Someone did start the Godhra fire: Nanavati

GANDHINAGAR: Giving a clean chit to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, the Godhra train carnage report tabled on Thursday in the state assembly, described the burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, as a conspiracy.
The first part of the report, dealing with the fire on the ill-fated train was recently handed over to the state government by a fact-finding Commission headed by Justice G T Nanavati. The second part dealing with post-Godhra riots will be submitted in December.

The findings of the two-member Commission, presented six years after the incident, go contrary to a probe headed by another former Supreme Court judge U C Bannerjee, set up by the Lalu Prasad-headed railway ministry. Banerjee had concluded that the fire on the train, in which 58 kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya were killed, was accidental.

The first part of the 200-page Nanavati commission report which was tabled amid high drama in the House stated that the ���conspiracy��� to set the train on fire was hatched at the Aman Guest House located near the Godhra railway station.

���There is absolutely no evidence to show that either the chief minister or any of the ministers in his council or police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident,��� said the report by the commission in which Justice Akshay Mehta was the second member.

The train carnage was cited as the reason by Hindu outfits to justify the post-Godhra riots where over 1,000 people (official figures) were killed in communal clashes in different parts of the state. As minister of state for home Amit Shah tabled the report on the first day of the three-day monsoon session of the assembly, it created a furore with the Opposition Congress crying foul and staging a walk-out.

The report said that 140 litres of petrol was purchased as part of the conspiracy to burn the train���s bogie. It added that the conspiracy was hatched by Moulvi Umarji at the Aman Guest House in Godhra, about 140 km from Ahmedabad, and was meant to spread terror in the area.

The report states the train-burning was pre-meditated and there was also heavy stone pelting for 10 to 20 minutes at the S-6 and S-7 coaches, followed by the burning, which prevented people from coming out. It notes that Razak Kurkur and Salim Panwala had purchased 140 litres of petrol on February 26 and carried them in containers. Shaukat Lalu, Imran Sheri, Rafiq, Salim Zarda, Zabeer and Siraj Bala were also involved in burning the train.

The contents of the report evoked instant criticism from political parties and activists opposed to the BJP. The Congress contended that the commission was set up to mislead the people. Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi claimed that the investigation was not bona fide.

���We are not surprised at all the findings. It cannot be called a bona fide investigation. The way the committee was set up, its tenure was extended, large numbers of witness deposed expressed their disappointment, it creates ample doubts on its findings,��� said Singhvi.

Social activist Teesta Setelvad called it a farce and part of a larger conspiracy by the BJP to influence voters ahead of the upcoming elections. Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson Prakash Javdekar said: ���The report is based on exhaustive investigation. Finally the truth is out.���

Justice U C Bannerjee who carried out a separate probe into the incident maintained that it was an ���accident��� and could never have been triggered through petrol. ���I have recorded my findings that it is an accidental fire,��� Bannerjee said when his comments were sought on the report.

Meanwhile, in his first public comments after presenting the report to chief minister Narendra Modi, Justice Nanavati stoutly defended the probe findings, and said he believed they were accurate. ���Unless I was satisfied, I would not have given the report. We have no doubt about what we have written,��� Nanavati told a TV news channel.

Asked why he prepared his report in two parts, one on the train burning and the other on the communal riots that followed, Nanavati said: ���It is for the people to draw whatever inferences they want to. We thought it was a convenient thing to do, to present it in two parts.���