Godhra

02-04-2005, 09:32 PM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Feb 3 2005, 07:20 AM) [ CITIZEN'S LETTER TO INDIA'S PRIME MINISTER SEEKING RELEASE OF PEOPLE BEING UNFAIRLY HELD ON CHARGES OF ORGANISING THE GODHRA TRAIN FIRE
URL: www.sacw.net/Gujarat2002/lettertoPM012005.html ]

Check the signatories in this list of "intellectuals"
Intellectuals ask CPI(M), CPI to join Government

QUOTEAmong the signatories were K. N. Panikkar, Namwar Singh, U.R. Ananthamurthy, V.K. Krishna Iyer, A. K. Hangal, Asghar Ali Engineer, Praful Bidwai, Baba Azmi, Nandita Das, Govind Nihalani, Prof. Yashpal, Anand Patwardhan, Habib Tanveer, Saeed Mirza and Shabana Azmi

Any doubts about their political affiliations?

02-04-2005, 09:39 PM

QUOTE(arindam @ Feb 4 2005, 06:00 AM) Interesting to see that #66 in the list of signatures is "Stalin" - perhaps a follower of one of the worst mass-murderers in history.

I think the following list of issues need to be debunked:
- "no hydrocarbon" theory
- inpdependence of Hazards Center
- "Girl was molested at station" theory
- Chain was pulled by Kar Sevak - so what?
- "Pattern of burn patterns" prove XYZ

any other thoughts? 
I think we have enough on #1 and #2.

I dont think #3 & #4 need to be addressed.

We dont have enough info on #5 and to be honest with the kind of resources we have its kind of hard to do this. Except for what Siddharth posted (photo) its kind of hard.

02-04-2005, 09:44 PM

A secular tsunami
QUOTEEven as Lalo Prasad Yadav was blowing his victorious conch while referring to the findings of Justice Banerjee Report, SIT Chief Deputy Inspector General of Police Rakesh Asthana at a hurriedly convened press conference 17 January stated that they have rejected outright the findings of the Railway Minster appointed Justice U.C.Banerjee Commission and that they have enough evidence to back their Conspiracy Theory. Rakesh Asthana stated 'Our investigation strongly indicates a conspiracy that was hatched at the Aman Guest House on February 25th 2002 two days before the Godhra Train Carnage'. He narrated the sequence of events as per the SIT's version and sought to know how could an 'ACCIDENTAL FIRE' as assiduously claimed by Banerjee Commission, spread so much inside a coach.

02-04-2005, 09:52 PM

From ToI blogger called "Offstumped"
link

QUOTETruth about Godhra - The Hindu Exposed
First a note of condolence to all the lives lost in the deadly Tsunami incident. Second a note of regret that âAmmaâ did not in a moment of honest self introspection in the wake of the Tsunami deaths would have reflected on how her arrogance continues to blind her. Well in incident one would have expected to look honestly within yourself and re-assess the rights and wrongs of your actions, but apparently not for her.

Be that as it may, that is not what this post is all about. This post is all about 2 Political Tsunamis, one that is past us and another that is upon us. I am referring to the out of place and out of time post mortem of the Godhra incident and the brewing war by the Naxalites. Two apparently unrelated issues but as you will see joined at the hip.

First things first, when you see the invincible Laloo Yadav who has survived election after election is leaving no stone unturned in reiterating his Minority Credentials to the point of exorcising Godhra's Ghosts it tells you something - Laloo is fighting the political battle of his life and is worried sh1t of anti-incumbency and fragmentation of his political constituency. One would not have expected anything better out of Laloo, given the political low life that he is, but when The Hindu devotes its centerpiece Sunday Editorial to this issue it has to draw a response from this column. There are two pieces in The Hindu this sunday. The first according to it is âa coherent pictureâ and the second is its answer to Arun Jaitley's questions.

Let us examine the first http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/23/stories/...901400.htm. The usual suspect is Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan who we have seen in the past has barely concealed his ideological moorings or political biases. Let us examine in detail the so called truth he has uncovered and the puzzle he has pieced together.

Mr. Varadarajan claims in his âNews Analysis pieceâ that Only the Hazards Center report is a complete body of evidence while the others suffer some deficiency or the other. However this does not stand in his way to come up with a conclusion upfront in his piece that

the burden of evidence gathered so far definitely does not seem to support the pre-planned conspiracy theory of the police

a curious conclusion even before he has presented to us his analysis. Let us examine the rest of his analysis for how he comes up with his conclusion. Its a common and establish practice to logically draw conclusions by analysing raw âdataâ toÂ summarize âfindingsâ which leads to âconclusionsâ. There has to be an irrefutable factual and logical link between all the 3. Let us see how well Mr. Varadarajan bears the burden of establishing this factual and logical link.

In the next 2 paragraphs following the premature conclusion Mr. Varadarajan presents no facts or findings but mere speculation. In the 3rd paragraph following the conclusion Mr. Varadarajan makes another speculative conclusion that the fire started before an alleged stoning again based on an assumption.

Next Mr. Varadarajan presents a section Titled âThe Platformâ where again we dont see any facts or findings, instead we see some highly loaded statements. First is about fracas between âaggresive Kar Sevaksâ and âMuslim Vendorsâ. Note the adjective âaggressiveâ for the Kar Sevaks which curiosly Mr. Varadarajan has freely used all through his report and again curiosly we dont have any adjective for the âMuslim Vendorsâ. A great example of the subtle manipulation of language to prejudice a Reader without presenting any facts or being fair to the facts. What is amazing is the rest of the paragraph where Mr. Varadarajan refers to âMuslim Vendorsâ stoning the coach and Kar Sevaks collecting stones to stone back. Something doesnt quite make sense here. âMuslim Vendorsâ are stoning the coach where the Kar Sevaks are. The Kar Sevaks are inside the Coach. So how in the hell were the Kar Sevaks collecting stones from inside the coach. Perhaps they have Robotic Arms or even perhaps there was an invisible hand of god here which helped collect stones. Mr. Varadarajan's narrative fails the basic minimum test of logic here. We are then told that the train was flagged 7:48 am. A curious statement of fact given that in a surcharged atmosphere of violence a frightened station master who frantically flagged the trained also remembered to take note of the exact time he did it. Curious indeed.

The next section Titled âThe First Stopâ I was hoping was where we would see some irrefutable facts and that elusive logical link to Mr. Varadarajan's premature conclusion. We are first told of the Train Guard's testimony. Next what do we have lo some solid facts being quoted. Coach Numbers where chain had been pulled - 4 of them and then mysteriously there is talk of a possible 5th coach and no mention of coach number. So how pray do we know such a 5th coach was pulled a record in the ASM's book, how pray is this a reference to a different coach other than the 4 whose numbers we know of me. Beats me coz no number is mentioned. The rest of the section attests to nothing more beyond reiterating stone pelting.

The next section âThe Second Stopâ. This section starts in a very curious fashion. It reports the Train Stopped at a point 1km away but then again rather curiously goes on state that there is no written record of a chain pulling. Now that really is mysterious, how in the hell did the train stop ? And what do we hear here from Mr. Varadarajan well something along the lines of the conspiracy theory we keep hearing in the Kenneddy Assasination, the grassy knoll and the magic bullet. So Mr. Varadarajan comes up with the âMagic 5th Coachâ Theory which magically allowed the train to drag on for a KM. before bringing it to a halt. Brilliant stuff. Do you see what just happened.

1. Mr. Varadarajan first talks of a hypothetical 5th coach whose chain is pulled

2. Then Mr. Varadarajan talks of a written record of a ASM stating a 5th coach has to be rectified but no coach number

3. And then magically as if to explain why the Train stopped a kilometre away we have the connection to the 5th coach while at the same time the claim that there is no written record of a chain pulling.

Folks this one takes the cake. What do we see here, a carefully constructed conspiracy theory no less brilliant than the Kennedy Assasination. Why does Mr. Varadarajan pay so much attention to this flight of fantasy, because he bears the burden of refuting what he later on alludes as testimony given by an individual claiming he pulled the chain, which somehow Mr. Varadarajan doesnt consider to be very important.

The next section Titled âTime The Keyâ defies all known equations of motion and is perhaps is a new vista in Physics that Mr. Varadarajan has unravelled. He claims that at a speed of 10 km/hr the train would reach a point a Kilometre away around 7:55 and 8:05 am. How in the hell is this possible when 2 sections before he quotes the train started to move after the first stop at 7:55 am according to ASM's watch and 8am according to the Guard's watch. So by elementary equations of physics the earliest the Train makes the second stop is 8:05 am and the latest is 8:10 am. So Mr. Varadarajan's key section starts off rather disastrously and ends equally disastroulsy when Mr. Varadajan's makes a leap and talks of the police theory and Railway Records. Mr. Varadarajan claims that the Railway records of fire or smoke at 7:55 am does not square with Police theory. Well 7:55 am by who's watch Sir ? You have already shown us two watches with a time difference of 5 minutes. Now who's watch is this that this time was recorded by, how can you square two theories all of which allude to events occuring within a span of 10 minutes when you have 2 watches with a 5 minute difference. I guess we are talking of Theory of Relativity and observers travelling at the speed of light I guess.

The second last section âFireâ starts of with the claim that the second stoppage and the reports of fire were simultaneous, how in the hell is this possible. This is the worst piece of analysis. Mr. Varadarajan claims that the ASM reported fire at 7:55 am based on info passed by the Guard. Now this is the same ASM and the same Guard who obsrerved that the Train started after the First Stop at 7:55 am by ASM's watch and 8:00 am by Guards watch. How in the hell is the Training Leaving from First Stop at 7:55 am and Stopping at the second stop at 7:55 am and simultaneously being reported on Fire. How in the world is this possible ?.

And Mr. Varadarajan goes for the kill in this section trying to establish why it is impossible for the police theory to be valid stating that 17 minutes was not enough time with a very curious closing remark.

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? 

This assertion however flies in the face of the previous assertion a few sections earlier

Satyanarayan Varma, the train guard, told the Nanavati Commission that the chain had been pulled because some passengers had been left behind. 

How pray does Mr.Varadarajan square two of his own assertions which are at odds with each other. Well apart from this contradiction Mr. Varadarajan's so called analysis doesnt present any new findings in the last section titled the âMobâ instead he goes on to quote the ASM's testimony to claim there was no mob.

So what conclusions do we draw from this:

1. Mr. Varadarajan truly has pieced together a puzzle

2. So puzzling that it defies logic, reason and laws of physics (Theory of Relativity Notwithstanding)

3. Mr. Varadarajan starts with a Conclusion and then does a pathetic job of force fitting facts often in contradiction to each other to leave us wondering at the end where in the hell are the facts which lead to the findings which lead to the conclusion. All we have is one open ended question - How did the perpetrators know the Train would stop a kilometer away to plan on burning it ?

This folks is the ammunition with which the Congress/Communist Combine with their Chief Jester Laloo Yadav are going to town exorcising the ghosts of Godhra and for what to blunt the likely anti incumbency in the upcoming elections. Well The Hindu, Mr. Varadarajan and these political low lifes all stand OffStumped. They will not think twice about stoking communal flames and elevating fiction to the level of fact for their political ends all at the same time they are caught napping mortgaing internal security by propping a flawed peace process with the Naxalites and then botching it up.

It all demonstrates a disturbing trait in the ruling political dispensation. That its hatred for the BJP is so strong that it blinds them to the extent of manufacturing controversies where none exist to endgaer internal security and at the same time when it comes to dealing with real issues of internal security betraying naviety and getting suckered up in the process.

History will never forgive the Congress/Communist Combine for the Naxalite blunder they have commited. The Naxalite issue is a Political Tsunamic waiting to strike, it remains to be seen who will be swept away and who will survive. OffStumped will be there to observe.

02-07-2005, 11:51 PM

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=3
QUOTEGodhra: Judiciary under cloud

Sandhya Jain

This very month, three years ago, Hindu pilgrims returning to Gujarat from Ayodhya were burnt alive in a bogey of the Sabarmati Express, in what was widely perceived as an act of communal aggression. Secular apologists of Islamic fundamentalism were quick to explain to a shocked nation that there were good (that is, legitimate) reasons for that gory action.

The Muslim mob at the Godhra station, they said, had been "provoked" by Hindu acts of commission. To begin with, the kar sevaks wanted to rebuild the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. Now, that may be a heinous crime, but I fail to understand how pilgrims returning home without having done anything to erect the mandir in Ayodhya, could be considered guilty of a crime that warranted roasting alive.

For the sake of communal amity, however, we may let that pass. A second reason advanced was that an unidentified kar sevak got into a squabble with a tea vendor at Godhra station. Another version said that many pilgrims had tea at the stall and returned to the train without settling their dues. Hence the irate vendor rounded up members of his community; they managed to catch up with the train and set it on fire.

A third version was that some kar sevaks forced a Muslim girl at Godhra station into the train and made off with her. No family member of the alleged victim ever came forward to validate the story, nor was a police report filed. Yet this was repeated ad nauseum as if repetition can transform lies into truths.

To his credit, Justice UC Banerjee - though handpicked by Union Railway Minister Lalu Yadav to serve a political agenda - did not waste energy trying to prove these puerile excuses. As a former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Banerjee realised that the first reason exposed Muslim intolerance; while the second and third reasons were both difficult to prove and impossible to justify. What is more, they seriously incriminated the Muslim community as they showed planning and motivation to commit a grave offence.

So, notwithstanding his defective report, the judge was wise enough to avoid the most obvious pitfalls on his route. This is why he went for the "safe" option of accidental fire: He showed sympathy for the victims (since he could not say the fire never took place); shifted the blame away from the accused; and kept the burden of responsibility for the subsequent Gujarat riots on the shoulders of the Hindu community.

This is by no means a poor achievement for a judge whose appointment failed to attract confidence because he was not nominated by the Supreme Court, but handpicked by Mr Yadav. Mr Banerjee submitted his interim conclusions exclusively to Mr Yadav in the form of a double-edged boon, useful for indicting community-minded Hindus and for consolidating "secular" Muslim voters.

Examining the press reports, what most upsets me is Mr Banerjee's failure to produce the remains of a gas or kerosene stove from the embers of S-6, to back his claim that the apocalyptic fire that consumed 59 persons within seven minutes was caused by passenger fault. Prima facie, it is difficult to believe that anyone could have the luxury of cooking in a bogey with a capacity of 72 passengers, but actually packed with 150 persons. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with Gujarati culture could have told the learned judge that Gujarati women are notoriously gifted in the art of making dry snacks; the women in that ill-fated bogey would have been well-stocked for the journey and would certainly not cook on the train.

Justice Banerjee lacks credibility because he is perceived to have walked a path staked out by others, instead of scrupulously following the evidence. He did not even glance at the evidence collected by Gujarat's special investigation team (SIT), and disregarded the findings of forensic laboratories that opined that nearly 60 litres of petrol was used to start the conflagration. His decision to submit an interim report the day before he was scheduled to meet the SIT has already attracted adverse attention; his contention that he was unaware that elections were scheduled in the home state of the Minister who appointed him is shameful.

Justice Nanavati has wisely suggested that the nation await his findings. But since the Banerjee report was obviously intended to preempt and discredit the Nanavati-Shah probe, it deserves careful examination. Banerjee suggests that the fateful fire began somewhere in the middle of bogey S-6, and was probably triggered by a cooking stove, or a match or lighter. If the fire did start off accidentally, why didn't the passengers extinguish it, and why wasn't it contained in the section where it started? Since the train was a sleeper, only six persons could have been sitting in that section, since persons occupying the side berths would hardly cook in the passageway. Even if more people were seated in the section, it does not explain the failure to cry for help or warn other passengers about the danger.

The SIT claims the coach was built in 1993 with fire-retardant and self-extinguishing materials. This means that only a very volatile and highly inflammable substance (like petrol) could have caused the kind of inferno that enveloped the entire coach and took 59 lives in seven minutes. Neither a matchstick nor a portable kerosene stove could explain this kind of fire.

The judge has completely evaded the issue of why the passengers failed to open the doors at both ends of the compartment and either escape into the adjoining bogeys S-7 or S-5, or jump off the train once smoke spread in the compartment. Who or what impeded these obvious escape routes when the train was at a standstill? This issue will seriously erode Banerjee's credibility if he does not address it in his final report.

I am equally anxious for the results of the Supreme Court probe into Zaheera Sheikh's contention that despite the verbose activism of Begum Teesta Setalvad, she (Zaheera) had not filed any affidavit seeking transfer of the Best Bakery trial outside Gujarat. I shall briefly recapitulate facts for readers who have not understood the importance of this disclosure.

When Zaheera's testimony in the Vadodara Fast Track court led to the acquittal of 21 accused persons, a bunch of well-connected activists landed in Gujarat, dragged her to Mumbai and sponsored the sensational press conference in which she said the Vadodara testimony was inspired by fear. The publicity-conscious National Human Rights Commission rushed in; accepted voluminous documentation furnished on behalf of Zaheera without any scrutiny; and urged the Supreme Court to transfer the trial to another state (currently going on in Mumbai) as a fair trial was not possible in Gujarat.

To its eternal embarrassment, the Supreme Court has since discovered that Zaheera had not signed a single page presented to the NHRC or the apex court! In other words, there is no legal basis for taking the trial outside Gujarat. The learned judges cannot escape their share of this ignominy, for it is clear that they responded to the hype generated by an ideologically-committed media, rather than perusing the legal record before them. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is at stake; the judges must examine their contribution to this crisis.

02-08-2005, 02:00 AM

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/aug/22godhra.htm

QUOTEYouth's testimony throws new light on Godhra attack
EXCLUSIVE!
Sheela Bhatt in Godhra

Giving a sensational new turn to the investigation of the Godhra massacre, a Hindu youth, who has admitted to having been a member, albeit unwilling, of the group that ferried inflammable material to the spot where the Sabarmati Express was stopped on the fateful morning of February 27, has given a blow-by-blow account of the events that set Gujarat ablaze.

