the godhra riots: sifting fact from fiction - nicole elfi

The Godhra Riots:

Sifting Fact from Fiction

Nicole Elfi

(Published online February 2009: www.jaia-bharati.org/nicole-elfi/ni-godhra-ang.htm;

revised and updated, July 2013)

Godhra, a city of the Indian State of Gujarat, was the lead story in all Indian

newspapers on 27-28 February 2002. A shattering piece of news: 58 Hindu

pilgrims had been burned alive in a train. “57 die in ghastly attack on train” ran

the Times of India’s 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 BBC’s announcement had a very

different tone: “58 Hindu ‘extremists’ burned to death” … or Agence France Press

on March 2: “A train full of Hindu ‘extremists’ was burnt.”

A deluge of anguished news followed about a “Muslim genocide”: “Mass

killings of Muslims in reprisal riots” (New York Times, March 5), “The

authorities … share the prejudices of the Hindu gangs who have been busy

pulping their Muslim neighbours” (The Observer, March 4). We were told that

Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, intended to eradicate Muslims from

the State—more than 9% of Gujarat’s population, in other words five million

people. We read that the police was conniving in the mass slaughter and did

nothing to prevent it. Narendra Modi was compared to Hitler, or Nero. We

shuddered reading the reports describing rapes and various horrors,

supposedly inflicted on Muslims by Hindus.

Today, with the noises and cries of the wounds having fallen silent, what

emerges from those events? What are the facts?

The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 2

At 7:43 A.M. on February 27, 2002, the Sabarmati Express rolled into the

Godhra station, fortunately with a four-hour delay, in broad daylight. This train

transported more than 2,000 people, mainly karsewaks on their way back to

Ahmedabad after participating in the Poorna Ahuti Yagya at Ayodhya, a ritual at

the traditional birthplace of Rama.

As it pulled out of the station, the train was pelted with stones and bricks,

and passengers from several bogeys were forced to bring down their windows

to protect themselves. Someone pulled the emergency chain: the train came to a

halt about 100 metres away from the platform, surrounded by a large crowd of

Muslims. 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 halted at 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 of the train. The doors were locked from

outside. A fire started in coach S-7, which the passengers were able 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

took shelter below the coach.

Fifty-eight pilgrims were burned alive, including twenty-seven women

and ten children. The whole attack lasted 20-25 minutes.1

What transpired, then, in the Indian press? Let’s imagine a coach of French

pilgrims coming back from Lourdes, burned alive.

Strangely, instead of clearly, straightforwardly condemning the act, the

Indian English-language press tried 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). “It’s because they were

returning from 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. Till that afternoon, when the charred bodies started

arriving at their respective families—with no comforting voice, no

condemnation of this barbaric act—then these people known for their non-

violent nature and exceptional patience, burst into a frenzy.

There was a revolt in the whole of Gujarat. For three days, tens of

thousands of enraged Hindus set fire 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 who heroically helped save Muslims in their

neighbourhood? Was even one family of Hindu victims interviewed following

the criminal burning of the Sabarmati Express? One fourth of the dead in the

ensuing riots were Hindus. How to classify those 250 victims? Who evoked the

dead on the Hindu side? According to reports, Congress Party councillor

Taufeeq Khan Pathan and his son Zulfi, notorious gangsters, were allegedly

seen leading Muslim rioters. Another such character, Congress member of the

Godhra Nagarpalika [municipality], Haji Balal, was said to have had the fire-

fighting vehicle sabotaged beforehand. Then,

he stopped the vehicle on its way to the Godhra Station and did not

allow it to proceed any further. A man stood in front of the vehicle, the

mob started pelting stones, … The headlights 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 in but 15-20 precious minutes had been lost.2

Lost for a coach-full of innocent people gone up in flames.

Which newspaper article stated that the most violent events took place

following provocations by leaders of this sort? The Union Home Ministry's

Annual Report of 2002-03 stated that 40,000 Hindus were in riot relief camps.

What made those 40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? To seek protection from

whom? 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 that infuriated the Gujaratis.

Those accused of terrorism often receive political support, are

benevolently portrayed by the media, and a host of “human rights”

organisations are always on hand to fight for them. But those victims whose

lives are cut down for no reason, are they not “human” enough to get some

rights too? The great majority of those 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 the upper middle class, among them a lot of women, took part in the

upheaval.

