Haren Pandya Testimony to CCT

SIT falsely assumed a claim to have been made by Pandya, and then used it to discredit his testimony to the CCT.

Page 458 of SIT report says:

“Haren Pandya had misled the Concerned Citizens Forum …that he was present in the meeting called by the chief minister at his residence on the night of 27-02-2002 with a view to increase his credibility”

Haren Pandya informed Justices Krishna Iyer,Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT) about 2 meetings.

  1. Modi with senior police officers at his Gandhi Nagar residence.
  2. In Sabarkantha, where 50 Sangh leaders (including some state BJP leaders) met and allegedly decided on stocking up kerosene and petrol etc.

Did Pandya claim to have been present at either of these meetings?

Here is the relevant portion from Mr. Pandya’s testimony about the second meeting (Sabarkantha). He talks of phone calls to 50 people of sangh parivar.

The phone calls were made to invite 50 top people of the BJP/RSS/BD/VHP and the plan was to assemble them at someone’s house in Lunavada (Sabarkantha). Fifty top people, the Tribunal was told, met at this undisclosed destination and detailed plans were made on the use of kerosene, petrol for arson and other methods of killing. The state intelligence did not or could not track such meetings and preparations for the gruesome violence that was to follow.

In the Tehelka tapes, Babu Bajrangi had admitted collecting petrol and 20 odd guns overnight, so this adds up, at least circumstantially.

Also,there is no claim of having been present. In fact, the usage of “at someone’s house” suggests he was not present in this alleged meeting.

The relevant section (Section 1.7 on Page 82 of the CCT report) about Pandya’s comment on the other meeting, just says “two or three cabinet colleagues”.

1.7. The Tribunal received direct information through a testimony from a highly placed source of a meeting where the chief minister, two or three senior cabinet colleagues, the CP of Ahmedabad, and an IG police of the state were present.

As we now know, this “highly placed source” was Haren Pandya. However, there is no claim made by Pandya about being present at all. If anything, this indicates that he was not present. If he had been present, he would have the precise number of ministers, right? Why would he say “two or three” senior ministers?

It may also be noted that Pandya was not close to Modi, it is very unlikely that he would be invited to such a meeting.

So, why has SIT falsely assumed a claim to have been made by Pandya, and then used it to discredit his testimony to the CCT?

It is not as if SIT has not read the CCT report properly. SIT devotes full three pages (p453-p455) listing all negative references to Haren Pandya in the CCT report.

Why go out of the way to discredit a dead man, and do his character assassination? Haren Pandya was no saint of secularism, but he was long dead and not under investigation by SIT. The issue at hand was to examine and investigate his statements to CCT. This shows some degree of blatant bias by the SIT.

References:

  1. Crime Against Humanity, Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report, Vol II
  2. Haren Pandya’s testimony to CCT

 

Rate this post
Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *