US embassy cable - 04MUMBAI2344

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MUMBAI 002344 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, PREL, IN, Indian Domestic Politics 
SUBJECT: BEST BAKERY STAR WITNESS CHANGES TESTIMONY...AGAIN 
 
REF: A. 03 MUMBAI 828; B. 03 MUMBAI 1033; C. 03 MUMBAI 1486; D. 04 MUMB 
 1826; E. NEW DELHI 2185 
 
 
1. (SBU) Summary.  On November 4, 2004, star eyewitness Zaheera 
Shaikh of the emblematic/symbolic Best Bakery case from the 
March-May 2002 violence in Gujarat, refused to testify in the 
Mumbai special court.   A day earlier she had appeared with her 
brother, another key witness, at a press conference in the 
siblings' home town in Gujarat hurling accusations at an NGO and 
a well-known human rights activist that had been supporting her 
case.  In April 2004, the Indian Supreme Court ordered that the 
Best Bakery case be retried in Maharashtra, because of appeals 
made by Zaheera, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 
and the voluntary organization Citizens for Justice and Peace 
(CJP) that the victims were terrified of testifying in any court 
in Gujarat.  According to some of the political and human rights 
contacts we spoke to, Zaheera's repeated recantations of what 
occurred in 2002 (she has already given three contradicting 
accounts of the incident) will be a major setback to the justice 
process in Gujarat; however, editorial opinion argues that the 
other riot cases will continue unaffected by the recent turn of 
events (reftels).  End Summary. 
 
2. (U) On November 3, 2004 Zaheera Shaikh  appeared at a press 
conference in her home town of  Vadodara, Gujarat, and made 
accusations against Mumbai-based human rights activist Teesta 
Setalvad and CJP that she was "[coerced] to name political 
figures" and was "being held against her will."  Both have 
championed   Shaikh's  cause since July 2003.  She also stated 
that four of the accused were not involved in the bakery arson. 
She claimed that Setalvad coached her into naming them in her 
affidavit to the Indian Supreme Court.  Gujarat chief minister 
Narendra Modi of the BJP immediately told the media that the 
role of certain NGOs who are unduly trying to influence the 
judicial process should be examined.  As the news of Zaheera's 
press conference reached Mumbai, defense counsel Adhik Shirodkar 
proclaimed, "this lends credence to our claim that she was being 
coached all along to name my clients, who were not even in 
Vadodara on the day of the arson." 
 
3. (U) Also on November 3, 2004, the Government of Maharashtra 
(GOM) prosecutorial officers requested the court to declare 
Zaheera's brother Nafitullah an "absent witness."  The court was 
informed that he disappeared on October 25, 2004 in spite of 
being under police protection.  Instead of court, Nafitullah 
appeared with Zaheera at her Vadodara press conference.  Zaheera 
also risks being declared absent as she did not appear in court 
on November 4, 2005.  The GOM is reporting that they believe 
that their case is not weakened as the case against the rioters 
is not solely dependent upon Zaheera's testimony and other 
witnesses have already testified. 
 
What is driving Zaheera? 
------------------------ 
 
4. (U)  In media interviews, Teesta Setalvad categorically 
denied the allegations. She further suggested that Zaheera and 
her brother have been "got at" - either threatened with 
retaliation or bribed - to change their testimony.  Setalvad did 
not say who might have threatened or bribe the witnesses.  Some 
media are suggesting that the root cause of the change in 
testimony is because Zaheera was attempting to extort a more 
comfortable life in Mumbai from CJP (who Zaheera believed had 
received large amounts of cash due to her case).  When CJP did 
not meet Zaheera's demands, Zaheera recanted. 
 
