Date: 23/02/2015
Re: TEESTA SETALVAD & HER HUSBAND JAVED AHMED
In a message dated 23/02/2015 18:20:18 GMT Standard Time, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Wish this lady goes to Jail for all the crimes she perpetuated. Unfit to even get bail.
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:51 PM
UNTOLD TRUTH WHICH THE PRESS HAS NOT REVEALED SO FAR AND MUST DO SO IN FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE TO BRING OUT THE FULL DETAILS ON THE COMMUNAL ACTIVISTS, TEESTA SETALVAD & HER HUSBAND, JAVED .
BY NICOLE ELFI DISTORTION & APPROPRIATION, MEDIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
Note: This is a postscript to The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction, July 2013, by the same author (written originally in October 2014.)
In May this year (2014), the people of India chose their Prime Minister. Over twelve years, several inquiry commissions — the Tewatia Committee (2010), the Nanavati Commission (2008), the Special Investigation Team (2011) under the Supreme Court — cleared Narendra Modi of all charges of having masterminded or, at least, encouraged the Godhra riots.[1] Still, his detractors — politicians and ideology-driven activists in India, the US and Europe — have continued to label him “merchant of death”, “butcher”, “Nazi”, “fascist”, “murderer”, etc.
Let us examine the facts and see whether they can point to the riot’s real mastermind.
The Role of Muslim Congress Members
On 27 February 2002, when a coach of Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya went up in flames at Godhra railway station, a Congress member of the Godhra municipality, Haji Balal, led a mob and stopped the fire-fighting vehicle on its way to the station. The fire crew reported that “he had been visiting the fire station at night for the past few days on the pretext of watching films on television.” Haji Balal, a few days earlier, had the clutch plates of one of the main fire-fighting vehicles removed; in the second vehicle, the nut connecting the pipe to the water tank was spirited away.[2]
Haji Balal who, according to locals, proudly proclaimed himself the “Bin Laden of Godhra”, is among eleven people convicted for criminal conspiracy and murder and sentenced to death by a special fast track court in the high-security Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad on 22 February 2011.[3]
Other Congress members were also “booked for the carnage”.[4] The attack on the pilgrims was carried out “according to what was planned earlier under the directions of [the late] Maulvi Umarji”,[5] a religious leader of the Ghanchi Muslims of Godhra.[6] “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.”[7]
“Destabilise the Administration”: Narendra Modi had assumed office as Gujarat Chief Minister on 7 October 2001, four months earlier. Incidentally, Maulvi Umarji got a ticket to campaign for the Congress in December 2002 state election in Gujarat.
In order to quickly gather a crowd of angry Muslims to the Godhra station and attack the train, so that no one would guess who was pouring petrol in the S6 and S7 coaches, rumours that a Ghanchi Muslim girl had been abducted by the Kar Sevaks were spread by the Jamiat-Ulema-E-Hind (JUH), a long-standing ally of the Congress.[8]
http://indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jamiatul-ulema-e-hind-karnataka-condemns-RSS-leader-statement.jpg
From the start of the crisis, Narendra Modi appealed to the people to remain calm and exert self-control. On five occasions between 27 and 28 February, “CM addressed Media, Assembly and General public and everywhere the genesis and intention was one and the same, to punish the culprits responsible for the Godhra incident in an exemplary manner, so that it did not recur ever again.”[9] He announced an ex-gratia payment of 200,000 rupees to the next of kin of those killed in the Godhra incident and ordered a high-level inquiry into the incident.[10]
On 1st March, less than two days after the tragedy and while riots were raging, Modi requested the chief secretaries of neighbouring states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan to send ten companies of armed police from each state to assist the government in “handling law and order situation”. As the sociologist and author Madhu Kishwar points out,[11] all three states then had Congress governments, and all three turned down the request.
The Campaign
Let us recall that the BJP-led NDA alliance had been in power at the Centre since 1998, confirmed by fresh elections in 1999. A 15-million-rupee campaign by journalist-activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, funded by the Congress Party and Communists to “politically isolate the BJP”,[12] failed to convince the Indian people, who voted the BJP to power. And the crusaders had to swallow the obvious — that the streets of India remained peaceful during the NDA regime.[13]
They however found a fertile ground in the US, especially with the evangelical lobbies.[14] On 1st April 2002 Teesta Setalvad created “Citizens for Justice and Peace” (CJP), an NGO “outsourced by the Congress to the job of attacking Modi”, as Madhu Kishwar put it.[15] The activists approached the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a U.S. government-funded body, with known roots in the evangelical movement, whose “original intention was to protect Christians around the world … to review facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally — and to make policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and the Congress”.[16] Testifying before the USCIRF, Teesta Setalvad alleged that the BJP had conducted:
successful pogroms and attacks against the countries religious minorities, … recent state-sponsored Genocide of the Muslim Community in Gujarat … Brutal destruction of life, through rape, quartering of bodies, urinating on them and incarcerating [sic] them so that there is no trace or evidence of their remains … desecrating over 270 religious and cultural shrines belonging to the community … through systematic planning and targeted action by armed militias ideologically driven by the vision of a supreme and exclusive Hindu rashtra (state). … Over 2,000 lost their lives, 500 are missing and 250-300 girls and women were gang-raped before being quartered, burned and killed.[17]
This “testimony” from India is what fed countless self-styled human rights organizations and intellectuals in India and in the West. They drank in Setalvad’s words and regurgitated them as articles and “reports” with a plethora of gory details.
http://indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Waiting4.jpg
As regards the number of riot victims, invariably quoted in thousands, the then Police Commissioner P.C. Pande, in a statement to the Special Investigating Team, declared,
… it was incorrect to say that 1000 people lost their lives in Ahmedabad City during the riots of 2002, whereas the actual number of deaths between February 28th 2002 and April 30th 2002 was 442, of whom 113 were Hindus and 329 Muslims. … All offences committed were duly and properly registered including by sending police officers to relief camps and therefore, no important crime remained unregistered.[18]
According to the Congress-led UPA government’s statement in Parliament on 11 May 2005, the final figures of those killed in the Godhra riots are 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.[19] In any case, the endlessly repeated figure of “2000 Muslim victims” has no basis in actual fact.
