The 2002 Gujarat riots remain one of the most scrutinized and polarized chapters in the history of modern India. For nearly two decades, the legal and political battles surrounding the violence have shaped the careers of protagonists and antagonists alike. At the center of this storm stood R.K. Raghavan, the former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), who was tasked by the Supreme Court of India to lead the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in 2008.
In his recently released memoir, A Road Well Travelled, Raghavan breaks his long-held silence on the internal and external pressures that defined his nine-year tenure as the SIT chief. The book provides a startling look into the corridors of power, alleging that his refusal to implicate then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi led to a concerted campaign of harassment, surveillance, and character assassination by "vested interests" and political actors in Delhi.
Main Facts: The "Clean Chit" and the Allegations of Harassment
The core revelation of Raghavan’s memoir is his account of the investigation into the Gulberg Society massacre and the broader allegations of state complicity. The SIT, under Raghavan’s leadership, ultimately submitted a report to the Supreme Court that found no evidence to prosecute Narendra Modi for the riots. This "clean chit" became a turning point in Indian politics, but according to Raghavan, it came at a significant personal and professional cost.
Raghavan describes his role as the "most contentious assignment" of his career. He alleges that because the SIT’s findings did not align with the narrative favored by the then-central government (led by the UPA) and certain civil society activists, he was targeted through various means:
- Surveillance: Raghavan claims that central agencies were misused to monitor his telephonic conversations in hopes of finding incriminating material.
- Petitions and Legal Challenges: A barrage of petitions was filed against him, accusing him of favoring the Gujarat administration.
- Institutional Sabotage: He details how competent officers in his team, such as Geetha Johri and Shivanand Jha, were "eased out" based on what he describes as "flimsy charges" orchestrated by political adversaries.
- Professional Isolation: Raghavan notes that even former colleagues in the intelligence community turned against him, participating in what he calls an "anti-SIT cabal."
Chronology of the Investigation (2002–2017)
To understand the gravity of Raghavan’s claims, one must look at the timeline of the investigation which spanned fifteen years from the initial violence to the final conclusion of his tenure.
- February 27, 2002: The Sabarmati Express is set on fire at Godhra, killing 59 kar sevaks. This event triggers widespread communal violence across Gujarat.
- February 28, 2002: The Gulberg Society massacre occurs, where 69 people, including former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, are killed.
- 2003–2006: Numerous petitions are filed in the Supreme Court by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and activists like Teesta Setalvad, alleging that the local police were not investigating the cases fairly.
- March 2008: The Supreme Court of India appoints a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe nine major riot cases. R.K. Raghavan is named the head of the team.
- 2009: Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri, files a petition alleging a larger conspiracy involving Narendra Modi and 62 others. The Supreme Court asks the SIT to investigate these specific allegations.
- 2010: In a historic move, the SIT questions Narendra Modi for nearly nine hours. It is the first time a sitting Chief Minister is interrogated in a criminal case.
- 2012: The SIT files its final closure report in a local court, stating there is "no prosecutable evidence" against Modi and others in the conspiracy case.
- 2017: Raghavan officially steps down from his role after nine years of overseeing the trials and subsequent appeals.
Supporting Data: Debunking the Conspiracy Theories
In A Road Well Travelled, Raghavan provides a detailed breakdown of why the SIT reached its conclusions, specifically addressing the two most high-profile allegations against the then-Chief Minister.
The Myth of the Late-Night Meeting
One of the most damaging allegations came from Sanjeev Bhatt, a former IPS officer, who claimed to have attended a meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence on the night of February 28, 2002. Bhatt alleged that Modi had instructed senior police officials to allow Hindus to "vent their anger."
Raghavan’s book dismisses this claim with clinical precision. He writes that the SIT identified every official present at that meeting. None of the senior officers corroborated Bhatt’s story. Furthermore, the SIT found that Bhatt, who was a junior officer at the time, was not on the invitee list and there was no evidence of his presence. Raghavan categorizes Bhatt as a "relentless critic" whose claims lacked any evidentiary backing.
