Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:52 am

...Not that it will stop the Isalaami-loving Fakularists to start yet another demand for the next "investigation".....

When it comes to respecting democracy and judiciary, Fakularists show the way.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:17 am

Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi TH11_THERN_MODI_1049741f

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3300175.ece?homepage=true

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:27 am

I met a key member of the SIT a few weeks back at some cocktail reception. The "clean chit" really refers to lack of reliable, actionable evidence of Modi's direct involvement. Left me thinking: Modi's complicity in this case is really about his asking the cops not to take any action against the rioters. What possible evidence can one rustle up to prove this in a court of law?? Particularly after the one top cop who blew the whistle on this now finds himself embroiled in all kinds of criminal cases and death threats...

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:37 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I met a key member of the SIT a few weeks back at some cocktail reception. The "clean chit" really refers to lack of reliable, actionable evidence of Modi's direct involvement. Left me thinking: Modi's complicity in this case is really about his asking the cops not to take any action against the rioters. What possible evidence can one rustle up to prove this in a court of law?? Particularly after the one top cop who blew the whistle on this now finds himself embroiled in all kinds of criminal cases and death threats...

And evidence of his complicity is in the public domain. When he made statements justifying the rioters' actions to the media, he was essentially signaling to both the police as well as the rioters the intent of his government -- that it saw the riots as a legitimate reaction to the Godhra train burning. Those statements exist, and I don't think he needed to do anything more formal in order to have contributed to those riots. Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots is similar to Rajiv Gandhi's complicity in the Delhi riots of 1984. In that case, I doubt any evidence can be found of Rajiv Gandhi telling the cops to not stop the rioters. He didn't need to -- the police knew which way the political wind was blowing.

by charvaka Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:59 am

Actually, a poster called Uppili on old CH from five years ago has a good response to Saamiyar.

Uppili: I totally believe all these [statements from Babu Bajrangi] and I remember reading these even 5 years back. I don't have have the slightest doubt that Modi, at the very least - looked the other way at least for the initial 3 days. The problem is the practical question of prosecuting.

http://newshopper.sulekha.com/politics_sting-op-nails--butcher-of-naroda-patiya---120961.htm

PS: They make it harder and harder to retrieve stuff from old CH. It's amazing that someone is actually working to make things worse over there.

by Kris Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:20 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I met a key member of the SIT a few weeks back at some cocktail reception. The "clean chit" really refers to lack of reliable, actionable evidence of Modi's direct involvement. Left me thinking: Modi's complicity in this case is really about his asking the cops not to take any action against the rioters. What possible evidence can one rustle up to prove this in a court of law?? Particularly after the one top cop who blew the whistle on this now finds himself embroiled in all kinds of criminal cases and death threats...

>>>>'Absence of evidence' is not 'evidence of absence', I guess. Given the low bar for a 'not guilty' finding (i.e. lack of sufficient credible evidence), isn't this pretty much the end of the case? I didn't quite understand the protocol of giving the complainant the report, which looms large in the article. Is that going to pave the way for more appeals? Assuming it does, aren't they back to the lack of credible evidence problem? Or is there a civil case possibility under Indian law? The US system allows that and guilt can be established with a majority jury vote ( I think), rather than the unanimous vote needed in a criminal trial. I don't know how this works in India, which does not have a jury system.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:08 am

charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:I met a key member of the SIT a few weeks back at some cocktail reception. The "clean chit" really refers to lack of reliable, actionable evidence of Modi's direct involvement. Left me thinking: Modi's complicity in this case is really about his asking the cops not to take any action against the rioters. What possible evidence can one rustle up to prove this in a court of law?? Particularly after the one top cop who blew the whistle on this now finds himself embroiled in all kinds of criminal cases and death threats...
And evidence of his complicity is in the public domain. When he made statements justifying the rioters' actions to the media, he was essentially signaling to both the police as well as the rioters the intent of his government -- that it saw the riots as a legitimate reaction to the Godhra train burning. Those statements exist, and I don't think he needed to do anything more formal in order to have contributed to those riots. Modi's complicity in the Gujarat riots is similar to Rajiv Gandhi's complicity in the Delhi riots of 1984. In that case, I doubt any evidence can be found of Rajiv Gandhi telling the cops to not stop the rioters. He didn't need to -- the police knew which way the political wind was blowing.

Linking the riots to Godhra in media interviews, alas, is not a prosecutable crime (the Most Important Freedom of Speech etc).

The case against Modi was entirely based on Sanjeev Bhatt's testimony that a day or so before the systematic massacres began, Modi called the top bureaucrats and officers for a law and order meeting at his residence and then told them that Hindus should be allowed to vent their anger. He didn't repeat that statement in subsequent law and order reviews.

However, during the SIT's investigations, all the other officers present at that first meeting disclaimed any memory of such a statement by the CM. The police wireless records during that critical period went missing - which alone should be grounds for an investigation and prosection. Another individual who corroborated Bhatt's testimony - Haren Pandya - died mysteriously. Hence the claim of lack of evidence. Of course, it's not as if the SIT was a team of crusading investigators -- a la Hackman and Dafoe in Mississippi Burning -- determined to get to the truth.

by scoutfinch Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:39 am

Reminds me of a Kabir doha(?): "I laugh when I see that the fish in the pond is thirsty."

These riots had the ignominy of being India's first televised riots. EVERYONE saw what happened. People like Harsh Mander resigned, and wrote copiously all over the press. There has to be enough and more circumstantial evidence to nail the guy.

by Sponsored content

Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi

Re: Sup Court-SIT gives a clean Chit to Modi