30, Mar 2010
Many cannards were spread (prematurely) and without checking the facts
on the ground by counsel for the Gujarat government in the Hon.
Supreme Court Mukul Rohatgi (which was expected and predictable) but
which were swallowed hook line and sinker by newspapers and columnists
which was regrettable. Especially given the media’s overall role that
has been extremely positive in keeping the horrors of the Gujarat
Carnage alive in the public mind…
Look Below for some surprises
‘Womb slit apart, foetus cut into pieces’
Posted on Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55 | Updated Mar 30, 2010 at
The chilling story of Kausar Bano was one of the worst that came out
of the Gujarat riots.
It is said that the womb of the pregnant woman was slit apart, the
foetus taken out with a sword, cut into pieces and burnt alive.
But earlier this month, a government doctor said it’s all lies, that
her body bore no injury marks and her foetus intact when the
post-mortem was conducted.
Now, riot survivors have filed an application challenging that. One
riots survivor claims it all happened before her own eyes.
“They removed her baby from her stomach and held at a sword’s edge.
And then they burnt her body completely. How come the doctor can say
that he conducted a post-mortem on Kausar Bano’s body,” said a riots
survivor Naroda Patiya.
“How could he recognize her,” asked Patiya.
The applicants have submitted photographs of badly charred bodies to
drive home the point that there was no way Kausar’s body could have
Raju Shaikh, advocate for victims said, “the post-mortem was
originally conducted on an unidentified body. How was Kausar Bano’s
name given to it ? Who identified it and how? Even SIT has not said
that it was Kausar Bano’s body.”
Victims are also asking why it took over eight years for a doctor to
say that Kausar Bano’s body bore no external injury marks.
The Times of India
Gujarat Edition 30/03/10
How did doc identify KausarÂ’s burnt
body, asks riot witness
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Ahmedabad: The controversy about the killing of eight-monthpregnant
Kausar Bano in Naroda Patia massacre does not seem to die. A
witness told the court on Monday that it was additional
commissioner of police of crime branch who identified the post
mortem report of 2002 as that of Kausar Bano in August 2004.
After four eyewitnesses deposed before the special court about
how mobs had slit KausarÂ’s womb and flung the foetus before
killing her, civil surgeon Dr JS Kanoria, who conducted the
postmortem deposed that he found the foetus in the belly only. Dr
KanoriaÂ’s statement and photocopy of the autopsy report
contradicted the version of witnesses as well as claims made by
main accused Babu Bajrangi on Tehelka sting tapes.
An eyewitness to the incident, Dildar Saiyed has sought
further probe in this case and raised critical questions about the
doctorÂ’s statement. In his application, Saiyed asked how did Dr
Kanoria know this was Kausar when it was unidentified at the time
of postmortem on March 2, 2002. It was two years later that the
crime branch officer said this was Kausar Bano Khaliq Noormohammed
Shaikh. Â“On what basis, the additional police commissioner made
this change in the PM note of 575-02? These facts have not come on
record during investigation. Hence, detailed probe is necessary in
this direction because the bodies were so badly burnt that it was
impossible to identify them,Â” Saiyed argued in his application.
Interestingly, during his deposition, Dr Kanoria told the court
that he could not trace original documents of Kausar BanoÂ’s
postmortem from Civil Hospital.
Investigating officer VV ChaudharyÂ’s revelation on Monday
before the court also disputed some heroics described unknowingly
by Bajrangi before Tehelka. Saiyed sought probe on two specific
claims made by Bajrangi Â— murders of a journalist at Naroda Patia
by rioting mob on February 28, 2008 and of a boy named Salim.
Media, Rights Groups and Mass Crimes
One of the interesting
fallouts of the battle for justice and reparation for the victim
survivors of the Gujarat carnage of 2002 has been the blatant attempts
by stooges fo the state government like its counsel in the Supreme
Court and others to deliberately defame those human rights defenders
and organizations who have stuck it out for the past eight years and
assisted eye-witnesses to depose, without fear or favour to ensure
that justice is done. We have consistently been victim of this vicious
defamation drive. Few of those who told these stories in 2002-2003
have however come to the rescue.
Woefully, unmindful of the
kind of articles carried by their own publications during the
traumatic period of 2002, mainstream Indian newspapers and even the
hysterical news anchors of our Â“nationalÂ” television channels have
echoed the vilification drive launched by the Gujarat state, never
once looking back, over their shoulder into their own archives where
correspondent after correspondent have used space telling these very
A prime example of this
abication of media responsibility is the case of Kauserbano, a victim
of murder at Naroda Patia, accounts of eye witnesses at the time
describing how a bloodthirsty mob slit open her womb ( carrying a
foetus almost nine months old), swirled it on a ssword before burning
mother and child alive. Not only did The Times of India and
The Indian Express apart from the Statesman and The Deccan
Herald extensively report the narrative in print, but WomenÂ’s
Visiting teams including one headed by former chairperson of the
National Commission of Women wrote of it extensively. Feminists from
Mumbai assisted women record their affidavits before the official
Nanavati Shah Commission and KauserbanoÂ’s sad tale was a significant
part of the narrative.
Now, today when the doctor
who did the post mortem denies that such an incident took place, do
not one and all who told this story in those days after 2002 owe
something to the memory of Kauserbano? Why are they all silent?