Wednesday, June 29, 2011

What’s Sanjiv Bhatt Angling For?

In my post ‘My Sore Pak’ an Anonymous commenter remarked: “Now that you have made Modi a kind of a demi-god in your blog, kindly let us know your so called (un)biased views about IPS officer Bhatt's recent events. I wouldn't be surprised if you again put the blame on the media or blamed the congress…….Please dont divert the issues of development here. It is not the government's administration but about morality here, and dont tell me that Modi hasn't yet been proved guilty of his crimes…”

The comment was made in a post that had absolutely nothing to do with Narendra Modi or Sanjiv Bhatt or even the Congress. It was about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. But just like the vast group of Modi-haters and Modi-baiters that abound in the media and political parties any forum is justified to rant against Modi. The last line in the comment is the mantra on which the anti-Modi industry thrives “..don’t tell me Modi hasn’t yet been proved guilty of his crimes”. Well, there are people who are trying and trying very hard to see Modi in jail – guilty or not.

So here’s a report from TheHindu on June 27:  The case of Gujarat cadre IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who recently created a flutter by accusing Chief Minister Narendra Modi of having made “anti-minority” statements on the eve of the 2002 communal riots, has taken another curious turn, with a former colleague filing a police complaint that he was forced to file a false affidavit……”

Then there’s another report in TheHindu today (June 29):  The (Gujarat) government has decided to recover from Mr. Bhatt Rs.1 lakh as compensation due to a Rajasthan-based advocate, Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, as “directed” by the National Human Rights Commission, for an alleged false case against him in 1996, an official spokesman of the government said here on Tuesday. The amount would be recovered from Mr. Bhatt within a month, the spokesman said…..Mr. Bhatt, who was the Banaskantha District Superintendent of Police in 1996, was claimed to have falsely implicated Mr. Rajpurohit under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), allegedly with the motive of getting a rented premises vacated by him……The NHRC also, in its report in September 2010 considered it a case of “serious human rights violation” in view of the fact that the provisions under which Mr. Rajpurohit was falsely implicated could have fetched him 10 years of imprisonment, and ordered the Gujarat government to pay him a compensation of Rs.1 lakh….”

The NHRC’s ruling on Sanjiv Bhatt is a clear indictment on lack of integrity and misuse of powers. It seems more and more obvious that people with dubious integrity and credibility find Narendra Modi a fair game to throw mud at. You can also rest assured that this particular news item will not find much air-play on our TV channels who made a great tamasha of Bhatt’s accusations against Modi. It also depends on which side the media is when reporting this news. The NHRC ruling was also reported by DainikBhaskar in the following terms:

Govt tries to corner Sanjiv Bhatt again: “After allowing an FIR to be filed against Sanjiv Bhatt, the state government in yet another attempt to corner the IPS officer has decided to collect Rs1 lakh from him. The state had paid the amount to the National Human Rights Commission when a Rajasthan-based advocate had filed a case against Bhatt in the NHRC. The state government had coughed up Rs1 lakh to the NHRC in the alleged false case filed against Sumer Singh, a Pali-based advocate……It should be noted that several other cops were associated with the case filed in the NHRC, but so far the state government has decided to collect the money only from Bhatt. This is the second attempt by the state government to corner Bhatt”.

Dainik Bhaskar probably didn’t get the other news that a constable has claimed he was forced to file false affidavits by Sanjiv Bhatt. So in the false narcotics case it’s not the BOSS but the ordinary constables who should also be penalised according to Dainik Bhaskar. Does all this false affidavit and false cases have a familiar ring to it? Oh well, sometime back the SIT looking into the Gujarat riots mentioned some people filing fake affidavits at the instigation of someone. Remember that? Guess where that washing machine of justice ended up?

Long-time Modi-baiter, Teesta Setalvad, also has cases against her where her own colleagues have turned witness against her. She has even sought anticipatory bail twice. Where does she end up? She ends up on the committee to draft the Communal Violence Bill of the National Advisory Council (NAC). Isn’t that brilliant? So then, I do wonder what Sanjiv Bhatt was or is angling for with all his sensational claims against Modi. If it was a position in the NAC, I don’t think they’re hiring right now. They are too busy with secular communalism. They are busy proposing laws that can throw Narenda Modi into jail for good. That should be reassurance for Sanjiv Bhatt.

