GODHRA: THE TRUE STORY

Nicole Elfi

Godhra, a city of the Indian State of Gujarat, was the lead story in all Indian
newspapers on February 27th-28th, 2002. A shattering piece of news: 58 Hindu
pilgrims had been burned alive in a train. “57 die in ghastly attack on train” ran the
Times of India’s headline; “Mob targets Ramsevaks [Devotees of Rama] returning
from Ayodhya”; “58 killed in attack on train with Karsevaks [volunteers]” (The Indian
Express); “1500-strong mob butcher 57 Ramsevaks on Sabarmati Express” (The
Asian Age). But the BBC’s announcement had a very different tone: “58 Hindu
‘extremists’ burned to death” … or Agence France Press on March 2nd: “A train full
of Hindu ‘extremists’ was burnt.”
A deluge of anguished news followed about a “Muslim genocide”: “Mass killings
of Muslims in reprisal riots” (NYT, March 5th), “The authorities … share the
prejudices of the Hindu gangs who have been busy pulping their Muslim neighbours”
(The Observer, March 4th). We were told that Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of
Gujarat, intended to eradicate Muslims from the State — more than 9% of Gujarat’s
population, in other words five million people. We read that the police was conniving
in the mass slaughter and did nothing to prevent it. Narendra Modi was compared to
Hitler, or Nero. We shuddered reading the reports describing rapes and various
horrors, supposedly inflicted on Muslims by Hindus.
Today, six years later, with the noises and cries of the wounds having fallen
silent, what emerges from those events? What are the facts?
At 7:43 A.M. on February 27th, 2002, the Sabarmati Express rolled into the
Godhra station, fortunately with a four-hour delay, in broad daylight. This train
transported more than 2,000 people, mainly karsewaks on their way back to
Ahmedabad after participating in the Poorna Ahuti Yagya at Ayodhya, a ritual at the
traditional birthplace of Rama.
As it pulled out of the station, the train was pelted with stones and bricks, and
passengers from several bogeys were forced to bring down their windows to protect
themselves. Someone pulled the emergency chain: the train came to a halt about
100 metres away from the platform, surrounded by a large crowd of Muslims. The
railway police managed to disperse the crowd, and the train resumed its journey.
Within minutes, the emergency chain was simultaneously pulled again, from
several coaches. It halted at about 700 metres from the station. A crowd of over
1,000 surrounded the train, pelting it with bricks, stones, then burning missiles and
acid bulbs, especially on the S-5, S-6 and S-7 coaches.
The vacuum pipe between coaches S-6 and S-7 was cut, thereby preventing any
further movement of the train. The doors were locked from outside. A fire started in
coach S-7, which the passengers were able to extinguish. But the attack intensified
and coach S-6 caught fire and minutes later, was in flames. Passengers who
managed to get out of the burning compartment were attacked with sharp weapons,
and stoned. They received serious injuries, some were killed. Others got out through
the windows and took shelter below the coach.
Fifty eight pilgrims were burned alive, including twenty-seven women and ten
children. The whole attack lasted 20-25 minutes.[1]
What transpired then, in the Indian press? Let’s imagine a coach of French
pilgrims coming back from Lourdes, burned alive.
Strangely, instead of clearly, straightforwardly condemning the act, the Indian
English-language press tried to justify it: “Pilgrims provoked by chanting pro-Hindu
slogans” (they were not slogans but bhajans, or devotional songs, ending with “Jai
Sri Ram” (Victory to Sri Rama). “It’s because they were returning from Ayodhya,
where they asked for the reconstruction of a temple at the traditional birth place of
Rama; this offends the feelings of the Muslims.” In sum, the victims, roasted alive,
were guilty.

The Anger
Numb with shock, the people of Gujarat did not react straightaway. They
remained calm at first. Till that afternoon, when the charred bodies started arriving at
their respective families — with no comforting voice sounded, either from the
government, or from the media, no condemnation for this barbaric act, but an
indifferent, deafening silence — then these people known for their non-violent nature
and exceptional patience, burst into a frenzy.
There was a revolt in the whole of Gujarat. For three days, tens of thousands of
enraged Hindus set fire to Muslim shops, houses, vehicles: They came out from all
sides, all parties, all classes, uncontrollable — one cannot control a revolution
(except in China maybe). The fatalities: 720 Muslims, 250 Hindus, according to
official figures.
We read all over about a “genocide of Muslims.” Do we remember a single report
on the Hindus who heroically helped save Muslims in their neighbourhood? Was
even one family of Hindu victims interviewed following the criminal burning of the
Sabarmati Express? One fourth of the dead in the ensuing riots were Hindus. How to
classify those 250 victims? Who evoked the dead on the Hindu side? According to
reports, Congress Party councillor Taufeeq Khan Pathan and his son Zulfi, notorious
gangsters, were allegedly seen leading Muslim rioters. Another such character,
Congress member of the Godhra Nagarpalika [municipality], Haji Balal, was said to
have had the fire-fighting vehicle sabotaged beforehand.[2] Then,

he stopped the vehicle on its way to the Godhra Station and did not allow it to
proceed any further. A man stood in front of the vehicle, the mob started pelting
stones, … The
headlights and the windowpanes of the vehicle got damaged … Fearing for his own
and his crew's life, the driver drove the vehicle through the mob, as it was not
possible to move backwards. The mob gave in but 15-20 precious minutes had been
lost.[3]

Lost for a coach full of innocent people in flames.

Which newspaper article stated that the most violent events took place following
provocations by leaders of this sort? The Union Home Ministry's Annual Report of
2002-03 stated that 40,000 Hindus were in riot relief camps. What made those
40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? To seek protection from whom? Why was it
necessary if they were the main aggressors?
More than the barbaric event itself, it is the insensitivity of the Indian “elite” and of
the media that infuriated the Gujaratis.
Those accused of terrorism often receive political support, are benevolently
portrayed by the media, and a host of “human rights” organisations are always on
hand to fight for them. But those victims whose life is cut down for no reason, are
they not “human” enough to get some rights too? The great majority of those who
took to revolt in Gujarat were neither rich nor particularly intellectual — neither right
nor left: they were middle- and lower-class Gujaratis, simple people, workers, also
tribals. But some from the upper middle class, among them a lot of women, took part
in the upheaval.

