Note: This is a postscript to The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction, July 2013, by the same author (written originally in October 2014.)
In May this year (2014), the people of India chose their Prime Minister. Over twelve years, several inquiry commissions — the Tewatia Committee (2010), the Nanavati Commission (2008), the Special Investigation Team (2011) under the Supreme Court — cleared Narendra Modi of all charges of having masterminded or, at least, encouraged the Godhra riots. Still, his detractors — politicians and ideology-driven activists in India, the US and Europe — have continued to label him “merchant of death”, “butcher”, “Nazi”, “fascist”, “murderer”, etc.
Let us examine the facts and see whether they can point to the riot’s real mastermind.
The Role of Congress Members
On 27 February 2002, when a coach of Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya went up in flames at Godhra railway station, a Congress member of the Godhra municipality, Haji Balal, led a mob and stopped the fire-fighting vehicle on its way to the station. The fire crew reported that “he had been visiting the fire station at night for the past few days on the pretext of watching films on television.” Haji Balal, a few days earlier, had the clutch plates of one of the main fire-fighting vehicles removed; in the second vehicle, the nut connecting the pipe to the water tank was spirited away.
Haji Balal who, according to locals, proudly proclaimed himself the “Bin Laden of Godhra”, is among eleven people convicted for criminal conspiracy and murder and sentenced to death by a special fast track court in the high-security Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad on 22 February 2011.
Other Congress members were also “booked for the carnage”. The attack on the pilgrims was carried out “according to what was planned earlier under the directions of [the late] Maulvi Umarji”, a religious leader of the Ghanchi Muslims of Godhra. “All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy,” concluded the Nanavati Report. “The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.”
“Destabilise the Administration”: Narendra Modi had assumed office as Gujarat Chief Minister on 7 October 2001, four months earlier. Incidentally, Maulvi Umarji got a ticket to campaign for the Congress in December 2002 state election in Gujarat.
In order to quickly gather a crowd of angry Muslims to the Godhra station and attack the train, so that no one would guess who was pouring petrol in the S6 and S7 coaches, rumours that a Ghanchi Muslim girl had been abducted by the Kar Sevaks were spread by the Jamiat-Ulema-E-Hind (JUH), a long-standing ally of the Congress.
From the start of the crisis, Narendra Modi appealed to the people to remain calm and exert self-control. On five occasions between 27 and 28 February, “CM addressed Media, Assembly and General public and everywhere the genesis and intention was one and the same, to punish the culprits responsible for the Godhra incident in an exemplary manner, so that it did not recur ever again.” He announced an ex-gratia payment of 200,000 rupees to the next of kin of those killed in the Godhra incident and ordered a high-level inquiry into the incident.
On 1st March, less than two days after the tragedy and while riots were raging, Modi requested the chief secretaries of neighbouring states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan to send ten companies of armed police from each state to assist the government in “handling law and order situation”. As the sociologist and author Madhu Kishwar points out, all three states then had Congress governments, and all three turned down the request.
Let us recall that the BJP-led NDA alliance had been in power at the Centre since 1998, confirmed by fresh elections in 1999. A 15-million-rupee campaign by journalist-activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, funded by the Congress Party and Communists to “politically isolate the BJP”, failed to convince the Indian people, who voted the BJP to power. And the crusaders had to swallow the obvious — that the streets of India remained peaceful during the NDA regime.
They however found a fertile ground in the US, especially with the evangelical lobbies. On 1st April 2002 Teesta Setalvad created “Citizens for Justice and Peace” (CJP), an NGO “outsourced by the Congress to the job of attacking Modi”, as Madhu Kishwar put it. The activists approached the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a U.S. government-funded body, with known roots in the evangelical movement, whose “original intention was to protect Christians around the world … to review facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally — and to make policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and the Congress”. Testifying before the USCIRF, Teesta Setalvad alleged that the BJP had conducted:
successful pogroms and attacks against the countries religious minorities, … recent state-sponsored Genocide of the Muslim Community in Gujarat … Brutal destruction of life, through rape, quartering of bodies, urinating on them and incarcerating [sic] them so that there is no trace or evidence of their remains … desecrating over 270 religious and cultural shrines belonging to the community … through systematic planning and targeted action by armed militias ideologically driven by the vision of a supreme and exclusive Hindu rashtra (state). … Over 2,000 lost their lives, 500 are missing and 250-300 girls and women were gang-raped before being quartered, burned and killed.