5 comments :

  1. I am sure that many readers will question what I am disclosing because I remain anonymous, but I know some one who has some personal knowledge about him.

    This Bhatt is an out and out Congress ass-licker. As an example, after Indira's assassination in 1984, Bhatt held the view that the Golden Temple must be razed to ground. So much about Bhatt's sanity and judiciousness. He is an extremely power hungry person who wants unlimited power with no answerability.

    His actions against the Police constable and Rajpurohit, as well as his servile and unflinching devotion to Congress cause are no surprise for those who know even a little about him.

    And those who know equally little about congress would know that the congress will try inducting him into a Digvijay Singh replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sanjiv Bhatt may be one such 100s of people that Congress might have all over the country. Truth can not be hidden. The falsehood will melt away like the morning frost before the rising sun.

    BJP has a chance now. They should capitalise on that and ensure that they do not make loose talks and conduct themselves in a dignified manner. If ever they come to power, No Jaswants, Joshis and the like please. They should mean serious business and for that only Nar endra Modi is capable. He should be focussed into more national lime light.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When seven economists assemble eight thesis would crop up. The BJP beggars all are intellectuals and they refuse to go united and egoism is at pinnacle resulting they are unable to encash the frivolous situation of the congis.

    But congis, they have different strategy. The five foxes loot themselves and allow the big looter to loot under their eigies. They have umpteen terrorists, decoits, rapists, murderers, gangsters and naxals to let loose at opportune times if they are in unpleasant situation. Moreover, they have the corrolory like CBI, IB and ED with which they will get support of chotta mafias like Miya Mulayam, Maya, MK, and needless to say imbecile birth, mediocre thinking HDK

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bhatt briefed a journo through emails, who then moved the SC corroborating Bhatt. The journo (apparently, ex-BBC) covered in news here epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HM/2011/05/27/ArticleHtmls/FORMER-BBC-JOURNALIST-SUPPORTS-BHATTS-CLAIM-27052011014005.shtml OR www.indiainfocity.com/news/ex-bbc-journo-supports-sanjeev-bhatt%E2%80%99s-claim/)

    Gujarat riots: Bhatt briefings helped journo move SC
    Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Jul 14, 2011, 05.43am IST

    NEW DELHI: On April 15, IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt filed an affidavit telling the Supreme Court that he was privy to a crucial meeting on February 27, 2002, in which Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi allegedly talked of teaching Muslims a lesson.

    When this claim was contradicted, a freelance journalist on May 16 filed an affidavit in SC supporting Bhatt’s claim about attending the meeting at the CM’s residence.

    The journalist said on February 27, 2002, he had met Bhatt at 9 pm. But, the police officer cut short their meeting saying he had to go to a special meeting at the CM’s residence. He said: “Bhatt left his residence at about 9.30 pm.”

    Copies of Bhatt’s e-mail supplied to TOI revealed that he was in constant touch with the journalist right from May 8 and through the days supplied him all details about their meeting and other coordinates.

    Just a day before filing of the affidavit, Bhatt gave details of the phone calls and wrote to him, “We must have met at my place between 8.45 pm to 9.45 pm on the night of February 27, 2002. Some time between 9.30 pm and 9.45 pm, I received the intimation from my control room regarding the meeting. We must have cut short our meeting as I must have left for Gandhinagar immediately after 9.45 pm. I reached the police headquarters at 10.15pm and the CM residence at 10.20pm. I was at CM’s meeting from 10.20 pm to 10.40 pm. I have attached two pdf files containing the call details of our numbers.”

    When contacted for comments, Bhatt said his e-mail account has been hacked. However, he said he was happy that a journalist had backed him when senior police officials had chickened out to stand up for the truth. The exchange of e-mails was a “process of recollection as we were talking about it after a lapse of 10 years”.

    “As the affidavit was being filed in the highest court, we have to be sure about its contents,” he said.