The media sources

Apart from local journalists usually more objective in their reports, no English
media reporter, thought it worthwhile to look deeper into the events at the Godhra
railway station. Nobody came to question possible survivors of the tragedy. Is a
coach of Hindu pilgrims even worth the trip? They had to wait for the “elite” to react;
they had to receive directives from the politically correct, before taking their pens.
Worse, they reported deliberate rumours and made up versions as actual news.
We were told, for instance, that when some pilgrims got off the ill-fated coaches
to have tea, “some altercation took place” between them, and a Muslim tea vendor:
“They argued with the old man on purpose,” wrote some newspapers; “they refused
to pay for their tea” (though Gujarati honesty is well known); “they pulled his beard
and beat him up ... They kept shouting ‘Mandir ka nirmaan karo, Babar ki aulad ko
bahar karo’ (start building the temple and throw out the sons of Babar). Hearing the
chaos, the tea vendor’s 16-year-old daughter came forward and tried to save her
father from the karsevaks. She kept pleading and begging them to leave him alone.
The karsevaks, according to this version, then seized the girl, took her inside their
compartment and closed the door. The old man kept banging on the door and
pleaded for his daughter. Then two stall vendors jumped into the last bogey, pulled
the chain, and put the bogey on fire.”
But would they have been stupid enough to set fire to the coach where their
colleague’s young daughter was being held? And why were 2,000 Muslims
assembled there at 7 A.M. with jerry-cans of petrol bought the previous evening?
Rajeev Srinivasan, an American journalist of Indian origin, was e-mailed this
anonymous report a dozen times, supposedly written by Anil Soni, Press Trust of
India reporter. He contacted Anil Soni to check on the veracity of this account. Soni
answered:

Some enemy of mine has done this to make life difficult for me, do you understand,
sir? I did not write this at all. I am a PTI correspondent. Yes, that is my phone
number, but it is not my writing.
 Anil Soni apparently had heard about it from hundreds of people, and was upset
to see a false report circulated in his name.
Inquiries with the Railway Staff and passengers travelling in the Sabarmati
Express showed that: no quarrel whatsoever took place on the platform between a
tea vendor and pilgrims, and no girl was manhandled nor kidnapped.
As the Nanavati Report established later, this fictitious report was in fact
circulated by the Jamiat-Ulma-E-Hind, the very hand responsible for the carnage.[4]
It nevertheless went around the world, exhibited as “the true story.” Aren’t we
compelled to conclude that the assailants, in India, are those who dictate what’s
“politically correct,” and instruct the media?

Arson and Canards

On the afternoon of February 28th, Gujarati Hindus’ revolt broke out. A few
journalists then booked their tickets for Gujarat. As far as we can see, they had a
framework in place: the outbreak would be dealt with independently of the Godhra
carnage, as a different, unrelated subject; it was a planned violence perpetrated by
“fundamentalist” Hindus against Gujarat’s Muslims, fully backed by the State of
Gujarat. From this day on, the burning of coach S-6 was to be left behind, forgotten.
On February 28th evening, Chief Minister Narendra Modi announced his decision
to deploy the Army, and the next day, March 1st, by 11 A.M. the actual deployment
of troops at sensitive points had begun. Violence abated in most major cities, after
their arrival with orders to shoot on sight. But security forces were largely
outnumbered by the angry flood of people, spreading for the first time like rivers in
spate, to rural areas and villages. Apprehending the seriousness of the situation,
Narendra Modi had made a request for security personnel from neighbouring States
of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Punjab. This request was turned
down by each State. Why did no one report this fateful refusal?
That same day (1st March), at the peak of the turmoil, the National Human Rights
Commission faxed a notice to the Gujarat Government, calling for a report within
three days on the measures being taken … “to prevent any further escalation of the
situation in the State of Gujarat which is resulting in continued violation of human
rights of the people.”[5] But it was silent on what had led to such a situation in the
first place.
One major event which received a great deal of attention from the media was the
conflagration at the Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad, home of a former Member of
Parliament, Ehsan Jaffri. This man, rather refined and usually respected, did not feel
threatened. But on February 28th morning, a crowd surrounded his house, in which a
number of Muslims had taken refuge. Jaffri made a number of panic-stricken phone
calls for help to authorities and to his colleagues, journalists and friends. The crowd
was growing … (from 200 to 20,000, figures vary in the reports). The Indian Express
(March 1st, 2002), as well as police records, reported that “eventually, in panic, he
fired at the 5,000-strong mob … 2 were killed and 13 injured ... That incensed the
mob …” which at 1:30 P.M. set the bungalow ablaze by exploding a gas cylinder.
Final toll: 42 (March 11th edition).
Human Rights Watch, an NGO based in New York, published a dossier (on April
30th, 2002) about the Gujarat events which caused a sensation and fed a large
number of articles in the international press.
In this report, Smita Narula had an unnamed “witness” at hand, to relate the
attack on Jaffri’s house. First “a 200 to 500-strong mob threw stones; refugees in the
house (also 200-250 people — sic!) also threw stones in self-defence.” Then the
crowd set the place on fire at about 1:30 P.M. Our witness then jumped from the
third floor where he was hiding — and from where he had been observing in minute
detail all that was going on in the ground floor, even the theft of jewels (it would
seem the floors between the third and the ground floor were transparent). At that
point we jump into the sensational. Narula’s witness sees that “four or five girls were
raped, cut, and burned …; two married women were also raped and cut. Some on
the hand, some on the neck” …; “Sixty-five to seventy people were killed.” Those
rapes and hackings are said to have started at 3:30 P.M. ... when the house was
already on fire. Was the mob waiting for everything to be reduced to cinders to
commit its crimes?
Among the most morbid canards, the novelist Arundhati Roy’s vitriolic article
(Outlook magazine, May 6th, 2002). She describes the event which precedes Ehsan
Jaffri’s death (extract):
… A mob surrounded the house of former Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His
phone calls to the Director-General of Police, the Police Commissioner, the Chief
Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) were ignored. The mobile police
vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They
stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and
dismembered him …

Wait a minute. Jaffri was burned alive in the house, true — is it not awful enough?
Along with some other 41 people. Not enough? But his daughters were neither
“stripped” nor “burnt alive.” T. A. Jafri, his son, in a front-page interview titled
“Nobody knew my father’s house was the target” (Asian Age, May 2nd, Delhi ed.),
felt obliged to rectify:

Among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest
in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been
born and brought up in Ahmedabad.

