<p>The details of the final report of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which investigated the killing of a former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri and many others in the Gulberg Society compound in Ahmedabad as part of the post-Godhra communal riots are available now, but the interpretations of the events connected with the massacre and the conclusions drawn from them by the SIT are not entirely convincing. The SIT has exonerated chief minister Narendra Modi of charges that he ignored SoS requests from Jafri and had told senior officers of the police and the administration that Hindus should be allowed to vent their anger against Muslims. The court’s amicus curie, Raju Ramachandran, after going through the SIT’s report and making independent investigations, had actually recommended prosecution of Modi.<br /> <br />There are serious discrepancies and even contradictions between SIT’s earlier report of 2010 and the final closure report. There are also differences between statements made by important witnesses before judicial commissions and the SIT. Some witnesses changed their statements and this went in favour of Modi. The SIT does not seem have questioned the changes. This was particularly relevant about a meeting Modi held with senior officers where he is alleged to have told them to go slow in responding to the riots. Though the SIT has rejected the claim of a police officer, Sanjay Bhatt, that he was present at the meeting and that Modi made the alleged remarks, the rejection is not completely convincing. The SIT also makes an unacceptable observation in this context. It says that even if Modi made the remarks ‘’within the four walls of a room’’ it would not constitute an offence. Did the SIT feel that its denials would not be convincing? How could it in any case think that the chief minister’s remarks could not influence the conduct of the officers? Laxity in actions was very much evident in how they dealt with the riots.<br /><br />The SIT was set up by the Supreme Court to make an impartial enquiry into the Gujarat riot cases. But its report does not clear all doubts and suspicions about the role of Narendra Modi and some senior officials in the cases. The magisterial court in Ahmedabad has yet to accept or reject the report. It has given a copy of the report to Ehsan Jafri’s widow whose views the court will have to consider. So no final word can yet be said on Modi’s guilt.</p>
<p>The details of the final report of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which investigated the killing of a former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri and many others in the Gulberg Society compound in Ahmedabad as part of the post-Godhra communal riots are available now, but the interpretations of the events connected with the massacre and the conclusions drawn from them by the SIT are not entirely convincing. The SIT has exonerated chief minister Narendra Modi of charges that he ignored SoS requests from Jafri and had told senior officers of the police and the administration that Hindus should be allowed to vent their anger against Muslims. The court’s amicus curie, Raju Ramachandran, after going through the SIT’s report and making independent investigations, had actually recommended prosecution of Modi.<br /> <br />There are serious discrepancies and even contradictions between SIT’s earlier report of 2010 and the final closure report. There are also differences between statements made by important witnesses before judicial commissions and the SIT. Some witnesses changed their statements and this went in favour of Modi. The SIT does not seem have questioned the changes. This was particularly relevant about a meeting Modi held with senior officers where he is alleged to have told them to go slow in responding to the riots. Though the SIT has rejected the claim of a police officer, Sanjay Bhatt, that he was present at the meeting and that Modi made the alleged remarks, the rejection is not completely convincing. The SIT also makes an unacceptable observation in this context. It says that even if Modi made the remarks ‘’within the four walls of a room’’ it would not constitute an offence. Did the SIT feel that its denials would not be convincing? How could it in any case think that the chief minister’s remarks could not influence the conduct of the officers? Laxity in actions was very much evident in how they dealt with the riots.<br /><br />The SIT was set up by the Supreme Court to make an impartial enquiry into the Gujarat riot cases. But its report does not clear all doubts and suspicions about the role of Narendra Modi and some senior officials in the cases. The magisterial court in Ahmedabad has yet to accept or reject the report. It has given a copy of the report to Ehsan Jafri’s widow whose views the court will have to consider. So no final word can yet be said on Modi’s guilt.</p>