Dousing the arson theory

The Justice U C Banerjee Committee report says that the Godhra train arson wasn't an outside job — it exposes how the Gujarat Police went about fabricating layer after layer of pre-decided "findings"

Mohan Guruswamy Delhi

In his interim report on the Godhra train torching, Justice U C Banerjee has belaboured the Indian Railways (IR) for not immediately inquiring into the incident, as mandated by Section 113 of the Railways Act. The concerned officials in the IR have taken recourse to the somewhat dubious argument that they did not constitute an inquiry committee because the Nanavati Commission was doing the inquiring. The Nanavati Commission was set up on March 6, 2002, a full week after the accident — the Railways Act mandates an inquiry immediately.

On the other hand, the Nanavati Commission was specifically required to proceed with the assumption that the compartment was set on fire deliberately by the mob of Muslims specifically gathered at the spot for just this purpose, as the Gujarat government alleges. The then Union railway minister, Nitish Kumar, an engineer by training and not just some other political hack given this ministry to make the best for himself, would have understood this. Yet, he preferred not to order an inquiry.

This brings to mind the Sherlock Holmes episode of "the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime", when the culprit was identified because the dog did not bark. Nitish Kumar was the IR watchdog and he didn't bark. Did not do so because he knew the culprit? Or did he join hands with the perpetrators? The Banerjee Committee has uncovered a series of attempts to destroy and/or tamper with evidence.

Soon after the incident, the Union home minister announced that the train was stopped shortly after it left Godhra by a mob and torched with petrol poured on and into it. The next few days were a bedlam of rioting and mayhem in Gujarat, and a polarisation that served the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) admirably in the ensuing Assembly elections. Even the BJP won't deny that the Godhra incident helped it retain power in Gujarat. Godhra might well have been the epicentre of the electoral explosion: the BJP won every seat within a 100-km radius.

The Banerjee Committee has established that there is no trace of hydrocarbon residue in the debris of the torched S-6 coach. It establishes that neither petrol nor diesel nor kerosene, all hydrocarbons, was used. This also means that whatever caused the fire, it wasn't 140 litres of petrol that the Gujarat Police alleges was expressly purchased by the Godhra accused.

The Banerjee Committee has established that the fire began as a result of one of the seats combusting. It does not state  how this might happen but points out that the coach's passengers were carrying stoves and were cooking in the train. The Banerjee Committee has testimony from the survivors of S-6, which conclusively establishes that dense smoke had engulfed the upper part of the coach, and that those who crawled on the floor made their way out. The Banerjee Committee also established that two of the four exits of the coach were open and those who escaped used them to exit. The frightful image, conjured up to inflame opinion in Gujarat, of a coachload of pious pilgrims locked in and incinerated, is a blatant lie.