF A CITIZENS’ GROUP THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY FOR WORKING ASSIDUOUSLY TO ENSURE JUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS OF MASS VIOLENCE WHETHER IN CASE OF THE GUJARAT CARNAGE (2002), OR THE BOMB BLASTS IN MUMBAI (2006 AND 2008) OR THE COMMUNAL CARNAGE IN KANDHAMAL DISTRICT, ORISSA (2008), IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CASTE OR CREED OF THE VICTIMS OR THE PERPETRATORS.
THE FACT IS THAT NEITHER SRI RAGHAVAN, NOR ANY OTHER SIT MEMBER WAS PRESENT AT THE APEX COURT TO “TELL” IT ANYTHING. THESE REPORTS COULD ONLY BE REFERRING TO A CONTENTION MADE IN A FOUR PAGE NOTE CIRCULATED BY MS HEMANTIKA WAHI FOR THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT.. IT WAS NOT A NOTE PREPARED BY SIT.
THE DETAILED REPORT OF SIT SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT ON MARCH 6, 2007 HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE FOR STUDY EITHER TO NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC), THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE, OR THE CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE (CJP) WHO HAVE INTERVENED IN THIS CRITICAL MATTER OR TO ANY IN THE MEDIA. ANY REFERENCE TO IT IS HENCE HEARSAY AND IT MAY AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT TO WRITE ABOUT A REPORT WHICH THE COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY NOT MADE PUBLIC.
IN ITS WRITTEN NOTE THAT THE GUJARAT STATE CIRCULATED IN COURT YESTERDAY, THE STATE HAS GIVEN ITS BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE SIT REPORT. IN PARA FOUR OF THIS NOTE THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT NOTE REFERS TO ALLEGED STATEMENTS MADE BY SOME WITNESSES IN THE GULBERG CASE BEFORE SIT THAT NAME ACCUSED OTHER THAN THOSE NAMED BY THEM IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS THAT WERE (ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF GUJARAT) GIVEN TO THEM BY TEESTA SETALVAD AND ADVOCATES. THIS IS THE VERSION OF THE GUJARAT STATE. BESIDES THIS, MUKHUL ROHATGI TRIED TO MAKE A POPULAIST SPEECH IN COURT SAYING THAT INCIDENTS LIKE THE KAUSER BANO CASE ETC NEVER HAPPENED. THE SUPREME COURT DISREGARDED THIS ARGUMENT AND DID NOT ALLOW MR.ROHATGI TO READ ANYTHING FROM THE REPORT. THE COURT WENT ON TO STATE THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PERSONAL ALLEGATIONS AND ONLY ENSURING THAT, LIKE IN THE COURSE OF THE ZAHIRA SHAIKH CASE, THE TRIALS ARE FAIR, THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IS SERVED.
IT IS NECESSARY TO RECALLED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE BEST BAKERY TRIAL, TOO, THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT HAD TRIED TO DIVERT THE COURT’S ATTENTION BY ENGINEERING CHARGES AGAINST TEESTA SETALVAD, SECRETARY CJP AND BY IMPLICATION THE NGO. ON SETALVAD’S APPLICATION TO THE APEX COURT FOR A FULL FLEDGED INQUIRY THE REPORT OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE APEX COURT EXONERATED SETALVAD AND THE NGO COMPLETELY.
AS REPORTED BY THE REST OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA, ON MONDAY, IGNORING SRI ROHATGI’S BID TO SIDE-STEP THE MAIN ISSUES, THE THREE-MEMBER BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT REMAINED FOCUSED ON THE MODALITIES OF SETTING UP DESIGNATED COURTS FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED IN THE POST-GODHRA RIOT CASES IN GUJARAT. INSTEAD OF HIGHLIGHTING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS, SRI MAHAPATRA CHOSE TO SPICE UP HIS REPORT FOCUSING NOT ON THE DELIBERATIONS OR THE INTENTIONS OF THE APEX COURT BUT TO PROMOTE THE CASE OF THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT.