There we are, reassured as regards Ehsan Jaffri’s children. He had only one
daughter, who was living abroad. No one was raped in the course of this tragedy,
and no evidence was given to the police to that effect.
The Gujarat Government sued Outlook magazine. In its May 27th issue, Outlook
published an apology to save its face. But in the course of its apology, the
magazine’s editors quoted a “clarification” from Roy, who withdrew her lie by
planting an even bigger one: the MP’s daughters “were not among the 10 women
who were raped and killed in Chamanpura that day”! From Smita Narula to
Arundhati Roy, “four or five girls” had swollen to “ten women,” equally anonymous
and elusive.
Roy begins theatrically:

Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me
what the matter was. It wasn’t very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers,
had been caught by a mob. Only that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed
with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carved ‘OM’ on her forehead.
 Balbir Punj, Rajya Sabha MP and journalist, shocked by this “despicable
incident” which allegedly occurred in Baroda, decided to investigate it. He got in
touch with the Gujarat government.

The police investigations revealed that no such case, involving someone called
Sayeeda, had been reported either in urban or rural Baroda. Subsequently, the
police sought Roy’s help to identify the victim and seek access to witnesses who
could lead them to those guilty of this crime. But the police got no cooperation.
Instead, Roy, through her lawyer, replied that the police had no power to issue
summons.[6]

This redefines the term “fiction writer.”

Another story about a “pregnant Muslim woman” whose stomach was allegedly
“ripped open,” her “foetus taken out” and both being burnt, horrified people all over
the world. The first mention of it seems to be in a BBC report around March 6th,
which, though “uncorroborated,” spread like wildfire, with fresh details (divergent and
varied, but who cares?), so much so that you end up feeling there is no smoke
without fire. The rumour was never confirmed — which twisted tongue first
whispered it?
Press articles kept quoting one another, creating “dossiers” out of floating
rumours. None of the authors even deigned to visit the scene of the alleged events;
none except the official inquiry commissions, had the honesty to question fairly, in
parallel, the involved Hindu families regarding the tragedy unfolding in the two
Gujarati communities.

Onlookers get caught

On March 1st, 2002, in a village on the outskirt of Vadodara (Baroda), the “Best
Bakery” was set on fire: fourteen persons were burnt alive (nine Muslims and three
Hindus). This particular incident made much ink flow, since the prime witness, young
Zaheera Habibullah Sheikh, aged 19, turned against the prosecution in favour of the
accused in the trial court.
Though Zaheera lost several family members in the tragedy, on May 17th, 2003,
in the Vadodara High Court, she testified that the accused persons in the dock were
innocent and had nothing to do with the arson. She, as well as the other witnesses,
did not recognize their own alleged statements before the police.

Justice Mahida of the High Court observed that:

1) There has been an inexcusable delay in the First Information Report (FIR). The
so-called FIR of Zahiribibi (Zaheera) was sent to the Magistrate after four to five
days. So there is every reason to believe that factually this FIR was cropped up
afterwards in the manner suitable to the police.
2) The arrested persons had nothing to do with the incident.
“We all knew these accused persons and because of them, our lives are saved,”
reported Lal Mohammed Shaikh, a witness before the court. … “There were cordial
relations between my family members, the persons residing in the compound of Best
Bakery and all the accused persons before the court … The 65 persons who are
saved in this incident are all before the Court and all these were saved by and due to
the accused and their family members … These persons had called us, in darkness
we silently came out of our house, and they saved our lives.”
3) The police is trying to put as accused passers-by at the place of incident, innocent
persons gathering there or persons residing in the neighbourhood (in confidence that
the police wouldn’t do anything to them).
4) No legal or acceptable evidence at all is produced by the prosecution against the
accused involving them in this incident. In this case, … it has come out during the
trial … that false evidences were cropped up against the present accused to involve
them in this case. The case … is not proved and hence the accused are
acquitted [7].

On June 27th, 2003, the twenty-one defendants were freed, and Zaheera Sheikh
felt the court has given her “all the justice she wanted.”