The SIT and Sanjeev Bhatt
Facts cannot so easily be wished away. And they were nailed by the Nanavati Report and the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chief R.K. Raghavan in response to a petition filed by Jakia Nasim, Ehsan Jafri’s[20] widow, and Teesta Setalvad, which alleged criminal conspiracy by Narendra Modi’s government.[21] Jakia Nasim’s testimony before the Nanavati Commission and Supreme Court in 2002 and 2003 was that “the mob would have lynched all of them but for the timely action by the police”. Four years later, her praise turned into complaint — except that the poor lady was not even aware of what she complained or petitioned about: “She has no personal knowledge of the allegations mentioned in the affidavits filed by R.B. Sreekumar during the years 2002, 2004 and 2005 on his own”, said the SIT.[22]
Let us explain: The SIT, appointed on 23 March 2008, investigated two retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, one of them being R.B. Sreekumar just mentioned, to whom we will shortly return. The second one, Sanjeev Bhatt, then Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence in the Gujarat government, claimed after years of silence that he was present at a law and order meeting convened by the Chief Minister on 27 February night at his residence. At this meeting, which lasted 15-20 minutes, Sanjeev Bhatt claims that the Chief Minister said that “for too long the Gujarat police had been following the approach of balancing the action against Hindus and Muslims … that the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson, … it was imperative that Hindus be allowed to vent out their anger….”[23]
http://indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Waiting5.jpg
As it turned out, none of the officials present even remembered the presence of Sanjeev Bhatt. Interrogated independently later, they denied any such talk by the Chief Minister, who, they asserted, said instead that the Godhra flare-up was very unfortunate and should be handled with a firm hand. The discussions centred around maintenance of law and order in view of the call for a bandh on the next day and the availability of forces. Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P.C. Pandey categorically stated that no instructions to allow any freedom to law-breakers were given by the Chief Minister. According to Prakash S. Shah, then Additional Secretary (Law & Order), the Chief Minister instructed all the officers that “communal peace and harmony be maintained at all costs and all possible steps be taken to control the possible communal flare-up.”[24]
As for Sanjeev Bhatt’s testimony, the SIT called fax messages produced by him “not genuine”, “forged document, fabricated subsequently by someone with a vested interest.”[25] “This conduct of Shri Sanjiv [sic] Bhatt in arranging, prompting and controlling the witness [a witness produced by him] to corroborate his statement is highly suspicious and undesirable.”[26] And from the location of his mobile phone, his claim of being present at the said meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence proved to be false. “Shri Sanjiv Bhatt is a tainted witness and therefore, cannot be relied upon keeping in view his background in the police department as he was involved in criminal cases of serious nature and departmental inquiries are also in progress against him.”[27] Cases against him included inflicting torture in custody leading to death, abduction, extortion and unprovoked firing, killings and planting narcotics with a view to blackmail. SIT head R.K. Raghavan concluded that Bhatt had lied and brought in tutored witnesses to falsely implicate Modi.[28] The Gujarat Vigilance Commission recommended his suspension twice (on 15-07-2002 and 19-10-2006) for professional misconduct, but each time he managed to evade prosecution.[29]
A last brush stroke on Sanjeev Bhatt’s erratic comportment is given by senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani in a Sunday Guardian article. The man “handed over charge and his official computer, leaving all his emails in an unprotected mode for all to read”… The state government forwarded the material to the SIT for investigations, and thanks to this irresponsible gesture, authorities harvested details of his “hobnobbing with the Opposition Congress party in a thoroughly illegal and almost seditious manner to concoct evidence against the Chief Minister and the state of Gujarat”. To this end Bhatt was in constant touch with top Congress party leaders, from whom he received not only guidance, but “packages” and “materials”, as per his own statement.[30]
An Activist’s Career
Activist Teesta Setalvad built a successful career on the Godhra issue and on demonizing Narendra Modi, for which she has been covered with national and international awards. Let us mention just a few:
In August 2002, the Rajiv Gandhi National Sadbhavana [Communal Harmony] Award instituted by the Congress (I), jointly with Harsh Mander (former IAS officer and NAC board member)[31], “for their outstanding contribution towards communal harmony and national integration”.
In 2003, the Nuremberg International Human Rights Award (jointly with Ibn Abdur Rehman, a Pakistani “peace and human-rights advocate and veteran communist from Pakistan”).[32]
The New York-based Parliamentarians for Global Action’s 2004 Defenders’ of Democracy Award, for her efforts “to ensure justice for the victims of the genocide in Gujarat.
In 2006, the Nani Palkhivala Award. In her acceptance speech, Setalvad was all praise for an IPS officer to whom she dedicates her award, someone “who stood mighty in the face of a murderous and vindictive Gujarat administration.”[33]
In 2007, the Padma Shri Award from the Government of India, which since May 2004 had been run by a Congress-led coalition.
The ISRO Spy Scandal
The IPS officer praised by Setalvad (and referred to earlier by the SIT) is R.B. Sreekumar. He is remembered for the 1994 Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) spy scandal which implicated eminent ISRO scientists. Dust may have smothered the case with time but not the memory of those who were falsely accused. The story in brief:
As for Sanjeev Bhatt’s testimony, the SIT called fax messages produced by him “not genuine”, “forged document, fabricated subsequently by someone with a vested interest.
Development of the Indian [rocket’s] upper stage had been underway with Russian help for four years when the arrangements were denounced by American President George Bush as a violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. … In May 1992, the Bush administration announced that it was applying American sanctions on both the ISRO and Glavcosmos [the Russian agency collaborating with ISRO].[34]
Nambi Narayan, a senior scientist at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, an ISRO centre at Trivandrum (Kerala), was arrested on 30 November 1994 without any search being conducted at his office or home. Harassed and tortured, he refused to confess to the charge of selling defence secrets to two alleged Maldivian spies; he also refused to implicate the director of the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre. Nambi Narayan collapsed under the torture and was hospitalized. He was released after fifty days in custody. A colleague of his, D. Sasikumaran, was similarly arrested and interrogated. The two Maldivian women and two businessmen were also arrested and implicated.