THE MOOT QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT 2,500 PERSONS WERE KILLED IN A GHASTLY PERPETRATED MASSACRE FOLLOWING THE TRAGIC BURNING ALIVE OF 59 PERSONS ON THE SABARMATI EXPRESS; WHETHER OR NOT EX PARLIAMENTARIAN AHSAN JAFRI WAS MUTILATED BEFORE BEING BURNT ALIVE, WHETHER THE BODIES OF THE MISSING DEAD (OVER 220) HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND OR RETURNED FOR DIGNIFIED BURIAL AFTER SEVEN LONG YEARS? ALL THE NATIONAL MEDIA WAS WITNESS TO THIS NATIONAL TRAGEDY.
IN THE INTERESTS OF FAIR REPORTAGE AND TO ENSURE THAT THE REPUTATION OF A CITIZENS GROUP COMMITTED TO EQUITY AND JUSTICE IS NOT DELIBERATELY VITIATED BEFORE THE TRIALS COMMENCE, THE MEDIA SHOULD CARRY THIS REBUTTAL IN FULL. A FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE COLUMNS OF A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER BEING USED TO DISTORT FACTS, SHAPE PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND SEEK TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND JUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS OF MASS MURDER.
(STATEMENT BY CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, MUMBAI, APRIL 14, 2009, MUMBAI)
WE WISH ALSO THAT THE FOLLOWING ISSUES
PERTINENT ISSUES IGNORED IN THESE REPORTS:
* THE ARRESTS OF MINISTER DR MAYA KODNANI AND DR JAIDEEP PATEL IN THE PAST WEEKS WERE ON THE BASIS OF SIT RE-INVESTIGATIONS. TWELVE FIRS FILED BY WITNESSES NAMING THESE ACCUSED IN 2002 HAD BEEN CLUBBED INTO A MAGNUM FIR BY THE AHMEDABAD CRIME BRANCH THAT HAD DROPPED THE NAMES OF THESE POWERFUL ACCUSED;
* THE ARRESTS OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER KG ERDA IN THE GULBERG CASE AND OF OTHER POLICEMEN IN THE OTHER CASES OVER THE PAST MONTHS HAS MEANT THE CLAIMS OF WITNESS SURVIVORS AND LEGAL RIGHTS GROUPS, PRIMA FACIE, ARE VALID;
* THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES WHY THE APEX COURT HAS CHOSEN TO APPOINT SIT, THE FULL SCALE SUBVERSION OF THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE, FROM THE REMOVAL OF NAMES OF ACCUSED WHO’S NAMES APPEARED IN EARLIER STATEMENTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ENJOYED POLITICAL PATRONAGE; THE APPOINTMENT OF PROSECUTORS WITH ALLEGIANCES TO THE BJP AND VHP WHICH MEANT INSTEAD OF PROMOTING FAIR TRIAL THEY SIDED WITH THE POLITICALLY POWERFUL AND PROTECTED ACCUSED;
* MORE PERTINENTLY THE TRAGIC SLAYING OF PREGNANT KAUSER BANO AT NARODA PATIYA AFTER SLITTING HER WOMB WAS REPORTED IN DECCAN HERALD,(APRIL 17, 2004) AND THE INDIAN EXPRESS, (MARCH 23,2005) AMONG OTHERS APART FROM FINDING PLACE IN INNUMERABLE REPORTS INCLUDING THE ONE AUTHORED BY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS TRIBUNAL-CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY 2002 HEADED BY TWO SUPREME COURT JUDGES, JUSTICES KRISHNA IYER AND PB SAWANT. SIMILARLY THE BRITISH NATIONAL CASE WAS SIMILARLY DOCUMENTED APART FROM BEING COVERED IN THE PIONEER, MARCH 3, 2002 AND THE HINDU, APRIL 23, 2002.
