SACW #2 | 23 Dec 2004 | India: Gujarat, money and riot witnesses

[sacw]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Dispatch #2  |  23 Dec.,  2004
via:  www.sacw.net

[1] India:  The Buying of Zaheera Sheikh (Ashish Khetan & Mahesh Langa)
[2] India:   The Latest Act in The Tragedy That 
is Zahira  (Siddharth Varadarajan)

--------------

[1]

Tehelka: The Peoples Paper
January 01, 2005

THE BUYING OF ZAHEERA SHEIKH
by Ashish Khetan & Mahesh Langa

The Best Bakery trial, which had become symbolic of the quest for
justice in Gujarat, has also taken the most exasperating twists over the
last couple of years, continually threatening to thwart the truth. In a
painstaking month-long investigation, Tehelka reporter Ashish Khetan
blows the lid off the sordid story

She told her story over and over again. She recounted every moment of
that night for the police, for the media. Zaheera Sheikh, the
19-year-old with vulnerable eyes and schoolgirl plaits, had returned
from hell that fateful night. She was sitting with her family in Best
Bakery - a small bread-making unit in Vadodara's 
slum-like Hanuman Tekri - when she first smelt 
trouble. She and her family were still wondering 
whether to leave or not when "the mob began 
gathering". She relived the nightmare with every 
sentence. "The mob was so large, they could not 
be counted. They were violent and armed, and they 
came shouting anti-Muslim slogans. We were 25 of 
us inside the house. We made a run for the 
terrace. Some who could not make it locked 
themselves in a first floor room. They were 
asphyxiated and burnt to death. It was a dance of 
death that continued all night. The rooftop was 
hot and our feet were turning red. We had no 
option but to hide behind the parapet."

Her account of that night went into police files, got printed in
newspapers and Zaheera soon became the prime witness in what is now
known as the Best Bakery case. The Best Bakery case and Zaheera Sheikh
became the symbol of the Gujarat carnage. But each time Zaheera changed
her stand, she also brought the case under a cloud. The bizarre drama
was carried out in full public view. The Vadodara-Mumbai-Vadodara
flip-flop continued for months and everyone talked about the possibility
of a dubious deal. The whisper campaign formed the basis of the Tehelka
sting operation.

Zaheera has continuously changed her testimony. Why does Zaheera keep
recanting and shifting? She has somersaulted on three important
occasions and her testimonies - filed as sworn affidavits - have
affected the trial and changed the course of justice. Which one of these
testimonies is true?

May 17, 2003: In a dramatic turnabout, Zaheera turned hostile. She told
the Vadodara court that she did not see what the mob did because she was
hiding in fear. Based on this, all the 21 accused were acquitted by the
court.

July 7, 2003: Zaheera surfaced in Mumbai with activist Teesta Setalvad
saying she had turned hostile because when she reached the court
complex, she met Chandrakant Batthoo Srivastava, bjp legislator Madhu
Srivastava's cousin brother who threatened her. Batthoo is a local
Congress corporator. That day, Zaheera said, "When I reached the court,
I met Chandrakant Batthoo. He threatened that in case I stuck to my
earlier statement, the remaining four members of my family would be
killed. There were no Muslims in the court. Two thoughts crossed my mind
- should I get the accused or should I save my surviving family members?
I decided in favour of saving my family members." She then also asked
for the case to be transferred out of Gujarat, a request that was
conceded by the Supreme Court. She also said that Madhu Srivastava, a
bjp mla close to Narendra Modi, had threatened her.

November 3, 2004: Zaheera Sheikh returned to Vadodara with another
stunning admission. This time she accused Teesta Setalvad and Raes Khan
of having held
her hostage.

December 21, 2004: Zaheera deposed in the Mumbai court saying she had
not seen anything that night

The crucial question still remains: which one of these testimonies is
true? From this flow other critical questions. Why is Zaheera making a
mockery of one of the most important trials of the last few decades? Why
did she turn hostile even though she saw her own sister Sabira and uncle
Kausar Ali being killed? Is it because she wanted to move on with her
life and return to Best Bakery? Or was she threatened? Or is there
another reason?