Upon his release on 19 January 1995, Nambi Narayan was transferred out of Trivandrum; ISRO reinstated him and promoted him as director of Advanced Technology and Planning, but he was now a broken man.
http://indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ww123.jpg
The case was investigated by the CBI. A year later, in April 1996, its report indicted the Intelligence Bureau (IB) as the main organization responsible for creating an imaginary spy ring and falsely implicating the two eminent space scientists (besides two Maldivian women who were framed as “spies”). The CBI came down heavily on nine IB officials for “acting in an unprofessional manner and being privy to the arrest of six innocent persons, thereby causing them immense mental and physical agony”. The information collected by the IB and the Kerala police was “not only false but was forcefully extracted from the six accused”.[35] The CBI filed its closure report on April 30, 1996, recommending that the accused be discharged, and necessary action taken against the IB officials and the Kerala Police.[36]
Several IB officers were, according to the CBI report, responsible for this unprecedented frame-up, especially:
IB Director C. Pathak managed to get the espionage case registered under the Indian Official Secrets Act 1923, “so that the case would get a trans-national dimension, even though the Act makes it clear that the Kerala Police have no legal right to do so”, as highlighted by the Kerala High Court and Supreme Court of India. Pathak advised the Kerala Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT); he also “informed” the then ISRO Chairman, K. Kasturirangan, that “incriminating documents had been seized from the scientists”.[37] Pathak was indicted by the CBI in 1996 and sacked.
Rattan Seghal had joined the IB as additional director five months before S. Nambi Narayan’s arrest. In November 1996, Seghal was “caught red-handed” by the then IB chief Arun Bhagath while having a secret rendezvous with two undercover CIA agents to hand over sensitive information about India’s Atomic Energy Commission. He was dismissed from service, but allowed to escape and settle in America.[38]
B. Sreekumar was an IPS officer seconded to the Central Industrial Security Force, and posted as commandant in charge of security of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre where Nambi Narayan was working. “The USA, with its excellent information gathering machinery, got wind of what was going on inside VSSC, and put the CIA on the job of sabotaging the cryogenic project,” writes Sam Rajappa.[39] At the time of Nambi Narayan’s arrest, Sreekumar was posted as Rattan Seghal’s deputy. Despite being indicted by the CBI, Sreekumar was in 1998 awarded a “Medal for Distinguished Service” by the Government of India. We will return to him soon as he was probably the main player in the plot.
In Kerala’s Congress-led government (UDF), infighting raged between two camps over the ISRO Spy case. Chief Minister K. Karunakaran being no party to the spy story, he was forced to step down in March 1995 as he refused to drop charges against the IB officials implicated in the case. With A.K. Antony replacing him, the said officials were not prosecuted.
A change of regime followed in favour of the Communists; the new government issued a notification to reopen investigations into the ISRO spy case, and it was to be investigated by the same IB officials![40] On 29 April 1998, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Kerala Government for ordering yet another investigation by the State police after an inquiry by the CBI had found that the allegations of espionage were false and the accused had been ordered to be released. It quashed the notification for being “patently invalid … and issued with malafide intention.”[41]
In 1998 the first work illuminating the story in detail came out — and almost instantly vanished from the shelves. In an article about his book Spies in Space: The ISRO Frame-up, J. Rajasekharan Nair author pertinently asks:
What about the charge that the cryogenic missile technology was transferred from ISRO to enemy countries? To begin with, India does not have cryogenic technology even today [in 2013]. How could then, in 1994, ‘spies’ transfer this non-existent technology? … [42]
Prof. Nambi Narayanan echoes those words in a recent interview to Rediff:
… at that time, we had not developed cryogenic technology, how can you sell a non-existent technology?[43]
In September 1999, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) ordered the Kerala government to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs (one million) out of 1 crore (10 millions) to Nambi Narayan “for having damaged Narayanan’s distinguished career in space research along with the physical and mental torture to which he and his family were subjected.” A division bench of the Kerala high court upheld the order. But Kerala’s Congress-led government managed to block the payment, till Nambi Narayanan finally won a case for a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs which he received in September 2012 — 18 years after his arrest.
http://indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Waiting6.jpg
R.B. Sreekumar was sent back to his parent institution in Gujarat in August 2000. Disciplinary proceedings against him were started in 1999, but only on 29 January 2004 was he served a chargesheet by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The charges included:
Illegally taking into custody the accused persons from the custody of Kerala Police without completing the legal formalities and conducting an independent investigation totally disassociating the Kerala Police.
Torturing/ill-treating the accused persons during the investigation. Consequently, no written statement was recorded.
The interrogation statements prepared by Sreekumar’s team were left unsigned and undated, indicating devious intent.
Failing to conduct verification of the statements of the accused persons … which reflects lack of proper supervision, integrity to duty …[44]
Without examining those implicated in the case, the investigations against Sreekumar, which involved charges of endangering national security, saw his file rush to closure in just 43 days, from 13 December 2004 to 24 January 2005: Sreekumar was cleared of all charges.[45] In 2008, the UPA government granted him in addition the Gangadharan Memorial Award for Best Police Man, for his “courageous and competent performance of duties” during the 2002 Gujarat riots. He was invited with Teesta Setalvad for a lecture tour to the US, organized by the Indian Muslim Council-USA, to deliver discourses against Narendra Modi and the state of Gujarat, disregarding all evidence and investigations.[46]
The same Congress-led Kerala government blocked all the CBI recommendations against IB and police officials, till it ordered closure of the file, fifteen years having conveniently passed since the case was initiated.[47] However, on 20 October 2014, on an appeal from an indomitable Nambi Narayanan, Justice Ramakrishna Pillai of Kerala High Court quashed the order exonerating three police officials involved in the case.[48]
Let us see whether they will finally be prosecuted and face justice — and not only these three but all those responsible for trying to wreck India’s space programme at the behest of a foreign power.