TRUSTEES:
TEESTA SETALVAD, I.M. KADRI, ARVIND KRISHNASWAMY, JAVED AKHTAR, CYRUS GUZDER, ALYQUE PADAMSEE, ANIL DHARKER, NANDAN MALUSTE, JAVED ANAND, RAHUL BOSE, CEDRIC PRAKASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Report based on SIT findings'
My report was based on the SIT report and not any document circulated by the Gujarat government, as suggested by CJP. Whether any section of the media has the report or not is irrelevant as TOI has access to the report. Let me quote from the report.
Page 9 of the SIT report on the Gulbarga Society carnage on February 28, 2002, says: ''Insistence of 19 witnesses to take on record their signed statements which according to them were prepared by Smt Teesta Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji'' — the reference here is to witnesses giving signed computerised statements which were not accepted by the investigating officer (IO) as under Section 161 the officer is required to write the statement of witnesses after interrogating them personally.
The SIT report says on page 10, ''All of them had brought with them ready-made statements prepared on computer and requested IO to take them on record. IO explained to them that according to law they had to be questioned and examined and their statements reduced in writing by the IO.'' It goes on to say, ''On questioning them in respect of the typed statements, all 3 of them stated that the computerised prepared statements were given to them by Smt Teesta Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji and that they had merely signed and initialed on such prepared statements.''
The report goes on to say that ''there are discrepancies between the prepared statements and statements recorded by the IO. In respect of 6 witnesses, there are contradictory statements relating to the names of the accused they were linking with (the) crime.''
Page 11 says, when ''questioned about the discrepancies'', the six witnesses ''stated that they had prepared the statements and not Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji.'' In other words, the latter witnesses changed their version about who had prepared their signed statements.
The report also says (page 8) the allegation about the then Ahmedabad police commissioner C P Pandey visiting Gulbarga Society at 10.30am and assuring police protection to Muslims but not following it up was wrong as ''he was proved to have gone to Sola Civil Hospital to take care of the dead bodies of Sabarmati Express arson victims.''
The report also cites some instances of police dereliction of duty, such as by senior police inspector K G Erda of Maghani Nagar PS who was found to be ''falsely creating the record'' and ''allowing the destruction of evidence in order to screen offenders.'' It also found the pre-SIT IO guilty of ''preparing slipshod inquest reports,'' etc. In short, my report was based on the actual SIT report. The excerpts from it should prove this beyond doubt.
— Dhananjay Mahapatra
------------------------------------------------------------------
Just see how watered down is Mahapatra's claim on Apr 16compared to what he claimed earlier. Have a look at the inetrim report of SIT and verify http://www.cjponline.org/zakia/SIT%20Enquiry_Report_In%20ZAKIA%20CASE.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2009/04/expose-of-activism-and-truth.html
SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 2009
Expose of activism and the truth
A few commentators including Pratap Bhanu Mehta have tried to expose the activists working among the Gujarat carnage victims for "fabricating evidence". But the rebuttal by the activists, especially by Teesta Setalwad, was completely ignored by the media. We are presenting both, in order to let our readers judge for themselves, the truth behind this expose. Interestingly both PBM's comment, and Teesta's rebuttal appeared on the same day, April 15th, and it is not clear whether PBM's piece was influenced by what Teesta describes as distorted reporting. We will be happy to publish (as a guest post)any rejoinder from PBM, who is one of our valued readers.
Readers will find two more posts published on April 14 here and here useful tounderstand the controversy. TOI's controversial report can be read here. ET's story is available here.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta replies:
1. My intention was not to expose Teesta. I have no competence and desire to do so. I was just stuck by the fact that this seemed to be an important story, carried by a "credible" newspaper, the Economic Times, followed by TOI and a slightly different version by IBN.
2. I tried to verify whether TOI indeed had the SIT in question and was led to believe they did. I know we are sceptical of news reports, but I assumed that ET would have at least some minimal standards of accuracy in reporting.
3.That seemed to me sufficient to warrant a blog comment. Now if it turns out that the ET and TOI "lied" I will be relieved and distraught in different ways. I will be relieved that charges against Teesta are untrue. I will be distraught because it will raise serious questions about whom one can trust in matters of reportage. It will confirm, in a different way, the deep crisis of credibility and adjudication facing Indian society. After all, it was the same reporters and newspapers and editors one relied on for reporting on the horrendous carnage in Gujarat. And once the credibility of all these institutions of reporting declines, everyone will feel entitled to believe what they want.
