THE Gujarat government appointed Nanavati Commission has finally submitted its final report on the Godhra incident and the post-Godhra carnage, 2002. Media reports state that the Commission has found no reason to summon the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi in order to probe the responsibility and role of the state government in the riots. This reported conclusion contradicts the evidence provided to different committees and commissions setup in the last decade to investigate the pre-planned character of the riots. It also explicitly contradicts the significant observations made in the Naroda Patiya case where a then minister of the state government was convicted for her role in the riots. Thus the apparent conclusion of the Nanavati Commission appears to be an attempt to succumb to political pressure and contribute to the project of erasure of memory of 2002 Gujarat Carnage. This is a politically important exercise as it establishes the false reputation of Modi as a secular leader who is interested only in development. In this context, keeping the memory of Gujarat and the struggle for justice of its victims alive is itself a politically crucial task. FIXING MODI’S RESPONSIBILITY In the immediate aftermath of the Gujarat riots, the then prime minister and BJP leader Atal Behari Vajpayee urged the chief minister of Gujarat to keep his ‘Raj Dharm’ and discharge his constitutional duties without showing any discrimination between the people on the basis of caste, creed or religion. Made three months after the riots, the statement showed that the state government had not discharged its duties properly. This was also noted by the National Human Rights Commission in March 2002 when it stated in its preliminary report about the role of the state government that “Grave questions arise of fidelity to the Constitution and to treaty obligations. There are obvious implications in respect of the protection of civil and political rights.... But most of all, the recent events have resulted in the violation of the Fundamental Rights to life, liberty, equality and the dignity of citizens of India as guaranteed in the Constitution. And that, above all, is the reason for the continuing concern of the Commission” (NHRC Case No 1150/6/2001-2002, Order, April 1, 2002). Subsequent fact finding committees and commissions only buttressed this apparent truth and proved the willful failure of the Modi government. For example the affidavits of senior police officers Sanjeev Bhatt and Sreekumar to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) showed the complicity of the Chief Ministers Office (CMO) in abetting the riots by giving a free hand to the Bajrang Dal and other Sangh Parivar activists. Though the SIT dismissed Sanjiv Bhatt’s account of the meeting of February 27, 2002 (where Modi had allegedly asked the district administration to go slow and give a free hand to the Hindu mobs), the final report of the Amicus Curie Raju Ramchandran’s final report saw little reason to disbelieve the police officer. Rather his report stated that a court of law should rule on the authenticity of the statements of both Sanjiv Bhatt and B Sreekumar. This it argued was all the more important because all records pertaining to the attendance and minutes of the February 27 evening meeting were missing and therefore there was no possibility of finding out what actually happened. The indication of the CMO’s complicity in the riots is strengthened by the evidence provided in Zakia Jafri’s protest petition in the Supreme Court against the closure report in the Gulberg Society Case in 2013. The protest petition clearly points out that the SIT ignored, disregarded and discredited some crucial evidence that showed the role of Narendra Modi and his government in the riots of February 2002. The main example of this is of the nine affidavits filed by former police officer, B Sreekumar, who was then the additional director general of police, intelligence. In his affidavits Sreekumar gave ample evidence of the messages recorded in his register which warned the government about the gathering mobs for welcoming and parading the bodies of the dead kar sevaks in different funeral processions. For example the protest petition records give a description of the violence in Gulberg in the following way: “From the 28th morning rampaging mobs of those associated with the Bajrang Dal, VHP, BJP attacked Muslim localities, houses and business establishments. Muslim men were killed and beaten and women were raped and killed. Gory murders, rapes and molestations took place at Gulberg Society Chamanpura, Meghaninagar (where 69 persons including Ex MP Jafri were killed and 10–12 women were raped in a mob attack which lasted for 7 hours – till 4.30 p.m. Jafri had made numerous calls for help to the Commissioner Mr PC Pande, to the home minister and the chief minister. At about 2.30 Jafri was stripped, paraded naked & cut into pieces. Police stood by and did not even try to stop the rioters. The chief minister was also dismissive of Mr Jafri‘s calls for help – and in fact later attributed the violence to firing by Mr Jafri. Minimal Police intervention took place only after 4.30 p.m” (Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Volume 1, p.8). Such instances are supported by the intelligence messages provided as evidence by the petition. Thus the inaction of the government obviously created a space and abated the actions of the Sangh Parivar. In this sense the head of the government cannot be absolved of his dereliction of duties. A PREMEDITATED CONSPIRACY TO ERASE MEMORY The space created by the inaction of the CMO and the mass mobilisation of the Sangh Parivar is evident in the judgement of the Naroda Patiya Case and also the preceding NHRC reports. In 2002 itself, the NHRC pointed to the fact that most rioters with serious charges like murder and rape had been released on bail. The judgement in the Naroda Patiya Case provided more detailed evidence about hatching the process of erasure of the memory of the riots. It is pertinent to recall some crucial elements of the judgement. For example, on the role of the first investigating officer, the Judge writes that “The ideal Investigation Officer (IO) hears the statement, perceives the same and then puts it in concise form into the context. He should also make re-statement of the text and explain the same. As emerged on record Shri K K Mysorewala has done nothing of the sort. As discussed above the First IO, Shri K K Mysorewala did not take even elementary and routine steps and has totally avoided to do investigation altogether…. As seems, the first investigating agency wasted lots of time right from 28/02/2002 to 08/03/2002 and even wasted available resources, did not secure scientific evidences…. Shri K K Mysorewala was fully aware that the bigwigs were also present in the mob, but he has not paid any heed to the fact while investigating the crime…. While people were flocking the streets, leaving their households inside, Shri K K Mysorewala has reported to the Control Room that "everything is Okay (Khairiyat Hai - There is peace and happiness in Patiya area); it was like When Rome was burning, Nero was playing fiddle" [Ibid, pp 485-487]. The attempt to stall the investigation at the first step is evident from the evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses who have been complaining that the first investigating officer. In effect Shri Mysorewala had made “a mockery of investigation” and the records filed by him were “no investigation at all” [p 496]. This deliberate attempt to erase the existence of the riots has in fact supported the arguments of the accused who have stated that the riots of February 2002 were not an ‘organised communal riot,’ but a ‘free fight.’ The counsel for Mayaben Kodnani, the convicted BJP MLA, argued this point, which was dismissed by the court. This trend in investigations continued and the second investigating officer, PN Barot, displayed utter disregard and carelessness towards the Muslim victims. The Naroda Patiya Judgement has ample evidence to show that the previous investigating officers, the police witnesses in the case have also tried to help the counsels for the defence in their own testimonies. The instances give ample evidence of the overall failure of administration and the complicity of the administration in orchestrating the riots. Political developments also show that the current central and state governments will use everything in their power to erase the memory of the riots and give Modi a clean chit. Hence the Nanavati Commission needs to be contested both ideologically and through mass mobilisation of all secular forces.