An old picture of Razak Kurkur from police filesThe picture emerging from his statement suggests that the masterminds of the attack were not Congress politicians Mohammed Hussain Kalota and Bilal Haji, but local businessman Razak Kurkur (seen at right in an old picture from the police files) and his associate Salim Paanwala, who ran a paan shop at the Godhra railway station and provoked the mob to attack the train.

The boy, a tea vendor at Godhra station, who shall be identified only as Ajay, made his revelations in a statement before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, A R Patel of the Godhra railway court on July 29.

His eight-page statement has been recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Anand, when the court was on tour, and, if it stands scrutiny in court, may finally lay the vexed Godhra case to rest. The statement is admissible as evidence because it was given voluntarily and recorded before a magistrate.

A source in Godhra said Ajay's conscience had been hurting him, so he decided to speak out even though he got involved in the incident in a 'spirit of community living.'

In his statement, the source said, Ajay not only narrated the chilling sequence of events that lead to the torching of the train's compartment #S6, resulting in the death of 59 passengers, but also named all those involved in actually setting the bogie alight.

Till February 27, Ajay, who is aged 17 or 18, lived with his family in the heart of Signal Falia, the Muslim-dominated quarter near the Godhra railway station from where a frenzied crowd had rushed and attacked the compartment.

Many of the accused in the case are known to Ajay, having been his neighbours in Signal Falia or co-workers at the Godhra railway station.

According to the youth's statement, he left his home in Signal Falia at 0700 IST on February 27 and went to his employer Mahboob Fofa's house to collect a pot of tea. From there he headed for the railway station where a 'deluxe' train soon arrived from Baroda.

A little later, the Sabarmati Express chugged in. Ajay could hear loud chants of ' Jai Sri Ram.'

A few minutes later, Ajay saw his employer Fofa and Mehboob Latika, another tea vendor, run towards the engine of the Sabarmati Express, screaming that another tea vendor, Siddique Bakkar by name, was being beaten by karsevaks.

Ajay was then outside compartment #S3. He too was stopped by some karsevaks and asked to chant 'Jai Sri Ram.'

Ajay complied, but when the karsevaks asked Latika to chant the slogan, he refused. The angry karsevaks began manhandling him, but Latika managed to break free and run, shouted that people were being beaten up.

As the train began pulling out, someone pulled the emergency alarm chain. Ajay had by this time left the station and reached Rasid Raji's shop in Signal Falia. He saw a dozen autorickshaws (three-wheeler vehicles) coming towards the slum colony from the station. Each autorickshaw was carrying four or five men who quickly alighted and began throwing stones at the train.

At this point, according to Ajay's statement, a few of his acquaintances in Signal Falia, like Saukat Lalu, Irfan Bhobha and Rafique Bhatuk went behind a property owned by Kurkur, who also owns a guesthouse facing the station.

Saukat Lalu, also a tea vendor, asked Ajay to accompany him. Ajay says he did not know at that point what was being planned or what he was expected to do. He stood outside Kurkur's house along with a few other tea vendors. After a few minutes Rafique Bhatuk came out with a can (called karbo in local parlance, which is used to store inflammable material) and gave it to Irfan Bhobha. "Aa karbo rickshaw maa muki de [Keep this can in the rickshaw]," the latter told Ajay.

The contents of the can smelt like kerosene, but out of fear, says Ajay, he obeyed. Nine other boys carrying similar cans, swords, and pipes went back to the station in autorickshaws, Ajay with them. The youth claims he accompanied them because he was forced to.

The group went behind a white cabin near the station, alighted, and rushed towards the train, which had been stopped some distance away from the platform. Saukat Lalu asked Ajay to go along with them. Another member of the group, Maheboob Chanda, snatched Ajay's can of inflammable material.

Ajay, who has narrated all the events as he remembers them in chronological order, also named not just the arsonists but also all the members of the first group that began pelting stones on the train, the Godhra source said. His version matches that of some of the passengers on that train.

On page six of his statement, Ajay has described in detail how the boys in his group torched compartment #S6. According to him, they first tried to burn compartment #S2, but alert passengers inside foiled them.

They then went to compartment #S6 and slit open the vestibule between #S6 and #S7. Six boys, including Rafique Bhatur, Saukat Lalu, Irfan Bhobha, and Sheru, then boarded the compartment and splashed their inflammable material inside.

Ajay says he stood outside. When he saw a crowd beating up Rafique Bhatur, he ran from the place and went home, only to find a group of local Muslims trying to set it on fire. His neighbours prevented them, but Ajay and his family had to shift to his uncle's house.

He claims he was threatened not to tell anyone what he had witnessed about the attack. He is now in hiding, fearing for his life.

02-08-2005, 02:02 AM

Questions about the Godhra case
QUOTEQuestions about the Godhra case

February 07, 2005

Sheela Bhatt compares the Bannerji Committee report findings with the Gujarat police's investigation in the second part of her series on the Godhra case.

Part I: The politics of evidence

The Bannerji Committee report cannot be ignored.

Seventy-five intellectuals have sent a memorandum to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, seeking the immediately release of the 109 Godhra accused facing trial in the Prevention of Terrorism Act court in Ahmedabad, on the basis of the report.

The report was on the Sabarmati Express fire at Godhra station on February 27, 2002, which killed 59 passengers and lead to riots in Gujarat that claimed more than 1,000 lives, mostly Muslims.

According to the memorandum's signatories, 'no crime' was committed in Godhra. The Bannerji report's critics have termed it a farce with dangerous implications. The division of opinion on the Bannerji report deserves a debate.

With the help of Gujarat police records (which one can doubt but cannot ignore in view of their legal value in the eyes of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act), rediff.com presents the trail of the Godhra case.

Only the court, of course, can give its opinion on the merit of the evidence. rediff.com presents the Bannerji report findings along with the police findings that are in the public domain.

QUESTION 1

The Bannerji report alleges there has been preponderance of evidence that the fire in S-6 originated in the compartment itself without external inputs.

What the Gujarat police says

a. The police have a Forensic Science Laboratory (Ahmedabad) report certifying that more than 60 litres of inflammable material is needed to set on fire the compartment in the same manner as it was burned in less than 25 minutes. It says highly inflammable material was needed to burn it, as the compartment was relatively new, made of 'fire-retardant and self-extinguishing' material.