This “testimony” from India is what fed countless self-styled human rights organizations and intellectuals in India and in the West. They drank in Setalvad’s words and regurgitated them as articles and “reports” with a plethora of gory details.
As regards the number of riot victims, invariably quoted in thousands, the then Police Commissioner P.C. Pande, in a statement to the Special Investigating Team, declared,
… it was incorrect to say that 1000 people lost their lives in Ahmedabad City during the riots of 2002, whereas the actual number of deaths between February 28th 2002 and April 30th 2002 was 442, of whom 113 were Hindus and 329 Muslims. … All offences committed were duly and properly registered including by sending police officers to relief camps and therefore, no important crime remained unregistered.
According to the Congress-led UPA government’s statement in Parliament on 11 May 2005, the final figures of those killed in the Godhra riots are 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. In any case, the endlessly repeated figure of “2000 Muslim victims” has no basis in actual fact.
The SIT and Sanjeev Bhatt
Facts cannot so easily be wished away. And they were nailed by the Nanavati Report and the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chief R.K. Raghavan in response to a petition filed by Jakia Nasim, Ehsan Jafri’s widow, and Teesta Setalvad, which alleged criminal conspiracy by Narendra Modi’s government. Jakia Nasim’s testimony before the Nanavati Commission and Supreme Court in 2002 and 2003 was that “the mob would have lynched all of them but for the timely action by the police”. Four years later, her praise turned into complaint — except that the poor lady was not even aware of what she complained or petitioned about: “She has no personal knowledge of the allegations mentioned in the affidavits filed by R.B. Sreekumar during the years 2002, 2004 and 2005 on his own”, said the SIT.
Let us explain: The SIT, appointed on 23 March 2008, investigated two retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officers, one of them being R.B. Sreekumar just mentioned, to whom we will shortly return. The second one, Sanjeev Bhatt, then Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence in the Gujarat government, claimed after years of silence that he was present at a law and order meeting convened by the Chief Minister on 27 February night at his residence. At this meeting, which lasted 15-20 minutes, Sanjeev Bhatt claims that the Chief Minister said that “for too long the Gujarat police had been following the approach of balancing the action against Hindus and Muslims … that the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson, … it was imperative that Hindus be allowed to vent out their anger….”
As it turned out, none of the officials present even remembered the presence of Sanjeev Bhatt. Interrogated independently later, they denied any such talk by the Chief Minister, who, they asserted, said instead that the Godhra flare-up was very unfortunate and should be handled with a firm hand. The discussions centred around maintenance of law and order in view of the call for a bandh on the next day and the availability of forces. Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P.C. Pandey categorically stated that no instructions to allow any freedom to law-breakers were given by the Chief Minister. According to Prakash S. Shah, then Additional Secretary (Law & Order), the Chief Minister instructed all the officers that “communal peace and harmony be maintained at all costs and all possible steps be taken to control the possible communal flare-up.”
As for Sanjeev Bhatt’s testimony, the SIT called fax messages produced by him “not genuine”, “forged document, fabricated subsequently by someone with a vested interest.” “This conduct of Shri Sanjiv [sic] Bhatt in arranging, prompting and controlling the witness [a witness produced by him] to corroborate his statement is highly suspicious and undesirable.” And from the location of his mobile phone, his claim of being present at the said meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence proved to be false. “Shri Sanjiv Bhatt is a tainted witness and therefore, cannot be relied upon keeping in view his background in the police department as he was involved in criminal cases of serious nature and departmental inquiries are also in progress against him.” Cases against him included inflicting torture in custody leading to death, abduction, extortion and unprovoked firing, killings and planting narcotics with a view to blackmail. SIT head R.K. Raghavan concluded that Bhatt had lied and brought in tutored witnesses to falsely implicate Modi. The Gujarat Vigilance Commission recommended his suspension twice (on 15-07-2002 and 19-10-2006) for professional misconduct, but each time he managed to evade prosecution.
