Note: This is a postscript to The Godhra Riots:
Sifting Fact from Fiction, July 2013, by the same author.
In May this year, 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”,
Let us examine the facts and see whether they can point to the riot’s real
The Role of 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 got the fire-fighting vehicles sabotaged beforehand: one
of the main vehicles had its clutch plates taken out a few days earlier; also
removed was the nut connecting the pipe with the water tank on the other
Haji Balal who, according to locals, proudly proclaimed himself the “Bin
Laden of Godhra”, is among eleven people convicted for criminal conspiracy
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 2
and murder and sentenced to death by a special fast track court in the highsecurity
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
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 Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 3
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.
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,
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 4
… 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’s20 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
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 5
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 flareup.”
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
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 6
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
The 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
• 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
• 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:
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
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 7
administration announced that it was applying American sanctions on
both the ISRO and Glavcosmos [the Russian agency collaborating with
S. 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.
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 D.C. Pathak got the espionage case registered under the
Indian Official Secrets Act 1923, “so that the case would get a transnational
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
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 8
“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 redhanded”
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
• R.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:
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 9
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
… 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.
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
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 10
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
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.
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
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 11
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 had signed of the alleged incidents.53
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
Following the Clues
Answers to the following questions contain the clues to the real masterminds of
the Godhra events:
• Who gave orders to the Congress-ruled states of Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Rajasthan to deny Gujarat the help it was urgently
asking for to control the riots?
• “Tainted witness” Sanjeev Bhatt having “lied and brought in tutored
witnesses to falsely implicate Modi,”56 the Gujarat Vigilance Commission
recommended his suspension twice (on 15-07-2002 and 19-10-2006) for
professional misconduct: with whose help did he manage to evade
prosecution each time?57
• Who gave instructions to the IB and Kerala police officers to frame ISRO
scientists, putting a brake on India’s space programmes?
• From 1994 to 2014, who shielded the IB officials and the Kerala police from
being prosecuted as per the CBI’s recommendations?
• In particular, who shielded Sreekumar in the ISRO spy case, extracting in
the process his cooperation in the demonization of Narendra Modi?
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 12
• Who in the previous UPA government decided not to prosecute Teesta
Setalvad for perjury, arranging false witnesses and fabricated affidavits,
and for misappropriating funds intended for riot victims?
Years ago, while campaigning in Gujarat, Sonia Gandhi had accused
Narendra Modi of being a “merchant of death”. Let the reader decide who best
deserves this designation.
Nicole Elfi has been living in India since 1975. She worked on the
publication of works related to Mother and Sri Aurobindo and researched
aspects of Indian culture. She wrote two books in French: Satprem, par un Fil
de Lumière (Éditions Robert Laffont, 1998) and Aux Sources de l’Inde,
l’initiation à la connaissance (Éditions Les Belles Lettres, 2008).
More recently, Nicole Elfi has authored the document The Godhra Riots:
Sifting Fact from Fiction and co-authored (with Michel Danino) a research
paper, A Timeline of Ayodhya.
© Nicole Elfi, 2014
Notes & References
1 From Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice A.H. Mehta (henceforth
“Nanavati Report”), p. 175: 229. The report is available on the website of the Gujarat
(accessed May 2014).
2 From Justice Tewatia Committee Report, short for Gujarat Riots: The True Story; Facts Speak for
Themselves – Godhra and After, A Field Study by Justice D. S. Tewatia, Dr. J.C. Batra, Dr. Krishan
Singh Arya, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, Prof. B.K. Kuthiala. Council for International Affairs and
Human Rights, Governing Body for the Term 2001-03. See “Staff of the Fire Brigade”. Online at:
http://www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2010/04/justice-tewatia-committee-report/ (retrieved June
2014). Also Nanavati Report, p. 86, 88, 89: 128, 130-131.
3 Dasgupta, M. 2011. “11 get death in Godhra train burning case”, online at:
article1500325.ece (retrieved July 2014).
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 13
4 Among them, President of the District Congress Committee, Farooq Malla and Congress
activist of Godhra Municipality, Abdul Rehman Dhatia. Tewatia Report, “Fifty-Eight Pilgrims
5 Nanavati Report, p. 159-160: 214; p. 175.
6 Gujarat’s minister of state for home Amit Shah’s interview by Sheela Bhatt, 27.02.2003, online
at: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/27inter.htm (retrieved June 2014).
7 Nanavati Report, p. 175: 229.
8 Nanavati Report, pp 40-41: 51-52, p. 49: 68; pp. 158-159: 213.
9 Special Investigation Team (SIT) Report, p. 241. The Supreme Court handed over all records
pertaining to 2002 riots to SIT on 20.01.2010; SIT submitted its final report on Modi’s role in 2002
Gujarat riots, on 25.04.2011.
10 SIT p. 21.
11 Kishwar, M.P. 2013. “Modinama 7, When Congress State Governments Snubbed Modi’s
Request for Additional Police Force”, online at: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1704
(retrieved May 2014).
12 Wikipedia, Communalism Combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_Combat . “In a 1999
interview, Javed Anand said that before the 1999 Lok Sabha elections, his monthly magazine
Communalism Combat (published by Sabrang Communications since August 1993) requested
and received funds from the Congress Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the
Communist Party of India and ten individuals to run advertisements attacking the Sangh
Parivar and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)”.
13 See Elst, K. & Rao, R.N. 2002. Gujarat after Godhra: Real Violence, Selective Outrage, Har-Anand,
14 See Balakrishna, S. 2014. “Narendra Modi’s visa denial still an unhealed wound” online at:
%28India+Facts%29#sthash.uTktS3o8.IyfIObzy.dpbs (retrieved May 2014).