In the interests of a community

But all were not satisfied. A former Chief Justice of India, A.S. Anand, Chairman
of the National Human Rights Commission decided that the Vadodara judgement
was a “miscarriage of justice” and the twenty-one “not-guilty” people were actually
guilty and therefore should be punished. Now this honourable person should have
been aware that seated in Delhi at the helm of this “human rights” affair, he would
have been the first target of a number of dubious NGOs with vested political
interests. Strangely, Justice Anand did not even consider it important to send his
own team of independent inquiry before questioning the judgment of another court of
law.[8]
Consequently, just after the fast-track court acquittals, three members of
Zaheera’s community “barged into her home” around midnight, and told her she
would have to change her statement “in the interests of the community.”
This meant that Zaheera had to declare that she had lied to the court (which is a
criminal offence [9]). Did she have a choice?
Along with her mother and brother, she was taken to Mumbai “without their
consent,” and brought to Teesta Setalvad,[10] an activist of the much-vaunted
“human rights.” The activist took them under her wing for several months,
accommodated them in a rented apartment while providing assistance for a living. In
the meantime she prepared affidavits (in English which Zaheera does not read) for
the girl to sign before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in which she
“confessed” to having lied to the Vadodara trial court, “trembling with fear and
threatened” by BJP MLA Madhu Shrivastav (who had nothing to do with her area
and whom she did not even know). And Zaheera now designated as guilty, the
twenty-one people she had considered innocent. All media were ready with their
cameras, mikes and pens to splash the news.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, rightly suspecting that the witness
had been pressured to turn hostile, and upheld the acquittals.
But the Supreme Court accepted the retraction and, as demanded by NHRC and
Setalvad, ordered the retrial of the case outside Gujarat. The acquittal of the twenty-
one people was quashed. In 2004, Zaheera “managed to flee” from her
confinement by the activist, and in November, seized by remorse for having allowed
innocent people to be accused, stated that whatever she had told the Supreme
Court, was done under duress from Teesta Setalvad and her associate Rais Khan;
and whatever she told the NHRC was a lie. “Ramzan is on and I want to state the
truth,” she said. “What I had said in Vadodara Court during the trial was my true
statement. The judgement was correct and had given me all the justice I wanted.”
She sought police protection from Teesta Setalvad.[11]
The Supreme Court judge called the girl “flip-flop Zaheera,” accepted a “high-
powered committee” report which indicted Zaheera Sheikh as a “self-condemned
liar,” and awarded the girl with a simple one-year imprisonment for contempt of
court, as well as a fine of Rs. 50,000. Activist Teesta Setalvad was cleared.
Now, who took the court for a ride? Especially in light of the new revelation that “a
host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false
information,” for which as many as ten of them had received 100,000 rupees from
Teesta Setalvad NGO.[12]
As it stands today, nine persons among the twenty-one passer-bys picked up,
have been condemned to life imprisonment and are languishing in jail.
In December 2004, a fatwa was issued against Zaheera by the Muslim Tayohar
Committee, excommunicating her with the approval of All India Muslim Personal Law
Board, “for having constantly lied.” In other words, for having stood by the twenty-
one wrongly accused Hindus neighbours.

Let us pursue our investigation.

Premeditated files
Human Rights Watch Smita Narula’s report (April 30th, 2002) was titled “ ‘We
have no order to save you’ — State participation and complicity in anti-Muslim
violence.” From US shores, its words were lapped up by the Indian elite and
politicians:

What happened in Gujarat was not a spontaneous uprising, it was a carefully

orchestrated attack against Muslims … planned in advance and organized with
extensive participation of the police and state government officials.[13]

But where are the facts to corroborate such an allegation, which of course was
instantly peddled the world over? Can a “carefully orchestrated attack” happen
overnight? And how can someone sitting in the U.S., gauge the “spontaneity” of
such an outbreak?[14]
Authentic inquiry
By contrast, a genuine, on-the-spot investigation was conducted under the aegis
of the New Delhi-based Council for International Affairs and Human Rights.[15] Its
findings were made public as early as April 26th, 2002, through a press conference
held in Delhi. Running counter to the politically correct line of an “orchestrated
attack,” they were largely ignored by the media.
On March 3rd, 2002 the five-member fact-finding team under Justice Tewatia’s
direction went to Godhra and spent six days visiting three affected areas in
Ahmedabad and some of the relief camps. At all places, team members interacted
with the two communities freely, without intervention of any officials. Five delegations
from both communities presented their facts and views. The team then went to the
Godhra railway station and interviewed officials, survivors and witnesses of the
burning of the S-6 coach, as well as the fire brigade staff. They met the Godhra
District Collector, along with other officials.
On April 4th, the team was in Vadodara (Baroda) visiting five relief camps of both
communities, and seven areas which were the scenes of violence in the preceding
month, as well as a number of sensitive areas. To have exposure to the ground
realities they visited some areas still under curfew and also met the Commissioner of
Police and District Collector along with other officials. Thirteen delegations consisting
of 121 citizens met the team and presented their testimonies; they included not only
members of both communities, but ranged from the Association of Hoteliers to a
group of Gujarati tribals (Vanavasis).

“Indisputable” facts
Let us quote some findings of Justice Tewatia’s Inquiry Commission, which its
report described as “indisputable”:

• The attack on Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 was pre-planned and pre-meditated.

It was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by a hostile foreign power with the
help of local jehadis … carried out with the evil objective of pushing the country into
a communal cauldron.
• The plan was to burn the entire train with more than two thousand passengers in
the wee hours of February 27th, 2002.
• There were no quarrels or fights between the vendors and the Hindu pilgrims on
the platform of Godhra Railway Station.
• Firebombs, acid bulbs and highly inflammable liquid(s) were used to set the
coaches on fire that must have been stored [the day before] already for the purpose.
• The fire fighting system available in Godhra was weakened and its arrival at the
place of incident wilfully delayed by the mob with the open participation of a
Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.
• Fifty-eight passengers of coach S-6 were burnt to death by a Muslim mob and one
of the conspirators was a Congress Councillor, Haji Balal.
• Someone used the public address system exhorting the mob “to kill kafirs and
enemies of Bin Laden.”

About the police:

• Police was on many occasions overwhelmed by the rioting mobs that were
massive and carried more lethal weapons than the police did.
• [They] did not have the training and know-how to manage situations of communal
strife witnessed in the state in recent weeks.
• In many places, … [they] made a commendable work in protecting life and
property. Barring a few exceptions, it was not found to be communally motivated.

Army deployment:

• Available information shows that the Army was requisitioned and deployed in time.

After Godhra
The involvement of the “tribal” communities or Vanavasis, in the post-Godhra
riots added a new dimension to the communal violence, as Justice Tewatia’s report
reveals:

• In rural areas the Vanvasis attacked the Muslim moneylenders, shopkeepers and
the forest contractors. They used their traditional bows and arrows as also their
implements used to cut trees and grass while attacking Muslims. They moved in
groups and used coded signals for communication. Apparently, the accumulated
anger of years of exploitation … had become explosive.

