Senior IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatts assertion in his affidavit to the Supreme Court that he had attended the February 27,2002 meeting at Gujarat Chief Ministers residence in which Narendra Modi had allegedly asked top police officers to let the rioting mobs vent their anger on Muslims hinges largely on the testimony of his former police driver,against the denial of a former state DGP. While Modi,during his questioning by the SIT last year,had insisted that Bhatt was not present at the meeting,former Gujarat DGP K Chakravarti too had claimed the same,contrary to Bhatts affidavit which said the former DGP had asked him to attend the meeting. However,Bhatts former driver Tarachand Yadav told The Sunday Express on Saturday that he had indeed taken the IPS officer,then posted as DCP (intelligence),to the CM residence on the night of February 27,2002. Yadav was quizzed by SIT more than six times over the last fortnight,the last time on April 21. He said on February 27,2002,he drove Bhatt from his Ahmedabad residence around 10 pm and reached Police Bhawan in Gandhinagar at around 10.35 pm. From there,sahib (Bhatt) asked me to drive to the CMs residence at around 10.45 pm, said Yadav. I then drove him to CMs bungalow. Bhatt went inside and I waited in the vehicle outside, he added. Yadav said the meeting went on for 30-35 minutes. We then returned to Police Bhawan,before leaving for Ahmedabad at around 12.45 am, said Yadav,adding that he slept at Bhatts home that night. The next morning,at around 8 am,I again drove Bhatt to Police Bhawan in Gandhinagar, Yadav said. Yadavs last session with SIT lasted about nine hours at a stretch. They kept asking if I had driven Bhatt to CMs residence or not and whether the vehicle used was Qualis or Maruti Esteem,and its registration number, Yadav said,adding he told SIT sleuths that he did not remember the registration number after nine years. SIT officers were angry over this and asked me how I could remember driving Bhatt to CMs residence but not the type of vehicle used or its registration number, Yadav said. At this point,they threatened to put me in jail if I did not tell the truth. K Chakravarti,who was the Gujarat DGP during the 2002 riots,however,rubbished Bhatts claim that he was present at that meeting. Chakravarti told The Sunday Express from Mumbai that he specifically remembers that he (Sanjiv Bhatt) was not present at the February 27,2002 meeting at Modis residence. I do not recall now if he was in other meetings or not,but he was not present at the meeting on February 27,2002. Anil Mukim,who was principal secretary to Modi during the 2002 riots,was also present at the crucial meeting. When contacted today,he refused to confirm or deny Bhatts claims. I would not like to make any comment on the issue, said Mukim,who is presently a joint secretary at the Ministry of Commerce in New Delhi. Incidentally,some of the other senior police officers who were present at that meeting have reportedly told SIT that they could not recall if Bhatt was present or not. Meanwhile,Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh said as long as Narendra Modi is CM,the victims cannot get justice there. In a statement,CPM politburo said Bhatts testimony confirmed the culpability of the CM in the pogroms and demanded that he be prosecuted. Former BJP presidents Rajnath Singh and Venkaiah Naidu sprung to Modis defence. In Kolkata,Naidu said Bhatt was not present in the crucial meeting on February 27,2007. Raghavan,2 SIT members get Rs 1.5 lakh The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) chief R K Raghavan and his team probing the nine most heinous cases of 2002 post-Godhra communal riots are being paid a sizeable remuneration and perks by the state government. According to an official resolution (SBII/COM/1008/76/Spl Team) of the State Home Department dated June 30,2009,Raghavan and two other SIT members are being paid a monthly honorarium of Rs 1.5 lakh each and are also entitled to executive class air travel. However,another SIT member A K Malhotra is paid Rs 1 lakh per month and allowed to travel by AC(first class). The honorarium was fixed on directions of the Supreme Court.