4. I also regret that many responses seem to bring out the latent crisis in Indian democracy. So many people jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that if some of what is alleged to be said against Teesta is true, it automatically exonerates the Gujarat government. This is far from being the case
Readers will find two more posts published on April 14 here and here useful tounderstand the controversy. TOI's controversial report can be read here. ET's story is available here.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta replies:
1. My intention was not to expose Teesta. I have no competence and desire to do so. I was just stuck by the fact that this seemed to be an important story, carried by a "credible" newspaper, the Economic Times, followed by TOI and a slightly different version by IBN.
2. I tried to verify whether TOI indeed had the SIT in question and was led to believe they did. I know we are sceptical of news reports, but I assumed that ET would have at least some minimal standards of accuracy in reporting.
3.That seemed to me sufficient to warrant a blog comment. Now if it turns out that the ET and TOI "lied" I will be relieved and distraught in different ways. I will be relieved that charges against Teesta are untrue. I will be distraught because it will raise serious questions about whom one can trust in matters of reportage. It will confirm, in a different way, the deep crisis of credibility and adjudication facing Indian society. After all, it was the same reporters and newspapers and editors one relied on for reporting on the horrendous carnage in Gujarat. And once the credibility of all these institutions of reporting declines, everyone will feel entitled to believe what they want.
4. I also regret that many responses seem to bring out the latent crisis in Indian democracy. So many people jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that if some of what is alleged to be said against Teesta is true, it automatically exonerates the Gujarat government. This is far from being the case
15 comments:
The State, Police, Courts or the media? The State is often the sponsor. The Police force is an inferior stream of people who are best harvested for profit when one takes to office. Courts often are content to give grand Orders for official consumption. And the media? They cannot expect to outsell their competitor if they continue to shell out stories primarily to outrage their readers. After all, nobody can successfully build a profit center with nothing more than a plan to everlastingly outrage its subscribers.
This Nation wants a selfless and a fearless crusader. So, it is on a tireless pursuit to find one. After all, when the entire Nation is on a hunt mode, someone or the other will emerge to take the mantle. Like everything else in life, people must feel disenchanted sooner or later with such a Hero. He is then consigned to a dustbin so that the Nation can renew its search for a newer Hero. So, Teetsa has now fallen. Who will we settle for next?
I went to wikipedia to check about Teesta and there I was surprisded to find that wikipedia has the controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teesta_Setalvad
We, as respecters of the law, are willing to be patient with the trials and tribulations that the cases are topsy-turvied with. But it is another thing to take in scurvy reports in the mainstream press and raise questions about the defenders of the meek. I wonder what the priorities of Pratap Bhanu Mehta are.
I am reminded of Pratap Bhanu Mehta's essay on the criticism of Sonal Shah here for some reason. When questions were raised about Ms Shah's associations with the Hindu right, Mehta had a swift rejoinder in place. When the apologists of the right have taken on a bold defender of the hapless victims, the media played along and Pratap Bhanu Mehta took cue from that to launch a diatribe against Teesta Setalvad and company. Such positions don't inspire a lot of confidence in Mr. Mehta's punditry, despite his "corrective" blog post here.
And PBM should have checked the reports more rigorously, instead of making the assumption that, other newspapers and media ignored this report on Teesta. In my opinion his reply here too is a feeble excuse for the allegations on secular activists that he makes in his post in the blog. How could PBM go on and give a commentary on something without being sure of the very fact, that the thing being commented upon is actually true.
So, very serious allegations of cooking up stories were raised against CJP and then when questioned, the reporter has chosen not to refer to these incidents at all in his rebuttal. If his source for the alleged cooking up of these incidents is the Gujarat government's statement, then it is only fair that he admit it.
