Godhra the True Story

8/14/2019 Godhra the True Story

1/17

GODHRA: THE TRUE STORY

Nicole Elfi

Godhra, a city of the Indian State of Gujarat, was the lead story in all Indian newspapers on February27th-28th, 2002. A shattering piece of news: 58 Hindu pilgrims had been burned alive in a train. 57 die inghastly attack on train ran the Times of Indias headline; Mob targets Ramsevaks [Devotees of Rama]returning from Ayodhya; 58 killed in attack on train with Karsevaks [volunteers] (The Indian Express);1500-strong mob butcher 57 Ramsevaks on Sabarmati Express (The Asian Age). But the BBCsannouncement had a very different tone: 58 Hindu extremists burned to death orAgence FrancePress on March 2nd: A train full of Hindu extremists was burnt.

A deluge of anguished news followed about a Muslim genocide: Mass killings of Muslims in reprisalriots (NYT, March 5th), The authorities share the prejudices of the Hindu gangs who have been busypulping their Muslim neighbours (The Observer, March 4th). We were told that Narendra Modi, ChiefMinister of Gujarat, intended to eradicate Muslims from the State more than 9% of Gujaratspopulation, in other words five million people. We read that the police was conniving in the massslaughter and did nothing to prevent it. Narendra Modi was compared to Hitler, or Nero. We shudderedreading the reports describing rapes and various horrors, supposedly inflicted on Muslims by Hindus.

Today, six years later, with the noises and cries of the wounds having fallen silent, what emerges fromthose events? What are the facts?

At 7:43 A.M. on February 27th, 2002, the Sabarmati Express rolled into the Godhra station, fortunatelywith a four-hour delay, in broad daylight. This train transported more than 2,000 people, mainlykarsewaks on their way back to Ahmedabad after participating in the Poorna Ahuti Yagya at Ayodhya, aritual at the traditional birthplace of Rama.

As it pulled out of the station, the train was pelted with stones and bricks, and passengers from severalbogeys were forced to bring down their windows to protect themselves. Someone pulled the emergencychain: the train came to a halt about 100 metres away from the platform, surrounded by a large crowd ofMuslims. The railway police managed to disperse the crowd, and the train resumed its journey.

Within minutes, the emergency chain was simultaneously pulled again, from several coaches. It haltedat about 700 metres from the station. A crowd of over 1,000 surrounded the train, pelting it with bricks,stones, then burning missiles and acid bulbs, especially on the S-5, S-6 and S-7 coaches.

The vacuum pipe between coaches S-6 and S-7 was cut, thereby preventing any further movement ofthe train. The doors were locked from outside. A fire started in coach S-7, which the passengers wereable to extinguish. But the attack intensified and coach S-6 caught fire and minutes later, was in flames.Passengers who managed to get out of the burning compartment were attacked with sharp weapons, and

stoned. They received serious injuries, some were killed. Others got out through the windows and tookshelter below the coach.

Fifty eight pilgrims were burned alive, including twenty-seven women and ten children. The wholeattack lasted 20-25 minutes.[1]

What transpired then, in the Indian press? Lets imagine a coach of French pilgrims coming back fromLourdes, burned alive.


2/17

Strangely, instead of clearly, straightforwardly condemning the act, the Indian English-language presstried to justify it: Pilgrims provoked by chanting pro-Hindu slogans (they were not slogans but bhajans,or devotional songs, ending with Jai Sri Ram (Victory to Sri Rama). Its because they were returningfrom Ayodhya, where they asked for the reconstruction of a temple at the traditional birth place of Rama;this offends the feelings of the Muslims. In sum, the victims, roasted alive, were guilty.

The Anger

Numb with shock, the people of Gujarat did not react straightaway. They remained calm at first. Tillthat afternoon, when the charred bodies started arriving at their respective families with no comfortingvoice sounded, either from the government, or from the media, no condemnation for this barbaric act, butan indifferent, deafening silence then these people known for their non-violent nature and exceptionalpatience, burst into a frenzy.

There was a revolt in the whole of Gujarat. For three days, tens of thousands of enraged Hindus setfire to Muslim shops, houses, vehicles: They came out from all sides, all parties, all classes,uncontrollable one cannot control a revolution (except in China maybe). The fatalities: 720 Muslims,250 Hindus, according to official figures.

We read all over about a genocide of Muslims. Do we remember a single report on the Hindus whoheroically helped save Muslims in their neighborhood? Was even one family of Hindu victims interviewedfollowing the criminal burning of the Sabarmati Express? One fourth of the dead in the ensuing riots wereHindus. How to classify those 250 victims? Who evoked the dead on the Hindu side? According toreports, Congress Party councillor Taufeeq Khan Pathan and his son Zulfi, notorious gangsters, wereallegedly seen leading Muslim rioters. Another such character, Congress member of the GodhraNagarpalika [municipality], Haji Balal, was said to have had the fire-fighting vehicle sabotagedbeforehand.[2] Then,

he stopped the vehicle on its way to the Godhra Station and did not allow it to proceed any further. A manstood in front of the vehicle, the mob started pelting stones, Theheadlights and the windowpanes of the vehicle got damaged Fearing for his own and his crew's life,

the driver drove the vehicle through the mob, as it was not possible to move backwards. The mob gave inbut 15-20 precious minutes had been lost.[3]

Lost for a coach full of innocent people in flames.

Which newspaper article stated that the most violent events took place following provocations byleaders of this sort? The Union Home Ministry's Annual Report of 2002-03 stated that 40,000 Hinduswere in riot relief camps. What made those 40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? To seek protection fromwhom? Why was it necessary if they were the main aggressors?