A last brush stroke on Sanjeev Bhatt’s erratic comportment is given by senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani in a Sunday Guardian article. The man “handed over charge and his official computer, leaving all his emails in an unprotected mode for all to read”… The state government forwarded the material to the SIT for investigations, and thanks to this irresponsible gesture, authorities harvested details of his “hobnobbing with the Opposition Congress party in a thoroughly illegal and almost seditious manner to concoct evidence against the Chief Minister and the state of Gujarat”. To this end Bhatt was in constant touch with top Congress party leaders, from whom he received not only guidance, but “packages” and “materials”, as per his own statement.
An Activist’s Career
Activist Teesta Setalvad built a successful career on the Godhra issue and on demonizing Narendra Modi, for which she has been covered with national and international awards. Let us mention just a few:
- In August 2002, the Rajiv Gandhi National Sadbhavana [Communal Harmony] Award instituted by the Congress (I), jointly with Harsh Mander (former IAS officer and NAC board member), “for their outstanding contribution towards communal harmony and national integration”.
- In 2003, the Nuremberg International Human Rights Award (jointly with Ibn Abdur Rehman, a Pakistani “peace and human-rights advocate and veteran communist from Pakistan”).
- The New York-based Parliamentarians for Global Action’s 2004 Defenders’ of Democracy Award, for her efforts “to ensure justice for the victims of the genocide in Gujarat.
- In 2006, the Nani Palkhivala Award. In her acceptance speech, Setalvad was all praise for an IPS officer to whom she dedicates her award, someone “who stood mighty in the face of a murderous and vindictive Gujarat administration.”
- In 2007, the Padma Shri Award from the Government of India, which since May 2004 had been run by a Congress-led coalition.
The ISRO Spy Scandal
The IPS officer praised by Setalvad (and referred to earlier by the SIT) is R.B. Sreekumar. He is remembered for the 1994 Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) spy scandal which implicated eminent ISRO scientists. Dust may have smothered the case with time but not the memory of those who were falsely accused. The story in brief:
As for Sanjeev Bhatt’s testimony, the SIT called fax messages produced by him “not genuine”, “forged document, fabricated subsequently by someone with a vested interest.
Development of the Indian [rocket’s] upper stage had been underway with Russian help for four years when the arrangements were denounced by American President George Bush as a violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. … In May 1992, the Bush administration announced that it was applying American sanctions on both the ISRO and Glavcosmos [the Russian agency collaborating with ISRO].
- Nambi Narayan, a senior scientist at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, an ISRO centre at Trivandrum (Kerala), was arrested on 30 November 1994 without any search being conducted at his office or home. Harassed and tortured, he refused to confess to the charge of selling defence secrets to two alleged Maldivian spies; he also refused to implicate the director of the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre. Nambi Narayan collapsed under the torture and was hospitalized. He was released after fifty days in custody. A colleague of his, D. Sasikumaran, was similarly arrested and interrogated. The two Maldivian women and two businessmen were also arrested and implicated.
Upon his release on 19 January 1995, Nambi Narayan was transferred out of Trivandrum; ISRO reinstated him and promoted him as director of Advanced Technology and Planning, but he was now a broken man.
The case was investigated by the CBI. A year later, in April 1996, its report indicted the Intelligence Bureau (IB) as the main organization responsible for creating an imaginary spy ring and falsely implicating the two eminent space scientists (besides two Maldivian women who were framed as “spies”). The CBI came down heavily on nine IB officials for “acting in an unprofessional manner and being privy to the arrest of six innocent persons, thereby causing them immense mental and physical agony”. The information collected by the IB and the Kerala police was “not only false but was forcefully extracted from the six accused”. The CBI filed its closure report on April 30, 1996, recommending that the accused be discharged, and necessary action taken against the IB officials and the Kerala Police.