Cooked-Up Affidavits
The UPA government cleared Sreekumar of the CBI charges against him but not without a quid pro quo: he became an ideal “prime witness” in the 2002 Godhra riots. When questioned by the Nanavati Commission before 2005, Sreekumar had never made any allegation against the Gujarat Chief Minister. He even submitted a letter “raising questions over Sanjeev Bhatt’s integrity for speaking up against Narendra Modi”. But from 9 April 2005 onward, with his third affidavit to the Nanavati Commission, he joined Bhatt’s and Setalvad’s demonization of the Gujarat administration.[49]
However, the Supreme Court’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiring into the Godhra events found the allegations in Sreekumar’s affidavits to be “vague”, “too general in nature, [with] nothing specific against any individual police officer.”[50]Sreekumar’s testimony was based on an “unauthorised register” which appeared only in 2005, with entries noted down from memory, including Narendra Modi’s alleged oral instructions to encourage riots between Hindus and Muslims. The SIT observed that disclosure was made about the said register only “after he was denied promotion.”[51] “The register … cannot be considered to be a reliable document, as the same appears motivated and no credence can be placed upon the same. Moreover there is no corroboration to the oral version of R.B. Sreekumar by any of the independent witnesses. The allegation is, therefore, not established.”[52]
Besides, the SIT found twenty-two “witnesses” whose signed affidavits were drafted, typed and printed on the same computer: their signatories were not even aware of what they signed regarding the alleged incidents.[53]
http://indiafacts.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ww124.jpg
Euros and US dollars flowed to Teesta Setalvad’s NGO. Among the donors were the Netherland-based Humanistic Institute for Co-Operation with the Developing Countries (HIVOS), the ever-ready Ford Foundation, etc…[54] A statement of financial transactions of Teesta Setalvad and her NGOs, obtained through a Right to Information petition, revealed how she went from “rags to riches after 2000 Gujarat riots. A person who was not in a position to deposit even Rs. 500 in her account continuously for two years (from 1st Jan., 2001 to 31st Dec, 2002), could manage to get deposit of Rs. 1.49 crores in her account and Rs. 92.21 Lakhs into her husband Javed Anand’s account after Gujarat 2002 riots.”[55]
Dear Sir
SETALVAD IS A MODI HATER AND A HINDU-HATER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media has not reported the actual facts in respect of Godhra and
post-godhra riots. Why? Vested interests.
Muslims feel that hindus are not fit to rule. Muslims had ruled India for more than 800 years. Will Durant, the American Historian said THAT THE GREATEST GENOCIDE ON EARTH WAS THE KILLING OF MORE THAN 100 million hindus by the invading Mugals during their rule of India, for 800 years. The muslim subjugation was followed by christian subjugation. British ruled and looted India for 350 years and during their rule, millions of hindus were made to die of starvation in Bengal - thanks to Churchil's hatred of Hindus. These will never be discussed by our minority controlled ans sickular media.
59 inocent hindu women and children were burnt alive for no fault of theirs. Setalvad or the seculars did not take up their case. Why Because the victims were hindus. Till date, the media has not published their names or photos.
Muslims, including Setalvad got angry because the hindus hit back.
Muslims never anticipated that the subservient hindus can hit back.
More than the riots, it was hindus' capacity to retaliate, irritated the muslim psyche.
They started a world-wide campaign against Modi to tarnish his image.
Our NGOs (funded from abroad) moved heaven and earth to deny visa to Modi. They spread the word that BJP is anti-muslims and venomous. In the process of hate campaign, the media never informed the public about the following facts:
QUOTE
#1 – How many know for example that 4247 cases were filed, 26,974 accused were arrested of which 19,175 were Hindus ?
#2 – For that matter how many will report that 42 cases have already seen convictions within a span of 9 years when the average rate of justice delivery in major riots is anywhere between 13 and 27 years (Kandhamal fast track courts perhaps being the only recent notable exception)
#3 – Some more stunning facts: 15,369 tear gas shells were lobbed during riot control, 5450 rounds of fire in the first 3 days of riots while a 10,559 rounds of fire through the entire period
#4 – For all the irresponsible application of labels like “genocide” and “pogrom” the stark reality was that 101 deaths resulted from Police Firing – 61 Hindus and 40 Muslims
#5 – For all the accusations of biased actions by an Administration there were 32 Executive Magistrates assisting the Army in enforcing the law
UNQUOTE
The same Setalvad and seculars did not utter a single word against the massacre and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir. Why? Because the victims were hindus. The same Setalvad and seculars did not make any noise over the genocide of hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Why? because the victims were hindus. Bangladesh human rights commission had admitted that 35 million hindus
could not be accounted for.
No NGO from Pakistan requested India not to issue visa to
Pakistani or Bangladeshi leaders. Why? They are patriotic.
Setalvad knows that USA had killed more than 20 million innocent muslims in Iraq, Iran,Afgan,Egypt,Syria etc. Why no protest against the christian-cum Muslim - BARRACK HUSSAIN OBAMA? Because, Setalvad and the seculars HATE HINDUS. IT IS IN THEIR BLOOD.
Huntington wrote THAT MUSLIMS CAN NEVER CO-EXIST WITH OTHER RELIGIONISTS.
Dr.Ambedkar told Gandhi to send back all muslims to Pakistan after partition because he felt that muslims can never c0-exist with hindus. Rajendra Prasad told Gandhi that if muslims are not sent back to PaKistan, they must be disenfranchised. Gandhi vetoed the idea. Now we are paying the price.
Americans killed Sadam Hussain and Gadaffi in cold blood for the sake of cheap petrol. No American NGO approached the Indian governmentr to deny visa to Obama. Americans are patriotic.
Ambedkar during 1936, told dalits not to embrace islam or christianity because, he felt that once somebody becomes a christian or muslim, he stands denationalised. He ceases to be an Indian. Setalvad gives the impression that she is fighting against an enemy of the state, foregetting that Modi has won a massive mandate from the people of India. He won the mandate based on his corrupt free record, integrity and hardwork. How Setalvad came to the conclusion that Modi is guilty.? If she has proof, let her submit the same to the judiciary. Never tarnish the image of India,internationally. I am quoting below, another report on the Gujarat riots:
QUOTE
Facts Speak For Themselves: Godhra and After: A Field Study
– II
Godhra Incident- Analysed- Facts and Inferences
There has been so much said, written and broadcast about the Godhra incident that it is difficult to distinguish between facts, half-truths, innocent imagination and motivated lies. Media and interested parties have selected, distorted and added fiction to the story to prove their respective points of view.
Unfortunately, professionalism took a back seat as media persons, fact-finding commissions and administrators by and large failed to maintain the fairness, neutrality and objectivity expected from them. To engage in a dispassionate analysis the Study Team has divided all the facts relating to this incident into four categories:
1. Indisputable facts.
2. Facts that appear to be true but need verification.
3. Information that appears to be untrue.
4. Mysteries.
Indisputable Facts
1. On 27.02.02 Sabarmati Express from Faizabad reached Godhra more than four hours late.
2. There were more than 2000 Hindu pilgrims on this train.
3. No serious dispute took place at the platform at Godhra between the passengers and the vendors.
4. The entire train was stoned right after it left the platform at Godhra and it continued even after it was stopped at Signal Faliya.