More than the barbaric event itself, it is the insensitivity of the Indian elite and of the media thatinfuriated the Gujaratis.

Those accused of terrorism often receive political support, are benevolently portrayed by the media,and a host ofhuman rights organisations are always on hand to fight for them. But those victims whoselife is cut down for no reason, are they not human enough to get some rights too? The great majority ofthose who took to revolt in Gujarat were neither rich nor particularly intellectual neither right nor left:they were middle- and lower-class Gujaratis, simple people, workers, also tribals. But some from theupper middle class, among them a lot of women, took part in the upheaval.

The media sources


3/17

Apart from local journalists usually more objective in their reports, no English media reporter, thought it

worthwhile to look deeper into the events at the Godhra railway station. Nobody came to questionpossible survivors of the tragedy. Is a coach of Hindu pilgrims even worth the trip? They had to wait forthe elite to react; they had to receive directives from the politically correct, before taking their pens.Worse, they reported deliberate rumours and made up versions as actual news.

We were told, for instance, that when some pilgrims got off the ill-fated coaches to have tea, somealtercation took place between them, and a Muslim tea vendor: They argued with the old man onpurpose, wrote some newspapers; they refused to pay for their tea (though Gujarati honesty is wellknown); they pulled his beard and beat him up ... They kept shouting Mandir ka nirmaan karo, Babar kiaulad ko bahar karo (start building the temple and throw out the sons of Babar). Hearing the chaos, thetea vendors 16-year-old daughter came forward and tried to save her father from the karsevaks. Shekept pleading and begging them to leave him alone. The karsevaks, according to this version, then seizedthe girl, took her inside their compartment and closed the door. The old man kept banging on the doorand pleaded for his daughter. Then two stall vendors jumped into the last bogey, pulled the chain, and putthe bogey on fire.

But would they have been stupid enough to set fire to the coach where their colleagues young

daughter was being held? And why were 2,000 Muslims assembled there at 7 A.M. with jerry-cans ofpetrol bought the previous evening?

Rajeev Srinivasan, an American journalist of Indian origin, was e-mailed this anonymous report adozen times, supposedly written by Anil Soni, Press Trust of India reporter. He contacted Anil Soni tocheck on the veracity of this account. Soni answered:

Some enemy of mine has done this to make life difficult for me, do you understand, sir? I did not write thisat all. I am a PTI correspondent. Yes, that is my phone number, but it is not my writing.

Anil Soni apparently had heard about it from hundreds of people, and was upset to see a false reportcirculated in his name.

Inquiries with the Railway Staff and passengers travelling in the Sabarmati Express showed that: noquarrel whatsoever took place on the platform between a tea vendor and pilgrims, and no girl wasmanhandled nor kidnapped.

As the Nanavati Report established later, this fictitious report was in fact circulated by the Jamiat-Ulma-E-Hind, the very hand responsible for the carnage.[4] It nevertheless went around the world,exhibited as the true story. Arent we compelled to conclude that the assailants, in India, are those whodictate whats politically correct, and instruct the media?

Arson and Canards

On the afternoon of February 28th, Gujarati Hindus revolt broke out. A few journalists then booked

their tickets for Gujarat. As far as we can see, they had a framework in place: the outbreak would be dealtwith independently of the Godhra carnage, as a different, unrelated subject; it was a planned violenceperpetrated by fundamentalist Hindus against Gujarats Muslims, fully backed by the State of Gujarat.From this day on, the burning of coach S-6 was to be left behind, forgotten.

On February 28th evening, Chief Minister Narendra Modi announced his decision to deploy the Army,and the next day, March 1st, by 11 A.M. the actual deployment of troops at sensitive points had begun.Violence abated in most major cities, after their arrival with orders to shoot on sight. But security forceswere largely outnumbered by the angry flood of people, spreading for the first time like rivers in spate, to


4/17

rural areas and villages. Apprehending the seriousness of the situation, Narendra Modi had made arequest for security personnel from neighbouring States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan andPunjab. This request was turned down by each State. Why did no one report this fateful refusal?

That same day (1st March), at the peak of the turmoil, the National Human Rights Commission faxed anotice to the Gujarat Government, calling for a report within three days on the measures being taken

to prevent any further escalation of the situation in the State of Gujarat which is resulting in continuedviolation of human rights of the people.[5] But it was silent on what had led to such a situation in the firstplace.

One major event which received a great deal of attention from the media was the conflagration at theGulbarg Societyin Ahmedabad, home of a former Member of Parliament, Ehsan Jaffri. This man, ratherrefined and usually respected, did not feel threatened. But on February 28th morning, a crowdsurrounded his house, in which a number of Muslims had taken refuge. Jaffri made a number of panic-stricken phone calls for help to authorities and to his colleagues, journalists and friends. The crowd wasgrowing (from 200 to 20,000, figures vary in the reports). The Indian Express (March 1st, 2002), aswell as police records, reported that eventually, in panic, he fired at the 5,000-strong mob 2 werekilled and 13 injured ... That incensed the mob which at 1:30 P.M. set the bungalow ablaze byexploding a gas cylinder. Final toll: 42 (March 11th edition).

Human Rights Watch, an NGO based in New York, published a dossier (on April 30th, 2002) about theGujarat events which caused a sensation and fed a large number of articles in the international press.

In this report, Smita Narula had an unnamed witness at hand, to relate the attack on Jaffris house.First a 200 to 500-strong mob threw stones; refugees in the house (also 200-250 people sic!) alsothrew stones in self-defence. Then the crowd set the place on fire at about 1:30 P.M. Our witness then

jumped from the third floor where he was hiding and from where he had been observing in minutedetail all that was going on in the ground floor, even the theft of jewels (it would seem the floors betweenthe third and the ground floor were transparent). At that point we jump into the sensational. Narulaswitness sees that four or five girls were raped, cut, and burned ; two married women were also rapedand cut. Some on the hand, some on the neck ; Sixty-five to seventy people were killed. Thoserapes and hackings are said to have started at 3:30 P.M. ... when the house was already on fire. Was the

mob waiting for everything to be reduced to cinders to commit its crimes?