The Ehsan Jafri Phone Call
Another central pillar of the accusation was that Ehsan Jafri had made desperate phone calls to the Chief Minister while his housing society was being besieged by a mob, and that those calls were ignored.
The SIT’s investigation, according to Raghavan, involved a thorough review of call data records and witness testimonies. He asserts that there was no record to establish that Jafri had tried to reach the Chief Minister. While the tragedy of Jafri’s death was undeniable, the SIT concluded that the charge of direct complicity or a refusal to help by the Chief Minister could not be proven by the available data.
The Godhra Conspiracy
Raghavan also sheds light on the Godhra train burning itself. While some early theories suggested the fire was an accident or a spontaneous outburst, the SIT’s investigation concluded it was a pre-planned conspiracy by local residents. This finding was crucial because it provided the context for the "trigger" that led to the subsequent riots, though Raghavan maintains that this did not justify the retaliatory violence that followed.
Official Responses and the "Anti-SIT Cabal"
Raghavan reserves his sharpest criticism for those he calls "SIT-baiters." He identifies prominent figures such as activist Teesta Setalvad, former IPS officer R.B. Sreekumar, and Sanjeev Bhatt as the primary drivers of the campaign against the SIT.
Allegations of Political Interference
Raghavan alleges that these individuals were often instigated by "highly placed persons at the helm of affairs in Delhi"—a thinly veiled reference to the UPA government. He suggests that the objective was not necessarily justice for the victims, but the political neutralization of Narendra Modi.
He recounts an incident where he emailed the Supreme Court directly to defend his team members, Geetha Johri and Shivanand Jha, from dismissal. This move was met with "venom" from a former central government law officer, who accused Raghavan of being "irregular and irreverential" toward the court. Raghavan expresses regret that the apex court did not allow these officers to defend themselves against what he terms "flimsy charges" backed by a political party.
The Role of the Supreme Court
Despite the attacks from civil society and political circles, Raghavan credits the Supreme Court for standing by him. He notes that while the "cabal" tried to undermine his credibility, the apex court "backed me to the hilt," allowing the SIT to maintain its clinical and professional approach to the investigation.
Implications: Judicial Integrity vs. Political Narrative
The reflections shared by R.K. Raghavan in his memoir have profound implications for how India views the intersection of criminal investigation and political warfare.
1. The Vulnerability of Independent Investigators
Raghavan’s account serves as a cautionary tale for high-ranking officials tasked with sensitive investigations. If a former CBI Director can be subjected to phone monitoring and organized harassment for following the evidence, it raises questions about the protections afforded to those in similar positions today.
2. The Validation of the SIT’s Findings
For supporters of the current administration, Raghavan’s book acts as a final vindication. It portrays the "clean chit" not as a result of political maneuvering, but as the outcome of a rigorous, evidence-based process that refused to succumb to "convenient" narratives.
3. The Crisis of Credibility in Activism
The memoir’s portrayal of Teesta Setalvad and others as "detractors" operating with political backing adds fuel to the ongoing debate regarding the neutrality of human rights activists in India. Raghavan’s assertion that their goal was to "defame the then Gujarat government" rather than seek the truth suggests a deep-seated distrust between the investigating agencies and civil society.
4. Legal Precedent and the Gulberg Case
By detailing the lack of evidence in the Zakia Jafri petition, Raghavan’s book reinforces the legal standing of the SIT’s closure report, which has survived multiple challenges in various courts, including the Supreme Court of India.
Conclusion
R.K. Raghavan’s A Road Well Travelled is more than just a memoir; it is a defense of professional integrity in an era of extreme political polarization. By choosing to speak out now, Raghavan provides a necessary counter-perspective to the narratives that have dominated the discourse on the 2002 riots for nearly twenty years.
His account suggests that while the riots were a dark chapter for the nation, the subsequent investigation was a battleground where the casualty was often the reputation of those seeking the truth. As Raghavan concludes in his book, he was found "inconvenient" because he refused to buy into a pre-written script, opting instead for a "clinical and professional" investigation that ultimately changed the course of Indian political history.