5. Firebombs, acid bulbs and highly inflammable liquid(s) were used to set the coaches on fire that must have been stored already for the purpose.
6. Miscreants succeeded in torching only one coach.
7. The conspirators did not allow the fire fighting staff to reach the burning train expeditiously.
8. The iron grills of the windows of S-6 were broken and bent from outside.
9. Fifty-eight passengers of coach S-6 were burnt to death by a Muslim mob and that one of the conspirators was a Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.
10. The train was stopped by pulling the chain and the vacuum pipe was cut.
11. Someone used the public address system exhorting the mob to kill kafirs and enemies of Bin Laden.
12. Assembly of a mob of about 2000 Muslims in three minutes could not have been spontaneous.
13. The attack on Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 was pre-planned and pre-meditated. It was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by a hostile foreign power with the help of local jehadis.
Facts That Need Verification
1. There was a conspiracy to reduce the effectiveness of the fire fighting system of Godhra municipal committee.
2. The mob that burnt the coach had Muslims from outside the town as well.
3. Firearms were used by the mob.
4. Police could have caught or killed some of the miscreants at the spot.
5. Local politicians and elected representatives took active part in instigating the mob.
6. Railway Police at Dahod sent a message to Godhra Railway police that some Muslim youths on board Sabarmati Express were likely to create mischief at Godhra.
7. Head of a passenger of S-6 coach was cut when he tried to get out of the window. The head was later thrown back into the coach to burn.
Police investigations have opened the lead to an autorikshaw used for purchasing the petrol from a local petrol-pump and carrying the same in jerry cans to the Signal Falia area and still continuing.
Information That Appears To Be Untrue
1. Some women passengers are missing.
2. Some women passengers were raped or molested.
3. Passengers had pulled the beard of a vendor at Godhra Railway Station.
4. Passengers carried weapons with them.
5. Railway staff connived with the miscreants.
6. The pilgrims had taunted certain Muslims of Godhra while returning from Ayodhya.
7. Police firing while they were burning the coach killed two Muslims.
Some Mysteries
1. Assistant Collector, Godhra (a young Muslim from eastern UP) goes on leave two days before the incident and does not return till the middle of the March while the district of his posting was aflame with communal riots.
2. The unusual growth rate of Muslim population in Godhra.
3. Absence of information with the District officials about the number of arms licenses issued.
4. Abnormally large number of passports issued to the residents of Godhra.
5. Presence of a very large number of persons without ration cards in Signal Faliya and Polan Bazar areas of Godhra.
6. A large number of unemployed Muslims in Godhra have mobile phones.
7. Very high traffic of telephone calls from Godhra to Pakistan (mainly Karachi ) before 27.02. 02.
8. Holding of istema - religious gatherings - at Godhra that wereattended by foreigners in large numbers.
Communal Riots in Gujarat after 27.02.02 both Spontaneous and Planned but a Trap of International Terrorism
The news of the events of 27. 02.02 at Godhra at about 0800 hrs spread like wild fire all over the country by the afternoon. The television media, which has the advantage of instantaneous reporting, played its role in disseminating the information about this carnage. Nothing happened for almost twenty-four hours, though the situation was said to be very tense. Vishwa Hindu Parishad gave a call for state-wide bandh to protest against the Godhra carnage. Communal violence erupted almost simultaneously on 28.02.02 in many parts of the state when the charred bodies, the injured and the passengers travelling in the ill-fated train reached their homes. It became more intense during next twenty-four hours and started subsiding after that. After 01.03.02 there were only stray incidents of communal violence in certain parts of the state.
On 15.03.02, after shila daan ceremony at Ayodhya by Ramchandra Paramhans, processions of Ram dhun were taken out all over Gujarat . The participation on these occasions was very large in Gujarat , presumably as a reaction of what had happened in Godhra. The Ram dhun processions at many places including Ahmedabad and Vadodra became the points of communal tensions once again and the communal tension that was subsiding again flared up.
Although the Muslim elders had assured the police at Vadodra that peace would be maintained at all costs, the processions were stoned from a mosque. The intensity of the attack proves that these were pre- meditated. The attack was so massive that the police had a tough time handling it.
The state once again came under the grip of communal riots. The rioting was very intense for about three days. Sectarian violence, however, continued in several parts of the state even three days after the attack on Hindu procession at Vadodra.
Incidents of violence on a large scale were initially reported from Ahmedabad and Vadodra towns and the districts of Panchmahals, Sabarkantha and Mehsana. Later it spread to other areas also. However the communal violence was mainly confined to Central and North Gujarat . Saurashtra and South Gujarat remained relatively peaceful. There was no communal violence in almost one half of Gujarat .
The team was told that when the charred bodies of the dead reached their families or the news of their killings reached the relatives, friends and neighbours attacked the nearby Muslim establishments. Similar incidents took place when chautha andkriya ceremonies of the dead were solemnised.
Gujarat has a long history of communal riots. The first such riot has been reported in 1714. After independence major riots broke out on several occasions since 1969. Jagmohan Reddy Commission of Inquiry of 1969 and Dave Commission of Inquiry of 1985 analysed the causes and consequences of communal tensions in great details. Serious rioting occurred in 1970 and also in 1992-93. According to official data, Gujarat witnessed 443 major communal incidents between 1970 and 2002.
Another characteristic of the communal frenzy in Gujarat is that it has always taken a long time to return to normalcy. For instance in Godhra itself in 1985 curfew remained imposed for about a year. Communal disturbance in 1985 continued for more than five months from February to July 1985. … …
Administrative Response
Based on the information collected from official and non-official sources at Godhra, Ahmedabad and Vadodra the Study Team is of the considered opinion that:
1. The local administration did not respond with speed to the Godhra carnage. The police remained a passive spectator and hesitated to use force against the miscreants. It made no attempt to apprehend the leaders of the mob that indulged in burning alive innocent pilgrims returning from Ayodhya. However, the administration took preventive measures after the VHP gave a call for Gujarat bandh in protest against the attack on the train.
2. In Godhra, Vadodra and Ahmedabad the police tried to control the rioting mobs but, more often than not, failed, as the police were outnumbered - the mobs were unexpectedly large and the police were inadequately armed. In certain cases, the mob carried more lethal weapons that the police had.
3. The administration was not prepared to handle massive migration of riot affected people of both the communities and did not have any idea of the quantum of the relief and rehabilitation work required.