Among the most morbid canards, the novelist Arundhati Roys vitriolic article (Outlookmagazine, May6th, 2002). She describes the event which precedes Ehsan Jaffris death (extract):

A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to theDirector-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary(Home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into thehouse. They stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri anddismembered him

Wait a minute. Jaffri was burned alive in the house, true is it not awful enough? Along with someother 41 people. Not enough? But his daughters were neitherstripped norburnt alive. T. A. Jafri, his

son, in a front-page interview titled Nobody knew my fathers house was the target (Asian Age, May2nd, Delhi ed.), felt obliged to rectify:

Among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. Mysister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad.

There we are, reassured as regards Ehsan Jaffris children. He had only one daughter, who was livingabroad. No one was raped in the course of this tragedy, and no evidence was given to the police to thateffect.


5/17

The Gujarat Government sued Outlookmagazine. In its May 27th issue, Outlookpublished an apologyto save its face. But in the course of its apology, the magazines editors quoted a clarification from Roy,who withdrew her lie by planting an even bigger one: the MPs daughters were not among the 10 womenwho were raped and killed in Chamanpura that day! From Smita Narula to Arundhati Roy, four or fivegirls had swollen to ten women, equally anonymous and elusive.

Roy begins theatrically:

Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me what the matter was.It wasnt very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only that herstomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carvedOM on her forehead.

Balbir Punj, Rajya Sabha MP and journalist, shocked by this despicable incident which allegedlyoccurred in Baroda, decided to investigate it. He got in touch with the Gujarat government.

The police investigations revealed that no such case, involving someone called Sayeeda, had beenreported either in urban or rural Baroda. Subsequently, the police sought Roys help to identify the victimand seek access to witnesses who could lead them to those guilty of this crime. But the police got no

cooperation. Instead, Roy, through her lawyer, replied that the police had no power to issue summons.[6]

This redefines the term fiction writer.

Another story about a pregnant Muslim woman whose stomach was allegedly ripped open, herfoetus taken out and both being burnt, horrified people all over the world. The first mention of it seemsto be in a BBC report around March 6th, which, though uncorroborated, spread like wildfire, with freshdetails (divergent and varied, but who cares?), so much so that you end up feeling there is no smokewithout fire. The rumour was never confirmed which twisted tongue first whispered it?

Press articles kept quoting one another, creating dossiers out of floating rumours. None of theauthors even deigned to visit the scene of the alleged events; none except the official inquirycommissions, had the honesty to question fairly, in parallel, the involved Hindu families regarding thetragedy unfolding in the two Gujarati communities.

Onlookers get caught

On March 1st, 2002, in a village on the outskirt of Vadodara (Baroda), the Best Bakery was set onfire: fourteen persons were burnt alive (nine Muslims and three Hindus). This particular incident mademuch ink flow, since the prime witness, young Zaheera Habibullah Sheikh, aged 19, turned against theprosecution in favour of the accused in the trial court.

Though Zaheera lost several family members in the tragedy, on May 17th, 2003, in the Vadodara HighCourt, she testified that the accused persons in the dock were innocent and had nothing to do with the

arson. She, as well as the other witnesses, did not recognize their own alleged statements before thepolice.

Justice Mahida of the High Court observed that:

1) There has been an inexcusable delay in the First Information Report (FIR). The so-called FIR ofZahiribibi (Zaheera) was sent to the Magistrate after four to five days. So there is every reason to believethat factually this FIR was cropped up afterwards in the manner suitable to the police.

2) The arrested persons had nothing to do with the incident.


6/17

We all knew these accused persons and because of them, our lives are saved, reported Lal

Mohammed Shaikh, a witness before the court. There were cordial relations between my familymembers, the persons residing in the compound of Best Bakery and all the accused persons before thecourt The 65 persons who are saved in this incident are all before the Court and all these were savedby and due to the accused and their family members These persons had called us, in darkness wesilently came out of our house, and they saved our lives.

3) The police is trying to put as accused passers-by at the place of incident, innocent persons gatheringthere or persons residing in the neighbourhood (in confidence that the police wouldnt do anything tothem).

4) No legal or acceptable evidence at all is produced by the prosecution against the accused involvingthem in this incident. In this case, it has come out during the trial that false evidences were croppedup against the present accused to involve them in this case. The case is not proved and hence theaccused are acquitted [7].

On June 27th, 2003, the twenty-one defendants were freed, and Zaheera Sheikh felt the court hasgiven herall the justice she wanted.

In the interests of a community

But all were not satisfied. A former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, Chairman of the NationalHuman Rights Commission decided that the Vadodara judgement was a miscarriage of justice and thetwenty-one not-guilty people were actually guilty and therefore should be punished. Now thishonourable person should have been aware that seated in Delhi at the helm of this human rights affair,he would have been the first target of a number of dubious NGOs with vested political interests.Strangely, Justice Anand did not even consider it important to send his own team of independent inquirybefore questioning the judgment of another court of law.[8]

Consequently, just after the fast-track court acquittals, three members of Zaheeras community

barged into her home around midnight, and told her she would have to change her statement in theinterests of the community.

This meant that Zaheera had to declare that she had lied to the court (which is a criminal offence [9]).Did she have a choice?