Several IB officers were, according to the CBI report, responsible for this unprecedented frame-up, especially:
- IB Director C. Pathak managed to get the espionage case registered under the Indian Official Secrets Act 1923, “so that the case would get a trans-national dimension, even though the Act makes it clear that the Kerala Police have no legal right to do so”, as highlighted by the Kerala High Court and Supreme Court of India. Pathak advised the Kerala Director General of Police (DGP) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT); he also “informed” the then ISRO Chairman, K. Kasturirangan, that “incriminating documents had been seized from the scientists”. Pathak was indicted by the CBI in 1996 and sacked.
- Rattan Seghal had joined the IB as additional director five months before S. Nambi Narayan’s arrest. In November 1996, Seghal was “caught red-handed” by the then IB chief Arun Bhagath while having a secret rendezvous with two undercover CIA agents to hand over sensitive information about India’s Atomic Energy Commission. He was dismissed from service, but allowed to escape and settle in America.
- B. Sreekumar was an IPS officer seconded to the Central Industrial Security Force, and posted as commandant in charge of security of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre where Nambi Narayan was working. “The USA, with its excellent information gathering machinery, got wind of what was going on inside VSSC, and put the CIA on the job of sabotaging the cryogenic project,” writes Sam Rajappa. At the time of Nambi Narayan’s arrest, Sreekumar was posted as Rattan Seghal’s deputy. Despite being indicted by the CBI, Sreekumar was in 1998 awarded a “Medal for Distinguished Service” by the Government of India. We will return to him soon as he was probably the main player in the plot.
In Kerala’s Congress-led government (UDF), infighting raged between two camps over the ISRO Spy case. Chief Minister K. Karunakaran being no party to the spy story, he was forced to step down in March 1995 as he refused to drop charges against the IB officials implicated in the case. With A.K. Antony replacing him, the said officials were not prosecuted.
A change of regime followed in favour of the Communists; the new government issued a notification to reopen investigations into the ISRO spy case, and it was to be investigated by the same IB officials! On 29 April 1998, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Kerala Government for ordering yet another investigation by the State police after an inquiry by the CBI had found that the allegations of espionage were false and the accused had been ordered to be released. It quashed the notification for being “patently invalid … and issued with malafide intention.”
In 1998 the first work illuminating the story in detail came out — and almost instantly vanished from the shelves. In an article about his book Spies in Space: The ISRO Frame-up, J. Rajasekharan Nair author pertinently asks:
What about the charge that the cryogenic missile technology was transferred from ISRO to enemy countries? To begin with, India does not have cryogenic technology even today [in 2013]. How could then, in 1994, ‘spies’ transfer this non-existent technology? … 
Prof. Nambi Narayanan echoes those words in a recent interview to Rediff:
… at that time, we had not developed cryogenic technology, how can you sell a non-existent technology?
In September 1999, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) ordered the Kerala government to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs (one million) out of 1 crore (10 millions) to Nambi Narayan “for having damaged Narayanan’s distinguished career in space research along with the physical and mental torture to which he and his family were subjected.” A division bench of the Kerala high court upheld the order. But Kerala’s Congress-led government managed to block the payment, till Nambi Narayanan finally won a case for a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs which he received in September 2012 — 18 years after his arrest.
R.B. Sreekumar was sent back to his parent institution in Gujarat in August 2000. Disciplinary proceedings against him were started in 1999, but only on 29 January 2004 was he served a chargesheet by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The charges included:
- Illegally taking into custody the accused persons from the custody of Kerala Police without completing the legal formalities and conducting an independent investigation totally disassociating the Kerala Police.
- Torturing/ill-treating the accused persons during the investigation. Consequently, no written statement was recorded.
- The interrogation statements prepared by Sreekumar’s team were left unsigned and undated, indicating devious intent.
- Failing to conduct verification of the statements of the accused persons … which reflects lack of proper supervision, integrity to duty …
Without examining those implicated in the case, the investigations against Sreekumar, which involved charges of endangering national security, saw his file rush to closure in just 43 days, from 13 December 2004 to 24 January 2005: Sreekumar was cleared of all charges. In 2008, the UPA government granted him in addition the Gangadharan Memorial Award for Best Police Man, for his “courageous and competent performance of duties” during the 2002 Gujarat riots. He was invited with Teesta Setalvad for a lecture tour to the US, organized by the Indian Muslim Council-USA, to deliver discourses against Narendra Modi and the state of Gujarat, disregarding all evidence and investigations.