The Media Sources

Apart from local journalists usually more objective in their reports, no English

newswriter thought it worthwhile to look deeper into the events at the Godhra

railway station. Nobody came to question possible survivors of the tragedy. Is a

coach of Hindu pilgrims even worth the trip? They had to wait for the “elite” to

react; they had to receive directives from the politically correct, before picking

up 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, “some altercation took place” between them, and a Muslim


tea vendor: “They argued with the old man on purpose,” wrote some

newspapers; “they refused to pay for their tea” (though Gujarati honesty is well

known); “they pulled his beard and beat him up ... They kept shouting ‘Mandir

ka nirmaan karo, Babar ki aulad ko bahar karo’ (start building the temple and throw

out the sons of Babar). Hearing the chaos, the tea vendor’s 16-year-old daughter

came forward and tried to save her father from the karsevaks. She kept pleading

and begging them to leave him alone. The karsevaks, according to this version,

then seized the girl, took her inside their compartment and closed the door. The

old man kept banging on the door and pleaded for his daughter. Then two stall

vendors jumped into the last bogey, pulled the chain, and put the bogey on

fire.”

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

their colleague’s young daughter was being held? And why were 2,000

Muslims assembled there at 7 A.M. with jerry-cans of petrol bought the

previous evening?

Rajeev Srinivasan, an American journalist of Indian origin, was e-mailed

this anonymous report a dozen times, supposedly written by Anil Soni, Press

Trust of India reporter. He contacted Anil Soni to check 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 this at all. I am a PTI correspondent. Yes,

that is my phone number, but it is not my writing.3

Anil Soni apparently had heard about it from numerous people, and was

upset to see a false report circulated in his name.

Inquiries with the Railway staff and passengers travelling in the Sabarmati

Express showed that no quarrel whatsoever took place on the platform between

a tea vendor and pilgrims, and no girl was manhandled 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. It nevertheless went around the world, exhibited as “the true story.”


Aren’t we compelled to conclude that the assailants, in India, are those who

dictate what’s “politically correct,” and instruct the media?

Arson and Canards

On February 27 evening, the very day of the carnage, Chief Minister Narendra

Modi, took steps to deploy the Rapid Action Force (RAF), State Reserve Police

and local police at sensitive points. Apprehending the seriousness of the

situation, he requested “ten coys [companies] of central paramilitary forces to

be provided immediately ... in addition to the four coys of R.A.F.”4

He also issued a statement expressing deep shock at the attack and

appealed to the people to remain calm and exert self-control, assuring them that

the crime would not go unpunished.

On the afternoon of February 28, 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 dealt with

independently of the Godhra carnage, as a different, unrelated issue; it was a

planned violence perpetrated by “fundamentalist” Hindus against Gujarat’s

Muslims, fully backed by the State of Gujarat. From this day on, the burning of

coach S-6 was to be left behind, forgotten.

March 1, 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 forces were largely outnumbered by the angry flood

of people, spreading for the first time like rivers in spate, to rural areas and

villages.

The Gujarat Government requested from the chief secretaries of

neighbouring states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, ten

companies of armed police from each state to assist the Gujarat government in

“handling law and order situation”. As Madhu Kishwar points out,5 at that

time all three states had Congress I governments. And all three turned down

the request. Why did no one report this fateful refusal?


Instead, at the peak of the turmoil the same day, the National Human

Rights Commission faxed a notice 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 continued

violation of human rights of the people”! To which Gujarat Chief Secretary sent

a request to grant 15 more days, as “the State machinery is busy with the law &

order situation ...”6 Indeed.

But the NHRC was silent on the Gujarat Government’s urgent calls for

assistance, as well as on what had led to such a situation in the first place.

One major event which received a great deal of attention from the media

was the conflagration at the Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad, home of a former

Member of Parliament, Ehsan Jaffri. This man, rather refined and usually

respected, did not feel threatened. But on February 28 morning, a crowd

surrounded 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 was growing … (from 200 to

20,000, figures vary in the reports). The Indian Express (March 1, 2002), as well as

police records, reported that “eventually, in panic, he fired at the 5,000-strong

mob … 2 were killed and 13 injured ... That incensed the mob …” which at 1:30

P.M. set the bungalow ablaze by exploding a gas cylinder. Final toll: 42 (March

11 edn).