Along with her mother and brother, she was taken to Mumbai without their consent, and brought toTeesta Setalvad,[10] an activist of the much-vaunted human rights. The activist took them under herwing for several months, accommodated them in a rented apartment while providing assistance for aliving. In the meantime she prepared affidavits (in English which Zaheera does not read) for the girl tosign before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in which she confessed to having lied tothe Vadodara trial court, trembling with fear and threatened by BJP MLA Madhu Shrivastav (who hadnothing to do with her area and whom she did not even know). And Zaheera now designated as guilty,

the twenty-one people she had considered innocent. All media were ready with their cameras, mikes andpens to splash the news.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, rightly suspecting that the witness had been pressuredto turn hostile, and upheld the acquittals.

But the Supreme Court accepted the retraction and, as demanded by NHRC and Setalvad, orderedthe retrial of the case outside Gujarat. The acquittal of the twenty-one people was quashed.


7/17

In 2004, Zaheera managed to flee from her confinement by the activist, and in November, seized byremorse for having allowed innocent people to be accused, stated that whatever she had told theSupreme Court, was done under duress from Teesta Setalvad and her associate Rais Khan; andwhatever she told the NHRC was a lie. Ramzan is on and I want to state the truth, she said. What I hadsaid in Vadodara Court during the trial was my true statement. The judgement was correct and had givenme all the justice I wanted. She sought police protection from Teesta Setalvad.[11]

The Supreme Court judge called the girl flip-flop Zaheera, accepted a high-powered committeereport which indicted Zaheera Sheikh as a self-condemned liar, and awarded the girl with a simple one-year imprisonment for contempt of court, as well as a fine of Rs. 50,000. Activist Teesta Setalvad wascleared.

Now, who took the court for a ride? Especially in light of the new revelation that a host of Gujarat riotcase victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information, for which as many as ten of themhad received 100,000 rupees from Teesta Setalvad NGO.[12]

As it stands today, nine persons among the twenty-one passer-bys picked up, have been condemnedto life imprisonment and are languishing in jail.

In December 2004, a fatwa was issued against Zaheera by the Muslim Tayohar Committee,excommunicating her with the approval ofAll India Muslim Personal Law Board, for having constantlylied. In other words, for having stood by the twenty-one wrongly accused Hindus neighbours.

Let us pursue our investigation.

Premeditated files

Human Rights Watch Smita Narulas report (April 30th, 2002) was titled We have no order to saveyou State participation and complicity in anti-Muslim violence. From US shores, its words werelapped up by the Indian elite and politicians:

What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising, it was a carefully orchestrated attack againstMuslims planned in advance and organized with extensive participation of the police and stategovernment officials.[13]

But where are the facts to corroborate such an allegation, which of course was instantly peddled theworld over? Can a carefully orchestrated attack happen overnight? And how can someone sitting in theU.S., gauge the spontaneity of such an outbreak?[14]

Authentic inquiry

By contrast, a genuine, on-the-spot investigation was conducted under the aegis of the New Delhi-

based Council for International Affairs and Human Rights.[15] Its findings were made public as early asApril 26th, 2002, through a press conference held in Delhi. Running counter to the politically correct lineof an orchestrated attack, they were largely ignored by the media.

On March 3rd, 2002 the five-member fact-finding team under Justice Tewatias direction went toGodhra and spent six days visiting three affected areas in Ahmedabad and some of the relief camps. Atall places, team members interacted with the two communities freely, without intervention of any officials.Five delegations from both communities presented their facts and views. The team then went to theGodhra railway station and interviewed officials, survivors and witnesses of the burning of the S-6 coach,as well as the fire brigade staff. They met the Godhra District Collector, along with other officials.


8/17

On April 4th, the team was in Vadodara (Baroda) visiting five relief camps of both communities, andseven areas which were the scenes of violence in the preceding month, as well as a number of sensitiveareas. To have exposure to the ground realities they visited some areas still under curfew and also metthe Commissioner of Police and District Collector along with other officials. Thirteen delegationsconsisting of 121 citizens met the team and presented their testimonies; they included not only membersof both communities, but ranged from the Association of Hoteliers to a group of Gujarati tribals(Vanavasis).

Indisputable facts

Let us quote some findings of Justice Tewatias Inquiry Commission, which its report described asindisputable:

The attack on Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 was pre-planned and pre-meditated. It was the result of acriminal conspiracy hatched by a hostile foreign power with the help of local jehadis carried out withthe evil objective of pushing the country into a communal cauldron.

The plan was to burn the entire train with more than two thousand passengers in the wee hours ofFebruary 27th, 2002.

There were no quarrels or fights between the vendors and the Hindu pilgrims on the platform of GodhraRailway Station.

Firebombs, acid bulbs and highly inflammable liquid(s) were used to set the coaches on fire that musthave been stored [the day before] already for the purpose.

The fire fighting system available in Godhra was weakened and its arrival at the place of incident wilfullydelayed by the mob with the open participation of a Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.

Fifty-eight passengers of coach S-6 were burnt to death by a Muslim mob and one of the conspiratorswas a Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.

Someone used the public address system exhorting the mob to kill kafirs and enemies of Bin Laden.

About the police:

Police was on many occasions overwhelmed by the rioting mobs that were massive and carried morelethal weapons than the police did.

[They] did not have the training and know-how to manage situations of communal strife witnessed in thestate in recent weeks.

In many places, [they] made a commendable work in protecting life and property. Barring a fewexceptions, it was not found to be communally motivated.

Army deployment:


9/17

Available information shows that the Army was requisitioned and deployed in time.