According to the police 120 litres of petrol were used and some jerry cans used to pour the petrol were found outside the compartment after the incident, that day. The cans are mentioned in the panchnama (a record of the situation when the police arrive at the scene of crime).

b. The police have confessions from two people of the private petrol depot in Godhra that made the supplies to the 'conspirators' a day before the event.

c. The railway ministry's institution based in Lucknow, the Research, Designs and Standards Organisation has corroborated the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory report. It means cigarette butts or a gas stove cannot create enough heat to burn the compartment to ashes in a few minutes.

d. More than 60 surviving passengers gave identical 'eyewitness accounts' of their struggle to survive. They claim they saw fire spreading from the compartment's rear.

e. The Bannerji report claims 'some evidence of cooking inside the compartment by kar sevaks was given before the committee.' But in the forensic report, the burnt gas stove or residual of similar hazardous materials have not been found.

The Lucknow institute's experts believe the compartment -- particularly its ceiling and floor -- was made of material that cannot catch fire with the bursting of a gas stove or carelessly thrown cigarette butts.

The police emphasises the petrol was so lethal that it corroded the compartment's floor.

f. The Lucknow institute claimed the compartment's material could not emit toxic fumes leading to its passengers facing sudden death, if it caught fire in a normal manner.

g. The Justice Bannerji Committee has not met any investigator handling the Godhra case. Nor has it examined the forensic report. It concluded the compartment caught fire accidentally. It did not officially demand any police record.

QUESTION 2

Justice Bannerji ruled out an inflammable liquid being used, as there was first the smell of something burning followed by smoke and flames. This is not possible if the fire was due to something inflammable being thrown into the compartment

What the Gujarat police says

The police claim the scene of crime was chaotic as acid bottles and stones were being thrown from outside the compartment. There were passengers screaming. The crowd outside was furious and shouted slogans like kafiron ko mar dalo (Kill the kafirs). The acid bottles gave off a smell and there was smoke when they were thrown.

The passengers' luggage was burned, as were the seat covers. The police claim that because of the horrifying scene, the sequence of events was not important.

The police have recorded statements of more than 60 survivors from the compartment and the sequence of events as explained in the subsequent charge-sheet was based on the eyewitnesses' accounts.

Most statements are unambiguous and support the police's version of sequence of events. Most survivors do not belong to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

The Bannerji Committee has recorded many passengers' statements, including those of Hari Prasad Joshi, D N Diwedi, Jamuna Prasad, Dwarkabhai, Jayantibhai, Ramfer Singh and Bhupatbhai. None of them saw anybody entering the compartment nor did they see any of the 'conspirators' pouring petrol on the compartment.

Justice Bannerji recorded that Joshi, a Nepali, alighted from the compartment near Seat 72. But the police claim Joshi told them in 2002 that although he had an official booking in the rear of the compartment, he was seated in the middle when fire started, and crawled towards the front door.

To counter the views of passengers who deposed before Justice Bannerji, the police files have elaborate statements from Gyan Prakash, Amar Kumar, Babubhai, Dhirendra Pal, Dwarka Das,Hirabhai and Amritbhai whose version match with each other. They all claim that from the rear door, there was a stream of liquid that went up in flames.

The passengers said they did not see the 'conspirators.'

The vivid statement by Dhirendra Pal, a retired Indian Army officer from Kanpur who lives in South Gujarat, does not match with the claims made in the Bannerji report.

Seema Pal, his daughter-in-law who was pregnant, died in the compartment. Her body could not be identified. The Pals had booked Seats 59, 60 and 61.

The seats were in the rear, where the fire allegedly started. Pal's account is crucial to the case.

Shardaben, who was near Seat 72, claimed the fire started from behind.

QUESTION 3

Justice Bannerji states the passengers who suffered injuries on the upper portion of their bodies crawled towards the door on their elbows and got away without much injury.

Mukul Sinha, an Ahmedabad-based activist lawyer for the riot victims, had been mentioning this.

If the fire started after petrol was poured on the compartment floor, as the police claim, why did the passengers suffer burn injuries only on the upper parts of their bodies?

According to the police, they have studied, with the help of scientists, how the flames spread. Forensic scientists told them in this case, neither the 'flashback' nor 'flashover' theories are applicable.

What the Gujarat police says
The police claim they have evidence and the forensic report to prove that flames travel upwards and look for a way out in the direction of the wind.

Most passengers suffered burn injuries on the upper parts of their bodies as the flames had traveled upward, moving in the direction of the windows and doors in search of oxygen.

The passengers tried to alight from the windows and doors.

There were more than 200 passengers in the compartment that had a capacity of 72.
QUESTION 4

The Bannerji report criticises the onward travel of compartment S-7 (immediately after the incident) despite the damage to it being crucial evidence. S-7 has been disposed of as scrap.

What the Gujarat police says

The Bannerji Committee has hit the headlines on this point. But it does not bother the investigators. A couple of months after the incident, the Gujarat police started thinking on the lines of conspiracy. Until that time, most railway officials and the police believed that miscreants living in the Signal Falia area had torched the S-6 compartment from outside.

S-7 was crucial evidence. The police claim the compartment was only repaired and is at the Sabarmati yard.

The compartment's history sheet is well maintained. The police got it sealed when they found fresh evidence in April-May 2002.

S-7 was first taken to the Godhra yard. Its senior section officer Suleman Majid Sheikh told the police that when he got S-7, it had only its frame as its vestibule was completely burned.

The police have a record of S-7 that mentions that the canvas in S-7 was completely burned. The compartment, which was manufactured in 1987, had its vestibule made of canvas and not high quality rubber.

S-6 was made of high-quality rubber, which got burned but not as much as the canvas.

Gangaram, the assistant carriage officer from Ahmedabad, stated they had repaired many parts of the train.

He has maintained the repair charts. The police claim the records are available as evidence.

Only after the Forensic Science Laboratory report arrived did the Gujarat police come up with the theory that Razak Kurkur and Salim Panwala, residents of Godhra, had hatched a conspiracy to torch the compartment. They took the help of six young boys to cut the vestibule that joins S-6 and S-7, to pour the petrol into S-6. Two other boys helped them pull the chain near the A cabin, a little distance away from the Godhra platform.