About the media:

• Gujarati language media was factual and objective. Yet its propensity to highlight
the gory incidents in great detail heightened communal tension.
• English language newspapers … appeared to have assumed the role of crusaders
against the State [Gujarat] Government from day one. It coloured the entire
operation of news gathering, feature writing and editorials. They distorted and added
fiction to prove their respective points of view. The code of ethics prescribed by the
Press Council of India was violated … with impunity. It so enraged the citizens that
several concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace could return
to the state only if some of the TV channels were closed for some weeks.[16]

A few healing voices

It would be unfair not to mention a few voices that rose from among the
journalists themselves, against this enormity. The most eloquent one was Vir
Sanghvi’s, usually part of the “secular” establishment, ever ready to portray Muslims
as victims, Hindus as aggressors. Vir Sanghvi’s crisis of conscience suddenly gave
him intellectual clarity. Some extracts from his article “One-way ticket” in The
Hindustan Times of Feb. 28th, 2002:

There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the
secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. …
There is no suggestion that the karsewaks started the violence … there has been no
real provocation at all … And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same:
the karsewaks had it coming to them.
Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims …
Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have
perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say
that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers were attacked last year? Then
too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about
America's policies, but we didn't even consider whether this resentment was justified
or not.
Instead we took the line that all sensible people must take: any massacre is bad and
deserves to be condemned.
When Graham Staines and his children were burnt alive, did we say that Christian
missionaries had made themselves unpopular by engaging in conversion and so,
they had it coming? No, of course, we didn't.
Why then are these poor karsewaks an exception? Why have we de-humanised
them to the extent that we don't even see the incident as the human tragedy that it
undoubtedly was …
I know the arguments well because — like most journalists — I have used them
myself. And I still argue that they are often valid and necessary.
But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly 'secularist' construct not only goes
too far; it also becomes counter-productive. When everybody can see that a
trainload of Hindus was massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming
the murders on the VHP[17] or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming
to them.
Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also have it
coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader.
There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of
our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion
for Sangh Parivar-bashing?[18]

S. Gurumurthy in The New Indian Express (March 2nd), Jaya Jaitley, in The
Indian Express (March 7th), Rajeev Srinivasan in Rediff on Net (March 25th), Arvind
Lavakare in Rediff on Net (April 23rd), T. Tomas in Business Standard (April 26th),
François Gautier in The Pioneer (April 30th), M.V. Kamath in The Times of India
(May 8th), Balbir Punj in Outlook (May 27th), each one expounded the absurdity of a
situation where the majority of Indians — the Hindu community — are looked down
upon as second class citizens. A negligible lot taken for granted because it is
harmless, non-aggressive, and unable to speak and act as one coherent, organized
group.

A farcical interlude
Two and a half years after the events, on Sept. 3rd, 2004, the cabinet of the
Central Government (ruled by the UPA coalition[19]) approved the setting up of a
committee constituted by the Railways Minister Lallu Prasad Yadav, and headed by
Justice U. C. Banerjee, former judge of the Supreme Court, to probe the causes of
the conflagration in the Sabarmati Express.
“The blaze is an accident,” Justice Banerjee coolly concluded in January 2005.
There was “no possibility of inflammable liquid being used,” said he, and the fire
originated “in the coach itself, without external input.” The Cabinet ministers were
fully satisfied.
Now among the few survivors, Neelkanth Bhatia, was not one. He gathered
enough strength to challenge the formation of this committee, and in October 2006,
the Gujarat High Court quashed the conclusions of the Banerjee Committee. It
declared its formation as a “colourful exercise,” “illegal, unconstitutional, null and
void,” and its argument of accidental fire “opposed to the prima facie accepted facts
on record.” Moreover, one high-level commission conducted by Justice Nanavati-
Shah had been appointed by the Gujarat Government to probe the incident, two
months earlier. The Court also did not miss the point that the interim report was
released just two days before the elections in Bihar — the State of the Railways
minister, well-known for his political ambitions and notorious for his histrionics.
Politicians know no common sense or shame. But what about the judiciary?

The Nanavati Report

The first part of Justice Nanavati-Shah Inquiry Commission report was released in
September 2008, after four years of thorough investigations.[20] It lifted the cloak of
blame that had been wrapped around the Gujarati people all those years. It also
cleared the most blackened Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any
other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police officers had played any role in
the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of
providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the
matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National
Human Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any
definite religious or political organization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who
had participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the heinous act of setting
coach S/6 on fire.
The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati Express
train from Dahod to Ahmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of theirs
an inquiry was held by the Government and they have been dismissed from service.
On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the Commission
comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned act. In other
words there was a conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati Express train
coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach.
All the acts like procuring petrol, circulating false rumour, stopping the train and
entering in coach S/6 were in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The
conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger
conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the Administration.[21]

According to Justice Nanavati, Maulvi Hussain Umarji from Godhra was the brain
behind the events. Two of the main accused, Salim Panwala et Farukh Bhana, are
absconding, very likely having fled to Pakistan. The report named a few others, with
various degrees of involvement in the events, but they are unlikely to be troubled in
view of their political connections.

Heartstrings for whom?

It is easy to see why the Nanavati Report was frowned upon by Citizens for
Justice and Peace, namely Activist Teesta Setalvad who asked the Supreme Court
“to restrain the Gujarat Government from acting upon, circulating and publishing this
report.” Fortunately on October 13th, 2008, the highest court sharply turned down
the petition, thus making the testimonies and inquiries available to all (the Nanavati
Report is available on the Internet).
 However, under pressure from the UPA Government and pestered by the
National Human Rights Commission and Citizens for Justice and Peace NGO, on
October 21st, 2008, the Supreme Court directed that the Prevention of Terrorist Act
(POTA) could not be used against the 134 accused in the Godhra train burning
incident, whose trial was to be held under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
This amounted to accepting prima facie that the guilty were not terrorists: we are
allowed to call them “militants,” “gunmen” — but not terrorists. This ruling will have
nationwide impact, as other State governments may have to drop charges under
POTA against those accused of indulging in terrorist activities. The recent terrorist
attacks on Mumbai (on November 26th) demonstrate the danger of such a
withdrawal.

