The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction - Nicole Elfi
-
Upload
dharma-next -
Category
Documents
-
view
3.579 -
download
4
description
Transcript of 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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 3
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 4
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 5
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.”
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 6
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?
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 7
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 Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 8
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 9
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 10
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 11
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.
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 12
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 13
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.
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 14
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.
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 15
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:
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 16
• 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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 17
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 …
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 18
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 Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 19
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 Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 20
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 21
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.
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 22
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:
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 23
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)
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 24
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
The Godhra Riots: Sifting Fact from Fiction / p. 25
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.