 | The Hindu
January 3, 2005
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/01/23/stories/2005012303901400.htm
The truth about Godhra
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Three years after 59 train passengers, most of them VHP members and
sympathisers or their family members, perished in a fire on board coach
S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, a coherent picture is finally
emerging of what actually happened th at fateful morning.
Siddharth Varadarajan pieces together the puzzle.
---
WE HAVE before us now four bodies of evidence regarding the cause of
the February 27, 2002, fire - the police charge sheet (based on the
police investigation), the Justice U.C. Banerjee Committee's interim
report, the deposition of passengers and police and rail officials
before the Nanavati Commission and the technical report prepared by an
independent panel of engineering experts on behalf of the Hazards
Centre.
Unfortunately, none other than the Hazards Centre report can be
considered a complete body of evidence. The police charge sheet is
riddled with contradictions and relies too heavily on retracted
confessions and statements by witnesses of dubious credibility. The
Banerjee interim report bears all the hallmarks of a rush job, while
the Nanavati panel's work shows no signs of concluding despite the
passage of nearly three years.
Nevertheless, the burden of evidence gathered so far definitely does
not seem to support the pre-planned conspiracy theory of the police.
Mr. Justice Banerjee and the Hazards Centre experts aver that the fire
was most likely caused by an accident, though there is no doubting the
fact that coach S-6 was stoned by an angry mob.
That there was an accidental fire at the same time an angry mob was
throwing stones from outside might seem like something of a
coincidence. Perhaps it was the panic induced by the stoning which made
an accident more likely - a half-smoked cigarette thrown down
carelessly, a stove used for making tea not turned off properly.
On the other hand, if the Hazards Centre theory - of a smouldering
object under a berth eventually burning the latex seat, thereby
generating thick black smoke and then bursting into flames - is
correct, then the process of combustion might actually have started
15-20 minutes prior to the first time smoke was detected. This would be
well before the stoning started.
The platform
By now all narratives agree that a fracas broke out on the platform
between aggressive karsevaks and Muslim vendors. A Muslim girl was
molested by them. Stones were thrown on the coach and the karsevaks
also gathered stones to throw back. Worried that the situation might
deteriorate, the station master sent the train off suddenly at 7.48
a=2Em.
The first stop
No sooner had the engine crossed the platform than chain-pulling
stopped the train. Satyanarayan Varma, the train guard, told the
Nanavati Commission that the chain had been pulled because some
passengers had been left behind.
The first charge sheet says the karsevaks pulled the chain but
subsequent charge sheets claim one of the conspirators forced a Muslim
vendor to board the train and pull the chain.
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.
Once the four coaches were set right, the train started moving again.
The time now was 7.55 a.m. according to the ASM and 8 a.m. according to
the guard. Passengers have testified that even as the train was
standing and then began to move, the stone-pelting which began on the
platform continued.
The second stop
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. Either way, there is no record
of physical evidence to suggest someone from outside the train got it
to stop. The only evidence with the police is Kalander's statement as a
witness that he was responsible.
Time the key
Given the speed of the train after the first stop (10-12 km/h) and the
distance of Cabin `A', the train would have come to a stop the second
time around 7.55-8.05 a.m.
Assuming the police case is correct, the conspirators were already in
position and began cutting the vestibule connecting S-6 and S-7.
Presumably, the process of cutting the vestibule, clambering aboard the
train with jerry cans, opening the door to allow three more
conspirators to get on board, emptying all the petrol and then setting
the coach on fire would take more than a couple of minutes.
Even allowing for the implied claim that the karsevaks on board S-6 did
not attempt to stop the conspirators from performing these tasks as
rapidly as possible, it is difficult to square this scenario with the
fact that in the railway records the fire/smoke is reported at 7.55
a=2Em.
The fire
In fact, the railway records state that the second stoppage and
sighting of smoke were simultaneous. The Wardhi Book entry of the GRP,
for example, records a complaint of fire at 7.55 a.m. received from the
ASM, who had in turn been intimated by the guard. The duty of the
officer recording the complaint ended at 8 a.m., when he handed over
charge. The GRP inspector, M.J. Zala, noted that the information about
the fire was received by him at 8.05 a.m.
Finally, the Special Duty Diary of the Vadodara control room shows
notification of the fire by 8.05 a.m. The Godhra fire station, for some
reason, records receiving the information only at 8.20 a.m.
Even assuming a five-minute gap between the second stoppage and the
fire, the police case is quite improbable.
The charge sheet says the main conspirators ran from the platform after
the stoning began all the way to a lane near the Aman Guest House where
the petrol was stored, loaded it on to an autorickshaw, drove to a
drain some 50 steps from the track, unloaded the cans, ran up to the
track and then cut the vestibule. Even assuming they began this process
at 7.43 a.m., as soon as the Sabarmati Express arrived at the Godhra
station, and set the train on fire by 8 a.m., was 17 minutes enough
time?
According to a `panchnama of rehearsal' dated 18.9.2002, it took the
police four minutes to move by auto from the Guest House to the drain.
In the remaining 13 minutes, the conspirators would have to have run
from the platform to the Guest House, loaded and unloaded the petrol,
covered the 50 steps by foot, cut the vestibule and gone on board S-6.
Even this improbable scenario becomes possible only because of the 8-10
minutes additional delay caused by the first stoppage. If the guard's
testimony is correct, the first stoppage was because karsevaks on board
pulled the chain. How could the conspirators, assuming they ran from
the platform at exactly 7.43 a.m., have known the karsevaks would pull
the chain?
No waiting mob
Finally, the testimony before the Nanavati commission of Rajendraprasad
Meena, ASM on duty at Cabin `A' at the time, makes it clear there was
no mob standing between the cabin and the train when it came to a halt
the second time. There was, however, a crowd running alongside the
train after it moved from the platform. When he got down from the
cabin, "some people from the crowd had come near the cabin... the mob
did not arrive together but 10-15 persons were coming and gathering...
There were women and children also." Mr. Meena was not witness to
anybody trying to cut the vestibule. "I did not see personally as to
who set the fire and how."
See Part II: Arun Jaitley's questions...and some answers
=A9 Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
|
|