Pattern for Harmony

This appears to be a pattern: whenever Muslim riots or bomb attacks target
Hindus, it is thought acceptable to accuse the victims, in order to avoid possible
revolts. Thus in 1993 in Mumbai, after eleven coordinated bomb blasts in Hindu
majority areas, which killed 257 people and injured 713, the then Maharashtra Chief
Minister Sharad Pawar quickly cooked up a twelfth explosion … in a Muslim area! “I
have deliberately misled people,” he explained later, to show that both communities
had been affected.”[22] And to portray both communities’ potential to behave as
“terrorists”! Truth and clarity of mind are the casualties.
We remember the great art historian A.K. Coomaraswamy’s words in 1909:

It is unfortunate that libels upon nations and religions cannot be punished as can
libels upon individuals.[23]

Gujarat had greatly suffered throughout all those years. Through a devastating
Bhuj region earthquake in January 2001, in which more than 20,000 people died; the
pilgrims burned alive at Godhra in Feb. 2002 and just six months later another
terrorist attack in the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar, where thirty-three
peaceful worshippers were brutally gunned down (with seventy injured). Amidst
those tragedies the people of Gujarat seemed to have no doubt whatsoever
regarding the sincerity of their Chief Minister, whose administration happens to be
among the least corrupt in the whole of India. State elections were held twice since
those events: in December 2002 and December 2007. How is it that Narendra Modi
won landslide victories on both occasions despite extremely hostile and sustained
media campaigns, seeking to demonise him as a blood-thirsty ruler?

Official India has chosen to forget a millennium of Islamic intolerance and

brutality. Millions of butchered Indians have no right to be remembered, not even in
history textbooks, where invaders are sometimes turned into heroes. Sadly, this
ostrich-like attitude leaves the wounds open and condemns us to relive the past
rather than heal it.

January 2009

© Nicole Elfi

Nicole Elfi left France thirty-four years ago for India, drawn to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. She
participated in publication of works related to them and in research on Indian culture, authoring
two books in French; the second one, Aux Sources de l’Inde was published June 2008. Contact
email:

Notes & references

[1] See Commission of Inquiry Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati & Justice Akshay H. Mehta
(“Justice Nanavati Report” for short further below): p. 71-84: 97-125; p.86: 128; p.89-90: 130;
p.170: 223; p.172: 226-27; p.174-175: 229; the integral text is available on the website of the
Gujarat Government:
http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf
See also Godhra the Missing Rage, by S.K. Modi (New Delhi: Ocean Books, 2004).

[2] One of the main vehicles was out of order, as its clutch-plates had been taken out a few days
earlier. On their arrival on 27.02.02 in their office, firemen found that the other fire engine had
been tampered with. (Justice Tewatia Report and Justice Nanavati Report: p.88-89: 131.)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Justice Nanavati Report, p.39-41: 50-52, p.48-49: 67-68.

[5] To which Gujarat Chief Secretary sent a request to grant further time of 15 days, as “the State
machinery is busy with the law & order situation, it would take some time to collect the information
and compile the report.” Indeed.

[6] See Balbir Punj in Outlook, May 27th and July 8th; also in The New Indian Express, March
8th, 2002.

[7] See Vadodara Sessions Court, Best Bakery Case, Justice H.U. Mahida’s Judgement, June
27th, 2003.

[8] Columnist Arvind Lavakare in “Blindfolded in Best Bakery” (9.9.2003), commented: “ … The
Gujarat government quickly appointed three public pleaders for the purpose of suing [Justice
Anand] for contempt of court; these pleaders, in turn, filed an application before the Vadodara
judge asking him to move the state's high court to punish the contemnor who, they said, had
insulted the honour and dignity of the judge, besides undermining the entire judiciary. … But
Justice Anand … went to the Supreme Court even before an appeal against the Vadodara verdict
could be thought out by the Gujarat government. His NHRC petitioned the apex court to order a
re-trial of the 21 'not guilty' Best Bakery accused. And the re-trial demanded is one that should be
out of Gujarat state!…” Though article 20(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits trial for the same
offence twice (M. N. Buch, The Indian Express, Mumbai, August 13th, 2003).

[9] Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, says, “Whoever, being legally bound by an oath
or by an express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration
upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows to or believes
to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.” Section 193 lays down
that punishment for the offence of giving “false evidence” is imprisonment which may extend to
seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

[10] Social activist and Secretary of the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, and co-editor of
Communalism Combat, a CPI-CPI(M) affiliated magazine.

[11] Zaheera isn’t the only one to seek police protection from activist Teesta Setalvad. Rais Khan,
who worked closely with her, now feels under threat and recently asked for it too.

[12] As it happens, “a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving
false information at the behest of Setalvad’s Citizens for Justice and Peace, which was
instrumental in organising payment of Rs. 1 lakh each to ten witnesses in various post-Godhra
riot. Among the recipients, four are Best Bakery case witnesses. A list of names were sent to the
CPI(Marxist) relief fund, and demand drafts were handed out at a function in Ahmedabad on
August 26th, 2007 by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.
Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received 100,000 rupees, some
others 50,000 rupees, while the victims got a mere 5,000 rupees each. This has raised eyebrows
over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the
eyewitnesses before the trial.” See Navin Upadhyay, Daily Pioneer, Dec. 20th, 2008:
www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html

