Nanavati-Mehta Commission Quotes

“Wikipedia: Nanavati-Mehta Commission”

“The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati Express train from Dahod to Ahmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of theirs an inquiry was held by the Government and they have been dismissed from service.”

“227. On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach.”

“Till July, 2002 neither the Jan Sangharsh Manch, nor the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee, nor anyone else had suggested that the Godhra incident had not happened in the manner reported by the media and as stated by the State government and others including the concerned railway personnel and the passengers...”

““All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy,” concluded the Nanavati Report. “The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.””

“Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice A.H. Mehta (“Nanavati Report”)https://web.archive.org/web/20150501003240/http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf”

“This report has established that a group of Kashmiri terrorists of Jammu & Kashmir in collaboration with Pakistan’s ISI and some Muslim fundamentalists of Godhra hatched and executed this conspiracy in order to push the country into a communal cauldron. As documented by the Nanavati Commission , some of the leading accused and convicted turned out to be Congressmen of Godhra.”

“It is easy to see why the Nanavati Report was frowned upon by Citizens for Justice and Peace, namely Activist Teesta Setalvad who asked the Supreme Court “to restrain the Gujarat Government from acting upon, circulating and publishing this report.” Fortunately on October 13, 2008, the highest court sharply turned down the petition, thus making the testimonies and inquiries available to all.”

“But from day one of its appointment, the Congress Party and its allied NGOs attacked the Commission and questioned the integrity of the appointed judge. They alleged that the Godhra incident was due to government’s failure or complicity, not a planned attack by Muslims. The Commission was reconstituted .... But even the appointment of Justice Nanavati became a target of wild aspersions by Congress-supported NGOs, even though the judge had not been arbitrarily chosen by Modi.”

“Merely because the police was not aware about the return journey of Karsevaks from Ayodhya, it would not follow therefrom that no one had known about their return journey from Ayodhya. Anyone who wanted to know about it could have obtained that information easily. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that there was no scope for any conspiracy, as the alleged conspirators did not know that Karsevaks were going to return from Ayodhya by that train. VHP had already announced earlier its plan of taking Ramsevaks to Ayodhya for the 'Purnahuti Maha Yagna'.”

“On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach. All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.”

“224. It is rightly pointed out by the Jan Sangharsh Manch that there was no prior information with the police and the authorities at Gandhinagar regarding the return journey of the Karsevaks from Ayodhya as can be gathered from the evidence of Mahobatsinh Zala (W-17), Raju Bhargav (W-31), DGP K.A. Chakravarti, Addl. DGP R.B. Shreekumar (W-995) and Ashok Narayanan, Chief Secretary, Home Department (W-994). Under the circumstances prevailing then, movements of Karsevaks was not a matter of concern. That appears to be the reason, why the police had not thought it necessary to keep itself informed about (171) their movements.”

“On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a conspiracy to burn coachS/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach. All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.”

“226. Ranjitsinh Jodhabhai Patel and Prabhatsinh Gulabsinh Patel serving at Kalabhai's petrol pump were present at the petrol pump on 26.2.2002 at about 10.00 p.m. Both of them have stated that at about that time Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had come there and told Prabhatsinh to give them about 140 litres of petrol. Petrol was filled in the carboys which were brought in a tempy rickshaw. Prabhatsinh has further stated that Jabir Binyamin, Shaukat Lalu and Salim Jarda had come in the tempy. Both these witnesses have explained in their statements why they had earlier told the police that they had not given loose petrol to any one in a carboy on 26.2.2002.”

“There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any definite religious or political organization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who had participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the heinous act of setting coach S/6 on fire.”

“The determination of the mob to cause mass killings is evident from the account of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) B.R. Simpi (Witness-25). When he reached the site of accident from Vadodara at about 11a.m., he saw a mob of about 2,000 to 2,500 persons near Ali Masjid. He testified, that they were “shouting slogans which had the effect of hurting the religious feelings of the other community,” and heard announcements like Islam khatre me hai, Maro, kato ( Islam is in danger, let us cut them up and kill them)– coming from loud speakers of the Ali Masjid. He had to order firing in order to control this aggressive mob calling for the murder of more Hindus.”

“All these three persons have retracted their (175) confessions but that by itself is not a good ground for throwing them out of consideration. When considered along with other facts proved by the evidence details given by this accused regarding the manner in which coach S/6 was burnt appear to be true. These confessions disclose that Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala were the two main persons who had organized execution of the plan and that what was being done was according to what was planned earlier and the directions of Maulvi Umarji. All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.”

“My idea was to bring out whatever lapses occurred either by way of decision-making or in the implementation of orders in both these cases. That would help us learn from our mistakes. Justice Nanavati is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. I did not handpick him but I asked the Supreme Court to suggest names. They named Nanavati because he had headed the Commission of Inquiry into the 1984 riots. I personally didn’t know Justice Nanavati. I took whatever name was suggested by the Supreme Court because I wanted this enquiry to be done through a proper judicial process. In fact, I even added in its terms of reference that all the charges against me should also be examined. If I wanted to escape scrutiny, why would I appoint a commission to probe charges against me? They had given a memorandum to the President against me. I handed over to the Nanavati Commission the entire list of charges they had listed in their memorandum. And yet, they went hammer and tongs at me.”

“228. The confessions of Jabir Binyamin Behra, Shaukat alias Bhano son of Faruk Abdul Sattar and Salim alias Salman son of Yusuf Sattar Jarda have also been placed before the Commission for its consideration. Jabir Behra had made a confession before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchmahal District under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The confessions of Shaukat and Salim were recorded under the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. It was contended by the Jan (173) Sanghars Manch that the Commission should not consider the confessions of the accused as the findings that may be recorded by this Commission are likely to cause prejudice to the accused in the trial which is pending before the Sessions Court. This objection was raised at an earlier stage of inquiry and it was rejected by passing an order. …. The inquiry before by the Commission is a fact finding inquiry and therefore, the Commission can look into and consider any piece of evidence for finding out the correct facts provided it is satisfied about its correctness. (174)”

“229. The Commission is required to consider the role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers other individuals and organizations in the Godhra incident (i) in dealing with any political or non-political organization which may be found to have been involved in the Godhra incident and also (ii) in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots and (iii) in the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission from time to time. There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police offices had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any definite religious (176) or political organization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who had participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the heinous act of setting coach S/6 on fire.”