“The chain of circumstances and the details of evidence, post Godhra, establish that the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, and his cabinet colleagues had conspired, planned, prepared, organised and perpetrated multifarious crimes against the Muslim minority by causing and contriving to mobilise armed anti-Muslim mobs.”
Teesta Setalvad, one of India’s most prolific human-rights activist, is not one to mince words, and her autobiography, Foot Soldier of the Constitution: A Memoir is no different.
The book chronicles the three major communal riots that shaped India (1984 Bhiwandi riots, 1992-93 Ayodhya Riots, 2002 Godhra riots), her continuing fight for the rights of the victims of these riots and the consequences of going head-to-head with the Sangh Parivar, especially since 2014.
Personalising Politics
For a life so tumultuous, Teesta’s memoir reads easily.
She fills the first few pages of the book with colourful memories of her childhood days with her friends, siblings, parents and grandparents in Juhu. Her storytelling manages to hold on to a certain vulnerability even when it delves into her raison d'être – providing justice to the victims of the Godhra riots.
The 2002 Godhra Riots: Teesta Vs The Judiciary
The burning of the the Sabarmati Express in February 2002 by a group of Muslims, and the retaliatory violence by Hindus across Gujarat occupy center space in Teesta’s memoir, as in her life. Regarding the incident, she makes some strong allegations against the Gujarat state machinery of the time, based on her investigations.
In 2010, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court to look into her allegations filed its report. While Modi wasn’t exactly given a “clean chit”, the SIT said there was “not enough evidence was found to persecute him”. The Nanavati-Mehta Commission instituted by then-CM Modi in 2002 to look into the riots also filed its report in 2014, which found fault with the police on the counts of “negligence, connivance and abetment” but exonerated Modi and the State.
So where do some of the claims Teesta makes in her memoir stand against the verdict of the SIT?
1. Provocation to Riot
The SIT inquiry revealed that “there was in fact a discussion at Godhra on the final disposal of bodies [...]. This was during Narendra Modi’s visit to the town on the afternoon of 27 February, 2002. It was held at the collectorate. […] Apart from the district collector, the presence at least of Gordhan Zadaphiya (MoS, Home) and Jaideep Patel, VHP activist, has been confirmed.” (Pages 19-23, SIT Report to the SC; pages 2-3, Chairman’s Comments, SIT).
The SIT Closure Report (8.2.2012) also states that Jaideep Patel did indeed transport the dead bodies to Ahmedabad.
2. Deliberate Inaction
Law and order review meetings were held by Modi and all the things was done to control the situation... the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence. [...] The chief minister said that relief and rehabilitation measures were initiated immediately and compensation packages were announced and implemented.Excerpts from the SIT report
3. Organised Mobilisation of Mobs
The Nanavati-Mehta Commission called the Godhra train carnage a “pre-planned conspiracy” instigated by a group of Muslim men who clashed with a Hindu group at the before the incident.
However, no direct link was established between Modi and the riots, though his involvement in exacerbating the communal rift was duly noted: “The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” (Page 67 of SIT 2010 report to SC) As for the meeting where high level officers were allegedly instructed to let the Hindus “vent” their anger in backlash, the SIT dismisses it, ruling that the key witness, Sanjiv Bhatt, wasn’t even present in that meeting: a false testimony.
Further, even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence.An excerpt from the SIT report
4. Using Media to Convey Communal Propaganda
According to the SIT report, despite detailed reports recommending strict action submitted to Modi by field officers of the State Intelligence Bureau, Modi as Home Minister failed to take action against a section of the print media that was publishing communally-inciting reports. This worsened communal situation further. (Page 79, SIT Report to SC)
5. Subversion of the Criminal Justice System
The SIT chairman (R K Raghavan) comments that “it has been found that a few of the past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling party or organisations sympathetic to it.” (Page 10 of the chairman’s comments to SIT report to SC). Additionally, the report also adds :“No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.”
However, the conclusion was Modi did everything he could to control the riots; the SIT even questioned the rationale of a riot victim, Zakia Jafri, filing a case against him four years after the violence.
Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy. In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against Narendra Modi.An excerpt from the SIT report
‘Being Their Target’
Teesta is no stranger to controversy. From pressurising and tutoring eye witnesses, to pocketing funds collected in the name of a memorial for the Gulbarg Society massacre and the 2002 riot victims, to receiving $290,000 from the Ford Foundation in non-compliance with the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act – she has been blamed for it all and then some. A few weeks ago, the CBI filed a chargesheet against her for taking foreign funds without the approval of the Home Ministry.
She addresses and refutes them all in her book. Not with facts and numbers, but by describing the effect of what she calls a deliberate victimisation on her personal and professional life.
For Teesta, however, these allegations are just curveballs being thrown at her by those who were complicit in the massacre in 2002 and are now in power.
Her fight has always been a bigger one. Her book, Foot Soldier of the Constitution: A Memoir, only serves to reiterate her version of what happened in and after 2002, in a collated, accessible document for posterity.
(With inputs from The Indian Express)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)