Godhra train burning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Godhra train burning is a 2002 incident in which a coach of a train was burned, killing 58 people, mostly Hindu pilgrims, in Godhra, Gujarat. The event triggered widespread rioting in parts of Gujarat resulting in the deaths of about between 790^{[1][2] [3]} and 2,000^[4][5] Muslims and 254 Hindus.

In the very first police FIR, the incident was viewed as unplanned mob fury. However, a Special Investigating Team (SIT) of the Gujarat police argued that the coach was set on fire as a pre-planned act by a Muslim group, who were said to have stockpiled 140 liters of petrol from the day before for the purpose of killing the kar sevaks^[6].

A commission set up by the Railways ministry reported in 2005 that the fire was almost certainly an accident^[7][8], however the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of this enquiry commission by Railways as "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid. Another judicial committee investigating charges under POTA, opined in 2005 that the actions of the Muslim mob were most likely spontaneous and not pre-planned^[9]. However, a commission set up by the Gujarat government upheld in 2008 the original SIT claims that it was a conspiracy^[10]. In February 2009, the Gujarat High court agreed with the POTA panel that there was no evidence of a conspiracy^[11].

Contents 1 The incident 2 Attack on the train compartments 3 Background: Earlier episodes at Godhra 4 Investigations and controversies 4.1 Petrol thrown deliberately? 4.2 Allegations of planned conspiracy 4.3 The Nanavati Panel 4.4 The Bannerjee Panel 4.5 The Tehelka Investigation 5 Impact 6 References

[edit] The incident

The Sabarmati Express, reached Godhra Station at 07:43 hours (7:47 AM) on 27 February 2002, with many kar sevaks (Hindu volunteers) on their way back from a ceremony organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi / Babri Mosque site. There was an altercation between some of them and the mostly Muslim hawkers on the platform. A rumour spread that a Muslim girl Shofiabanu had been abducted, which was later found to be baseless^[12]

After its scheduled 5 minute halt, the train was pulling out when someone pulled the chain to stop it, and stones were pelted at the train by the Muslim crowd. Then the train left, but was stopped again near a railway cabin where a large Muslim mob of about 500 attacked it. During the attack, the Woman's reserved Coach no. S6 burned down^[13]. A total of 58 Hindu pilgrims (23 men, 15 women and 20 children) were asphyxiated in the smoke, while 250 others managed to escape^[8].

Godhra Train Attack Chronology
Feb. 27, 2002^[14]

Time	Event
7:43 AM	Sabarmati Expreess arrives at Platform 1 with Kar Sewaks from Ayodhya
.	Altercation at the station, rumor of abduction of Muslim girl. Stone throwing commences.
7:47 AM	Chain pulled as train starts leaving. Passengers instructed to shut doors.
.	Heavy stone pelting. Passengers blockade doors.
8:00 AM	Trains halts again outside Cabin A. Surrounded by crowd with pipes and swords.
8:30 AM	Smoke rising in compartment S-6. Allegations that inflammables were thrown from the outside.

[edit] Attack on the train compartments

The train was stopped and came under attack at Signal Fadia (sometimes misspelled as Signal Falia), near Godhra Junction, by a mob presumed to be Ghanchi Muslims^[15]. There were severe disturbances created due to altercations between the Hindu passengers and the Muslim mob, who reacted to religious slogans being screamed by the passengers and attacked the train.

The Tribune reported:^[16]

As the train left Godhra station, one of the miscreants who had boarded it, pulled the chain alarm after some time to halt the train a km away. It was here that a large number of stone-pelting miscreants set the coach ablaze by throwing petrol bombs and dousing it with kerosene and petrol.

However, subsequent investigations appear to suggest that the later halt may not have been a chain pulling:

In fact, rail records submitted to the Banerjee Committee show that the chain had been pulled in four coaches (83101, 5343, 91238 and 88238). These were rectified but it is possible there was a fifth coach too which was not rectified. The record in the chargebook of the Assistant Station Master (ASM) shows that there was another coach requiring rectification.

Soon after the engine crossed Cabin "A" about a kilometre to the west of the station, the train came to a halt again. There is no written record of a chain pull or rectification or of an altered clappet valve or dangling hosepipe as per the police claim that one Anvar Kalandar stopped the train because the conspirators told him a Muslim girl had been kidnapped by the Karsevaks. It is possible that the unrectified fifth coach dragged the train to a halt.^[17]

[edit] Background: Earlier episodes at Godhra

Godhra has a history of communal riots. Asghar Ali Engineer has provided an account of the major religious riots until 1981^[18]. He has also written about the social dynamics.