A month-long Tehelka investigation has blown the lid off all conjecture.
The truth is brutal. It is also damaging and dismaying. Yes, Zaheera was
threatened. But she was not just threatened. The prime witness was also
paid Rs 18 lakh to turn hostile. The admission - captured on camera -
has been made by none other than Madhu Srivastava and Chandrakant
Batthoo themselves. Both independently mentioned the same amount. The
testimony of Zaheera Sheikh changed only because Rs 18 lakh changed
hands. Zaheera retracted in the Vadodara court, not "because she could
not see what the mob was doing as she was hiding out of fear", but
because she had already counted the bucks by then.

Tehelka smuggled a spycam into Madhu Srivastava's home and heard it from
the villain of the piece. Accompanied by Nisar Bapu, a local corporator
and an accused in a riot case, Tehelka sat in the shadows as Madhu and
Bapu discussed the deal. The same process was repeated at Chandrakant
Batthoo's office and at the chamber of Shailesh Patel, the counsel for
the accused. They spoke like co-conspirators. They were all in on the
sordid deal. They were only talking about it once again. Batthoo
elaborated and fleshed out the transaction. This is what he said, "The
whole family would keep going to Madhu, time and again, time and again.
Do this for us, do this, our bakery will get started again, this will
happen. Drove us up the wall. Then finally Madhu took the decision to
give her the money. First it started from Rs 25 lakh and got stuck at Rs
18-20 lakh. Then after collecting cash from everyone she was given Rs 18
lakh in cash." Batthoo had not been provoked nor did he have any motive
in saying what he did.

The shame of Gujarat had been recorded on camera. Of course there had
been whispers all along that money had changed hands. Kausar Ali's wife
Shahjehan, had told the Mumbai special court that she had been "offered
money" by Zaheera Sheikh and her mother Sehrunnisa for a compromise but
said that Zaheera had not mentioned any name. But we know the name now.
Madhu Srivastava, Modi's right-hand man was at the centre of the deal.
Zaheera had gone to the perpetrators even though she had first admitted
to having seen her uncle Kausar Ali being thrown into a furnace.

Tehelka's investigation into the deal gained momentum once Bapu came
into the picture. Bapu had the trust of the Srivastava brothers because
he had sought their help often. He'd been meeting them to seek help for
his son, Abid Hussain, who is also an accused in a Gujarat riot case.
Our meeting with Bapu established a crucial point - that the riot
accused had access to important people in the Narendra Modi government.
A trip to Hanuman Tekri - where Best Bakery is located - only
reconfirmed this fact.

The families of the accused too said that they kept in constant touch
with Batthoo. The mother of Sanjay and Ravi Thakkar - two brothers who
are among the 21 accused - revealed that Madhu was in touch with their
advocates. Tehelka also caught Bapu's son on camera. Abid, who was out
on four days' parole, said Madhu had told him he had bought Zaheera
Sheikh. He also said that Batthoo used to visit the Best Bakery accused
when they were lodged in the Vadodara prison. Another sordid truth was
surfacing. The government, shockingly, had moved in to protect the
accused even before the communal fires had died down. Even today,
Hanuman Tekri has a direct connect with the state crime branch. While
returning from the area, we were stopped by a crime branch official and
questioned who we were and why we had visited the locality? The crime
branch had obviously been alerted. The stakes for the state government
are high.

Madhu had also played a role in threatening Zaheera Sheikh. Even after
Rs 18 lakh had been handed over to her, they were not sure what she
would tell the Vadodara fast-track court that was hearing the Best
Bakery case. He and Batthoo were both present in the courtroom on the
morning of May 21, 2003 when Zaheera came to depose. By then Madhu had
already called and spoken to Zaheera on the mobile phone. The cellphone
records are available with the Vadodara police. What happened in court
can be gleaned from the sworn affidavit she submitted to the Supreme
Court after she flipped her stance and appeared side by side with Teesta
Setalvad. This is what she said: "My brother Nafitullah had acquired a
mobile phone. Chandrakant Batthoo made threatening calls on the mobile
and told my brother that unless we retract our statement, those who are
surviving would also be killed. Madhu Srivastava was also giving threats
on the mobile phone of my brother. We know that it was Madhu Srivastava
because his name and telephone number used to come on the screen of the
mobile phone." In the same affidavit, Zaheera also said that she changed
her stand "when she realised that false allegations of seeking monetary
inducement in return for silence were being made against me."