Human Rights Watch, an NGO based in New York, published a dossier

(April 30, 2002) about the Gujarat events which caused a sensation and fed a

large number of articles in the international press.7

In this report, Smita Narula had an unnamed “witness” at hand, to relate

the attack on Jaffri’s house. First “a 200 to 500-strong mob threw stones;

refugees in the house (also 200-250 people—sic!) also threw 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 minute detail all that was going on in the ground floor, even


the theft of jewels (it would seem the floors between the third and the ground

floor were transparent). At that point we jump into the sensational. Narula’s

witness sees that “four or five girls were raped, cut, and burned …; two married

women were also raped and cut. Some on the hand, some on the neck” …;

“Sixty-five to seventy people were killed.” Those rapes 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 Roy’s vitriolic

article (Outlook Magazine, 6 May 2002). She describes the event which precedes

Ehsan Jaffri’s death (extract):

… A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan

Jaffri. His phone calls to the Director-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 the house. They stripped his daughters

and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and

dismembered him …

Wait a minute. Jaffri was burned alive in the house, true—is it not awful

enough? Along with some other 41 people. Not enough? But his daughters

were neither “stripped” nor “burnt alive.” T.A. Jafri, his son, in a front-page

interview titled “Nobody knew my father’s house was the target” (Asian Age,

May 2, Delhi edn), 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. My sister 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 Jaffri’s children. He had only

one daughter, who was living abroad. No one was raped in the course of this

tragedy, and no evidence was given to the police to that effect.

The Gujarat Government sued Outlook magazine. In its May 27 issue,

Outlook published an apology to save its face. But in the course of its apology,

the magazine’s editors quoted a “clarification” from Roy, who withdrew her lie


by planting an even bigger one: the MP’s daughters “were not among the 10

women who were raped and killed in Chamanpura that day”! From Smita

Narula to Arundhati Roy, “four or five girls” 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 wasn’t very complicated.

Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only

that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags.

Only that after she died, someone carved ‘OM’ on her forehead.

Balbir Punj, Rajya Sabha MP and journalist, shocked by this “despicable

incident” which allegedly occurred 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 been reported either in urban or rural Baroda.

Subsequently, the police sought Roy’s help to identify the victim and

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.8

This redefines the term “fiction writer”.

Another story about a “pregnant Muslim woman” whose stomach was

allegedly “ripped open,” her “foetus taken out” and both being burnt, horrified

people all over the world. The first mention of it seems to be in a BBC report

around March 6, which, though “uncorroborated,” spread like wildfire, with

fresh details (divergent and varied, but who cares?), so much so that you end

up feeling there is no smoke without 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 the authors even deigned to visit the scene of the alleged

events; none except the official inquiry commissions, had the honesty to


question fairly, in parallel, the involved Hindu families regarding the tragedy

unfolding in the two Gujarati communities.

3 March 2002: Prevention Of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) invoked

against those arrested for Godhra train burning case.

25 March 2002: POTO suspended on all the accused due to pressure from

the Central Government.

Onlookers Get Caught

On March 1, 2002, in a village on the outskirt of Vadodara (Baroda), the “Best

Bakery” was set on fire: twelve persons were burnt alive (nine Muslims and

three Hindus). This particular incident made much ink flow, since the prime

witness, young Zaheera Habibullah Sheikh, aged 19, turned against the

prosecution in favour of the accused in the trial court.

Though Zaheera lost several family members in the tragedy, on May 17,

2003, in the Vadodara High Court, 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 the

police.

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 of Zahiribibi (Zaheera) was sent to the Magistrate after

four to five days. So there is every reason to believe that 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.

“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 family members, the persons

residing in the compound of Best Bakery and all the accused persons

before the court … The 65 persons who are saved in this incident are all

before the Court and all these were saved by and due to the accused and


their family members … These persons had called us, in darkness we

silently 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 gathering there or persons residing in the

neighbourhood (in confidence that the police wouldn’t do anything to

them).

4) No legal or acceptable evidence at all is produced by the prosecution

against the accused involving them in this incident. In this case, … it has

come out during the trial … that false evidences were cropped up against

the present accused to involve them in this case. The case … is not proved

and hence the accused are acquitted.9

On June 27, 2003, the twenty-one defendants were freed, and Zaheera

Sheikh felt the court has given her “all 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 National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) decided that the

Vadodara judgement was a “miscarriage of justice” and the twenty-one “not-

guilty” people were actually guilty and therefore should be punished. Now this

honourable 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 inquiry before

questioning the judgment of another court of law.

