The 2002 Gujarat riots remain one of the most scrutinized and politically charged chapters in the history of independent India. At the center of the legal maelstrom that followed was the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court, headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director R.K. Raghavan. In his recently published autobiography, A Road Well Travelled, Raghavan provides a detailed and often harrowing account of his nine-year tenure as the SIT chief. His memoir alleges a concerted campaign of harassment, surveillance, and character assassination aimed at him because he refused to implicate the then-Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, in the communal violence.
Raghavan’s revelations offer a rare glimpse into the intersection of high-stakes criminal investigation and national politics, suggesting that the search for the truth was frequently obstructed by "vested interests" determined to see a specific political outcome.
Main Facts: The "Clean Chit" and the Allegations of Harassment
The core of the controversy surrounding Raghavan’s tenure involves the "clean chit" provided to Narendra Modi. In 2008, the Supreme Court of India appointed Raghavan to lead an SIT to re-investigate nine major riot cases, including the horrific Gulberg Society massacre. A primary focus of the investigation was a petition filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed during the Gulberg Society violence.
Zakia Jafri’s petition alleged a high-level conspiracy involving Narendra Modi and 62 others, including senior ministers and bureaucrats. The SIT, however, concluded in its final report that there was no "prosecutable evidence" to link the Chief Minister to the riots.
In A Road Well Travelled, Raghavan asserts that this clinical, evidence-based approach made him a target. He writes that he was found "inconvenient" because he refused to adopt the narrative that the state administration had actively connived with rioters. According to Raghavan, his refusal to "buy the argument" of state complicity led to:
- Surveillance: Claims that central agencies were misused to monitor his telephonic conversations.
- Petitions: A flurry of legal challenges and petitions engineered to question his integrity and impartiality.
- Personal Attacks: What he describes as a "venomous" campaign by activists and former colleagues to undermine his authority.
Chronology: From Godhra to the Final Report
To understand the weight of Raghavan’s claims, one must look at the timeline of the investigation and the immense pressure under which the SIT operated.
February 2002: The Catalyst
On February 27, 2002, the Sabarmati Express was set on fire at Godhra, killing 59 kar sevaks. This event triggered widespread communal riots across Gujarat. Raghavan’s book clarifies a significant finding of the SIT: that the Godhra arson was a "conspiracy of local residents" and not an accidental fire caused by a stove, as some had initially suggested.
2008: The Appointment
Following years of dissatisfaction with the local police investigations, the Supreme Court intervened. In March 2008, it constituted the SIT and chose R.K. Raghavan, a retired CBI director with a reputation for integrity, to head it. Raghavan assumed office in early 2008 and would remain in the role for nine years.
2010: The Questioning of a Chief Minister
In a historic first, the SIT summoned Narendra Modi for questioning in March 2010. Raghavan describes this period as one of intense scrutiny. The questioning lasted nearly nine hours, during which Modi was grilled on his actions and the decisions made during the peak of the violence.
2012–2017: Closure and Exit
In 2012, the SIT filed its closure report in a local court, stating it found no evidence to prosecute Modi. Despite numerous protest petitions, the findings were largely upheld by various judicial tiers. Raghavan eventually stepped down on April 30, 2017, after nearly a decade of navigating what he calls the "most contentious assignment" of his career.
Supporting Data: Debunking the Conspiracy Theories
Raghavan’s book provides specific rebuttals to the most prominent allegations leveled against the Gujarat administration during the riots. He emphasizes that the SIT’s conclusions were based on a lack of corroborative evidence rather than a desire to shield anyone.
The Case of Ehsan Jafri
One of the most poignant charges was that Ehsan Jafri had called the Chief Minister for help as a mob surrounded the Gulberg Society, and that help was denied. Raghavan writes that the SIT conducted an exhaustive search of phone records and found no evidence to establish that the MP had reached out to the CM. Furthermore, the SIT noted reports suggesting the mob was further enraged when Jafri opened fire in self-defense, a detail often omitted in political narratives.