Zaheera Sheikh was lying. She lied to the highest court of law for she
had already pocketed the Rs 18 lakh even before she went to Teesta.
Ironically, the culprits Madhu and Batthoo are on camera, hurling abuses
at her for her constant flip-flops. "What should I say? Even I cannot
understand, sisterf*****," says an exasperated Batthoo. The Rs 18 lakh,
he thinks, should have kept Zaheera on their side forever.

So why did Zaheera leave Vadodara - even though 
she was paid the money - and change her testimony 
in Mumbai? Tehelka has learnt that she
temporarily fell out with her family because her older brother
Nafitullah lost Rs 1 lakh in a gambling den. The sum of Rs 18 lakh was
obviously a large amount for the family, given the fact that her father
Habibullah Sheikh had left a tiny village in eastern Uttar Pradesh's
Siddharth Nagar district and come to Vadodara in search of a better
living. He worked in a bakery for several years before he started the
Best Bakery in Hanuman Tekri. "Losing one lakh came as quite a blow,"
according to one associate.

Zaheera had also been catapulted into the limelight as a 'victim'. Her
face came to symbolise the communal frenzy that had enveloped Gujarat
and she may have had momentary guilt pangs. She was in as much demand by
civil rights organisations as she was with the perpetrators of the
carnage. ngo representatives also hint at the possibility that Zaheera's
testimony changed because she didn't receive the entire amount. Though
when Bapu asked Batthoo this question, Batthoo was categorical saying,
"No, noŠcomplete. The entire amount (was paid)."

Why were Madhu and Batthoo so keen on stifling Zaheera's testimony? Is
it because she holds the key to the Gujarat government's complicity in
the carnage? The Supreme Court had virtually indicted the Modi
government when it said, "The modern-day Neros were looking elsewhere
when Best Bakery and innocent women and children were burning and were
probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or
protected." Tehelka's sting operation establishes that some people -
powerful people - were doing just that. To save the perpetrators of the
crime, a dubious deal had been struck with Zaheera.

The castigation by the apex court came as a rude shock to Modi and his
men. The Supreme Court not only ordered a retrial but also shifted the
case to Mumbai. For the first time in the judicial history of the
country a case had been shifted out and Justice VN Khare had not minced
words. Directing his ire at Modi, he said, "Your rajdharma is to punish
offenders and bring the guilty to book. If you can't, you quit."

The Supreme Court's observations had focused critical attention on
Zaheera and the Best Bakery case, and wooing her back was of utmost
importance. The Modi government calculated that it stood to gain in more
ways than one. The prime witness would not only change her testimony
once again, and in doing so, she would also paint herself in a corner.
Nisar Bapu and Batthoo discussed this as the camera was recording and
when Bapu said, "Now her position on this date is such that no court
will be willing to accept her testimony," Batthoo replied, "Now it
doesn't matter." In other words, they had at least succeeded in
discrediting Zaheera Sheikh as a witness.

They also answer the damaging question of what happened this time in the
most recent volte-face. Why did Zaheera choose to return to the
'perpetrators'? Read this extract carefully. It provides the answer:

Nisar: "Abhi ye bhaag ke aayi. To paise ke liye hi bhag ke aayi wahan se
(Now that she has run back here, she has run back for the money)."

Batthoo: "Haan (yes)."

Nisar: "Sun le tu (You pay attention)."

Batthoo: "Woh lalach hai (It is greed)."

Nisar: "Us ko lalach bolte hain. Abhi ye bhaag ke aaya, to kahe ke liye
bhaag ke aayi (That is called greed. Now that she has run back here, why
did she run back here)?"

Batthoo: "Sarkar ne diye honge (the government must have given her money)."

Nisar: "Abhi government ne diye us ko (Now the government has given her
money)."

Batthoo: "100 taka diye (100 percent given)."