5. (SBU) Our media contacts have told us that they themselves 
suspected something was amiss in the Setalvad-Zaheera 
relationship for the past three months.  Setalvad refused to 
tell anyone where Zaheera was located, which could be due to 
witness safety considerations; however, our contacts reported 
that Setalvad even denied cell-phone interviews.  Another NGO 
activist from Ahmedabad said, "What we are calling Setalvad's 
over-protectiveness, Zaheera is calling 'being held against her 
wishes.'  How can we blame her?" 
 
6. (SBU) A senior lawyer practicing in the Gujarat high court 
told us, "Even in case of her initial statement in Gujarat court 
in May 2003 which caused the accused to be let off, my 
information is that she was promised money by the accused, but 
did not get it.  So she held a media conference in July 2003 
saying she lied in court.  If the NGO says she is lying for 
money now in October 2004, the accused are going to turn around 
and say that she was lying for money in July 2003." 
 
 
Implications for Gujarat Justice Process 
---------------------------------------- 
 
7.  (U) The human rights community is divided about the 
implications of the latest theatrical developments in Zaheera's 
case for the justice process in Gujarat.  By the end of the 
violence in May 2002, Gujarat police registered more than 4000 
cases, but only 2000 were taken to court.  The other cases were 
summarily closed with officials stating that while a crime had 
been committed, the identity of the perpetrators could not be 
ascertained.  In June 2004, the Indian Supreme Court directed 
the Gujarat police to appoint a high-level committee to go into 
each of the summarily closed cases.  That process is underway. 
 
8. (U) Out of the remaining 2000 cases, the Indian Supreme Court 
has stayed trials in ten major arson cases (including the Godhra 
train burning that set off the violence), while the other 2000 
odd cases are winding their way through the Gujarat lower 
courts.  After the Indian Supreme Court put Zaheera's case under 
the microscope in July 2003, Gujarat lower courts have handed 
out punishments to perpetrators in some 200 cases (the accused 
could still be exonerated on appeal to the Gujarat High Court.) 
Alluding to this, some media editorial pages have strongly 
suggested that Zaheera's recantation wouldn't derail the process 
already set in motion.  Correspondents from some of the very 
same media outlets, however, reported that human rights 
community in Gujarat is discouraged while those awaiting trial 
are hopeful that they too will have their cases called into 
question. 
 
9. (SBU) A Mumbai-based human rights activist told us, "the real 
tragedy of this drama is that the retrial will lose importance 
in the mind of the media compared to Zaheera's antics.  Not only 
that, in other trials too, people will suspect that the victims 
are trying to cash in just like Zaheera. I think it is a serious 
setback."  Another said, "Teesta Setalvad was following a risky 
strategy of basing too much on a single testimony.  At least the 
GOM prosecutors have been thorough in securing testimony of 
other witnesses.  So the case still might reach a reasonable 
verdict." 
 
10. (SBU) Ahmedabad-based human rights activist Father Prakash 
(who is closely associated with Setalvad) said, "The court is 
not foolish.  It understands that this girl has given three 
different versions already.  Other witnesses have testified. 
Neither this retrial, nor others in Gujarat are going to suffer 
in any way.  The justice process is firmly underway." 
 
Comment: 
------- 
11. (SBU)  Zaheera's dilemma highlights the internal 
contradiction in the justice process after incidents of mass 
violence in India.  The poor or not so poor victims may be 
bought over easily because they want to pick up the pieces of 
their lives and move on, while the champions of justice -- whose 
lives were in no way affected by the violence - hope the victims 
stick to their testimony.  It is too early to state whether or 
not the justice system, which seemed to be exercising its 
independence by removing the case from Gujarat, will be 
dramatically impacted by these events.  Zaheera's changing 
testimony does, however, highlight basic problems of the entire 
system.  Whatever the true reason for Zaheera's change in 
testimony, the fact that the media and our contacts seem to feel 
that all explanations are equally viable (being threatened, 
being bribed, or actively trying to sell testimony) indicate 
that basic safeguards to protect the witnesses are still weak in 
these highly charged cases. 
 
 
SIGNATURE