The Gujarat government “quickly appointed three public pleaders for the

purpose of suing Justice Anand for contempt of court; these pleaders, in turn,

filed an application before the Vadodara judge asking him to move the state's

High Court to punish the contemnor who, they said, had insulted the honour

and dignity of the judge, besides undermining the entire judiciary.”10 But even

before any move by the Gujarat government, Justice Anand rushed to petition

the apex court to order a re-trial of the 21 ‘not guilty’ Best Bakery accused.


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

Zaheera’s community “barged into her home” around midnight, and told her

she would have to change her statement “in the interests of the community.”

This meant that Zaheera had to declare that she had lied to the court

(which is a criminal offence). Did she have a choice?

Along with her mother and brother, she was taken to Mumbai “without

their consent,” and brought to Teesta Setalvad,11 an activist of the much-

vaunted “human rights.” The activist took them under her wing for several

months, accommodated them in a rented apartment while providing assistance

for a living. In the meantime she prepared affidavits (in English which Zaheera

does not read) for the girl to sign before the National Human Rights

Commission (NHRC), in which she “confessed” to having lied to the Vadodara

trial court, “trembling with fear and threatened” by BJP MLA Madhu

Shrivastav (who had nothing 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 and pens

to splash the news.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, rightly suspecting that the

witness had been pressured to turn hostile, and upheld the acquittals. But the

Supreme Court inexplicably accepted the retraction and, as demanded by

NHRC and Setalvad, ordered the retrial of the case outside Gujarat. The

acquittal of the twenty-one people was quashed.

In 2004, Zaheera “managed to flee” from her confinement by the activist,

and in November, seized by remorse for having allowed innocent people to be

accused, stated in an affidavit before the Vadodara Collector that whatever she

had told the Supreme Court, was done under duress from Teesta Setalvad and

her associate Rais Khan; and whatever she told the NHRC was a lie. “Ramzan is

on and I want to state the truth,” she said. “What I had said in Vadodara Court

during the trial was my true statement. The judgement was correct and had


given me all the justice I wanted.” She sought police protection from Teesta

Setalvad.12

Fearing arrest, the activist moved the High Court seeking anticipatory

bail. The Bombay High Court asked the Gujarat government to give her a 72-

hour notice if they wanted to arrest her. But the court disposed of the plea on

the ground that no complaint had been lodged till now.

The Supreme Court Judge however was on a different track and left

Zaheera Sheikh alone on her path of truth: in August 2005, a Supreme Court

committee indicted her as a “self-condemned liar” giving “inconsistent”

statements during the trial,13 and on March 8, 2006, awarded her with a simple

one-year imprisonment for contempt of court, as well as a fine of Rs. 50,000.

Activist Teesta Setalvad was cleared.

Now, who took the court for a ride?

Especially in light of the revelation that “a host of Gujarat riot case victims

were misled into signing affidavits giving false information, for which as many

as ten of them had received 100,000 rupees from Setalvad’s Citizens for Justice

and Peace. A list of names were sent to the CPI(M) relief fund, and demand

drafts were handed out at a function in Ahmedabad on August 26, 2007 by

CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.”14

On April 13, 2009, the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation

Team (SIT) charged the activist Teesta Setalvad, with “adding morbidity” to the

post-Godhra riots by “cooking up macabre tales of killings”. The SIT report

stated that all the affidavits of 22 witnesses were drafted, typed and printed

from the same computer, giving sufficient grounds to believe they were

“tutored”. When the SIT questioned those who signed the affidavits, it was

shocked to learn that these complainants were not even aware of the incidents.15

In December 2004, a fatwa was issued against Zaheera by the Muslim

Tayohar Committee, excommunicating her with the approval of All India

Muslim Personal Law Board, “for having constantly lied.” 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 Narula’s report (30 April 2002) was titled “ ‘We

have no order to save you’—State participation and complicity in anti-Muslim

violence.” Issued from US shores, its words were lapped up by the Indian elite

and politicians:

What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising, it was a

carefully orchestrated attack against Muslims … planned in advance

and organized with extensive participation of the police and state

government officials.

But where are the facts to corroborate such an allegation, which of course

was instantly peddled the world over? Can a “carefully orchestrated attack”

happen overnight? And how can someone sitting in the U.S., gauge the

“spontaneity” of such an outbreak?16

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.17

Its findings were made public as early as April 26, 2002, through a press

conference held in Delhi. Running counter to the politically correct line of an

“orchestrated attack,” they were largely ignored by the media.