Later, Maulvi Umerji, a resident of Signal Falia, was charge-sheeted for masterminding the offence.
QUESTION 5

The Bannerji Committee mentions that the Central Forensic Laboratory has not found traces of petrol.

What the Gujarat police says

The police claim that traces of hydrocarbon cannot be found after two years. The traces were found when samples were sent for the laboratory test immediately after the event.

QUESTION 6
The Bannerji report and almost all critics of the investigation into the Godhra case claim it is solely dependent on the confessions of 10 accused people who are dubious characters.

What the Gujarat police says
The police counter the allegations.

a. All over the world, in cases of criminal conspiracy, investigators rarely find eyewitnesses or conclusive proof.

b. The Ghanchi community in Godhra is so close knit that it is near impossible to get information from them. Tablighi Jamaat leaders have absolute hold over them.
c. The chief judicial magistrate recorded confessions of the accused under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Act on how and why they poured petrol in S-6, and how the conspiracy was planned.

It is always recorded in the open court.

Though the police do not admit it, the accused were given 'psychological treatment' to confess. Some Ahmedabad psychologists were called in, to make them realise how pregnant woman was killed in S-6, how children were burned alive. They were told 'Islam would never approve of such crimes against women.'

They were shown ghastly pictures of victims in S-6. They were questioned for hours. Many of the accused cried after seeing photographs of bodies of women and children.

d. The police claim the statements were recorded in the open court, in front of many prominent Muslim lawyers of Godhra. They argue the confessions are reliable evidence.

Ten people gave confessions helping the investigations. Three people (Seats 7, 8 and 9) withdrew their statements. Their retractions will go against them when hearings resume. According to law, the chief judicial magistrate will be called in to explain the circumstances when the accused gave sensational confessions in open court.

1. Ajay Baria, a Hindu boy, claims he helped pour the petrol.

2. Anwar Kalandhar says he pulled the Sabarmati Express' chain, to stop it.

3. Iliyas Mulla says he was with Kalandhar.

4. Ranjit Patel says a day before the event he supplied the petrol to the 'conspirators.'

5. Prabhat Sinh was the petrol pump manager.

6. Siddique Sheikh, a resident of Godhra, says he witnessed the event.

7. Jabin bin Behra's sensational confession changed the destiny of all the other accused.

8. Shaukat Bhana agreed to the conspiracy theory as Behra described it.

9. Salim Jerda says he was part of the conspiracy.

10. Babu Patalia is another accused.

Although the Gujarat police team lead by Special Inspector General of Police Rakesh Asthana and Deputy Superintendent of Police Noel Parmar have done much investigation, can we arrive at the truth in Godhra? Probably not. Find out why in the next segment of our series.

02-08-2005, 02:06 AM

From the above article.
It looks like these morons were looking for Hydrocarbon traces after two years of the incident.This might address the first issue that Arindam raised.
QUOTEThe Bannerji Committee mentions that the Central Forensic Laboratory has not found traces of petrol.

What the Gujarat police says

The police claim that traces of hydrocarbon cannot be found after two years. The traces were found when samples were sent for the laboratory test immediately after the event.

02-08-2005, 02:16 AM

QUOTE(arindam @ Feb 4 2005, 06:30 PM) Interesting to see that #66 in the list of signatures is "Stalin" - perhaps a follower of one of the worst mass-murderers in history.

I think the following list of issues need to be debunked:
- "no hydrocarbon" theory
- inpdependence of Hazards Center
- "Girl was molested at station" theory
- Chain was pulled by Kar Sevak - so what?
- "Pattern of burn patterns" prove XYZ

any other thoughts? 
Slightly off tangent though but It might be interesting to do some research on justice Banerjee.I will invest some time googling, to find some material that may suggest his ideological leaning and his motives on becoming an accomplice in such an abject conspiracy.

Amber G. · (This post was last modified: 02-09-2005, 10:04 AM by Amber G..)

Okay I am curious , if Justice Banergy, was really thorough and found out the truth aboout what Lalu really wanted to know: Not only who were the victims, or who ignited the filre but the real important question:

QUOTEwhy seven of the passengers got their reservation cancelled,

I ask this because From old news item:
QUOTEHigh-powered panel to inquire Godhra carnage, announces Laloo Prasad Yadav

August 27, 2004

A high-powered inquiry commission will probe the Godhara train carnage in which 49 passengers were killed in February, 2002, Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav on Friday said.

"True facts of the incident that led to communal violence in Gujarat have not come into open and the high power inquiry commission would try to unearth them," Yadav said addressing a public meeting after flagging off first passenger train on newly converted Bandikui-Bharatpur broad gauge line in Bandikui.

"A through inquiry would be held to find out who were the victims, who ignited the fire and why seven of the passengers got their reservation cancelled," he said.

Later talking to reporters Yadav criticised BJP and RSS for creating communal divisions in the country and alleged that they were fascist organisations.

Regarding BJP's decision to launch a countrywide agitation over Uma Bharti issue, he said it would be a flop show.


<!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />!

02-09-2005, 12:48 PM

QUOTEwhy seven of the passengers got their reservation cancelled,

It is very common in india! Lot of people cancel tickets on last moment, and for that reason there is always long waiting lists cos waiting list people know that many people usually cancel their tickets.

Amber G. · 02-11-2005, 12:54 AM

Nikhil - I was just beyond belief with the stupidity of the statement by Lalu ... Hence I posted the message..

**shamu** · 02-11-2005, 01:12 AM

Looks like lAloo was trying to be smart like US home land security official who said "terrorists boarded a flight with one way ticket" or " terrorists boarded international flight without any checked-in lugguage".

There is a say in my language, a cock should not try to dance like a peacock.

02-13-2005, 08:29 AM

QUOTEPraful Bidwai Column
January 31, 2005
ACCIDENTAL FIRE, PLANNED CARNAGE THE TRUTH ABOUT GODHRA
By Praful Bidwai

There was always something morally and politically repugnant about Mr Narendra Milosevic Modi's claim that the killing of 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat after the Godhra train fire was a "natural reaction"--much like Newton's Third Law of Motion. This was a diabolical defence of the indefensible--a systematic, planned, well-orchestrated carnage, during which mobs of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party supporters indulged in arson, loot, rape and killing even as the police watched, or at times, participated. The justification? Fiftynine karsevaks were roasted alive at Godhra in an Islamic-extremist "conspiracy".