The Gujarat government has also given away a lot more through its
action. Ever since Zaheera returned to Vadodara, claiming that Teesta
had threatened her, Modi found his voice once again and said, "ngos have
assumed an extra-constitutional authority and their role should be
investigated." Madhu couldn't contain his joy either. "Allah Taala has
given Zaheera the good sense to speak the truth during the month of
Ramzan," he said, adding, "even when I went to the US in October 2003,
after Zaheera and her mother filed affidavits against me in the Supreme
Court, the word was that I had run away from impending arrest. The truth
is that I was organising Navratri garbas and religious functions."

The truth, as Tehelka has established, is that Madhu Srivastava was at
the centre of the sordid money game, the pivot in what truly is the
shame of Gujarat. The truth also is that Zaheera was willing to be
bought and that she has been lying all along. In the course of its
investigation, Tehelka also managed to track down Zareena Shahu,
Zaheera's maternal grandmother who was also an eyewitness to the Best
Bakery carnage. The grandmother recounts the story of that night just as
Zaheera did the first time to the police. In other words, she also
exposes her granddaughter as a liar.

The grandmother does not know that Zaheera is now back in Vadodara,
cooperating once again with the 'perpetrators' like Madhu, who was the
one hovering outside the Surya Palace Hotel waiting for Zaheera to
address the Press in the 'Royal Room'. The press conference was
important - Zaheera was going to turn again. He not only hung around
outside, he also fired a shot from his revolver, a fact confirmed by
Tushar Vyas. Vyas ostensibly runs an ngo called Jan Adhikar Samiti and
he told Tehelka that the Samiti was picking up the expenses for
Zaheera's press conference and stay in Gujarat.

Consider all these facts as well:

* Zaheera was provided police protection soon after she complained about
Teesta to the district magistrate, Bhagyesh Jha. She left Mumbai 24
hours before she was to testify there. Why was she not given protection
soon after the riots? Not one constable was deployed when the vulnerable
Sheikh family was deposing before the Vadodara court in 2003. Why is
Zaheera being moved from one secret location to another now that she has
turned hostile again?

* Her advocate, Atul Mistry, sat next to her right through the press
conference. When a journalist asked Zaheera about her earlier complaint
against Madhu Srivastava, Mistry prevented her from replying and
virtually whisked her away. Mistry is a junior of Rajendra Trivedi, who
was defending the Best Bakery accused in Vadodara. Unwala, the other
lawyer, is a junior of Gujarat High Court lawyer KJ Sethna, the younger
brother of Justice BJ Sethna, who had upheld the acquittal of Best
Bakery accused by the Vadodara fast-track court.

* After her stay at the Airport Hotel in Vadodara, Zaheera was put up at
the Silver Oaks Resort in Ahmedabad. The resort is owned by a close
friend of Gujarat Finance Minister Vajubhai Vala. Tehelka posed as an
event management company and was told by the Silver Oaks manager that
the resort was owned by Om Prakash Agarwal, a relative of former bjp
treasurer Ram Das Agarwal. He also said that Agarwal frequently
entertained Vajubhai Vala at the resort.

Why did the state go out of its way to intimidate and buy Zaheera
Sheikh? The politicians were not the only ones involved in the money
game. So was Shailesh Patel, the lawyer defending the accused in the
Best Bakery carnage. Why was the lawyer defending the accused in close
contact with Madhu and Batthoo? When Tehelka caught up with him to
further corroborate the payoff, he told Bapu, "No, no. It has to be at
least 10 lakh," in response to Bapu's assertion that Zaheera did not the
promised amount. "And if she had got only this amount (Rs 2-3 lakh), her
mother and two brothers would not have turned hostile," he added. He
wasn't sure of the exact amount but knew that the deal was being struck.

The sting operation reveals extremely dangerous and damaging truths
about our democracy and raises critical questions. Why do we still have
a system where witnesses - even in such high-profile cases - can be
bought? Will there never be any justice for riot-affected families? Will
innocents continue to die in vain? Will money and muscle power always
derail fairplay and justice? The dead and the living deserve an answer.
It is now for the Supreme Court to ensure that truth and justice prevail.

				-------
This exposé raises critical questions. Why do we still have a system
where witnesses can be so easily bought? Will there never be any justice
for riot-affected families?


