Gujarat Riots: How 'activists' like Teesta, Mukul Sinha and others used every possible trick to tilt the case against Hindus

On June 24, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition by Zakia Jafri challenging clean chit to then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat Riots Case. Mukul Sinha’s Jan Sangharsh Manch and other ‘liberals’ and ‘activists’ fought tooth and nail to call the eyewitnesses of the Godhra carnage liars, as evidenced in the Nanavati-Mehta Commission Report. Except, in response to this, a member of Jan Sangharsh Manch, a ‘civil rights organisation’ started by ‘activist-lawyer’ Mukul Sinha, filed a statement and questioned the criminal conspiracy angle of the state government and claimed that after the ‘evidence’ collected by him, it “appeared to him that burning of coach S/6 was because of the spontaneous scuffle and fight that had taken place between Ramsevaks and Muslim vendors on the platform of Godhra railway station and not because of any conspiracy hatched earlier.” Mukul Sinha’s son, Pratik Sinha, now runs the propaganda website ‘Alt News,’ which regularly whitewashes crimes committed by Islamists. Gujarat High Court, in 2014, about a decade after Banerjee Committee declared the fire ‘accidental,’ said that such a panel was a “colorable exercise of power with mala fide intentions,” and its argument of accidental fire “opposed the prima facie accepted facts on record.” Nanavati-Mehta Commission report on Godhra carnage “Till July 2002, neither Jan Sangharsh Manch nor Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee nor anyone else had suggested that the Godhra incident had not happened in the manner reported by the media and as stated by the State Government and others including the concerned railway personnel and the passengers, but it had happened in a different manner,” the Nanavati Mehta Commission stated. Hariprasad and other witnesses would not have said so unless it was true as they had nothing to gain by saying something that which was not correct.” Mukul Sinha’s Jan Sangharsh Manch opposed this version of the eyewitness and claimed how “neither driver Rajendrarao nor assistant driver Mukesh Pachori has stated anything with regard to the attack on the train with stones while it was moving towards ‘A’ cabin.” To this, it was clear that since the driver had to focus on the track, he would not have any reason to look towards Signal Falia, from where the mob had come.