[13] South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch and author of the report.
[14] This New York-based Human Rights Watch, still watches the Indian shores closely, as it
appears, but not to protect innocent lives. On Dec. 3rd, 2008, just a week after the ghastly Nov.
26th terrorist attacks in Mumbai, HRW issued a statement to the Government of India, offering
gratuitous advice on how to manage its affairs and demanding that investigators should respect
the human rights of captured terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab (also called “Butcher of Mumbai”). A
commentator in The Jerusalem Post pointed out, “The HRW’s website lists 38 reports attacking
counter-terrorism efforts around the globe but only three on the brutal impact of terrorism on
civilians.” See also Kanchan Gupta’s excellent article, “Mumbai’s Butcher and human rights,” in
The Pioneer, Dec. 17th, 2008.
www.dailypioneer.com/144038/Mumbai’s-Butcher-and-human-rights.html

[15] Council for International Affairs and Human Rights (governing body for the term 2001-2003),
New Delhi. “Facts Speak for Themselves: Godhra and After,” A Field Study by Justice D. S.
Tewatia, Dr. J.C. Batra, Dr. Krishan Singh Arya, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, Prof. B. K. Kuthiala.
Available online at www.geocities.com/hsitah9/facts_speak_for_themselves.htm .

[16] From Justice Tewatia Report.

[17] The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a pro-Hindu organization.

[18] The Sangh Parivar is a network of pro-Hindu organizations deriving from the Rashtriya Sevak
Sangh (RSS).

[19] The UPA is a coalition of political parties, the main one being the Congress presided over by
Sonia Gandhi; Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister. As many as 10 Cabinet ministers (at the
helm of India’s affairs till today …) as well as 93 Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges ranging
from rape, extortion and murder (Association of Democratic Reforms, New Delhi, in The New
Indian Express, Dec. 6th, 2006).

[20] Among its specific tasks, the Nanavati Commission was required by the Government to
consider: “Role and conduct of the then Chief Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his council
of Ministers, Police Officers, other individuals and organizations in both the events referred to in
clauses (a) and (b); (e) Role and conduct … (i) in dealing with any political or non-political
organization which may be found to have been involved in any of the events referred to
hereinabove; (ii) in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of
communal riots (iii) in the matter of recommendations and directions given by National Human
Rights Commission from time to time.” By that notification the Government also included within
the scope of inquiry the incidents of violence that had taken place till 31-5-2002.

[21] Nanavati Commission Report, p.174-75: 229; p.175: 229; p.176: 230.

[22] New Indian Express, August 13th, 2006.

[23] Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in Essays in National Idealism, p.143 (Munshiram Manoharlal

Publishers, 1981).
 Extracts of Justice Nanavati-Shah Inquiry Commission report

(18 September 2008)

223. Ajay Bariya in his statements recorded by the police on 4.7.2002 and J.M.F.C.
Godhra on 9.7.2002 has stated that on 27-2-2002, he had gone to Godhra railway
station at about 7.00 a.m. After referring to the incident of Mohmad Latika, he has
stated that after the chain was pulled and the train had stopped, he had gone out of
the station. Shaukat Lalu had met him there and told him to run along with them. So
he had gone with them to the backside of Aman Guest House. Shaukat and others
had then gone inside the room of Razak Kurkur and come out with Kerbas. He was
asked to put one Kerba in the rickshaw which was standing nearby. Petrol like smell
was coming from it. Thereafter others had also come there with Kerbas and they were
all kept in the tempy. All of them had then got into that vehicle which after passing
through Bhamaiya nala and Ali Masjid had stood near the railway track near 'A' cabin.
Each one of them was asked by Shaukat Lalu to carry one Kerba with him. At that
time he had come to know that the train was to be set on fire. They had run towards
the train through the foot track. He himself was reluctant go with those persons but
Shaukat Lalu had compelled him to go along with them. He has then described in his
statement how the coaches were attacked and coach S/6 was set on fire. According
to him, Shaukat Lalu and Mohmad Latika had forcibly opened the sliding door of S/6
leading to coach S/7 and entered coach S/6 through that door. Hasan Lalu had
thrown a burning rag which had led to the fire in S/6.

224. It is rightly pointed out by the Jan Sangharsh Manch that there was no prior
information with the police and the authorities at Gandhinagar regarding the return
journey of the Karsevaks from Ayodhya as can be gathered from the evidence of
Mahobatsinh Zala (W-17), Raju Bhargav (W-31), DGP K.A. Chakravarti, Addl. DGP
R.B. Shreekumar (W-995) and Ashok Narayanan, Chief Secretary, Home Department
(W-994). Under the circumstances prevailing then, movements of Karsevaks was not
a matter of concern. That appears to be the reason, why the police had not thought it
necessary to keep itself informed about (171) their movements.

Merely because the police was not aware about the return journey of Karsevaks from
Ayodhya, it would not follow therefrom that no one had known about their return
journey from Ayodhya. Anyone who wanted to know about it could have obtained that
information easily. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that there was no scope
for any conspiracy, as the alleged conspirators did not know that Karsevaks were
going to return from Ayodhya by that train. VHP had already announced earlier its
plan of taking Ramsevaks to Ayodhya for the 'Purnahuti Maha Yagna'.

225. It is also true that some other train carrying Karsevaks going to Ayodhya had
passed through Godhra railway station and the conspirators could have attacked
them in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy to burn a coach carrying
Ramsevaks and it was not necessary for them to wait till the morning of 27th
February, 2002. Other possibilities cannot make doubtful what really has happened.
Why the conspirators chose the Sabarmati Express train coming from Ayodhya and
why coach S/6 thereof was made the target, was obviously the result of many factors,
including what was desired by and suitable to the conspirators. Unless the
conspirators who took that decision disclose the real reason, it would be a matter of
drawing an inference from the surrounding facts and circumstances. It appears that
the decision to put the plan into action was taken on the previous evening. On
26.2.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. the first step for procuring petrol was taken. It is likely
that the conspirators had decided to burn a coach of this train as it used to pass
Godhra during the night. That would have enabled them to carry out their object
without being noticed and identified. It appears that because the train was running
late, they had to make some changes in their plan and circulate a false rumour
regarding abduction of a Ghanchi Muslim girl. That was done in order to collect large
number of persons near the train and induce them to attack it, so that they get
sufficient time to go near the train with petrol. It was also an (172) attempt to show
that what happened was done by an angry mob because of the earlier incidents
which had taken place at the station. The mob consisting of the general public would
not have set coach S/6 on fire on the basis of the false rumour as their attempt in that
case would have been to stop the train, search for the abducted girl and rescue her.