The same Congress-led Kerala government blocked all the CBI recommendations against IB and police officials, till it ordered closure of the file, fifteen years having conveniently passed since the case was initiated. However, on 20 October 2014, on an appeal from an indomitable Nambi Narayanan, Justice Ramakrishna Pillai of Kerala High Court quashed the order exonerating three police officials involved in the case.
Let us see whether they will finally be prosecuted and face justice — and not only these three but all those responsible for trying to wreck India’s space programme at the behest of a foreign power.
The UPA government cleared Sreekumar of the CBI charges against him but not without a quid pro quo: he became an ideal “prime witness” in the 2002 Godhra riots. When questioned by the Nanavati Commission before 2005, Sreekumar had never made any allegation against the Gujarat Chief Minister. He even submitted a letter “raising questions over Sanjeev Bhatt’s integrity for speaking up against Narendra Modi”. But from 9 April 2005 onward, with his third affidavit to the Nanavati Commission, he joined Bhatt’s and Setalvad’s demonization of the Gujarat administration.
However, the Supreme Court’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiring into the Godhra events found the allegations in Sreekumar’s affidavits to be “vague”, “too general in nature, [with] nothing specific against any individual police officer.” Sreekumar’s testimony was based on an “unauthorised register” which appeared only in 2005, with entries noted down from memory, including Narendra Modi’s alleged oral instructions to encourage riots between Hindus and Muslims. The SIT observed that disclosure was made about the said register only “after he was denied promotion.” “The register … cannot be considered to be a reliable document, as the same appears motivated and no credence can be placed upon the same. Moreover there is no corroboration to the oral version of R.B. Sreekumar by any of the independent witnesses. The allegation is, therefore, not established.”
Besides, the SIT found twenty-two “witnesses” whose signed affidavits were drafted, typed and printed on the same computer: their signatories were not even aware of what they signed regarding the alleged incidents.
Euros and US dollars flowed to Teesta Setalvad’s NGO. Among the donors were the Netherland-based Humanistic Institute for Co-Operation with the Developing Countries (HIVOS), the ever-ready Ford Foundation, etc… A statement of financial transactions of Teesta Setalvad and her NGOs, obtained through a Right to Information petition, revealed how she went from “rags to riches after 2000 Gujarat riots. A person who was not in a position to deposit even Rs. 500 in her account continuously for two years (from 1st Jan., 2001 to 31st Dec, 2002), could manage to get deposit of Rs. 1.49 crores in her account and Rs. 92.21 Lakhs into her husband Javed Anand’s account after Gujarat 2002 riots.”
Following the Clues
Answers to these questions point to the real masterminds of the Godhra events:
- Who gave orders to the Congress-ruled states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan to deny Gujarat the help it was urgently asking for to control the riots?
- “Tainted witness” Sanjeev Bhatt having “lied and brought in tutored witnesses to falsely implicate Modi,” the Gujarat Vigilance Commission recommended his suspension twice (on 15-07-2002 and 19-10-2006) for professional misconduct: who helped him evade prosecution each time?
- Who instructed the IB and Kerala police officers to frame ISRO scientists, thereby putting a brake on India’s space programmes?
- From 1994 to 2014, who shielded the IB officials and the Kerala police from being prosecuted, contrary to the CBI’s recommendations?
- In particular, who shielded Sreekumar in the ISRO spy case and enlistedhis cooperation in the demonization of Narendra Modi?
- Who in the previous UPA government decided not to prosecute Teesta Setalvad for perjury, arranging false witnesses and fabricated affidavits, and for misappropriating funds intended for riot victims?
Years ago, while campaigning in Gujarat, Sonia Gandhi had accused Narendra Modi of being a “merchant of death”. Let the reader decide who best deserves this designation.
