Modi let off the hook

I suspected some design when the Justice Nanavati Commission submitted only a part of the inquiry report on what was known as the Godhara incident. I could see the contents written on the face of a gleeful Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in a photograph at the time of the report's presentation. It was clear that Modi had been exonerated.

Was it necessary for Justice Nanavati to suggest this or even release a part of the report if he did not want to favour Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party? Nanavati has clarified after heavy criticism that his first report was confined only to the burning of Sabarmati Express coach.

He has said that he did not give a clean chit to Modi or his government and that he was still working on the rioting after the Godhara incident. Why should the Nanavati Commission which has had as many as 16 extensions submit an incomplete report? There was no pressure on the commission. Then why hurry with it?

It looks as if Nanavati is a party to the travesty of justice: separating the report into two parts when it should have been one.

True, the BJP and Modi wanted it that way. But I cannot comprehend why Nanavati has done so. He knows that nobody can condone the killing of some 2,000 Muslims, not even his Commission. The ethnic cleansing in Gujarat has been recorded visually and there are many witnesses and documents to corroborate it. Is his compulsion on the second part the reason for splitting the report?

Maybe, Nanavati has a point. But he has already held local Muslims guilty of "conspiracy" for burning the coach. The manner in which he has exonerated Modi and his officials suggests that Nanavati was discussing the Gujarat carnage, not the burning of the coach. Since the full report will be ready only by the end of the year, this gives an opportunity to Modi and the BJP to go to town on what Nanavati has already said and exploit the findings in November assembly elections in five states.

Massacre of Muslims

It was clear that Nanavati was more or less repeating the version which Modi and the BJP had projected to provide an alibi for the massacre of the Muslims soon after 59 kar sevaks (Hindu volunteers) were burnt alive in the compartment that was set to fire. The report released by Nanavati is no different. He too says the fire was "a pre-planned conspiracy" by local Muslims. Justice Nanavati has also ruled out the involvement of any religious or political organisation, exonerating the BJP, the Bajrang Dal and the likes.

The version which Nanavati has relied upon is in stark contrast to what another Supreme Court judge, Justice U.C. Bannerjee, had reported. According to him - he was appointed by the Railways - the fire was not ignited from outside the coach but from within it, either by accident or design. Bannerjee has repeated his findings even after Nanavati's report.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed by the Supreme Court to reinvestigate the riots, is still at work. Nanavati should have waited till it had given its report. By not doing so, Justice Nanavati, himself from the Supreme Court, has only shown scant respect to the Supreme Court. Even the petition challenging the Bannerjee Committee's findings is still pending before the state high court. Should Nanavati have still gone ahead?

The conflicting reports, one by Justice Bannerjee and the other by Justice Nanavati, bring no credit to the judiciary. Had such a thing happened at the level of the two judges in a subordinate court, the high court would have taken them to task. I cannot say anything more but I do feel intrigued by the spectacle when the judges involved are from the Supreme Court.

It is obvious that Nanavati wanted to favour Gujarat, the state which appointed him to head the inquiry commission. He knows he cannot but criticise the state in the post-Godhara report. Did he intentionally separate the two incidents, which are really one?

Since the first report is favourable to the state, he let it go as if it was independent of the other. Legally, there is nothing wrong in releasing the report in parts. But ethically, it is not correct because people are now expected to make up their mind on the basis of partial report.

I have a nagging feeling that the post-Godhara report, which is bound to hold Modi and the Gujarat administration guilty, and corroborate the thesis that there was a prior plan to cleanse the state ethnically will be released after the general elections which are due early next year. Wittingly or unwittingly, Nanavati has helped Modi and his party.

The Jan Sangarsh Manch (JSM), a Gujarat NGO, is the first to react to the submission of incomplete report. It has criticised the Nanavati Commission for being hasty in giving an incomplete report to the state government. The JSM's convenor, S.H. Iyer, has questioned the urgency of the partial report. He asks: "Don't the thousands of victims of the post-Godhara riots have any right to know why their lives and property were destroyed? And which minister, politician, police officer or organisation was responsible for the massacres."

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the UK and a former Rajya Sabha MP.