Did your questions concern the allegations of Mr. Modi having had a direct role in some of the incidents of mass killing which occurred in Gujarat in 2002? Or were they also about his indirect role, via the breakdown of law and order and failure of his administration to prevent the violence?
I'm afraid I cannot be more specific as the information is privileged. We essentially went by the Jaffrey petition issues.
One of the questions raised by that petition was who took the decision to bring the bodies of the Godhra incident victims to Ahmedabad and to allow the Vishwa Hindu Parishad publicly to parade them. In your view, why is this question relevant? Did the SIT get a satisfactory explanation?
Since this is also privileged information, I'm afraid it would not be fair for me to comment on it.
...
Did Mr. Modi agree to furnish details about his personal phone records, movement log books, diary entries etc. so that the SIT could establish some sense of who all he might have been in contact with during that time, including details of his security cover during the carnage? There are, for example, reports he dispensed with his security for two hours on Feb. 28, 2002.
I won't comment on this, as this is a sensitive part of an ongoing inquiry.
Did the SIT specifically ask Mr. Modi about Zakia Jaffrey's charge that her husband, Ehsan Jaffrey, had called him up to ask for help on February 28 2002, and that Mr. Modi had abused him? What was his answer? Also, the SIT has said in the Gulberg mass murder case that the Jaffrey phone records are missing and may have been destroyed. Was Mr. Modi asked about whether he has any knowledge of this as CM and Home Minister?
I have no idea. But even if I knew Mr. Modi's responses, I cannot disclose anything.
And so on.
Siddharth Varadarajan's interview with R.K.Raghavan, head of the SIT that questioned Narendra Modi on Saturday.
2 comments:
I don't see why Raghavan should have agreed to give this interview, given that the matter is sub judice and he was not even present at Modi's questioning. Given the impropriety, in my opinion, of agreeing to the interview in the first place, I suppose this is the best he could have done. But why did the Hindu then publish it? They're becoming a laughing-stock.
true. it makes for very frustrating reading.
Post a Comment