CM Narendra Modi was
a main actor in the carnage eight years back
AS
A politician, Gujarat State Chief Minister Narendra Modi may be looking bold
after facing the Special Investigation Team (SIT), but factually, he can’t be
so, provided questioned seriously for more than nine hours. Whether the method
of questioning to CM Narendra Modi was same as could be adopted for a person
holding position like him?
To
my mind, by way of questioning or cross-examination of the accused regarding
his all movements during the period, background, ideology etc then cross
checking his statement with the statements of his other accomplices to find out
omissions and commissions and again repeating the process, to bring the truth
on surface, is not difficult. Though the process is very time consuming and
lengthy and can not be a success without impartial action and expertise
knowledge.
CM
Narendra Modi was a main actor in the carnage eight years back.
Questioning
him on the above lines i.e. ‘by way of questioning or cross-examination of the
accused regarding his all movements during the period, background, ideology etc
then cross checking his statement with the statements of his other accomplices to
find out omissions and commissions and again repeating the process, to bring
the truth on surface, is not difficult’.
In
fact, nine hours period for questioning to Modi by the Special Investigation
Team (SIT) was very less and nothing for the purpose in this case.
As
a lawyer, I am always of the opinion that certainly truth could be brought out
on surface without any bodily torture. I also realized many a times as to how I
might have tortured mentally by way of questioning or cross-examination in the
court to the persons who complained me without any grudge considering that was
my professional duty in order to bring truth on surface for justice for my
client.
SIT
Chief R.K. Raghavan was also not present in his office when Mr. Modi appeared.
The media, who earlier started raising hue and cry regarding the delay and the
injustice in similar cases in the country and openly said the process adopted
for summoning Modi for investigation by SIT is only eyewash, was also moderate
later on or was asked to keep quite, when Modi was back at SIT office for
further questioning i.e. for remaining part of the drama.
A
congress leader as spokesman heard saying, “We are not interested in the
out-come of the investigation, but legal process be completed and words to that
effect.” The protest on the part of BJP for questioning CM Modi in the manner
by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was also negligible and that all was
clearly indicating that both parties (BJP & Congress) are hands in glove,
not only in this case, otherwise also, they are one and the same thing, and the
minorities were being befooled in India, leaving them at the mercy of God.
Now,
if someone concludes that Chief Minister Narendra Modi was bold being clean or
not guilty must be taken wrongly and suspiciously and the entire process being
followed as a part of high level enacted and stage managed big drama in this
case as eyewash.
After
watching the news for about one and half hour, the picture was clear about the
drama, and I sent an email on March 27, 2010 2:06 PM (IST), “Was the
questioning by the Supreme court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) to
CM Modi now after eight years only in connection with a complaint of Zakia
Jaffery, widow of former Congress MP Eshan Jaffery, who was killed in Gulbarg society
massacre (riots) case of 2002 that he (then also CM Modi) had instructed
officers not to take action, to be considered an eyewash as reports are pouring
in so far?”
Chief
Minister Narendra Modi and the Supreme court-appointed Special Investigation Team
(SIT) ???
SIT
Chief Parries Questions on Narendra Modi's Claim:
Was
there any patch up about fixing next date of hearing, replacing the summons
with a letter asking Narendra Modi to appear on March 27, 2010 when he,
intentionally and deliberately, failed to appear on March 21, 2010 before the
Special Investigation Team (SIT) as it appears?
If
answer is yes, then who were the parties to the patch up business and for
getting issued the letter for a fresh date i.e. March 27, 2010 for the presence
of Modi for questioning him?
Did
the influence and pressure apply only for seeking adjournment to the next date
and changing summons into letter or and the influence and pressure as a
business also worked beyond it?
Whether
after questioning Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi for more than nine hours
in two sessions, the entire case also likely to remain unactioned without going
into its history?
No-doubt,
whatever the Supreme Court says is law.
Is
the prosecution story always not based on the investigation conducted by the
investigating officer (I.O.) and even the Supreme Court can not make any
additions of its own in the story while deciding the case under the law?
Whether
the questionnaire was prepared by the SIT or by the Supreme court in this case?
Obviously,
it may be the task of the SIT only.
Can
all these queries not to be answered openly and be made part of the
investigation being conducted by SIT in this case?
Investigating
Modi is merely an eyewash
Updated:
Commissions
of injustice
Khushwant
Singh About Modi
Saturday,
April 3, 2010
“Then
we had pogroms of Muslims in Gujarat, following the burning of a rail coach
along with passengers at the Godhra railway station in 2002. Over 2,000
innocent Muslims, including a former MP, were killed.
There
is plenty of recorded evidence made through a sting operation by Tehalka that
Modi himself gave the green signal to vandals to do what they liked to Muslims
for three days, and teach them a lesson without bothering about the police.
Goondas took the law into their own hands and went on a killing spree.
No
action was taken against Modi, who had a stout protector in LK Advani because
Advani depended on Modi to return him to Parliament.
Instead,
Modi was praised for his good administration and as a promoter of industry.
Ratan Tata shifted his Nano-manufacturing plant from West Bengal to Gujarat.
Other industrialists lauded him for containing trade unions.”
By
Balbir Singh Sooch
No comments:
Post a Comment