______



[2]

The Hindu
Dec 23, 2004
Opinion - News Analysis   

THE LATEST ACT IN THE TRAGEDY THAT IS ZAHIRA

By Siddharth Varadarajan

NEW DELHI, DEC. 22. Given the close interest it 
has taken in the Best Bakery case, the Supreme 
Court is bound to view with grave concern the 
videotaped "claim" by the BJP MLA Madhu 
Srivastava about how he used "money and 
intimidation" to procure Zahira Sheikh's silence 
in the Vadodara fast-track court last May.

Assuming that Mr. Srivastava's claim is true, the 
obvious question that requires urgent 
investigation by an impartial and empowered 
investigative agency is why Zahira turned hostile 
once again, refusing to identify the accused at 
the Mumbai special court on December 21.

If Tehelka's allegation - that Mr. Srivastava 
fixed the case last year with Rs. 18 lakhs and 
the threat of violence - is correct, it is only 
reasonable to surmise that a similar "package" 
was put together this time around. What was in 
this package? And who put it together?

Money, threat


The Tehelka tape shows Mr. Srivastava and his 
cousin, Chandrakant Batthoo Srivastava, admitting 
that they had paid Zahira Sheikh Rs. 18 lakhs. It 
is also evident from their choice of words - and 
the videotaped remarks of their close associates 
- that the threat of violence was a factor which 
ensured that the key witness in the Best Bakery 
case kept her end of this "bargain".

Why Zahira subsequently resiled from this 
"bargain" and found the courage to charge Mr. 
Srivastava and his cousin with intimidation is 
not known. Nor, of course, do we know what it is 
which led her to turn "hostile" for a second 
time. Mr. Batthoo Srivastava and Nisar Bapu, an 
associate of the BJP MLA, attack her for being 
"greedy" and speculate that the Gujarat 
Government might have paid her as much as Rs. 35 
lakhs this time around. Of course, such hearsay 
clearly has no legal validity.

Sloppy prosecution


When the Supreme Court in April 2004 ordered a 
retrial in the Best Bakery case and also directed 
that it be held outside Gujarat, it did so 
because it was more than evident that the State 
Government had deliberately allowed the 
prosecution case to be sabotaged. Zahira turning 
hostile was an important - but small - part in 
the officially sanctioned sloppiness that marked 
the conduct of the prosecution. Moreover, the 
fate of the Best Bakery case closely mirrored 
what was happening in virtually all riot cases 
across the State.

At the same time, the Bench also knew that Zahira 
had not undergone a sudden change of heart in the 
courtroom and that mala fide factors had played a 
role. Her affidavit spoke of the threats she had 
received, but not, of course, about any money 
that might have changed hands. Perhaps, the money 
was promised but not delivered; perhaps the 
intermediaries took a substantial cut, leaving 
Zahira with much less than the agreed sum.

Again, these are questions for the CBI to probe.

As the nation ponders over the latest twist, it 
is important to remember that the Best Bakery 
case is not about Zahira Sheikh but about those 
who killed 14 innocent persons.

It is also about those "modern day Neros" - to 
borrow from the Supreme Court's own words - who 
allowed the killings to take place and have 
busied themselves ever since in trying to find 
ways to shield the guilty.

Zahira may or may not have taken money but she 
and her family will always remain the principal 
victims in the case. Each time she turns hostile, 
she enacts another chapter in the tragedy that is 
Gujarat.

Apart from the obvious issue of witness 
protection, the Supreme Court needs to take a 
hard look at the question of financial 
compensation for the riot victims.

The pittance that the Modi Government has offered 
as compensation for the lives lost or homes and 
businesses destroyed often forces victims who 
have lost everything to forsake the elusive 
chimera of justice for the immediate relief of a 
pay-off.

The worst that can be said about Zahira Sheikh is 
that having lost everything while the rulers of 
Gujarat sat back and enjoyed the show, she is 
trying to get the best she can out of a 
politico-legal system that rarely delivers 
justice to the poor.

But if "greed" is the vice which has afflicted 
her, it pales into insignificance before the 
greater immorality of those who are so determined 
to ensure that the perpetrators of the communal 
carnage in Gujarat are never brought to book.

______


[3]


______




_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on 
matters of peace and democratisation in South 
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit 
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South 
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at:  bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

Sister initiatives :
South Asia Counter Information Project :  snipurl.com/sacip
South Asians Against Nukes: www.s-asians-against-nukes.org
Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.