After Godhra

The involvement of the tribal communities orVanavasis, in the post-Godhra riots added a new

dimension to the communal violence, as Justice Tewatias report reveals:

In rural areas the Vanvasis attacked the Muslim moneylenders, shopkeepers and the forest contractors.They used their traditional bows and arrows as also their implements used to cut trees and grass whileattacking Muslims. They moved in groups and used coded signals for communication. Apparently, theaccumulated anger of years of exploitation had become explosive.

About the media:

Gujarati language media was factual and objective. Yet its propensity to highlight the gory incidents ingreat detail heightened communal tension.

English language newspapers appeared to have assumed the role of crusaders against the State[Gujarat] Government from day one. It coloured the entire operation of news gathering, feature writingand editorials. They distorted and added fiction to prove their respective points of view. The code of ethicsprescribed by the Press Council of India was violated with impunity. It so enraged the citizens thatseveral concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace could return to the state only ifsome of the TV channels were closed for some weeks.[16]

A few healing voices

It would be unfair not to mention a few voices that rose from among the journalists themselves, againstthis enormity. The most eloquent one was Vir Sanghvis, usually part of the secular establishment, everready to portray Muslims as victims, Hindus as aggressors. Vir Sanghvis crisis of conscience suddenlygave him intellectual clarity. Some extracts from his article One-way ticket in The Hindustan Times ofFeb. 28th, 2002:

There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishmentto the massacre in Godhra.

There is no suggestion that the karsewaks started the violence there has been no real provocation atall And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the karsewaks had it coming to them.

Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims

Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have perfected and see howbizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the TwinTowers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalistMuslims about America's policies, but we didn't even consider whether this resentment was justified ornot.

Instead we took the line that all sensible people must take: any massacre is bad and deserves to becondemned.


10/17

When Graham Staines and his children were burnt alive, did we say that Christian missionaries had madethemselves unpopular by engaging in conversion and so, they had it coming? No, of course, we didn't.

Why then are these poorkarsewaks an exception? Why have we de-humanised them to the extent thatwe don't even see the incident as the human tragedy that it undoubtedly was

I know the arguments well because like most journalists I have used them myself. And I still arguethat they are often valid and necessary.

But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly 'secularist' construct not only goes too far; it alsobecomes counter-productive. When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by aMuslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP[17] or arguing that the dead men andwomen had it coming to them.

Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it coming?), but it alsoinsults the intelligence of the reader.

There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric thateven a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?[18]

S. Gurumurthy in The New Indian Express (March 2nd), Jaya Jaitley, in The Indian Express (March7th), Rajeev Srinivasan in Rediff on Net(March 25th), Arvind Lavakare in Rediff on Net(April 23rd), T.Tomas in Business Standard(April 26th), Franois Gautier in The Pioneer(April 30th), M.V. Kamath inThe Times of India (May 8th), Balbir Punj in Outlook (May 27th), each one expounded the absurdity of asituation where the majority of Indians the Hindu community are looked down upon as second classcitizens. A negligible lot taken for granted because it is harmless, non-aggressive, and unable to speakand act as one coherent, organized group.

A farcical interlude

Two and a half years after the events, on Sept. 3rd, 2004, the cabinet of the Central Government(ruled by the UPA coalition[19]) approved the setting up of a committee constituted by the RailwaysMinister Lallu Prasad Yadav, and headed by Justice U. C. Banerjee, former judge of the Supreme Court,to probe the causes of the conflagration in the Sabarmati Express.

The blaze is an accident, Justice Banerjee coolly concluded in January 2005. There was nopossibility of inflammable liquid being used, said he, and the fire originated in the coach itself, withoutexternal input. The Cabinet ministers were fully satisfied.

Now among the few survivors, Neelkanth Bhatia, was not one. He gathered enough strength tochallenge the formation of this committee, and in October 2006, the Gujarat High Court quashed theconclusions of the Banerjee Committee. It declared its formation as a colourful exercise,illegal,unconstitutional, null and void, and its argument of accidental fire opposed to the prima facie acceptedfacts on record. Moreover, one high-level commission conducted by Justice Nanavati-Shah had beenappointed by the Gujarat Government to probe the incident, two months earlier. The Court also did notmiss the point that the interim report was released just two days before the elections in Bihar the Stateof the Railways minister, well-known for his political ambitions and notorious for his histrionics.

Politicians know no common sense or shame. But what about the judiciary?

The Nanavati Report


11/17

The first part of Justice Nanavati-Shah Inquiry Commission report was released in September 2008,after four years of thorough investigations.[20] It lifted the cloak of blame that had been wrapped aroundthe Gujarati people all those years. It also cleared the most blackened Chief Minister of Gujarat, NarendraModi.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his

Council of Ministers or Police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was anylapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communalriots or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National HumanRights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any definite religious or politicalorganization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who had participated in the conspiracy appear to beinvolved in the heinous act of setting coach S/6 on fire.

The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati Express train from Dahod toAhmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of theirs an inquiry was held by the Governmentand they have been dismissed from service.

On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comes to theconclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a conspiracy toburn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevakstravelling in that coach. All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train andentering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by thesepersons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise theAdministration.[21]

According to Justice Nanavati, Maulvi Hussain Umarji from Godhra was the brain behind the events.Two of the main accused, Salim Panwala et Farukh Bhana, are absconding, very likely having fled toPakistan. The report named a few others, with various degrees of involvement in the events, but they areunlikely to be troubled in view of their political connections.

Heartstrings for whom?

It is easy to see why the Nanavati Report was frowned upon by Citizens for Justice and Peace,namely Activist Teesta Setalvad who asked the Supreme Court to restrain the Gujarat Government fromacting upon, circulating and publishing this report. Fortunately on October 13th, 2008, the highest courtsharply turned down the petition, thus making the testimonies and inquiries available to all (the NanavatiReport is available on the Internet).