4. Co-ordination between the administration and the NGOs was inadequate.
5. Training and drills for managing communal tensions was conspicuous by its absence in a state that periodically witnesses communal frenzy.
6. Socio-psychological understanding of the communal divide is lacking amongst the officials.
7. The adverse comments on the transfers of officials in the media and not so much the actual transfers demotivated the official machinery.
8. At many places policemen did commendable work of protecting life and property.
9. Policemen, by and large, responded to the situation without communal bias.
Deployment of Army
There has been lot of comments on the timing of the deployment of army in various urban and rural areas in Gujarat after the outbreak of violence. Although the team did not have enough time to go into the question in depth, the information made available to it shows that there was no delay on the part of the Gujarat Government in summoning and deployment of troops. A comparison with the past is presented for a proper perspective.
1. By the afternoon of 28.02.02 it was clear that the communal violence has spread widely and the situation had become so alarming that it was unlikely to be controlled by the police and paramilitary forces.
2. On 28.02.02 at 4.30 p.m. the Chief Minister announced at a press conference that the State Government has decided to call army to assist the civil administration.
3. By evening the Union Government had given instructions for the deployment of two brigades in Gujarat.
4. Defence Minister air dashed to Ahmedabad at midnight and had a meeting with the Chief Minister to discuss deployment of the army.
5. The army had to be withdrawn from the country’s border with Pakistan despite the fact that the troops are deployed in full strength in eye-ball-to-eye-ball situation on Indo-Pak borders.
6. Withdrawal of army from the border may have weakened the country’s defensive and offensive strategies.
7. Within less than 24 hours at least one brigade of Indian Army had air landed at Ahmedabad. In a meeting at 0800hrs in which Chief Minister, Defence Minister, army generals and civil officers participated, the formal plan for the deployment of the army was approved. Magistrates who must accompany the army were appointed and by 11 a.m. on 01.03.02 the actual deployment of army at sensitive points had begun.
8. The second brigade was deputed to Rajkot and Vadodra on 01.03.02 by that night.
9. Columns allotted to Godhra reached there in the morning of 02.03.02.
10. Army went back to barracks on 10.03.02. ….
Involvement of Tribals
Earlier in Gujarat , tribals never got involved in the Hindu-Muslim riots. However, their involvement in post Godhra riots added a new dimension to the communal violence. In rural areas the vanvasis attacked the Muslim moneylenders, shopkeepers and the forest contractors. They used their traditional bow and arrows as also their implements used to cut the trees and grass while attacking Muslims. They moved in groups and used coded signals for communication.
Two factors seem to have contributed to this disturbing phenomenon:
1. A delegation of tribals told the Study team that the Muslim moneylenders, shopkeepers and forest contractors have been exploiting the tribals for decades. They charged exorbitant rate of interest to money loaned to tribals. In certain cases the rate of interest is as high as 50 per cent per year.
Having got into this never-ending vicious circle of loans, the tribals have been reduced to the status of bonded labour. Tribals working as servants are ill-treated by these money lenders who happen to be Muslims.
The accumulated anger of years of exploitation became explosive when moneylenders sexually exploited their womenfolk. The tribals are no longer allowed to use forest produce that has been their sustenance for centuries. This too fuelled the feelings of anger, hatred and revenge among them.
2. Tribals have, of late, become conscious of their Hindu identity because of the awareness campaign launched by VHP and other Hindu outfits. Burning alive of Hindu pilgrims by a Muslim mob at Godhra provided the spark for the fire of revenge and hatred.
It may be mentioned that these are only exploratory postulations, scientific anthropological, economic and sociological analysis is required to understand the changed behaviour of tribals.
Role of Media
The Study Team received a large number of complaints against biased reporting’, non-objective attitude and anti Gujarat conspiracy of Delhi Media. The team felt it necessary to objectively observe and analyse the role of Media both regional and English language newspapers published from metropolitan cities. It also solicited comments about the role of media from about 500 persons with whom the members of the team interacted. The team’s observations are:
1. Local and regional papers at times seemed to be emotionally surcharged and lost sight of objectivity. However, Gujarati newspapers, by and large, were factual in day to day reporting.
2. The editorial pages of local and regional newspapers maintained a balance in projecting all viewpoints.
3. Newspapers published in English from Delhi invariably editorialized the news. Direct and indirect comments in the news writing were so telling that the personal likes and dislikes of the news reporters were too obvious to be missed.
4. English language newspapers published from Delhi appeared to have assumed the role of crusaders against the State Government from day one. It coloured the entire operation of news gathering, feature writing and editorials.
5. The edit pages of English language press carried comments that clearly indicated biases:
- against the State Government of Gujarat,
- in favour of Congress, leftist parties and the secularist intellectuals,
- indifferent to the carnage at Godhra,
- against the Hindu organizations, and
- against the NDA government at the Centre.
6. Most of the national newspapers and news channels played down the intensity of Godhra carnage and projected it as a result of provocation by pilgrims. Not many reporters were deputed to dig out facts or to do follow-up stories. This resulted in large number of editorials and articles that projected Godhra as a reaction to provocation by karsevaks’ and riots in rest of the state as “state sponsored terrorism”.
7. A distorted image of sectarian violence in the state was projected by the electronic and print media based in Delhi.
8. Repeated telecasts of arson and violence contributed in spreading the tension to unaffected areas. TV channels ignored warning from officials and kept telecasting communal riots like infotainment.
9. Coverage of Machhipiti in Vadodra is an example. One national news channel went overboard to telecast police firing at Machhipiti as if it had taken place in Ahmedabad.
10. On 27.02.02 the Government of Gujarat announced a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for the next of kin of victims of Godhra carnage. There were protests about discrimination between Hindu and Muslim victims and the Government announced on March 9 that all victims would get Rs one lakh.
Yet, as late as the first week of April a Congressperson in USA cited a report in an Indian newspaper to accuse the Government of discriminating against minorities in the grant of compensation. The newspaper concerned did not care to inform its readers of the correct situation.
11. The code of ethics prescribed by the Press Council of India was violated by the media with impunity. It so enraged the citizens that several concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace could return to the state only if some of the TV channels were closed for some weeks.
12. Media did not help to cool down the tempers. It failed to act as a platform for a dialogue between the Hindus and Muslims on the one hand and between the people and the establishment on the other.
