[Reader-list] Teesta Setalvad cooked up macabre tales on Gujarat Riots : SIT

[Anuj Bhuwania]

Dear all,

It is perhaps worth noting that the only newspaper that reported the
Court proceedings in such terms, is the  Times of India and its sister
publication Economic Times. Please find pasted below Teesta Setalvad's
rebuttal to this Times of India news report quoted already in the
first email posted on this thread.

Best,
anuj

Rebuttal  to the Times of India report,  dated April 14, 2009:

The report in The Times of India, Mumbai edition dated April 14, 2009,
reportedly also published prominently in all its other editions
titled, ‘NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riots cases: SIT’ is a 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 SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan told the Supreme
Court on Monday…” reads the opening para of the report. The fact is
that neither Sri Raghavan, nor any other SIT member was present at the
apex court to “tell” it anything. Sri Dhananjay Mahapatra’s report
could only be referring to a contention made in a four page note
circulated by Ms Hemantika Wahi for the Gujarat Government. (A copy of
the same is annexed). It was not a note prepared by SIT. The report is
all the more shocking since Sri Mahapatra was present in the court and
could not be unaware of this.

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, Mukul Rohatgi tried to make a populist 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 newspaper 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 be highlighted by you in a box
though the word length goes over your report.

Pertinent issues ignored in the report:

    * 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.





On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> The fact of the matter is that even official statistics show that more than
> 1,000 died in these 'riots', if one were to call them that. However, a riot
> is not organized but is a spontaneous reaction to an event or a chain of
> events which took place. This was a well planned genocide, for there were
> people talking on mobiles directing people to attack at various places,
> police was sleeping or not functioning, the RAF could not be contacted as
> telephone lines were cut, and interestingly even many people are registered
> as missing even now, 7 years after the gory incidents.
>
> Every time one talks about these, Godhra is mentioned. Was anybody raped in
> Godhra? Was anybody taunted in Godhra? Weren't the VHP workers creating
> problems for other passengers by occupying reserved seats? What were they
> doing occupying reserved seats while having unreserved tickets for
> themselves? Why was it so that a certain number of passengers could not be
> identified days after the incident? Why was no official railway inquiry
> ordered within 48 hours of the incident by the Railway Ministry, as is often
> the case when any incident pertaining to this ministry takes place?
>
> Nobody answers these questions.
>
> Then about avenging Godhra. Even if one were to logically look at it, why
> should Godhra be avenged in Gujarat? It should be avenged in Godhra only
> (logically looking from the anguished ones' angle). Why was it required to
> target Ahmedabad Muslims for what happened in Godhra? Did these Muslims go
> and do it there? Or did they support their activities?
>
> And how are rapes justified as avenging Godhra? If that is the case, then
> wouldn't a Muslim who lost everything in such 'riots' be justified in
> avenging it by raping the mother/sister of some member of this forum
> (including me) just because he/she is a Hindu? Is that right?
>
> Teesta Satalvad or no Teesta Satalvad, what is required is punishment of the
> perpetrators in the strongest terms to set an example before the society
> that those who indulge in such violence would get what they deserve and
> shouldn't expect any mercy. It should act as a case of impartial justice
> delivered in the quickest possible time. And if Godhra accused can be put
> under POTA, all those involved in such killings anywhere and anytime should
> be punished under UAPA.
>
> I hope that the SIT achieves this to a certain extent, and I would like to
> look at the report before making any remarks. Newspaper clippings and media
> have a sense to distort the entire thing, and even a portion or paragraph
> can be cited to change the context in which the comments were put up. I
> think the report is confidential as the matter is sub-judice. However, if
> the report is available, please do inform me (and indeed all of us) for the
> same.
>
> And for me, justice is more important, irrespective of there is Teesta or no
> Teesta; Pawan Durani or no Pawan Durani; Aditya Raj Kaul or no Aditya Raj
> Kaul, Rakesh Iyer or no Rakesh Iyer.
>
> And as a society, that is the goal we must strive towards, not Ram
> Mandir/Babri Masjid, not SEZ's or interlinking of rivers or other such
> faulty schemes, not temples of Modern India or huge dams, but means to
> improve livelihood of people and securing justice for them.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>