Notes & References
 From Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice A.H. Mehta (henceforth “Nanavati Report”), p. 175: 229. The report is available on the website of the Gujarat government: http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf (accessed May 2014).
 From Justice Tewatia Committee Report, short for Gujarat Riots: The True Story; Facts Speak for Themselves – Godhra and After, A Field Study by Justice D. S. Tewatia, Dr. J.C. Batra, Dr. Krishan Singh Arya, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, Prof. B.K. Kuthiala. Council for International Affairs and Human Rights, Governing Body for the Term 2001-03. See “Staff of the Fire Brigade”. Online at:
www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2010/04/justice-tewatia-committee-report/ (retrieved June 2014). Also Nanavati Report, p. 86, 88, 89: 128, 130-131.
 Dasgupta, M. 2011. “11 get death in Godhra train burning case”, online at: www.thehindu.com/news/national/11-get-death-in-godhra-train-burning-case/article1500325.ece (retrieved July 2014).
 Among them, President of the District Congress Committee, Farooq Malla and Congress activist of Godhra Municipality, Abdul Rehman Dhatia. Tewatia Report, “Fifty-Eight Pilgrims Roasted Alive”.
 Nanavati Report, p. 159-160: 214; p. 175.
 Nanavati Report, p. 175: 229.
 Nanavati Report, pp 40-41: 51-52, p. 49: 68; pp. 158-159: 213.
 Special Investigation Team (SIT) Report, p. 241. The Supreme Court handed over all records pertaining to 2002 riots to SIT on 20.01.2010; SIT submitted its final report on Modi’s role in 2002 Gujarat riots, on 25.04.2011.
 SIT p. 21.
 Wikipedia, Communalism Combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_Combat . “In a 1999 interview, Javed Anand said that before the 1999 Lok Sabha elections, his monthly magazine Communalism Combat (published by Sabrang Communications since August 1993) requested and received funds from the Congress Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India and ten individuals to run advertisements attacking the Sangh Parivar and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)”.
 See Elst, K. & Rao, R.N. 2002. Gujarat after Godhra: Real Violence, Selective Outrage, Har-Anand, Delhi.
 See Balakrishna, S. 2014. “Narendra Modi’s visa denial still an unhealed wound” online at:
www.indiafacts.co.in/narendra-modis-visa-denial-still-an-unhealed-wound/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IndiaFacts+%28India+Facts%29#sthash.uTktS3o8.IyfIObzy.dpbs (retrieved May 2014).
 The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Commission_on_International_Religious_Freedom (retrieved May 2014).
 Teesta Setalvad’s testimony to the USCIRF, online at: http://web.archive.org/web/20070713194116/www.uscirf.gov/events/hearings/2002/june/06102002_setalvaTestimony.html (retrieved June 2014)
 SIT pp. 92-93.
 See “Gujarat Riots: the true story”, online at:
www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2008/05/myth-1-2000-muslims-were-killed-in-the-gujarat-riots/ (retrieved July 2014).
Narendra Modi’s interview for Seedhi Baat/Aaj Tak, in India Today, 04.11.2002, online at:
www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20021104/conf.shtml#co (retrieved July 2014).
 About Ehsan Jafri see Elfi, N. 2013. “The Godhra Riots: Sifting Facts from Fiction”, online at: www.scribd.com/doc/174541552/The-Godhra-Riots-Sifting-Fact-from-Fiction-Nicole-Elfi .
 SIT pp. 16, 18-19.
 SIT p. 16.
 SIT pp. 22-25.
 SIT pp. 25-27, 34, 522.
 SIT pp. 523-530.
 SIT p. 41.
 SIT p. 241.
 SIT pp. 48-51. Kishwar, M.P. 2013. “Modinama 6, Heroes of the Secular Brigade: A Glimpse into the Doings and Misdoings of Sanjiv Bhatt”, online at:
http://manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1703&ptype=campaigns (retrieved July 2014).
 Jethmalani, R. 2011. “UPA, media have a brazen mission to demonize Modi”, online at:
www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/upa-media-have-a-brazen-mission-to-demonize-modi (retrieved July 2014). Also Kishwar 2013: 6, op. cit.