The Study Team is of the considered opinion that the media in general failed to perform as conscious and socially responsible gatekeepers of information.
It followed in the footsteps of an American journalist who said, “My job is to report the facts. I give a damn to the consequences”.
Telecasting images that spread hatred and instigated violence is unhealthy, but their repeated telecast is lethal. The media acted as an interested party in the confrontation, not a neutral reporter of facts.
The team was alarmed at the intensity of hostile attitude among the people of the state for Delhi press and television news channels. This attitude was especially articulated by delegations of intellectuals like lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. Even the tribals complained that the media had no time to hear their tale of their agony and was spreading canards against the Hindus.
Conclusions
Terrorism nurtured by communal disharmony:
The Godhra carnage and related incidents make a typical case study of international designs and conspiracies to weaken India as an emerging world power. Analysts and professional strategists of all ideological inclinations converge on one forecast that India is going to be a major player on the international scene sooner rather than later.
The global community also realizes the inevitability of India becoming an important economic and military power. In such a situation it is but natural that nations hostile to India or its adversaries make all out efforts to create impediments in this process.
Their strategy is to keep India engaged in communal and caste strife so that the nation’s focus on development is defused and its endeavour to emerge as a super- power is thwarted. It would surprise no one if Pakistan with the tacit support of not-so-friendly neighbours and world powers hatches conspiracies to destablise and weaken the Indian State.
A careful and in-depth analysis, if carried out with an open mind, would throw open an action plan where terrorist activities appear to be merging with the already existing strong antagonism between Muslims and Hindus. Our hostile neighbour, sometimes in the guise of a friend, keeps on creating wounds on the body polity of our nation.
Creation and perpetuation of Kashmir problem is one such example. The support to the authoritarian regimes in Pakistan by USA and European countries speaks volumes about the super power’s commitment, or lack of it, to democratic values. Godhra and the wide spread communal violence in Gujarat in recent weeks is a part of this nefarious design.
The Study Team concludes
1. Burning of 58 Hindu pilgrims at Godhra on 27.02.02 was an act of international terrorism carried out with the evil objective of pushing the country into a communal cauldron.
2. The plan was to burn the entire train with more than two thousand passengers in the wee hours of February 27, 2002. It was a terrorist action plan that partly failed. The perpetrators of the terrorist acts received support from jehadi elements operating from Godhra. These included some Congress members of the Nagarpalika. … ….
[For more details, please contact the Council For International Affairs And Human Rights, A-208, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi 110 092 (Phone 2374816, fax 2377653, Emailhttp://lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com]
NEW DELHI: In an environment legitimised by television channels that
rush to throw mud on individuals who run foul of the establishment for
standing up for rights and justice, The Citizen as a matter of
editorial policy found it imperative to ask social activists and
editors Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand to respond to the questions
being raised by the so called 'experts' on television and elsewhere
without caring to inform the viewer, only to condemn the activists.
Excerpts of the interview are carried below.
Both Setalvad and Anand are widely perceived by informed sections of
society as being pilloried by the current dispensation for the strong
positions they have taken on the Gujarat violence in 2002, their
strong commitment to fighting the legal cases against the perpetrators
of the violence, their dedication to bring justice to those who lost
entire families in violence that sent shockwaves across the world and
led to Prime Minister Narendra Modi being denied a visa by the United
States until he won the Lok Sabha elections.
The Supreme Court will be giving its ruling on the plea for
anticipatory bail soon, but organisations, political parties,
individuals from across India have been signing petitions, holding
meetings, issuing statements to ensure that Setalvad and Anand are not
victimised and harassed by the police and the politician. In one of
the more recent statements a cross section of intellectuals Irfan
Habib, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Prabhat Patnaik, Vivan Sundaram, Nilima
Sheikh, Parthiv Shah, Mihir Bhattacharya, Ram Rahman, Sukumar
Muralidharan said: "By way of background, we would like to recall that
the Supreme Court has at least twice in past years, made adverse
observations about the Gujarat state government's campaign of
vilification against Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.
The first such instance was in 2004, after elements within the ruling
party in Gujarat pressured and in other ways induced a key witness in
the Best Bakery case, Zaheera Sheikh, to change her testimony so that
charges of obstructing the course of justice and perjury could be
brought against Teesta.
A second instance was in 2010-11, when malicious charges of exhuming
the bodies of riot victims from their graves were brought and
summarily dismissed as absurd by the highest court.
We are shocked at the tone of some of the media coverage, especially
in some television news channels. These have made a bonfire of the
basic principle of fairness and due process, which is the presumption
of innocence. They have also shown more than the usual aversion to
understanding issues of complexity, though these are not matters that
would challenge more than the average intelligence."
The interview with Setalvad and Anand is as below:
1. When was this Gulberg trust set up and why?
Survivors of the 2002 carnage at Gulberg society for obvious reasons
could not think of living there any longer. They were trying to sell
tgeir flats/bungalows at Gulberg but all they were being offered were
prices far below the market rates. In this context, in 2007 Sabrang
Trust mooted the idea of trying to raise funds to buy off the
flats/bungalows at fair narket rates and convert the place into a
Resistance Memorial in due course. Members of the society got a
surveyor who estimated the total cost of the properties at around
Rs.3.5 crore. The housing society passed a resolution approving the
idea mooted by Sabrang Trust in late 2007. Sabrang Trust then went
about mobilising donations fir the memorial but over 4 years was able
to raise only Rs. 4.6 lakh from donors. This amount was a pittance
compared to the estimated price of the properties at Gulberg.
2. Is it true that most of the money came from the Gulbarg families?
Who else contributed to it?
Not even a rupee of the Rs.4.6 lakh was donated by any member of the
housing society nor was it expected from them.
3. Was the money donated for a memorial?
As stated above Rs.4.6 lakh of the donations raised by Sabrang Trust
were for the memorial. But Sabrang Trust was simultaneously working on
other projects. The trust did receive substantial grants from donor
agencies for specific projects other than the memorial. Such grants
could only be used for activities spelt out in the agreements signed
between the donor agencies and Sabrang Trust. Diverting any amount
from such earmarked grants towards the memorial would have been a
serious breach of trust.
4. Why was this not set up?
By 2011-12, Sabrang Trust had only managed to raise Rs.4.6 lakh..
Meanwhile, land prices had gone up substantially with the result that
the amount raised was hardly 1% of the amount needed to buy the
properties at Gulberg.