The majority of Muslims in Godhra belong to generally poor and extremely backward Ghanchi community, unlike better educated Bohras and Syeds. At the time of partition the Ghanchis were supporters of the Muslim League and quite militant and aggressive^[19]. During partition of India, a number of Sindhi Hindu refugees arrived in Godhra and settled in the neighborhood of the Ghanchis.

Earlier riots involved Muslim Ghanchis and Hindu Sindhis:

• 1947-48 riots
• 1953-55 riots
• 1965 riots
• 1980-81 riots
• 1985 riots

The riots of 1965 and 1980 were curbed by the collector putting suspected Hindu and Muslim miscreants behind bars^{[citation needed]}. The army was called to curb disturbances in 1948, in 1953-55, and 1985.

A family of five Sindhis was burned alive by Godhra's Ghanchi Muslims during the 1980 Sindhi-Ghanchi riots^[20][21].

Some of the major violence took place near the Single Falia site near the railway tracks, the same site where the 2002 train burning took place.

[edit] Investigations and controversies

Initial investigations led a Special Investigation Team of the Gujarat police to conclude that the Godhra attack was a planned conspiracy, rather than a spontaneous reaction. Their findings were questioned by the defence lawyers of the accused, as well as the "Central review Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism Act". An Investigative panel led by Justice U C Banerjee claimed that the fire was an accident, not a deliberate act. The Gujarat high court has ruled the Banerjee commission illegal.

[edit] Petrol thrown deliberately?

A large part of the case that the act was deliberate conspiracy hinged on the testimony of two petrol pump salesmen — Ranjitsingh Patel and Prabhatsingh Patel - who had said that they sold 140 liters of petrol to some Muslims the previous evening. However, investigations led by Tehelka

forced Ranjitsingh to admit on sting camera that the chief investigating officer, Noel Parmar had paid him and Prabhatsingh Rs 50,000 to change the statement and identify some Muslims as conspirators.^[6]

[edit] Allegations of planned conspiracy

The events of 27 February 2002 are often reported as a huge mob of Muslims burning the train (Sabarmati Express), knowing it contained pilgrims, monks and kar sevaks leaving for Ayodhya, after a scuffle among a few of the kar sevaks and sections of the mob. Later 58 people aboard the train, including 15 women and 20 children, all Hindus, died in a fire on board the recently departed train. The fire was blamed on Muslims, leading to the 2002 Gujarat violence.

Initial investigations led to the suspicion that a planned conspiracy was behind the train burning, rather than a spontaneous reaction. In 2003, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Gujarat Police moved the sessions court in Godhra to invoke provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) against all 123 accused in the case, including seven who were out on bail. On 6 February 2003, Maulana Hussein Umarji a Muslim leader of the Deobandi movement in Godhra, was arrested. The police alleged that he was the prime conspirator in the Train burning. His arrest followed the confessional statement of Jabir Binyamin Behera, an accused who was arrested on 22 January.^[22][23]

Behera confessed that around 11.30 p.m. on the previous night, he was present on the ground floor of a guest house when other suspects arrived on a scooter and initiated the first meeting. Allegedly, the strategy was to launch an attack at the slightest provocation from the Kar Sevaks who were returning from Ayodhya. The same night, the conspirators collected 140 litres of fuel from a local petrol pump and stored it at a guest house. They also had instructions from Umarji, who had advanced information on the position of the Kar Sevaks on the Sabarmati Express and specifically told them to target Coach S6 of the train.^[22][23]

The confession further went that a second meeting was held around midnight after which a co-conspirator named Paanwala allegedly left for the railway station to check on the train's arrival time. After learning that the train was late, they scrapped their original plan of a pre-dawn attack. In his confession Behera says it was Umarji who advised him against surrendering to the police. The investigators considered Umarji a "big catch" since the mob that burnt bogie S6 was mainly composed of people from the Ghanchi community, a majority of whom were followers of the Deobandi movement.^[22]

It was also suggested that foreign Islamic terrorists were involved in the act thus necessitating the invocation of POTA.^[22]

In September, the investigations changed track with the naming of Razzak Kurkur, a hotelier from the Muslim-dominated Signal Falia area, as an accused. It was then claimed that though a huge mob was involved in the attack, the actual train burning was the handiwork of a core team of 20.^[22]

The defence lawyers of the accused argued against the theories of the SIT, alleging that the charge sheets did not mention that the accused were active participants in the burning, and that the confessions needed to be backed up by sufficient evidence.^[22] The SIT report has also been questioned for apparent inconsistencies, such as the speed at which the petrol fuel was delivered to the attack site, and the lack of witnesses. Previous attempts by the SIT to link the incident to foreign elements were unsupported by evidence. It was also advanced that many parts of the SIT's forensic report were based more on conjecture than proof.^[24]