On March 3, 2002, the five-member fact-finding team under Justice

Tewatia’s direction went to Godhra and spent six days visiting three affected

areas in Ahmedabad and some of the relief camps. At all 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 the Godhra 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.


On April 4, the team was in Vadodara, visiting five relief camps of both

communities, and seven areas which were the scenes of violence in the

preceding month, as well as a number of sensitive areas. To have exposure to

the ground realities they visited some areas still under curfew and also met the

Commissioner of Police and District Collector along with other officials.

Thirteen delegations consisting of 121 citizens met the team and presented their

testimonies; they included not only members of 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 Tewatia’s Inquiry Commission, which its

report described as “indisputable”:

• The attack on Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 was pre-planned and pre-

meditated. It was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by a hostile

foreign power with the help of local jehadis … carried out with the 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 of February 27, 2002.

• There were no quarrels or fights between the vendors and the Hindu

pilgrims on the platform of Godhra Railway Station.

• Firebombs, acid bulbs and highly inflammable liquid(s) were used to set

the coaches on fire that must have 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 wilfully delayed 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 conspirators was 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 more lethal weapons than the police did.

• [They] did not have the training and know-how to manage situations of

communal strife witnessed in the state in recent weeks.

• In many places, … [they] made a commendable work in protecting life

and property. Barring a few exceptions, it was not found to be

communally motivated.

About army deployment:

• Available information shows that the Army was requisitioned and

deployed in time.

After Godhra

The involvement of the “tribal” communities or Vanavasis, in the post-Godhra

riots added a new dimension to the communal violence, as Justice Tewatia’s

report reveals:

• In rural areas the Vanavasis 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 while

attacking Muslims. They moved in groups and used coded signals for

communication. Apparently, the accumulated 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 in great 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 writing and

editorials. They distorted and added fiction to prove their respective

points of view. The code of ethics prescribed by the Press Council of

India was violated … with impunity. It so enraged the citizens that

several concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace


could return to the state only if some of the TV channels were closed for

some weeks.18

A Few Healing Voices

It would be unfair not to mention a few voices that rose from among the

journalists themselves, against this enormity. The most eloquent one was Vir

Sanghvi’s, usually part of the “secular” establishment, ever ready to portray

Muslims as victims, Hindus as aggressors. Vir Sanghvi’s crisis of conscience

suddenly gave him intellectual clarity. Some extracts from his article “One-Way

Ticket” in The Hindustan Times of Feb. 28, 2002:

There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might

be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. …

There is no suggestion that the karsewaks started the violence …

there has been no real provocation at all … 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 how bizarre such an attitude sounds in

other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin

Towers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous

resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about America's policies,

but we didn't even consider whether this resentment was justified or

not.

Instead we took the line that all sensible people must take: any

massacre is bad and deserves to be condemned.

When Graham Staines and his children were burnt alive, did we say

that Christian missionaries had made themselves unpopular by

engaging in conversion and so, they had it coming? No, of course, we

didn't.

Why then are these poor karsewaks an exception? Why have we de-

humanised them to the extent that we 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 argue that they are often valid and

necessary.

But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly ‘secularist’

construct not only goes too far; it also becomes counter-productive.

When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by a

Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP19 or

arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them.

Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did

they also have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the

reader.

There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become

such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre

becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?20

S. Gurumurthy in The New Indian Express (March 2), Jaya Jaitley in The

Indian Express (March 7), Rajeev Srinivasan in Rediff on Net (March 25), Arvind

Lavakare in Rediff on Net (April 23), T. Tomas in Business Standard (April 26),

François Gautier in The Pioneer (April 30), M.V. Kamath in The Times of India

(May 8), Balbir Punj in Outlook (May 27), each one expounded the absurdity of a

situation where the majority of Indians—the Hindu community—are looked

down upon as second-class citizens. A negligible lot taken for granted because

it is harmless, non-aggressive, and unable to speak and act as one coherent,

organized group.

A Farcical Interlude

Two and a half years after the events, on Sept. 3, 2004, the cabinet of the Central

Government (ruled by the UPA coalition21) approved the setting up of a

committee constituted by the Railways Minister 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 “no possibility of inflammable liquid being used,” said he, and


the fire originated “in the coach itself, without external input.” The Cabinet

ministers were fully satisfied.