5. Were the donators/contributors informed and permission taken?
In November 2011, Sabrang Trust informed the Gulberg Housing Society
that since it was not able to raise adequate funds, the society
members should decide whatever they wished to do with their individual
flats/bungalows. Accordingly, the society held a meeting where a
resolution was passed that since Sabrang Trust was not able to raise
sufficient funds, the members were free to dispose of their individual
properties as they liked. It may be noted that the flats/bungalows had
throughout remained in the possession of society members. At no stage
were they required to, nor did they, hand over possession to Sabrang
Trust. Donors were informed that the total donations being highly
inadequate, Sabrang Trust was unable to go ahead with the proposed
Memorial. A few if the donors wrote back authorising he trustees to
utilise their donations (totalling Rs. 4.6 lakh only) for other
activities of the trust at the discretion of the trustees. However,
till date the entire amount of Rs. 4.6 lakh has been kept unutilised
in the trusts bank account and is reflected in the balance sheet of
the trust.
6. What exactly are the charges of embezzlement framed against you?
Can you list these?
The summary of the alleged embezzlements by Teesta Setalvad and Javed
Anand are as follows: Between FY 2003-04 and FY 2013-14 (10 years)
Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) together
received a total amount of Rs. 9.7 crore. It is alleged that 39.5% of
this total amount was transferred to the personal accounts of Teesta
Setalvad and Javed Anand. The break-up of the same according to the
figures of the Investigating Officer are:
Sr No Particulars Amount (Rs.) % of total receipts of Sabrang Trust
and CJP Average (over 10 years) payments/reimbursements per
month Remarks
1 Salary/honorarium to Teesta Setalvad 46,91,250 4.8 Around Rs.
39,000 p.m. The payments to Teesta Setalvad were not as trustee but
for her executing projects as per signed agreements with donor
agencies.
2 Salary/honorarium to Javed Anand 28,34,804 2.9 Around 23,500
p.m. The payments to Teesta Setalvad were not as trustee but for her
executing/administering projects as per signed agreements with donor
agencies.
3 Reimbursement of shared office expenses to Sabrang Communications
and Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (SC&P) 1,69,84,669 17.5 Around Rs. 1,40,000
p.m. OR an average of Rs.70,000 p.m. each for the two trusts. Formed
in 1993, Sabrang Communications was provided rent-free office space
(around 700 sq ft carpet area) by Mr. Atul Setalvad, father of Teesta
Setalvad. Sabrang Trust was formed in late 1995 but became active only
from 2003 onwards. CJP was formed in 2002. Between 1993 and 2002,
Sabrang Communications spent lakhs of rupees on office renovation,
furniture and fixture, air-conditioning, 12 computers, printers,
photocopier, scanners, books and videos etc. It also hired and trained
a team of 10 staff members. The trustees of Sabrang Trust and CJP
(other than Teesta and Javed) wanted to save on infrastructure and
establishment expenses of their respective trusts. Further, the 10
member staff team (excluding Teesta and Javed had been trained in
addressing the issue of communalism (Sabrang Communications published
the magazine 'Communalism Combat'). Since communalism was also a
principal concern for Sabrang Trust (advocacy and secular education in
schools) and CJP (legal intervention), the trustees wishing to save on
staff costs also, the two trusts entered into a costs-sharing
arrangement with Sabrang Communications (SC). Expenses on staff and
office infrastructure were initially incurred by SC and a mutually
agreed upon percentage of total expenses incurred by SC was reimbursed
reimbursed by Sabrang Trust and CJP. An average monthly expense of Rs.
70,000 over 10 years by each trust on shared staff AND office expenses
(electricity, telephone, mobile, internet bills,
repair/maintenance/renovation/upgrading of office premise/equipments
cannot be considered excessive. Not a rupee was ever charged as rent
to either of the trusts, neither Teesta nor Javed benefited even by a
rupee through the costs-sharing agreements through frequently reviewed
and revised decisions of the other trustees.
4 Cash withdrawals 1,08,73,782 11.2 Around Rs. 90,000 p.m., OR an
average of Rs. 45,000 p.m. each for the two trusts. Through his
allegation the investigating officer has effectively confirmed that
over the years, only 11.2% of the expenses of the trusts were incurred
through cash payments, while the remaining 88.8 % was through cheque
payments. No organisation in the world can operate without petty cash
expenses.
5 Reimbursement for expenses through credit card of Teesta Setalvad
26,33,105 2.7 Around Rs. 36,500 p.m. over a 6 year period OR Rs.
18,250 p.m. each for the two trusts. Teesta has provided
documentation to establish that only those expenses pertaining to the
activities of Sabrang Trust and CJP were claimed from and reimbursed
by the two trusts. No personal expenses incurred through her personal
credit card was ever charged to the trusts. The same has also been
confirmed by the auditors of Sabrang Trust and auditors of CJP.
6 Reimbursement for expenses through credit card of Javed
Anand 3,33,016 0.3 Around Rs. 4,600 p.m. over a 6 year period OR Rs.
2,300 p.m. each for the two trusts. Javed has provided documentation
to establish that only those expenses pertaining to the activities of
Sabrang Trust and CJP were claimed from and reimbursed by the two
trusts. No personal expenses incurred through his personal credit card
was ever charged to the trusts. The same has also been confirmed by
the auditors of Sabrang Trust and auditors of CJP.
7 Total amounts alleged transferred/utilized for personal expenses by
Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand 3,85,00,896 39.5
8 Total funds received by Sabrang Trust and CJP between FY 2003-04 and
FY 2013-14. 9,74,75,100 100
It is evident that only Sr Nos 1 & 2 are payments to Teesta Setalvad
(4.8% of total funds received) and Javed Anand (2.9% of total funds
received). The remaining reimbursements and cash withdrawals have in
no way been to the benefit of either or both of them.
7. Many of these were investigated and cleared. When? Please elaborate
The FIR to begin with alleged that we had raised huge funds in the
name of the Gulberg Memorial, gave nothing to Gulberg society members
and transferred huge amounts of the funds raised to our personal
accounts. When we challenged this through our affidavit, pointing out
that in all only Rs. 4.62 lakh could be raised by us which was highly
inadequate, the original allegation has been put on the back burner
and the emphasis now is general misappropriation of trust funds.
8. Is it true you paid your credit card expenses with a trust cheque?
If yes, how