    After the affidavit was filed, Bhatt took it upon himself to send an e-mail to a TV channel on May 22 saying he was able to “trace the journalist who had filed the affidavit”. “He had some reservation about speaking to the media because he felt it might not serve the larger interest. Seems to have got over the initial reluctance,” he said.

    Asked about this, Bhatt said media plays a great role in the fight against injustice and that was why he was writing to the TV channel.

    On May 20, Bhatt wrote to the journalist, “My feeling is that we could let the press sniff it out and contact you. It will not only make a good story for them but will definitely make the print media to take notice…”

    On May 21, the journalist replied, “If you fear that amicus and SC will not take it seriously then the media trick can be tried. But, have we reached that stage? Do we know that they have ignored it?”

    timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Gujarat-riots-Bhatt-briefings-helped-journo-move-SC/articleshow/9217983.cms

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trail of e-mails expose Bhatt’s complicity with Congress, Teesta and anti-Modi groups
    27 Jul 2011, 10:52 PM

    Ahmedabad: In a development that could put IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt in the docks, the trail of email exchange of the officer, accessed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), show that the officer has been in touch with the anti-Modi lobby including the Congress, rights activist Teesta Setalvad and others.
    The contents of the email exchanged even put a question mark on his claims of being at the meeting chaired by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on the night of February 27, 2002.
    The Gujarat cadre officer has claimed in his affidavit to the Supreme Court that he was present at the meeting in which Modi had asked the police officers to maintain restrain in stopping the rioters from eking out their anger.
    According to sources, the content of the emails not only expose Bhatt appealing for help from the anti-Modi camps including politicians and civil society members, it clearly establishes Bhatt as a mere pawn in a bigger game plan.
    In order to prove his claims against the Chief Minister, Bhatt had asked his IPS friend Rahul Sharma to help in managing evidences to substantiate his claims, but he failed in his endeavour.
    In order to prove his claims about the February 27 metting, Bhatt in his affidavit submitted before the Apex Court and in his testimony before the Nanavati Commission has claimed that he met former Gujarat Minister Haren Pandya (who died later) at the meeting held at the Chief Minister’s residence.

    However, the call records of Haren Pandya on the eventful night contradict Bhatt’s claims. The trail of emails exchanged between Bhatt and Sharma between May 12-22, 2011 show that
    Bhatt tried his best to manage some evidence to support his claim on Pandya.
    Rahul Sharma in his reply to Bhatt on May 22 at 7.42 am stated that Pandya received the last call on his number at 10.52 pm, which clarifies that he was not heading towards Gandhinagar. It’s clear that he was in his constituency Ellis Bridge and there was no chance of the minister being in Gandhinagar on the intervening night between February 27 and 28.
    The content of the email show Rahul asking Bhatt whether Pandya ever mentioned of being present at the meeting, to which Bhatt replied that he heard that spoke about it with some other people.
    The entire trail of emails between the two officers shows Bhatt trying to get a hand at some evidence to substantiate his claim on Pandya but he failed.
    The mails clearly show that after his testimony before the Nanavati Commission he was not only in regular touch with Teesta Setalvad, the rights activist who has filed a case against Modi in post-Godhra riots, but was also getting instructions from the Congress leaders.
    Bhatt was in regular touch with Teesta, Congress state president Arjun Modwadhia and Leader of Opposition Shakti Singh Gohit on some pretext or the other in the month of April.
    Records show that Bhatt procured documents and a Blackberry phone from Gohit.
    According to sources, Bhatt also tried to seek help from the civil society to influence the SIT and the amicus curie appointed by the Supreme Court in relation to his demands of Y category security for himself.
    He wrote to Shabnam Hashmi of NGO ‘Anhad’ and Father Sedrick Prakash of ‘Prashant’.
    On 9th May, Bhatt also requested them to run a signature campaign and help him in taking his fight against Modi to logical end.

    post.jagran.com/ips-bhatt-lobbied-with-antimodi-groups-1311784018

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome and are not moderated so as to allow free speech. However, comments that are off topic, abusive, defamatory or slanderous may be deleted. Comments disclosing personal information of individuals/entities will be deleted.Comments appearing here do not imply endorsement by author of this blog.