However, under pressure from the UPA Government and pestered by the National Human RightsCommission and Citizens for Justice and Peace NGO, on October 21st, 2008, the Supreme Courtdirected that the Prevention of Terrorist Act (POTA) could not be used against the 134 accused in theGodhra train burning incident, whose trial was to be held under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.This amounted to acceptingprima facie that the guilty were not terrorists: we are allowed to call themmilitants,gunmen but not terrorists. This ruling will have nationwide impact, as other Stategovernments may have to drop charges under POTA against those accused of indulging in terroristactivities. The recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai (on November 26th) demonstrate the danger of such awithdrawal.

Pattern for Harmony

This appears to be a pattern: whenever Muslim riots or bomb attacks target Hindus, it is thoughtacceptable to accuse the victims, in order to avoid possible revolts. Thus in 1993 in Mumbai, after elevencoordinated bomb blasts in Hindu majority areas, which killed 257 people and injured 713, the then


12/17

Maharashtra Chief Minister Sharad Pawar quickly cooked up a twelfth explosion in a Muslim area! Ihave deliberately misled people, he explained later, to show that both communities had beenaffected.[22] And to portray both communities potential to behave as terrorists! Truth and clarity ofmind are the casualties.

We remember the great art historian A.K. Coomaraswamys words in 1909:

It is unfortunate that libels upon nations and religions cannot be punished as can libels uponindividuals.[23]

Gujarat had greatly suffered throughout all those years. Through a devastating Bhuj region earthquakein January 2001, in which more than 20,000 people died; the pilgrims burned alive at Godhra in Feb.2002 and just six months later another terrorist attack in the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar, wherethirty-three peaceful worshippers were brutally gunned down (with seventy injured). Amidst thosetragedies the people of Gujarat seemed to have no doubt whatsoever regarding the sincerity of their ChiefMinister, whose administration happens to be among the least corrupt in the whole of India. Stateelections were held twice since those events: in December 2002 and December 2007. How is it thatNarendra Modi won landslide victories on both occasions despite extremely hostile and sustained mediacampaigns, seeking to demonise him as a blood-thirsty ruler?

Official India has chosen to forget a millennium of Islamic intolerance and brutality. Millions ofbutchered Indians have no right to be remembered, not even in history textbooks, where invaders aresometimes turned into heroes. Sadly, this ostrich-like attitude leaves the wounds open and condemns usto relive the past rather than heal it.

January 2009

Nicole Elfi

Nicole Elfi left France thirty-four years ago for India, drawn to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Sheparticipated in publication of works related to them and in research on Indian culture, authoring two booksin French; the second one,Aux Sources de lInde was published June 2008. Contact email:

Notes & references

[1] See Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice Akshay H. Mehta (JusticeNanavati Report for short further below): p. 71-84: 97-125; p.86: 128; p.89-90: 130; p.170: 223; p.172:226-27; p.174-175: 229; the integral text is available on the website of the Gujarat Government:http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf

See also Godhra the Missing Rage, by S.K. Modi (New Delhi: Ocean Books, 2004).

[2] One of the main vehicles was out of order, as its clutch-plates had been taken out a few days earlier.On their arrival on 27.02.02 in their office, firemen found that the other fire engine had been tamperedwith. (Justice Tewatia Report and Justice Nanavati Report: p.88-89: 131.)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Justice Nanavati Report, p.39-41: 50-52, p.48-49: 67-68.


13/17

[5] To which Gujarat Chief Secretary sent a request to grand further time of 15 days, as the Statemachinery is busy with the law & order situation, it would take some time to collect the information andcompile the report. Indeed.

[6] See Balbir Punj in Outlook, May 27th and July 8th; also in The New Indian Express, March 8th, 2002.

[7] See Vadodara Sessions Court, Best Bakery Case, Justice H.U. Mahidas Judgement, June 27th,2003.

[8] Columnist Arvind Lavakare in Blindfolded in Best Bakery (9.9.2003), commented: The Gujaratgovernment quickly appointed three public pleaders for the purpose of suing [Justice Anand] for contemptof court; these pleaders, in turn, filed an application before the Vadodara judge asking him to move thestate's high court to punish the contemnor who, they said, had insulted the honour and dignity of the

judge, besides undermining the entire judiciary. But Justice Anand went to the Supreme Court evenbefore an appeal against the Vadodara verdict could be thought out by the Gujarat government. HisNHRC petitioned the apex court to order a re-trial of the 21 'not guilty' Best Bakery accused. And the re-trial demanded is one that should be out of Gujarat state! Though article 20(2) of the Constitution ofIndia prohibits trial for the same offence twice (M. N. Buch, The Indian Express, Mumbai, August 13th,2003).

[9] Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, says, Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by anexpress provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject,makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows to or believes to be false or does notbelieve to be true, is said to give false evidence. Section 193 lays down that punishment for the offenceof giving false evidence is imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable tofine.

[10] Social activist and Secretary of the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, and co-editor ofCommunalism Combat, a CPI-CPI(M) affiliated magazine.

[11] Zaheera isnt the only one to seek police protection from activist Teesta Setalvad. Rais Khan, whoworked closely with her, now feels under threat and recently asked for it too.

[12] As it happens, a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving falseinformation at the behest of Setalvads Citizens for Justice and Peace, which was instrumental inorganising payment of Rs. 1 lakh each to ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot. Among the recipients,four are Best Bakery case witnesses. A list of names were sent to the CPI(Marxist) relief fund, anddemand drafts were handed out at a function in Ahmedabad on August 26th, 2007 by CPI(M) politburomember Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan. Incidentally, those who were both victims andeyewitnesses received 100,000 rupees, some others 50,000 rupees, while the victims got a mere 5,000rupees each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying adisproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial. See Navin Upadhyay, Daily Pioneer,Dec. 20th, 2008: www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html

[13] South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch and author of the report.

