In February 2002, about 58 people died in a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat. In the following days and weeks, between 800 to 2000 people were killed throughout Gujarat in what have been called some of the worst riots seen in India since it gained independence. The perceived cause for the former incident is seen as triggering off the latter.

The train fire in Godhra

In February 2002, a sleeper coach in the train Sabarmati Express, coming from Faizabad and proceeding towards Ahmedabad caught fire a few minutes after it left the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002, killing an estimated 58 people. The coach that was ravaged in the fire was occupied predominantly by members and sympathisers of the Sangh Parivar, called Kar Sevaks who were returning after a pilgrimage to Ayodhya, a place in North India and the site of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janma Bhoomi dispute. This incident was a precursor to a spate of widepsread communal violence in the state which lasted nearly 3 months.

The incident was widely reported in the media and the most commonly circulated version was that this was an incident of sabotage and arson, aimed at the Hindus. Godhra, being a town with a Muslim majority, it was widely suspected that a few miscreants from that community were responsible for this ghastly incident. During the course of investigation, the central investigating agencies found evidence of arson. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in its initial report, confirmed that the fire was fuelled by 60 litres of inflammable liquid.

Though acceptance of the accounts so far described is almost unanimous, the following are the key points of contention between the various parties.

• A few eye-witnesses have testified that there was an altercation between a Kar Sevak and a Muslim tea vendor at the railway station preceding the catastrophe, apparently over the payment of the due amount. Some people claim that this incident had happened when the Kar Sevaks were on the way to Ayodhya, a few days earlier at the same station. The Sangh Parivar refutes the version and maintains that the passengers were the victims of unprovoked violence.

• There were also widespread, but unconfirmed reports to the effect that a Muslim girl was physically abused by a few people from inside the coach who tried to pull her inside the train. The Sangh Parivar vehemently disputes this claim.

• The FSL report had concluded controversially that since the doors of the coach were latched from the inside, there was a slim possibility that the liquid fuel was thrown from the outside, prior to setting the fire. This prompted opposition parties (Congress and the Communist Party of India) to point the accusing finger at Sangh Parivar, suspecting it of stage-managing the incident to stir up communal tension for political gains. However, a few survivors claimed that they had managed to escape through the doors, and this raised questions about the veracity and completeness of the investigation report.

• The Sangh Parivar also alleged that a local Congress opposition party member was involved in the arson. It alleged that the incident was not an act of immediate provoaction and reaction, but one involving a deep-rooted controversy, involving terrorists.

• Kar sevaks are claimed by some to be an informal police force of the Sangh Parivar, who use violence as a means of solving social conflict, but are claimed by others to be those who indulge in social service by being attached to a Hindu temple.

Points of view differ on how the fire happened.

• The initial point of view in the media was that a mob of local people (mostly Muslims) lit the fire.
• Another point of view, based on interviews with passengers on the train, witnesses to the incident, local police and railway officials suggest that the fire could not have been lit from the ground, and that its cause was an argument provoked by the kar sevaks that became increasingly heated (metaphorically) to the point of becoming heated in a literal (and lethal) sense.
  • A common version of this interpretation claims that the Kar sevaks refused to pay for snacks they bought at the train station, that they physically assaulted an old bearded Muslim tea vendor, they abducted his young daughter, they took her in the S-6 coach, locked its doors and closed the windows.
  • This point of view is criticised as an urban legend or conspiracy theory by some.
• Another point of view is that a member of the Congress (I) political party was the main person responsible.

Points of view differ on the media's role in reporting the fire:

• One point of view is that the English language media in India, which are seen by some as mainly communist, applauded the burning of Hindus by Muslims and stated that the Hindus asked for it.
• Another point of view is that the story of Kar sevaks assaulting the Muslim tea vendor's daughter and carrying her onto the train was presented by the Western media as fact despite being merely an urban legend.
• Another point of view is that the Gujarati language media uncritically quoted the words of Chief Minister Narendra Modi which supported revenge by Hindus against Muslims.

In the violence that followed the Godhra incident, around 800 to 2000 people were killed. Points of view differ with respect to how these deaths occurred: some refer to these as riots while others refer to these as a pogrom. Points of view also differ on what fraction of the victims were Muslims: some believe the vast majority of victims were Muslims or perceived as Muslims, while others dispute that position.

The killing of either 800 or at least 2000 people (depending on point of view), mostly because they were perceived to be Muslims, but also including some Hindus, Christians and non-religious people, was investigated in an inquiry headed by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer. The inquiry included gathering and analysis of 2094 oral and written testimonies, both individual and collective, from victim-survivors and also independent human rights groups, women's groups, NGOs and academics. The findings were published in the report Crime Against Humanity - An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat [1].

According to this report, the Sangh Parivar, in particular the BJP, the VHP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, encouraged, supported and participated in the pogrom. [2]

However, some observers claim that several events in the report Crime Against Humanity - An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat are fictitious. Moreover, they claim that the opinions of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer are biased by his left-wing politics; in particular, they attach importance to his role as a Kerala state government minister in the 1957 Communist Party government of E. M. S. Namboodiripad), and as a candidate for President of India in 1987, chosen by the opposition against the ruling Congress (I) Party.

In subsequent state elections in late 2002, the BJP was re-elected to government in Gujarat with a landslide victory.

• racism
• ethnic stereotype - stereotyping
• ethnic conflict in India

• Crime Against Humanity - An Inquiry into the Carnage in Gujarat
• analysis by Ruhi Khan
• alleged implication of Sangh Parivar
• After the carnage: the predatory 'intelligentsia'
• Human Rights Watch report on state participation in the riots
• Godhra's bitter harvest -- BBC report on Godhra, one year later.