Reason tells us that no amount of devilish conspiracy at Godhra can possibly justify the planned pogrom of innocents all over Gujarat. Worse, the Gujarat government was deeply involved in its planning and execution--a fact amply established by media reports, the Concerned Citizens' Tribunal chaired by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat, etc. Gujarat witnessed total subversion of the Constitution and destruction of the idea of democratic citizenship. It descended into barbarism.

That's why millions were shocked when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee justified the pogrom in Goa on April 12. He chided Muslims for their "separateness" and asked: "But who lit the fire?" The BJP cynically exploited Godhra in its state election campaign. "Action," the image of the burning coach, eclipsed the far ghastlier "reaction".

Several accounts have emerged of what happened in Godhra--including depositions by S-6 survivors before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, police versions of the "conspiracy", for which they have named 131 accused, and many independent reconstructions of events. Most of these suggest that the fire was accidental, not caused deliberately. Now, the Interim Report of the High-Powered Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge U.C. Banerjee doubly confirms this. Its principal findings are corroborated by an independent expert inquiry by four engineers under the aegis of the Delhi-based Hazards Centre.

The findings show there was no premeditated attempt to set Coach S-6 on fire; the fire began 20-30 minutes after the generation of highly toxic smoke, itself probably caused by the burning of latex foam on the seats; the ignition probably originated under a bench due to a half-burnt matchstick or cigarette, or a kerosene stove.

The 156-page Banerjee report and the Hazards Centre study blow a huge hole through the fanciful theories woven by the BJP and the Modi government. They tear up the last figleaf in the BJP's defence and shows it's incapable of shedding its hatred of Muslims. The BJP has tried to discredit Mr Banerjee's report by politically linking him with Railway Minister Laloo Prasad, and claiming that its timing was determined by the elections in Bihar, Jharkhand and Haryana. But the same Mr Banerjee had refused Mr Prasad's bail application in the fodder case in the Supreme Court! As for the timing, the Railway Board, a professional-run body, itself requested an Interim Report.

These issues are diversionary. It's of central importance that the public knows the truth about Independent India's worst state-sponsored communal pogrom. The Banerjee Report will naturally figure in campaigns in the election-bound states. It's absurd to ban a reference to it. The Election Commission would exceed its jurisdiction if it did so. The two processes, of inquiry into communal crimes, and holding elections (which are, increasingly, staggered), must run in parallel. One should not be subordinated to the other.

While dismissing the "petrol theory" and the "miscreant activity story", the Banerjee Committee notes that the Sabarmati Express was pelted with stones by mobs enraged by altercations with trishul-bearing militant karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. Under the circumstances, it's extremely unlikely that an outsider could have got into the train, either through the door of Coach S-6 or by breaking into the vestibule joining it with S-7. There were 140 people aboard the coach with 72 berths, dominated by VHP karsevaks. Its doors had been locked from the inside.

The survivors' depositions provide no evidence of intrusion, or of flames rising from a pool of petrol from the floor. The damage marks on Coach S-6 point to a fire at the upper level, not the floor. This pattern also holds with the victims, who typically sustained burn injuries above the waist, not below. This is incompatible with the theory of a floor-level conflagration beginning with an inflammable liquid. Preceding the fire was highly poisonous "thick, black smoke" emanating from the rear of Coach S-6, which smelt like "burning rubber". The Banerjee report quotes the testimonies of 14 key survivors-eyewitnesses, including Hari Prasad Joshi (berths 42-43), D.N. Dwivedi (sitting on the floor), Jamuna Prasad (berth 25), L.P. Choresia (berth 72) and others to show that they didn't see anyone lighting a fire.

Besides testimonies, there's strong evidence from the Hazards Centre report that the fire occurred accidentally. This report is a systematic analysis of the pattern of damage to Coach S-6, the type of fire and its likely causation, depositions of 41 surviving passengers to the police, a critique of 27 post-mortem reports, and correlation of injuries to 56 passengers with the spread of the smoke and fire. The emphasis is on a scientific analysis of the physical processes of causation of the fire.

The report is authored by four engineers. Two of them are professors at IIT-Delhi--one with expertise in injuries, and the other in thermodynamics and fluidisation. The other two members are a Railway engineer with expertise in coaching, and the coordinator of Hazards Centre, who has a background in safety engineering. The experts methodically compared S-6 with six other damaged railway coaches, including one burnt in Delhi in 2003, with similar damage patterns.

The report reasons that had the fire started on the S-6 floor near the toilet, "inflammable plywood and foam in three tiers of seats would not be available for the fire to burn ? If the fire was started by an inflammable fluid on the floor, the flames would have been noticed right away ? precluding the possibility of a long-smouldering source". How, then, did the fire start? In all probability, it started slowly, when combustible material placed below the lower berth, including clothing and plastic goods, caught fire. This ignited the plywood base of the seat and then the latex foam, and then spread to the rexine (vinyl) seat cover, the sun-mica partitions and linoleum flooring.

It is these synthetic materials that pose the greatest hazard. On combustion, they produce hydrogen cyanide, free isocyanates and carbon monoxide, along with dense smoke. Chlorine-containing plastics generate dioxin, the most poisonous substance known to science. In all probability, the gases proved far more lethal than the fire.

The probable location of the initial combustion was a berth between Cabins 8 & 9. The combustion process produced high-temperature smoke which spread along the ceiling and eventually resulted in a flash-over. People scrambled and ran to escape the dense and toxic fumes and radiative heat. Many were asphyxiated and died. Some escaped through the windows on the yard side and a few through the door next to Berth 72.

The Banerjee Report strongly indicts the Railways for being over one hour and 15 minutes too late in despatching a fire engine, and that with too little water. It holds them guilty of not ordering an inquiry as required under the safety rules, of not photographing critical evidence, and of running Coach S-7 and allowing the disposal of its burnt vestibule as scrap.