The "Illegal Direction" Meeting
A central pillar of the accusation against Modi was a meeting allegedly held on the night of February 28, 2002. Sanjeev Bhatt, then a junior IPS officer, claimed he was present at the meeting where Modi allegedly told police officers to allow Hindus to "vent their anger."
Raghavan deconstructs this claim in his memoir:
- Presence: The SIT established that Sanjeev Bhatt was too junior to be invited to such a high-level meeting.
- Corroboration: None of the senior officers whose presence was confirmed by the SIT supported Bhatt’s version of events.
- Clinical Findings: Consequently, the SIT report to the Supreme Court absolved the Chief Minister of giving any illegal directions to the police.
The Removal of Team Members
Raghavan laments the removal of his colleagues, Geetha Johri and Shivanand Jha, from the SIT. He claims they were "eased out" by the Supreme Court based on "flimsy charges" leveled by vested interests. Raghavan describes his efforts to protect his team, including writing directly to the Court, which led to further accusations that he was being "irreverent" to the judiciary.
Official Responses and the "Anti-SIT Cabal"
Raghavan is blunt in identifying those he believes were responsible for the campaign against him. He names prominent activists and former officers, labeling them the "anti-SIT cabal."
The Detractors
Raghavan identifies Teesta Setalvad, a well-known human rights activist, and R.B. Sreekumar, a former IPS officer, as his staunchest critics. He alleges that these individuals were instigated by "highly placed persons at the helm of affairs in Delhi"—a clear reference to the then-ruling UPA government.
He also directs sharp criticism toward Sanjeev Bhatt, noting that Bhatt has since been convicted in a murder case and faces other charges of professional misconduct. Raghavan suggests that the motivations of these critics were more political than humanitarian.
The Role of the Supreme Court
While Raghavan expresses regret that the Supreme Court did not give his team members an opportunity to defend themselves against "flimsy" allegations, he acknowledges that the apex court ultimately "stood by me and backed me to the hilt." This judicial backing was crucial in allowing the SIT to complete its report despite the external pressure.
Implications: Justice, Politics, and Investigative Integrity
The reflections shared in A Road Well Travelled have profound implications for the Indian legal and political landscape.
1. The Politicization of Investigations
Raghavan’s account serves as a cautionary tale about the politicization of criminal probes. When an investigation involves high-ranking political figures, the investigator often becomes the "inconvenient" party. Raghavan’s claim that central agencies were used to monitor a Supreme Court-appointed investigator suggests a significant breach of institutional boundaries.
2. The Finality of the "Clean Chit"
For years, the "clean chit" given to Narendra Modi was a point of fierce debate. Raghavan’s book reinforces the SIT’s position that the decision was not a result of bias but of a "clinical and professional" lack of evidence. This narrative helped pave the way for Modi’s transition from a regional leader under a cloud of suspicion to the Prime Minister of India.
3. The Cost of Public Service
Raghavan’s description of the "venom" and "harassment" he faced highlights the personal cost of leading high-profile probes in India. His experience suggests that integrity in such roles often results in isolation and character assassination, potentially deterring other officials from taking on controversial assignments.
4. Judicial Oversight
The SIT’s journey underscores the vital role of the Supreme Court in overseeing investigations that the state police may be unable or unwilling to handle impartially. However, Raghavan’s critique of the court’s decision to remove his team members also suggests that even the highest judiciary can be influenced by the "public clamor" generated by activists and the media.
Conclusion
R.K. Raghavan’s A Road Well Travelled is more than just a memoir; it is a defense of professional investigative standards against the tides of political expediency. By detailing the harassment he faced, Raghavan aims to set the record straight on the 2002 Gujarat riot probe. While his detractors may continue to question the SIT’s findings, Raghavan’s account adds a significant layer of context to one of India’s most debated legal outcomes, portraying a man who, caught between powerful political factions, chose to rely strictly on the "corroboration of charges" rather than the "overflow of emotions."
