THE Gujarat Chief Minister, Mr Narendra Modi refused to respond to the summons of the Special Investigation Team and nor did he appear before it on March 21 for questioning by the SIT based on the FIR filed by Ms Zakia Jafri, the widow of Ehsan Jafri, Congress MP who died in the post-Godhra riots.
The FIR accuses Mr Modi and 62 others of conspiring for the massacre of February 28, 2002 in the Gulbarg Society in which her husband and 68 others were killed. If it did not manifest his acute contempt towards the SIT, it certainly reflected his nervousness and also lack of concern to unravel the bare facts behind the Gujarat carnage. During the last eleven months of functioning of the probe body several attempts were made to discredit and malign its image.
Due procedure of law demanded that Mr Modi should have informed the probe body well in advance about his inability or unwillingness, whichever was correct, to appear before it. It is a known fact that with the unearthing of significant evidence that the killings of Muslims in post-Godhra train carnage was ‘not a spontaneous swell of anger but a campaign of massacre’ planned and executed by forces directly and indirectly associated with affiliates of the Sangh Parivar with deliberate role of the Modi administration. It would have been tough for Mr Modi to face the queries from the SIT. After passing a resolution condemning the deaths of 58 people in the Godhra train carnage in the Gujarat Assembly on February 28, 2002, Mr Modi delivered a speech in the House describing the incident as a pre-planned terror conspiracy. How did he know that?
Maybe, his legal experts feel he was not bound to present himself before the SIT for questioning. But moral compulsions to depose were more valid and important. The senior BJP leader, Mr L K Advani had deposed before the Liberhan Commission probing the demolition of Babri Masjid. By appearing before the SIT, Mr Modi would have enhanced his own image, not only in the eyes of the people in Gujarat but all over the country. He would have challenged the stigma of conspirator that he carries. It is worth recalling that the Gujarat High Court on July 24, 2009 had given the SIT the go-ahead to question Mr Modi in connection with Godhra riots case, dismissing the petition challenging the SIT probe against him. In a way his decision not to appear before the SIT was an act of contempt against the Gujarat High Court.
Surprisingly, it was on March 20, a day ahead he was scheduled to appear before the SIT, Mr Modi dropped a hint that we would approach the Supreme Court against the SIT notice. This was a clever ploy to avoid embarrassment to the Supreme Court which had constituted the probe. If Mr Modi was sincere he should have gone to the apex court just after receiving the notice. In fact it was not a complicated affair. Already senior counsel, Mr Ram Jethmalani had challenged the April 2009 order of Supreme Court directing the SIT headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan to investigate the role of Mr Modi and summon him. Mr Modi should have joined the petition as intervener. But he did not even do that. No explanation can deny the fact that Mr Modi had planned to denigrate the probe body and frustrate the probe. By refusing to appear before the SIT, Mr Modi has turned more suspect in the eyes of the people. It would have been proper for Mr Modi to appear before the SIT and present his version. Mr Modi should realise that Ms Jafri in her petition has levelled serious charges against him. And only a judicial test of the veracity of her charge could help him restore his prestige and image.
