The Curious Case of Sanjiv Bhatt’s Sacking & 2002 Godhra Riots
There are some stories in Gujarat which don’t require any special investigation. Just a cursory look at the facts is sufficient.
So when the Criminal Investigation Department of Gujarat Police suddenly swooped down on dismissed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt on Wednesday, to arrest him in a 1996 case, it may not have surprised him. Only that the charge on Bhatt this time, that of framing a lawyer in a narcotics case some 22 years ago, is not as flimsy as the one that straightaway cost him his job of 27 meritorious years.
It was in 2015 when Sanjiv Bhatt was flabbergasted to find a Union Home Ministry memo delivered to him stating that he was dismissed from duty
His crime? ‘Unauthorised Absence From Duty’. This followed an ex-parte departmental inquiry without anyone seeking his official explanation. He has been denied his pension and other service benefits.
Sanjiv Bhatt’s ‘Unauthorised’ Absence from Duty
And what was he actually doing when he was absent from duty allegedly without permission? Bhatt was deposing before the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry appointed by none other than the Gujarat government. And what was the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry probing? It was inquiring into the 2002 Godhra and post-Godhra communal violence in Gujarat, in which many alleged the complicity of the then Narendra Modi state government. Sanjiv Bhatt was among those. His depositions and affidavits before the Nanavati Commission, the National Commission for Minorities, and the Supreme Court contained incriminating material suggesting the state’s complicity and deliberate inaction during the 2002 violence.
When the 2002 communal violence broke out, Sanjiv Bhatt was the Deputy Commissioner in-charge of Internal Security at the State Intelligence Bureau.
He was one of the first officers to report that the 27 February 2002, Godhra train burning incident could spark off possible retaliatory violence. It did happen and nearly 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in the span of a week.
The Gujarat Police received country-wide condemnation for not being able to prevent the largescale violence despite intelligence tip-offs.. Much later, Bhatt sparked off controversy when he claimed that at a high-level meeting on the night of 27 February 2002 at the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s official residence in Gandhinagar, senior police officials were told to let people vent their anger for 72 hours and avenge the Godhra train-burning incident.
Bhatt’s Bold Testimonies
Bhatt’s reports and advisories as an officer in the Intelligence Bureau were presented before various commissions and courts as his evidence of state complicity and administrative inaction during 2002.
Bhatt was included as a key witness in the 2006 complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of slain MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed along with 38 others in the Gulbarg Society massacre, on 28 February 2002.
The refusal of the Gujarat Police to treat this complaint as an FIR was challenged in the Supreme Court by Zakia Jafri in 2008. Besides deposing before the SIT that was inquiring into Zakia Jafri’s complaint, Bhatt also filed an exhaustive affidavit in the Supreme Court alleging attempts of the SIT in shielding the powers-that-be, including Narendra Modi.
The Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court, dismissed his allegations and filed a closure report, giving a clean chit to Narendra Modi and other powerful functionaries of the state. This closure report is currently under challenge before the Gujarat High Court, and Sanjiv Bhatt remains a key witness to the alleged role and function of the state administration in the 2002 pogrom.
State Protection to Bhatt’s Family Withdrawn
Bhatt went to school at the Hill Grange High School in Mumbai, and is an alumnus of St Xavier’s High School, Loyola Hall, in Ahmedabad. An IIT-Bombay graduate, Bhatt cleared his civil services examination with a top rank and chose the Indian Police Service (IPS) when he was 23, in 1987. He was allotted the Gujarat cadre.
Less than two months ago in July, the BJP-controlled Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation demolished around 92 metres of Bhatt’s house stating that it was illegal.
The demolition was carried out round-the-clock for one full week. Bhatt’s wife Shweta – who had contested elections on a Congress ticket from Maninagar in 2012 – had filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court ordering the demolition. Within an hour of the apex court rejecting the petition, the AMC team arrived with bulldozers and began razing the property.
Meanwhile, at around the same time, the state government withdrew the security cover given to Sanjiv Bhatt and his family.
Other Incarcerated IPS Officers in Gujarat
Sanjiv Bhatt is not alone to have faced the wrath of the powers-that-be for standing up to the BJP government in Gujarat. Take two senior IPS officers of the Gujarat cadre, Inspector General of Police Satish Verma and DIG Rajnish Rai, for instance.
After Narendra Modi took over as Prime Minister, Verma was shunted out as Chief Vigilance Officer in the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd, Shillong, Meghalaya, and Rai as CVO in the Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL) at Jaduguda, Jharkhand.
The two have clearly stated in their petitions that they are being harassed for doing their jobs diligently.
Courtesy: www.thequint.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
