Godhra train burning.
Godhra train burning
The Gujarat court which upheld the Nanavati Commission report of conspiracy on the Godhra train burning has curiously let off the main conspirator named by the Commission – A contradiction that exposes the judgement.
By RK Misra
The first part of the judgement in the Godhra train carnage case in Ahmedabad on February 22 that convicted 31 people but acquitted 63 has sought to confirm the conspiracy theory which has been a bone of contention between two commissions of enquiry set up to probe one incident. And therein lies the tale.
Among those acquitted by sessions judge PR Patel were Maulvi Hussain Haji Ibrahim Umarji and Mohammed Hussain Kalota in the Sabarmati train burning case that had claimed 59 lives nine years ago and subsequently resulted in a communal riot that killed around 1200 people across Gujarat. The two were projected by the police investigators as the principal conspirators.
The Nanavati-Shah judicial enquiry commission probing the Godhra train carnage and the subsequent Gujarat-wide ethnic conflict that followed had in its first report submitted to Chief Minister Narendra Modi on September 8, 2008 termed the carnage as a well planned conspiracy by the Godhra Muslims. The Commission had projected Umarji as the key conspirator, responsible for the burning the train.
“As stated by deputy SP Noel Parmar (W-1000) on the basis of those statements and confessions, he had felt that the Godhra incident was pre-planned and was a part of a bigger conspiracy, which was hatched earlier by Nannumiya, Maulvi Umarji, Rajak Kurkur, Salim alias Salimyusuf Sattar Jarda and Salim Panwala and others,” says the report.
It further mentions that how two of the community leaders Bilal Haji and Faruk Bhana had met Siraj Bala, Salim Panwala, Salim Jarda, Jabir Behra, Shaukat Lalu and some others and told them “that they had met Maulvi Husain Haji Ibrahim Umarji and the Maulvi had told them to carry out the deed.”
The report further pointed out that “These confessions disclose that Razak Kurkur and Salim Panwala were the two main persons who had organized execution of the plan and that what was being done was as per plans and the directions of Maulvi Umarji.” As against the Nanavati commission projecting Maulvi Hussain Umarji as one of the key conspirators, judge PR Patel has gone a step ahead and acquitted him though he has upheld the conspiracy theory.
“We have gone through hell. My father spent eight years of his life in jail. An old man of failing health, a cleric at that, suffered in every manner. We are happy that he has been vindicated but can anybody return what was so brutally snatched away from an entire family,” says Saeed Umarji, son of Maulvi Hussain Umarji.
“We are grateful to secular Hindus and secular political parties who extended support to us in our worst hour of crisis redeeming our faith in the inherent goodness of our people.
“My father was a person who always eagerly took the lead in extending a helping hand during natural and man-made calamities. On April 4, 2002, he had led a delegation to meet then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee for relief and rehabilitation. He had condemned both the Godhra and post-Godhra happenings.
“On March 2002 he took a similar delegation to meet all party delegation of MPs who had come to Gujarat. He had issued a public appeal to support secular forces during the election. After the BJP won with a thumping majority, he was the first to be picked up and villainised and the rest is history,” he added.
The justice UC Banerjee Commission set up by the Railways reported in 2006 that the fire was almost certainly an accident, but the Gujarat High Court ruled formation of this enquiry commission by the Railways as “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” The Centre has filed an appeal before a division bench but the matter has been resting at that for over half a decade. Another judicial committee, investigating charges under Justice Banerjee, who was appointed as head of the commission by the UPA government in 2005 when Lalu Prasad was the Railway Minister, said he had prepared his inquiry report after extensively going into all aspects and examining 80 witnesses before drawing up his conclusion.
He vehemently denied that his report was guided by political considerations and said that it was strictly based on evidence. The Banerjee Commission had dismissed the conspiracy theory behind the train carnage and described it as accidental.
According to activist lawyer Dr Mukul Sinha of the Jan Sangharsh Manch the same set of documents and statements have been perused by the court of judge Patel as well as the Nanavati panel to arrive at different conclusions.
The commission submitted its first part of report in September 2008. Incidentally, the Central POTA Review Committee headed by retired judge SC Jain, of the Allahabad High Court had opined on May 16, 2005 that the burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was not a conspiracy envisaged under the provision of POTA, and had recommended its removal from this case.
“A Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had upheld the observations of the Committee and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court,” said Sinha who is emphatic that the order also contradicts the observations of the POTA review committee.
Defense lawyer IM Munshi also feels that it would be interesting to see how the conspiracy is established while the main conspirator is let off.” While he made it clear that the case would now go for appeal in the higher court, he punched another hole in the judgement. “Muhammad Kalota the president of Godhra Municipality and Haji Bilal a counselor of Godhra Municipality both were charged for stopping the fire brigade,” Munshi said adding that while Kalota has been acquitted, Bilal has been convicted by the court.
Initially, all the accused were facing charges under the stringent Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). However, POTA charges were revoked by the Gujarat High Court in the Godhra case following the recommendations of the Central POTA Review Committee. The Supreme Court also rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of POTA (repeal) Act, 2004.
Similarly, many issues related to the case, where the questions of law have been raised by either prosecution or defence, are pending either in the Supreme Court or the High Court. The judgement, however will most surely be challenged in a higher court.