15 Kishwar, M.P. 2013. “Modinama” 13, “RB Shreekumar: Hero No. 2 of Secular Brigade” – Part
I, online at: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1730 (retrieved May 2014).
16 The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF):
(retrieved May 2014).
17 Teesta Setalvad’s testimony to the USCIRF, online at:
6102002_setalvaTestimony.html (retrieved June 2014)
18 SIT pp. 92-93.
19 See “Gujarat Riots: the true story”, online at:
(retrieved July 2014).
Narendra Modi’s interview for Seedhi Baat/Aaj Tak, in India Today, 04.11.2002, online at:
http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20021104/conf.shtml#co (retrieved July 2014).
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 14
20 About Ehsan Jafri see Elfi, N. 2013. “The Godhra Riots: Sifting Facts from Fiction”, online at:
21 SIT pp. 16, 18-19.
22 SIT p. 16.
23 SIT pp. 22-25.
24 SIT pp. 25-27, 34, 522.
25 SIT pp. 523-530.
26 SIT p. 41.
27 SIT p. 241.
28 SIT pp. 540-41. Also Dasgupta, M. 2012. “SIT rejects amicus curiae’s observations against
Modi”, online at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3401728.ece (retrieved June 2014).
29 SIT pp. 48-51. Kishwar, M.P. 2013. “Modinama 6, Heroes of the Secular Brigade: A Glimpse
into the Doings and Misdoings of Sanjiv Bhatt”, online at:
http://manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1703&ptype=campaigns (retrieved July 2014).
30 Jethmalani, R. 2011. “UPA, media have a brazen mission to demonize Modi”, online at:
(retrieved July 2014). Also Kishwar 2013: 6, op. cit.
31 The National Advisory Council (2004-2014) was a body set up by the first UPA government to
advise the Prime Minister of India. Sonia Gandhi served as its Chairperson from its inception to
32 Nuremberg International Human Rights Award, online at:
33 Teesta Setalvad “Nani A Palkhivala Award 2006 Acceptance Speech”, online at:
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-setalvad100207.htm (retrieved June 2014).
34 Harvey, B. 2001. Russia in Space: The Failed Frontier, p. 259, Springer & Praxis Publications, UK,
in Kishwar 2013: 13 – I, op. cit. & Kishwar 2013: 13 – II, “How India’s Space Program was
Sabotaged”, online at: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1731; also Simha, R.K.
2013. “How India’s cryogenic programme was wrecked”, online at:
65.html (retrieved July 2014).
35 Joshi, R., et al. 1998. “IB Imagined Spy-Ring: CBI” online at:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article/IB-Imagined-SpyRing-CBI/205531 (retrieved July 2014). Also
Kishwar 2013: 13 – II, op. cit.
36 Joshi, R., et al. 1998, op. cit.
37 Rajasekharan Nair, ibid.
38 “Plot behind arrest of ISRO scientists, says Nambi Narayanan”, The New Indian Express,
27.8.2013, online at: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/Plot-behind-arrest-of-ISROscientists-
says-Nambi-Narayanan/2013/08/27/article1754032.ece (retrieved August 2014);
Rajasekharan Nair 2013, op. cit.; Rajappa, S., “A scandal that ISRO would like to forget”, 24
The Godhra Riots — Postscript: The Masterminds / p. 15
October 2014, online at http://www.theweekendleader.com/Columns/153/looking-back.html
(retrieved October 2014).
39 Rajappa, S., op. cit.
40 “Rogue cop RB Srikumar framed ISRO’s best”, Niticentral, 7.11.2013. Online at:
41 Rajasekharan Nair, ibid.
42 Rajasekharan Nair, J. 2013. “Why My Book Didn’t Sell?”, online at:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/books/why-my-book-didn-t-sell (retrieved October 2014).
43 Warrier, S. 2014. “Wronged ISRO scientist: India will be safe in Modi’s hands”, online at:
20140226.htm (retrieved August 2014); Ananthakrishnan, G. 2012. “Memories of a ‘spy’
who won – Framed scientist vindicated on milestone-eve”, The Telegraph, online at
44 In Kishwar 2013: 13-I, op. cit. Also CBI recommendations in Joshi, R., et al. 1998, op. cit.
45 Kishwar, ibid.
46 Indian Muslim Council – USA Organizes US Lecture Tour of Teesta Setalvad & R.B.
Sreekumar July 7, 2008, online at: http://iamc.com/press-release/imcusa_
47 Venugopal 2012, “ISRO case: police officers freed of charges”, online at:
article3960101.ece (retrieved August 2014).
48 “Kerala High Court quashes government order in ISRO spy case” online at:
49 Kishwar 2013: 13-I, op.cit.
50 SIT pp. 18 ff and 176-177.
51 SIT pp. 85, 170-173.
52 SIT pp. 65-71.
53 SIT p. 16-19, 64, 227-233.
54 “Teesta Setalvad received US $ 250,000 from the Ford Foundation”; “Evidence against Teesta
Setalvad”, Dharma next, 6.8.2012, online at: http://dharmanext.blogspot.in/2012/08/teestasetalvad-
received-us-250000-from.html (retrieved July 2014).
55 News Bharati, 7.1.2013, “Rags to riches after 2000 Gujarat riots: Teesta swallowed riot victims’
money?” Online at: http://en.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2013/7/1/Rags-to-riches-after-2000-
Gujarat-riots-Teesta-swallowed-riot-victims-money-.aspx# (accessed August 2014).
56 SIT p. 540-41. Also Dasgupta, M. 2012. “SIT rejects amicus curiae’s observations against
Modi”: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3401728.ece (retrieved June 2014)
57 SIT pp. 48-50.
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
- 896,557 hits