The two reports' principal findings are further confirmed by a Survey of Indian study, which suggests that it's fanciful to imagine that a crowd could have moved easily to Cabin A, near where which Coach S-6 was parked at the time. The topography was "inhospitable to a large assembly of people given the depth of (an intervening 27 metre-long) nallah and also the proliferation of closely packed thorny trees like Keekar. A person pelting stones would have to be standing either deep down the nallah which has about one metre of water, or beyond it, behind 'A' Cabin, which is 57 metres away ?"

Mr Banerjee's final report will hopefully factor in the Hazards Centre findings and produce yet more clinching evidence that the fire was accidental, and it was wrong to attribute it to a conspiracy. The Gujarat police have a disgraceful record on Godhra. They have arrested 104 persons on various charges of "conspiracy" and "terrorism", mainly under POTA, but they have at least three versions of the crime, spread over 10 different chargesheets. This makes nonsense of the police case: the versions are mutually contradictory.

The conclusion is inescapable: no conspiracy occurred. There was no mob at Godhra waiting for the train which was running five hours late. The Modi government concocted theories to justify the ensuing pogrom. This terrible injustice must be redeemed--through several steps, including the release of POTA detainees and institution of a credible inquiry that will establish who was guilty for the butchery of 2,000 and rape of over 10,000 women. Without justice, there will be no redemption; no lessons will be learnt.--end--
o o o o o

02-13-2005, 10:27 AM

QUOTEthere was no mob at Godhra waiting for the train 
2000 peaceful muslims came to station to watch shooting of "The Burning Train" movie.
QUOTEwho was guilty for the butchery of 2,000 and rape of over 10,000 women
Ofcourse damn Hindus raped 10,000 women, all well counted my Bidwai.

02-13-2005, 10:53 AM

What else do you expect from Bidwai. Note he ends with:
QUOTEWithout justice, there will be no redemption; no lessons will be learnt
Ofcourse, no comment on the justice for the victims of Delhi 84 riots, no mention of Nanavati commission.

02-14-2005, 07:14 PM

QUOTEOn the one hand the government made public the interim report submitted by Justice U C Bannerjee on the Godhra incident. In this case (Nanavati commission report on Delhi '84 riots) there is a reluctance. We are disappointed.
Harvinder Singh Phoolka, senior advocate, Supreme Court

04-13-2005, 09:20 PM

Godhra panel issues notice to KR NarayananQUOTEThe Godhra Commission has issued a notice to former President KR Narayanan asking him if he would like to present his reply before it on his comments in the media pointing to the failure of the NDA government in controlling the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002.

This was informed on Wednesday by the two-member commission comprising Justice (Retd) GT Nanavati and Justice (Retd) KG Shah during the course of the hearing.

The commission said they had received an acknowledgement from the former President stating the notice has been received.

The commission will decide on May 4 whether there was a need to issue a summon to Narayanan in this regard.

In the last hearing, the commission heard the application of advocate Mukul Sinha, seeking to cross-examine Narayanan for his comments carried by the media.

The Government counsel had, however, opposed the same, saying there was no need to summon the former President as the whole application was based on the media reports and courts and judicial forums do not consider it fit to give credence to the reports. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

04-14-2005, 12:13 AM

The psec media is now in full flow.

MSN India: There was no mob outside

QUOTE'There was no mob outside burning coach'
Source: IANS.Â Â

Ahmedabad, April 13: A passenger of the Sabarmati Express Wednesday recounted his survival during the 2002 fire tragedy involving the train at Godhra station before a commission investigating widespread communal violence in the state.Â

Hariprasad Joshi, a resident of the city who was in the train's coach S-6 coach that caught fire, deposed before the commission of Justice (retd) G.T. Nanavati and Justice (retd) K.G. Shah here.

Joshi told the commission that he and his wife took the Sabarmati Express from Lucknow while returning after meeting relatives in Nepal.

Though he could manage to crawl out of the coach when it caught fire at Godhra railway station, 130 km from here, his wife died of asphyxiation.

Contradicting the state investigators' theory that a mob of Muslims set the coach on fire after throwing petrol, Joshi repeatedly said he did not feel any liquid as he tried to come out of the coach.

"As the train was leaving Godhra station, it came to a halt and I heard shouts to close the windows. Stone pelting started from the platform side. Soon, the coach was engulfed in fumes, though I did not see any fire," Joshi said.

"As I reached the end of the coach, I found one of the two doors open though I do not know who had opened it. As I came out of the coach from the door on the yard side there was nobody to stop me," he said.

narayanan · (This post was last modified: 04-14-2005, 12:31 AM by narayanan.)

The passenger didn't say there was no mob - he said there was no mob on the YARD side - they were on the PLATFORM side.

On Indian railways, it is Drive On the Left. Also, express trains get priority for Number 1 Platform, which is the one where passengers come in off the street. So, as the train pulls away from the station, "PLATFORM SIDE" means "ROAD SIDE".

On the other hand, there may be several tracks on the "YARD SIDE".

If you're a terrorist, who needs to vamoose right after the attack, it makes little sense to stand out in the YARD SIDE, with 20 bogies of a slow-moving or stopped train between you and the Getaway Sumo.

The passenger's account is completely consistent with other reports, and explains how SOME passengers escaped. He was clearly awake and alert "AS THE TRAIN PULLED AWAY FROM THE STATION" and heard shouts to close the windows (why else? Because there was a mob waiting at the PLATFORM SIDE of the track, throwing stones!)

Thus he was one of the first to head for the doors on the YARD SIDE when the carriage filled with smoke. He must have then run back towards the station and away from whatever shouting and stone-throwing was going on. (Nah, nah, nah, Yaar, let me think like a DDM onlee - he scooted under the couplings between bogies to go into the welcoming arms of the stone-throwing mob... sure!)

I am guessing that after the train came to a full halt, and the terrorists uncoupled the S-6 coach, they DID come over to the YARD side and lock those doors too.

On the other hand, the passengers who were asleep were done for - by the time any consciousness came, the bogie was blazing all over, and the fire was coming from the splashed fuel on the floor, and the place was chock-full of black toxic smoke from the burning wood, plastic and metal.

The title of that article shows all I want to know about the fairness of the editors. The report as such is factual.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?