Also, it is worth noting here that while the reporter and the Gujarat government have access to the SIT report, the CJP and the victims have not been provided with a copy of the same. The CJP is in the unenviable position of responding to selective quotations from the SIT report.
i am especially uncomfortable with the insinuation that Pratap may be an apologist for the Right. as someone who has followed his work for a very long time, this is absolutely not true. in fact, he is one of the few intellectuals who has managed to walk the non-partisan line, maintaining a rare integrity in his commitment only to his principles (in this case liberalism). in fact, one laments the fact that we have so few non-partisan public intellectuals. he might have made a mistake in this case, perhaps given teesta's remarkable history of unwavering commitment to secularism he should have been a bit more careful. there may yet be a duty to clarify (on IE blog) on Pratap's part, but very few intellectuals realise that politics is not always us-vs-them, rather it should be a battle for ideas. he is one of them. and valuable for that reason.
As regards the suggestion that Dr. Mehta's article reflects a bias or partisan view, a large part of me strongly feels that it shouldn't even be dignified with a response. Anyone who has read Dr. Mehta over the years will have to make little effort to see that he has, when necessary, criticized and commended those on opposite ends of the political spectrum. He's had the courage to take bold decisions out of principle (for instance, resigning from the NKC), and the ability to constructively reflect upon different political institutions and personalities. Dr. Mehta's article was hardly meant to "expose" Teesta, it was meant to emphasize that "the rule of law and the cause of truth should not be allowed to be subordinated to any ideology: communal or secular". How many of us can disagree this proposition of Dr. Mehta's?
Edward Said once wrote that: "Nothing... is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that adduce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial... you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult... to remain within the responsible mainstream...". We should feel very proud that Dr. Mehta is one of India's very few public intellectuals that lives up to Said's ideas and who, in Said's words, has the courage to "speak the truth to power".
I don't believe he needs to defend himself to anyone. Dr Mehta's work speaks for itself: he is reasoned, articulate and principled, and has been so for as long as I've been reading him.
In this case, my feeling is that the original report by Mahapatra itself did not stand up to scrutiny, on various counts. (And even less so after his "rebuttal" two days later). That's all.
The fallout of this whole episode seems to be this: plenty of people now believe the Kausar Banu murder was a "myth". Even if the SIT report does not make this case (and I have reason to believe it does not), the impression is now out there, and will remain.
All in all, it reminds me of the impression that has gained ground over several years, that the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts "caused" the 1992-93 Bombay riots. (Forgive a plug, but see my Just as Orwell predicted).
Madhav Khosla said:
Columnists don't collect and report data, they analyze and reflect on it.
Fair enough, but I think everybody who puts out anything for public consumption has a responsibility to check to their satisfaction data and information they use, and sometimes that means collecting it themselves. Basic journalism.
It doesn't mean you'll always get everything right. It means a certain integrity about what you write. I've seen plenty of opinion writers fail that standard.
But not Dr Mehta.
news items appear in one or two newspapers while they find no place
in other newspapers.Moreover sometimes newspapers carry exclusive stories which will not appear in other newspapers.The stories may be exclusive, but how true are they?. I wish PBM had checked the the facts before writing. I understand the difficulty in going through all newspapers and then trying to cull out the truth. Often national newspapers do not carry news that gets prominence in regional/vernacular newspapers and
vice versa.One comes to know of them only when some other magazine
writes about them later.In this case had there been a website of SIT it could have helped readers
to cross check the truth of the
news report.Perhaps a clarification from SIT would have been useful. I think in future SIT should issue press statements so that this sort of reporting does
not go unchecked.
Last week or so, some bloggers in
Tamil wrote about 150 bodies of Indian soldiers lying in Medical
College in Nungambakkam, Madras.
These soldiers had died in the war with LTTE in SriLanka.The news was
supposed to be based on a news story broken by a French news agency.But no such news was reported by any other news agency
or TV Channel. I cross checked and found it to be a hoax. Moreover as there was no medical college in Nungambakkam, its credibility was
doubtful.The news was a hoax but it was posted by many bloggers.