[14] This New York-based Human Rights Watch, still watches the Indian shores closely, as it appears, butnot to protect innocent lives. On Dec. 3rd, 2008, just a week after the ghastly Nov. 26th terrorist attacks inMumbai, HRW issued a statement to the Government of India, offering gratuitous advice on how tomanage its affairs and demanding that investigators should respect the human rights of captured terroristAjmal Amir Kasab (also called Butcher of Mumbai). A commentator in The Jerusalem Postpointed out,The HRWs website lists 38 reports attacking counter-terrorism efforts around the globe but only three onthe brutal impact of terrorism on civilians. See also Kanchan Guptas excellent article, MumbaisButcher and human rights, in The Pioneer, Dec. 17th, 2008.www.dailypioneer.com/144038/Mumbais-Butcher-and-human-rights.html


14/17

[15] Council for International Affairs and Human Rights (governing body for the term 2001-2003), NewDelhi. 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. Available online atwww.geocities.com/hsitah9/facts_speak_for_themselves.htm .

[16] From Justice Tewatia Report.

[17] The Vishva Hindu Parishad(VHP) is a pro-Hindu organization.

[18] The Sangh Parivar is a network of pro-Hindu organizations deriving from the Rashtriya Sevak Sangh(RSS).

[19] The UPA is a coalition of political parties, the main one being the Congress presided over by SoniaGandhi; Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister. As many as 10 Cabinet ministers (at the helm of Indiasaffairs till today ) as well as 93 Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges ranging from rape, extortion andmurder (Association of Democratic Reforms, New Delhi, in The New Indian Express, Dec. 6th, 2006).

[20] Among its specific tasks, the Nanavati Commission was required by the Government to consider:Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his council of Ministers, PoliceOfficers, other individuals and organizations in both the events referred to in clauses (a) and (b); (e) Role

and conduct (i) in dealing with any political or non-political organization which may be found to havebeen involved in any of the events referred to hereinabove; (ii) in the matter of providing protection, reliefand rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots (iii) in the matter of recommendations and directionsgiven by National Human Rights Commission from time to time. By that notification the Government alsoincluded within the scope of inquiry the incidents of violence that had taken place till 31-5-2002.

[21] Nanavati Commission Report, p.174-75: 229; p.175: 229; p.176: 230.

[22] New Indian Express, August 13th, 2006.

[23] Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in Essays in National Idealism, p.143 (Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers,1981).

Extracts of Justice Nanavati-Shah Inquiry Commission report

(18 September 2008)

223. Ajay Bariya in his statements recorded by the police on 4.7.2002 and J.M.F.C. Godhra on

9.7.2002 has stated that on 27-2-2002, he had gone to Godhra railway station at about 7.00 a.m.After referring to the incident of Mohmad Latika, he has stated that after the chain was pulledand the train had stopped, he had gone out of the station. Shaukat Lalu had met him there and

told him to run along with them. So he had gone with them to the backside of Aman Guest

House. Shaukat and others had then gone inside the room of Razak Kurkur and come out with

Kerbas. He was asked to put one Kerba in the rickshaw which was standing nearby. Petrol likesmell was coming from it. Thereafter others had also come there with Kerbas and they were all


15/17

kept in the tempy. All of them had then got into that vehicle which after passing throughBhamaiya nala and Ali Masjid had stood near the railway track near 'A' cabin. Each one of them

was asked by Shaukat Lalu to carry one Kerba with him. At that time he had come to know that

the train was to be set on fire. They had run towards the train through the foot track. He himself

was reluctant go with those persons but Shaukat Lalu had compelled him to go along with them.He has then described in his statement how the coaches were attacked and coach S/6 was set on

fire. According to him, Shaukat Lalu and Mohmad Latika had forcibly opened the sliding door of

S/6 leading to coach S/7 and entered coach S/6 through that door. Hasan Lalu had thrown a

burning rag which had led to the fire in S/6.

224. It is rightly pointed out by the Jan Sangharsh Manch that there was no prior informationwith the police and the authorities at Gandhinagar regarding the return journey of the Karsevaks

from Ayodhya as can be gathered from the evidence of Mahobatsinh Zala (W-17), Raju Bhargav

(W-31), DGP K.A. Chakravarti, Addl. DGP R.B. Shreekumar (W-995) and Ashok Narayanan,Chief Secretary, Home Department (W-994). Under the circumstances prevailing then,

movements of Karsevaks was not a matter of concern. That appears to be the reason, why the

police had not thought it necessary to keep itself informed about (171) their movements.

Merely because the police was not aware about the return journey of Karsevaks from Ayodhya, it

would not follow therefrom that no one had known about their return journey from Ayodhya.

Anyone who wanted to know about it could have obtained that information easily. Therefore, itwould not be correct to say that there was no scope for any conspiracy, as the alleged

conspirators did not know that Karsevaks were going to return from Ayodhya by that train. VHP

had already announced earlier its plan of taking Ramsevaks to Ayodhya for the 'Purnahuti Maha

Yagna'.

