Poking through the embers of Godhra
One year after the Sabarmati Express burning in Godhra, the investigation throws up more questions than answers.
DIONNE BUNSHA
in Godhra
“It (burning of the Sabarmati Express) was a pre-planned act. The culprits will have to pay for it. It was not communal violence. It was a violent, one-sided, collective act by only one community.”
- Narendra Modi, Gujarat’s chief minister, press statement during his visit to Godhra on February 27th 2002.
After Narendra Modi pronounced his verdict, the Godhra incident was used to carry out a retaliatory pogrom in which more than 1,000 Muslims were killed. Modi manipulated post-Godhra public sympathy and insecurity to engineer a landslide election victory. Yet, one year after the incident, how the S6 compartment of the Sabarmati Express actually caught fire, killing 59 people, remains a mystery. Investigators are still zealously trying to prove Mr. Modi right.
Desperately trying to corroborate Modi’s statement with evidence, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has arrested 75 people. With every new arrest and with every new chargesheet filed, the SIT’s story keeps changing. The latest twist in the tale is the decision to charge the 123 accused in the Godhra case under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). This decision was taken after the arrest of Maulana Hussain Umerji from his home in Signal Falia, Godhra on February 6th. Umerji’s arrest has bolstered the SIT’s conspiracy theory. 
Investigators allege that Umerji masterminded the plan to torch the train. “We have evidence that a core group of around 15 to 20 people were involved in the conspiracy. Umerji gave them instructions to torch S6,” says Rakesh Asthana, who heads the SIT. Charging the accused under POTA would make it easier for the prosecution to prove its case. Only under POTA, confessional statements recorded by the superintendent of police are admissible in the court of law. They are not considered evidence under other criminal laws. Moreover, POTA allows investigators to use electronic interception devices like telephone tapping and videography.
Umarji was arrested after a known criminal, Zabir Bin Yameen Behra, deposed against him before the chief judicial magistrate in Godhra. His arrest created panic. The Muslim community in Godhra observed a bandh for five days. Although not a religious leader, Umerji is a respected social worker and a businessman. Human rights groups have also supported Umerji, who was actively involved in social and relief work during the riots and also during the Kutch earthquake. Many relief committee organisers have stopped work, fearing that they will also be targeted.
The other main conspirator is Razak Kurkur, who allegedly heads a local criminal gang involved in railway crimes. “They stored around 140 litres of petrol used to torch the train in his Aman Guest House,” says Asthana. “The actual operation was conducted by six people who cut open the vestibule and opened the closed doors of the compartment, poured the petrol, lit the fire and jumped out. Zabir, who testified against Umerji, is one of those who entered the train.”
However, there are still holes in the SIT’s story. How did they get 140 litres of petrol into the train in such a short span of time? Not one of the witnesses saw people pouring any fluid down the aisle. Not one of the railway officials present saw anyone enter the compartment. Is it possible that the petrol was already stored inside the compartment? “We have ruled out that possibility since the owner of a local petrol pump said he sold the petrol to Kurkur the day before,” says Asthana. What was the motivation for the attack? The SIT chief says he still doesn’t have an explanation for that.
Previous attempts by the SIT to prove the involvement of the ISI and SIMI have fallen flat. After the police initially arrested Haji Bilal, an independent corporator, as one of the key accused, the claimed that he had a second passport with which he travelled to Pakistan. But they were unable to come up with any fake passport or evidence of an ISI link. Earlier, Mohammed Hussain Kalota was named as one of the main accused in the case. Now, the SIT doesn’t consider him part of the main group of 20 ‘core conspirators’, but as a leader of the mob. Two SIMI activists, Hasim Raza and Firdaus Ansari, were arrested and it was claimed that they were both in touch with Kalota and Bilal, and were on the railway platform on February 27th. They were released after the police found no evidence against them. Now, all the SIT has to cling on to is the ‘local conspiracy’ theory.
The judicial commission appointed by the state government to look into the Godhra incident and its aftermath have just finished hearings on the Godhra incident. From the testimonies of witnesses, the sequence of events was as follows:
7.42 a.m.: The Sabarmati Express arrived at Godhra station. Some Ram Sevaks got down to buy tea and snacks from the platform vendors. An argument ensued between a Muslim vendor and the Ram Sevaks over payment for the tea.