226. Ranjitsinh Jodhabhai Patel and Prabhatsinh Gulabsinh Patel serving at

Kalabhai's petrol pump were present at the petrol pump on 26.2.2002 at about 10.00
p.m. Both of them have stated that at about that time Rajak Kurkur and Salim
Panwala had come there and told Prabhatsinh to give them about 140 litres of petrol.
Petrol was filled in the carboys which were brought in a tempy rickshaw. Prabhatsinh
has further stated that Jabir Binyamin, Shaukat Lalu and Salim Jarda had come in the
tempy. Both these witnesses have explained in their statements why they had earlier
told the police that they had not given loose petrol to any one in a carboy on
26.2.2002.

227. On the basis of the facts and circumstances proved by the evidence the
Commission comes to the conclusion that burning of coach S/6 was a pre-planned
act. In other words there was a conspiracy to burn coach S/6 of the Sabarmati
Express train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in
that coach.

228. The confessions of Jabir Binyamin Behra, Shaukat alias Bhano son of Faruk
Abdul Sattar and Salim alias Salman son of Yusuf Sattar Jarda have also been
placed before the Commission for its consideration. Jabir Behra had made a
confession before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchmahal District under section
164 of Cr.P.C. The confessions of Shaukat and Salim were recorded under the
provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. It was contended by the Jan (173)
Sanghars Manch that the Commission should not consider the confessions of the
accused as the findings that may be recorded by this Commission are likely to cause
prejudice to the accused in the trial which is pending before the Sessions Court. This
objection was raised at an earlier stage of inquiry and it was rejected by passing an
order. …. The inquiry before by the Commission is a fact finding inquiry and therefore,
the Commission can look into and consider any piece of evidence for finding out the
correct facts provided it is satisfied about its correctness. (174)

229. Jabir Behra in his confession dated 5.2.2003 has stated that he had gone with
Salim Panwala to the petrol pump of Kalabhai for bringing petrol. Though the carboys
filled with petrol were kept in the guest house of Rajak Kurkur, Salim Panwala had
then gone to the Station to inquire whether the train was on time or was running late.
Returning there from he had informed them that the train was running late by about 4
hours. Therefore, he had gone to home. He had again gone back to Aman Guest
House at about 6.00 o'clock in the morning of 27th. Along with Salim Panwala,
Shaukat Lalu and others he had gone in the tempy along with carboys to a place near
'A' cabin. He has further stated that Mohmed Latika had cut the vestibule between
coach S/6 and S/7 and entered the coach through that opening and he had also
followed him. Both of them had then together by force opened the door of coach S/6.
They had gone inside with two carboys. Shaukat Lalu had followed them and opened
the door of coach on A cabin side. Through that door Imran Sheri, Rafik Batuk and
Shaukat Lalu had come inside the coach with more carboys. Those carboys were
thrown in the coach and immediately thereafter there was a fire in the coach. Shaukat
Lalu has also in his confession dated 19.8.2003 given these details. Salim Jarda in
his confession dated 20.06.2004 has also stated that he had accompanied Salim
Panwala, Siraj Bala, Jabir and Shaukat Lalu while going to the petrol pump of
Kalabhai at about 9.30 p.m. for procuring petrol. He has also referred to the message
sent by the Maulvi Saheb. Since he was reluctant to take any further part in such a
bad act Rajak Kurkur had not allowed him to go. He was forced to stay in one room of
the Guest House. He has then stated that next day morning he, along with Jabir
Behra, Irfan, Shaukat Lalu and others had put the petrol filled carboys in the tempy
and gone near A cabin. Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had also followed them. He
had thereafter not taken any part in the attack on the train and had remained standing
at some distance.

All these three persons have retracted their (175) confessions but that by itself is not
a good ground for throwing them out of consideration. When considered along with
other facts proved by the evidence details given by this accused regarding the
manner in which coach S/6 was burnt appear to be true. These confessions disclose
that Rajak Kurkur and Salim Panwala were the two main persons who had organized
execution of the plan and that what was being done was according to what was
planned earlier and the directions of Maulvi Umarji. All the acts like procuring petrol,
circulating false rumour, stopping the train and entering in coach S/6 were in
pursuance of the object of the conspiracy. The conspiracy hatched by these persons
further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and destabilise the
Administration.

229. The Commission is required to consider the role and conduct of the then Chief
Minister and/or any other Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers, Police Officers other
individuals and organizations in the Godhra incident (i) in dealing with any political or
non-political organization which may be found to have been involved in the Godhra
incident and also (ii) in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to
the victims of communal riots and (iii) in the matter of recommendations and
directions given by National Human Rights Commission from time to time. There is
absolutely no evidence to show that either the Chief Minister and/or any other
Minister(s) in his Council of Ministers or Police offices had played any role in the
Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing
protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots or in the matter of
not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National Human
Rights Commission. There is no evidence regarding involvement of any definite
religious (176) or political organization in the conspiracy. Some individuals who had
participated in the conspiracy appear to be involved in the heinous act of setting
coach S/6 on fire.

230. The policemen who were assigned the duty of travelling in the Sabarmati
Express train from Dahod to Ahmedabad had not done so and for this negligent act of
their an inquiry was held by the Government and they have been dismissed from
service.

Ahmedabad. (G.T. Nanavati) (Akshay H. Mehta)

September 18, 2008 Chairman Member

See the integral text on the website of the Gujarat Government :

http://home.gujarat.gov.in/homedepartment/downloads/godharaincident.pdf