Neelkanth Bhatia, among the few survivors, was not. He gathered enough

strength to challenge the formation of this committee, and in October 2006, the

Gujarat High Court quashed the conclusions 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

accepted facts on record.” Moreover, one high-level commission conducted by

Justice Nanavati-Shah had been appointed by the Gujarat Government to probe

the incident, two months earlier. The Court also did not miss the point that the

interim report was released just two days before the elections in Bihar—the

State of 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

The first part of the Nanavati Report was released in September 2008, after four

years of thorough investigations.22 It lifted the cloak of blame that had been

wrapped around the Gujarati people all those years. It also cleared the most

blackened Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi.

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

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 the recommendations and directions given by National

Human Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding

involvement of any definite religious 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.


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 theirs an inquiry was held by the

Government and they have been dismissed from service.

On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence

the Commission comes to 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. 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.

The conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of

a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.23

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 from acting upon, circulating and

publishing this report.” Fortunately on October 13, 2008, the highest court

sharply turned down the petition, thus making the testimonies and inquiries

available to all.

However, under pressure from the UPA Government and pestered by the

National Human Rights Commission and Citizens for Justice and Peace NGO, on

October 21, 2008, the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan

(whose tenure was marked by allegations of misbehaviour)24 directed that the

Prevention of Terrorist Act (POTA) could not be used against the 134 accused in

the Godhra train burning incident. The trial would have to be held under the

regular provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

This amounted to accepting prima facie that the guilty were not terrorists:

we are allowed to call them “militants,” “gunmen”— but not terrorists. This

ruling will have nationwide impact, as other State governments may have to


drop charges under POTA against those accused of indulging in terrorist

activities.

On February 22, 2011, out of 94 accused in the Sabarmati Express Burning

Case, 31 were convicted by a special Fast Track Court inside the Sabarmati

Central Jail; it awarded the death sentence to 11 and life imprisonment to 20.

Pattern for Harmony

This appears to be a pattern: whenever Muslim riots or bomb attacks target

Hindus, it is thought acceptable to accuse the victims, in order to avoid possible

revolts. Thus in 1993 in Mumbai, after eleven coordinated bomb blasts in Hindu

majority areas, which killed 257 people and injured 713, the then Maharashtra

Chief Minister Sharad Pawar quickly cooked up a twelfth explosion … in a

Muslim area! “I have deliberately misled people,” he explained later, to show

that both communities had been affected.”25 And to portray both communities’

potential to behave as “terrorists”. Truth and clarity of mind are the casualties.

We remember the great art historian A.K. Coomaraswamy’s words in

1909:

It is unfortunate that libels upon nations and religions cannot be

punished as can libels upon individuals.26

Gujarat has had its share of suffering. The devastating Bhuj earthquake of

January 2001, in which more than 20,000 people died preceded the attack on the

pilgrims at Godhra in February 2002; just six months later, another terrorist

attack struck Gandhinagar’s Akshardham temple, in which 30 peaceful

worshippers were brutally gunned down (with 80 injured). Amidst those

tragedies the people of Gujarat have continued to repose their trust in their

Chief Minister, whose administration happens to be among the least corrupt in

India. State elections have been held three times since those events: in 2002,

2007 and 2012; Narendra Modi won landslide victories all three times, despite

hostile and sustained media campaigns that demonized him as a blood-thirsty

ruler.


Official India has chosen to forget a millennium of Islamic intolerance and

brutality. Millions of Indian victims have had no right to be remembered, not

even in history textbooks, where invaders are sometimes turned into heroes.

Sadly, this ostrich-like attitude leaves the wounds open and condemns us to

relive the past rather than heal it.

�

Nicole Elfi has been living in India since 1975. She worked on the

publication of works related to Mother and Sri Aurobindo and

researched aspects of Indian culture. She has authored Satprem, par

un Fil de Lumière (Éditions Robert Laffont, 1998) and Aux Sources de

l’Inde, l’initiation à la connaissance (Éditions Les Belles Lettres, 2008).

Email: [email protected]

�

© Nicole Elfi, 2009–13

Notes & References

1 See Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice A.H. Mehta

(henceforth “Nanavati Report”), the integral text is available on the website of the

Gujarat Government:

http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf

(accessed June 2013). All unreferenced quotations below are from this Nanavati Report.

See also S.K. Modi, Godhra the Missing Rage, Ocean Books, New Delhi, 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 tampered with. From Nanavati Report; also Justice Tewatia

Committee Report, online at:


www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2010/04/justice-tewatia-committee-report/

(accessed June 2013).