7.47 a.m.: Train departs from Godhra. While getting on to the train, Ram Sevaks try to pull into the compartment a girl standing on the platform with her mother. But she manages to pull away from them.
7.48 a.m.: The chain is pulled, as many Ram Sevaks were still left on the platform. Stone throwing starts between the Ram Sevaks and local Muslims gathered behind the Parcel Office.
8.00 a.m.: Train starts.
8.05 a.m.: Train stops again, due to pulling of the vacuum brakes. Local Muslims, armed with weapons, rush to catch up the train. They collect in separate groups outside the compartment. They start pelting stones and shouting slogans. Coach S6 catches fire.
8.25 a.m.: Police arrives at scene and fires to disperse Muslim mob.
Several passengers also reported harassment by Ram Sevaks throughout the journey. They travelled ticketless and took over the reserved compartments, packing them to thrice their capacity. They threw out ticket checkers who attempted to enter the compartment. At every station, they shouted aggressive anti-Muslim slogans. At Godhra station, they refused to let a passenger buy tea from a Muslim vendor and pushed him out of the coach, while abusing him. Sophiya Sheikh (18), a resident of Vadodara, was on the platform waiting for the train with her mother and sister. They saw the Ram Sevaks get off the train. One of them grabbed her from behind, put his hand over her mouth and dragged her towards the train. He let go after her mother screamed for help. Sophiya’s statement has been recorded and attached in the second police chargesheet.
Statements by local officials who deposed before the commission suggest that the Godhra incident occurred after a spontaneous fight between local Muslims and Ram Sevaks travelling on the Sabarmati Express. Assistant Station Master, Rajendraprasad Mina, testified that no crowd was waiting for the train to stop. The crowd gathered after the train stopped for the second time. He said the mob did not arrive together. Groups of 10 to 15 persons gathered, including women and children. Railway Police Constable at Godhra, Mohan Yadav, also said that he did not see any suspicious movement throughout the route between the ‘A’ cabin and his office before the arrival of the train. Raju Bhargava, the police superintendent of Panchmahal district, said that when he arrived, he saw passengers sitting on the tracks and many Ram Sevaks with saffron scarves were shouting anti-Muslim slogans.
Bhargava said passengers were injured on the upper part of their body. This raises questions about the SIT theory that petrol was poured through the aisle of the coach. If the petrol had been poured down the aisle, the fire would have spread from bottom up, injuring people on the lower part of their body. Moreover, Bhargava also said that he did not smell any inflammable fuel like petrol, diesel or kerosene. While several witnesses have been brought before the commission, it is puzzling why Asthana, who is leading the SIT investigation, hasn’t been called to testify.
Although the forensic laboratory report concludes that the fire started from inside with at least 60 litres of petrol, others feel that the report is based more on conjecture than on proof. “There is no evidence of fluid fire,” says Mukul Sinha, human rights lawyer for the Jan Sangharsh Manch. “All the victims were injured on the upper body. None were injured on their feet. Nawab Singh Chowdhry, a Railway Police Force inspector, has also testified that he put out a part of the fire with water. An expert in fire fighting, Chowdhry also said that oil fires are not extinguished with water. This proves that the coach did not burn because of a petrol fire.” However, both the SIT’s evidence and the forensic laboratory reports state that petrol was used.
The manner in which the main evidence was handled also raises questions. Several people, including chief minister Narendra Modi, state home minister Gordhan Zadaphia and VHP leader Dr Jaideep Patel, along with media crew and VHP volunteers, were allowed inside the compartment before the forensic tests were done or the first information report was made. Anyone could have tampered with the evidence. The compartment should have been sealed until police investigations were completed. In fact, Dr Jaideep Patel had boasted to this reporter that he entered the burnt compartment even before the police did. Can evidence collected after the coach was tampered with be admitted as evidence in the court? Even today, the S6 coach lies at the far corner of the Godhra railway station. It has become some kind of tourist landmark, attracting visitors from nearby towns.
The investigation into the Godhra incident throws up more questions than answers. The SIT’s story still has some gaps that are not adequately explained. With the Modi government keen to portray itself as strong against terrorists, the truth of what really happened may never be known.
Frontline, March 15 - 28, 2003 Also available here
No comments:
Post a Comment