The Central Review Committee on POTA, which was set up to check possible misuses of the act, disagreed with the findings of the SIT. Their analysis indicated a lack of sufficient evidence to an alleged conspiracy.^[9]

Frontline reports on Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Gujarat Police findings:^[24]

SIT called a press conference to reiterate its conspiracy theory. ..Rakesh Asthana, who heads the SIT. He maintains that the plan to torch the train was masterminded during meetings at the Aman Guest House, owned by Razak Kurkur, who allegedly heads a local criminal gang involved in railway crimes. ... the actual operation was conducted by six people, who cut open the vestibule and entered the coach, opened the doors of the compartment and poured 120 litres of petrol (each person supposedly carried a 20-litre jerry can) before jumping out. Then, burning rags were thrown into the compartments through the windows. The SIT's main evidence is a court confession by Zabir Bin Yameen Behra, one of those who allegedly entered coach S-6. Behra first gave details of how the plan was hatched. Later, he went back on the testimony, saying the police forced him to depose before the court.

[edit] The Nanavati Panel

The Gujarat Government, in consultation with Central Government appointed Justice Nanavati and Shah to investigate Godhra and post-Godhra incidents. Nanavati Commission took a lot of time in talking to thousands of people including victims and eye-witnesses, interviewed thousands in an independent manner, finally concluded that Godhra carnage was not an accident but the coach was set on fire by a mob, allegedly Muslims. They also gave a clean chit to Shri Narendra Modi and noted that the efforts done by Government to take control of the situation were appreciable.

The Nanavati Commission, probing the Godhra train carnage and subsequent riots in Gujarat, submitted the first part of its report (See Nanavati Commission on Godhra) to Chief Minister Narendra Modi on 18 September 2008.

[edit] The Bannerjee Panel

Two years after the incident Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav appointed Justice U C Banerjee to investigate Godhra incident. On the eve of election in Railway Minister's home state Bihar, Justice U C Banerjee released a report suggesting fire being an accident which resulted out of cooking being carried within the carriage, and ruled out the possibility of fire having resulted out of any external attack:

the possibility of an inflammable liquid having been used is completely ruled out as there was first a smell of burning, followed by dense smoke and flames thereafter. This sequence is not possible in case the fire is caused by an inflammable liquid thrown on the floor of the coach or an inflammable object thrown from outside the coach. The "inflammable liquid theory" also gets negated by the statement of some of the passengers who suffered injuries on the upper portion of the body and not the lower body and who crawled towards the door on elbows and could get out without much injury.^[24]

These findings have been questioned by right-wing organisations, Sangh Parivar and Bharatiya Janata Party as being politically motivated, coinciding with the time of elections. The Gujarat High Court ruling declared Justice UC Banerjee Committee as "unconstitutional, illegal and void".^[25]

Other survivors and relatives of those killed reacted with outrage at the Banerjee committee conclusion saying this flies in the face of evidence that they were not allowed to leave the coach and burning rags were thrown inside by a mob that had gathered at the station. A court case was filed by survivors of the carnage against the committee.

The Nanavati Commission (18 Sept. 2008) calls it pre-meditated conspiracy.^[26]

As of 13 October 2006, the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of UC Banerjee committee "illegal" and "unconstitutional". As of now all its probe results stand invalid. The Central government can still appeal the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court.^[27][28][29] The Judiciary in India is independent of the state or national government. The order was pronounced by Justice BH Vaghela on a petition filed by a survivor of the carnage, Neelkanth Bhatia, who had challenged the setting up of Banerjee Committee.

[edit] The Tehelka Investigation

The Tehelka magazine conducted a six month investigation. It concluded that the fire was started by someone in the mob, but that the act had not been pre-planned:^[14]

A detailed study of statements and eye-witness accounts, like the one above, clearly suggests that the burning of coach S-6 was an instance of spontaneous vandalism that snowballed out of control. Provoked by the attempted abduction and the karsevaks' fight with Muslim hawkers at the station, the hawkers began to pelt stones at the train, and then, as the mob gathered strength and force, someone in the mob eventually threw burning rags into the coach that started the fire.

[edit] Impact

Two movies were based directly on the train burning incident and its immediate aftermath. One was a documentary titled Final Solution (Gujarat Riots) and the other was a Bollywood film called Parzania.

The Indian Mujahideen justified their terrorist bombings by mentioning the Gujarat riots triggered by Godhra train burning. The participants of the Mumbai attack of 2008 also used Gujarat riots as a justification.

[edit] References

Constructs such as ibid. and loc. cit. are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. The op. cit. construct is less problematical, as long as it clearly and specifically refers to a particular source citation which is present in the article.