3 Rajeev Srinivasan, “Predatory intelligentsia”, 14 May, 2002, Rediff.com.

4 Madhu Purnima Kishwar, “Modinama”, part 7: “When Congress State Governments

Snubbed Modi’s Request for Additional Police Force”, May 2013, online at:

www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1704

5 Ibid.

6 Quoted in S.K. Modi, Godhra the Missing Rage, Ocean Books, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 65-

66.

7 http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/

8 See Balbir Punj in Outlook, May 27 and July 8; also in The New Indian Express, March 8,

2002.

9 See Vadodara Sessions Court, Best Bakery Case, Justice H.U. Mahida’s Judgement,

June 27, 2003.

10 Aravind Lavakare, “Blindfolded in Best Bakery”, 9.9.2003, online at:

www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/09arvind.htm (accessed June 2013).

11 Social activist and Secretary of the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, and co-editor of

Communalism Combat, a CPI–CPI(M) affiliated magazine.

12 Zaheera is not the only one to have sought police protection from activist Teesta

Setalvad. Rais Khan, her close associate for years, soon felt under threat and asked for

it too.

13 “Zaheera Sheikh a 'self-condemned liar': SC panel”, PTI, August 29, 2005, online at: http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=53608 (accessed June 2013).

14 “... Those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received 100,000 rupees, some

others 50,000 rupees, while the victims got a mere 5,000 rupees each. This has raised

eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a

disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.” See Navin

Upadhyay, Daily Pioneer, Dec. 20, 2008: www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-

witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each (accessed 2009)


15 Abraham Thomas, Daily Pioneer, 14.4.2009, online at:

www.dailypioneer.com/169490/Gujarat-riot-myths-busted.html (accessed April 2009).

16 This New York-based Human Rights Watch still watches the Indian shores closely,

as it appears, but not to protect innocent lives. On Dec. 3, 2008, just a week after the

ghastly Nov. 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, HRW issued a statement to the

Government of India, offering gratuitous advice on how to manage its affairs and

demanding that investigators should respect the human rights of captured terrorist

Ajmal Amir Kasab (also called “Butcher of Mumbai”). A commentator in The Jerusalem

Post pointed out, “The HRW’s website lists 38 reports attacking counter-terrorism

efforts around the globe but only three on the brutal impact of terrorism on civilians.”

See also Kanchan Gupta’s excellent article, “Mumbai’s Butcher and human rights,” in

The Pioneer, Dec. 17, 2008, online at www.dailypioneer.com/144038/Mumbai’s-

Butcher-and-human-rights.html (accessed December 2008).

17 Council for International Affairs and Human Rights (governing body for the term

2001-2003), New Delhi. “Facts Speak for Themselves: Godhra and After,” A Field Study

by Justice D.S. Tewatia, Dr. J.C. Batra, Dr. K. Singh Arya, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, Prof.

B. K. Kuthiala (henceforth “Tewatia report”).

18 From Justice Tewatia Report. 19 The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a pro-Hindu organization.

20 The Sangh Parivar is a network of pro-Hindu organizations deriving from the

Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS).

21 The UPA (United Progressive Alliance) is a coalition of political parties, the main one

being the Congress (I) presided over by Sonia Gandhi.

22 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, Police Officers, 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 have been involved

in any of the events referred to hereinabove; (ii) in the matter of providing protection,

relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots (iii) in the matter of

recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission from


time to time.” By that notification the Government also included within the scope of

inquiry the incidents of violence that had taken place till 31-5-2002.

23 Nanavati Report.

24 For a few examples of allegations against K.G. Balakrishnan, see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._G._Balakrishnan (accessed June 2013)

• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-13/india/31159055_1_sons-

in-law-and-brother-justice-balakrishnan-status-report (accessed June 2013)

• http://humanrightsoncampus.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/removal-of-ex-cji-

as-the-nhrc-chief-corruption-and-integrity-of-the-nhrc-top-boss/ (accessed June

2013)

Allegations continued during his tenure as Chairman of the National Human

Rights Commission (from 2010 onward).

25 The New Indian Express, August 13, 2006.

26 Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Essays in National Idealism, Munshiram Manoharlal

Publishers, Delhi, 1981.

the godhra riots: sifting fact from fiction - nicole elfi

Documents

coaches s

coach s

godhra riots

godhra station

hindu extremists

indian express

large crowd of muslims

hindu pilgrims