 The National Advisory Council (2004-2014) was a body set up by the first UPA government to advise the Prime Minister of India. Sonia Gandhi served as its Chairperson from its inception to its end.
 Nuremberg International Human Rights Award, online at:
 Harvey, B. 2001. Russia in Space: The Failed Frontier, p. 259, Springer & Praxis Publications, UK, in Kishwar 2013: 13 – I, op. cit. & Kishwar 2013: 13 – II, “How India’s Space Program was Sabotaged”, online at: http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1731; also Simha, R.K. 2013. “How India’s cryogenic programme was wrecked”, online at: http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/12/04/how_indias_cryogenic_programme_was_wrecked_31365.html (retrieved July 2014).
 Joshi, R., et al. 1998. “IB Imagined Spy-Ring: CBI” online at:
www.outlookindia.com/article/IB-Imagined-SpyRing-CBI/205531 (retrieved July 2014). Also Kishwar 2013: 13 – II, op. cit.
 Joshi, R., et al. 1998, op. cit.
 Rajasekharan Nair, ibid.
 “Plot behind arrest of ISRO scientists, says Nambi Narayanan”, The New Indian Express, 27.8.2013, online at: www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/Plot-behind-arrest-of-ISRO-scientists-says-Nambi-Narayanan/2013/08/27/article1754032.ece (retrieved August 2014); Rajasekharan Nair 2013, op. cit.; Rajappa, S., “A scandal that ISRO would like to forget”, 24 October 2014, online at www.theweekendleader.com/Columns/153/looking-back.html (retrieved October 2014).
 Rajappa, S., op. cit.
 “Rogue cop RB Srikumar framed ISRO’s best”, Niticentral, 7.11.2013. Online at: www.niticentral.com/2013/11/07/how-rb-srikumar-framed-and-humiliated-isros-best-155357.html
 Rajasekharan Nair, ibid.
 Rajasekharan Nair, J. 2013. “Why My Book Didn’t Sell?”, online at:
www.openthemagazine.com/article/books/why-my-book-didn-t-sell (retrieved October 2014).
 Warrier, S. 2014. “Wronged ISRO scientist: India will be safe in Modi’s hands”, online at: www.rediff.com/news/interview/wronged-isro-scientist-india-will-be-safe-in-modis-hands/20140226.htm (retrieved August 2014); Ananthakrishnan, G. 2012. “Memories of a ‘spy’ who won – Framed scientist vindicated on milestone-eve”, The Telegraph, online at www.telegraphindia.com/1120909/jsp/frontpage/story_15955296.jsp
 In Kishwar 2013: 13-I, op. cit. Also CBI recommendations in Joshi, R., et al. 1998, op. cit.
 Kishwar, ibid.
 Indian Muslim Council – USA Organizes US Lecture Tour of Teesta Setalvad & R.B. Sreekumar July 7, 2008, online at: http://iamc.com/press-release/imc-usa_organizes_us_lecture_tour_of_teesta_setalvad__r__b__sreekumar/
 Venugopal 2012, “ISRO case: police officers freed of charges”, online at:
 “Kerala High Court quashes government order in ISRO spy case” online at: www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/kerala-high-court-quashes-govt-order-in-isro-spy-case/article6521226.ece .
 Kishwar 2013: 13-I, op.cit.
 SIT pp. 18 ff and 176-177.
 SIT pp. 85, 170-173.
 SIT pp. 65-71.
 SIT p. 16-19, 64, 227-233.
 “Teesta Setalvad received US $ 250,000 from the Ford Foundation”; “Evidence against Teesta Setalvad”, Dharma next, 6.8.2012, online at: http://dharmanext.blogspot.in/2012/08/teesta-setalvad-received-us-250000-from.html (retrieved July 2014).
 News Bharati, 7.1.2013, “Rags to riches after 2000 Gujarat riots: Teesta swallowed riot victims’ money?” Online at: http://en.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2013/7/1/Rags-to-riches-after-2000-Gujarat-riots-Teesta-swallowed-riot-victims-money-.aspx# (accessed August 2014).
 SIT pp. 48-50.