They took it to be true, because
they were of the view that India was fighting a war in Sri Lanka.
They did not bother to crosscheck because it fitted with their perceptions about India's role
in the ongoing conflict. So what we tend to accept as news often depends on our deeply held views and opinions on the issue.
I am juxtaposing this opinion of PBM with his earlier opinion on the Sonal Shah episode. When questions were raised about Ms. Shah's associations with the Hindu Right, PBM pointed out that this was innuendo and did not stand the test of scrutiny. Yet, in many ways, PBM did the same against Teesta based on "scurvy reports" (I stand by this assessment).
This is not a report card of PBM's credentials as myself and anyone else are familiar with his writings as a public intellectual. I find it problematic to reduce any questioning of views as a questioning of persona.
My larger point is that activists such as Teesta and her colleagues are engaging in a brave battle against communalism and against tremendous odds. The Gujarat riots happened and the happenings were violent, tragic and gory. PBM suggests (based on the reports) that the activists trumped up the incidents to a "pornography of violence". These were loose words considering the political and legal situation in the state. And coming from a public intellectual, those words and opinions will come under scrutiny. Please do not reduce this into an attack against persona.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=954c5708-79ee-47d0-8272-795b79946cd5&Headline=Gujarat+riots+witnesses+not+tutored%3a+SIT
* The Special Investigation Team (SIT) ... on Tuesday slammed reports that riots witnesses were tutored to give false evidence for exaggeration of the situation, by activists and organisations helping the victims.
* [T]he Supreme Court termed the leak as a "betrayal of the faith reposed in those to whom the report was allowed access".
* "The alleged reported leaks appear to be inspired by dubious motives. I cannot confirm such claims. The act is highly condemnable," [SIT chief] Raghavan said.
* The SIT sources said the alleged leaks appear to have been based on statements of state police officials and "cannot be termed as findings of the report."
Forgive me but the SIT statement as reported in the Hindustan Times only adds to the confusion. The way I read it (and please free to correct me), Mr. Raghavan appears to be taking aim at those who leaked the contents of the report. However, Mr. Raghavan does not say anything to firmly rebut the (alleged) contents of the report. Indeed, what he says is:
Asked about the leaked contents of the report, the SIT chief, R. K. Raghavan told Hindustan Times that he could not confirm whether the leaked contents were true.
“I am answerable only to the Supreme Court. The alleged reported leaks appear to be inspired by dubious motives. I cannot confirm such claims. The act is highly condemnable,” Raghavan said.The only firm rebuttal is from the "SIT sources" which is, however, unsubstantiated since the report is still not public. I hope the Supreme Court now makes the SIT report public. That is the only way of preventing further damage to the polity.
Lastly, I wonder why the Hindustan Times did not see fit to ask Mr. Raghavan why the report was shown to the Gujarat government (and also to the Times of India) when it was commissioned by the Supreme Court. Did the SIT show the report to the Gujarat government or was it the Supreme Court? Either way, inexplicable. If it was leaked, then isn't an inquiry warranted?
A final note: Why this great need for secrecy not only in this specific instance but in others too? A lot of times, it's totally misplaced. One of the most idiotic ones is the Henderson-Brooks report on the 1962 disaster. Given that Lt. Gen. Henderson-Brooks migrated to Australia, most researchers knew the contents of the report anyway (just by talking to the General) - and yet our government refuses to make the report public even now!
I too wish the report is made public. I suspect it will be a long wait. In the meantime, people firmly believe various crimes in Gujarat were made up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/Gujarat-riots-witnesses-not-tutored-SIT/Article1-402903.aspx
New Delhi, April 22, 2009
The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing major cases of 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat riots on Tuesday slammed reports that riots witnesses were tutored to give false evidence for exaggeration of the situation, by activists and organisations helping the victims. The SIT rebuttal followed the alleged leak of its report recently, which was submitted to the Supreme Court in March. “The findings of the report have concentrated on the investigations into the cases and it was not our business to indulge in the blame game and level allegations,” a senior SIT official said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3834&pg=1&mod=1§ionId=5