225. It is also true that some other train carrying Karsevaks going to Ayodhya had passed

through Godhra railway station and the conspirators could have attacked them in pursuance of

the object of the conspiracy to burn a coach carrying Ramsevaks and it was not necessary forthem to wait till the morning of 27th February, 2002. Other possibilities cannot make doubtful

what really has happened. Why the conspirators chose the Sabarmati Express train coming from

Ayodhya and why coach S/6 thereof was made the target, was obviously the result of manyfactors, including what was desired by and suitable to the conspirators. Unless the conspirators

who took that decision disclose the real reason, it would be a matter of drawing an inference

from the surrounding facts and circumstances. It appears that the decision to put the plan into

action was taken on the previous evening. On 26.2.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. the first step forprocuring petrol was taken. It is likely that the conspirators had decided to burn a coach of this

train as it used to pass Godhra during the night. That would have enabled them to carry out their

object without being noticed and identified. It appears that because the train was running late,they had to make some changes in their plan and circulate a false rumour regarding abduction of

a Ghanchi Muslim girl. That was done in order to collect large number of persons near the train

and induce them to attack it, so that they get sufficient time to go near the train with petrol. Itwas also an (172) attempt to show that what happened was done by an angry mob because of the

earlier incidents which had taken place at the station. The mob consisting of the general public

would not have set coach S/6 on fire on the basis of the false rumour as their attempt in that case


16/17

would have been to stop the train, search for the abducted girl and rescue her.

226. Ranjitsinh Jodhabhai Patel and Prabhatsinh Gulabsinh Patel serving at Kalabhai's petrol

pump were present at the petrol pump on 26.2.2002 at about 10.00 p.m. Both of them have stated

that at about that time Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had come there and told Prabhatsinh togive them about 140 litres of petrol. Petrol was filled in the carboys which were brought in a

tempy rickshaw. Prabhatsinh has further stated that Jabir Binyamin, Shaukat Lalu and SalimJarda had come in the tempy. Both these witnesses have explained in their statements why they

had earlier told the police that they had not given loose petrol to any one in a carboy on

26.2.2002.

227. On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission comesto the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other words there was a

conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause

harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach.

228. The confessions of Jabir Binyamin Behra, Shaukat alias Bhano son of Faruk Abdul Sattar

and Salim alias Salman son of Yusuf Sattar Jarda have also been placed before the Commission

for its consideration. Jabir Behra had made a confession before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Panchmahal District under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The confessions of Shaukat and Salim were

recorded under the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. It was contended by the Jan

(173) Sanghars Manch that the Commission should not consider the confessions of the accused

as the findings that may be recorded by this Commission are likely to cause prejudice to theaccused in the trial which is pending before the Sessions Court. This objection was raised at an

earlier stage of inquiry and it was rejected by passing an order. . The inquiry before by the

Commission is a fact finding inquiry and therefore, the Commission can look into and considerany piece of evidence for finding out the correct facts provided it is satisfied about its

correctness. (174)

229. Jabir Behra in his confession dated 5.2.2003 has stated that he had gone with Salim Panwalato the petrol pump of Kalabhai for bringing petrol. Though the carboys filled with petrol were

kept in the guest house of Rajak Kurkur, Salim Panwala had then gone to the Station to inquire

whether the train was on time or was running late. Returning there from he had informed themthat the train was running late by about 4 hours. Therefore, he had gone to home. He had again

gone back to Aman Guest House at about 6.00 o'clock in the morning of 27th. Along with Salim

Panwala, Shaukat Lalu and others he had gone in the tempy along with carboys to a place near

'A' cabin. He has further stated that Mohmed Latika had cut the vestibule between coach S/6 andS/7 and entered the coach through that opening and he had also followed him. Both of them had

then together by force opened the door of coach S/6. They had gone inside with two carboys.

Shaukat Lalu had followed them and opened the door of coach on A cabin side. Through thatdoor Imran Sheri, Rafik Batuk and Shaukat Lalu had come inside the coach with more carboys.

Those carboys were thrown in the coach and immediately thereafter there was a fire in the coach.

Shaukat Lalu has also in his confession dated 19.8.2003 given these details. Salim Jarda in hisconfession dated 20.06.2004 has also stated that he had accompanied Salim Panwala, Siraj Bala,

Jabir and Shaukat Lalu while going to the petrol pump of Kalabhai at about 9.30 p.m. for


17/17

procuring petrol. He has also referred to the message sent by the Maulvi Saheb. Since he wasreluctant to take any further part in such a bad act Rajak Kurkur had not allowed him to go. He

was forced to stay in one room of the Guest House. He has then stated that next day morning he,

along with Jabir Behra, Irfan, Shaukat Lalu and others had put the petrol filled carboys in the

tempy and gone near A cabin. Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had also followed them. He hadthereafter not taken any part in the attack on the train and had remained standing at some

distance.

All these three persons have retracted their (175) confessions but that by itself is not a good

ground for throwing them out of consideration. When considered along with other facts proved

by the evidence details given by this accused regarding the manner in which coach S/6 was burntappear to be true. These confessions disclose that Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala were the two

main persons who had organized execution of the plan and that what was being done was

according to what was planned earlier and the directions of Maulvi Umarji. All the acts likeprocuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in

pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons further

appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.

229. The Commission is required to consider the role and conduct of the then Chief Minister

and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers other individuals and

organizations in the Godhra incident (i) in dealing with any political or non-political organizationwhich may be found to have been involved in the Godhra incident and also (ii) in the matter of

providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots and (iii) in the

matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission from

time to time. There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or anyother Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police offices had played any role in the Godhra

incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and

rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of not complying with therecommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission. There is no

evidence regarding involvement of any definite religious (176) or political organization in the

conspiracy. Some individuals who had participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the

heinous act of setting coach S/6 on fire.

230. The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati Express train from

Dahod to Ahmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of their an inquiry was held by

the Government and they have been dismissed from service.

Ahmedabad. (G.T. Nanavati) (Akshay H. Mehta)

September 18, 2008 Chairman Member

See the integral text on the website of the Gujarat Government :http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf

Documents

Godhra the True Story